If GRNSW's reply was it wouldn't work, then they are more out of touch with the industry then even I thought.

I suppose like everything (if they even bothered to read and digest it), they approached it from a monetary or financial angle as opposed to any beneficial or logical reasons which might actually assist, and resolve many of the gripes the participants have with the current system - perhaps I'm illogical, but wouldn't you think the board (GRNSW) in essence would be looking to assist the "participants" as opposed to alienating them?

GRNSW saw fit to establish and implement a "Masters" category for "older" greyhounds, which on face value was a decent idea, however when and if you step back and really assess the category (see thread by Kevin Gordon), you soon realise that it is "flawed", I say "flawed", but from a GRNSW perspective it is another ingenious way of saving money.

Now I'm not against saving money or being frugal, but why is it always at the expense of the participants? GRNSW had no problems with introducing the "Masters" category/grade, although in essence its design only aids a minority of people and dogs, yet to implement a system, or grade, that will assist the majority, they bury their heads, why because they are of the misunderstanding, or misconception that it would increase the prizemoney outlay.

I wonder if they took a poll of participants on keeping the "Masters" or alternatively implementing a new Juvenile/ 6th Grade (whatever), as Bill suggested, which would come out on top - personally I think the outcome would be a landslide in favour of the 6th grade ...further, if GRNSW are so concerned with the welfare of the industry why not have both (i'd alter the age of the Masters to around 45 or 48 months and over though), the 6th grade, in theory would allow people with younger dogs, or less competitive dogs a better or more even chance of winning a race or two (keeping interest their alive), and the "Masters" (with the qualifying age extended), would, or should in theory allow for older dogs to continue racing with a hope of still being competitive.

I dont like the inclusion of the grader having to give preference to full fields. To me this opens the real possibility of 8 dog 280m races being drawn ahead of 6 or 7 dog 720 m races or FFA over either the sprint or distance at metro meetings.

I am confused as to why they have categorized the sprint distance as starting at 421m but for performance trials the cut off distance is 439m. I dont care whether it is 421 or 439 but the starting point for the sprint should be the same as the cut off for a performance trial to make it more consistent and easier for participants.

I am also very confused by the special event clauses. 10.2 says all races listed in the Group racing calendar are special events. 10.3 says you have to nominate directly into group 1, 2, 3 and listed events (so all those in the group racing calendar). 10.4 says you will be drawn in a special event, which according to 10.2 is all those in the group racing calendar, unless you state NO.

So in one clause it says you opt in for group races and the next it says you opt out. I am guessing this is just an oversight and will be fixed. Again, I have no preference for opt in or opt out but it can only be one of them.

Hi Carly

That is the first thing I thought of when I read that

There definitely needs to be provision to grade from the distance down with a minimum of 5 dog fields so that longer distance dogs aren't disadvantaged

How do you maintain optimal TAB turnover without full fields ???
If participants are willing to accept 5 Dog fields as the new norm we are all doomed !!!!!

I was talking only for greyhounds racing over 500m +

Anyway, why should we care about optimizing our TAB turnover?

When did the TAB care about NSW greyhound racing?

We only get 13% of the share.

The TAB is quite happy to put 5 UK dog meetings on every night.

I don't think it is doom and gloom to have minimum 5 dog fields for 500m+ racing

I see a full meeting of 300m races as doom and gloom.

You just don't get it...whether we 3 dog races or 8 dog races, it doesn't affect our take from the NSW TAB

Our 13% is our share of the combined pool of Horses, dogs and trots

It is a proven fact that punters prefer to bet on longer distance races with less runners than 300m with full fields

It is of no benefit to the breed as it not a true test of speed and strength and no benefit to gamblers as punting is diabolical on those races, miss the start and you have no chance of winning

It's just Sh!t racing

I actually think turnover would decrease if we had full programs of shorter races

Most punters would shy away from these 16 second substandard races

My argument is that it will reduce turnover

But in the end does turnover really matter to us if we only get 13% of the total

Better racing over 500m-700m attracts punters regardless of field size and is better for the sport as a whole