You are right, I won't even give him the fuel to feed his delusional persona by acknowledging anything brrrru.

Bruce who?

Hope his roses wilt and die and his bonsai flips on its back.
May a thunderbolt strike his CCTV system and send him broke.

I'm done.

Thx for that hero, now I've got 30 more penis pump and erectile disfuction emails and this young saleswoman that came to the door.....thankfully she finally left !(tic)

Lol.

There is not much worse than watching a rhinoceros with a limp horn.

It's not a good look.

I've been thinking about this being an animal welfare issue and I just cant see how that cld be the case.....just because 67% of runners in staying races cannot repeat their performances 7 days later is NOT a welfare issue.

Any greyhound vet will tell you they generally need 3 days to recover from a run, 7 days for a staying race shld be ample time I wld think so no way this query is a welfare issue.

In questioning Bruce's analysis I wld want to be assessing those very meetings he is speaking about and determining if the pace of the track on the night or interference in the run wld have enhanced that figure to 'two thirds'.....it wld depend on his way of analysing the runs compared to how someone else analysed those runs.

It wld be ideal for someone in the ivory tower to call Bruce and say to him '.....we've looked at your figs(which I find quite interesting btw), however on this occasion there is evidence to suggest (a), (b), (c) or (d)...' however they cant do that because they don't employ such an analyst or have a sufficient system in place to respond to what he is asking, maybe it's time they did as these issues shld be responded to as the answers wld not only be beneficial to Bruce but the race administrations themselves.

Because no one is responding, he's trying to source the info from trainers is my guess and trying to resolve the issue himself.

I personally don't mind his diatribe most times but like most i don't take anything he says too seriously .i guess he does the same thing with me ..

I think we have all worked out he is using the wrong bait to catch his fish but lets humour the Oldwrinklefish .

Bruce has written some handy content over the years in support of the Industry so he deserves the right of free speech on a open public forum..such as Greyhound Data IMO ..

Some clarification might be useful.

Rarely if ever do I write stuff unless it has a factual background. If I add an opinion I would make that clear at the time. I have now disbanded my database for technical reasons and because I have no specific reason to keep it up. However, I have worked with 20 years of finely tuned data of all Oz racing - obtained from official sources of various sorts (always changing, unfortunately, thereby requiring much programming work to allow importing into my database).

That allowed me to query the program to assess various things related to prices, dividends, winning boxes and race times for every track and trip in the country. This would include stuff like the time relationship between tracks X and Y, thereby permitting me to use multiple form sources to assess how a dog would probably handle an upcoming race.

An overlapping issue is whether official formguides/data are good enough. Sometimes it is not. To illustrate, I warned punters that WPK sectional times are often garbled. Specifically, I pointed out that Slingshot Hammers sectional at WPK was for the 2nd section, not the first. Yet if you check a later formguide for the Geelong Cup you will find its 11 Oct time at WPK is shown as 18.38 rather than 5.53 it repeated the error by allowing it to sit forever in career data. The same thing happens to the published sectionals for all Tasmanian races most are wrong. Then the Million dollar dog Good Odds Harada went around twice at Goulbourn where no sectionals at all are assigned to runners. Bulli is little better. (Note: statistical analysis reveals that 2nd sectional times are of no positive value in explaining performances or making future predictions).

None of these shortcomings enter my database because I have devices implanted to stop errors getting in. Fasttrack and OzChase just dont bother to do this.

To answer a question from Ryan, it includes a utility to estimate track speed by comparing what dogs have just run with whatever they have done in their recent career. (I used only those which ran in the first three in order to limit the effect of interference).

(NB: our Table of Falls and Interference levels is publicly available on the ARG website. It is not current but several years of surveys showed that there was very little variation from quarter to quarter).

However, going back to the source of this thread, my queries about the effect of stayers 7-day backups required a manual assessment ie the difference between heat and final times and is unrelated to the database as such. But the results over dozens and dozens of races over the years all showed a consistent figure ie two thirds of dogs could not repeat their heat times in the final.

There are also lots of individual examples Xylia Allen (WPK) and No Donuts (SPK, BGC) are just a couple all pointing to a majority conclusion that the breed has difficulty in moving up in distance, doubly so over the 700s. Thats not news to anyone but the question of short backups is a different matter. There is sufficient overall evidence to warrant proper investigation (including physiological studies) of a subject which certainly affects punting and may well affect the health of an individual dog.

By the way, I have never seen expert evidence that 3 days is sufficient time to properly recover all the juices. But I have read Dr John Kohnkes comments which not only suggest a 7 day minimum but also include the LAW Gutbuster terminology (his word, not mine).

All this was one reason I offered the more extreme example of dogs competing in Marathons where I followed each dogs subsequent performances over several months and found that the vast majority never regained their previous form. They were wrung out!

I also mentioned the case of a well-trained and not over-raced dog (Boomeroo) collapsing, near death and being put on a drip for days after the race (the Nationals at BGC).

Then I keep seeing stewards report of dogs collapsing after passing the post, but usually recovering later.

If those are not welfare issues, I dont know what is.

So why dont authorities react more positively to my proposals? Well, the answer varies. Some do some dont. These days, GRV, GRNSW and RQ never answer emails except perhaps those to stewards. I think my card is marked as I am often critical of what they say or do. (Kevin may know about this?).

More critically, a bureaucracy seldom initiates fresh studies (Newson, GRNSW, was an exception) because it make for extra work. Or else they keep it secret (GRV has surveyed public attitudes but you would not know it, GRV also has data on injuries by track but has not released it publicly, while GRNSW surveyed trainers on grading but published no results).

Then I am criticised for daring to mention the live baiting subject yet again. Actually, I barely did, and only in passing, but one episode reminds us that GRNSW for some years swept it under the carpet (see Allen evidence and also the McSporran inquiry in Brisbane). Only when forensic examination of related topics brought it up at the McHugh Commission did it prompt the huge steps taken by Baird/Grant to ban the industry. How much better it would have been if the subject had been attacked at the source long before?

My further assumption is that breeders and trainers (as I have said before) generally lack the incentive or the means to delve into a serious background subject in the industry, aside from breeding data itself (where GD is very good). So those few who contribute to this blog show great suspicion of anyone who does.

Am I entitled to say that - or is it diatribe too. Well a quick count on this thread shows that myself and people who generally agreed account for 32 posts. 10 others did not agree but gave reasons (sort of). But 62 said it was a lot of rubbish and just criticised the messenger, cherry-picked odd items out of context, mis-read what was said or abused the writer. From those we learned little.

I am accused of not knowing much about breeding and training. This is correct, I dont. Thats why I posed questions.

Bruce Teague wrote:

. it includes a utility to estimate track speed by comparing what dogs have just run with whatever they have done in their recent career. (I used only those which ran in the first three in order to limit the effect of interference).

Then you say this:

Bruce Teague wrote:

...However, going back to the source of this thread, my queries about the effect of stayers 7-day backups required a manual assessment ie the difference between heat and final times and is unrelated to the database as such. But the results over dozens and dozens of races over the years all showed a consistent figure ie two thirds of dogs could not repeat their heat times in the final.....

My question is why did it require manual assessment ?

Why could it have not been assessed in the same way on what the dogs had done in their recent career, the integrity of your data wldn't have even needed to be checked.

The track speed estimate pulls in everything the dog has done while the 7-day deal is a specific issue confined to just those two races in 7 days.

Remember, track speed is affected by many things so when I say "estimate" I mean exactly that. It is not a precision deal but just the best that can be managed.

If you take that a few steps forward you will be using the adjusted race time (the program is instructed to swap the old time for the adjusted one for all dogs at that meeting). Forward again and that race time will be included with several other race times (at whatever track) in order to assess Best or Average times of this dog and the other seven in the race.

Like the original estimated adjustment, all these items are user-adjustable as to strength. For example, while the same principle applies to both overall and sectional times I never use a "Best" sectional time because I consider an unrealistic or freak number. Rather I use the average of its last 10 sectional times for the purposes of calculation.

The tricky element is the identification of the time when a dog loses form. Very difficult. Another factor is any variation in the track or weather thru the course of the meeting. Additionally, I often omit consideration of races with major interference.

Anyway, by the time you end the overall calculation the effect of any one measure is diluted. In that context, a speed variant of usually plus or minus a length or two is barely significant. Its major value occurs when a deluge has arrived and the track is sludge.

The manual approach is OK because all I am doing is comparing 8 numbers with 8 other numbers, which I can do in a minute. Theoretically, I suppose you could devise a utility which plucked out two given races and calculated the differences but that would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and would unnecessarily complicate the program, which is already quite complex. We don't want it crashing.

The program's author and my partner, probably one of Australia's top database managers, got the final inspiration for the algorithm while reading a book on quantum mechanics. It now does the calculation in just over one second. But, for a Melbourne Cup field of 24, he has worked out it would take just on five years (maybe a bit less with today's processor speeds).

Note that the original design in the early 1990s had to accommodate computers without a hard disc so the entire program had to fit on a 360k floppy. Of course it is much improved since then.

In the final analysis, all we are trying to do is to forecast what - on average - each dog should have done by the end of 500m or whatever.

To that number you than have to apply a bit of nous and local or dog knowledge to reach a sensible conclusion. Then you have to trust the dogs to do it. Predictions are pretty reliable (particularly sectionals) for high grade races but progressively less so as the quality declines.

Why am I not a millionaire? Because the bloody dogs can't read the formguide and we have too many crappy tracks. But I have still made many killings because the program spits out "hidden values" which the market does not have. It has a very good memory.

Ryan,

You remind me of the times when the Recorder used to assign what was in effect a Speed Number to each dog - ie 500 495 490 etc. I never knew how they did that and it was hardly a great guide anyway.

In any case the program readily presents summaries of times by trip, by box and by distance so it shows where the dog was best placed.

At the same time, what you ask is messy as a dog can miss out in a race thru no fault of its own or record a worse time when badly boxed or fractionally slow out of the box etc. That's not bad form but bad luck.

OzChase goes down that road a little in career summaries but does not relate them to times.

Only top dogs will give you a 50% win rate so it still demands that you use your nut to edit out good or bad performances. Still, I usually used the previous five runs as the major guide but the program would remove the worst of those for calculation purposes.

In that context, you would find that predictions would improve significantly as you had multiple runs to consider - but past 5 runs the difference was minimal. (This is also why I hate getting formguides which show fewer than 5 runs - deFax was the biggest offender there).

In the same vein, the current practice of posting a dog's best ever run in the formguides is a pile of rubbish. What it did several months ago normally has no bearing on its ability today. Another example is that it is rare for a track record breaking dog to repeat the performance next time out. Winning dogs typically win again only 15% of the time. Yet another variable is that the dog may be racing in a completely different class of race.

The program covers a helluva lot but not everything. And if you tried too hard to do that you would probably get yourself into strife. It's only a dog.

Here's another twist on the same general subject.

TT is in the field for the stayers Top Gun (Nov 9) but no market has been published yet. However, he is listed as favourite at $3.30 for the Bold Trease (Nov 29). Boxes are unknown.

His last 5 runs include a fair trial at Sandown (29.60) and a good heat win at Meadows on Sep 29 (42.01). The other three were awful failures at Meadows, Wenty and Geelong. So how could we rate him for the Top Gun? Can we see a turning point here?

The calculations would acknowledge that good Meadows run but his average form would be well down - probably no better than the opposition. This suggests he could well be favourite but at a liberal price - say $3 or even $4.

In practice, odds-on will more likely be the situation. In his lasts three failures he started at $1.30, $1.75 and $1.30, telling us that gamblers have a terrible way of working on reputation. They love getting punished.

Therefore, we end up with a scenario where you might as well forget about all the numbers and make your assessment purely on your guess as to how the dog will feel on the night. There is no other measure.

That's a helluva way to run the industry. I sympathise with the connections but what can you do?

(NSW stewards remanded him for a trial due to intermittent chasing but Vic stewards can do no more as he did not "turn his head" during the awful runs and he did later trial adequately).

The TT caravan is moving on apace. TABCORP has now listed him as $2.80 favourite for tomorrow's Topgun. However, the Watchdog says he is a champion who has had "no luck" and rates him at $1.90.

What concerns me is that Watchdog is very influential in pricing, particularly in Victoria, yet he is hiding the truth from the public.

The "no luck" claim is based on three successive distance races where TT failed, failed and failed, always at long odds-on. NSW stewards convicted him for intermittent chasing and called for a trial. Victorian stewards did nothing more than run the trial, then ignored the failure at Geelong, presumably on the ground that TT did not interfere with another runner, and their (Local) rules and practices are different to those in NSW anyway.

Since the split paw saga at Wenty in April, TT has recorded runs of 14/6-2-2 in four states and most of the wins have been in ordinary times.

Clearly, TABCORP has noted the erratic form and priced him accordingly. Watchdog has swept that history under the carpet, thereby misleading the public as to its chances.

I suppose it is always possible that TT will jump nicely and spreadeagle the field in the Topgun. It is more likely that he won't. He is closing in on four years of age so maybe he is just getting sick of it all?

Ryan,

The underlying question here is to predict whether a dog is about to show top form or ordinary form - ie as fast as it is able or something less than that.

We usually have a fair idea of its Best possible time but even that is subject to improvement as it matures.

On the other hand, its Average time is much more likely to reflect what it will do in the upcoming race - eg dogs rarely repeat a record time, usually because the circumstances are different/it is tired/it previously fluked a brilliant start/it hit interference/etc. Consequently, while some players like to wager on the basis of its top time, it is much more reliable for betting purposes to give equal or more weight to its average time.

Now mixed up in all that are good, bad or indifferent runs as well as a variety of tracks, grades or even distances.

You are now hoping to pluck out a certain run (or time) and say that is the dog's "mark" and then to measure all other runs against that "mark".

Statistically, that does not hold up. For example, a young dog may ping the lids and set up a brilliant time in its Maiden or in the next grade up. But once the class rises it will strike more obstacles in trying to repeat the performance. So its Career record will be biased in favour of an early run or two in circumstances which are no longer available. (A further example is that the same dog may get away with running Wide in the Maiden but it will find it much tougher to get away with that when up against better dogs or from an unsuitable box).

All of which comes back to form assessment on the basis of its last five runs. Any fewer and you can be misled. Any more and you will learn very little extra.

Anyway, all these factors are what is involved in the Topgun tomorrow. TT's Best was on 21 Sep (a good 42.01 at MEA), so you can use that as your "mark". Its run prior to that and the three after than were all rubbish. How do you judge the relative importance of all these factors? That's why I assessed it as a $3 or $4 chance, and it would also be why there is a big difference between what TABCORP thinks and what the Watchdog thinks.

But, to go down your road, it has also demonstrated three times that it is running way below its Best or "mark".

Were I still betting I would stay out of the Topgun for two reasons - TT is unreliable and it is too hard to separate the others in the field (eg #4 has not raced for five months - why did it get an invitation at all?).

What I'm saying is if you want to make a statement that a dogs form wont hold up from one week to the next over the 700m trip, you need to ability rate each of those runs and compare them to prove your point(not saying you're wrong btw). Average times doesn't adequately do that imo.

I may have put it badly. What I am saying is that there are a number of factors which need assessment before coming to a conclusion about a dog's chances.

Basically they are divided into two areas - the dog and the circumstances.

To assess the dog you need to consider both its Best and Average recent times for both the overall trip and for the 1st sectional (the other sectionals do not help). However, in each case you may want to assign more weight for one than the other. Up to you but statistical analysis of thousands of dogs suggests more weight to Average times.

This is not an absolute figure but just a means of comparing eight dogs, one with the other.

This applies for any distance. Whether you add other considerations is up to the individual. For example, in the 7-day situation, what I am saying (with evidence) is that the outcome is much less predictable for that reason alone - you cannot tell which dogs will hold their form and which will not - therefore a sensible punter will stay out of the race.

Aside from the 7 day backup issue, for which there is ample proof, I suggest we stand back and look at what was supposedly the best field in the country chasing some $108k prize money. We read reports of "superstars" and "champion litters" which are no more than hyperbole and PR spin from organisations that apparently want to fool the public. Certainly, TT was in that category once but no longer. The rest take it in turns to win, usually in moderate times.

The question now becomes are we adopting the best policies to encourage the development of a decent staying sector? It seems not.

Amazingly, TT is now listed as favourite for the Bold Trease in a couple of weeks' time. Unbelievable!

u want to go on about how tt is terrible odds and not going well and u complain that one dog is first up for 5 months and how did it even get into the field but then u want to whinge and say its to hard to pick something to bet on in the race.

u r a professional whinger, lol.

Simon,

In regard to the several questions I have asked, I take it we can put you in the "Don't Know" category.