1. Paul Anderton's case which has gone from RADB to VCAT to Supreme Court to VCAT has still not been decided, or has it? Seeing that the Racing Minister is also the Attorney General has it been held up for some reason?

2. GRV's Annual Report is one month late from when it normally comes out, is this also being held up for some reason?

Both of these issues could have something that would expose both the Government and GRV and have an influence on the election.

Maybe the latest information that has been exposed by the GOTBA about moneys spent and distribution could be it, who knows. Transparency and GRV or Government are never in the same sentence.

Just sayin something to think about

PS Paul's case has been over 6 months since VCAT adjourned.

Who tipped off who when it come inspection time when was the last Inspection carried out at this establishment and why did no one from the GRV ever find any trace of Rabbits in cages ..it was well Known at the time they used rabbits it just don't make any sense ...

So many innocent people were thrown under the Bus and the attacks these people had to endure was so terrible to see . all they did was trial a dog like thousands of other people had done over the years ......

I hear the PTB only want to hear positive stuff but with this hanging over their heads i believe they want to further divide us and as they say DIVIDE AND CONQUER .....

Without commenting on the detail of these cases I have to point out that if you thumb a lift in the bank robbers' car then you will almost certainly get charged as a bank robber. It will be hard to convince the judge that you were only going to use the ATM.

Cut out your BS analogies Bruce, these are real peoples lives they have ruined, people already suffering life threatening disease such as cancer, others who have lost their job and livelihoods.........one thing apparent to anyone in the know is that these cases clearly needed to be handled with a great deal more care.

The irony is many of these people were hearded like animals but the fact is they are human beings who were ill treated by the ptb.

Great post, Ryno.

On Friday 23 January 2015, GRV staff undertook inspections at a number of
registered trial tracks in Victoria. GRV staff warned those present that rabbits
used on lure arms should be dead, gutted and frozen to avoid any potential
perception that live baiting was occurring.
In January 2015, GRV also made contact with the ABC program Four
Corners, which advised GRV that it intended to air a program regarding
animal cruelty in Greyhound racing in states across the country.
GRV requested the ABC provide footage/photographic evidence of any
Victorian Greyhound trainer using an illegal method to allow GRV to
investigate the allegations, advising the ABC of their zero tolerance towards
illegal or improper training practices.
In response, on Monday 26 January 2015, the ABC advised GRV that it had
nothing described that would be appropriate for GRV to investigate and
would be in touch to discuss filming possibilities for our program on the
welfare of Greyhounds and the racing industry.
On Wednesday 11 February 2015, simultaneous warrants were executed in
Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. In this State, officers of Victoria
Police and RSPCA Victoria conducted a search of a trial track in Tooradin.
On Friday 13 February 2015, the RSPCA Victoria advised my office that the
'Four Corners' program would soon go to air and include allegations of
possible corruption and high-level cover up at GRV of animal cruelty matters.
On the same day, my office received an official complaint from Animals
Australia Inc., including footage allegedly taken covertly at a trial track in
Tooradin. The complaint also included issues surrounding the integrity
processes and systems of GRV and allegations that live baiting in the
Greyhound industry was entrenched, systemic and accepted by trainers.

I referred the complaint and footage as a matter of urgency to both GRV and
Victoria Police on the same day, in accordance with my function of referring
complaints to relevant bodies.
At a special meeting of the Former GRV Board on the afternoon of Friday
13 February 2015, it resolved to immediately suspend 10 registered persons
in Victoria. The registration of a trial track at Tooradin was also suspended on
the same day.
On Monday 16 February 2015, the Minister and the Minister for Agriculture,
the Honourable Jaala Pulford MLC, announced a cross-government
investigation into the live baiting matter. This included an independent
investigation by myself and a separate independent investigation by the
Victorian Chief Veterinary Officer. That same night, the ABCs Four Corners
program aired its expose Making a Killing.
Analysis legal framework
In my view, the existing legal framework in which the Victorian Greyhound
industry operates can, at times, be complex, overlapping and confusing.
An analysis of the legal framework relevant to the Greyhound racing industry
is set out in the body of this report and informs my recommendations. Briefly, I
note that:
 there is no formal legal relationship between the POCTA Act and the
Rules of Racing. Accordingly, registered persons found by a court to be
in breach of this provision of the POCTA Act are not necessarily in
breach of the Rules of Racing or vice-versa;
 there does not appear to be any requirement in GRVs Local Rules that
makes it a legal requirement for GRV to notify law enforcement
agencies of a suspected breach of the laws those agencies enforce,
such as the POCTA Act;

live baiting and blooding of Greyhounds is considered in GRVs
Welfare Penalty Guidelines, with disqualification for 10 years from the
date of penalty imposed being the current recommended penalty;
 under the Act, there is currently no requirement that the GRV Board
include a member with welfare experience;
 there is no overarching national regulatory body or legislative scheme
governing Greyhound racing throughout Australia; and
 under the Act, I do not have the power to compel unlicensed or
unregistered persons or former employees or Board members of the
controlling bodies.
Analysis - Allegations of corruption/knowledge within GRV
I found no evidence to substantiate allegations that GRV staff were involved in
any level of corruption, whether tip offs, leaks or warnings to industry
participants allegedly involved in live baiting.
I acknowledge that many within the Greyhound industry have a perception
that some GRV staff with family or personal connections with industry
participants, should have known of the issue of live baiting, especially in light
of these connections.
One of the allegations levelled during my Inquiry was that when a Steward
penalises a trainer or Greyhound for failure to chase, a regular comment was
passed by the Stewards to that trainer to the effect of you know what to do
thus insinuating that the trainer should provide the Greyhound with a 'live kill'
to improve its performance in races.
This was put forward to me as evidence that the Stewards not only knew
about the practice, but encouraged it when a Greyhound was underperforming.
I found no evidence to support the allegation.

The GRV Board and senior management had taken steps to engage with the
industry in respect to industry and strategic plans, including conducting a
survey of industry participants in 2014 in which only one mention of live
baiting was made in over 600 responses.
Of note was that various parts of the industry actively supported the use of
certain types of lures e.g. Run On, Finish On (FOL) or Hoop lures as a
basis for the argument that these lures negate the perceived advantage
afforded by live baiting. I consider this indicates that live baiting is a known
and ongoing issue in Greyhound racing.
For a number of years, the Greyhound Owners Trainers and Breeders
Association (GOTBA) and racing participants with GRV have raised the use
of alternative lures.
More recently the issue of introducing a Ranger position was suggested by
two reputable industry participants to GRV to improve the regulatory
environment with a focus on education and awareness. Indications are that
the proposers included in their discussions with the Former GRV Board
Chairman and the current GRV Chief Executive Officer (CEO), concerns
about the practice of live baiting.
I have no reason to doubt the credibility of this information. Whilst they did not
provide any detail or information to GRV regarding any specific instances of
live baiting, it is reasonable to suggest that the issue has been raised by
industry participants with GRV.
Analysis - Powers, training and knowledge of GRV staff
Stewards and Welfare Officers are part of GRVs Integrity Racing and
Welfare department (Integrity Department). However, they are subject to
different reporting lines, with Stewards reporting to the Chief Steward and
Welfare Officers reporting to the Greyhound Welfare Manager (see
Attachment A).

There is also a distinction between the powers held by Welfare Officers and
the powers of Stewards. While both positions have the power to enter and
inspect registered persons properties, Stewards have additional enforcement
powers and the ability to impose pecuniary penalties.
Welfare Officers do not conduct investigations relating to breaches of the
Rules of Racing, but instead report suspected breaches to the Stewards, and
subsequently become witnesses in Stewards investigations.
The focus of the Welfare Officers is to inspect registered properties for
Greyhound welfare issues which, if appropriately conducted, have the
potential of identifying the practice of live baiting.
Through my Inquiry, there appear to be several reasons that live baiting was
not detected by Welfare Officers, who are currently charged with the role of
conducting trial track inspections, being:
 lack of legislative powers of inspection (i.e. restricted hours) and
industry status (lack of respect);
 lack of training of integrity-related staff in relation to live baiting and
identifying potential signs of live baiting; and
 lack of Greyhound industry knowledge by Welfare Officers.
The emphasis was on the education and awareness components of their role,
with one Welfare Officer describing a direction from GRV management to take
a softly softly approach towards participants who are not acting in
compliance with the relevant rules.
The GRV CEOs general view was that the softly softly approach only
applied to welfare issues such as compliance with mesh and kennel size, but
not in relation to live baiting.

Analysis - GRV approach to welfare generally
There was, and still is, no centralised case management system or
intelligence database maintained by GRV to record welfare and integrity
information. Without a central repository, intelligence gained by the different
arms of GRV (i.e. Stewards and Welfare Officers) cannot be easily accessed,
retrieved or analysed. Knowledge therefore stays with the person who
obtained it and is not readily available to others.
The reporting lines within the Integrity Department were sometimes blurred.
For example, Welfare Officers sometimes appear to have been subject to the
direction of both the Chief Steward and the Greyhound Welfare Manager.
It was also apparent that most persons consulted with during this Inquiry held
concerns regarding the broader aspects of Greyhound welfare i.e. the lack of
governance over the lifecycle of a Greyhound and the issue of culling. I will
refer to this later in the report.
Analysis - GRV policies and procedures
Prior to the 'Four Corners' program, GRV had two approaches in relation to
the use of dead animals as a lure:
 a direction prohibiting the use of dead animals as a lure at GRV
registered racetracks, which was supported by signage but not a
written policy; and
 a practice that dead animal carcasses could be used in the training of a
Greyhound, which doesnt appear to be supported by a written policy.
In relation to the latter point, there appears to be a lack of a clarity, consistent
approach and advice by GRV staff in respect of the manner in which a dead
animal carcass could be used in Greyhound training. The use of an intact
animal carcass was accepted by some, while other GRV staff gave conflicting
advice suggesting that an animal carcass must be appropriately gutted, and in

some cases frozen, to remove any doubt that the animal was alive at the time
it was placed on a lure.
Documentation regarding these approaches is not available on the GRV
website.
The policies, procedures and approaches by GRV in regards to the
prevention, detection, enforcement of live baiting was in proportion to the
assessed risk i.e. whilst the practice of live baiting had historical and cultural
relevance within the industry, it was not on GRVs radar.
Analysis of consultation
Information from discussions with a number of GRV officials (current and
former), participants, stakeholders and a variety of bodies resulted in the
following consensus of beliefs that are held by others:
 whilst it is possible that the GRV Board or senior management had no
evidence of live baiting occurring at any particular property, they either
knew, or should have known, that live baiting was occurring;
 live baiting is an acceptable historical and cultural practice in
Greyhound racing, which is continued today by some participants;
 the Greyhound racing industry is insular, with a lack of trust by
participants in GRV and a culture that does not accept whistleblowing;
 conflicts of interest exist with key GRV staff, particularly those with
accountabilities for integrity-related functions, due to their family and
personal connections in the industry;
 there is an acceptance that the use of freshly killed animals was
common practice; rabbits are considered vermin and farmers have an
obligation to eradicate them; there is nothing inhumane about
breaking a rabbits neck and then using it on a lure to incentivise a
Greyhound to chase;

there is a current belief amongst some industry participants that live
baiting is a tactic used to improve the performance of a Greyhound (in
spite of lack of scientific proof);
 live baiting is generally used either during the breaking in / education
process of a Greyhound and/or to address performance or lack of
performance;
 Greyhound pups are generally reared at farms and other large
properties where wild rabbits also exist and the pups will chase, and
occasionally kill a rabbit. There is no regulatory framework that will
prevent or detect this activity or participants from releasing a rabbit into
a paddock for a Greyhound pup to chase and kill; and
 there is a lack of GRV Board members with Greyhound knowledge
and/or industry experience
Final findings
Q1. Is live baiting an isolated or a systemic issue in Victoria?
The weight of information received to date from industry participants indicates
live baiting continued to occur (at a minimum, up to the time of the 'Four
Corners' program) as a clandestine method used by some Greyhound trainers
and breakers as a means of educating, breaking in, training and/or improving
the performance of Greyhounds for racing.
There is no direct evidence as to how regular and widespread the practice of
live baiting is/was. Accordingly, while I cannot make a finding of fact that live
baiting has been occurring on a systemic basis, I am confident in my view that
the practice is unlikely to be confined to one property or one group of
participants in Victoria.
The overwhelming circumstantial evidence indicates that live baiting has been
an ongoing practice used at various stages in Greyhound racing.

To be clear, I am not in receipt of any one piece of information that proves live
baiting is occurring, either in a specific instance or as a general practice,
excluding matters currently under investigation by other bodies. However,
taken as a collective, I am satisfied the information received by my office
during the course of this Inquiry indicates that live baiting is well-known and
occurs within the Greyhound racing industry in Victoria.
Q2. Did those in charge at GRV know live baiting was occurring in
Victoria?
It is clear that GRV and the Former GRV Board had not identified animal
welfare issues, other than that of Greyhound welfare, as a current or ongoing
risk.
Whilst the historical practice of live baiting is well known within the industry
and GRV, I am not convinced that GRV considered it to be anything but
isolated and therefore the issue, or the risk of it occurring, was afforded only
minimal attention.
It is evident the Former GRV Board and CEO had a strong focus on
Greyhound welfare, as demonstrated by welfare initiatives such as the
Welfare Penalty Guidelines and the Greyhound Adoption Program (GAP).
However, it is the welfare of the Greyhound itself that seems to be central to
the majority of these initiatives, not the welfare of other animals..
GRV staff denied any specific knowledge of instances of live baiting occurring
(other than those under current investigation) and all denied knowledge that it
was a systemic issue. I have no evidence to the contrary and accept this to be
the case.
All Former GRV Board members denied knowledge of instances of live baiting
occurring in Victoria. I have no evidence to the contrary and accept this to be
the case.

A number of GRV senior management and staff with responsibilities for
integrity and welfare have close connections with industry participants. These
connections include immediate family members who are currently registered
persons. Whilst there is a widely held perception within the Greyhound
industry amongst participants that those staff act to the advantage of their
connections, I have found no evidence to substantiate these perceptions.
It is also understandable that a general perception exists that certain
individuals within GRV staff knew of the practice of live baiting by virtue of
their connections with industry participants, but there is no evidence to date to
support this.
In conclusion, I accept that GRV staff and the Former GRV Board knew of the
largely historical practice of live baiting. However, I do not believe this
knowledge extended to a belief or understanding that live baiting was an
ongoing concern within the Greyhound racing industry.
Q3. Should those in charge at GRV have known of the occurrence of
live baiting in Victoria?
The GRV Board, CEO, senior management and staff with accountability for
integrity and animal welfare accept that the perception is that they should
have known about the practice of live baiting occurring in Victoria.
Regular inspections of (the then six) trial tracks by a dedicated Steward
commenced in 2009 and approximately 77 inspections occurred until 2014.
During this period, the Tooradin Trial Track was inspected on approximately
11 occasions.
A dedicated Welfare Officer officially took over these responsibilities in 2014
and inspected the Tooradin Trial Track approximately a further five times up
to February 2015.

Recent inspections of various properties indicate that the practice of live
baiting was possibly occurring at these locations. Had this information been
appropriately investigated and managed by GRV integrity staff (including
referrals to other agencies) it is conceivable that the practice of live baiting
may have been detected by the organisation.
In my view, Welfare Officers should not have been given the task of
undertaking inspections of trial tracks without the same powers, training and
industry knowledge of experienced Stewards, who previously undertook this
role.
Additionally, both Stewards and Welfare Officers were limited by the operation
of the Act, which provides that they may only inspect premises at any
reasonable hour (ie during daylight hours on a weekday).
I consider that if GRV had:
 had the trust of industry participants with knowledge of ongoing live
baiting and who were willing to report instances of live baiting to GRV;
 provided appropriate training to Welfare Officers, including imparting
industry knowledge;
 appointed Welfare Officers as Stewards and, therefore, conferred on
them broader powers, including the power to investigate/enforce; and
 appropriate legislative powers, including those to enter properties at
any time,
GRV would have increased its capability and the likelihood of it detecting the
ongoing practice of live baiting.
Q4. Were the governance controls in place in GRV adequate?
GRV underwent significant change in 2012 with the appointment of a new
Board and CEO.

In 2014, the GRV Strategic Plan identified Greyhound welfare as its first
strategic competency.
I find that welfare and integrity related issues are often interrelated. When
Welfare Officers were assigned responsibility for trial track inspections, it
became apparent that a cross-over in reporting lines between Stewards and
Welfare Officers would eventuate. No apparent governance controls appear to
have been implemented by GRV to facilitate this change in responsibility.
Whilst there were some governance controls in place, in hindsight, it is clear
they were not effective in identifying the practice of live baiting.
Q5. Is there is any evidence of alleged corruption or cover up by GRV
officials?
I am not in receipt of any evidence of GRV staff covering up, or being
complicit in live baiting or acting corruptly.
However, industry participants raised conflicts of interest concerns due to
GRV staff who are responsible for policing due to their personal and family
connections with industry participants. My view is that this results in distrust of
GRV staff by industry participants, and is a factor in the reticence of
participants to come forward (and report issues such as live baiting) and is the
cause of complaints regarding favourable treatment of registered persons with
GRV connections.
I am of the view that until such time that the GRV Board addresses this issue,
industry confidence in GRV will be affected.
Q6. Are welfare issues adequately addressed in the Rules of
Racing/GRV policies?
In 2009 GRV, or the Board at the time, directed that only cured skins and
synthetic material be used on the lure arms at race tracks. Signage was
placed at race tracks advising of same.

While my office was able to locate media statements referring to this direction,
no written policy in relation to this directive appears to exist. There is also no
central repository for GRV Board directions or policies to confirm this.
Additionally, I consider that animal welfare-related issues are significant
enough to warrant inclusion in the Rules of Racing and should not be
relegated only to directions or policies.
Final recommendations
My Interim Report set out six recommendations. These have been supported
by a full investigation and have been endorsed in this Final Report, with
amendments made as necessary. I have also provided commentary regarding
GRVs response to the recommendations in the body of this report.
I have also made a further 12 recommendations based on the additional
information gleaned since the Interim Report.
Recommendation 1: Powers of integrity-related GRV staff (Previous
Interim Recommendation)
That GRVs Animal Welfare Compliance and Education Officers and
Investigators be designated as Stewards for the purposes of the Rules of
Racing and legislative and rule changes occur to increase and clarify their
powers of entry and inspection.
Recommendation 2: Governance and controls over Greyhound training,
participants and properties (Previous Interim Recommendation)
That GRV introduce a regulatory framework for all premises and persons
involved in the rearing, education, breaking in and training of Greyhounds.
Recommendation 3: Review and trial of use of alternative lures (Previous
Interim Recommendation)
That GRV undertake a comprehensive review and trial of alternative methods
to assist Greyhounds to consistently chase the lure and perform at their best
e.g. run on and hoop lures.

Recommendation 4: Commit to a ban on all animals as lures (Previous
Interim Recommendation)
That GRV commit to the Board resolution of 17 February 2015 by amending
the Rules of Racing so only lures made of synthetic or artificial materials can
be used in the training of Greyhounds at all registered properties.
Recommendation 5: Restrict transfer of a Greyhound from a disqualified
or suspended person (Previous Interim Recommendation)
That GRV introduce requirements that:
a) all trainers that are subject of a suspension or disqualification, must obtain
prior approval from the Chief Steward or his/her delegate before being
permitted to transfer their Greyhounds to another registered person;
b) to prohibit the transfer of Greyhounds from a suspended or disqualified
person to a relative, spouse or legally defined partner; and
c) that any suspension of a registered person also apply to that persons
property and/or properties.
Recommendation 6: Stakeholder engagement with animal welfare
groups (Previous Interim Recommendation)
That GRV initiate formalised agreements/ Memoranda of Understanding with
relevant animal welfare groups. Such agreements to include arrangements for
the exchange of information and immediate reporting of alleged and
suspected animal cruelty related issues in the Greyhound industry to relevant
authorities.
GRV may also consider working together with relevant animal welfare groups
to develop an education campaign for the benefit of the industry and the
public in relation to raising awareness of animal cruelty issues.

Recommendation 7: Appointment of a dedicated Law Enforcement
Liaison Officer (New recommendation)
That GRV nominate an appropriately trained and qualified dedicated Law
Enforcement Liaison Officer to liaise with relevant law enforcement agencies
(e.g. Victoria Police, RSPCA) on a regular basis and identify inter-agency
training opportunities, particularly in relation to compliance with, and
enforcement of, areas of shared or overlapping concern.
Recommendation 8: Welfare training (New Recommendation)
That GRV introduce structured, comprehensive training to staff who conduct
property inspections or who are otherwise involved in the welfare of
Greyhounds generally, including Stewards, welfare officers and other
members of the Integrity Department.
Recommendation 9: Amend Local Rules to incorporate reciprocal
cruelty breaches and monetary units (New Recommendation)
That GRV review and amend the Local Rules, where relevant, to address the
following issues:
a) while GRV retains the discretion to suspend, disqualify or warn off
registered participants at any time, that a breach of section 13 of the POCTA
Act (and any other relevant provision) is automatically considered to be a
breach of the Rules of Racing; and
b) that penalties are, and seen to be, of substantial effect to act as a
deterrent.
Recommendation 10: Review of Welfare Penalty Guidelines (New
Recommendation)
That the Rules of Racing, policies, governance controls and Welfare Penalty
Guidelines be reviewed to ensure that, where appropriate:
a) provisions are drafted in a language consistent with other relevant laws,
wheresoever possible or practicable;
b) breaches of welfare-related provisions are rigorously enforced; and

c) the penalty for welfare-related issues are at a sufficient level to act as a
deterrent.
Recommendation 11: Mandatory reporting (New Recommendation)
That the Rules of Racing, appropriate GRV policies and GRV processes are
amended and/or introduced to ensure the mandatory reporting of prima facie
criminal offences to the relevant law enforcement body such as Victoria Police
and RSPCA Victoria.
Recommendation 12: Establishment of an independent integrity body
(New Recommendation to this Inquiry but restating of a current
Recommendation to government)
That Government amend the Racing Act 1958 (Vic) to establish one statutory
independent body with accountability for racing integrity across the three
codes, removing such responsibility from the controlling bodies, confer all
powers and privileges and authorities of Stewards, integrity and welfare staff,
including powers over non-licensed persons, and to transfer current integrity
services staff, Stewards, welfare officers and existing integrity budgets to the
newly formed body.
Recommendation 13: GRV Board composition (New Recommendation)
That Government amend the Act to include the requirement that an
appropriately qualified person with a background in animal welfare is
appointed to the GRV Board.
I submit that this recommendation also be considered for application to the
Boards of Racing Victoria Limited, and Harness Racing Victoria in recognition
of the importance of animal welfare issues in their respective codes.
Recommendation 14: National approach (New Recommendation)
That the Minister for Racing considers recommending, through appropriate
channels, that State and Territory integrity bodies meet to review the findings
of state-based Live Baiting Review teams with a view to sharing knowledge
and awareness and adopting a coordinated approach to integrity-related and
animal welfare matters.

Recommendation 15: GRV information management
(New Recommendation)
That GRV reviews the potential for the FastTrack system to contain a secure,
access controlled and encrypted information management system that allows
information to be collected, collated, analysed, reported and disseminated as
required between relevant (authorised) areas of GRV. Failing this possibility,
that GRV identifies a non-FastTrack system to provide the aforementioned
functionality.
Recommendation 16: GRV Policy processes (New Recommendation)
That GRV introduce the requirement that all policies be in written form and
recorded on the relevant page on the GRV website for easy access by
industry participants and the wider community.
Recommendation 17: Extend powers of the Racing Integrity
Commissioner (New Recommendation)
That Government amend the Act to enable the Racing Integrity
Commissioners powers to also apply to persons who have been licensed or
registered in the racing industry within the preceding three years.
Recommendation 18: Review of the management of conflicts of interest
(New Recommendation)
That the GRV Board consider the review of the management of conflicts of
interest in order to ensure that industry participants have confidence in the
impartiality of GRV staff.
Conclusion
The practice of live baiting exists in Greyhound history and culture and was
handed down, like other knowledge of the industry, from one generation to
another. Over time the nature and extent has diminished aligned with
community values and concerns.
There are some participants, however, who have continued to use this
anachronistic practice and their actions were brought to light in the most
public of forums by way of the 'Four Corners' program.

In July 2014 GRV introduced the Animal Welfare Penalty Guidelines (effective
1 July 2014) (Welfare Penalty Guidelines) and the GRV CEO released an
open letter on the GRV website that included the statement that GRV had no
tolerance to the use of live animals for the training of Greyhounds, in any
circumstance.
In early August 2014, GRV found a shed at a property which contained LIVE
rabbits not stored in cages (known as a rabbit room). GRV DID NOT REPORT this
discovery to the RSPCA Victoria for potential breaches of the POCTA Act at
that time.
On Wednesday 13 August 2014, GRV advised participants by way of letter
that LIVE animals of any species that could be considered a potential lure or
bait should not be housed at a Greyhound training facility whether it be a
private property or a TRIAL track to prevent any confusion in relation to the
POCTA Act.
In December 2014, GRV Welfare Officers visited a registered trial track and
issued a verbal warning to the track owner when they discovered a dead
rabbit on a lure arm that had not been GUTTED.
In mid January 2015, Welfare Officers visited another property where a RABBIT
room had previously been located in August 2014. GRV REPORTED the
discovery to RSPCA Victoria for potential breaches of the POCTA Act.
RSPCA Victoria subsequently attended the property in the company of GRV
staff, but NO LIVE rabbits were located.
On Friday 23 January 2015, GRV staff undertook inspections at a number of
registered trial tracks in Victoria. GRV staff warned those present that rabbits
used on lure arms should be dead, gutted and frozen to avoid any potential
perception that live baiting was occurring.
In January 2015, GRV also made contact with the ABC program Four
Corners, which advised GRV that it intended to air a program regarding
animal cruelty in Greyhound racing in states across the country.
GRV requested the ABC provide footage/photographic evidence of any
Victorian Greyhound trainer using an illegal method to allow GRV to
investigate the allegations, advising the ABC of their zero tolerance towards
illegal or improper training practices.
In response, on Monday 26 January 2015, the ABC advised GRV that it had
nothing described that would be appropriate for GRV to investigate and
would be in touch to discuss filming possibilities for our program on the
welfare of Greyhounds and the racing industry.
On Wednesday 11 February 2015, simultaneous warrants were executed in
Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. In this State, officers of Victoria
Police and RSPCA Victoria conducted a search of a trial track in Tooradin.
On Friday 13 February 2015, the RSPCA Victoria advised my office that the
'Four Corners' program would soon go to air and include allegations of
possible corruption and high-level cover up at GRV of animal cruelty matters.
On the same day, my office received an official complaint from Animals
Australia Inc., including footage allegedly taken covertly at a trial track in
Tooradin. The complaint also included issues surrounding the INTEGRITY
processes and systems of GRV and allegations that live baiting in the
Greyhound industry was entrenched, systemic and accepted by TRAINERS.

Ryan,

I did say I did not want to comment on the detail.

However, it is relevant to consider the unchallenged implication and finding that live baiting and probably its location were common knowledge to most or all of the industry. In fact, in evidence before the Qld Inquiry, a sitting board member (and owner) said precisely that. Would Vic be any different?

Collateral damage is never fair but it happens.

I cant wait to see the public statement from Alan Clayton

Agree Doug

Great to see justice prevail...I am wrapped with this result it and it tells us no matter what never ever GIVE UP truth and Justice will always win out in the end ...

Bruce you keep harping back to LB...........most of us are well past that.

This is more about how PEOPLES civil rights have been traded for what appears to be political gain.

What normally happens when collateral damage is apparent or discovered, is that the aggrieved parties are compensated.......how do you think that's going for the victims of 'collateral damage'?

Ryan,

It is now clear - following the VCAT decision - that Anderton was adhering to the rules at the time. They have since been changed. That closes a particular chapter (perhaps).

More relevant is the big picture, but first I would add a personal point. Events of the past three years have played a big part in destroying the enjoyment I have had in this industry over half a century. No doubt it has affected others in the same way.

Consider the position of one sector of the industry - trainers. And remember they are just one sector, not the beginning and end of everything.

They break down into three categories:

(A) Those who sought out and paid for live baiting at places like Tooradin.
(B) Those who patronised places like Tooradin but did not utilise live baiting.
(C) Those who knew what was going on at Tooradin, did not take part at all but did nothing about it.

My guess is that those three groups accounted for a huge percentage of the trainer group - maybe all of them.

For the first two groups I have nothing but disgust, for the last group I am very disappointed. It's not just a matter of breaking a rule but of insulting the community in which they live and on which they depend for their livelihood. Abuse of animals - any animals - is contrary to the spirit as well as the law in that community. And, whether dead or alive, those animals have been abused.

As for "harping back to LB...........most of us are well past that" - no you're not, not by a long way. Numerous trainers are still complaining about the ban on skins on lures, still talking about the FOL, still rubbishing the suggestions from WDA, still complaining about extra regulations. They just won't admit guilt. They won't take responsibility.

Even were trainers to suddenly turn squeaky clean, the public will not accept that. The average man or woman in the street does not believe it and it will take a least another generation to reverse the trend.

You see, at the core, Mike Baird was right, even though he got all his facts wrong (as did McHugh). The community objected to wholesale euthanasia, despite the fact that it was (and is) a legal function, despite the fact that RSPCA and local Councils did likewise. The majority see greyhound racing as a bloodthirsty sport. Live baiting cemented that in their minds - and in the platform adopted by AA, ABC, Fairfax, Greens, etc. You can't just erase that by saying we don't do it any more.

The industry's first task is to change the industry's (ie trainers') culture. The second is to take that refreshed culture out to the public. GAP is great but it must be multiplied a hundredfold, preferably with trainers leading the way.

Mike Baird is (was) responsible to the public. So are you, unless you want to commit suicide.

In fact, if you really want to analyse the industry, first have a long think about why Baird and Grant developed a personal dislike of the greyhound. What would have caused that?

Who cares why they developed personal dislikes for greyhound racing, the facts are their actions were extremist and as a result were dealt with appropriately.

What they did was turn a nationwide billion dollar industry into a million dollar industry with no long term answers for making up the shortfall.

They were irresponsible to the public, that's why they're out as I see it.

The response from you and mates was pretty much what I expected - water of a duck's back, mate, I have been listening to it for years. Much abuse and plenty of incorrect facts, or no facts.

Re the "billion dollar industry" - income is not the problem, or not at the moment. Expenses are. Get your sums up to date or ask Vic GOTBA. Authorities have grabbed a bigger slice of the pie, trainers end up with less as a result.

Baird and Grant are out not because of an issue with the dogs, although that started them off, but because the public were furious at him banning an entire industry. They realised that was over the top, particularly those who were small operators in other industries. So did several media types.

Both made emotional decisions which, technically speaking, is contrary to protocol and possibly law around the cabinet table (see Auditor General's report). Likewise, the Grant brief to McHugh contained leading questions which would have been invalidated in a normal court. I imagine McHugh recognised that, too, which might be why a ban was only one of 70-odd recommendations.

In Baird's case there is a family dislike of gambling, possibly sourced in Christ's action to throw the money lenders out of the temple. His old man was leader of the Bible study group in Federal Parliament. Now junior is working for one of the biggest money lenders of them all. Go figure.

In the event, the Orange by-election called their bluff and so both realised their day was gone. Don't for a minute think others in their parties did not influence those decisions.

But leave all that aside. The real problem is trainer culture, as repeatedly demonstrated on these pages. It makes you sitting ducks. Ignore that at your peril.

And, yes, I realise "you're on your own here". I got told that 20 years ago but everything that has happened since has proved me right. Some people are now in jail, and more should be, many others have been sacked. So I will keep asking questions.