The Lismore 6-dog trials emerged as a brainwave from a messy and crowded industry meeting at GRNSW. Its only objective appeared to be to find out if interference could be reduced. It used less experienced dogs which immediately coloured the likely results. But it forgot the fundamental principle of greyhound racing, which is that dogs want to get to the front - ie most of the action will be in the first half of the field so the absence of 7th and 8th dogs is not so significant. Yes, interference might be slightly reduced overall, but then what? Do you reduce all fields to six and accept a major reduction in income from exotic betting? Prize money would eventually be affected, too. Anyway, I watched all those trials and learned nothing.

But that's only half the story. Whether you put 5 6 7 or 8 dogs into the Lismore 420m start you are still asking them to negotiate an awkward turn just after the jump. Which is the more influential factor - field size or track layout? The experiment was a dumb one because you cannot reliably measure one factor when another major factor is also a big variable. If you must do it then why not use Grafton 407m where the dogs have a straightaway run from the boxes?

This leads us to your other point about corner starts in general. The industry's long standing practice is to dump the boxes on the course proper and hope for the best. For all these awkward distances it should have been creating shutes so that runners get a reasonable look down a longish straight after the jump. That has never happened in Oz although the Canberra 600m start shows this principle to a minor degree. The lure does not have to be under the dogs' noses - they are bred to pick up a fly on a deer's bum on the other side of the valley. They are sighthounds, for heaven's sake.

All this is even more important at Casino where there are no straights (thereby inconveniencing a quarter of the population which does not like sticking to the rail). But the biggest shame is that the industry has just spent big dollars in re-builds and repairs to both Casino and Lismore without improving the layouts or the starts one iota. That follows millions and millions spent on other tracks without achieving any improvement in clean running.

Wenty - no idea - I have not bet there for many years. Crook track.

Ebberand - I made my comment and I am sticking to it. First, I don't care if you put Mandrake, Superman and Bill Gates on the board, the outcome will be the same. The management-by-committee principle is obsolescent, inefficient and works against innovation and progress. Look around and tell me who is doing well.

Second, stacking the board with insiders was in play for yonks and never worked well - quite the opposite. For decades the membership more often changed with the colour of government - thereby guaranteeing a lack of continuity. Even in the recently sacked NSW board, every member had some recent involvement with an arm of racing - including greyhound racing. But they have all failed to advance the cause of greyhound racing - just look at the mess we are in today.

In that context, you are asking Ebberand to make judgements on racing which includes his own dogs. Justice would never be seen to be done. Were GRNSW a listed company the stock exchange would insist he be removed. That does not mean he cannot "advise", only that he cannot make decisions.

There is a school which says - and always has said - you need more dog men on the board. They are wrong. What you need are more independent business men on the board, preferably in a better governance system than applies today.

Most trainers are good at training dogs.
Most businessmen are good at running businesses.
Inquiries are good at supporting what the Minister wants.
The Greens are good at stopping anything.
Politicians have become good at pandering to minorities.
Racing (all forms) has been losing market share and suffering reduced breeding for the last 25 years.

Having the right ingredients for your scones is of no use if you don't put them together the right way. They will be flat, rock hard and inedible.

But, on the whole, it is due to (a) other forms of gambling being handier and easier to access than racing (b) a horrible absence of knowledge of the game amongst those gamblers, and (c) a failure to market racing well enough.

Still, a good question to ask is why SPORTS betting is charging ahead at a rate of knots and racing is not. So far I have not heard of anyone doing that work.

I can't support trainers being involved in track design as such. Those guys know a lot but they do not study the subject or look at available facts. For the last 25 years or so I would have spent thousands and thousands of hours recording, studying, analysing, testing and comparing film and stats from around the country and overseas. SO I have a pretty good idea of what doesn't work and a rough idea of what might. But, even then, I would not attempt to say I could design an ideal track because there are so many complex factors overlapping each other, not least being what is in the dog's brain.

That's why an in-depth study like that with UTS is so badly needed. Even so, they are not dog men so they need help, too.

As to input generally - quite so. Supposedly we have such a system in play now but it does not seem to get far - partly because the GRNSW people don't know what questions to ask, partly because I have never known any two trainers to agree on anything and partly because suggestions or objections get knocked back (watering dogs is one example).

Prize money - that should be a management decision based on what is best for the overall sport after considering both short and long term implications. A trainer's view is by definition a biased one and he can only decide whether to take part of not. The problem there is that we have no managers - only administrators - and they have failed to achieve progress. It will not be Iemma but we will have to see what Mestrov brings to the game.

Life is tough!

Bruce you have failed to mention the negative impact 6 Dog fields will have on revenue!

There are a lot of smart people in the industry, but there are a few dumb ones too, but we a cross-section of society, humble with what we do whether it is done as a hobby or profession. We need to keep us honest and we need to keep them honest as well. We talk and write about them not knowing what they are doing, so we need to have input because we know what we want too. Whether we get it is another issue.

The Survey (closes this afternoon) is quick and easy to do. It touches on racing dogs for the next twelve months or so. It's a start.

Trainers on the board - NO NO NO NO. I have been watching boards for over 50 years and most of those had insiders on them, in NSW and elsewhere. All have failed. All have failed to achieve progress or even maintain the status quo. Why do you think we had to endure the Special Commission? Who signed the intercode agreement? Who failed to deal with live baiting? Why did Percy Allen plead at the Social Club with participants to never bet with the corporates - as did V'Landys for that matter.

The symptoms you talk about are reflections of the incompetence of those boards and managements. They failed to properly study their job, part of which is to listen to participants and to get professional advice. They are doing it again now by fiddling with grading in an effort to fix a structural problem - ie breeding shortfalls. Ditto in Victoria. It just won't work. Complete waste of space.

Cessnock - NO NO NO NO. Buckley's. A million to one. Even were it a good idea where on earth would a cash-strapped GRNSW find the money to refurbish it. A so-called "grandstand" out in the rain with hard board bench seating. A windswept dusty betting area with kerosene heaters blowing madly in the winter. A start so far away you can't see which dog is where. Also, please give me hard evidence that loam tracks, as such, contribute to injuries. And what of all the dogs sticking their paws into holes or kikuyu stalks puncturing their toes? Who will pay for cancelled meetings?

Maitland is far from perfect but, in general, what's wrong is easily fixed. The 565m start is far better than the previous 575m and I think you exaggerate the early crowding. What is needed is to fix the track camber, particularly the home turn, and to stop fiddling with the rail at the point of the turn - all that did was to further bias winners in favour of 1 2 8, especially over 400m. (You will not find that in the official records because deFax/GRNSW failed to re-start the figures following the June 2010 trackwork. I counted them up manually for the following 12 months).

Maitland leaks, you can put your foot thru the floor of the grandstand, the roof blew off, food is poor and it faces the wrong way. But it is a hell of a lot better than Cessnock. And the site is capable of development in partnership with the Show crowd and the Council - theoretically anyway.

Besides, Cessnock 617m started on a bend, too. Yes, it has a huge turn radius which the dogs might enjoy but spectators won't. It's the only track in the country where I had to remember to pack my big binoculars. Even then, the metal bars carrying the cable block the view of runners. SKY viewers, who supply most of our income, would not be amused.

Trainers train.
Businessmen manage.

This is the bit you missed - "Do you reduce all fields to six and accept a major reduction in income from exotic betting? Prize money would eventually be affected, too".

If you aren't an owner, trainer and/or breeder it's NO, NO, NO comments from you about these areas as I assume you don't have the `expertise' in these areas.

I'm not suggesting that Cessnock would be explored by the Board because you quite rightly pointed out, they don't have a clue about some issues of importance. Politics have always had a hand in making the wrong decisions and track safety is forgotten along the way. However, `welfare' is now at the centre of their focus.

By the looks of your no comment to my question, you haven't stood behind the boxes at most venues, TAB and non-TAB and cringed as dogs crushed together, especially the 565m at Maitland. I'm not suggesting major injury, but interference that puts about half the field out of a winning chance. You just have no idea do you ? I'm not exaggerating either. Maybe behind the Gosford 400m boxes, Gunnedah 440m boxes, Bathurst 450m boxes, etc. Half of the field is knocked out of the race at the first turn. Maitland 400m they jam on the first turn.

The aluminium stand at Maitland that stood there for 12 months because it was a hazard and faulty, cost about $135k. Steve might be talking about the old rickety wooden one, that they may have restored at a cost of $600k, but only a few people go to see their beloved dogs run around.

We've come along way with camera and video technology so you might be able to see Cessnock a whole lot better these days. At least you knew that you had a chance of winning down the big straights. Cessnock is a great venue and would easily accommodate greyhound people. Cessnock reminds me of Horsham or Warragul, but of the grass variety.

Trainers know their dogs and tracks they race on.

Owners believe their dogs can win every week.

Breeders are wishful thinkers and need big pockets.

Businessmen/women only look after themselves.

Journos talk about what they aren't able to do themselves, from a grandstand or lounge chair.

Your claim is that anyone without a dog to insert in the boxes cannot have any idea about racing. That's precisely why I suggest trainers in general should not sit on the board. Advice, yes, decisions and policy, no.

Next, I have pointed out elsewhere that in the last few years I have visited and walked around over 30 tracks in the three eastern starts. That, coupled with a large and lengthy stream of data, and a few thousand videos, gives me a fair idea of what is going on.

I am not completely up to date physically on either Cessnock or Maitland but a visit would be a poor use of my time. One is dead and other is too erratic to bet on due to the track layout. Still, there are always videos if I really need to see something and the western sun is not spoiling the picture.

The main point about Maitland 565m is that it is a hell of a lot better than the horrible 575m it replaced. Yes, it has an inside bias but nowhere near as much as most other bend starts over middle distances. And the recently built Bathurst 450m you mention is a disgrace to the entire industry, GRNSW and the club. I see it as virtually a criminal offence.

On Gosford and Gardens 400s I wrote to both clubs - one well before building commenced, pointing out the error of their ways. Both rejected my improvement suggestions. Some months later they both had to shift the boxes although the Gosford effort was puny and had little effect. The Gardens change cost $50k. Richmond is even worse but remains.

However, my earlier reply pointed out that Cessnock has only lowish hardwood planks to sit on (barring a dash upstairs to the verandah), it has a dusty and windy betting area and noisy kerosene heaters blasting away in the winter, the view of races is hampered by the distance and the sizeable metal strips blocking view of the dogs while your "great" track also has/had many holes and considerable toe damage from kikuyu stalks. But the crumbed cutlets used to be good.

Cameras/videos. Hmmm. Generally what we get from SKY is only fair and reprints on Ozchase are worse - too small. They compare very badly with Victoria or even the local productions by RQ for Albion Park.

Having studied Horsham and Warragul closely and in person I find no similarity whatever with Cessnock. For a start, the turn radii are radically different. Both have 400s close to the turn which can be messy. Warragul in particular is cigar shaped - the opposite of Cessnock. But the view is good although you have to stand out in the weather as it has no grandstand.

Now, if you had read some of the thousand-odd articles or responses to inquiries I have written over 25 years you might have noted me stating that I could not train a dog to save my life. It's too tough a gig and it is a 24/7 deal which would stop me doing other things. If you have not seen any of those articles you need to get out more. I have written for half a dozen publications from The Recorder onwards, half of which are dead now.

I am not a journalist. I am a writer. The two are very different.

But I am a form analyst - or I used to be until recently as I am now tiring of the declining standard of dogs, tracks and prices, to say nothing of short fields. We need a general to refresh and command the troops.

Two points of principle on governing boards which should never be violated.

1. Avoid conflicts of interest. A trainer would have to leave the room on most points on the agenda.
2. History tells us that stacking a board with active insiders of whatever kind has proved a failure.

The last NSW board - which was sacked - had members who all had some sort of inside form. Every one of them. Insiders gave us the 99 year intercode agreement. Insiders on the Alliance fixed the ban only to let through a set of regulations that will probably cause a painful death over time. Insiders failed miserably to counter live baiting (including the last and the previous board). Insiders failed to identify and fix industry culture shortcomings.

In any event, racing's biggest problem is that the organisational structure is obsolete and inefficient no matter who you appoint. Management-by-committee is good only for the local tennis club. No-one knows what authority the CEO has as he is not covered by legislation.

ARU - not competent to comment but Shehadie was also a prominent businessman. Boring sport anyway. I played at school and later with a Fijian team (with, not against).

AFL - many ex-players involved but not current ones. And Goyder is a grocer anyway. While the board (Commission) is obviously influential the operation and the progress of the code is heavily dependent on the CEO and staff - as it should be - and as most of the clubs are. Essentially, the AFL board is concerned with major policy and the CEO with managing the sport - which is broadly the best (only) way to do it.

ARL - now under a long drawn out process of moving into the modern age. Many fiefdoms. Many international complications. However, clubs are starting to shift into the modern era as BUSNESSMEN take over. Broncos are the most profitable and most successful club.

Quayle, yes. Arthurson, no. Despite his experience he fought for dominance against Murdoch, one of the world's biggest businessmen. and lost - as did the code. He failed utterly to recognise that the world was changing around him and that he had to negotiate. He could have cut it all off at the pass but failed to do so. Fatty and Bozo were no help, either. All were dominated by emotion not business nous.

Hill - maybe. I don't know enough of the fine detail to comment properly. Besides, your language is a bit odd.

Barristers - very suspicious of them. They are trained to pin prick and tell porkies. Lawyers generally - needed but not in charge as was the case at GRNSW (and previously at QGRA).

Bankers - don't understand your point. One ran BHP for some time.

The thing is that all board members or CEOs will have some baggage. The trick is to make sure it's the baggage you need. For example, Iemma's baggage is very well known but I am not sure we need it. And he has no commercial experience which we do need. Mestrov is TBA as is his ex-RV offsider.

Basically - barristers excepted - I don't discount any profession from being involved in helping to run the industry. Even ex-trainers. But not current trainers - see my original two principles.