Both I and the Greeks are well aware of what is meant by a Trojan Horse. What I can't work out is what you are on about. Or, more specifically, what I am hiding. Please explain!

As to your last paragraph, you will have to work harder. It is not practicable for me or anyone else to cover the full gamut of an industry analysis every time I go to print on this sort of website. Today, for instance, the topic is concentrated on some political points - Borsak, etc.

Previously, you might have found a mountain of stuff from me on the "crux of the problem", together with lots of evidence and reasoning to back it up. Much of it gets shouted down here but that does not make it any less valid. And it is not new - I have been saying it for 20 years.

Anyway, to summarise, here are the prime issues ....

1. The absence of industry management. Neat administration and domination by committees are neither appropriate or sufficient at any level.

2. In turn, that shortcoming is a function of obsolete government policies, interference by bureaucracies, blind tradition, appointment of junior MPs to Racing Minister jobs, and a desire to hold on to power for spurious reasons.

3. The blinkered, bureaucratic and trainer-centric nature and operation of state authorities. By definition, that embraces minimal attention to customers.

4. The failure of participants to see 1, 2 and 3.

5. The failure of most participants to appreciate the world we live in.

All that is why I have frequently stated my view that the system is broken. Repairs or modifications will not cut the mustard. It needs to be thrown out and a fresh one built - modern, lively and sensitive to all the industry's stakeholders (including that mysterious "public" that few seem to understand - see various responses on this thread).

There are many other issues - crook tracks, for one - but they basically fall under one of the main headings.

As for "How it is possible to tackle them", I will have to locate one reference and show it here later.

Here we go - below were suggestions from me about how to tackle the challenge.

Gary,

I got involved in this discussion purely on the basis of procedures, processes and politics, not because of greyhound care and welfare issues (which are beyond my reach). I did so because of my dismay at the variety of conflicting and pointless comments on these pages. I come from decades of dealing with Ministers, Shadow Ministers, Department Heads, Royal Commissions, Parliamentary Inquiries, racing inquiries, Productivity Commissions, government/business committees of all shapes and sizes, and consultancies to two state governments and the Commonwealth Parliament, amongst others. (Most of the above is on record, as is my name).

So here is a brief sketch of what might happen.

PREAMBLE

We are now at a stage where we have won a battle but are losing the war. The enemy is the government and several bureaucracies, as stirred by Greens, anti-racing groups and much of the public. They are armed with histories of past greyhound abuses, reinforced by the commonality of the problem in two adjacent states. We are armed with moans and groans from individuals ie nothing meaningful. We have no platform to stand on. We have no friends, not even in the racing game. That should not be a surprise as we have never sought any. The result is that we are not getting a fair go and that should be our banner cry. Here are the bones of a campaign.

FAIR GO (other suggestions welcome)

Principle #1
The greyhound is one of the wonders of the animal world because ..

Principle #2
Humans run to beat time
Horses are urged to run
Greyhounds are born to run

(pinched from an old GBOTA poster)

Principle #3
Greyhound racing is a major contributor to employment, economic activity, recreation and social cohesion throughout NSW, paying many millions in taxes. More than X thousand are directly involved and many times that in associated areas.

Principle #4
The industry is a strong and professional supporter of animal welfare, providing superior care and attention to health and husbandry compared to other conventional pet or animal groups

Principle #5
Yes, the industry has made mistakes in the past but has learnt from them (contrary to misleading claims in the McHugh Inquiry report), brought in enhanced controls and removed offenders from the ranks. No walk of life is free of evil doers but the greyhound industry is aware of the past faults of a minority and has taken remedial action.

Principle #6
Government reactions over the past two years have been based on incorrect data and faulty assumptions, frequently spoken by people with little or no knowledge of the industry or those with erratic and ideological biases.

Principle #7
The industry is now being faced with regulations and government-imposed costs which are excessive, officious and discriminatory by comparison with other racing codes and other animal groups including household pets.

Principle #8
An immediate review of the efficiency and efficacy of government controls over the industry is essential to restore a level playing field. The alternative is a progressive decline in the size and profitability of the NSW industry and wholesale shifts of activity to neighbouring states, particularly from close-border areas. Related downturns will occur in activities revolving around the use of community-owned showgrounds and multi-purpose racetrack facilities.

Principle # 9
The McHugh Report, on which government relied, was flawed in the extreme in that it used faulty data, it chose witnesses selectively, it quoted irrelevant and obsolete evidence, it did not allow cross examination of critical evidence and displayed bias from the outset eg on day one when the Counsel Assisting encouraging the Commissioner to Shut it down, shut it down before any public evidence was heard. The Commission itself contained no-one with any special knowledge or experience in greyhound racing.

Principle #10
The industry has never been properly consulted about the nature and extent of new regulations and charges a problem which was exacerbated by the unrepresentative nature of the so-called Reform Panel.

HOW TO DO IT

Prepare a document with a front page highlighting the points and two or three pages listing the information. Pamphlet format would be good, too.

Advertising would be good but funds are not available.

Hard copy is needed to display/circulate in multiple venues, as costs permit.

Maximum use of electronic circulation, especially to media - repeatedly.

Nominate two or three spokespersons to answer queries.

Directly hit all parliamentarians in town and in electorate offices.

Do not enter into party political debates, but seek help wherever.

Under no circumstances use formal support from any union. No exceptions.

Under no circumstances fly under any political partys flag. No exceptions.

(What individuals do is up to them but keep it on an individual basis).

WHO?

The missing element is who will run the show and who will sign up to support it. It needs a leader, an office, a key group, key spokespersons and a name/logo for the project.

(No, dont ask me, I am too old and decrepit. It needs life, vigour and pizzaz).

Oh Bruce......If you cant offer PRACTICAL solutions with the emphasis on PRACTICAL....then you just become part of the problem !
All that you are doing on here at the moment is waffling on about legitimate issues within our industry that we all know about .but which have become "House keeping" .
You made mention of people within the industry that are not dealing with the "Real World" and then you put forth some suggested solutions that seem to be extracted from a Fantasy "UTOPIA" that is never going to happen in the short or even medium term.

I don't think anyone doubts your capacity to highlight a problem....However ,How many issues have you successfully resolved?
It is ALL about practical solutions Bruce and I think muddying the water with utopian solutions is TOTALLY counter productive.

I will list my view on the Practical possibilities .

1: There is a CANCER in the Participants representative body.....
It must be removed !!!!
Nothing ,I repeat NOTHING can be achieved until it is.
This IS achievable...
2: There was a criminal conspiracy to destroy the industry and the culprits are not hard to find.....A barrage of contemporaneous statements/information/evidence is in the public domain and the circumstances and events that occurred fully support the above statement.....It would be very handy to find a young and very ambitious investigative reporter .....looking for an early "Walkley award" .I am positive that he would find all the evidence in the world.....with some assistance from a worldly keyboard warrior.

3: The animal activists have been around for a very very long time Bruce and how loud and effective they are is dependent on the amount of oxygen given to them by the govt. of the day and the press/media.....I think that they can create such a noise that you tend to put too much credence in the belief that the public at large are against us....I certainly do not believe this is the case.

I have memories of Mike Baird running around waving the McHugh report at any camera he could find ....saying "Just read the report, just read the report ".....Well guess who didn't read the report?..... When he became aware of what was TRULY going on and actually read the report .....He issued a very CURT DIRECTIVE....That ALL future RACING correspondence was to go to HIS office !!!

Left with no alternative but to reverse the ban and try and remedy what was a complete trainwreck....he left parliament quicker than greased lightning....before any further delving could be done into the circumstances.....and with egg still dripping off his nose and chin.
The other person who had a major rethink and a seachange and jumped a ship that could have been getting very very hot was Mr. Messara....The door didn't hit him on the way out either....

This should have been the Greyhound Industries leverage for at the very least an equitable distribution of funds that THEY EARN !!!
But NO .....Refer to NO. 1 [Above]

In 2008 The ombudsman was commissioned to do a detailed study on the Racing Industry and Wagering in general [The Cameron Report] despite the unbiased nature of the study....Mr. Cameron concluded that the "distribution" formula relating to the financing of the 3 codes was so blatantly discriminating against Greyhound Racing that
it should be changed as soon as possible.....He made this observation one of the key recommendations !!! It was ignored !!!

Justice McHugh ...Despite being commissioned to find anything and everything possible to denigrate the industry.....still found the diversion of TENS of MILLIONS of Greyhound Industry funds so unconscionable and wrong that he made one of the key recommendations that this situation be rectified by ANY means possible ...straight away.... Forgive me but he had spent YEARS on the HIGH COURT of AUSTRALIA [Fair indication that you would have at least a fighting chance].
But NO ......Refer to no 1 [above]
The only recommendation that was NOT ADOPTED !!!

Bruce I understand your enthusiasm for writing but if you cant offer practical assessments that can be worked on immediately....then you really are not helping.

GUys If we can compile a list of issues such as the ones you both have written about and try to get them to Ray Hadley or Allan Jones, I am sure they would approach certain people,like Mr, Iemma, Miss Love, Mr Mestrov Mr, Otoole etc ,and I'm sure they would ask some very serious questions about what is going on behind the scenes at GRNSW, ANY IDEAS.

We seem to agree.

You asked for my views on HOW to do it.

I gave you my views on HOW to do it, item by item.

You now say I should offer practical ideas.

You also have not answered my query about your Trojan Horse.

Your general solution now is to make a big noise about actual and alleged wrongdoings, quoting some actual events and some guesses or hearsay. That's about it. Just noise.

I put that noise into context - a manifesto, a brochure etc - with backup data and proposals about how to reform the industry. I suggested specifically how to use that document.

What you and many others have failed to do is to understand the enemy.

The government has made policy and laws. To improve the industry's lot they have to be changed. The only way to do that is to reach enough MPs and convince them of the cause. Noise will not do that, reason might.

* * * * *

Also, even if I am wrong about negative public attitudes (and I don't think I am) it would still be sensible to assume that they are either anti or neutral and seek to convince them, too. We need all the support we can get.

* * * * *

You and others make much of the need to attack Greens and anti organisations. Well, of course their illogical arguments need to be addressed from time to time but their influence is greatly overstated. What you should note is that they are a pain in the neck to governments as well. They get a run only when a vote is needed to push through a new rule (much as SFF might do in our favour). It's called politics.

Besides, none of us would be writing or hurting now were it not for the legal and illegal actions of Animals Australia to publicise live baiting and the brain dead idiots who took part. Put the blame where it belongs.

1): "I gave you my views on HOW to do it, item by item."

(a): I am clearly at fault here.....I should have stipulated practicality.

(2): "You also have not answered my query about your Trojan Horse."

(A): What I am referring to will become evident very soon.

(3): "Your general solution now is to make a big noise about actual and alleged wrongdoings, quoting some actual events and some guesses or hearsay. That's about it. Just noise."

(A): Detail if you will the "alleged" wrongdoings please Bruce......and No certainly NOT just noise... I think that I have been quite EXPLICIT in relation to the pathway forward ..utilising the K.I.S.S. theory of practical simplicity.

(4): " I put that noise into context - a manifesto, a brochure etc - with backup data and proposals about how to reform the industry. I suggested specifically how to use that document.

(A):Is it at all possible that you could be that Nave? ..A brochure?...truly....at this point in time? Hmmmm.

(5): "What you and many others have failed to do is to understand the enemy."

(A):NOT SO on my part...what I have clearly done is IDENTIFY the enemy/enemies and in doing so understood all of his motivations and agendas....and like most of us they revolve around GREED and SELF INTEREST.

(6):"The government has made policy and laws. To improve the industry's lot they have to be changed. The only way to do that is to reach enough MPs and convince them of the cause. Noise will not do that, reason might

(A): " REASON MIGHT ".....Forgive me for asking Bruce but.... How is that working for you ???....Good luck with that.
Once again I have great difficulty in believing you are that Nave.

(7): "Besides, none of us would be writing or hurting now were it not for the legal and illegal actions of Animals Australia to publicise live baiting and the brain dead idiots who took part. Put the blame where it belongs."

(A): Finally, something that we can agree on....

(8):Bruce I am only guessing at your motivation for continuously confusing the issue .
Is it Naivety ? .....Is it you just being obtuse? Is it obfuscation? or is it something even more nefarious?
You are the judge of that....
There is NO guesswork or hearsay involved with my assessment sir and one thing I can promise you: You will NEVER...NEVER...NEVER achieve any sort of parity or fair dinkum JUSTICE through your "POLITICAL PROCESSES"
The Steps are laid out and clear.

BTW Bruce your Principles 1-10. Are what we the participants have been advocating to you. Only we are just "Moaners & Groaners".

Won't work, mate. You are still proposing more noise, and to the wrong people. Yelling will never succeed.

I will be frank. Your suggestion about the High Court is plain dumb. For a start, have you got the necessary millions it would cost? And referrals to the High Court have to come from a relevant authority. Without both of those any direct approach will fail - they will tell you to go away. Third, you will have to find that relevant authority, appear before it and take the result with you. Which authority do you have in mind? Or which two - you may have to go through an appeals process first.

Nothing else you mention is worth a response.

"Nothing else you mention is worth a response."

I think some indication about your thoughts on the quality of your representation, maybe of interest to some readers Bruce...

Your just part of the problem Bruce and that is sad because you could actually be of some use......Unfortunately it would involve actually having to do something.....God Forbid !!!!!

Almost every response to my posts (which themselves were largely written at the request of others) attacks me personally and ignores the questions raised by me or others. Go back and read them for yourself to check. Why is this so? How does it advance the cause?

Almost all the participants' complaints on these pages date from the days since live baiting and fresh regulations appeared - ie one to three years. Yet I have been specifically listing the problems and possible solutions for the last 20 years. This has involved not only policy areas but also a variety of operational matters like track designs, betting and staying capabilities. How often have I been wrong? On major items, never.

I will take a wild guess and say that few if any of the above participants have real experience or knowledge of politics and government policy. I do. I have even organised "backbencher revolts" and got laws changed, etc, etc.

Then why do we keep hitting a brick wall?

We are living inside a system developed 160 years ago where top-hatted gentlemen raced off for sweepstakes in Sydney's Hyde Park. Minor modifications occurred during the 1920s and 1930s when governments grabbed hold of the takings on the oncourse tote. Even so, the big end of town, committees and "chardonnay lunches", as Quimby QC called them, still ruled the roost.

Apart from a few ups and downs in Victoria, other codes followed suit. The system spread, governments liked being a part of it. In contrast, over the last 50 years, other primary industries have cut the apron strings but racing ploughed on regardless, despite being overrun by other gambling options, but always a victim of the codes' and the governments' short sighted addictions to money.

The brick wall is the gallop's hierarchy. Were greyhounds to reform the system, then pressure would be on the other codes to change as well. They would not like that. So we are stuck for now with what we have - a rotten, outmoded, bureaucratic structure.

Meantime, the only achievable option is to seek some modification of policies and laws which impact on greyhound racing. Given unhelpful political leaders, the only way to do that is to convince enough individual MPs to lobby those leaders. Including media in the campaign would help but it all has to be done as professionally as possible (see earlier posts with details). Yelling and throwing rocks at each other will never do the job.

* * * * *

Incidentally, going down the legal route towards change might seem desirable and justifiable but it would be very expensive and very lengthy. By the time you got there the industry might be stuffed anyway. And the same bullets can be fired now as part of a professional campaign to win friends and influence people, especially MPs.

Since the NSW Government privatised the TAB and the Inter-Code funding arrangement was implemented in 1998, greyhound racing has effectively subsidised the other two codes by over $154m, with the level of subsidisation increasing each year.

An independent report by Alan Cameron recommended the Government abolish the current fixed rate revenue system that has seen the NSW racing and wagering industry in steep decline.

These impediments to growth can be immediately fixed and the future of the greyhound industry secured if the NSW Government simply implements the clear and decisive recommendations of the Cameron Report.

NSW has lagged behind every other state in terms of wagering growth over the last decade because of the current structure. Mr. Camerons recommendations would place each code into a commercial environment where its success would be determined by its own performance which would therefore require each code to critically assess and put in place strategies to sustain and grow its sport.

The commercial funding model remains a significant public policy issue for the racing and wagering industry in NSW as continuing lack of incentive and innovation will inevitably lead to further industry declines. Such declines will impact industry stakeholders across the three codes, regional communities and NSW Government revenues.

Current Income Share
Thoroughbreds - 70%
Harness - 17%
Greyhounds - 13%

Contribution to Sales
Thoroughbreds - 68%
Harness - 12%
Greyhounds - 20%

Diversion of Greyhound Racings earnings TODAY would stand around 200 MILLION DOLLARS !

You know Bruce...the last thing I intended to do and certainly have no wish to do ...is attack you ...personally or professionally ...I have been reading your articles for years, finding that even if you were not always right .you were certainly never in doubt. Willing to express an opinion [ON EVERYTHING] that you were certainly entitled to have...after all, just like other parts of the human being...everybody has one....I found that in relation to factual matters...more often than not it was factually correct.

By your own admission you have been banging away at the Greyhound situation for 20 YEARS approx.
My Dad didn't leave me wealthy moneywise but he certainly gave me some DIAMONDS in the way of PRACTICAL SAYINGS that have stood the test of time and will be taken to my grave :.....

(1) "IF YOU ALWAYS DO WHAT YOU ALWAYS DID......YOU WILL ALWAYS GET
WHAT YOU ALWAYS GOT!"

This was refined in later days but the meaning remains the
same:
"The definition of stupidity is continuing to do the same
thing and expecting a different result."

(2) Your Words :

Incidentally, going down the legal route towards change might seem desirable and justifiable but it would be very expensive and very lengthy. By the time you got there the industry might be stuffed anyway. And the same bullets can be fired now as part of a professional campaign to win friends and influence people, especially MPs.

You Say it COULD be very lengthy.....surely not more than 20 years?

Oh Dear Bruce......20 Years and still counting??? ...I think not.

The amount of time spent tapping away on your keyboard could be very well spent researching on the computer HIGH COURT of AUST. and all of the many and varied ways to get before them [in the most inexpensive way]...their jurisdictions etc....

You have a very analytical mind Bruce but you have been boring people to death on your ego trip for years.....Do something productive...something that actually produces a result or even the realistic hope of one....Don't squander JUSTICE McHugh's one serious attempt at providing some real guidance to the Greyhound Industry.

I would add : a Positive ruling from the High Court does not change with the whims of govt. change etc.

I am tipping that you would never be allowed to set foot in the court.....People Know only too well what is to be lost....A whole new attitude.....

Absolutely a waste of time if the "CANCER" is not removed.
Ball is in YOUR court

See, there you go again. My "ego trip"?. You can't resist it, can you, despite your protestations? My writings have nearly all been about injustice, inefficiency and incompetence. All very negative, unfortunately, but that is what I was looking at - and still am - and they were always accompanied by answers or solutions for the future. This is the worst run business in the country - bar none.

Any successes have been minor (for the many reasons I have outlined) but that has not stopped me pursuing the cause. Neither before nor now has any benefit accrued to me and I have just about done my dash anyway. I have nothing left to gain or lose. I can't even bet any more because the "system" has stuffed the markets. My only hope is to pass on words of wisdom (?) and hope that others pick up the ball and run with it.

I suggest that ball should never mention the High Court, or indeed any legal process because I doubt there is sufficient cause for action. The "errors" you and I might list are essentially matters of bad policy and sloppy administration. Because of that, your plot to bring them to heel on conspiracy or fraud or whatever charge is unlikely to succeed - or even get to first base. (If you have a lawyer mate by all means ask him). That applies double for the High Court where I would be amazed if it ever agreed to take it on. Right or wrong, it is just not the stuff they do. Tackling McHugh via ombudsmen, admin tribunals or even ICAC is also unlikely to achieve much, not least because he made 79 other recommendations that were not acted on, and also because of his rank!!! He did not shut down the industry - Baird and Grant did.

The only promising route is the court of public opinion, addressed in part via my suggested brochure, which you rubbished.

As for "boring people to death", I have not noticed them getting bored here, rather the opposite. In any event, I have written for six different trade publications over the last 20 years, every one of which invited me to join up, starting with Phil Bell at the Recorder/NCA. I never sought any of those gigs so people have obviously recognised there were points to be made. (As did The Australian and the SMH when I wrote articles for them).

(I except the NSW GBOTA from that last sentence as they have never taken the slightest notice of anything I have ever put to them, all accurate and worthwhile - bar the late Bill Baker, who was a gentleman. The rest I would not feed).

Lastly, Robert, you have got to stop using the "Cancer" word. Why not say what you mean?