Yes. It's a funny joke surely? Unfortunately it isn't.

This is what happens when politicians enter an industry attempting to 'clean it up' to appease the green vote.

Lunatics are running the asylum.

Ps; 6 dog fields are in Ireland & England & they have lure on outside of track...not comparable to our system at all.
USA has the best system for 8 dog fields, wide lure, softer tracks & boxes not opening later after dogs sight the lure.

There's a reason why Aussie dogs are the best in the world. We compete against the best competition.
Piss off the bend starts but don't get rid of 8 dog fields.

I can't agree........after watching the impacts of the extended arm lure here, where it doesn't allow every dog in the field a reasonable chance to win the race, and the lack of success US racedogs have had here in the past, their system is far inferior to what we previously had in Vic prior to 21/4/17.

Success? We are talking injury rates not success coming from USA to Australia to race.
Why are we talking abt injury rates Ryan? Bc that's why the changes are coming about.
When the ptb adopts best practice they ought to look at like/like & for Australian racing that is the USA.
Our revenue is built on betting turnover & before they take drastic steps to reduce injury rates like 6 dog fields, they owe it to participants to look closer & adopt the safest racing model for 8 dogs & that is most definitely the USA.

Was tried in Qld a while back and they reverted back to the normal lure posi and now race on a hoop lure only at city meets. They are trialing an extended arm FOL sys, at not city meets atm........hopefully they wont take the next step with that lure by implementing it at Albion on Thurs nihgts.

Also I wldn't want a dog in a race where say a dog like DDO had been checked out the back of the field and was coming in on 7 other dogs on a FOL. You cld end up with your yearly 'catastrophic' stats in the one race.

By all means use a FOL on trial days but not race nights.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn you cant talk about increasing or even maintaining betting turnover in the same sentence as 6 dog fields. Jeff Holland made me aware of that many yrs ago.

Usually if they do they come here to race, for example Above All. Even if they did I wldn't want mine in a race with it on a FOL.

The other mistake is looking at this problem statistically rather than wholistically, which means looking at why each and every injury occurs. No one even thinks of doing that.......too hard, mainly because they lack the know how to do so.

You talk of changes from a fairness angle, the PTB talk about it from a safety angle.

You are arguing a mute point

The dogs are constantly running out to the middle of the track to meet it, the problem is they don't hold that position, instead the gradually roll back to the fence. This goes on throughout the whole race. Dogs coming from behind have to contend with timing their runs between the dog moving out and the dog moving back towards the rail and work from behind them to being in front of them within the space of less than half the length of the str. The majority dont make it in time which reslts in more interference for dogs not racing in the first 2 or 3.........and I haven't even spoken about the disadvantage to the wide runners.

If you're speaking of maintaining/increasing betting turnover and these farcical luck type situations which educated punters wont bet on............well the Gov't needs to work out do they want a billion dollar industry or one which will turn into a low million dollar industry, iow what it was, to what its fast becoming. So the point isn't mute at all.

I think I'd prefer straight track racing to circle racing with an extended arm lure. cheers.

!. A disclaimer. As an "advisor" to the UTS study with a couple of others I must first say I have no knowledge of or involvement in the report or any individual recommendations it may make.
2. I strongly disagree with points which have been highlighted in the Sky News piece.

Now, back to the posts. I read some good points and some wonky ones.

1. The vast majority of tracks in this country were created by a few blokes who got together to work out how to race their dogs and organised working bees to do it - ie nearly all amateurs, then and now.

2. The vast majority of those tracks were on a circle of some sort, including some which were literally circular - eg Casino and Lawnton.

3. Following the initial setup any extra starts/trips were just plonked on the track wherever someone thought the distance was right.

4. In the main decisions were made by the local club boss although more recently the state authority has become more involved. Neither group has any particular competence so poor decisions were made and mistakes repeated - eg the highly disruptive layout at Dapto, Ipswich or, as mentioned, the 520m start at Sale. Etc etc.

5. There have been many engineering firms involved in track building/rebuilding but none had any experience in greyhound racing and it showed in their work.

6. One exception to the above was Bede Ireland (an engineer)and Albion Park yet there both turns have problems and directly cause
interference. (Yes, I know there are land access issues to handle).

7. The GRNSW working group decided that 6-dog trials would be worthwhile and so arranged them at Lismore - a peculiar choice as it involved bend starts to one degree or another. I expected those trials to be useless and so it turned out according to my observations of the races.

8. The critical issue is that interference - or clean racing - is influenced by many factors, all taking place at the one time. It is a complex argument. For example (re 7 above), most interference involves the front 3 or 4 dogs so whether there are 6 or 8 dog fields is of less importance than what causes those front 3 or 4 dogs to do what they do.

9. Having said that, fewer runners in 600m races, for example, might well make things a little easier but that is two wrongs making a right. First put the boxes in a better place!

10. The UTS brief from GRNSW had a welfare background, hence the recommendations also had that flavour. That's all very well but they have apparently thrown the baby out with the bathwater. 6-dog races, land purchases and major track works all add up to an impossible (and often undesirable) dream. NSW risks going broke in the current climate so does not have a snowball's chance in hell of implementing any such remedies - even if they were valid in the first place.

11. Some points were made about WA and SA yet in both cases the authority elected to install bend starts for 600m races - at the new Cannington and at the proposed Murray Bridge. In WA they actually canvassed the possibility of building a chute rather than "coming across the apex" (their term), but rejected it. In both cases I wrote protesting those decisions - to no avail.

12. The tragedy of it all is that there is at least one trip in this country where the running is good and clean - Hobart 461m - so a good start would be to analyse the fine detail of it all and try to copy it elsewhere - or at least establish good principles. I have been asking all and sundry for years to do that but it has never come about. (NB the actual design I suspect was no more than an accident).

13. As for recommendations for little more than straight track racing - terrible idea. I have not seen any evidence that injuries would be fewer - they may be but I have not seen it. However, concurrently, it would disadvantage a major sector of the greyhound population which either don't like it or are not good at it. But some straight track racing is always good.

There is much more but I will leave it at that.

Separately, the UK system (declined by the Irish) has lot to like about it. However, it is pie in the sky as the cost of switching Oz racing over to outside lures would be prohibitive. And betting turnover would fall dramatically.

Now I for one would'nt mind this at all if in fact it was really for the greyhound's welfare,

water in kennels.size of kennels, number of times greyhounds let out of kennels.and the list goes on,

The latest is straight track racing,

Straight track racing is well and good but will it end there,6 dog fields is also well and good even though the tab holdings will drop dramatically because as we all know every dog in an 8 dog field gets some support even if it's only from connections of each individual greyhound involved,

THERE ARE accidents that happen in catching pens these will still happen no matter what shape the tracks are ,

We can make for safer racing by possibly widening tracks and turns or by increasing the space of starting boxes between each runner ,but I honestly believe that no matter what we do there will always be accidents in dog racing or in any other sport where speed is involved being animal ,mechanical or human.

My honest opinion on all these new rules, regulations and ideas are all connected and are mainly introduced to bring about a slow but sure erradication of our beloved sport, I hope i am wrong but it is more and more likely that this is where we are heading,