Unfortunately,eminent greyhound vetinarians are not being listened to while these new "welfare policies" are being formulated.Some are walking away from the industry.

Without consultation with experts INSIDE the industry,the formulation of new policies may actually put the welfare of the greyhound at a pronounced risk.

They listen to the people saying things they want to hear to justify their jobs. They would be unemployable in the real world of profit and loss. Public servants just get moved around. Where are all the ex Chief Stewards, they are still there. Why are they not Chief Stewards any longer?

Prevention is better than cure they say, but now using things that are not drugs gives you a chance of a positive, so trainers will not take that risk. Now the dog is at risk!

Your top shelf dogs will be able to cover it but your run of the mill dog needs that special effort to keep sound and winning occasionally.

Alan Roberts, a hall of famer once said to me, "anyone can train a champion, but it takes a champion trainer to keep a grade 5 dog winning.

The starting point of all of these policies needs to change. The controlling body seems to have the attitude that all participants are ignorant and bad. Everyone who wants to shut us down is knowledgeable and good.

By doing this they justify listening to people who may have little, if any, knowledge of the greyhound breed.

There is a Panel of anonymous so called experts advising the Panel ROFLMAO

Under the guise of "welfare" they have prostated themselves on the altar of political correctness where all drugs/chemicals/minerals/vitamins are "bad" and a sure indication of "cheating".

.......except, not ONE drug policy was based on what can potentially harm the dog or artificially enhance it's performance. Not ONE!

Feed Stockgain and get a positive for trace levels of Cobalt that cannot possibly affect the performance of the dog nor have a detrimental affect on it's health - CHEAT!

Use Kohnke's Gold and get a positive for trace levels of Cobalt or Arsenic that cannot possibly affect the performance of the dog nor have a detrimental affect on it's health - CHEAT!

Feed an expensive kibble that has kelp or seaweed in the ingredients and get a positive for trace levels of Cobalt or Arsenic that cannot possibly affect the performance of the dog nor have a detrimental affect on it's health - CHEAT!

Use a Testosterone based steroid to keep a bitch off season and get a positive for levels that aren't even close to levels that would enhance performance - Cheat!

Notice a pattern?

They can't find the real cheats.....so they'll just rewrite a bunch of rules so they can point to the positive swabs and pat themselves on the back for ridding the sport of the bad eggs and looking after the "welfare" of the dogs!

I will never forget when at one of the GRNSWs "training for the future" seminars the speaker Steve Austin was asked how to stop a dog from playing with the water bowl in their kennel and getting hurt on it. His answer, give them B12 vitamins before kennelling. When we told him we weren't allowed he was shocked and said but they aren't harmful, they are good for the dog.

In the warped world of sports administration.......beneficial = cheating!

Its funny, Brenton Scott n Sandro Bechini were on the Alliance and Brenton Scott was on the Reform Panel. I doubt if further reform is going to help the industry because as we can see thus far, the cost of three years of reform has burdened the industry to a point it will be halved or starved. The GWIC Commissioners wont even reside out at Bathurst.

Although I could not possibly comment on the veterinary or technical aspects of your comments I did write an article several years ago (and often since) pointing out that ....

* laboratory advancements had moved to the stage where microscopic but irrelevant traces of substances could be detected.

* jokingly, I instanced the case of a dog being walked past a bread shop where poppy seed odours were present (not so funny now)

* more recently, I quoted the example of NZ stewards finding that Sweet It Is had caffeine problems due to eating a kibble which had tiny amounts of tea leaves in the recipe

* I note that all recent rule changes offer vague statements that a certain substance might affect a dog - underline might,

* Such doubts are even greater when reading claims that minimum acceptable levels are estimated to be X or Y - underline estimated.

* such rule changes rarely, if ever, include analysis of the actual impact on a dog's performance.

That leaves us with these conclusions:

1. Generally, increased attention to drug use over the last decade or so has been a good thing.
2. The increase in scientific analytical capabilities should be accompanied by realistic analyses of the world around us, especially in respect to the increasing complexity of food manufacture.
3. Reliance on "estimates" etc does not cut the mustard. This is scientifically unsound.
4. A "zero tolerance" policy sounds fine at first glance but it fails to recognise what is happening in the world outside greyhound racing.
5. We need the ability for challenges to be mounted prior to the enactment of any rules. Decisions by bureaucrats (whatever their evidence) always warrant debate.

In short, trainers or their representatives need to organise their own testing.

Fine the speeding drivers, but do not penalise the other 99%.

If so, that is yet another ground for challenge. Any administrative tribunal would accept that.