Next planeload arrives tomorrow

100% Tony and many meetings in the same region also crossover with kennelling of the 2nd meeting

The programming of racing is just rubbish at the moment along with the grading system

He had a marring offence here in NSW

I know what you are getting at Michael

You would think all our authorities would wake up

* Administrators earn brownie points when betting turnover goes up.
* More meetings equals more turnover.
* Apparently, the size of the field is not having much influence on betting volume (no data available).
* Betting is now largely independent of the quality of runners. (See "Next Ups", "Mysteries", Tier 3, etc). Major feature races excepted.
* GRV is now routinely programming 5-dog and 6-dog races, rather than combining a few into 7 or 8 dog fields and running fewer races.
* GRSA is doing the above as a matter of policy.
* NSW likes 280m races. Fair dinkum!

A counter argument could be put that the industry should accept life as it is and promote harder to support fewer races - theoretically maintaining total turnover.

* Administrators don't do marketing. It's not in their DNA - or not much. PR is good but it is not marketing and it is preaching to the converted.

Excuses are mounted that smaller fields produce fewer injuries, therefore don't worry about the numbers.

* This is false. Large studies by UTS show that there is effectively no statistical difference between injuries in 6, 7 or 8-dog fields.
* Injury levels are definitely a function of the shape and nature of the track - plus crazy dogs.
* Otherwise, injury causes are not studied in any depth (or not in public) so it is hard to derive a magic formula for success.

England has 6-dog fields so why worry?

* Yes, but they are not doing too well, are they? Bookies are now controlling half the action themselves, mainly because the traditional means can no longer generate sufficient activity.
* Use of the outside lure appears to help reduce injuries - via a greater separation of runners.
* Changing Australia to the outside lure would cost billions, but with uncertain outcomes.

Current efforts have not produced any substantive change to the industry's core numbers since the dramas of three and four years ago. Major reform is essential. So get the wider population onside, improve effectiveness and efficiency or risk a continuation of the downward trends.

It will take five years. It should be done nationally. Get rid of the rubbish products served up by corporate bookies. Incentivise improvements in distance racing and breed stamina. And, as necessary, use debt financing to fix all tracks within 12 months.

Ive stated this before, some ageing trainers wont travel long distances all of the time just to race if theyre dogs are out-graded. Close down more tracks and you contract the industry at ones peril. Yes, better programming, but Im told a fella with thirty years experience in the industry is doing the programming.

Youre right, Regional Racing is paramount with the right spread of meetings. Same old problems are around. Wauchope was supposed to get TAB status (9 meetings) two years ago, because there are many dogs domiciled in the region, but the idea might have been put in the too hard basket. The club would not have to race on the same weekend and clash with the other two tracks in the catchment because there arent enough meetings per year that overlaps with the other two tracks, whereas theres trouble in paradise in other regions.

It is what it is
we should cut the cloth accordingly
Time to stop whinging especially about sprint races. We must be proactive on the major issues if you want this industry to increase then more focus on rehoming is a major factor.

Regarding UK bookies control of tracks. Thank the Lord we have TAB National structure. No national TAB Thats what stuffed racing in UK FULL STOP

Some additional points.

NSW gets paid for 500 or so races under contract but runs 800-900. The extras are mostly used to fund subsidies to the trots and gallops by the millions.
Personally I dont favour rationalisation or track closures except in odd places. I reason that this is a big and well-populated state that we need all the communities we can get to support the sport whether for betting, owning, training, etc.
Some tightening is obviously necessary (depending on actual income) but my guess is it would be better to address race numbers rather than meeting numbers.
If prize money must be shaved it should hit sub-400m racing which has no upside while long races should get more than today because it is good for the whole industry and for the breeds sustainability.
That may well hit small trainers more than others. So be it. The industry does not owe anybody a living. But by all means encourage them to take part.
Travelling long distances is a bit of a furphy. Before freeways and decent cars, the entire South Coast and Hunter regions had to battle their way along windy and hilly roads and were happy to do it on their way to HP and Wenty or, before that, go by train as many did, playing cards on the way.
Some measures are in place to delay the sometimes costly retirement phase Veterans races and improving re-homing percentages (the latter dependent on heavier marketing of the prospect over time). Maybe other imaginative ventures?
Over-regulation is a nasty but improvements to kennel set-ups can also be amortised over long periods, so easing the burden on annual operating costs.
Any opposition to a National TAB is nuts. Today, betting on greyhounds is hampered because of the tiny pools and the rip-offs from the corporates. (The UK structure is totally different to that in Oz, and is constantly changing anyway as bookies move from one jurisdiction to another or try to horn in on Oz betting if they can).

On my point about rationalisation and tightening. Sooner or later someone has to grasp the nettle and wipe out one club in areas where two are now duplicating the effort. Classic cases are Casino and Lismore as well as Young and Cowra. History is one thing, reality another. Orange and Bathurst did it. So did (at the time) Queanbeyan and Canberra.

Gillian,

Spot on.

Two issues though. Some track remodelling has taken place without improving the end result - Gosford would be the most recent but there are a dozen if you go back through recent years (including Wenty). That tells us the analysis and decision-making is sub-standard.

Secondly, there is some evidence (Traralgon is one) where there is a stated attempt to reduce injuries to zero on welfare grounds. This is a silly objective for an athletic sport. Some injuries are inevitable, especially soft tissue, whether human or dog. It is the nature of the beast as we all strive to win.

The proper objective is to eliminate possible causes of injuries - track designs being the easiest to identify. However, while we know more about WHAT is happening today, we are still short of knowledge of WHY. What role is played by early education, training, tiring dogs, racing frequency, racing surface, genetics and so on? This is way beyond the brief and the expertise of UTS (they are mathematicians and engineers).

Hampering it all is what you correctly termed the 1950s culture which, amongst other things, has always insisted on the concept of place all starting boxes on the track proper, thereby creating all the disruptive bend starts. (It is not so long ago that 600m racing barely existed).

If they looked left or right they would see that the thoroughbreds don't buy that. Nor do humans with 200m/400m/800m starts. Nor do road builders trying to eliminate bad corners.

We are getting away from the problem of dog numbers yet these sorts of issues serve to affect not only the quantity of racers available week to week but also provide ammunition to anti-racing types so keen to mis-use the stats. It's all part of the package.

I now note Cowra and Temora are in a merger, apparently in favour of Temora. 130k between them and not sure what happens to Young which is half way between the two. Great cherries though.

From a purely track viewpoint Temora would be the fairer circuit - as opposed to the very circular Cowra, which suits fewer dogs. But that logic applies to Casino also???

Bruce,
As you point out, the core of the problem seems to be that regulators pay too much attention to one-dimensional consultants without due consideration of all other (& more relevant?) factors, or the input of those with experience.

Importantly, perhaps the track design successes of UTS should also be considered. Are there stats available for recent designs?

The difficulty is that we cannot be sure who did what. UTS findings are available in theory (via actual and simulated surveys of how races are run) and much can be seen if you Google UTS/greyhounds as well as the interim report to GRNSW.

From there on we are limited to what various state authorities say - which is almost nothing of value. Therefore we don't know whose views were dominant or even utilised, or why.

Previously, I could derive some intelligence from my own race and dog records but since I quit doing that I can't offer anything more than the casual observer might. In any event, injury records are confined to the authority and are published only in aggregate at the end of the year (but some are included in UTS surveys).

And nobody, to my knowledge, is looking into the several aspects I listed above. These could well influence injuries, for example.

Similarly, I can't tell if the UTS drop-in boxes at Horsham 410m are better or worse than the old fixed boxes. The same applies to the turn gradients - ie they are probably better but not all the way round.

And who came up with the new Gosford layout? No idea. What was their reasoning? Also no idea. And so it goes on.

I would not term UTS as one-dimensional but nevertheless they are not dog-conversant in any real sense of the word.

The task is a big one but if there is one aspect I could nominate as a problem it is that the studies are not giving sufficient attention to the fact the each dog has a mind of its own. They will not necessarily obey what the theory says should happen. For example, the much-debated lure options will not have a major affect a railers need to rail.

After that things will pick up slightly, but it will be very very slow sailing after that.....And then I say slow, I mean slow.

The fact that American Dogs live and race at 1 Track has a lot to do with why they get over 100 races out of them !!!!