I imagine anyone with a even a "lay opinion" would suggest that the reason there are allegedly few staying races is that trainers do not nominate enough dogs. The 4-dog Gosford race posted elsewhere here is some evidence of that. So is the poor quality on show at Wenty on most Saturdays.

In the short term therefore the responsibility is with breeders/trainers, not with NSW "providing a consistent program".

In the long term it is the authority's responsibility to identify the trends and act to overcome any shortcomings, one of which would be to encourage a more robust breed. Demand would then prompt the supply of more long races. Graders can do no more than grade what is put before them.

If you bother to check out some of the 1,000 plus articles I have written over the years you would find that every one has a base of facts - to which I may or may not add an opinion (if so, that would be made clear). As for "you never provide a convincing or compelling argument", readers might want a better claim than that, particularly as it is a meaningless statement on its own. You just made that up.

I imagine anyone with a even a "lay opinion" (presumably everyone except trainers) would suggest that the reason there are allegedly few staying races is that trainers do not nominate enough dogs. The 4-dog Gosford race posted elsewhere here is some evidence of that. So is the poor quality on show at Wenty on many Saturdays.

In the short term therefore the responsibility is with breeders/trainers, not with NSW (whoever "NSW" is) providing a consistent program".

In the long term it is the authority's responsibility to identify the trends and act to overcome any shortcomings, one of which would be to encourage a more robust breed. Demand would then prompt the supply of more long races. Graders can do no more than grade what is put before them.

In between those two groups are the clubs, which are initially responsible for both satisfying trainers and stirring up interest, possibly in special events. They certainly used to do that but I am not sure how much they bother these days. I can recall Paul Barnes once doing a lot of that, for instance.

If you bother to check out some of the 1,000 plus articles I have written over the years you would find that every single one has a base of facts - to which I may or may not add an opinion (if so, that would be made clear). As for "you never provide a convincing or compelling argument", readers might want a better claim than that, particularly as it is a meaningless statement on its own. You just made that up.

And no, I seriously doubt that "some good 500m dogs" could make that leap to 600m/700m as you suggest. In fact, that's the nub of the entire subject - they are not up to it. Those that try mostly do a poor job. The facts (!) show that the vast majority of 500m dogs cannot handle 600m and an even vaster majority cannot handle 700m. It's the current nature of the beast. That Gosford race was a horror as a spectacle - and a very slow one at that. You don't become a 700m dog just by turning up at the boxes.

I'm sure those who control the industry (thorougheads) are familiar with the stats and push for less distance racing, cannot have the greys showing a positive now. However, go back prior to any ban and you will notice a jump in noms for shorter distances, it was discussed on here. I think more trainers are not to bothered with getting their pups up to 500 rather start them if running good time.

You have it upside down. It's up to the authority, GRNSW in NSW (if you know where that is) to program races for stayers in the short term because it's `here and now' subject to availability of suitable races. I found that breeding occurs after racing dogs, which is common sense yeah ? So, the authority (GRNSW) should promote and program.

______________________________________________________________

My advice to GRNSW is for them to do a media release asking trainers to contact the office (contact name provided) to register their dogs that would benefit from better programming of races over middle to staying distances. I note clubs do it, but they are competing with one another for stayers, as opposed to sharing the limited stock. I believe the trainer should provide:

Their name and contact number,
Dog's name
Distance - 600m / 720m
Region / Town
Preferred track in Region / Town (maybe)
Grade

Once GRNSW has those names and numbers they can start programming properly in regions. That's a short term solution that should last as long as they want it to. Remember, the prize money has increased, so they could have them racing for TAB B prize money most if not all of the time. As an example, I think it was Kevin Johns Jr who sometimes raced his dog over (600m during the week) in readiness for Wenty Park on Monday (720m) or Saturday (720m). I suppose the trainer who does it best now is Robert Britton (Victoria).

Once again, I write that clubs are programming races, but to me the current state is that stayers aren't racing around together from one track to another. GRNSW could in the short term stage Heat and Finals as well as Regional Finals on a points system (sounds familiar). Maybe, GRNSW will find that there just isn't a lot of stayers, but the should try and find out.

In my opinion, breeding is long term prospect with governance playing a major role in both the short and long terms. As Forest Gump said, "Life is like a box of chocolates. You just don't know what ya goin' to get" or similar.

That's why I write, that we need staff who are willing to listen about the industry from people who have been in it and seen it suffer for decades.

I once recommended on Data that GRNSW consider putting reserves in the Pathway events. I know they read from the site and it took them about three months to change it (I hope someone received a promotion, lol), to allow reserves into the event, as too many of those races had scratchings.

I hope for GRNSW to read and understand that we need a Media Release to identify where these stayers are domiciled and program accordingly.

Dan

I believe that is a major factor as well

Being of a poetic inclination you will appreciate a saying I picked up in schoolboy German: 'Perlen for die saue verfen'. Or, alternatively, don't try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Today, that means if the dog population is not throwing up stayers, how the devil can we expect to end up with good staying races, or any?

They have tried throwing money at the problem and that doesn't work. That alone dashes your theory. There are lashings of 600m/650m races around, many of which are short of a full field, and most of which are full of dogs which can't handle the trip or are not much good anyway. SA put on a 731m race the other day in prime time and got 6 noms, 2 of which were scratched. The winner barely broke 44 sec (record 42.50). Yesterday the winner at Wenty ran 43.32 - repeat 43.32 - on a good track. A week earlier the winner ran 43.52. You could beat that in gum boots. The winner at The Meadows on Saturday ran 43.13 (record 41.93) on a slowish but not terrible track. The Gosford long race everyone was talking about had 4 starters! In other words, we do not need to "find out" - we already know.

Yes, it is up to GRNSW to act but it first has to pose the right question to itself. Fiddling with grading will not do it. Race bonuses will not do it. Scheduling more long races for mugs will not do it. But breeding stronger dogs will.

What Bruce tends to forget is whether the egg comes before the chicken or vice a versa

Yes we all need to encourage breeders to breed stronger greyhounds but

1. How will you know what lines are strength lines if there are no races for staying greyhounds

2. Who in their right mind would risk breeding stayers if, as Bruce suggests, that clubs start not scheduling long distance races because it doesn't fit his narrow criteria of what is a worthy stayer or not

Does the VRC cancel the Melbourne Cup because the field is not of a worthy standard. Not on their life. They run it regardless with whoever turns up for it.

Bruce's suggestions will actually kill off staying races

Just had a discussion with the GRNSW grader and he made it quite clear that where there are 600m+ dogs nominated they will put on a race if there are at least 6 nominations

That's that kind of forward thinking programming that needs to be done to encourage breeders to put out their hard earned to breed stayers and for trainers to push their dogs to a higher distance

Without that carrot, you have nothing to aim for

Put on the races and don't worry about the times that are being run, if you want any stayers at all

In this case, the chicken is the programming of the races and the egg is the field that lines up for the races

Let the chips fall where they may

Imagine the writer advising GRNSW !

You guys are world champions at verballing people.

Never have I suggested "not scheduling staying races" or "killing them off". That's rubbish.

My role has been to identify existing situations and call for better attention to any problems. I do not - and cannot - propose solutions to breeding challenges because I have neither the
knowledge or the power.

What I can do is call attention to a clear failure of the system to produce decent stayers and then pose the obvious question; if nothing else has worked (and it hasn't) then all that is left is to improve the breeding. How that is done is beyond my brief.

So far, all I can hear is that so long as clubs keeping bunging on staying races, all will be well. So, this says if something has not worked for several years, keep doing it. From a business view point of view that is madness. Worse, one of the risks is that doing nothing about a weakening breed will affect the entire dog population, sprinters and all.

Well, maybe not the entire population. PW once had a breeding weakness, corrected it and his product improved markedly (but only up to 520m, which is probably all he intended; anything longer than that was a bonus, including Fanta Bale, Irma Bale, Xylia Bale and so on).

Incidentally, the comment about the NSW Grader is not news or even a new policy. They have been doing that for decades. It's in the rule book.

I am not verbalizing it, just repeating your words

By the way, putting on races over 600m or more with 6 or more runners is not a rule.

Where is it in the grading rules?

It is basically current policy

Stop making up porky pies to justify your own argument

In other words you are a whinger with no idea.

Sorry to tell you Bruce but nearly everyone on this site has the same role mate.
Sadly, whenever someone dares to spark up a bit of enthusiasm and make suggestions for change, the same people then tell you how it cant work and wont work, followed by a comment like 'Ive been in this game for 35 years and you turned up yesterday and think you know everything'
Let me tell you what cant and wont work.
Constant whingeing and negativity. Never has worked. Never will.

It's obvious you have a problem with Bruce, Sandro.
And vice versa.

Maybe, fighting on the under card of the next Jeff Horn bout might be the solution............

Tony

I have no problem with Bruce, only some of his comments

Actually, a lot of what he and I talk about, we are in agreement with

We are basically saying the same thing, in general

It's a forum, not a knitting circle, we are allowed to have opposing views on things

I have read hundreds of his articles over the years and his experience is invalauable, but it doesn't mean we have to agree with each other on everything

Here I get a chance to argue with him on some points

We are both grown up enough to take it

Corner/bend starts are a lottery and IMO do nothing positive for Greyhound Racing!