The Greyhound-Data Forum has been created to act as a platform for greyhound enthusiasts to share information on this magnificent animal called a greyhound.
Greyhound-Data reserve the right to remove any post that is off topic, advertisements or opinions they consider to be offensive.
If you answer then please try to stay on topic. It's absolutely okay to answer in a broader scope but don't hijack posts by switching to something off topic.
In case you see an insulting post: DO NOT REPLY TO IT!
Use the report button to inform the moderators so that we can delete it.
Craig Cooper Australia (Verified User) Posts 125 Dogs 0 / Races 1 11 Jun 2019 06:35
(4)
(0)
EXTERNAL LINK includes an upfront $4mil to the greyhounds, still way short but a good start , the govt finally is listening
Robyn Mackellar Australia (Verified User) Posts 870 Dogs 41 / Races 138 11 Jun 2019 12:47
(0)
(0)
Im guessing participants wont see a dime of it!!!!
Jamie Quinlivian Australia (Verified User) Posts 8727 Dogs 10 / Races 0 11 Jun 2019 23:05
(1)
(0)
Robyn Mackellar wrote:
Im guessing participants wont see a dime of it!!!!
Don't worry Robyn, you will have G-Four racing soon. More chances to win.
Jamie Quinlivian Australia (Verified User) Posts 8727 Dogs 10 / Races 0 12 Jun 2019 04:09
(2)
(0)
I've been watching the GSix, no less interference at all. And yes, why have 2 emergencies and 2 vacant boxes?
Ian Bradshaw Australia (Verified User) Posts 251 Dogs 6 / Races 0 13 Jun 2019 00:02
(1)
(0)
Jamie Quinlivian wrote:
I've been watching the GSix, no less interference at all. And yes, why have 2 emergencies and 2 vacant boxes?
Why not just use boxes 1 to 6, and make the emergencies numbers 7 & 8, instead of 9 & 10 ?
It is debatable, but there is the probably the same amount of interference in a six dog field, regardless of which two boxes are left empty.
Get rid of "vacant box", it is not a good look.
Nathan Bendeich Australia (Verified User) Posts 1225 Dogs 13 / Races 0 13 Jun 2019 04:30
(4)
(0)
They are called squeeze boxes for a reason Vacate 4 and 5 They are the worst boxes , everyone knows this Seperate the fields 1-3 and 6-8 and implement railers or wide runners Its not rocket science
When you trial 2 dogs , do you put them in 1,2 ....? No You gap em , why ? Its safer
Saying 8 dogs is no different to 6 is like saying 10 is no different to 8 Please wake up !
Its about offering the safety to these athletes , it wont work all the time but you cant say it doesnt work straight out . How do you know if the 2 dogs that arent in would have made a shabby 6 dog race even worse ?? You cant coz you dont know Its common sense the less runners belting into the first corner statistically has to be better off then having more !
Sorry to inconvenience you having to wait an extra 2 days to race your racer that is sitting at home in one piece
Unbelievable
Extra money and effort for safety resulting in more complaints , go figure .....?
Robyn Mackellar Australia (Verified User) Posts 870 Dogs 41 / Races 138 13 Jun 2019 07:35
(2)
(0)
Nathan, I race my dogs once a week!... I dont mind the concept of actually 6 dogs racing. However you do see more crashing to the rail with the extra room to move. Perhaps on the dogs missing out on racing put on extra races?? Ummm extra money??? More room means more momentum the harder the hit... I like the concept of boxes 1-6 tho.
Nathan Bendeich Australia (Verified User) Posts 1225 Dogs 13 / Races 0 13 Jun 2019 08:05
(4)
(0)
Robyn Mackellar wrote:
Nathan, I race my dogs once a week!... I dont mind the concept of actually 6 dogs racing. However you do see more crashing to the rail with the extra room to move. Perhaps on the dogs missing out on racing put on extra races?? Ummm extra money??? More room means more momentum the harder the hit... I like the concept of boxes 1-6 tho.
I think youd find putting Dogs in their appropriate boxes ie railing or wide runners would fix most problems and should be priority instead of deciding which boxes are left vacant, dont you think ?
Wouldnt it be nice knowing every week you turn up with a railer you are going to be in 1,2 or 3 and vice versa outside boxes No more researching what dogs do from which boxes
No that would be to smart
Watch Dapto rc 1 ....... carnage dogs everywhere , rail crashes in outside boxes? Then watch Sandown rc 4 , corner start also
It can help having 6 dog fields
Robyn Mackellar Australia (Verified User) Posts 870 Dogs 41 / Races 138 13 Jun 2019 08:21
(2)
(0)
Absolutely agree in seeding boxes
Nathan Bendeich Australia (Verified User) Posts 1225 Dogs 13 / Races 0 13 Jun 2019 09:06
(3)
(0)
Ive just watched a handful of races that have been on since this conversation started Dapto races 1and 2 Both races half the field taken out both had 8 runners
Albion Park race 3 ,trouble home turn 8 runners
Sandown race 4 ,6 runners good
Angle park rc 2 ,6 runners 1 check
Warrnambool rc 8 ,6 runners 1 check from the 8 wanting the rail
6 races all up , 3 full fields with 30-50% of fields taken out Against 3 races with 6 runners for 2 single checks and 90% of all fields getting their chances
To say there is no difference from 8 to 6 ?????? We are watching 2 very different things Even with the obvious observation that when to forces collide from more space It is going to be greater Id rather that risk any day going from the aboves short but clear cut info
Note rc 3 angle park 6 runners ....a fall as I was about to post this Was not due to a space collision hit , the 8 wanted the rail just in front of the 7 Very unlucky 7 , I hope your boy is ok , sorry to all connections ,poor bugger The 8 goes on to win with clear running
Conclusion There is more chance of the whole field getting their chance in 6 dog fields The 2 single checks came from outside boxes wanting the inside Seed them and have 6 dog fields and we would finally be putting our priorities in the correct place for our greys and all concerned
Cheers good luck
Ps warrnambool rc 9 8 runners .... a disgrace , fair dinkum Dapto rc 4 6 runners no checks ,perfect ! And with random boxes vacant
Chalk and cheese
Jason Caley Australia (Verified User) Posts 385 Dogs 6 / Races 0 13 Jun 2019 11:56
(3)
(0)
Jamie Quinlivian wrote:
I've been watching the GSix, no less interference at all. And yes, why have 2 emergencies and 2 vacant boxes?
Back when I was doing the "Racing Manager" function at Strathalbyn I proposed 6 dog fields of heats into an 8 dog final and it got cruched/torn down by the authority. Fast forward to now and g6 is a big hoopla.
Back when I proposed the notion of reduced field heats into full field finals it was to entice people to come into the heats because they had a 50-50 chance of walking away with prizemoney even if they didnt make the final.
But what do I know, I am only a dimwhit participant apparently and obviously out of touch with the people that voted me into the role unlike the appointed positions within well you know where. Glad to to have exited the state and to move on with my life. Now I get to focus on the dogs without the distraction of politics and egos.
(I'll footnote what I wrote above though to simply state that as a commercial enterprise, SA racing 6 dog fields maximizes race count while reducing dog numbers required. From their point of view, 12 race cards despite less dogs means more mug punters and retains sky channel coverage rights. It's savy commercially even if disadvantaging participants and ultimately self defeating as they lose sight of their supply chain - that would be trainers and dogs)
Mark Wilcox Australia (Verified User) Posts 264 Dogs 1 / Races 0 13 Jun 2019 21:53
(3)
(0)
Agree a must 6 doggers vacant boxes 3/6 and the main thing is seeding of railers and wide runners.
Jamie Quinlivian Australia (Verified User) Posts 8727 Dogs 10 / Races 0 18 Jun 2019 06:51
(4)
(0)
Jamie Quinlivian wrote:
I've been watching the GSix, no less interference at all. And yes, why have 2 emergencies and 2 vacant boxes?
Gawler today. One race had 5 dogs in it and one fell. Another race had 6 dogs in it and one fell. You can have G-two racing if you like but as long as you have stupid suicide bend starts, there will be interference.
Jason Caley Australia (Verified User) Posts 385 Dogs 6 / Races 0 22 Jun 2019 02:42
(1)
(0)
Jamie Quinlivian wrote:
Jamie Quinlivian wrote:
I've been watching the GSix, no less interference at all. And yes, why have 2 emergencies and 2 vacant boxes?
Gawler today. One race had 5 dogs in it and one fell. Another race had 6 dogs in it and one fell. You can have G-two racing if you like but as long as you have stupid suicide bend starts, there will be interference.
Angle Park R11 on June 20 - half the 6 dog field got around without injury. It's simply not about the number of dogs racing for welfare outcomes, it's about first sectionals into the bend.
Most trainers that have even educated their own pups know that if they trial two quick kennel mates together, they'll manage to hamper and find each other at the first turn. It's not rocket science, it's not track design, it's a bunching effect caused by putting similar beginners into a field all racing to the first turn. And you see it every day on any track across the world. Mix up the early sectional spread in a race and it's as clear as night and day.
Nathan Bendeich Australia (Verified User) Posts 1225 Dogs 13 / Races 0 22 Jun 2019 03:14
(2)
(0)
Jason Caley wrote:
Jamie Quinlivian wrote:
Jamie Quinlivian wrote:
I've been watching the GSix, no less interference at all. And yes, why have 2 emergencies and 2 vacant boxes?
Gawler today. One race had 5 dogs in it and one fell. Another race had 6 dogs in it and one fell. You can have G-two racing if you like but as long as you have stupid suicide bend starts, there will be interference.
Angle Park R11 on June 20 - half the 6 dog field got around without injury. It's simply not about the number of dogs racing for welfare outcomes, it's about first sectionals into the bend.
Most trainers that have even educated their own pups know that if they trial two quick kennel mates together, they'll manage to hamper and find each other at the first turn. It's not rocket science, it's not track design, it's a bunching effect caused by putting similar beginners into a field all racing to the first turn. And you see it every day on any track across the world. Mix up the early sectional spread in a race and it's as clear as night and day.
Hence seeding Dogs
Jason Ill agree to disagree
Im never going to say collisions wont happen with less numbers Its racing , anything that can happen probably will
But the card you mention is a 12 card meet Go through every race , there are 11 other races that night , and guess what Besides rc 8 where the fav gets a rub on first turn , the whole meet went about with not one check ........ NOT ONE CHECK
Can you show me a meet where 8 runners dont collide for half of the meet ?
11 out of 12 races were clean , and further more watch races 2 and 7 for what g6 racing really offers
Numbers do count ,all thats left is seeding Dogs and then we have provided the safest environment we can for these chasers
No matter how many one off collisions you can show me , its irrelevant When I can show you over 90% of a meet had clean racing
Thats night and day
Jason Caley Australia (Verified User) Posts 385 Dogs 6 / Races 0 22 Jun 2019 03:34
(1)
(0)
^^ Might feel different about the statement if one of those three dogs were your own. But as you say Nathan, yes lets agree to disagree. You're certainly entitled to an opposing viewpoint.
I dont believe less dogs engaged on a per meeting basis to be a sustainable outcome but by this logic, we may as well make all meetings coursing meetings (Speedstar/match racing) while we're at it. Also just ask the trainers in SA with last start place-getters that can't obtain a run for their dogs at the G-six meetings because of the reduced field sizes.
Statistically less dogs is less to be implicated in a bunch up so the point you made only proves less dogs, less injuries. I can achieve the same running only an 8 race card or running fortnightly versus weekly. Lies lies and statistics ;)
Anyway a full 12 race program assuming no scratchings at APK g-Six only requires 72 dogs. I can run a 9 race card of 8 dog fields to obtain the same number of dogs engaged. So until it is beyond doubt that injuries/dogs engaged is any different, no I don't believe this is a welfare outcome, just a commercial one that is disenfranchising suppliers that can't even gain a start over there nowadays despite having placed or won recently.
Nathan Bendeich Australia (Verified User) Posts 1225 Dogs 13 / Races 0 22 Jun 2019 08:31
(0)
(0)
Jason Caley wrote:
^^ Might feel different about the statement if one of those three dogs were your own. But as you say Nathan, yes lets agree to disagree. You're certainly entitled to an opposing viewpoint.
I dont believe less dogs engaged on a per meeting basis to be a sustainable outcome but by this logic, we may as well make all meetings coursing meetings (Speedstar/match racing) while we're at it. Also just ask the trainers in SA with last start place-getters that can't obtain a run for their dogs at the G-six meetings because of the reduced field sizes.
Statistically less dogs is less to be implicated in a bunch up so the point you made only proves less dogs, less injuries. I can achieve the same running only an 8 race card or running fortnightly versus weekly. Lies lies and statistics ;)
Anyway a full 12 race program assuming no scratchings at APK g-Six only requires 72 dogs. I can run a 9 race card of 8 dog fields to obtain the same number of dogs engaged. So until it is beyond doubt that injuries/dogs engaged is any different, no I don't believe this is a welfare outcome, just a commercial one that is disenfranchising suppliers that can't even gain a start over there nowadays despite having placed or won recently.
What does a dog or many having a very unfortunate accident have anything to do with my belief or feelings as stated in above passages ?
Like I said , you posting or singling out every time there is this result (which is inevitable) is proving what ??? 6 is no different to 8 ? How come you cant or are ignoring there was 11 other races that were 100% clean And you still ask until there is proof ???
Yeh right ...... didnt that just answer or provide the proof
Why havent you acknowledged the need for seeding also ? G6 is only half of the remedy
Thats great you believe stats are being twisted in your eyes as runs per week are less Or volume per card favours this stat
I think its time to knock the little fellow on your shoulder off whos talking in your ear mate and actually just look at each independent race for what it is , didnt you say you left all that political bullshyt behind ?
You start by asking if Id feel different if it was my dog that was injured or other ?
The difference between me and you is I realise every time I box my dog that Im rolling the dice and dont take the product or my mate for granted , so with that in mind Why dont you ask every one who gives a shyt about their dog if they had a choice to roll the dice against 5 or 7 others ? What would they pick ? What would you pick Jason ?
Isnt 3 meetings a week at angle park g6 style the same as 2 city meetings like everywhere else in every state ? Around 200 runners isnt it Jason that equates too ?
Just curious as to your theory on less runners better stats , as this is ultimately wrong with what is on offer at present , correct me if Im reading 3 meetings incorrect
Zero difference laughable , how would I feel ? Stats man !!!! Is there anything worse
Its not maths hey , its a bunch of crazy natural moving athletes at top speed Watch the race and its anomalies
Jason Caley Australia (Verified User) Posts 385 Dogs 6 / Races 0 22 Jun 2019 09:02
(1)
(0)
^^ Nathan. I agree to disagree with you thats all. I honestly dont care what you think. I said my point you said yours. I also dont care how many ppl click on the agree button or disagree for that matter. Let ppl read the boards your point of view and mine. Bye now and best of luck with your dogs.
ps: 69 dogs raced at APK on June 20 because R9,10 and 12 only fielded 5 dogs per race. 3 dogs walked away injured/suspended according to official records for the program. 3/69 is not great at all statistically. Fielding an entire program with only 69 dogs to build a meeting is shameful in my opinion. But hey, its just an opinion. To each their own.
Bruce Teague Australia (Verified User) Posts 2092 Dogs 0 / Races 0 22 Jun 2019 23:38
(2)
(0)
Try as I might, I can't get away from the feeling that a declining dog population is a major factor in setting up G-SIX races. But, whether true or not, it is a 3 month experiment so let's wait for the end and assess the results then. Doing it anecdotally, race by race, is pointless.
Part of that would be some assessment of injuries or falls but even that would be arguable. Going in to the experiment my guess is that 6 runners are better at the jump but, after that, it matters little. Highly trained and keen dogs want to get to the lead and will push and shove trying to get there - whether in the lead or at the back. The majority of falls occur when A tries to get past B; the minority when C is falling back in the field. The layout of the track may or may not influence that outcome but is a separate deal requiring separate analysis.
The X factor is the nature of the individual dog - crashing to the rail, veering to the outside, inexperienced, field sense, etc etc. This is a significant element but can be edited out if you try hard enough. (Yes, seeding would help but it is still a very subjective area and messy administratively). This is why the GRV experiment with 6-dog Maiden fields is a waste of space and time. If they don't know how to race how can you judge their habits?
Whatever, we will need a fully detailed report from GRSA at the end of the trial. That should include a summary of betting data as well, although that has its own limitations.
Nathan Bendeich Australia (Verified User) Posts 1225 Dogs 13 / Races 0 23 Jun 2019 08:28
(2)
(0)
Bruce Teague wrote:
Try as I might, I can't get away from the feeling that a declining dog population is a major factor in setting up G-SIX races. But, whether true or not, it is a 3 month experiment so let's wait for the end and assess the results then. Doing it anecdotally, race by race, is pointless.
Part of that would be some assessment of injuries or falls but even that would be arguable. Going in to the experiment my guess is that 6 runners are better at the jump but, after that, it matters little. Highly trained and keen dogs want to get to the lead and will push and shove trying to get there - whether in the lead or at the back. The majority of falls occur when A tries to get past B; the minority when C is falling back in the field. The layout of the track may or may not influence that outcome but is a separate deal requiring separate analysis.
The X factor is the nature of the individual dog - crashing to the rail, veering to the outside, inexperienced, field sense, etc etc. This is a significant element but can be edited out if you try hard enough. (Yes, seeding would help but it is still a very subjective area and messy administratively). This is why the GRV experiment with 6-dog Maiden fields is a waste of space and time. If they don't know how to race how can you judge their habits?
Whatever, we will need a fully detailed report from GRSA at the end of the trial. That should include a summary of betting data as well, although that has its own limitations.
This is why I disagree with going to the end of any format especially sports and reading the stats findings
In rugby league at present they have abandoned the chance of going from 8 interchange to 6
Here is their stats findings ...... players are playing longer careers then ever ,deemed safer Players with more energy arent at a greater risk of someone who is tired and potentially injuring someone else through fatigue Smaller players feel safer with larger bodies next to them or against them with fresher legs as tired ones could cause damage to little fellas taking advantage of larger man getting tired
These are the stats complied at the end of the year every year for the past 5 years
What a joke and a crock of boloney
The game has never been worse to watch , players have never been in more danger due to everyone being fresh , harder impact ,more concussions from heavy impact or slamming or wrestling
If your not getting the drift ...... watch every game and a blind man could see , fatigue is an essential element to open the game up and also nullify the monstrous or powerful collisions or hits or wrestling ..... stats will never ever display this ,ever ! End result , a game that is boring predictable and more and more concussions to come !
Back greyhound racing and a wait till the end with stats for a conclusion or Doing it race by race is pointless theory
Patterns emerge 1 by 1 , if not assessed or scrutinised in this procedure you will be missing the most vital parts that give you an end result that is demonstrated by one single figure ?
That figure does not represent the inbetweens of how you arrive at a conclusion let alone be able to make a judgment for the future
Regardless of whether its political or shortage of numbers how g6 has come about , angle park is still producing the same volume as to other states in their city tracks ! Again ...... they have not decreased in comparison to the rest of Aust the volume of runs held every week at their city track
Seeding is vital , and it wouldnt be a messy admin job at all Every dog is recorded every race in where its postion is in the race as they run Placing an R(rail) M(middle)W(wide) on each of its runs when jumping and then picked accordingly for box selection when nommed is as simple as it gets ?
Ironically this procedure also needs to done per race not after a 12 week debacle of studying stats
Question in regards to grv testing deemed waste of time
If there is a pack of unlearned any animal what would be the most logical method in reaching an outcome of reaching the least chance of hits or injuries
Running 2 at a time or running 10 together Im not suggesting having match races , Im pointing out best and worst cases thus being extreme from both ends
Its quite clear 10 runners will end in one way , more times then 2 done in the same amount of tests , its fact !
Having 8 is closer and more likely to arrive at this extreme example then having 6
Pts in nsw are done with 1,2,3 or 4 runners with learning chasers yet to race Its annoying for trainers and owners for financial reasons but in regards to cleaner racing , saying its a waste of time is wrong and couldnt be further from the truth
A study in a state where no one even knows including the trainer , what they will do in a field or even if theyve been in a field due to no pt is pointless before you have even begun its research
Its not rocket science that progression is key , but obviously due to wages prize money and betting it has to be altered