I will leave your suggestion about training techniques to others better qualified to comment.

But your first sentence - "Litters may will be dropping, but the problem is exacerbated by lower percentages of pups bred making the track, and thereafter higher 'failing to chase' rates" - is way off base. I have offered figures many times.

First, litters/names have been dropping over more than a decade. Second, they crashed badly after live baiting but are now recovering, but not to previous levels. Third, while all this was going on, authorities increased TAB race numbers. Fourth, this caused the classic squeeze - more races and fewer pups meant that more out of each litter were getting a run but empty boxes were still a problem.

Shortcomings of both state and national data systems mean all we have post-2015 are bits and pieces.

So much for the numbers.

Quality-wise, that meant that there has been a drop in the standard of the average race. In turn, the product offered to punters has been worsening. The runts of the litter do not display the same consistency as better dogs.

In total, the industry has degraded in both numbers and quality, starting in 2010 (race numbers) and getting worse after (a) criticism by participants of UTS and WDA contributions, (b) live baiting publicity, (c) a fall in stamina, and (d) inaction or inappropriate action by authorities, official reviewers and governments.

While all that has been going on, better punters have either died off or gone elsewhere, to be replaced by mugs in pubs as technological advances made a "quickie" bet easier to do. To those people, the greyhound is now a four-legged poker machine. The more such people in the game, the less likely it is that they will become owners - which takes us back to the starting point. It's a vicious cycle.

Happily, we still have the bones of a successful future; top dogs and top breeding lines are still there. We just need to manage them better.

That's my opinion Adam

A lot of Fernando litters being born but not many advertised. I reckon people are going direct.

I am definitely not off track re % of pups making the track or of the 'fail to chase' rate.

As for best-practice training techniques, I rely on the advice of a prominent, internationally-recognised dog trainer re the techniques and competencies within the industry.

And where the traditional training methods are disturbed (eg no food rewards allowed in training) it is logical to expect lower standards, which would include the fail to chase issues.

Anyway, Ross, good post and in a nutshell you have written commonsense and common knowledge of which hundreds of millions of people adopt to train their animals.

Sorry, but some people are just full of it...they can't be helped.

EXTERNAL LINK
Sorry about the video but it's the only appropriate one I could find...Geez, it's funny though.

You are a hard man to please.

First - I make no comment about training techniques or about FTC rate (not sure where you get your stats on that anyway).

However, these are the official national stats for 2003 and 2015.

Litters - from 3,279 to 3,016 = -8.7%
Names - from 12,009 to 11,732 = -3.3%
Races - from 38,546 to 40,978 = +6.3%
Starters - from 297,538 to 310,527 = +4.3%

Note NZ stats not included as different circumstances applied there.

So, although the dog population fell, we ran more races and more dogs competed. Assuming there was no change in the average litter size, or in the average starts per dog per year, more dogs from each litter ended up as starters. This also consistent with various moves to encourage dogs with less ability to commence racing.

Pick any other combination of years and the principle still applies.

Obviously, the positioned worsened post the 2015 live baiting impact.

You will not be able to verify my figures because the wise men at GA decided that if they could not keep them up to date they would remove them entirely from the website.

That is the sort of nonsense we pay good money for!

My habit is to print them out at various times so I can assure you they were correct at the time.

Some snippets about betting might be available via the thoroughbred's Fact Book but even that is a bit light-on, too. Plus Betfair refuses to contribute to it.

Good luck trying to work with individual states' annual reports - which are all set up differently. (GRV is possibly the best). And the only reason we get those regularly is because they have to be tabled in Parliament by the Minister.

However, Roger at Victorian Weekly often contains some interesting breeding comparisons but even he can't get any current data out of GRNSW.

Yes.....a greater percentage of dogs bred are actually getting a start, but what those stats don't tell you is how many starts those dogs end up having over their careers or if they ever won a race.

What I am seeing is hundreds (if not thousands) of dogs being named and racing not because they have any ability or chase but rather because if you don't get a certain number of pups that you bred named and to the track you will fail the new breeding rules and won't be permitted to breed from that dam again.

What I am seeing is hundreds (if not thousands) of dogs being named and racing for a few starts and then retiring for being too slow.....or for being rubbed out for failing to chase.

Is there anyone in the industry that can actually provide figures that don't show an increase in FTC and marring offences.......or that any rise in those offences is not as a direct result of removing a suitable rewards based training option????

I bet you can't find those stats. The PTB will never allow themselves to be shown in a bad light.

BTW, Hoop lures and follow on lures are just "shutting the gate after the horse has bolted".
They sure as hell aren't "best practice"!

Now, of course more dogs with less ability will have racing careers, that's the objective, ie, to have more dogs making the track. We also now have grades 6 & 7 in Vic and similar in other States, which we didn't have in 2003.

As for your conclusion that a lack of stamina in the modern breed "has degraded (the industry) in both numbers and quality", it's something you continue to repeat that's without foundation. I've shown you elsewhere that stamina wasn't inherent in the (track) breed to begin with, which is something you've obviously ignored, for whatever reason. Yes I get it that for a period in the '70's there were more staying races than today. Big deal. There were more staying races in the '70's than the 40's. Did the genome of the greyhound change radically in 30 years? No, and it didn't change radically in 90 years either.

Yes, recent policies and practice have dictated that more pups out of each litter will make the track. By definition, that means the quality of the average race will fall. Yes, many are confined to bottom grades but as openings come up in better grades so some will filter through. That movement is encouraged by the consistent shortage of starters in all races but especially in higher grades and in longer races. The upward trend is unavoidable.

The totality of that package is that average race quality is down.

As a matter of interest, our separate studies of various databases showed that from 2010 to 2015 there was a small but steady increase in the number of individual dogs actually racing - ie since the introduction of more low standard TAB races - despite an actual fall in the dog population.

The stamina issue is not so precise and is coloured by the fact that the wishes of the trainer come into it. So we can only guess.

What we can observe is that (a) there are consistently more empty boxes in distance races than in sprints, (b) there is a continuing increase in the proportion of races of 400m or less, (c) that sires with proven distance capability are not popular, (d) that only a minority of competitors in staying races can maintain form after a 7 day break, (e) that the vast majority of distance winners/starters cannot get within a bull's roar of record times, (f) that all authorities recognised some sort of problem when they started offering bonuses for 650m-plus races.

So, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is .....

As for your genome query - you don't know that, nor do I. It is precisely why for years I have been calling for independent, professional, annual assessments of THE STATE OF THE BREED.

Humans are taller, bigger and older than they used to be. It happens. Why not dogs?

The further and equally interesting subject is whether the greyhound product is optimised as it stands. Arguably, it is now fashioned as trainers would like it to be, not as customers might prefer it. Which is the best way to ensure that the industry and its participants prosper? Austin A90s, Edsels and 8-cylinder engines come to mind.

For God's sake LOOK at the distances greyhounds raced over for the first couple of decades of track racing! Racing WAS NOT about stamina, it was about PACE AND CHASE. There was a boom for distance racing in the '70's and it's been (thankfully) declining to where it belongs since. If you want stamina there's always the thoroughbreds and even that's debatable.

2. "As for your genome query - you don't know that, nor do I. " YOU don't know, but I do and I'm telling you that it takes much longer than 90 years for a large animal's genome to change significantly. Human's may well be taller, bigger, etc, but it's marginal and where's your evidence that we can run any further than what we could 100 or 500 years ago?

3. Apart from your ignorance (not meant as an insult) the following just about sums up your attitude:

"Arguably, it is now fashioned as trainers would like it to be, not as customers might prefer it. Which is the best way to ensure that the industry and its participants prosper? Austin A90s, Edsels and 8-cylinder engines come to mind.

I dunno about you but I don't have customers, I have dogs, dogs that love to race and I enjoy(ed) watching them do that. The TAB has customers.

Once we get onto genetics my head starts to hurt. But I should make one point; DNA and the like were unheard of until well after WW2 - for any purpose, not just dogs. So comparisons or trends would not be easy to present on that ground alone, and certainly not over 90 years. However, much intensive study is ongoing, especially in the last two decades.

Those studies are partly prompted by associations across tens of thousands of years between humans and dogs, which happen to share many common diseases etc.

No doubt studies in specific areas might throw some light on the sprint/endurance question but we will have to wait until that comes about. (The vast majority of the literature tends to address what has happened, not so much why it did or what the outcomes were).

Meantime, I will fall back on a quote from one of the warriors of the greyhound industry (the late Bill Pearson): "They are not as robust as they used to be". That accords with any current trend I can find (see my last post).

All this leaves us with only one basic question: Is it a good idea to improve the stamina of the breed? I vote yes, and so do the customers who pay for your ability to "enjoy watching".

PS1: Thoroughbred endurance is far from debatable. It is slipping, as shown by poor OZ representation in the Melb Cup, big money for 1200m races (Slipper, Everest, etc), shortening of distances for traditional "long" races, and the popularity of successful sprinting sires.

PS2: Human sporting capability has changed radically over the last 50 years - from the 4-minute mile to sub-50 sec 100m swims but that has thrown up some genetic specialisations as well - Ethiopian and Kenyan distance runners, African-American sprinters/NFL-NBL players (but never swimmers), and so on.

PS3: I was a greyhound enthusiast long before you were born. That continued even during a pause in PNG when I had better reception on 2KY (AM) that I get now just outside Sydney, and when my copy of the Greyhound Recorder arrived three weeks late on the ship but served to keep me abreast of things.

Bruce

My initial post only referred to post 2015, whereas your stats relate up to 2015.

And my concerns were based on the Victorian situation, though this should be reasonably applicable across the country.

With the post 2015 breeding decline (perhaps now arrested), it is logical there would be less dogs now hitting the tracks, and possibly less prepared.

Certainly this is reflected in Victoria, where there has been a recent trend of reduced races at meetings, an increasing trend of nomination extensions, and an increasing occurrence of 'fail to chase' penalties.

Possibly even more worrying is if the current trend is an increase in breeding and a reduction in trainers? If so, there will be a different longer-term impact.

Time for some proper industry development.

You continue to say 'we' and 'us' when you should be saying 'I' because there are people out there, including me, that know a bit more than you.

'PS1' Have you considered that poor Oz (Aus) representation in the (horse) Melbourne Cup could actually be because it's now easier and more worthwhile ($$$) for better overseas horses to race in it?

'PS2' Actually no, it hasn't. 100m sprint times have improved by around 10% in 100 years and much of that would be due to far better training practices than genetics. A hundred years ago the mile world record was 4.12 and it took another 30 years for it to improve by 5% and then another 50 years for it to improve by another 7%. This isn't the whopping 50% stamina improvement required to fit your fantasy. Now, you don't think that training techniques improved radically in 100 years for that 5% improvement in sprint times and that 80 years for 12% improvement in mile times?

And you correctly say that we now have Kenyans and Ethiopians setting the distance records. Why is that? Why hasn't the 'white' man improved by 12%? Did the Kenyan genome change radically in the time period? No! They've had that genome for many, many generations and were always genetically capable.

You're dreaming when you should be researching.

'PS3' I was born in the 1950's and was going to greyhound racing with my family in the '60's. When did you 'get into' greyhound racing? What was your involvement? Hands on?

Not really interested in where Bruce started and what his involvement was ...... I'm sure you'll be informed by a long winded story but !
In short
I'll give you the answer ! Never !!
Keyboard warrior is how his story ends up ( fiction section )
So far this year his 2 predictions have had the arse fall out of them within weeks of broadcasting !
Let me refresh you and Bruce numberize them !

P1. Long distance times will never be broken or even come under threat as we witnessed when real champions once raced !
Within weeks ..... enter tornado tears !

P2. Long distance runners need more time then 6-7 days to repeat or better their previous performance!
Enter Poco Dorado
In 5 days misses the Richmond trec by 0.01 and then goes 41.7 at wenty !
Excuse ...... it's the only one or rare few that can do it !

Relentlessly you get told of your mistakes and bullshyt info , but like a dog with a bone you keep coming lining up for more
It's nearly xmas ...... I'm sure you'll put your foot in it before then and get your hattrick in the section labeled fiction useless and no idea !

Ps 1. I can't believe I even responded to this tripe and wasted 2 min of my life

All those fears are undoubtedly true, except that I have no composite record of FTC penalties. Does anyone publish them over time? (Note: GRSA does so every month and they are very small).

Absolutely, litters are now recovering but not to pre-2015 levels. There was a sharp drop-off in early 2015 so that would impact on noms and fields today.

However, as I keep saying, there is also a long term breeding decline which is far more important because it indicates a weakness in the overall system - one which has not been recognised or addressed. Worse, it got over-run by the stupid "overbreeding" claims by supposedly serious people and, in turn, magnified by media, fools and others who should know better.

Sadly, those in charge of racing in this nation have missed the boat. The fact that the boards and CEOs in three states were chucked out did nothing to help the situation - their bureaucracies continued unabated, which tells you a lot about the structure of the industry and how it works.

All the attention went to adding rules, conducting more inspections and raising the bar on supposedly harmful substances - plus some investment into GAP etc. All might be described as police or political actions. The root cause of the problems were neither determined or fixed.

As for trainer numbers - I can't tell precisely (stats can be very confusing from state to state but are generally down) but it is fairly common to note that some aging trainers are or have retired and that half a dozen major kennels seem to be racing a lot of dogs. I am not sure if that is good or bad as there are pros and cons. In any event, it is peripheral to the main issue, which is the inability to make good decisions about the future of the industry.

A case in point with GRV is that over the last several years it has invested squillions in track works, all of which have been worse or no better than faulty ones which went before. It has also failed to correct obvious faults such as bend start 600s at Sandown and Meadows, which makes you wonder who is in charge of what.

In total, GRV has actually promoted higher interference levels at a time when it is constantly waffling about welfare matters.

What is missing is an objective to achieve excellence. You tend to get that in high class dog performance because trainers need results to put food on the table. The breeding sector has been tidied up a little (eg fewer backyard jobs) but nobody has assessed the overall trends in that area or where we are likely to be in five years time. The customer profile is already stuffed and all responsibility handed over to the TAB. The economic outlook is pure guesswork as costs are rising faster than incomes while promotion is minimal (for example, we should long ago have been striving to pay $2,000 for provincial 5th Grades).

On several grounds, the industry would be much better off putting a huge effort into expanding its influence in key provincial areas where modest investment will return much greater dividends than in town (but don't let the clubs handle the till - it needs to be done professionally).

As for "Time for some proper industry development", bureaucracies don't do development. It's not in their DNA.

Tripe is right.

P1 - they are your words, not mine.
P2 - I have said - repeatedly and consistently - that two thirds of dogs cannot repeat the effort, including top notchers like Space Star and Xylia Allen.

You still have not answered the basic question.

Your last para reveals you have not been reading carefully as my background has been well declared on this website and elsewhere.