I seem to have touched a nerve here but so be it. But let's strip away all the abusive stuff and utilise what facts we have available.

First, I and a few thousand others pay your wages so we are entitled to speak. I try to avoid opinions and start with facts.

Second, there are odd good points mentioned in these posts but the over-riding issue is that all "trainers know best". Well, I can only repeat what I have said before that the training group are one of the industry's greatest assets but that does not mean they are Einsteins. For a start they often disagree amongst themselves.

Third, you talk about my "theory". The 14 day stayer deal I put forward has nothing to do with theory. It is a simple reflection of the fact that - on repeated evidence -the majority of so-called stayers cannot repeat their effort of a week earlier - no matter whether they are top liners or not. (I note nobody has answered my query about Burn One Down).

Fourth, the syndrome I speak of - let's call it replenishing the juices - is a well established aspect of all animals' performances, including humans, some of whom are monitored by the hour to within an inch of their lives. To a limited extent, it is even acknowledged in greyhound racing by some or all administrations (coursing is just one). It is repeatedly mentioned by veterinarians, and even trainers at times. The only question is how much, how big an effect etc. I can't answer that so I simply put the question up for more learned comment. Meantime, any punter who puts up hard earned on staying races is nuts, particularly those who backed Burn One Down at $1.20.

Fifth, everyone might have their opinions on WDA and Newson but the facts remains that (a) live baiting not only took place but was defended by a minority of trainers,(b) it put the entire industry in danger (and still has), (c) Newson correctly identified the problem and handled it, (d) WDA drew on a wide range of evidence and experience in animal husbandry to make their assessments, (e) broadly, a number of other veterinarians and others have directly or indirectly supported what WDA said (see various submissions to inquiries).

Sixth, while I understand the point about hardening up the dog to handle a long trip the question remain of how best to do that - which is a matter for greater minds than mine. Still, I have suggested elsewhere that no dog should be allowed to compete over 700 without some racing over 600. That is based partly on the fact, repeat fact, that the vast majority of first attempts at 700 fail badly, never mind how good the dog was elsewhere. In a few cases, a good dog sometimes does well at its first try but then collapses like a pack of cards next time out. I am also bemused at the large number of dogs that keep trying 700m races when it is plain they can't hack it. Finally, I keep hearing people producing examples of stayers that could handle all the trials and tribulations and succeed. Of course, there will always be the exceptions (Sweet It Is?). My point is about the majority, not the exception.

Seventh, and more vitally, some of you may have lost the plot and forgotten that the industry has lost the argument, lost the control, lost much of the public, lost the politicians, and lost the real market (genuine punters). More of the same will not turn that around.

Nor will putting "more dog men on the board" do much good. It never has worked and never will now or in the future.

PS: I note the Shepparton Cup heats last night incurred 21 scratchings (some duplicates there) resulting in 5 of 8 heats being short of runners - three with only 5 runners. Really? How can you lose 5 of 10 nominations three times? Who is kidding who?

Bruce

I wasn't being abusive. I just stated a fact.

You are living in a delusional world if what you think you are professing makes any sense at all.

In fact I rate it as pure nonsense

It will actually lead to a greater shrinkage of the sport by having less dogs available than what there already is and forcing us to breed more dogs to race to take into account the 7 & 14 day breaks these dogs you would force these dogs to have, as opposed to managing the number we have and providing a structure where all dogs can compete in their grade and have a fair chance of winning races

This would leave us with a greater wastage problem we already have.

We would have dogs sitting around having a holiday for up to 14 days and owners and trainers paying for it.

I don't know if you have looked lately but the new GRNSW Board consists of a minority of 'dog men'

Also the dog men are not just trainers, one is an accountant (also a trainer of a high profile stayer) and one is a practising solicitor.

They are outnumbered 3 to 2 and are there to advise the independent board members what the effects are of introducing such policies without consultation with the actual participants themselves so that policies like the silly water bowl aren't introduced without proper consultation and not because some Vet who sticks her arm up a cow's fanny for a living says that its inhumane not provide water whilst dogs are kennelled.

As far as trainers not being Einsteins, its that kind of high-handed superiority -based attitude that led the Liberals and Nationals to back down on the ban

Its darn right insulting to the people in the sport. Many of them would run rings around you Albert.

Now who is thinking with a backwards attitude?

Bruce, I really wonder what side you are on.

It doesn't appear to be greyhound racing that's for sure.

PS Re Burn One Down the best person to ask about how he backs up after a race would be Jason Thompson himself.

In fact, maybe he should consult with you as to when the dog should have his next trial or race start.

"First, I and a few thousand others pay your wages so we are entitled to speak"

Fact is most participants do not make a wage from the Industry - Fact most have a "day" job - Fact there is a significant number of participants who are not hands on but "invest" heavily in the Industry from their "day" job incomes. Fact I and many like me have invested huge sums in the Industry for the enjoyment of the game - it will never repay me and others like me we can walk away at any point without a 2nd thought.

If you or others choose to gamble on the greyhounds, you do so not to "pay a wage".

I am not sure who you are or who has lead you to believe you ,or the WDA group, to think you know what you are talking about.You clearly do not and more disturbing you are representing yourself and you peers as a knowledge above all.

Another silly statement.

"PS: I note the Shepparton Cup heats last night incurred 21 scratchings (some duplicates there) resulting in 5 of 8 heats being short of runners - three with only 5 runners. Really? How can you lose 5 of 10 nominations three times? Who is kidding who?"

There is a shortage of dogs - the clubs are extending nominations calling trainers to nominate to secure fields - the trainers review the fields and identify they have NO CHANCE with their lower quality dog they nominated in the hope of securing a run in a weak heat.

I would like to see you and your peers tell Gai Waterhouse or Chris Waller,too name but two highly successful thoroughbred trainers, they can't back up a racehorse in 7 days?

Sadly the failings of the Greyhound Administrators , including bureaucrats like Newson, have provided a platform for a broad based attack on the Industry by many who purport to be experts and at the same time bleed the Industry through contract fees

The Industry doesn't and didn't require a "how to manual" it merely required a serious attempt to clean up Live Baiting - Drugs and Improve re-homing - everything else is but a smoke screen.

You know what Bruce? The one thing I will agree with you on is the Industry is headed for collapse ,particularly in NSW and QLD. Not because of Live baiting or Exporting or Drugs or because the Participants are in denial over the need for change. It is because too many "experts" have been given a voice deemed more important then the collective (not singular) knowledge retained by the trainers and rearers.

You really have a lot to learn and I not sure we should all be bothering to educate you Bruce.

On yours and another post the question of good or bad sires has come up and then assigned to something I said.

In short, I have no idea where this comes from. Indeed, the last thing I would or could do is comment on the detail of breeding. It is way beyond my pay grade.

What I have said is that there appears to be a general decline in the proportion of dogs able to compete well in staying races. They either can't run the trip or are doing it in very poor time. Concurrently, recent years have seen a rise in the proportion of races of 400m or less - obviously in sympathy with trainer demands.

Taken together, the trend is plain.

For example, while recent staying performances in Brisbane have been quite consistent, races in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide have been won in times 14 to 16 lengths outside the record - some even worse. These generally involved quite prominent dogs.

The rest of your post is mostly irrelevant but it does remind me of one issue. That revolves around the practice of offering bonus prize money for longer races to both city and provincial runners - presumably on the assumption that it would produce an improvement in staying capabilities. It has failed.

I have put forward the argument that (a) the current bonuses are a waste of space as they have produced nothing worthwhile, (b) the cash should be used in some other way after first investigating measures that have a decent chance of success.

The follow-on there is the implication that shifting the incentives towards more targeted breeding - ie to sires/dams which can demonstrate stamina etc - might be a way to go. Who and how is beyond my capabilities.

Meantime, fees for proven staying sires are small but still not popular. Sires of winning stayers are almost all good dogs which never raced beyond the 500s. Top stayers in recent years have therefore emerged more or less by accident. Miata would be a classic example.

The other point I could make is that the breeding sector is one area of the industry which is generally free of outside influences (bar the above subsidies) and is therefore subject to market forces. I think that answers most of your queries.

Who did they speak to in the industry?
Confidentiality prevents disclosing the names or number of greyhound establishments visited.
The online survey with its inherently biased questions, was completed faithfully by many non stake holding antis, some as far away as the UK!
The result of the survey is now universally known as "public perception'. Having established public perception and the concept of "Social Licence" the Anti lobbyists continued their attack culminating in Baird and Grant's panic.

Within the report the WDA itself stated there needs to be a study done on chase motivation because nothing existed, nevertheless it supported a ban on non synthetic lures. Displaying their own cognitive dissonance while suggesting the industry suffered from such an affliction.

The WDA people may well be experts in their field, however their expertise on greyhounds and the greyhound industry was limited. I wouldn't question their integrity as academics or personally.
I do question their outcomes based on the limited time they were given to do the report and I wonder why no one took the bait regarding a study on chase motivation before banning the use non synthetic material for lures.

Hi Terry,
No, BP is just fine, mate.
Yes, I agree it was a fair spray...VERY fair.
Nothing more than a wee bit of gardening.

Bruce has given up his valuable time(and it takes a lot of it), to try and explain his findings and ask you all to look at it from a different perspective only to be ridiculously attacked.

You cannot assess a dogs run by just looking at a form guide or whether it wins or loses the race. It can't be done, so stop professing it can, and stop bagging people who know a lot more than yourselves.

Nothing much changes in the greyhound industry, that's why the participants in it learn precious little, whereas that's not necessarily the case in the racehorse industry.

I for one appreciate your input Bruce and agree with much of what you say. I hope you keep contributing on this forum, and your critics remember that others (who don't train), also love the greyhound industry and want to be part of it. cheers.

Well, thank you for that input, Ryan...very insightful indeed.

Just a few points of it (well, actually ALL of it) I'd like to clear up, that is, if you don't mind?

"Many of you will never understand what Bruce has written because you have never actually sat down and broken down a dogs run or know how to do so............and none of you for that matter have any intention of learning, which is the really disappointing part, as learning more about a dogs performance is one of the many ways forward for the industry. I'm in no doubt about that."

Ryan, that is a pretty wild assumption and I'm afraid you are wrong. You are wrong because I go RIGHT THROUGH ALL my dogs performances.
I take into account missed starts and stumbles, checks, decisions made in running(good and bad) and interference to arrive at a realistic time it actually ran...EVERY DOG.
Also taken into account is where it is at in its current preparation.
Also, any hiccups its encountered leading up to that run.
Afterwards, there is consideration given to its recovery rate and expected improvement or otherwise from that observation.
So, no, Ryan, your assumption is COMPLETELY wrong.
I know many others who do the same.
In fact, you might be surprised how thorough and professional some people are, judging by your perception that EVERYONE hasn't got a clue of how to read their dogs run.

"Bruce has given up his valuable time(and it takes a lot of it), to try and explain his findings and ask you all to look at it from a different perspective only to be ridiculously attacked."

You are insinuating that Bruce has graciously sacrificed his time to share his wisdom with others.
Bruce comes on here at his own free will and gives opinions as he sees fit.
Nothing wrong with that, but he hasn't GIVEN UP anything!
He's probably bored stiff and entertains himself with his passion...nothing wrong with that either.
If he expresses opinions that some find outlandish and detached, he'll get debate.
If he goes overboard, he gets overboard responses, like he has received recently.
Bruce is a big boy, he can handle it.
You have obviously missed where he tended to be a little condescending and pompous...well, he doesn't really deserve a kiss when he does that.
Maybe its just his way of achieving notoriety, I don't know, nor really care...each to their own.
Gee, Ryan, stop being so protective and precious...you yourself have copped flak before, so have I and most others. Bit like a game of footy, have a biff, then go have a beer with each other. Tally ho.

"You cannot assess a dogs run by just looking at a form guide or whether it wins or loses the race. It can't be done, so stop professing it can, and stop bagging people who know a lot more than yourselves."

I can't see where anyone has done that.

"Nothing much changes in the greyhound industry, that's why the participants in it learn precious little, whereas that's not necessarily the case in the racehorse industry."

Generalisation and speak for yourself.

"I for one appreciate your input Bruce and agree with much of what you say. I hope you keep contributing on this forum, and your critics remember that others (who don't train), also love the greyhound industry and want to be part of it. cheers."

No-one is beyond learning and that includes Bruce. There are many things he can learn here that may give him more of an "earth" to colour his black and white stats with...who knows, they might even give some insights into backing more winners.

Bruce is alright, he just has to stop being a pompous pr!ck at times and stop making ridiculous statements...
I guess we all have our moments, Ryan.

Time adjustments, analysing split times and speed mapping are indeed tools that the greyhound industry have not traditionally used as often as thoroughbred racing and can be the catalyst for finding some really good betting opportunities that may not have been as easily identifiable as simply reading the paper on the TAB wall but if you think it is more important than the trainers opinion of how their dog is feeling and training then you are kidding yourself.

Bruce Teague wrote:

.....Whatever else Newson did, the WDA report and the UTS track study represent the only significant moves in the last 50 years to drag the industry out of its 1950s cocoon. Too late, perhaps, as the damage is proving near lethal but those two efforts at least give the industry a faint hope.........

To me that read as at least they are trying to address something albeit too late - that's all........................then came that absolutely disgraceful, totally unrelated, attack of yours, it appears, as soon as you read the letters "WDA" ? None of us(quite likely including Bruce), reading what you wrote wld agree with what the report said, but nonetheless you turned it all on him.

The guy's choc full of info and data, whether you agree with it or not. These guys are people anyone learns off and has thought provoking ideas. It's not a case of being precious at all, I just like reading his thoughts which now (thx to the likes of you and yours interpretational skills),we may not be hearing anymore.

If I were him reading the derogatory remarks aimed at him I'd be thinking you deserve what you get! And that type of reaction is reflective of what trainers/greyhound industry got.

FGS wise up.

Michael Geraghty wrote:

.......I take into account missed starts and stumbles, checks, decisions made in running(good and bad) and interference to arrive at a realistic time it actually ran........

Now I am impressed with those efforts of yours,seriously.

The only issue there is you wld be unable to rate the track as you wld need to rate the whole meeting as well as previous meetings to make a call on that. It is important because the Albion track for example fluctuates a lot from meeting to meeting, and to use a Bruce parlance.......just rating your dogs are too small a sample size to come up with an effective track rating. btw happy to help you out here as I r8 the Mon/Thurs Albion meets, if your dogs race there let me know.

As for your 'Generalisation' comment......it's not.

Major racehorse stables have form analysts working for them. Often these form analysts also walk the track on raceday and offer their views to trainers as well as r8 their horses runs previous and on the day. Now the trainer need not take notice of them if they so wish, but unlike the greyhound trainer, they are at least informed and have another angle to consider with the future preparation of their horses.

Now if this ends with you bagging the sh1t outa my breeding theories again(which btw you still do not understand), I will consider you the village idiot and not respond - be warned(tic)

avagoodnite

----------------------------------------------------------------

tried it Mathew in 1985, hated waiting to race and didn't understand the animal very well back then, so wasn't very good at it.

Great post Ryan way to go ....

Mick can you believe what these turkeys have written ....

Wow this gets better every day ..

Village Idiot ..Ratings
Smartass Award
No all no nothing Award
Early sectional award
The Harry Wanker award

Ryan ...leads the way ..in 2017 ..

Ryan, you'll definitely go places with some of your comments.
I don't know why you are wasting your time trying to educate
"us" mere mortals.......

The biggest reason that speed mappers and analysts walk the track prior to races in the thoroughbreds is to understand where the better parts of the track are before giving jockeys pre-race instructions. I'm not sure about you but I don't find the value of walking the track at the greyhounds before the meeting because the jockeys on the greyhounds don't follow instructions as well as they do at the gallops. If you can prove to people that your services are of value then people will come running but if nobody is asking for your help then chances are- its of no value to them.

Perhaps we can put this theory to bed once and for all!

I have mentioned a number of individual points on this blog but seldom are those actual points addressed in the responses. More often, replies go to other aspects of the general subject - ie those I did not speak about - or to my parentage and brain power.

WDA is a classic example where they queried (amongst other factors) (a) early education practices and (b) faulty reasoning behind live baiting as they suggested better (and legal) alternatives were available. The first point is supported by every veterinarian on the planet so far as I can work out while the second point is a lay down misere, no matter where you come from.

Incidentally, did anyone notice that after the Tooradin disaster an observer (not a guilty one) asked why it was that some of the dogs involved in trials did not do any good at their next couple of starts. An interesting point?

I did not comment on anything else from WDA (but will make another point or two at another time).

Much the same hassle occurs with Newson where you have dodged the point again. I found much of what he said and did deplorable, but not on these two subjects (ie WDA and UTS). Concentrate, fellas.

On some other matters - 14 day breaks, replenishing the juices, 700m racing, Burn One Down, etc - not one of you has addressed my points and instead simply said "trainers know best". Well, the hard evidence is that they don't, or won't admit the truth. Worse, one of you made the excuse that they had to race more often because the industry was short of starters, which is two wrongs trying to make a right. No marks for that.

On horses backing up - I am no expert but my observation is that that seldom do they turn around in 7 days. Indeed, you frequently see quotes from trainers about trying to avoid just that. Anyway it is a far cry from the days when you might see horses running twice on the one day - once early and once in the last race Welter. But that was the habit in the 1950s before they realised the folly of their ways.

Board membership - Michael Eberand is undoubtedly a good bloke with lots of skills for the job (I have read much of his stuff). However, he is an owner/trainer and, as such, he will have a permanent conflict of interest and therefore should not be on that board on principle. We have been there and done that and failed.

Besides, two more points. My observation is that trainers have a 24/7 job already so how can they reasonably allocate the necessary time to running the industry? Second, the greatest need is for fresh and independent skills to help drag the industry out of the mess it is in. That will never come from insiders, no matter how brilliant they are. Consultation, yes, but not management.

And here's a third - greyhound racing is not a sport, as we often hear, it's a business. To succeed, you need businessmen to manage and businesslike systems for them to work in. But we do not have either.

So why am here? (1) I like greyhound racing and have done so since TABs were not even a twinkle in the Treasurer's eye, and (2) it's run badly so I keep trying to fix it. Meantime, although punting is part of my DNA, I have almost given it away because of the dreaded combination of disruptive tracks and poor quality fields. I know several others, including former customers, who have done likewise.

Finally, a short story. It has long been my practice to not just visit but walk around as many tracks as I can. That has involved some 30-odd tracks from Albion Park to Hobart. The aim is to better understand why they and the dogs do what they do. But do you know that on more than half of those occasions, when I ask permission from the local managers, they respond with the same question: "Why would you want to do that?" Think about it.

As part of that exercise I was wandering around the old Geelong track to try to fathom why I regularly saw dogs losing their stride as they came around the home turn. I could not see much at first so I got down on my hands and knees and crawled from the 347m boxes all the way around the turn. Finally, I got there. Just opposite the old 700m boxes there was a small indentation about a metre off the rail. How so? Well, they used a water truck and parked it behind those 700m boxes. Whenever it drove onto the track the wheels dug in and a hole was created. Problem solved. It's a game of centimetres as well as seconds.

And here I was thinking the track would be checked for safety before a race meeting. I wonder who we can blame this one on?

from what i heard the complaints were likened to insider trading and an analogy made with horse racing where almost every trial is able to be viewed on replay by the punters.......with the dogs thats not the case and in vic the dogs name is not even published next to the trial times as far as I'm aware.

integrity being integrity, an area where the ptb are committed to getting it right, this may be the next big thing on the agenda...............how things are changing, it was once thought of as insulting to dog trainers if other parties were to view your dog trial.