Anecdotal claims from a handful of trainers omits consideration that there are thousands of other trainers and even more dogs that do not write in. There are also no stories from trainers who have had a good run with boxes.

Btw Im not talking about good boxes v bad boxes....more dogs getting stuck in limited boxes good or bad!

The system is clearly flawed.

If you take enough recent starts - 5, 10, 15 perhaps then you will get a good picture of what dogs do early on and how they should be seeded.

Of course box 1 can be an advantage. But if you take an average based on multiple boxes and starts you get a fairly good indication.

Early speed if given enough starts will account for good and bad boxes, as it will bend and straight starts or good and bad weather conditions. You know as well as I do that statistical analysis requires a variety of circumstances to be factored in. If you get the number of starts required in early sections before seeding is a proposition it can also factor in a bad day for the starter (i.e. Went up with lids, stumbled at start etc etc.) Thereś always going to be times where the dog simply has a bad day out.

What I can tell you for certain is that if you take an average speed chart on GRV form guides, watch a runner with a slow bar surrounded by fast early bars on either side, most of the time thereś gonna be some real hampering if not a faller at the first bend.

Simply because some dogs start slow and boot up rather quickly after about 6 strides. The problem is solveable. I'm just not sure how many starts a dog requires before you can safely seed dogs into boxes using the scheme.

I agree that all those things play a part but I can't see a way thru the mess to enable development of a box draw based on recorded early speed.

Additionally, it is sometimes hard to reconcile Watchdog figures as I am not sure exactly how they do it. It is based on km/sec but how many runs and where they were run is not stated.

My own were based on thousand of runs for each track and lots for each dog - although I generally used more recent when available. As I said before, these were always reliable for good dogs but risky for ordinary ones. That alone makes it hard to fathom a system that could be used across the board.

Another factor is that a dog can train off so you have to assess how relevant its number is - and the same when it recovers ability.

Bruce to make it work you have to go on recent performances no more than 6 months ago or it wouldnt work. I agree with you its complex. But other than early speed / recent runs I dont know how you could make a fair and equatable seeding system.

Anyway its a suggestion. Do I think early speed counts for a lot, both in terms of results, injuries and checks/hampering in race .. you bet. Its the only reliable metric that matters to me whethe rI am presenting a dog or punting. I just look at the speed charts knowing full well that not all speed charts are created equal.

Back to box draws anyway on topic- I dont care what box my dog gets - I care about the early speed on either side of my dog. That determines whether I think I will have a safe race or may be walking away with a massive vet bill. I have been gifted box 1 several times knowing I have no chance to lead at the bend.. the speed charts told me that. I got b1 in sympathy as a stick it up you prize. Whether I ran them or not was my decision but trust me several of the box 1 I have had were not gifts or an advantage to my chaser in any respect.

Absolutely - the early lead is a massive advantage, not least because it generally allows the dog to avoid interference.

But also consider for your speed system that oils aint oils. It is worthwhile only for evidence obtained on good starts with a straightaway run to the turn.

For all the 400s and 600s the geometry renders the times artificial - ie outside dogs cover more ground than inside dogs and therefore put false times into the calculations.

At other tracks (Casino, Gawler) the 1st sectional time is so small (3 sec) as to be meaningless. If you put those in the mix it would corrupt the calculations just as much.

Similarly, WPK720 published sectionals are so big (16+) that the same problem exists there too. This is even sillier because they actually have the means to show 5.xxx sectionals but rarely publish them.(Melb distance times used to be like that but they changed them to show a 5 or 6 time instead, which fits in nicely).

On top of that you have many NSW tracks where one or none 1st sectionals are published or Tasmania where the published "leader" with a 1st sectional time is not that at all - they give it to the winner regardless.

What I am saying is that you are dealing with a fruit salad in trying to use published career history.

MY own solution was to tell the computer to ignore the dubious ones and use only sensible readings. Worked fine.

In any event I stick by my theory that more space between each box would be a big help. (Very expensive to change, of course).

Over the 531m yes is very short to measure meaningful times. Over the 400m bend start the first sectional is an eternity. The whole concept of normalisation and trending is that over a period of time you can factor in messy starts (bend v straight etc) or poor weather conditions or a just a bad day out for the dog when it made a legitimate mistake. We don't need to convert every track in Australia to a one turn track or horseshoe to give ample time to the bend as you have previously suggested. It doesn't change the fact that some dogs rail hard, some start slow, some go wide anyway.

But a seeded process to alleviate congestion I think is an evidence based proposition versus a track re-engineering effort from boffins, as you have said at great expense, even with something simple like spacing boxes.

If we're going down the path of box spacing may as well just run handicaps with 2 boxes staggered as they did in the good old days at Olympic Park in particular.

You say evidence but there is good, bad and no evidence, as I am trying to point out. The Oz environment is a total GIGO. Even so, I tried to eliminate the rubbish as much as possible (eg excluding some bend start data) and still have to settle for second best.

I would guess that some 70% to 80% of races involve dogs which are too inconsistent to permit reliable sectional forecasts. It's nobody's fault - just a fact of life. If you can get the right price for them, fine. If not, the punter must delete the race and so the industry suffers. The owner/trainer viewpoint is different, of course, as he can wear some losses so long as he gets sufficient wins.

My summation is that there is more upside in creating a track which keeps the dogs apart than there is in trying to fine tune the first few metres from existing boxes. The latter works only for the minority of better races whereas keeping them apart also reduces the chances of injury.

A related example is the track where the boxes are set off widely - eg Bathurst, Ipswich 500s, etc. The inside dogs then tend to move towards the rail, other dogs less so, thereby giving more of the field a free run to the turn and more valid sectionals. (At the turn is a whole new story). That cannot happen with tightly located boxes (eg Dapto) where runners go every which way.

Any decent system must involve a good deal of averaging but to base it on normalisation forgets that the dogs do not attend normalisation classes, let alone get a pass mark. This is a fundamental problem with UTS. The maths are wonderful but the dogs can't read the formula and even if they could there are too many imponderables in the mix.

Note: My approach always involved deleting the worst of the five or so runs from calculations so as to cater for the bad hair day which you mentioned.

If its never attempted neither of us knows.

But would I try that before reengineering, tracks-box separation etc and other major capital works investments. Yeah I try it on a trial basis and learn from the experience.

And even if such an approach were a collosal failure, there still be learnings and findings to improve future racing endeavours.

Nothing ventured - certainly punters and owners/trainers alike are guaranteed no future gains.

Perhaps, but all of us can learn from a decent dialogue - adjusting our ideas as we go along. If you don't exchange views, nobody learns and the industry just muddles along.

There are many examples.

One is the club which can't be bothered publishing complete sectional data - presumably because they can't see how valuable it is.

Another is the much-criticised former CEO Newson (some of it accurate) who nevertheless commissioned two outside studies to throw up the truths about LB and track design (WDA and UTS). That's something that has rarely been attempted in the industry's history and was long overdue.

A third one is the club which adds shorter and shorter trips to the program so as to keep bad dogs lining up for top money - without considering the damage it would do to the breed and therefore the long term prospects of the industry.

Years ago two NSW club bosses rubbished an article I wrote proposing the much more attention should go to pushing Masters/Veterans racing because it would be win-win for all. Now it is really happening with benefits to all, including the keen dogs.

I could go on.

I was going to reply "Who is the she??!! I demand an answer" ... but to be fair to Bruce I have had much dialogue with him here and on Australian Racing Greyhound. Dialogue is fine - we sometimes agree and others don't but I - like him - I encourage fervent discussion it shows some passion.

I seriously think many trainers are getting burned out from information overload.

In any given day I generally get a nag text message on my phone about noms closing, about hey don't stop between your homebase and track during a pandemic etc.

I understand as an example that GRV is doing its Duty of Care thing. But with my phone pinging me for seriously common sense matters like don't stop in a covid hotspot plus hey nominate your dog here because otherwise they might close today just grates on people after a while and wears them down.

This isnt even specific to greyhounds - when was the last time you bought something online and they ask you to review the purchase? Once is fine - but nagging me three or four times because I might have forgot will not be received well indeed.

Folks in a pandemic with financial stress, lifestyle stress etc and still the phones pinging with nag messages and my email is being hit with companies insistent on feedback.

Information overload. (Rant over - I feel better anyway now.... sorry for all the information to process lol)

You asked, so I will reply.

No.

I could not possibly say yes as then the authorities would not love me any more.