The Greyhound-Data Forum has been created to act as a platform for greyhound enthusiasts to share information on this magnificent animal called a greyhound.
Greyhound-Data reserve the right to remove any post that is off topic, advertisements or opinions they consider to be offensive.
If you answer then please try to stay on topic. It's absolutely okay to answer in a broader scope but don't hijack posts by switching to something off topic.
In case you see an insulting post: DO NOT REPLY TO IT!
Use the report button to inform the moderators so that we can delete it.
Mark Donohue Australia (Verified User) Posts 3236 Dogs 6 / Races 0 03 Apr 2018 04:52
(0)
(0)
Apparently, had trouble on the circle there.
Why do you ask ? It was awhile ago.
Charles W Mizzi Australia (Verified User) Posts 684 Dogs 1 / Races 1 03 Apr 2018 06:14
(2)
(1)
Mark Donohue wrote:
Apparently, had trouble on the circle there.
Why do you ask ? It was awhile ago.
Mark are you reading the stewards report or watching the vision? Thanks for answering Mark, 67 views only one response. I am questioning the stewards and what happens in the stewards room afterwards, although it did not make it in there I gather. The dog went to savage the lead dog on the bum, it is very clear. That was a heat of the maturity and the dog was fav. It made it to the semis on that run. I predicted that it would be scratched as it was the smart thing to do. This is nothing against the sire of the dog but a good business decision at the time. The dog was scratched to re appear in New Zealand 3 weeks later to this form 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, has won 9 of 17........not hard to figure out. My question how does this get past the stewards in the first place.
Mark Donohue Australia (Verified User) Posts 3236 Dogs 6 / Races 0 03 Apr 2018 07:02
(0)
(0)
Hi Charlie, I watched the vision and quoted the race caller. To me, the greyhound finished off its race on the bend with an interesting contact to its right.
Looking at all that, Why on earth can't our bloody authorities see that the finish on lure can help with welfare. Save a few dogs. Not all dogs can go to NZ if they been naughty. It doesnt have to be every race but for farks sake it can't hurt using it every now and then. Dogs aren't stupid. The smart ones eventually work out they only get the lure when solo.
Steven Martin Australia (Verified User) Posts 7681 Dogs 180 / Races 66 03 Apr 2018 07:43
(0)
(1)
charles w mizzi wrote:
67 views only one response.
Hi Charlie. I recall commenting on this race last year when the same question was asked. If you can find the thread, link it to this one.
Bruce Teague Australia (Verified User) Posts 2092 Dogs 0 / Races 0 07 Apr 2018 00:47
(0)
(3)
Chas,
All very obvious. I make one comment and ask one question.
A lot of stewards reports (about all matters) appear to be made on the basis of what the steward behind the boxes saw. This therefore involves parallax errors in that it is hard to be sure which runners were affected by a "crossing" dog. That would be avoided - at least for races like SPK515 and MEA525 - if they double checked with the video. Back straight starts are more awkward.
Q - I note that quite a few which have been (correctly) pinged for fighting have also been thumped earlier in the race in general running. Presumably, they are then displaying a natural reaction to another dog trying to assert priority. That poses the question of whether they should get a little sympathy for the breach. I realise the argument is a bit thin but it might be reasonable for a dog which has otherwise been a clean runner. I noted one the other day which had over 50 starts before offending and it had been thumped a little before the incident.
Separately, I am aware the Vic stewards do review any sensible comments put to them.
Charles W Mizzi Australia (Verified User) Posts 684 Dogs 1 / Races 1 07 Apr 2018 01:29
(0)
(0)
Bruce Teague wrote:
Chas,
All very obvious. I make one comment and ask one question.
A lot of stewards reports (about all matters) appear to be made on the basis of what the steward behind the boxes saw. This therefore involves parallax errors in that it is hard to be sure which runners were affected by a "crossing" dog. That would be avoided - at least for races like SPK515 and MEA525 - if they double checked with the video. Back straight starts are more awkward.
Q - I note that quite a few which have been (correctly) pinged for fighting have also been thumped earlier in the race in general running. Presumably, they are then displaying a natural reaction to another dog trying to assert priority. That poses the question of whether they should get a little sympathy for the breach. I realise the argument is a bit thin but it might be reasonable for a dog which has otherwise been a clean runner. I noted one the other day which had over 50 starts before offending and it had been thumped a little before the incident.
Separately, I am aware the Vic stewards do review any sensible comments put to them.
Sent you a PM Bruce
Michael Peter Martin New Zealand (Verified User) Posts 75 Dogs 0 / Races 0 07 Apr 2018 20:55
(2)
(0)
Bruce Teague wrote:
Chas,
All very obvious. I make one comment and ask one question.
A lot of stewards reports (about all matters) appear to be made on the basis of what the steward behind the boxes saw. This therefore involves parallax errors in that it is hard to be sure which runners were affected by a "crossing" dog. That would be avoided - at least for races like SPK515 and MEA525 - if they double checked with the video. Back straight starts are more awkward.
Q - I note that quite a few which have been (correctly) pinged for fighting have also been thumped earlier in the race in general running. Presumably, they are then displaying a natural reaction to another dog trying to assert priority. That poses the question of whether they should get a little sympathy for the breach. I realise the argument is a bit thin but it might be reasonable for a dog which has otherwise been a clean runner. I noted one the other day which had over 50 starts before offending and it had been thumped a little before the incident.
Separately, I am aware the Vic stewards do review any sensible comments put to them.
Bruce , It is pretty obvious the stewards have difficulty seeing if a dog misbehaves at all let alone expect them to consider how bad it's feelings were hurt during the process
Mark Donohue Australia (Verified User) Posts 3236 Dogs 6 / Races 0 07 Apr 2018 22:11
(1)
(0)
Bruce, Thumped a little ? Bumped a little ? How much is enough before feelings are included in the opinion ? Whos going to ask the dog ? Working Dogs Alliance, Australia?
It defeats your argument that alternate training techniques work all of the time. Are the stewards going to include training techniques in their evaluation?
Let them use the KISS method from benefit of doubt marred due to injury marred Injured failed to chase due to injury failed to chase
I think they do, but of course they dont call it KISS
Raymond Lacava Australia (Verified User) Posts 79 Dogs 0 / Races 0 08 Apr 2018 05:47
(3)
(0)
Reward for effort not rocket science
Bruce Teague Australia (Verified User) Posts 2092 Dogs 0 / Races 0 09 Apr 2018 00:09
(0)
(1)
Mark,
You actually have not answered the question I posed. So be it. It was not a life or death situation.
That aside, racing rules which relate to stewards' actions have usually been in place for donkey's years so it is reasonable to call for a full review - say, every 5 years. I am aware that there are national stewards gatherings every year but we have no idea what goes on there (which is par for the course in this industry).
Here is one example of that need: someone at some stage said the penalty for turning up with an incorrect weight will cost you $100 plus a 10 day ban. I can see the value of the fine as it penalises a sloppy trainer and stops a reserve getting a run. But what is the point of (a) doubling the penalty and (b) barring the dog from racing when it might well be at its correct weight?
I put that formally to three administrations and got one acknowledgement and no replies.
As for "It defeats your argument that alternate training techniques work all of the time", I have said no such thing. You just made that up. Anyway, you mean "alternative".
The only reference I can think of is that WDA suggested that other training/education methods than live baiting would be helpful/better/legal/whatever. I make no comment on that as I am not qualified. However, I see no genuine references to the contrary - only unsubstantiated assertions by several trainers.
Having said that, I have suggested (to trainers at large)that if they think skins on lures should be permitted, then they should prepare a well-sourced claim and put it up at a later date. I also suggested myself that such a total ban might be over the top.
To do that now is pointless as the rule has just been introduced. What that case should consider is that skins would be classed as a natural extension of the live baiting subject and therefore any opposing case to the rule has to separate the two.
Mark Donohue Australia (Verified User) Posts 3236 Dogs 6 / Races 0 09 Apr 2018 04:00
(3)
(0)
Bruce,
You posed the question and it wasn't directed at me. I chose to make a general comment. In your reply you navigated around the `bumped a bit', `thumped a bit' issue. Not to worry. Yes, `alternate' and `alternative'. I was using the mobile phone and should have proof read it. I'll pick out some of yours too. Here's one immediately above, second last paragraph:
"I also suggested myself" - tautology - `myself' is not needed.
We all make mistakes and there are many, but don't waste your time in your `glass house' with a rock wall as a view.
Kerching ! Go Ricky ! Go Ricky !
Bruce Teague Australia (Verified User) Posts 2092 Dogs 0 / Races 0 10 Apr 2018 00:24
(1)
(1)
Mark,
Quite right - it was tautological.
You still have not answered my question. Throwing rocks does not count.
Bruce Teague Australia (Verified User) Posts 2092 Dogs 0 / Races 0 11 Apr 2018 05:32
(1)
(2)
Malcolm,
I may well go, but the public will not - as I instanced in another post. Why not deal with it?
You are also off topic. The subject is actions by stewards.
Bruce Teague Australia (Verified User) Posts 2092 Dogs 0 / Races 0 11 Apr 2018 22:54
(0)
(0)
Here's another go - more or less answering my own question because nobody else will.
Go to R11 at Meadows 11 Apr and check out Dyna Kushida - marring (that means fighting in proper English). You might see that it and two or three others were pushing and shoving while rounding the home turn - numerous left, right, left movements. In all that hustle and bustle the subject dog probably hit on an opponent. But they all did that, although not with their heads. And once the skirmishing was over, all went on with their normal jobs.
My point is that it was a yellow card deal, not a red card one.
Tony Gallagher Australia (Team Member) Posts 5912 Dogs 12952 / Races 40209 06 Jul 2018 13:13
(1)
(0)
charles w mizzi wrote:
Mark Donohue wrote:
Apparently, had trouble on the circle there.
Why do you ask ? It was awhile ago.
Mark are you reading the stewards report or watching the vision? Thanks for answering Mark, 67 views only one response. I am questioning the stewards and what happens in the stewards room afterwards, although it did not make it in there I gather. The dog went to savage the lead dog on the bum, it is very clear. That was a heat of the maturity and the dog was fav. It made it to the semis on that run. I predicted that it would be scratched as it was the smart thing to do. This is nothing against the sire of the dog but a good business decision at the time. The dog was scratched to re appear in New Zealand 3 weeks later to this form 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, has won 9 of 17........not hard to figure out. My question how does this get past the stewards in the first place.
I must of watched a different video. To me something went wrong injury wise with the dog and it reacted appropriately to try to stop the front dog from beating it. This would also explain its results once it returned to racing. If the dog was a fighter it certainly had the pace to be up around the leaders head or any other dogs that went past it. IMO definitely incurred an injury.
Check out number 7 in race 4 at wenty last Wednesday night 4/7/18
Charles W Mizzi Australia (Verified User) Posts 684 Dogs 1 / Races 1 07 Jul 2018 01:28
(1)
(0)
Tony, this dogs brother turned its head at Ballarat and was immediately sent to NZ. Same happened here. The race was a Group one heat and he qualified for the semi's. I said if they were smart the dog would be scratched, it was, and sent to NZ. It was the beginning of the Fernando Bale charge up the sires list. Wise choice.
Tony Gallagher Australia (Team Member) Posts 5912 Dogs 12952 / Races 40209 07 Jul 2018 03:42
(0)
(0)
Fair enough Charles and I agree changing its environment was a good move.
Do you have questions about greyhound racing?
