Condolences Robyn , very sorry for your loss ,heartbreaking

Were you around during no-tackle times? Long periods of thud, thud, thud from players who could not run out of sight on a foggy day.

The trick is that coaches - NRL and AFL - adjust to new rules in a flash, or are frustrated by them as occurred when the Swans took far too long to get Buddy back on to the field and his muscles cooled down = hammy.

I like the principle of seeding but it is still problematical - who classifies each dog - what happens as it changes habits with experience - will M dogs be classified as R because the trainer thinks getting the 1 box will help it anyway - will stewards have the ability to override the trainer's opinion - in the UK it is the track manager who does it/who will do that here - etc.

What we need to do is to rank all these devices, habits and features from 1 to 10 and concentrate on the more important ones. For example, my vote would start off ...

1. Maximise distance from box to turn (ie allowing a spread of the field).
2. Using hard evidence, position boxes where early interference is minimised. (NB I disagree with the close in drop-in boxes at Horsham 400m. I think UTS reasoning is wrong. The previous displaced 410m start was better).
3. Even turn radius with maximised camber.
4. Somewhat wider box structures (more expensive, of course)

etc etc

Given well designed tracks/trips, I suggest there is not much to differentiate 6 from 8 starters but I am happy to be wrong if proper evidence emerges. But it is a multi-faceted discussion at the best of times.

It doesnt need to be made that technical Bruce
It isnt that hard to see a dog that veers left or right .
It is embarrassing,unfortunate and a disgrace Something hasnt been implemented and this happens routinely

Hence its not just about decreasing numbers , seeding is as important and one without the other is plain stupid and more important DANGEROUS !

I agree that seeding would help reduce interference. However, it will come at a cost as masses of computer programs would need re-writing.

Bear in mind that for yonks my own system has required nominating R M W for each and every dog so I am keenly aware of the value of such a rule - albeit it will always be arguable to some degree. Probably the main influence is that dogs tend to change with time as they gain racing experience - eg W becomes M.

The reason I allocate penalties (handicaps?) to dogs boxed upside down etc is because they cause or receive more interference than average after the jump - which supports your case. That outcome is proven statistically as to the direction if not to the actual amount or proportion.

But it is not a magic wand in itself - other factors intrude.

For example, your Dapto example is a classic. (I will have a look later at the race but I know what will happen). The 520m boxes are jammed into to an overall space which is limited by the design of the track and related buildings - ie poor planning.

At the 520 start boxes 1 and perhaps 2 are aligned with the running rail rather than being separated laterally by, say, 2m to 3m as is more common. Consequently, at the jump those inside dogs will - on average - tend to veer right and canon into other runners.

This is why more winners come from the 8 box than is customary on a circle track. They benefit from the inside ruckus.

In turn, that overall configuration is controlled by the presence of a horrible concrete "grandstand" and other buildings. You would not want to push the track inwards and it is impossible to push it outwards. This is why I have previously suggested dynamiting the lot, shifting the kennel access road and starting again from scratch.

The other track-related issue is that certain kinds of dogs do better on certain types of track - ie if you have a wide runner, don't take it to Angle Park - it's too tight. Then there are dogs which run wide in the straight but rail on the turn (Awesome Assassin was one such).

Given such a situation, classifying R M W is not meaningless but it may be less influential than other factors. Similarly, if you have flat first turns (Bulli, Richmond, Ipswich) many dogs will tend to run off, or get pushed off, almost regardless of their personal characteristics.

As for 6 v 8 runners, GRSA has made generalised statements but has not supplied figures so we are still guessing.

The proper way to do it is to take a minimum of 400 samples of each race type and distance (for 5,6,7,8 runners)and then count up the falls and any other factors. I doubt SA has sufficient evidence but GRV would. It just has to query its database, which is not a huge job. GRV should be doing this anyway as it is making decisions based on a declining dog population.

RE "This is why I disagree with going to the end of any format especially sports and reading the stats findings".

My point about GRV testing was related to the artificial scheduling of 6-dog races when the alternative was to select 6-dog races from amongst the normal collection of races. That is, they did not need to do the former when the latter was available. Therefore the test was "a waste of time", doubly so when they used unpredictable maidens for the test.

To be sure, whether dogs, NRL or anything else, stats must be carefully checked out. I never trust any of them unless I can verify them in some other way.

Having said that, for several years we ran quarterly Australia-wide surveys of falls and excessive interference by track and by trip. Without exception, the results were consistent and repetitive. They aligned with other factors - such as bend start difficulties. The only element of doubt would be improper reporting by some clubs but we did our best to audit those.

On the other hand, I am daily regaled with NRL stats for tackles but I would not give you two bob for them. For a start, I suspect "flops" get into the mix too often. (Cameron Smith is a marvel but his stats include a great many flops because he is in a position to do that and slow down the play). Metres run is another useless piece of information as it depends on what position the player occupies - ie props v fullbacks.

AFL possessions are similar - obviously what is good for a fullback or full forward is not acceptable for a midfielder.

Nevertheless, there are areas where stats can dominate and should do so if properly applied.

What I want to see from GRSA are ...

* Relative differences in number and location of falls, and
* Relative differences in betting turnover per race and per meeting.

In that Dapto race the Red veered out and caused the 3 to fall.

Similar but lesser influences were present in R5 and R7.

It's the nature of the beast.

Bruce, to summarise all your deliberations in a few words...greyhound racing is a contact sport.

Obviously straight tracks have less interference than circle tracks, but the trade off is, at the risk of being howled down, straight track racing is a lesser spectacle compared to circle track racing.

The system runs for racers that are extreme and obvious in need of assisting to protect themselves and others

Im thinking the chance of 4 of 6 runners all being hard core railers would be minimal to say the least and if so they get 1,2 and 4,5 and it stands the same as the current racing , its no worse isnt it

Once again , its not a rocket science theory or implementation, its simple and obvious if implemented for obvious runners

You arent splitting the atom , its ok ted I didnt take it as a criticism
Cheers mate

Ian , Ill pass that its a contact sport onto the owners and trainer of the dog that got knocked out and probably wont be the same again after 2 years of work and finance put in .......thanks for pointing out the obvious ! It doesnt help in any way

So stiff arms , head butts shoulder charges were all apart of a contact sport
It changed for obvious reasons

Just because a live animal is and always will be 100% unpredictable it doesnt mean you cant assist them in every avenue possible . We are talking about the start of a race before a lid is even opened , something we can control so they careers go further then 20 mtrs ........ and more newcomers leaving the sport or old timers saying theyve had enough !

Oh thats right its a contact sport , Ill remember to say that aswell when asking them to reinvest for another 2 years wait ????

"Its about providing something thats better then what currently exists, which is nothing"

Dead right.

Seeding has never been tried here but is apparently a good thing in England (done by the track manager, not the trainers). It is worth a study and an experiment. Even though it would be an administrative hassle there is potentially a big gain.

Secondly, and overlapping, the poor design of many/most tracks offers just as much potential for reduced interference. Desirable changes vary from modest to major but there is a general reluctance on the part of both clubs and authorities to grasp the nettle.

For example, new tracks at Cannington and Murray Bridge both ended up with bend starts even though their dicey qualities are well known. Victoria not long ago installed a batch of middle distance starts on top of the bend - two of which replaced better/safer options (Bendigo and Warrnambool). The Gardens improved a messy 413m start (now 400m) but why did it happen in the first place?

Now Traralgon is going to end up with a peculiar U shape which will probably be somewhat "safer" but at the cost of making the race harder to view and eliminating the possibility of having races longer then 500m. It will also bias the track in favour of big, wide-running dogs. To my mind, that is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. My preference would be to construct a more conventional track that pays heed to modern principles and perhaps to seeding.

At Traralgon there is now a massive shift of priorities towards safety at any cost. Yet, as you indicate, it is still a contact sport as athletes try to get the upper hand. Consequently, a substantial proportion of injuries (soft tissue etc) occur because of a individual dog's habits, not the track layout and not seeding. Fast bowlers' structural injuries is another example of that principle (see Pattinson's history).

Zero injuries will never occur on a racetrack or a football field. The objective should be to minimise them, not eliminate them.

Admin hassle on one hand or years of dedication and a chasers life squashed in seconds !

I know where priorities should be placed

Ps If GWIC would like a full time persons to apply for this job on every race in nsw every day , Id gladly leave my daytime job to go through every race, every day in nsw in under 3 hours paid of course !

Ted,

Fair enough - that's why years of our surveys show Hobart 461m always emerges with zero falls and minimal disruptions, which is unique in Oz (although Devonport is good too). But let's not go too far.

The history of the greyhound tells us that its prime job was to chase after prey in the bush, always with man at hand. Secondly, we then asked it to run, dodge and weave on a open paddock in the hope of running down a live bunny. Only relatively recently have we converted those abilities to the racetrack.

Now, the previous concentration on dodging and weaving has been partly replaced by the need for sheer speed (which was not quite so important in the previous two eras).

So here's an amateur statement (feel free to butt in). We have bred out, or bred down, most inherent qualities except for speed. That includes a loss of stamina - which is both a genetic and a training exercise.

This year, for mainly PR reasons, we have an almost psychotic attachment to welfare/safety which then starts to influence how we build tracks - the new Traralgon being the classic example with its single big sweeping turn (also Cessnock).

What the breed used to do in the dodging and weaving area is not required any more. Therefore, there will be a tendency to breed away from those characteristics just as we have been pursuing early speed for the last decade or two and away from stamina.

But we are making this huge change without sufficient knowledge of what makes the greyhound tick. We are starting to get more info about injury types, frequency and location but that is being gathered in a false framework - ie using poorly designed tracks. We can guess at what causes a busted hock (say, the camber) but we don't know how much influence there is from early education, training or genetic background.

In other words, if we put dogs around a "perfect" track, what sort of injuries would we get, and what caused them? What would be the difference? The answer is unknown, of course (including to UTS).

My overall point is that a well designed collection of tracks and trips would optimise the use of the breed and better encourage the range of individual capabilities of each dog. If those tracks are well designed we will get lower injury rates anyway.

Traralgon may be safer in one sense but it will also bias against some types of dogs. Two or more Traralgons would harm the breed and the industry.

The final point that is missed is that the greyhound is a canine athlete. As such, when athletes compete they will suffer some injuries. It happens even to a pooch in the backyard. Within reason, injuries are a fact of life, especially the soft tissue kinds. And they will occur with or without racing.

My case is that there is no difference between a greyhound and a million dollar a year footballer. Both suffer injuries and both get top level attention to repairs and rehabilitation. I have had two broken legs, one collarbone, one broken wrist and numerous cracked fingers (as an opening batsman). All from competitive sports. So what's new?

Ted,

Fair enough - that's why years of our surveys show Hobart 461m always emerges with zero falls and minimal disruptions, which is unique in Oz (although Devonport is good too). But let's not go too far.

The history of the greyhound tells us that its prime job was to chase after prey in the bush, always with man at hand. Secondly, we then asked it to run, dodge and weave on a open paddock in the hope of running down a live bunny. Only relatively recently have we converted those abilities to the racetrack.

Now, the previous concentration on dodging and weaving has been partly replaced by the need for sheer speed (which was not quite so important in the previous two eras).

So here's an amateur statement (feel free to butt in). We have bred out, or bred down, most inherent qualities except for speed. That includes a loss of stamina - which is both a genetic and a training exercise.

This year, for mainly PR reasons, we have an almost psychotic attachment to welfare/safety which then starts to influence how we build tracks - the new Traralgon being the classic example with its single big sweeping turn (also Cessnock).

What the breed used to do in the dodging and weaving area is not required any more. Therefore, there will be a tendency to breed away from those characteristics just as we have been pursuing early speed for the last decade or two and away from stamina.

But we are making this huge change without sufficient knowledge of what makes the greyhound tick. We are starting to get more info about injury types, frequency and location but that is being gathered in a false framework - ie using poorly designed tracks. We can guess at what causes a busted hock (say, the camber) but we don't know how much influence there is from early education, training or genetic background.

In other words, if we put dogs around a "perfect" track, what sort of injuries would we get, and what caused them? What would be the difference? The answer is unknown, of course (including to UTS).

My overall point is that a well designed collection of tracks and trips would optimise the use of the breed and better encourage the range of individual capabilities of each dog. If those tracks are well designed we will get lower injury rates anyway.

Traralgon may be safer in one sense but it will also bias against some types of dogs. Two or more Traralgons would harm the breed and the industry.

The final point that is missed is that the greyhound is a canine athlete. As such, when athletes compete they will suffer some injuries. It happens even to a pooch in the backyard. Within reason, injuries are a fact of life, especially the soft tissue kinds. And they will occur with or without racing.

My case is that there is no difference between a greyhound and a million dollar a year footballer. Both suffer injuries and both get top level attention to repairs and rehabilitation. I have had two broken legs, one collarbone, one broken wrist, two hammies, one groin and numerous cracked fingers (as an opening batsman). All from competitive sports. So what's new?

Ted,

I don't see that. The new subject is Traralgon and track layouts (and note that GRSA is asking for comments on Angle Park). Perhaps a bit off topic, of course.

Whatever, we are talking about business decisions and the newly found dominance of welfare/safety.

Looking at it another way, I compare it with the pre-season square fields used by the AFL. I don't much like that either, but too much and you start biasing the sport - eg long kickers dominate and the rest can please themselves. Traralgon, too, is a biased operation on a (flawed) foundation of nothing but minimising injuries. That's nice, but is it racing?

Don't let the tail wag the dog.

Lighten up ..... lol. Ted is referring to your 1 post being posted twice , nothing personal , just factual haha

Take a breathe Bruce and look and calm your fingers

We are all indebted to you - assuming you are correct.

In passing, it is not the first time it has happened to me - my own fault in hitting too many or the wrong keys.

What I would like to see is the ability for the writer to delete his piece. That does not exist although the moderators can. Needs fixing Tony.

1. Poorly trained, poorly educated or poorly bred dogs. **
2. Runners boxed upside down. **
3. Poorly located boxes, especially those close to a turn. **
4. Inexperienced racers (especially those which have not trialled). **
5. Dogs unsuited to the distance (ie falling back). **
6. Track design, primarily camber and uneven turn radii. **

Then there are a few places where interference is prevalent:

7. At the jump runners stumbling or moving erratically right or left.
8. On the run to the turn dogs seeking to move to where they want to race.
9. On the turn (a) variations in how well the dog handles the turn, (b) dogs moving up through the field and colliding and (c) uneven or tight turns. This category would include injured dogs falling back.
10. Home turn dogs veering left and right, amplified by those which are tiring.
11. In the pen where dogs can do strange things in a limited space.

Possible solutions:

12. Better located boxes, possibly including more space between individual boxes. **
13. Seeding the boxes. **
14. Design/redesign of all tracks and starts. **
15. Fewer runners. **

** Those with the asterisks are controllable by man.

Finally, a note on reducing field sizes to 6 or whatever. There is reasonable evidence that smaller fields may produce better outcomes in some areas, but not most. After the first 100m the field has pretty well sorted itself out into better or worse beginners so the potential for reducing interference for this reason alone is much smaller. Of course, two or three runners competing for the bunny can, and often do, bump one another. Thats unavoidable, regardless of field size.

While I am scratching my memory bank now, as a kid I seem to recall that 10-dog races at Harold Park did not produce excessive interference. Still, it was a wide open, one-turn track which included a big turn. I suspect the change back to 8 runners was more to standardise than anything else.

The prospect of choosing those better or worse beginners, as proposed, is pretty slim, particularly for moderate or low class fields, which is most of them. Technically there is a high order of error. It can also pose problems in that some tracks do not publish sectionals times so you would be guessing anyway (Bulli would be the most prominent but all of Tasmania is terrible).

I would reject another English practice an outside lure. It would cost billions which we dont have and which would be better put into other repair jobs.

In short, fix tracks and seed runners. Plus use the FOL or bigger pens.