Thanks to the TAB who have more sense and balls, for leaving the replay on their site. GRSA need to grow some.

I understand antis are mis-using the film and therefore creating bad PR for the industry - hence the removal.

Please explain in more detail Bruce.
How were the antis mis-using the film.
And while you are making up an explanation, do you think removing the film will appease the antis and make them quiet?
Don't you think that removing the film is ammunition for the antis who can make assumptions why the film has been removed? Surely allowing the public to see a dog get up and finish a race is the best way to show the truth?
Bad PR, you must be kidding. The antis have never relied on facts to create bad PR.

EXTERNAL LINK
Notice the race caller tell viewers that the dog is back up and chasing?

Here's another thing stupid that SA do.
Johns dog has an official time against his form which now will say he came 42 lengths last. In Vic, the dog would have FELL next to its form.
Yes, that makes a difference to an owner.

Jamie - on this and your earlier post.

No good shooting the messenger - take it up with GRSA.

As for race records - you are dead right, it is ridiculous that fallers are not properly designated. That also happened in a major distance race at CANN with 4 starters, one of which fell. They gave it a 100L margin and 4th place, presumably because they wanted a result for the First Four.

However, all results in Ozchase - and therefore in the permanent career records - are subject to error, especially for sectionals. They have no apparent integrity checks and Tasmania is the worst offender, closely followed by NSWGBOTA/WPK. Vic/Fasttrack is usually OK, except for one thing. A dog euthanased after a race is routinely entered in the books as "retired". Every one of them.

Bearing in mind the shenannigans that went on at Wenty (see McHugh Commission) about injuries, it is appropriate that all record keeping be removed from the control of individual state authorities and put in the hands of an independent group - roughly similar to the Stud Book.

That would also avoid the stupidity of both Watchdog and Ozchase pricing upcoming races on the basis of a 130% book. Who needs that?

I can't comment on your DQ but I can say that SA and WA are the only mobs that reply to my queries. Sometimes we agree, sometimes not. Such is life.

But this is why I regularly call for the establishment of an overall National Commission - ie independent of but largely responsible for what goes on in individual states.

The difficulty is that the only people who could sponsor that shift are the individual states themselves. Very circular!

Your indirect appeal to a board member is unlikely to succeed as they are not normally competent technically and will be bound to refer it back to the management.

In theory, one or more of the state Racing Ministers, or the Racing Ministers Council, could stir the pot but they invariably refer the argument back to the local authority and end up doing nothing.

They are influenced by massive newspaper headlines (eg live baiting) but even then they seldom act in the long term interests of the industry and tend to run off at tangents - one step forward and two back. Nevertheless, it is the only practicable target area for reform and renewal of the industry (potentially helped by a Treasurer who can react to ideas that promise greater tax returns. and/or consumer benefits. A good example was Gareth Evans and the deregulation of airlines).

Participant bodies are largely ineffective (in NSW they are part of the problem). Consultative groups seem barely to cut through the surface (there is one in SA - did it address your APK surface problem?).

Like the banks or Aged homes, only a Royal Commission is likely to obtain the truth - that will not happen either. (We had one in NSW and look how far that got us!!!. They cooked the terms of reference).

Continued agitation for change - as has occurred in minor ways in Vic and Qld by the respective GBOTAs - is the only outlet available. But first get your story right. And get the public onside.

Lastly, the interests of trainers are all very well but remember they are just one of many groups who have a stake in the industry.

As for massive newspaper headlines, the one you mentioned was 4 years ago. Since then, every state has done everything they possibly can to protect the sport. A lot of those things were necessary, getting rid of the lowlifes was necessary, but some of their programs have gone too far to the other side, like removing a video replay because a dog fell over.

And contrary to your continued belief, the 'public' love greyhound racing. A very very small minority hate it.

Broadly, I buy most of that. I would also hope that GRSA reverses its video decision in time. I don't like censorship which is why I objected myself to GRSA.

Your last sentence is a problem. Yes, the public that are involved or can reach out and touch the greyhound all love it. Certainly GAP helps there. But these are the minority.

The reason why Baird thought he could shut down the industry was because he assumed correctly that the majority opposed greyhound racing or, at worst, were neutral. Mountains of words and pictures from antis and Greens reinforced that thinking.

In the end, it was not a love of greyhounds that reversed that decision. It was jointly the big media - Jones, Hadley etc - dumping on him for such a high handed action, and the general horror from any and all levels at a government having the gall to shut down any industry as a matter of principle.

You see, Baird and Grant clearly showed they had no love whatever for the dog or the industry - quite the opposite. Many people think the same way. They shrink back and shudder whenever you talk or propose something to do with greyhound racing, any racing, any gambling. It's partly a historical situation and partly a matter of gross abuses. But it's a wide spectrum and the blokes at the track or in the TAB are just a tiny portion of that group.

The Greens and all the antis did not come out of cracks in the ground - they are numerous, noisy and will make mountains out of molehills to get their point across. They will also have pets. I have talked to these guys at their demos and there is no way in the world you can convince them of their illogical thinking or the blatant errors and lies in their statements or banners and signs.

But, irrespective of all the lowlifes and crooks, the industry must - repeat must - still engage in putting across the good message to all and sundry. It's just good business practice. Unfortunately we do not do nearly enough of it.