One of these occurs when dog A finds dog B in its line and shoves it out of the way. Dog A then continues on normally. This is a perfectly understandable act for a pack animal trying to get to the front and win the race. It is no different to a footballer palming off a tackler in order to get clear (see, for example, Dusty Martin).

The other is when dog A attacks and continues to attack dog B and has lost interest in the bunny and the race. This is a wrong-headed dog which is just being nasty. Or sometimes it might be injured and in pain.

Yet dog A is penalised equally in both circumstances. In the first case dog B was probably not in a great position to win anyway (ie A is trying to get past it), whereas in the second case both A and B are now out of contention.

Yet both As get the same penalty.

In my view, the first case warrants only a yellow card a warning - while the second warrants whatever the book says. That yellow card then allows A to continue racing and help fill some of the empty boxes that are now a bane to the industry. It also recognises the fairly normal habits of the breed, especially the keen ones.

Now make a further rule change. It is ridiculous that in some cases a fighter can earn prize money while its victim may lose out entirely. Genuine fighters should always be disqualified or relegated. Thats what happens in the other racing codes or in any sport known to mankind. Greyhounds are the only exception. Its almost as bad as cage fighting (which is barely a sport anyway).

For a handy example of the first type, see Hayleys Style in race 2 at Meadows last Saturday 16th.

EXTERNAL LINK
Yellow cards... what about red cards?
Why complicate things with more and more rules?

As for the race at the Meadows, justice was done, the dog stopped chasing, albeit just for long enough, to stop the momentum of the other dog, and ruin any chance it may have had of being placed.

Would you really give Hayleys Style a yellow card, and risk a repeat performance next Saturday night???

I agree it momentarily interrupted both dog's progress. My point was that the "victim" was in the "offender's" racing line and the offence lasted only a second. Technically guilty but the chances of a repeat offence seems small. Matter of judgement?

That dog went looking for trouble. Definitely red card.

Is it marring if the greyhound does not sustain an injury?.. and failing to pursue the lure with due commitment, if an injury was sustained?

Your proposed introduction of a yellow card would only further muddy the waters.

You have often said the sport needs promoting. Owners,trainers, and punters accept that interference is part of racing, but having your chances ruined by a marring or failing to chase greyhound, leaves a sour taste in the mouths of those people on the receiving end of such behavior.

No yellow cards please.

EXTERNAL LINK
Hayley's Style was vetted following the event. It was reported that there was no apparent injury found. Stewards spoke to Mr J. Britton, Trainer of Hayley's Style. Acting under GAR 69(1) stewards charged Hayley's Style with marring. Mr Britton pleaded not guilty to the charge, Hayley's Style was found guilty and suspended for 28 days at The Meadows and it was directed that the greyhound perform a Satisfactory Trial (all tracks), pursuant to GAR 69(2)(a) before any future nomination will be accepted.

EXTERNAL LINK
Monster Fish was vetted following the event. It was reported that the greyhound sustained a right hindleg back muscle injury, a 14 day stand down period was imposed.

Stewards spoke to Ms Kate Gorman, the trainer of the greyhound Monster Fish, regarding the greyhounds racing manners in the home straight. Acting under GAR 69(A)(1) Stewards charged Monster Fish with failing to pursue the lure with due commitment. Ms Gorman pleaded guilty to the charge, Monster Fish was found guilty and suspended for 28 days at Traralgon and it was directed that the greyhound perform a Satisfactory Trial (all tracks), pursuant to GAR 69(A)(2)(a) before any future nomination will be accepted.

I recall that an injury was once a reason for getting let off whereas now it makes no difference. So stewards' interpretations have changed over time. A short spell may be a good thing anyway but it does leave a black mark, which for FTC is not justified.

Sadly, fighters are often superior gallopers so it's a pity that we can't hang on to the marginal ones in a time of need. And the two quoted examples were chalk and cheese.

More generally, aside from minor procedural changes, the Rules of Racing rarely change, nor are they debated as the world changes. You can also ask why each state needs a different set to GA, or why grading has to be violently different, one from the other, or why penalties are variable. The more cooks, the higher the costs.

I see no comments yet on DQ and/or relegation - that would have been especially relevant to the Traralgon example. Justice is not seen to be done.

Ahh Bruce, we all know you mean well in your efforts to promote the sport, but have you looked at the practicalities in having your DQ and/or relegation process in place?

So, a race has been run and won. The ear-brands are checked in the catching pen, found to be okay, all clear is signaled. Maybe around two to three minutes after the greyhounds have passed the winning post. If there had been a major drama in the race.eg. the boxes were slow to open,etc,etc, the stewards would have already declared "hold all tickets".

Ear-brands okay, and no major dramas...all clear? well not quite yet. With a DQ and/or relegation process in place, can a trainer lodge a protest...should the stewards watch a replay before deciding to lodge their own protest?

One way or the other,with the DQ and/or relegation process, we may have to have a hearing to decide the final outcome of the race.

How long does the hearing take? Does the next race have to be put back, if the stewards are still deliberating?

Meanwhile, the punters are fuming, and saying this is a ffffing joke.

Quite so but not logical. If stewards have time to apply the penalty they have time to simultaneously DQ the offender. It is virtually automatic. The hearing takes place on the spot.

To achieve fairness it is much more important to get the placings corrected than to worry about the 28 days. The current system penalises the victim twice in effect - once by being shoved out of the race and once by losing prize money.

Appeals are always available but I can't recall a trainer appealing to someone about a fighting decision - even though many plead not guilty at the time.

Punters will fume if they see a lack of justice, not when the law is applied sensibly. Anyway, it does not happen a lot so the overall impact is not great. I also note many meetings have three stewards attending.

Just imagine the screams if a fighter won by a head in a $100k race after attacking the other dog. In fact, I recall a brawl behind the boxes in Melb after one such case - resulting in suspensions etc.

There have been plenty of these heard over the past 12 months - the outcomes areon the GRV website or Fasttrack.

Thanks Carole.

Do you remember what year it was?

Thanks again Carole.

I have just looked at the GRV Fastrack website.

Unfortunately race videos for both the semi-final and the Melbourne Cup are listed as being not available.

Well put and perfectly understandable - except for the final conclusion.

The stewards and the judges are there for one primary reason - to decide the winners/placings. The rest is just a follow-up.

In the case of fighters, the vet is irrelevant at this stage. An injury is irrelevant. Either it fought or it didn't.

FTC is much different but not what I am talking about.

If it did fight and harm the chances of another runner then the placings should change. Yes, it would delay proceedings, which is annoying. But the battle is otherwise between justice and Raffertys Rules.

In any event, we are talking about a small percentage of races and an even smaller percentage of those which might be contestable. Further, it is difficult to see how an appeal by an offender would succeed in the face of simple physical evidence (ie turning the head) from different camera angles and their interpretation by people who are supposed to be skilled in precisely that art.

In my version, let's say 99% of wrongs would be righted. Currently, none are.

If a pacer gallops over the line it is DQd on the spot and the placings change. The driver can argue the toss but it still depends only on the steward's opinion of the act for which there is simple video evidence.

If a jockey cuts across or hits a competitor with his whip it may take a little longer but the decision is still made after hearing all views and only then confirming the placings. Messy but fair.

If you overstay your parking limit you can abuse the brown bomber but you will still have to pay the fine. The judge will be interested only in the basic fact. You may get off if you had a heart attack or were delivering a baby but in the other 99% of cases you will still pay.

So, of all the (correct) processes that you list, only one is applicable - did it fight or not? That is much more important than administrative procedures or race delays. The image of the industry is at stake.

And none of the opposing argument addresses the principle that a criminal cannot retain possession of the spoils - in fact, we have a law which allows police to stop that.

In other words, in the entire world, greyhound racing is the only one out of step.

In race 4 at Sandown last night (21st June) Vixstar basically pushed another runner out of its preferred running line. It may or may not have made contact with the head - there were only millimetres in it - but in practice it did no more or less than Hayleys Style did.

Hayleys Style got 28 days, Vixstar got a warning (whatever that means).

My point is that both did pretty much what they would do in the backyard while free galloping. Or what a couple of footballers would do when chasing after the ball. In either case, committing an evil act - fighting or tripping - would attract a penalty but trying to ward off the opponent with the body should not.

It's a question of doing what comes naturally. And, in both cases, the more aggressive and more talented competitor is what we want to encourage - and what we pay more money for. A meek and retiring competitor is never going to make the grade.

Yes, genuine fighters are a pest. But no two circumstances are the same - as shown above. What is a warning but a pale yellow card?

EXTERNAL LINK
Bruce, I agree with you. Vixstar was just doing what comes naturally.

P.S. Does anyone know what the wording of the warning was ????

All I know is what the stewards put on your external link.