EXTERNAL LINK

SO far as I can determine, wordwide studies have been confined to either (a) surfaces or (b) turn banking - both with reference to galloping actions.

Other variables include ...

Turn radius
Camber transition from straight to turn
Distance from start to turn
Positioning of boxes
Shape of track - from circle to straight
Age/experience of runners
Habits of runners (rail/wide/centre) (slow/fast beginners)
Style of lure
Time of day
Inside/outside lure

In other words those studies are all of bits and pieces, not of the whole package.

Anyway UTS is two thirds of the way thru the exercise so time will tell.

NB Wenty and Richmond have always been sub-standard, despite various works programs, primarily due to disruptive first turns.

Unfortunately Bruce the studies will remain flawed, while ever the data on injuries and or post race/trial sickness are confined to Race night, where there are many variables e.g. Undetected injuries whilst the animal is warm or distracted by the next race, inexperienced Vets Surgeons, Rushing of staff to get home after the last, no record of 24 or 48 hour injuries or sickness (how many were sick Sunday after swimming around a very soggy track Saturday) etc etc etc etc.......

Quite so, although I note some stewards asking trainers to let them know of "tomorrow" injuries. It is also a racing rule that all injuries should be reported anyway (ha ha).

I have not talked to UTS about that under-reporting in particular but the syndrome is well known.

However, end decisions or recommendations may not depend on high statistical accuracy any more than you can predict exactly what a greyhound will do, or what it will be allowed to do. It will also be valid to suggest that an X situation will be more desirable than a Y situation if using comparably structured examples.

The quantity of injury types and track parameters are huge anyway. Plus there is the additional unknown of the genetic and racing history of the injured dog.

Further, there are many more disruptions than those which result in injury so the former would have to rate much higher in conclusions than the latter.

Further again, many injuries, particularly those due to falls, are a function of individual dog habits rather than the track's configuration. IE good field dogs versus blunderbusses. I am sure you have had both. Ideally, you would delete the blunderers from the stats but that is hardly practicable.

There is little engineering precision in this subject, albeit a number of figures will necessarily appear in the final report.

That report may well be capable of challenge in some areas but I doubt you could call it "flawed". In any event, it will be a lot better than what we have now, which is nil. Or, worse, current shortcomings are the result of decades of misuse by old fogies, the "she'll be right" brigade and engineering firms which have no greyhound or racing experience.

Even worse again is that big bucks were poured into rebuilding two tracks (Dapto and Richmond) to end up with exactly the same faults that were there before. Here's a trivia test for you: name the trip where the inside two dogs invariably jump to the right at the start.

Closer to home, what about all the dogs that bumped their noses trying to anticipate the Cessnock lids opening? What's the story there?

You are joking, aren't you?

Speechless.

Here people think it is unkind not giving them some reward for their efforts (catching pens)

I can see arguments for and against the finish on lure.

For: More and more dogs are needing the finish on lure.

Against: If you have a genuine chasing dog it doesn't do it much good being the 1st to finish on and having 7 dogs smash it from behind every start.

Yes they should chase, but will they keep chasing for no reward ???