About the best thing you have ever said on here

This is really a slightly different subject but I have always had doubts about the legality of someone offering a prize on the mandatory condition that it be used in a particular way - ie only for GAP etc. For example, the initial conditions were worded to prevent the dog being used commercially as a sire.

By definition, that excludes potential starters who may not like such conditions, so it is a restraint of trade. It becomes a private race, not a public one.

The underlying principle here is that the people setting the rules may be tempted to do things which are not fair to all, or which exceed their powers. An example would be the rumoured puppy bond (where a charge would be made without any service being provided).

Equally, is the government/authority entitled to restrict overall breeding when its reasoning is spurious, unsustainable or just plain wrong?

For example, the new dam restrictions have some basis on welfare grounds (whether you agree with them or not). But breeding properly from a legitimate sire and dam just to cut down numbers is a gross interference in the conduct of the industry, and certainly a restraint of trade. That might be shown to be similar to a manufacturer being ordered to cut back the number of cars it produces, or a farmer being ordered to produce fewer potatoes. Big Brother!

This is far from fantasy as a judge in the Land and Environment court has just ruled against a mining license application on the ground that it does not satisfy future (but unknown and arguable) climate change parameters. Where do you stop?

This is why I urge participants to challenge any and all new regulations. If you don't, they will keeping adding more.

Income from Playhouse Pet Motel was about $21k

Income from Greyhound As Pets was about $127k

Expenditure for GAP & Commercial Marketing was about $724k

Expenditure for Greyhounds As Pets was about $1.6 million
.

Here's the Annual Report Link

EXTERNAL LINK

Breeding

Throughout 2017/18 GRNSW continued to promote responsible breeding practices, restrictions on the number of litters which a breeding female can have remained in place, as well as the rules on the age and frequency at which they can breed. These breeding measures are designed to encourage breeders to make informed and considered breeding decisions in order to increase the proportion of greyhounds that are suitable for racing.

In 2017/18, there were 577 litters whelped with the birth of 3,916 pups (compared to 3,052 greyhound pups whelped in 2016/17). The lower number of pups whelped in 2016/17 is seen as a reflection of the sharp reduction in breeding numbers that occurred during the period of uncertainty regarding the future of the industry in NSW.

GRNSW will continue to work with GWIC and the greyhound industry on maximising breeding outcomes, ensuring all breeding is regulated and that more greyhounds that are bred actually race and are rehomed once retired. Such work is expected to progressively reduce the number of pups bred in future years

With the benefit of the temporarily missing 2017/18 Annual Report, we can now see what GRNSW is chasing after. Heres a complete paragraph under the Breeding heading.

GRNSW will continue to work with GWIC and the greyhound industry on maximising breeding outcomes, ensuring all breeding is regulated and that more greyhounds that are bred actually race and are rehomed once retired. Such work is expected to progressively reduce the number of pups bred in future years.

What a challenge to the English language! Maximising outcomes is now conflated with reducing future pup numbers.

Just as big a worry is that all breeding is regulated. Well, of course, as it needs to be to ensure the integrity of the breed. But it can be taken two ways. First, to do things correctly, or second, to breed only the number we think is good enough. Maybe both?

No such rules are in place for horses (although, as with greyhounds, foal numbers have been falling for some time). Nor for other dog breeds, whether pure, mixed, mongrel or otherwise, or even puppy farms. Owners, trainers and pet shops have to do the right thing but they can go as hard as they like in terms of numbers. Ditto for sheep, cattle, goats, pigs and so on.

The forecast (but unstated) quantity restrictions turn on claimed excessive euthanasia levels which, up to a point, is fair enough even though euthanasia is a legal process in NSW, and even though the figures were wrong. But, aside from that, who is to say how big or small the industry should be? Would authorities do that for thoroughbreds, where a final visit to the knackery beckons?

And what of the rights of individuals to conduct a legal business of whatever size they prefer?

Already, the evidence shows that arbitrary actions by governments and authorities have dealt a mighty blow to the industrys fortunes witness the current chronic shortfalls in both pups and starter numbers. Yes, the trigger was an appalling abuse of the system by a handful of trainers wedded to outmoded practices. But does that justify throwing the baby out with the bathwater? No way. Even McHugh offered some 78 recommendations which could have been employed productively, rather than the one that was adopted the Baird ban.

We now have an authority charged with industry promotion and a Minister putting in an extra half a million dollars to publicise the industry. Yet that same authority is bent on reducing future pup numbers. How does that work?

Fewer Pups = fewer races,

Fewer races = fewer tracks,

Fewer tracks = fewer participants.

Fewer Participants = Dying Industry.

"Vibrant Future"? Nothing promised beyond 2022!!!

Phew! ..its all too much for me.

Reports are last meetings around 30 Dogs pulled up with foot damage (ripped pads)

Seriously ???????

I have been harping on about this track for weeks only to be advised from some laptop/stats wizard that it is (due to professional engineering) that the track is fine in its design (camber) and that to involve or confide in Poeple who use them to better the track (trainers who have put months or years into preparing a dog ) would be similar to asking a pro driver to design roads ???

Really , and your alternate is the current useless predicament is it ?

Well if this is what the professional engineers of track design have come up with ,they should be ashamed

In terms of welfare , lesser doing has resulted in jail time
And this isnt even equating fractured or cracked hocks or any damage to offside injuries that are picked up days or weeks later !

Or money being spent like throw away water ???? That we dont have !
We are already racing for smallest prize money in all states .. embarrassing!

Is it really that hard to swallow pride and pull your heads out of your arses and slow the tracks down !
Not with WATER ! But a thicker dampening soil and sand mixture

Im not asking to import American soil here (where they race 200 times career ,week in week out !) but Im sure Australia has a similar or near replica that would be better then what has been implemented by the geniuses at this current time

The problem is Bruce , if your going to go into bat for your much loved and apparent esteemed professionals / engineers and then throw or dismiss claims on the people who use them that would have more intelligent input in one finger ......
Due to your words few trainers are competent to judge a tracks worth

Then when the shyt hits the fan in a mere weeks later as clear cut evidence as track closure and assuming 40% of total runners damaged in a few meetings !!!!

You have no right or say on the matter except for apologies to all the inept trainers who have been complaining about tracks and putting up with up to 80% of their kennels in injury mode !
Something else you wouldnt have the faintest idea about or even witnessed first hand !

You and the cronies you defend with rubbish stats and theories have no idea

The proof is there

Ps guess which track picks up the meeting ...... oh the track I said should be the premier track in nsw ..... BULLI !

Funny that , everything else is cryable

Please get your facts right and stop verballing. In recent times I have made comments on the principles of track design, including cambers, not on the specifics of Wenty. I would not know what they are anyway. Official comments have been very vague.

In particular, I am not able to comment on the surface because (a) I am not competent to do so, (b) I don't know what is actually happening at Wenty and (c) there are too many cooks stirring the Wenty pot.

I could add that I gave up betting on Wenty years ago due to its unsatisfactory layout - ie promoting disruptions. However I have seen little or no complaints from trainers over that period (or about Gosford and Gardens, which are also unsatisfactory in my view).

My decisions are all made with the help of an analysis of race outcomes over time. If the degree of difficulty increases then it is no longer possible to make profits. It is hard enough trying to overcome the 17% to 30% penalties required by betting houses without adding to those figures.

Incidentally, any comment I made about trainers-tracks was related to design parameters, not to surfaces. Personally, I do not have the experience or qualifications to tell anyone how to design a track - but I can tell you what does not work well. For example, the new 388m trip at Gosford is a dud, mainly because it is built on a bend and inside dogs can get squeezed out early (which is why you see outside dogs often whizzing around the field to take the lead).

As for Bulli - go your hardest but if I was still interested in betting I would immediately eliminate it because they can't be bothered supplying sectional times any more. In any event, a quick look would show you that the layout is problematical (and that look will not be easy because of the lousy pictures on offer).

Our conversation started on the basis of only talking about Wenty Bruce its camber and its surface

You then debated everything that Wenty is and has works and drew parrallels through bike dromes ???

At least you now admitted to not knowing what is going on at Wenty this time round
Not needed but , clear as day this outcome !

No one cares about your pro gambler status or your views on these outcomes because of whats left in your wallet
Take your pro gambler status and every other nuff who considers themselves this to the horses

It has nothing to do with track safety and ensuring runners run every week instead of having 15 races in a lifetime and falling apaprt !

Look after the runners first and it looks after everything else later !
Everyones looking at noms down due to breeding insufficiency, how about half of everyones runners are broken !!!!!!!!

You say you made no suggestions about trainers not having a clue on track design !
Nice back out Bruce

Your exact words were competent enough to know a tracks worth !
If this statements means only and directly at track design ????
Please outline in this sentence where this referral is please !
To me this refers to everything about a track , layout , how it runs , favours and what type of dogs it suits ???

The only one verballing is you , you claim you know what works can you
So you rated Grafton as one of the best or safest or true results in outcome for racers

Yet its getting ripped up due to the thousands of complaints about the home turn ??
Its extremely sharp and has a kink in it you baffoon.
Everyone knew this except for you ! But your the bloke that can tell us what works !
Please ...... god help us

Bulli sectionals come up on the clock board straightaway , wrong Bruce again
They even come up on that back of the board for the trainers boxing their dogs !
Theres actually 3 sectionals

Its not our fault tab wish to cut to a trot race with some nuff chasing drivers asking how theyre going to run their race 4 min before it kicks and then false start !

It becomes our problem , but you are incorrect on your verballing on this matter yet again

I said at the start Bruce dont comment or advise , just apologise for your apparent beliefs on how correct Wenty raced due to design (how wrong this has proven every weeks since )
Whilst you slapped the faces of the blokes who DO KNOW MORE then your engineering pencil pushers

Proof is in the pud!

How much longer can we sustain the athletes when they are going down faster then we can nurture the next crop for 2 years only to break down 5 starts later again

And you say you dont know what is happening .....
That says it all

Pre 2015 - NSW Coalition Govt didnt help Greyhound Racing - Govt initiated
Early 2015 - Coalition Govt sacks the Board n CEO - Govt initiated
Early -2015 - installs Paul Newson from other Govt Dept (OLGA) - Govt initiated
2015 / 2016 - Reform continues
Late 2015 / Early 2016 - McHugh Commission- Govt initiated

Mid 2016 - McHugh Report - $11 million - Govt initiated
Aug / Sept 2016 - Greyhound BAN - Govt initiated
Sept / Oct 2016 - overturning of BAN - Govt initiated through public revolt

Dec / Jan 2017 - Iemma Reform Panel Recommendations - Govt initiated
Mid 2017 - Greyhound Racing Act 2017 - Govt initiated - under funded

Early 2018 - Roadshows n Tours - Govt supported

2019 - plans to close down about 19 tracks - no Govt intervention

July 2018 / current - massive expenditure- Govt has been made aware

Why would you vote for the Government?

I reply only in case someone believes your cherry picking.

"You say you made no suggestions about trainers not having a clue on track design !
Nice back out Bruce"

WRONG. What I said was "Incidentally, any comment I made about trainers-tracks was related to design parameters, not to surfaces".
I do not back out from that assessment anyway.

Bulli sectionals - you say "Bulli sectionals come up on the clock board straightaway , wrong Bruce again
They even come up on that back of the board for the trainers boxing their dogs ! Theres actually 3 sectionals"

NOT WRONG AT ALL. Apparently, you are satisfied with sectionals for one dog per race, even though you can't always be certain which dog that is. I recommend moving to Tasmania because that is what they publish there although half of them will be wrong because they list them against the wrong dog. Personally, I prefer sectionals for all runners. In fact, I insist on it, otherwise I will walk.

Grafton: "So you rated Grafton as one of the best or safest or true results in outcome for racers".

NO, I said nothing of the kind. I said it was a rarity in that they had a clear direct run to the turn but that the turn itself was questionable.

On track design - there are no experts, only learners, because nobody until recently has bothered to do the background study necessary to come up with reliable answers. UTS is pursuing that course. Trainers would not have a clue because I have yet to hear of one that has done his sums. Nor do I hear any complaining about obvious faults, of which there are hundreds.

Surfaces - different story. I would hope that trainers make their findings clear to track builders and maintenance men as they are in the prime position to report on any damage caused. However, your comments on Wenty surfaces are the first I can recall over the last 20 years. (NB this is one area where GRNSW does have some expertise - whether they apply it or not is another matter. Even so, the Trust and GBOTA are also responsible for looking after the track).

By the way, you will note that Wenty is closing temporarily due to problems with the track. Yet we do not know what those problems are or what remedies are being adopted. The same shortage of info applied to the earlier camber alterations, or even to the 2001 changes to the rail.

If your Wenty comments are valid you should supply numbers and details. Otherwise no-one will believe you and the stewards and vet reports will be incomplete. In any event, there are several potential reasons for a dog "breaking down". You need to show that the track is the main or only cause.