All very interesting but it is anecdotal evidence and therefore cannot be used to form the basis of policy decisions.

However, I can tell you that Shepparton averages a fall in just over half of all meetings (I counted them).

I see stewards regularly ask trainers to notify them of injuries emerging the morning after. Does this work?

NB the rules require that trainers notify stewards of any injuries likely to affect a runner in an upcoming race - ha ha. (Britton/TT did but it did not help a lot).

Re "Bruce there are a lot of OTB who have and can build tracks and bullrings we have a wealth of experience over all sectors of the community..." Yes, they can but not well - that's why we are suffering today.

Anyway, all this is why we surveyed all Oz racing several times over the years to check on the proportion of races which involved a fall or the distancing of a dog. The Oz average for falls is 5.2% but it varies from almost zero to over 10%.

My understanding, from those who have been there and properly investigated, is that the tracks are softer i.e. the quest for speed via harder surfaces has not overridden safe racing.

So is softer track surfaces an important factor, and why is such a simple consideration not being considered or raised by regulators?

And it seems to me that injuries have increased since some more experienced trial and race track managers have departed the scene. And from those I know, none have been consulted. Answers to simple questions like "What has changed since you were involved that could be giving rise to increased injury rates?" would give a different insight & be relevant to current issues, not to mention being a common sense approach.

IMO the whole issue of track development needs to be more transparent, involve experienced people, and not be left to administrators.

Well, yes, a USA comparison might be useful but only if you could verify that the accompanying conditions are similar ie reporting methods etc. Anyway, my casual checks on USA videos suggest that other track features are more influential than just the surface material.

But are injuries a good guide to track quality? I say it impossible to tell because of the large number of non-track factors involved breeding/genetics training methods education age and experience fitness lures - field quality and so on and so on.

For example, a NZ study showed that a lifetime of anti-clockwise education and racing produced stress cracks to right side legs. Add pressure and you get a busted hock.

More productive would be checks on where and why interference takes place, which is partly the purpose of the Meadows GPS trials coupled with video evidence. That was also why we ran extensive checks for some years of falls and 20 length distancing, trip by trip across the country. Its coarse but consistent and it allows you to zero in on problem areas which warrant greater attention.

On the other side of the coin, can someone tell me why Hobart 461m has virtually zero falls and minimal interference. (I would love to bet on them but I cant because Tasmanian sectional data is rubbish).

I only recently started taking more of an interest as it has not always had videos or TAB ranking and I have no special data on the track so this is pretty much a guess.

Overall, the running in general seems pretty good although you have to make allowances for the 400m bend start (which should be sorted out).

From the design perspective I make one big point: the 525m first turn can be messy as some dogs cannot hold the turn very well. My guess is that the levels - or gradients - are suspect because the track at that point has to pay heed to the nearby 400m start as well as the need for 525m dogs rounding the turn. What suits one may not suit the other and v.v.

This shortcoming is fairly common and has also appeared at Gardens, Gosford and Richmond amongst others.

The quick fix is to shift the 400m boxes around and, if necessary, into a shute, leaving the way clear to install correct gradients for 525m runners.

The underlying principle would be that in building a new track such as Traralgon you should first set up the circuit (whether velodrome-like or whatever) and, having done that, position the boxes in desirable spots. Too often, I suspect the process has occurred in the reverse order with the shape of the track being forced to accommodate a pre-determined box location.

Whether I am right or wrong about Wagga would require a surveyor and a theodolite to check. However, at any circle track there is nothing more important than setting up an ideal situation for the first turn for the 500s. They are always the prime need and the site of most interference/injuries.