I agree with you and a 520m dog is not a 720m dog.

Whoa back. Let's find out exactly what is happening first.

The UTS report was clearly marked "interim" and many individual items needed to be taken further. That applied especially to sample numbers, which were often too small to be taken literally.

Similarly, it mentioned lower interference in straight racing but did not specifically recommend a big shift in that direction. It was simply stating the obvious. GRNSW at the time jumped to a conclusion and therefore queried all clubs to see who wanted to go that way - a very shallow approach. (Not unlike reviewers concluding overbreeding caused all the problems - ie without proper analysis).

Less than 8 runners prompted an "official" experiment at Lismore which proved absolutely nothing. Using young or maiden runners would not have helped.

Comparing WPK 520 and 720 is the blind leading the blind. Both have faults but I would claim 520 first turn is the worst, partly for some of the reasons you mention. Anyway, there is only a marginal difference between the first sectionals as far as we know (the 720 early sectional is rarely ever published for reasons that are impossible to fathom).

There is one stark comparison between the two; 520 winning boxes are more traditionally biased - ie 1, 2, 8 etc, whereas 720 winning boxes are fairly evenly spread. That accords with your point about different types of dogs competing - ie fewer fast beginners over 720.

(Anyway I have seen many a 4-dog race where interference decided the outcome).

In both cases adjustments were made to the rail on the approach to the turns in Aug 2001. Those changes made things worse - definitely increasing the difficulty of getting around in one piece due to some dogs running off (they always did that but not so unpredictably). Those same cutaway techniques were applied to Launceston and the old Cannington by the same builder with the same poor outcomes. If you want a nice house you first get an architect to do the design for the builder to follow.

My observation (plus analysis of track/trip data) is that falls and heavy interference are due to three major factors; clumsy dogs trying to move up, dogs boxed upside down and crowding on the turn. By definition, the first two can occur anywhere while the latter is independent of the number of starters - ie it is always amongst the first few scrambling to gain the front. The UTS interim report is consistent with that as it also shows where injuries occurred.

UTS also suspects later release of the lids might help and that experiments are warranted. I am extremely doubtful. (Bloodied noses? Squeakers?). And it wants experiments with higher/stand-up lid apertures. Not sure about that.

Too early to call.

Petar,

Specifics aside, this is the secret of future profitability. A greyhound track cannot stand on its own economically. It urgently needs to merge with other activities which use the same complex, partly to spread costs and partly to encourage wider patronage of the greyhound track and related facilities.

Multi-code tracks are not ideal due to the longer distances involved but they can be a small help. Better would be a range of other recreational activities or even commercial or industrial operations - all so long as they promote movement of people over the day and across the week. Your Fairfield example moves in that direction.

It's all very well to keep trainers happy but the key location is one where the public can obtain easy access - and be keen to do so.

Pretty sure that was just the home turn Bruce.

I know that was when a 30.40 run at Wenty became equivalent to a 30.25 run there after they adjusted the home turn.

The work at Wentworth Park is happening next week. Now hopefully they are just going to do the camber and/or track widening, maybe move the boxes wider. However, there are rumours, from different sources, that the 520m distance is to be shortened. This combined with the markings on the track mean that, at the very least, it is a possibility of happening next week.

Under your advice we should wait to find out for sure. At that point the work will have been done and there will be no possibility of changing it.

I would rather point out the problems with it beforehand, so that if they were going to do it there is a chance they will change their minds.

The fact that it has taken this long from when the report was released for them to decide to do this work also suggests that GRNSW did not consider it important and necessary at the time. My guess it is the million dollar race that has made them change their mind.

Ryan,

No mate - both. The "builder" even phoned me 6 months later to ask about the effect of the changes. I told him it was not good - due to increased running-off etc. I backed that up with updated evidence of changes to winning boxes.

Incidentally, it was some years before the "official" or deFax numbers were updated so as to restart in Aug 2001. Until they did that the data was a mix of oranges and apples. Much the same happened with the 2010 changes to Maitland. GIGO resulted. I kept the figures manually from week to week.

The upshot at Wenty 520 was specifically that good, hard railers gained extra ground on the field - one covering a shorter distance on the rail, the others tending to be thrown wide.

A couple of Eggs were won that way. There was also a race at Wenty last night where a slow beginner whizzed around on the paint while the others ran off.

720 data is much harder to fathom due to different sorts of dogs.

The impact at Launceston and Cannington - with the same treatment - was comparable. Hard railers could manage the turn, others could not, hence increased box bias and an unfair trip. At Maitland a similar cutaway helped a rise in winners from 1,2,8 and a squeeze-out for the remainder. For different reasons this theme is also why Meadows favours the inside railer more than might be expected - ie vis a vis Sandown.

No idea about any 30.40 v 30.25 change but there were other surface and maintenance differences over the period and they could confuse. Remember Wenty has three cooks stirring the pot - Trust, GBOTA and GRNSW!!

However, in general, winning boxes tell you more about track design than times do.

It beggars belief that GRNSW would be planning on such a fundamental change to the country's oldest and (once) biggest betting track without telling anyone, or even asking for views.

It is even more ridiculous that they would define as "remedial" a basic change in distance. So I will let that thru to the keeper.

What a pity they have not told us what they are actually doing. (Ditto for Gosford). That is arrogant.

And I repeat - the UTS report was "interim" only. The final report is some time away.

Dunno much about track design, but always thought Wenty was a pretty fair track and found the times fairly accurate until a few yrs ago where the track was fluctuating badly week to week. Loved backing dogs like Suits Us, Winsome Charlee and Riza Ryder there to name a few.

Exactly, there have been times when the surface/maintenance issues reared their heads and prompted major time queries.

However, those 2001 changes were generated by a general belief that the turns were too unpredictable. Yet they always had been, although there was one period when they made a big effort to improve/increase the camber on the 520 turn. Sadly, that died away as weather took over.

Now UTS is trying - via maths and evidence - to find their way to a better design solution. Time will tell.

Anyway, for years a few of us patronised Wenty (Mon) but eventually two factors caused its sacking; favourites became too short and first turn crashes eliminated reasonable results for exotics. Sat was devoted to Beaumont Park which was a very specialised track but good when you knew what made it tick. It also had a good bookmaker ring until, of course, the whole show shut down.

I long ago dumped Wenty entirely for these reasons. The percentages are not there.

In summary, a "safe" track is nice for everyone but a reliable and consistent track is essential for good punting. This is something that authorities seem not to realise how it affects business.

I won't claim to be a design expert but I do know - with authoritative data over many years - what does not work. I also know that (pre-Newson) most people, clubs and authorities, either could not care less or just applied dumb fixes to tracks. Newson's employment of UTS represents the first attempt in some 90 years to investigate what goes into the design and build of a track.

(One small exception to the above is that GRSA brought in some outside people to advise on Angle Park, hence a move of the 515 boxes and some other work).

I recall that you like Albion Park, which was designed by an engineer cum greyhound enthusiast Bede Ireland. Well, good luck to you but I keep seeing too many first turn clashes there, together with running off and falls. It has design problems. But it possibly illustrates the point that, like dogs, a punter can become a specialist at a certain track, obviously by knowing and avoiding all the pitfalls.

Too true.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Is there anyway anyone there can find out what was actually done ?

thx for the topic Carly.

No, Schultz answers the phone..

EXTERNAL LINK

Announced that night that theyd be making a decision in the next 48hrs. That was a quick decision, lol. They certainly were seriously thinking of it.... (520m)

The flagship track demands two qualities.

1. It has to be a good circuit - kind to dogs and punters. At the moment neither Wenty nor Richmond rate, although they are fixable.
2. It has to be accessible to fans. Richmond misses out again. Examples such as Fairfield or the Olympic area would be better.

PS Money is going to Gosford, partly because GBOTA did a poor job in the first place. And the Gardens was set up by NCA, not GBOTA, but also poorly. Amateur hour. Gunnedah can hardly be blamed on GBOTA but you can blame them for fooling around with the first turn at Maitland.

PS2: Supporters of Richmond can go on all they like but that will not fix the flat first turn or the horror 400m start.