A few queries have emerged about the track at Sandown challenged by the club itself so I went to some trouble to pull out some facts. These cover a five months period to the end of June 2017, involving 42 meetings and 502 races.

1. Favourites won 36% of races more on Thursdays (38%) than on Sundays (31%). This is generally below average and their short prices would ensure that regular favourite backers lost money (partly due to over-betting by mug gamblers).
2. Four dogs suffered broken legs while 17 more had serious injuries (deltoids etc), all incurred at the first turn or coming out of the first turn. Thats about one a week.
3. 23 other dogs fell with various consequences. The majority of falls occurred at the first turn.
4. Long term data shows that 7.5% of 515m races included a fall. The national average is 5.5%. (sourced from our periodic surveys of all Australian races).
5. The other three circle tracks in Victoria Meadows, Cranbourne and Traralgon (old track) also had above average fall rates but lesser rates of broken legs and other serious injuries (so far as I can determine).
6. This survey mostly involved the use of the wide hooped lure, which possibly helped to keep dogs separate and reduce the chances of injuries or falling.
7. The survey does not include injuries in trials but note that Knocka Norris did break a hock on emerging from the first turn in a single dog trial and was retired.
8. Vet advice is that broken hocks usually involve experienced racers and can concern aspects of early training and education ie small cracks may be present in the bone and fail later when under pressure while negotiating a turn at high speed.
9. GRV has been checking injuries at various tracks over a period but has never published any reports (although references were made in evidence to the NSW Special Commission).

In total, its a mixed bag but Sandown appears more regularly than others on the list of nasties. Like many other locations, it warrants attention to work out whether problems can be assigned to any particular area including, obviously, the key spot of the first turn, which is very prominent here.

Finally, the related issue is the overlapping of the introduction of the wide lure and the strange interference present as they passed the judge the first time.

First, and despite the protests from the club, the Sandown two-step as they passed that job was always there not in every race and probably not since the new lure arrived. Those one or two inside dogs would move out unaccountably at that spot, naturally causing some disruption. Frankly, I am not interested in whether or not hundreds of other people saw it or not. I doubt that many, or any, of them devoted their time to studying every race, often on multiple occasions, trying to determine what cause produced what effect. I did, and still do. Thats my job. But it happened.

Certainly, the wide lure seems to have eliminated most, if not all, of that irregularity. Exactly how and why is hard to determine given that there are so many ingredients in the mix dog habits, distance from the start, turn radius, gradients, lure type, surface, maintenance, position of the boxes, and so on. The argument is a complex one but it is something that demands much more study that it has had in the past.

Of course, one thing is absolutely certain the sooner we get rid of bend starts, the better. They are an abomination and solutions are available. Why not start with the Sandown 595m?

Sandown is one of the safest tracks to trial on IMO ..

I believe the 600 m starts suit what is needed to help us continue on a Young stayer type dogs career ...
It is very very hard to one gain a start over 700 and two it's not practical these days going from 500 to 700 and many dogs require those 600 m starts to help gain fitness and confidence ..
Most 600 starts come out staggered unlike those speddy squibs of 350m who come out almost in a line ...

Dogs as you know bruce transition going in and out of the bends ...
Some dogs take what you call a two step ..
Some transition so smooth that you miss it others not so smooth hence why as you call it they two step ...

Now for some reason you seem to think you only watch the video's and you are the form Pro but i am sorry to burst your bubble because there is many who do what you do so there is no big secret here it is what it is ...

Take a Look at Brett Lee run and watch how he gets the job done ...
Then watch a very fast first starter at Sandown run ....Most take that two step because most over shoot the bend ...Remember it's a 100th of sec movement by the dog ....
Being a Sports columnist i would of thought you had that worked out by now but then again THINKING ABOUT IT bruce you have no Idea how to train a pig to get dirty like most Columnlist you just Spuike whats important to you but not what is important to the TRAINER ....

Ask a Trainer what he thinks about the need for 600m racing .....

Ask a trainer who has a slow beginning dog that runs home strong what he would prefer ...from a 500m run
a 600 m step up or a direct 730m run .....

It is very hard to get a run over 700 from week to week with a young dog and many times you wait for weeks to finally get a start over 700 over any grade ...
Most clubs do not stage 700 m racing most weeks ....
We dont breed stayers in Australia we try to breed sprinters

isn't that less than one a fortnight(not week) or since they race twice a week less than one serious injury every 4 meetings ?

Bruce Teague wrote:

....... 6. This survey mostly involved the use of the wide hooped lure, which possibly helped to keep dogs separate and reduce the chances of injuries or falling.......

so its possible this lure isn't serving its purpose at all

I don't mind the 600m races, generally most dogs seem to handle 600m bend starts and are 'considerate' of other dogs in the race, certainly there are races where dogs make b lines, but the bend start ensures they are not running at maximum tilt when they collide, which wld lessen the effect of the impact

600m middle distance racing is an excellent option as it suits many dogs and is a worthwhile step up for dogs intended to go further to 700m. Interestingly, it is a relatively recent option as they barely existed a couple of decades ago.

My point was not about the distance but about the location of the boxes. At virtually all tracks the 600 has been introduced by simply plonking the boxes on the track proper - obviously without much thought to the outcome. A lone exception was at Cannington where they considered a layout with the 600m boxes in a shute OFF the track proper. But they rejected it in the end. Pity, but 600m interference is now clearly worse than for 520m races (which are generally quite good, although the track does favour railers)

As to interference - it is physically impossible for there to be a similar outcome with a bend start for the obvious geometric reason = the field is forced into a smaller area as it moves into the turn and crowding is therefore compulsory.

Around the country, bend starts normally produce more interference than conventional starts (according to our survey of displaced runners) but not necessarily more falls - which, as Ryan says, may be due to the fact that they have not reached top speed yet. However, while that factor may help with welfare it does not improve punting as average dividends are higher than for races with conventional starts.

In any event, all tracks have been designed by amateurs, essentially because no-one has even done proper studies (which is why GRNSW commissioned UTS to do its current study). The results speak for themselves. Any past involvement by engineers is irrelevant as they may well be good at drains, concrete, etc but they have no background in how dogs race.

Meanwhile, Vic has been lumbered with repeats of past mistakes - eg Sale520m and the middle distances at Ballarat, Bendigo, Warrnambool and Shepparton. All these involved expensive re-builds.

Queries raised by Bruce Teague and discussed by Bruce Teague.

1. OK.
2. How do you define serious injuries?
3. I have 22 falls, but OK
4. I don't have that data, but the number of falls per starter is down considerably since the hoop arm was introduced
5. The rate of serious injuries (28+) at Sandown in FY 16/17 was less than the state average which includes figures from Healesville
6. See point 4
7. Note that we've conducted almost 20,000 public trials since the start of 2015. I'm not sure citing one example from 2008 proves anything?
8. It is absolutely true there are often other factors at play when a greyhound sustains an injury other than track layout/design/surface. The average age of greyhounds that have experienced a serious (28 day+) hock injury at Sandown since the start of 2014 is a shade under 35 months.

Do you have an example of this "two-step"? Plenty of people devote time studying every race, no one else has ever raised it. I'm interested in knowing what you're seeing that no one else is.

There is a lesser rate of serious injuries over 595m than there is over 515m. The 595m boxes were located where they are because that position gave the greyhounds the best and safest line through the turn. They aren't on the course proper.

One thing that should also be pointed out that the number of serious injuries at all tracks is extremely small. Properly prepared and maintained, we are fortunate to have so many sound tracks to race on in Victoria.

When was the last time you were at Sandown Park, Bruce? Happy to chat to you further about these numbers or anything else for that matter. Give the office a call on 03 9546 9511.

With a couple of exceptions we seem to be saying much the same thing. My reason for seeking out these figures was that you said all was fine and dandy - I disagree. The hocks and other major injuries are deadly serious - literally sometimes.

Good to see your comparative comments about other tracks (where I seldom note a broken hock) but I will return your question to me - where do you get the figures from? If GRV has all these why are they not published? What's the big secret? (NSW does)

I have commented several times on the "two step" to the effect that it is not noticeable with the new lure in play. IE dogs are already a little wider on the track. Please read carefully.

I reject your 595m comment entirely. The start is invariably crowded and disruptive.

My definition of "serious" is multi-muscle and significant time off - ie not scratches, toes and the like. But it is just a general indication.

And, no, Victoria does not have many "sound" tracks at all. That's just corporate spin. There are many examples but just take two where big money has been spent on re-building the track - BALL545m and SALE520. Both are round the corner and have biased starts as they did previously. The errors were never fixed. Sale also has a crook home turn - it is irregular for some unknown reason. But the 650m start is good. Not so the 660m at Ballarat. And so on.

Meantime, you can offer all the opinions in the world but when punting you have to take account of variables like unpredictable disruptions. Some are unavoidable but too much and your profit goes out the window. Generally, I estimate that 600m racing adds 10% to 20% to "costs". That means it is a no-bet option after the tote or the rip-off NT merchants take their cut. Should you find someone who claims big wins at these, first ask them to produce a year's worth of betting figures and check the outcomes.

I might add in passing that first sectional times for bend starts are pretty useless because of the geometry - each dog is covering a different distance.

One of the benefits of modern technology is that regular visits to your track or anywhere else are no longer necessary. However, over the years I have always made a point of catching up personally with as many tracks as I can, including most in the three Eastern states and Tasmania. Then I walk the track - often to the surprise of the local manager - to check out any peculiarities. Back home I analyse and compare and watch more videos as necessary.

In many cases viewing at the track is variable to poor - sometimes you need to stand on a chair to see anything (Meadows and Sale, for example) and noting what goes on in the back straight can be difficult anywhere, depending on the adequacy of the lighting and camera height and quality. At other spots you would not dream of it - eg at Cranbourne you are watching ants in the far distance so everyone looks at the monitor.

Vic and other states have a long way to go mate.

Doubly so because the industry is losing good customers, who are being replaced by mugs relying on tipsters - who themselves are not much chop.

I know full well how serious injuries can be - don't you dare twist my words to suggest anything otherwise. I said the rate of injuries is very low - less than half of one per cent of runners - and falling.

You've commented a lot about this "two step" but have never produced any evidence of it. Please read carefully- if it's so prevalent (or was so prevalent) it should be easy to find an example of it happening. Tell me where it's happened - I'll happily investigate further.

You keep quoting stats on whatever suits your cause but you reject the fact that show there are less serious injuries from the 595m than the 515m?

Victorian tracks are safe. No question there are some starts that may not be in the best position, but that's a different matter to determining whether a track is safe or not. Track curators generally do an excellent job and much of the criticism they receive is unfair and unwarranted.

I know a number of punters who love betting at Sandown and hate the Meadows and vice versa. Some who love betting Sundays but not Thursdays. Some who love betting on maidens and others who hate betting on them. Some who value the weight card and some who don't give it a second thought. Some who live for feature races and some who couldn't care less. Punters who banked on interference that were going great and some that are going well now because there's less. Ultimately I guess it depends on what works for you, far be it for me to lecture anyone on how they do their form. Don't like middle distance racing? That's cool, don't bet on it.

Technology is fantastic but it's no substitute for being there. I'm happy to show anyone around Sandown Park, including the track itself. I've been at Sandown since 2005 - I'm assuming you haven't been at Sandown in that time? As far as I can tell you certainly haven't contacted the club in that time. You have the office number...

No question Victoria - all states - can do things better, no one is suggesting otherwise. But at the end of the day, how and why dogs get injured is complicated and there are a lot of variables at play. Just because an injury occurs on the track doesn't mean a dog is injured because of it.

Richard, I'd suggest to you to re-read some of this man's previous posts and you might find some are 'tainted'.

He's a naughty boy.
A very naughty boy.

Bad boy Brucey.

You slag off about injuries without any facts other than those you gained yourself ..

600 m racing at Sandown is ok because you get most times a staggered start and dogs running slower collide at times but the injury rate would be a lot less ....than the 500m ...
Sale track is being rebuilt ....The 500m at sale was always a bad start but it has been in place for over 20 years ,and still used today by Professional Trainers and the like
.....You are taking pot shots ....
Please share YOUR FACTS to Data ...

Many OTB have lost Hundreds of thousands of $$$$$$$ with a wipe of a pen ...
Many people have lost their futures ....

Many people have lost the most precious thing in there lives ...There Greyhounds .....

I can tell you this ....Many don't care about the punters because without Greyhounds we wont have punting .....

The punter always only worries about himself and how he just missed that big win ....

You don't get the loss many Greyhound lovers have had over the past two years ...

Bruce ...
You seem hell bent on trying to get your point across for the PUNTER .....WHY ...

Use your own site to spuike these claims better still why not publish all your stats on your own site .

My job over the years has been first to address all irregularities in races, analyse them and try to set up some adjustments so as to achieve greater accuracy. Secondly, that leads to suggestions or proposals to clubs or authorities for studies into various aspects of the track and related facilities.

However, a new point has emerged - that I am doing harm to the industry by pointing out shortcomings. And, yes, I am aware that the so-called "antis" can be quick to jump on such statements. In fact, some time back I was quoted twice by Grey2K. I have also been abused more than once by club bosses for the same reason.

The problem with this thinking is that (a) fundamentally, all forms of racing are in decline in respect to two of its major ingredients - breeding and betting and (b) it allowed the greyhound industry to ignore live baiting and the huge risk to viability that it constituted in at least three states - and still does.

As to tracks themselves, both the trots and the gallops have paid considerable attention to the details of their layouts and introduced many improvements. Greyhounds have not. Essentially, we are still working with what we did in the 1950s.

Ignore it at your peril - or the industry's.

.
I actually like your posts at times ...hahahah Bruce... At least unlike some you stick your neck out and commit unlike many others in your position who today are still silent .

Bruce
To get two quotes by Grey2k and to get abused by Clubs must of been exciting ...lol
Do we need to sell Sandown and The Meadows ..... Bruce
Buy some land for straight racing only ..Who knows whats in store for participants next year ....Only the PTB and the GRV Know ..

Thankyou - I think.

Don't be too influenced by the interim UTS report - much has yet to be done (re straight tracks - which are a definite asset for the industry but where only Vic and Qld have seriously supported them).

As to the two main Melbourne tracks - Meadows has had track problems from the start, which is why they have changed the sprint distances/boxes three times. Even so, its bias, which is significantly in favour of the inside, is pretty consistent so it offers a much more predictable betting outcome than Sandown.

Meadows other hassle is that it does not cater for public viewing. The little balcony is available only to people renting the dining area. Plenty of standing room, though.

For obvious reasons, I believe Sandown can be improved.

Two other conflicting points: having two city tracks with different designs has meant that different sorts of dogs can do better at one or the other, which is a good thing at first glance. Second, why does Melbourne need two tracks and four weekly meetings? No other state has found that necessary, including Sydney which has a bigger population and more dogs (but still not enough to ensure full fields).

I do note that the gallops are kicking around the potential for eliminating one or even two of the major Melbourne tracks. Sydney likewise. Both primarily for economic reasons. Brisbane has no idea where it is going.

2018? Not good. NSW is virtually shot under the new structure while Victoria depends on the outcome of the Agriculture Department's design for the industry. Queensland is totally dependent on the whims of politicians - so your guess is as good as anyone else's. SA and WA will depend on the flow of stock from the East - mainly NSW and PWL. Tassie will muddle on - (good tracks at Hobart and Devonport, lousy one at Launceston).

The short term poser is whether the industry can sustain its income in the face of a decline in breeding numbers (and too many squibs), a shortage of starters and disruptive tracks/trips.

A lot of these issues can be addressed but not unless there is a radical reform in how the industry is run.

Today we have lost nothing because we had no control of nothing to start with ...
We have puppets for leaders whose job is to destroy all the future of our Industry .....

When will we get a chance to be able to self regulate ourselves because in 30 years i have not seen it take place once ...

Surely we have to look at the GOTBA in each state and ask them to be our saviors because i cannot see any other group or person capable of dealing with this monumental task ...

Bruce who is going to help us ....Who is going to show us the way ...

I was banking on the solar eclipes to maybe bring forth the chosen one the Messiah ...
Next one is in the year 2028 ...Let's see who out last who ....

GBOTA has proved to be part of the problem, not a potential solution. It is an internalised organisation, not one with a worldly view. Decades of dissention in NSW between GBOTA and NCA illustrate the point.

It would help if state organisations were commercially structured rather than bureaucratic monoliths but, unfortunately, three different official reviews failed to even address that problem, much less fix it. The Agriculture Department involvement is simply a continuation of that theme.

Bureaucrats never initiate, they just process stuff. They get points for words, not deeds.

The "we" you are after has to be independent of state administrations or major clubs - ie a National Greyhound Commission. (Note there are many rumblings in the gallops sector for the same thing - Jeff Kennett was one supporter).

The Catch 22 is that it will happen only if the state administrations will it to happen. And the Racing Ministers Council, and its members, will have to support it.

Difficult? Impossible? Perhaps.

Marches down Collins St/Macquarie St/Queens St have worked at times - witness the NSW ban, dairy farmers, horses in the Snowys, aboriginal embassies, etc. The Pitstocks have been keen to move along these lines but not sure where they are now.

Either way, it is a political argument which brings up another Catch22 problem. The public mostly dislike greyhounds or greyhound racing but no-one seems to want to repair that shortcoming and allow us to get started.

I have been beating my brains out for 20 years now without making much progress. So I have pretty well done my dash.

In fact, three weeks ago, and not for the first time, I pointed out all this to every Racing Minister and Shadow in the country. So far, only one of fifteen has bothered to respond. Par for the course, mate.