Bruce

Now take this advice from someone who knows how to train a stayer and stop pontificating as if you know what makes a stayer tick

Geoff,

Absolutely, the throw-back would be an important matter. Perhaps why USA dogs have different muzzle styles? I don't envy you the post-race clean-up time, nor any possible effect on the dog's confidence.

I would have to look up those Sale dates to comment properly but wasn't that when there were high temps around? And the tight 650m first turn can be a real terror, depending on how they hit it.

But I don't see how this directly affects the discussion, which started off with stayers backing up and flowed on to the effect of rain on race times.

I have demonstrated to the maximum extent possible that the Cup night track was not slow - that rain usually helps speed up the track - and that (for the umpteenth time) that the majority of stayers cannot maintain top form after only a 7 day break.

If anyone has a better set of facts I would be happy to hear them. Meantime, the claim that "Oh, it was raining, therefore it is slow" simply does not stand up in theory or in practice.

On the other hand, if that throw-back was excessive then obviously following dogs would tend to run slower times. By the same token, slush like that would also suggest a slow track for leaders, too. That was not the case here.

Overall, the really vital question is whether or not it is a good idea to ask stayers to do it again in 7 days - or are there other options? And then, are we producing enough good stayers and, if not, why not?

One thing I would suggest is going back through a stayer's career and trying to identify why its performances varied from time to time. There will be a host of possible reasons but there will also be patterns which are plain to see. For example, if you were to look at Chinatown Lad you would find a lot of top staying runs but also a gradual degradation throughout its last year. Injuries or niggles might have played a part, but it also hardly ever had a break - racing and trialling - while criss-crossing the continent.

Many others can run what can only be described as a flash in the pan - never to be repeated. Or you have Fanta Bale which never ran top time but was the most consistent racer you have ever seen. Or you have genuinely fast stayers like Space Star and Xylia Allen, neither of which could back up their top performances - never. Miata probably could although it did get interrupted by injury in the latter stages of its career. And so on and so forth, rain or shine.

It is not my job to "know what makes a stayer tick".

All I can do is observe and count. And ask questions.

For example, last night at Sandown a stayer failed when favourite so the stewards queried the connections. Yet the dog got belted in the guts half way round and faded. My observation was that the stewards were wasting their breath. The trainer's rep said the same thing. No questions were necessary. I could have said that this particular dog needed to lead (as the handler also said) but that would have been just an opinion. The next time out it may still be worrying about getting hit - or it may not. I would let it go and come back later on. The trainer (Britton) no doubt knows what makes it tick - but I have the luxury of waiting it out. Lucky me.

Each to his own.

Geoff,

As I suspected, Dundee Osprey's 37.88 win in the 2016 Sale Cup was run in what stewards called "Heat Affected" conditions. I think I remember 35 to 40 degree temps at the time. Dogs were coming out of a 21 degree kennel into a furnace. The previous week was closer to normal but a bit of rain would have helped maintain track speed and 37.23 is pretty smart. On the other hand, aside from dog impacts, high temps on the 26th would dry out the track quickly and promote slower times.

The situation also led to GRV revamping heat rules in January 2017 - for both travel and racing.

But by inferring that you think that stayers should be rested by more than 7 days after a peak run, you are making an inference on what YOU THINK is BETTER FOR THEM

Question is though, how do you know that is a peak run?

It's only based on historical statistical analysis.

In fact what you are therefore admitting that you dont actually know what staying potential the dog may have to better that peak run at the time you wish to have a bet.

Reason is, because you make these observations after the end of a dog's career, not while it is creating its career.

Also in fact, you are only looking at statistical analysis that can be manipulated by many external factors, too many of which there are to mention

Therefore, if your historical statistics tell you that you shouldn't back the same stayer within 7 days of a peak performance, then that is fine, if you can pick the peak performance at the time.

You are entitled to do that to improve your own wealth or those of who you advise

However, when you start making inferences on how many days a trainer should rest his dog or how often it should be raced, then you are crossing a line that you have admitted in many discussions on here, that you know nothing about

Sandro,

NO mate, you are supplying answers to your own questions, not mine.

My basic premise is twofold:

1. The majority of dogs cannot do the backup and perform to their earlier standard. Note "majority". That is a statistical fact, proven over 15 years or so.
2. It's not always easy to determine which dogs will fit into that majority group and which not. A good history will help, but that is not always available. The answer then is don't bet at all. Just watch.

Therefore, your claim that "Reason is, because you make these observations after the end of a dog's career, not while it is creating its career" is completely wrong. If I have offered career evidence it was only to reinforce the principle during this discussion. That is, some dogs show repeated evidence of the same syndrome.

As for "you are only looking at statistical analysis that can be manipulated by many external factors, too many of which there are to mention" - well, of course, but I go to great lengths to assess those other factors - distance capability, box position, track suitability, sectional times, track speed (see previous discussion), career pattern (NB my earlier comments on Chinatown Lad), class (not easy), even age or maturity, and so on. Having done all that neither you or I can achieve perfection but we can try to get as close as humanly possible. And then we can compare our estimate with the price on offer. If I think it is a 2/1 shot and they offer 3/1 I will probably bet. If the reverse, I won't

More often than not, I stay out. But sometimes I may bet on a longer priced dog because of the backup principle. One illustration is that after Xylia Allen broke the WPK record in a heat I chose to downgrade it because of it previous form in that situation and go elsewhere. What happened in the final? It led comfortably but compounded on the home turn and faded.

Another extreme case would be No Donuts, a very good middle distance dog and winner of one good 700 (a heat). I doubted its long term ability from the pattern and times of its runs. So I stayed out but the mob backed the pants of it at its next three 700s and it failed in every one of them, always fading after entering the home straight. Tens of thousands went down the drain.

Equally, some time back I wrote a column suggesting that Sweet It Is was a real betting hassle - and got thumped by some readers as a result. But pull out its history, or any part of it, and see how you go by placing a $1 on the nose every time it raced. You would have lost your bank. Its price was always way below its real chances.

It's got nothing to do with telling a trainer what to do - it is simply a matter of assessing abilities and odds.

The converse to all that is that you (and possibly Geoff) appear to say that backing up in 7 days is not a problem. Leave it to the trainer. Yet you offer no real evidence at all - just a belief. Sadly, they don't pay on beliefs.

Nor have either of you offered suggestions about an alternative approach to heat/final series for 700s. Or about the potential harm it can do to an individual dog - not all, but some.

Today, for several reasons, that's all got too hard to do. That's why I no longer bet.

PS: As an aside, I would love to be able to tell accurately when a dog reaches a "peak", as you call it. I have tried a lot of approaches but without success.

PS2: As I suggested elsewhere, you can make a selection based on a dog's best run, or an average of several runs. Both have their points but using an average is by far the most reliable approach.

PS3: Generally speaking, I do not and have not offered "advice", or tips. Our objective was to supply comprehensive data to customers so they could make up their own minds. That embraced much more than you would ever see in a formguide.

PS4: My implications (not inferences) about racing frequency involve purely the performance of dogs once they arrive at the track. Unrelated to me are why trainers do what they do and how they vary, one from the other. Having said that, I note that there are some rules stopping 2 day backups, so there must be some scientific reasoning behind that. Therefore I am offering evidence to suggest such policies be extended in certain cases.

From fasttrack

XYLIA ALLEN
725 MEA R8 27/09/2014 42.86 4.99 1111
725 MEA R5 20/09/2014 43.06 4.97 1111

Xylia ran 3rd and 2nd above respectively after leading most of the way.

SPACE STAR
725 MEA R3 28/02/2015 41.93 4.97 1111
725 MEA R5 21/02/2015 42.06 5.03 4111
Space Star won both races

Not only did both dogs back up in 7 days but both improved from one week to the next. Both had clear runs.

Like a true punter you have tried to hedge your bets, but I am not buying it

One the one hand you disagree with me all the way and give me 3 examples out of the whole history of greyohund racing (obviously
sour grapes as you have done your A$se on them)and then on the other hand you cover your firmly spanked A4se with a string of PS's at the end

Citing Sweet It is as an example, she was improving rapidly when she won the Association Cup

I dont think there was any stayer in Australia that could have held her out that night with the run she got into the race

Therefore, if you Bruce, happened to back her that night, you fluked it, because you were gambling on Xylia Allen not being able to repeat her run of the week before, not because you thought Sweet It Is was approaching peak or was a better stayer

Anyone who followed greyhounds and was hands on would know that Xylia Allen was a sprinter/middle distance dog given a chance to win feature distance races

She virtually sprinted 720m the week before and quite rightly did produce a gut buster as you called it

Sweet It Is was a dour stayer and her racing style would never lend itself to winning as often as she should due to having to come from the back of the field every start

Also being so dour, some days , she just went missing...but there was no doubting her class and stamina when she was on song

There is a lot of work to be done to keeping stayers focussed and injury free due tot he greater stress they place on their bodies and the work that needs to be done on them

There is no evidence to suggest that if given a longer break that they will perform any better as they would still need to have a solid trial even if given 10-14 day break.

There is no advantage to such a dog to have a complete break and come back fresh after two weeks unless it is exceptionally clean winded and these types are few and far between

Any dog can put in a bad run for any reason, it could have an upset stomach, something could have stirred it up in the racing kennels and made it anxious/nervous, it could be fighting a virus, it could have been battling a niggling injury, it could have picked up a tendwn strain during the run which wouldn;t expose itself until the next day, it could have copped a clod of dirt in the face during the run etc etc etc

They are dogs, they are inexact, they cant talk to us nd to expect them to run like machines running the same time week after week to satisfy to satisfy your statistical analysis is not only unrealistic but just really shows how much you don;t understand about racing animals

It's probably a good thing that you gave up punting on them

Ryno

He makes up his own facts as he goes along

If he lost money on it, the fantasmical excuse just gains largesse

CLICK HERE
Miss Grub

Nother elite stayer all races

CLICK HERE

Flashing Floods

Irish Sidirian Lisa note Clonmel gallops

CLICK HERE
As has been stated tracks vary in times day to day be it climate track prep ,hare driver etc ad infinitum as has been shown on this thread have you compared 520 dogs backing up on same track same meetings(where stayers are backing up too) Bruce? Box draws? weather ? Race time i.e. race number.If Paul Ambrosoli was on 'em?

Ryan,

You have plucked out some examples at the end of Xylia Allen's career, by which time she was a spent force. Those times were moderate at best - some 15 lengths outside the record - and she faded at the end. Have a look at the video of her following race over 515m a week later when she should have been pinged for FTC but presumably stewards respected her history. And she was soon retired. Clearly, the connections had failed to recognise the degradation in a once very good bitch.

In doing that you have also ignored half a dozen cases where she could not handle the backup. Why so?

Space Star certainly put in those two top runs - one a record - yet a week later again it ran 8 lengths slower. Given a 3 week break, it returned to top form at Wenty. Overall, there were four occasions in its career where it failed to hold form a week later, and none where it improved, except for the small example quoted.

I really don't know what you guys are trying to prove. This is not a black and white subject and I have been at pains to point out that it affects the majority of dogs, not all. In the Bold Trease it did apply to all runners but in the next case it might be half of them. (The long term average is about 65%). As Sandro points out, there are numerous things which can affect a dog's fitness or keenness.

Whatever, an overall pattern of racing exists and it is concerning. If you want to ignore it, go for your life but it will not alter the facts.

It also throws some doubt on those who maintain the "the trainer knows best" - as I am often told. Yet often the facts show they don't or are simply hoping against hope that something good will happen.

Incidentally, neither humans or horses are asked to do this, or if they are it usually is reflected in poor form. Why should greyhounds, basically bred to sprint, be any different?

Jim,

Personally, I regard Miss Grub as a good solid stayer, not "elite". However, she did have injury problems.

Flashing Floods was a very fine middle distance dog which sometimes managed to hang on to win a long race - many have done likewise.

To the maximum extent possible I consider all those factors and more, bar the lure driver.

While my comments have concerned 700s it is a moot point as to how much it affects the 500s. Perhaps, but it is hard to separate cause and effect in those cases. Obviously, shorter races take less out of an animal than long runs but it depends on how much they have to give in the first place and whether they have been sufficiently "hardened". We have to rely on the trainer, don't we?

Whatever, the 500s are littered with dogs that can't run out the trip. That's only natural as this is a sprinting breed we are talking about. More important is whether that strength is improving or weakening overall. I have my doubts.

You made that statement above about Xylia and Space Star. I gave you 2 examples disproving your statement. Then you go off on some rant. Why ?

Simply Bruce there are too many examples disproving what you are saying. Yes you may have some sort of a point, but not to the extent you are carrying on about, and especially so when examples you say prove your argument "not once but repeatedly" can be so easily disproved. There are too many exceptions to your own rule including your own examples you say prove the rule. Go figure.

Bruce you just cant come onto the front page and talk tripe. You will be held accountable for what you say.

Look, I enjoy reading your comments but please, you do have to respect other forum members views. You say you come onto forums to learn, but you're not receptive to, or respective of, others views. What then are you going to learn ?

It has always been my practice to respond to comments made about my writing. That's how I respect "other forum members views". And I am not "trying" to prove anything - I have proved it time and time again. Abuse will never change history.

But, "Simply Bruce there are too many examples disproving what you are saying". Possibly, but does the minority invalidate what the majority do?

I have already answered in detail your two queries, both of which used poor logic in coming to a conclusion, but you rejected them out of hand. Plainly, your Xylia claim makes no sense - did you read what I said? I have asked some questions to which you have not responded. I have said the outcomes apply to two thirds of racers. I can't add anything more.

This Sunday at Sale there is two heats of the Sale distance championship over the 650m trip.
With all your theories and expertise you should be able to study the form and give us your insight how each dog should perform in each heat, with a final selection.
And again repeat this the following week for the final, as each finalist will be backing up within seven days.

Bruce every so called mug punter and pro has to do this prior to each race, as the tote and bookies wont allow you to get on after the event.

You see Bruce everyone is an expert after the event, what are you?

I'm just pointing out the examples you used (Xylia/Space Star) to prove your point, also disprove your point.

You're now saying 65% prove your point. However when your own examples also disprove your point, I'm not only doubting this figure, I'm also doubting your argument. There maybe other reasons or there may be no reasons at all why this is happening.

Is it possible you have totally misinterpreted these figures by adding your own twist to them, as to which side of the argument Space Star & Xylia belong, or do they belong on both sides ?

This is your argument:

Bruce Teague wrote:

......Please, no excuses. This happens in every major staying race in the country where heats and final are a week apart. Always has, except for a very occasional top dog - preferably one that is not a natural leader and therefore can pace itself....

This has nothing to do with my logic or lack there of, this has to do with facts and figures which you provided and disproved with your own examples.

You've contradicted your own argument.

Jim,

You are having a shot at me personally for some unknown reason. Not interested.

2. I don't do tips.
3. I no longer do form or punt.
4. 650m is not a staying distance.
5. I offered facts - if you don't like them that is your problem.
6. Those who ignore history tend to repeat their mistakes.

"6. Those who ignore history tend to repeat their mistakes."

"6. TELL THAT TO THE STINKING POLLIES!.

By the way any distance greater than 550m is a staying event with the caliber of dogs racing in todays climate. Breeding speed to speed has a case to answer for, just my thoughts.