True Detective won again, from Box 5, in faster time and with a seven day back up. Please stop the fight. Are you feeling it yet Torn ?

Computers have no empathy with a dogs will to win, physical development and trainers skill

Those kind of intangibles cannot be measured mathematically

Interference and track conditions are variables that can be measured but are still subjective, but at least they are things you can see with your own eyes and analyse on video and paper from the meeting and put a value on them

I went out to the track to to the meeting last night.

He never looked like losing once he led...I had something on him because he looked great in the parade, was the big improver of all the field in the staying ranks, was on his toes and because Torn bagged him....he looked ready for it, despite the 7 day back up

Even 2nd and 3rd improved their times from the week before

Just Terms only ran 1 length outside his heat run even though he jumped poorly and then got into a world of interference after the start, as this Blazing Cartier who got chopped out by the outside division just after the start, after beginning pretty well.

That's how you back a winner

All runners got around safely and live to fight another day

Keep bugling.... Toot Toot

It's got nothing to do with my program (which I do not use any more). Had I used it I doubt it would have put True Detective on top as it simply did not have the background nor the current form to justify that. That's the cross you have to bear when dogs are continually on the up or down.

The race outcome had everything to do with a big improvement from True Detective - or, as I said, "it may prove me wrong". That is a credit to the trainer. (Plus it began quicker than in the heat).

I would also agree with Sandro's summation with only one small addition - Blazing Cartier is not happy on the fence and wants to get 2 or 3 off it, which caused his problem in this race. I doubt it could run 41.87 anyway.

Either way, the race offered no special insight into the basic theme on this thread. Dogs get better, dogs get worse. That's life. Four ran faster, four ran slower.

And a good many cannot backup in 7 days - as illustrated by the data produced by myself, Steven and Sandro, all of it. Some can, some can't. So, if everybody's data says the same thing, why would you argue the toss?

Everybody's data didn't say the same thing now, did it?
That was the result- your cherry picked data was PROVEN WRONG!!!!!!!
Calling your handywork "data" is a big stretch. More like "pillars of deception".
Why are you insulting everyone's intelligence?
Your propaganda was 67% can't, 33% can.
Everyone from Tasmania to Greenland read that, so you are fooling no-one.

The reality is your figures are upsidedown, a bit like your mental state ATM.

It's the end of the penny section on this one, Thorny Torny.
You've been sucked in and spat out.
It's all been fake news.

May the stayers continue to race week in, week out and tear holes in your shortening pockets.
Be careful they don't tear the fork out of your nightie, darls.
Perish the thought.

It seems necessary to add a further piece of detail in view of the lies that are being written here.

I mentioned that all the data checks showed much the same thing. The detail is .....

Myself (all runners in dozens of mainly feature races over 10 years plus some case histories of prominent dogs) about 67% do not back up well. They include very prominent dogs - some I have listed individually.

Sandro (10 years of winners only in Sydney Cup) 50% dropped off from heat time.

Steven (winners only in 75 Group races) 40% ran slower time in final.

There may be all sorts of reasons for individual ups and downs but the overall picture is clear and consistent - many dogs have a hassle backing up. Three different checks confirm that view.

* * * * *

Let me not distract from the core subject here but I cannot resist mentioning a dog at Meadows last night (25 Jan) - it got pinged for a Satisfactory Trial (even though it was reported injured) after it led then faded as a $3.20 second fav.

The more interesting fact was that it had raced on Jan 2/7/10/14. So there was a nice gap before the Meadows run but what was the trainer doing racing it four times in 12 days, without success, and was there any residual effect? Is this sensible programming? Did it just "look well"? Should punters assess "over-racing" in their previews?

Bruce,

Add this statistic to your box of tricks....

... With four heats run, at least three out of the four heat winners fail in the final...

The main reason is not your blah blah about backups etc.

The sorry fact of life is, only one dog can win the final.

How do your data checks work their way around that fact?

"Let me not distract from the core subject here but I cannot resist mentioning a dog at Meadows last night (25 Jan) - it got pinged for a Satisfactory Trial (even though it was reported injured) after it led then faded as a $3.20 second fav."

Okay Bruce, I take it you are referring to race 9 at the Meadows, and the dog concerned is Aston Lopez.

The satisfactory trial? Beats me, the dog was leading through the catching pen and stumbled, presumably injures itself and consequently fades out of the contest. Cops 5 days for the injury, nobody would disagree....but the satisfactory trial?????????

Now Bruce, lets get down to the nitty gritty, and why your credibility is waning on the GD site.

You wrote

"The more interesting fact was that it had raced on Jan 2/7/10/14. So there was a nice gap before the Meadows run but what was the trainer doing racing it four times in 12 days, without success, and was there any residual effect? Is this sensible programming? Did it just "look well"? Should punters assess "over-racing" in their previews?"

The dogs form leading up to The Meadows 25/1, after an eleven day break read...

14/1 WON Horsham 485m

10/1 5th Bendigo 425m

7/1 WON Horsham 410m

2/1 2nd Bendigo 425m

And for some reason, best known to yourself, you ask... "what was the trainer doing racing it four times in 12 days, without success"

Bruce, you owe the trainer an apology.

The overall record of the dog is 16 starts / 8 wins.

Nevertheless, high frequency racing like that does throw doubts into investor's minds. And 485m at Horsham is not for the faint hearted. Besides, there were comparable examples earlier in its career.

But we digress.

Sandro Bechini wrote:

Bruce Teague wrote: Graham Moscow wrote: Ok Fellas stay calm hold fire, historically Sandro youre spot on, its ok Moscow not buying himself a straight jacket. What Bruce & co are trying to achieve they will need NASA help. Hopefully Bruce will oblige my request. So stay calm and wait please Graham, Actually, Sandro is not spot on at all. He is mixing water and oil. My basic suggestion is that Racing Rules should be adjusted to prevent stayers racing more than once in 14 days. This has absolutely nothing to do with form programs or mathematics as such. It has everything to do with achieving more reliable, more predictable and fairer race outcomes or even avoiding over-stressing dogs and putting them in danger. (One commentator on this thread has even posed such a threat for a 400m dog moving up to 500m so it is not a fairy story). The principle is already recognised by the ban on racing on successive days. I would extend that. I am spot on. You are wrong, the rest of us are correct. Your suggestion will never happen because it is unfounded I went back and checked the Sydney Cup results held over 720m for the last 18 years I only judged the final winners that also won their heat - this is the fair way to do it because ''in most cases'' they would have been either free of interference in both heat and final or be able to run their usual race in both heat and final to give their maximum performance 2019 Boom Down 42.00 F 42.07 H 2018 Poco Dorado 41.68 F 42.25 H 2017 Fanta Bale 42.41 F 42.46 H 2015 Ada Mary 42.34 F 42.43 H 2012 Bell Haven 42.25 F 42.71 H 2010 Nana Cook 42.38 F 42.11 H 2009 Amity Bale 42.41 F 42.19 H 2002 Westend Prince 42.61F 42.71 H 2001 Pearl Larriki 42.70 F 42.80 H Therefore, after a 7 day back up, out of 9 Final winners who also won their Heat, 7 of them improved their time and only 2 didn't being Amity Bale and Nana Cook Mathematically speaking, 77.77% improved their time

77.77% improved not 50%

Toot Toot

Maybe that was the lie he was referring to.
Gunshot No.6,891.

Ian,

Not the best illustration. Winning is one thing, being able to run a given time is another. Of course, there will be "ups and downs" in both categories. It is not a precision exercise. That's why I have taken an overall view by checking out results for all runners in numerous races over many years. In addition, I cross-checked a fair number of individual dogs in more detail, including real top liners, and found that many of those conformed to the overall Win-then-Fade pattern - eg Space Star and Xylia Allen amongst others.

Bear in mind that we are talking about a breed where there appears to be general acceptance that (a) only small numbers are naturally competitive over distances of 700m or so and (b) of those, a significant number (pick your own figure) cannot repeat the effort after only a 7 day break. We are pushing the envelope.

My plea is only that the clues are properly investigated by authorities who set policy, albeit using independent reviewers.

Apart from the specific issue of backing up, there is the matter of whether or not the overall stamina of the breed is in long term decline or not. What could be more important than that?

* * * *

PS: Sandro's initial claims refer only to half of those recent Sydney Cups - ie he limited the checks to those few which better suited his purpose. Not a goer really. Ideally, for any survey you need hundreds of samples in order to reduce the order of error to a minimum.

PS2: No-one seems to be commenting that TT has just run down three local dogs to win a heat of The Miata at Cannington in 41.78. That was after a 23 day break. The time is nice enough but not close to his record of 41.25. More in the final next week.

Ian, The dogs form leading up to The Meadows 25/1, after an eleven day break read...

14/1 WON Horsham 485m

10/1 5th Bendigo 425m

7/1 WON Horsham 410m

2/1 2nd Bendigo 425m

And for some reason, best known to yourself, you ask... "what was the trainer doing racing it four times in 12 days, without success"

Bruce, you owe the trainer an apology.

The overall record of the dog is 16 starts / 8 wins.

Mark,

Bruce,
You should be embarrassed for that type of comment. For a writer
You dont care about the truth. When it comes to facts and figures youre lazy and have lacked credibility for awhile.

My analysis works off the premise that dogs who win their heat usually get a trouble free run

If they win the final it will be usually also relatively trouble free

Thus allowing a fair comparison of the times given similar circumstances

Your analysis is flawed because Dog A may have run 42.3 in its heat, but in the final, gets badly checked on the first turn, gets relegated to the back of the field, makes ground but runs 42.8

And if you think it balances out because Dog B who ran 42.7 in his heat getting beaten, wins the final in 42.6 because Dog A got knocked out of it and Dog B got a trouble free run, then you are really delving into the realm of fairy tales.

In your case, Dog A goes in the 'Did Not Back Up ' Basket which is completely and utterly incorrect

We could go over this a million times, but your stats are wrong and flawed

PS I am not saying that dogs always back up after 7 days, but I believe you're percentages are far too high

What I think you need to look at is, how many runs has that dog in a 30-60 day period of time. If a greyhound has had 5 staying runs in say 30 days, it may show the last couple of runs going downhill but that's only measured per dog and not overall as a group.

When those situations occur generally the dog will need a break to recoup its overall form and it will be up to the skill of the trainer to recognize that is happening and refresh the dog.

But isolating a 7 day period and making that the norm is really quite laughable and shows lack of understanding about greyhound racing

Toot Toot

I've spent far too many hours on this thread diverging information (along with others) that demonstrates we are all just wasting our time now.

Bruce....we all get your point, ok but there are far far too many variables in racing that have been discussed & exhausted, that you simply can't get your head around.

It's got to the stage where reading your last prayer seems like a re-run of Seinfeld, which incidentally I'll watch over & over again, but your version....not.

Your prayer before that was embarrassing.....And I mean embarrassing for a person with your knowledge & journalistic background, & shows your clutching at straws or not thinking straight. It was easy meat for Ian. Real easy meat.

There's no meat left on this bone Bruce, even the ants have had a go.....but you continue to salt it up & have a chew.

This dog is moving on. I hope the rest do to because this thread is FINISHED, bro.

I'm Done 'n' Dusted.

Hasta la vista, Brucey!

You said "PS I am not saying that dogs always back up after 7 days, but I believe you're percentages are far too high".

I think that is pretty much what I said, or close enough.

And you introduced some interesting fresh points - but not the "incorrect" or "flawed" words, as the data is all in the record books.

All of which supports setting up a proper independent review. No more, no less.

You didn't say that, you intimated that most of the staying dogs could not back up after 7 days

I am telling you that is not correct and that 7 days is not a suitable parameter to measure performance. It means zero in the context of a greyhounds racing life, whether it be sprinter or stayer

So, you are still wrong

And there is no need to waste anymore of the industry's money on an independent review on such an issue

Toot Toot

Pretty much it, Stevo.
No more to prove.
The most ridiculous subject pushed for so long and so often, all based on flawed logic.
The two baskets theory pushing for policy changes within an industry Torn is no part of...beggars belief.

It's been torn, ripped to shreds, exposed as a pathetic agenda and it's there for all to see.

The end to a stupid dumb pretense.

..Tornado settle down read what has been written and take it all in and why are you so unwilling to accept defeat when your facts don't stack up they never have old cock ....

Move on ....