are there not enough noms for staying races does anybody know?

are they programming races for stayers?

Are trainers proactively demanding them to be put on?

they shouldn't have to demand it. their job is to train the dog last i saw.

its up to the authorities to cater for stayers, i just wasn't sure if they had tried to run staying races but they didn't get enough noms or not.

i realise a lack of dog numbers is not helping things.

You think you are right...why bother arguing

so you think trainers r in charge of programming? i don't know how u figure that tbh.

I didn't say that they were, you have inferred that

sorry i asked the question now, lol.

You answered your own question

If one track a week had a 650 plus race on for Novice dogs 0 to 4 or 0 to 2 you would see a lot more trainers plan out there racing month .

5 weeks and all we have is a Novice at sandown on the 9th of next month a 700 and a 0 to 4 700 at the meadows the following week but nothing at all after that for 4 weeks ..
You cannot train a stayer to run only for one or two racers every 4 to 6 weeks ..

The way i look at is ..
Think about all of the Greyhounds that have been sacked for not breaking in fast enough over 250 to 300 meters ....Many of these dogs could of made the track if they were given Time Patience and races programed to suit young strong dogs

I asked GRNSW to ask trainers in regions to see how many middle distance stayers and dour stayers they have so that races could be programmed, but it appears its fallen on deaf ears. GBOTA in conjunction with GRNSW did have those types of races that were announced in January, but it appears nothing that was sustained. I spoke to him over the phone and hes part of the racing programming section. They do program, but it appears to be adhoc as I did see two middle distance races programmed one day after the other in the same region.

With prizemoney for shorter races being level, its a disincentive now for trainers to even bother to trial their dogs midweek to race over 500m

Its far easier to train for a short course, less hassle, less travel, less costs i.e in trialling fees per dogs...same prizemoney

GRNSW graders argue that they put on more shorter course races because those distances are over-nominated

There's your answer.....as I said Simon, you answered your own question ( I wasn't trying to be smart, I was just in a weird mood last night)

I agree with most of what you've written, but why put a 600m dog over 300m races regularly ? You are more than likely not going to win. So that's where GRNSW and Trainers `plan' to have middle distance and staying distance races programmed. I was not a fan of the same p/m for 259m and 600m / 720m races for obvious reasons.

Graders and the CEO can talk about catering for the majority of nominations, but if you program for longer races, they should get a race if nominations exist. No use programming them in regions if there are no stayers available. That's where trainers play an equally important role to the graders. However, GRNSW have to seek interest and feedback so that they can get an understanding of where these types of dogs are. No use trainers waiting for it to happen, but one trainer complaining will be fobbed off as a whinger. Really, if GRNSW doesn't already know where these dogs are domiciled then staff aren't doing their job. It's optimising performances for all dogs in NSW.

With a few exceptions, we still have 200 nominations for 100 positions. That makes it harder for stayers, but not impossible.

Potential 600m dogs are forced to race over 440-535m races because of the default of programming to the masses

Trainers of 600m+ dogs will usually make a 2nd option on their nomination form for a shorter distance to avoid missing a race start which if they do, means they need to trial, so they use an unsuitable race as a trial when the dog is ready to take on a longer assignment

The grader will say ok there are 6 dogs nominated for 600m races but all these dogs will be happy to race over 500m or 450m if there isn't a race

Therefore, instead of putting on a smaller race over the longer distances they merge these dogs with these preferences in over the shorter preference

The 600m+ dogs without a preference to go shorter, miss out on a run and stay home

Thats how it was explained to me by a grader

Program one track a week to run a Novice 650 plus ...Simple fix and everyone is happy ....Inconsistent race programing does nothing to help support those Younger slower dogs ...Programing weekly races does ....

then why was it so bloody hard for u to say yeah the authorities have programmed plenty of staying races but trainers didn't nominate for them instead of playing silly buggers?

Because it is a chicken and the egg question to which there is no real answer?

It depends on your interpretation of the circumstances

Does GRNSW program enough staying races to cater for the staying pool of greyhounds?

OR

Do trainers not bother to train their dogs for longer distances because it is more convenient to race at shorter distances for the same money and the greater guarantee of getting a start?

Another angle is do we blame breeders for breeding shorter course animals thus reducing the pool of stayers overall?

Which one do you think is more correct then?

I have given you my view