Just an idea..... I had no connection to any of the dogs in the race.....I just felt it was patently bad grading.

FWIW...since when do you smash a track record and not get swabbed?

Do you think a dog that has had 8 starts for 3 wins should be graded as a Grade 4 or FFA dog at EVERY track in Victoria? The bitch has won a Maiden, and two 5th grades.

********************

2.2 Notwithstanding the hierarchy of events as set out in this Rule:

(a) A greyhound is eligible for a Mixed 4/5 event if the greyhound is eligible for a Grade 5 Event or is eligible for a Grade 4 event. Grade 5 greyhounds to be placed in Mixed 4/5 events will be chosen based on total wins, wins on the track, city wins, prizemoney, winning times and overall racing experience.

****************************************

Beltis Bale is the first - has won 13 races, $17k in prizemoney and 2 starts ago won in BON at Warragul.

Lektra Fly just won a heat and final at Cranbourne worth $5k to the winner. Has won 22 races and $50k.

Led Zepplin although down on form has won 20 odd races and $50k.

Six Bob has won 11 and $23k.

Which one of these greyhounds should they grade into a 5th grade race with dogs with 5-10 starts and a couple of wins?

All dogs should be and are graded based on their number of starts/wins. The grading system in Victoria is excellent... you know how it works, use it to your advantage. The problem lies when you've got ordinary dogs.

I guess they don't swab record holders when the record is only a couple of weeks old.

Hmmm, he'll be on his way into the kennels now. Do you reckon we'll hear him screaming from here?

In that Mixed 4/5 race - have a look how hopelessly outgraded the 4 and 7 appear to be.

Its called competition, which used to be the object of greyhound racing.

Now we have these ridiculous grading policies based on ensuring that a fast dog generate 'the maximum return' for its connections, without having to actually compete for that return.

The unfairness of this approach is borne out by the betting figures which consistently show that the punters dont bet accordingly. The monies generated by betting on lesser dogs is simply being given to the connections of the faster dogs, it is an unearned subsidy.

Now some of this subsidy is a good thing, it ensures that the breed improves, but having the Vic system where one week dogs that compete for the pool of funds set aside to promote the breed, a week later get to compete for the pool of funds meant to support the base of the sport(breeding cost and welfare) is ridiculous.

Vic sets aside a huge pool of money, unsupported by betting returns or the public, and the best dogs whilst capable should be competing for this pool, and not having a bite from both pools.

Have a look at the betting figures for Sandown last week, even the mighty 'miata' couldnt get the public to bet.

Last years corresponding meeting contained a maiden final, no Sapphire Classic Final, no Dawson Final, and no jackpot for the quaddie.

Prizemoney paid this year approx $300k, last year approx $80k

Turnover Supertab this year(not including quaddie) approx $700k, last year approx $560k.

So for another $220k in prizemoney, turnover increased about $140k.

Its only a matter of time before the Tier 3 winners start looking at their prizemoney, look at the TAB holdings their meetings generate, and start demanding an adequate return.

then upon the beauty of (grading be it fair for all)a greyhound like hotwire is able to nominamte to run on friday night being that the only night it was nominated for while it has won 2 720m races on a saturday and one 720m on a friday and made a group1 final, yet because its dropped up and down in grades by being inconsitent in form it runs last night destroying a very weak feild and handed a nice winners cheque to connections!

the governing body (grnsw) has the authority to determine if saturday night is a FFA Meeting or a 4/5 grade and upon the basis of rewarding mediocrity my girl is running to consitently well and thus is penalised by way of the grnsw grader being at the mercy of trainers scratching or not nominating if they dont like the feild they face and then by having a reduced feild a reduction of betting pools and a basis of there funding for next year! is see their point but i could argue that you make the decisions, make it a free for all which would have had a greater prize pool, he knows uno, thrilling frank, off my trout, witch on wheels make four and im sure that if grnsw had some bollocks make the only race available to horwire saturday night ffa that week place some of the lesser performed dogs from saturday into friday and that makes a feild of 5 and 1-2 of the staying dogs on the way up and you have the highest quality race on a saturday night! an witch on wheels still has to perform well and is no miata so garuntees of a win is she must still put in her best run!

but grading is the winner here and i cant blame the trainer of hotwire for getting an easy kill on friday night!

but a grading system is needed and its the best one we have so my example is just to show a flip side to good graded greyhounds also getting a raw deal by lesser performed greyhounds being accomodated to make up the numbers!

a perfect example of facing stiff competition was when witch on wheels beat he knows uno, i allways thought she was a chance turned out that with box1 and he knows uno getting hammered in the first turn she won!

why fear limitations, be strong and lead, show people equality and fairness but not chairty and people will be inspired to achieve at a higher level!

i think grading is a case of being liked rather than respected on occasions!

Obviously I have struck you as a blithering idiot, who doesnt know why the quaddie reached $242k EXTERNAL LINK year compared to the $72k the year before?

And comparing a heavily promoted meeting of finals with one that consisted of heats, is really a COMPARABLE meeting?

OK, so maybe the official figures are wrong and maybe they didnt offer a guaranteed pool for the quaddie, and maybe they didnt offer an extra $220k in prizemoney, do you think the night based on the profit the sport earned was worth the investment?

Off course, to answer this question, you have to display that both the on and off-course delivered a profit. Thats actually going to be hard.

I never said is was a comparable meeting - I said corresponding. Clearly the quaddie pool carrying a big jackpot and guaranteed pool helped drive turnover. But tell me, why would the TAB pick out that meeting to throw so much support behind it?

What about the promotion/exposure to new people into the sport that such meeting bring? Tune into FOX FOOTY tomorrow night, or the Melbourne Footy Show, or read the Herald Sun this week and then assess your P+L on the race(s)/meeting/carnival.

It seems to me Jeff that you have a beef with anything Victorian. Is it the 20% increase to prize money that was recently announced? The fact that there is more prize money on offer for greyhound racing in Victoria than there is for harness racing? The fact that Victorian TAB turnover is now over 21%? The track and facilities rebuild program? The GAP/Great Chase/Prison Pets/Pink dog and numerous other community initiatives?
That many of the best dogs in the country continually get sent to Victoria to further their racing careers?

Actually, to be honest, I don't actually care what you think. It's always important that we, as an industry, are looking for ways to improve and grow the sport. And criticism where valid is welcomed. But all you seem to do is bitch and look for things that is wrong - particularly when it comes from Victoria.

I will be looking forward to the Sandown Cup on Thursday night, talking up the game where I can, and enjoying all the good things about the great sport of greyhound racing. If you really don't like what is happening, then perhaps it is time to look for another way to spend your free time.

Your answer is an opinion on what you think my opinion is, contains no facts, a few weasel words(comparable/corresponding-you are kidding?), and a feelgood conclusion, but thats your job, its a justification.

I'll give you some perspective, in 1987 a million dollars was bet on a greyhound TAB meeting for the first time, and that was with the bookies holding $1.5mill as well, and there was no SKY.

There is no doubt that the original GRV board did a great deal with the Govt when Victab was privatised, it set the sport up for its success, but how that money has been spent in recent times hasnt been great. The arrogance of GRV that has led to its internal problems, problems people like myself consistently alluded to on the forums have been a blight on the sport, as has the running down of the Vic breeding base, once the strongest producers of stayers in the country, but now reliant on what your largesse can buy.

And lets not mention what damage this has done to the lesser states like SA and Qld. Even NSW the biggest state, both in terms of breeding and wagering has had to adopt policies that arent good for the long term health of the sport, but when the state with the biggest wallet wants to race to the bottom, then it usually gets its way.

I spend my free time arguing for a better sport for the base, most who simply dont know enough to argue their case, theres nothing wrong with that, and your post is out of line for suggesting I do otherwise.

Instead of talking up the those already at the top, try talking up those at the bottom, give them a lift, argue their case for a change, there's thousands of them you know.

The whole point of Grading is to provide EVEN (fair) competition which gives EVERY dog an equal chance of winning.

Grading is NOT supposed to favour any dog, good OR bad.

The dog in question has already proven itself at the highest graded level (City Grade). On what planet is it fair to then allow that dog to drop down in Grade? The trainers of the other 7 dogs in that race have every right to feel hardly done by.

The Grading system is not supposed to favour good dogs and allow them "easy wins" at the expense of the other runners.

I'm not arguing what the rules currently are.....I'm arguing that the rules as they stand are flawed and unfair.

Consider the fact that EVERY SINGLE WEEK we have extended noms for both City programs.
Now......consider the fact that a City winning dog can currently avoid running against similarly classed dogs by heading off to the country for some easy wins and it is no wonder we can't fill fields at Sandown and the Meadows.

If a dog can win in the City then surely it will be more than competitive at Grade 4 in the country? If it has four "outs" in the city and drops down a Grade then it can always go to the country then for an easy kill...

I don't consider making a dog run against dogs of equal ability "punishment".....I consider it good grading.

Unfortunately, that's not what we have currently.

N.B Jeff Holland, you are no doubt aware of my feelings on prizemoney distribution in Vic, with turnover created by Tier 3 (and Tier 2) races being used to prop up prizemoney for City and Group racing, so I'm sure you noticed that the final race on the program (the only Tier 3) actually held more money than any other race (as best as I can tell anyway)????

Apparently the Graders "working sheets" didn't have his win on them so he was put in by mistake.

I also questioned why he shouldn't be redrawn into a field as he was a last start winner (track and distance) but that only applies if the run was in a Tier 3. He won at an all maiden meet.