The Richmond inner track? Would that be yacht racing on the pond? Or do you mean rebuilding a straight track on the outside of the current one (where one used to be)? Adding a new track elsewhere on the site would cost millions even without grandstands and the like.

But here's the rub. You say "Secondly, with all the new regulatory burdens, we really don't have the cash flow now to reinvent the wheel and build and remodel many tracks".

Nominally, that's true. However, that brings up a few points.

First, there will be quite a few jobs in the $50k category where some good can be done. The Gardens 413m > 400m was one such.

Second, the statewide task has to be defined professionally so that we know where we are going in one year or fifty.

Third, there is no general admission from GRNSW or club bosses that tracks need to be improved - never mind any knowledge about how that might be done. That's an ingrained culture problem which is just as important as the one affecting live baiting.

Some years back, I wrote a full page article in the Recorder (they loved me then) detailing all the problems with the Dapto track and how to fix them. For my pains, I had to endure a 45 min phone call from the Dapto manager at the time, telling me how I was putting down the industry with negative comment. The fact that Dapto is one of the worst tracks in the country was not important - even though it has attracted many millions from the kitty for the track, bars, dining rooms and so-called grandstand. "We know best". Really?

Fourth, disruptive tracks are automatically a deterrent to good punting and therefore restrict the growth of the industry. Punters first have to pay out 14.5% to 25% to the tote (more if using corporates) to which you then have to add the impact of poor quality dogs or box bias, as well as interference which is above average levels, crook cambers and turns, and then you have to trust that the dog is fit and got out of the right side of the bed that day. It's like a bookie running a book of 150%-plus. Try matching that with your superior skills in identifying value. Impossible!

Sandro, you still ignored my message about 400m trips on one-turn tracks. Basically, it cannot be done well - they all would be diving into the nearby turn. But they can work on circle tracks providing you knock down the fences and give them a good look up the back straight. That is what should have happened at The Gardens, but did not.

PS: The Dapto fix? Dynamite the lot. Re-route the access road to the kennels. Shift the whole track a few metres north towards the road and redesign the track in a modern way with decent cambers, turns and a re-located 600m start. Simples.

Firstly, You don't need a new grandstand except for some remodelling of the old one to include a stepped platform out over half the steps

Secondly, I would propose a new track outside the current track. There is plenty of room

Bruce Teague wrote:

But here's the rub. You say "Secondly, with all the new regulatory burdens, we really don't have the cash flow now to reinvent the wheel and build and remodel many tracks".

The lease on WP is not over yet but there will be a review of the industry in 4 years time

Working towards a move to Richmond with a dual track facility is something that should be seriously considered as it will serve the industry better

Add ins like the provision of other training facilities i.e. bull rings , heated pools, competition slipping tracks, a call up straight is already there as is a vet (whom is very busy and hard to get into)

Bruce Teague wrote:

Nominally, that's true. However, that brings up a few points. First, there will be quite a few jobs in the $50k category where some good can be done. The Gardens 413m > 400m was one such.

You're not listening....no 400m bend starts on tight 2 turn tracks should be where we start from not doing patch up jobs on circle tracks

Bruce Teague wrote:

Second, the statewide task has to be defined professionally so that we know where we are going in one year or fifty.

That is the job of the Commercial Board of GRNSW to guide the industry

Bruce Teague wrote:

Third, there is no general admission from GRNSW or club bosses that tracks need to be improved - never mind any knowledge about how that might be done. That's an ingrained culture problem which is just as important as the one affecting live baiting.

I don't believe that is the case, things are changing in that regard

Bruce Teague wrote:

Some years back, I wrote a full page article in the Recorder (they loved me then) detailing all the problems with the Dapto track and how to fix them. For my pains, I had to endure a 45 min phone call from the Dapto manager at the time, telling me how I was putting down the industry with negative comment. The fact that Dapto is one of the worst tracks in the country was not important - even though it has attracted many millions from the kitty for the track, bars, dining rooms and so-called grandstand. "We know best". Really?

Dapto has always been a tough track, but dogs who handle tight tracks go well there

Their surface is one of the best in the State

I agree it could have a better shape if the access road was demolished and the turns widened

Bruce Teague wrote:

Fourth, disruptive tracks are automatically a deterrent to good punting and therefore restrict the growth of the industry. Punters first have to pay out 14.5% to 25% to the tote (more if using corporates) to which you then have to add the impact of poor quality dogs or box bias, as well as interference which is above average levels, crook cambers and turns, and then you have to trust that the dog is fit and got out of the right side of the bed that day. It's like a bookie running a book of 150%-plus. Try matching that with your superior skills in identifying value. Impossible!

Spoken like a true punter.....your ability to back a winner has nothing to do with the welfare of our greyhounds

As a punter 400m bend starts are just a bookies paradise

Bruce Teague wrote:

Sandro, you still ignored my message about 400m trips on one-turn tracks. Basically, it cannot be done well - they all would be diving into the nearby turn.

You are just plain wrong on this one.

Victoria do it well on a number of tracks.

Murray Bridge looking outstanding in SA.

I am pretty confident it can be done well in NSW

Bruce Teague wrote:

But they can work on circle tracks providing you knock down the fences and give them a good look up the back straight. That is what should have happened at The Gardens, but did not.

Unless it was a 5-6 second run down the straight from the boxes to the first turn, I wouldn't contemplate it

Bruce Teague wrote:

PS: The Dapto fix? Dynamite the lot. Re-route the access road to the kennels. Shift the whole track a few metres north towards the road and redesign the track in a modern way with decent cambers, turns and a re-located 600m start. Simples.

I don't disagree with you there

Your whole philosophy is based exclusively on doing what trainers want or think is right. That would be fine if you want to race for ribbons and a teddy bear to take home to the kids.

In the real world, the industry has decided to accept dollars from the public and then distribute them to build tracks and reward owners and trainers, as well as ensuring the welfare of dogs. Any reversal of that order is not possible.

I then repeat what I said earlier; whats good for the customers will be good or better for the participants and their dogs.

Now, I have spent half a lifetime recording, studying and analysing what happens on all sorts of tracks. That includes examining the fine detail of track layouts. The evidence shows clearly that (Grafton excepted) there is no 400m trip anywhere that is ideal. All are disruptive because they quickly head into the nearby turn. Dividends for 400s are always higher than for 450s on the same track, demonstrating uncertainty. The proportions of falls and high interference is nearly always higher. 400s exist in increasing numbers only because trainers have dogs which cant run out 450m very well.

Remedies for those layouts are physically impossible on one-turn tracks which are designed primarily for 450m trips. There are no options. Grab some track plans and try for yourself.

Alternatively, it is possible to build reasonable 400s on circle tracks provided only that you move away from the traditional, blinkered approach that says all starts must be located on the circuit proper. You then extend the back straight through the fence to whatever point you desire to achieve a 400m-plus trip and put the boxes there. It will not worry the dogs as they are bred to spot a fly on a deers nose on the other side of the valley they are sighthounds. It may need some adjustments from the lure driver but that is what he is paid for.

Try that on the plan of your favourite circuit at Richmond. Buckets of room! And there is a bonus. If you do away with the current 400m box location you can immediately re-contour the nearby turn which is flat as a pancake thereby avoiding the constant running off which characterises 535m races and causes disruptions, possible injuries and an extreme box bias.

As for Victoria yes, every Vic one-turn track has a 400. In every case they are more problematical than their brother 450s. Here is one example. At Geelong 460m the best box is box 1. At Geelong 400m the best boxes are 1 and 8 those in between get squeezed out as the field quickly forms into an arrowhead shape as they try to get around the nearby turn.

Murray Bridge sure, the planned 450m should be fine. The shorter 340 will not be for all the above reasons. And they are going to put the 550m start on the bend, despite all my protestations!!!

There is one (non-racing) exception. Cessnock 400m fields suffered much less than the above examples due to the fact that it was part of a wide sweeping turn with a huge radius. More room. Too far away to see properly but there you go.

Now you say there is some capacity at GRNSW to do wonderful things with track layouts. Where exactly, and where is the evidence? History says there is none.

That's correct. They, the owners and the breeders supply the product.

They invest their money and in the case of breeders and trainers their life and souls into the sport as well.

Punters will bet on just about anything. The poker machine style of 30 second greyhound races, one after the other, suits 95% of punters

Breeders, owners and trainers are the ones who should be consulted first on these matters

Bruce Teague wrote:

That would be fine if you want to race for ribbons and a teddy bear to take home to the kids.

Grow up Bruce.

You know that is b*!!$**t and it won't be happening

What would you know and what would you care?

From what I can see your investment in the sport amounts to what is on your TAB ticket or in your betting account

Stop pretending you actually care what happens to the greyhounds and their participants

Bruce Teague wrote:

In the real world, the industry has decided to accept dollars from the public and then distribute them to build tracks and reward owners and trainers, as well as ensuring the welfare of dogs. Any reversal of that order is not possible.

Tell us something we don't know

Bruce Teague wrote:

I then repeat what I said earlier; whats good for the customers will be good or better for the participants and their dogs.

No it won't. Punters just move on to the next race, wherever that may be, be it horses, dogs or trots, or a tennis game whether they have won or lost their money on the previous event.

Most punters don't know when to stop

Ask a real punter to become involved and support any of the racing codes as a breeder, owner and a trainer..that won't happen because it uses up their money, what's left of it, that they would rather punt with

Bruce Teague wrote:

Now, I have spent half a lifetime recording, studying and analysing what happens on all sorts of tracks. That includes examining the fine detail of track layouts. The evidence shows clearly that (Grafton excepted) there is no 400m trip anywhere that is ideal. All are disruptive because they quickly head into the nearby turn. Dividends for 400s are always higher than for 450s on the same track, demonstrating uncertainty. The proportions of falls and high interference is nearly always higher. 400s exist in increasing numbers only because trainers have dogs which cant run out 450m very well.

Your argument is flawed, because 400m starts on a bend have the turn come up even quicker

Name one circle track that doesn't have interference where 8 dogs converge on a corner

The trick is to reduce the incidence and severity of it

Bruce Teague wrote:

Remedies for those layouts are physically impossible on one-turn tracks which are designed primarily for 450m trips. There are no options. Grab some track plans and try for yourself.

I am not an engineer, but I have trained greyhounds and raced them as an owner since I was 20 years of age

I don't look at things like a punter does.

Bruce Teague wrote:

Alternatively, it is possible to build reasonable 400s on circle tracks provided only that you move away from the traditional, blinkered approach that says all starts must be located on the circuit proper. You then extend the back straight through the fence to whatever point you desire to achieve a 400m-plus trip and put the boxes there. It will not worry the dogs as they are bred to spot a fly on a deers nose on the other side of the valley they are sighthounds. It may need some adjustments from the lure driver but that is what he is paid for.

As previously stated, if there was 5-6 second run up to the first turn I would consider it

Bruce Teague wrote:

Try that on the plan of your favourite circuit at Richmond. Buckets of room! And there is a bonus. If you do away with the current 400m box location you can immediately re-contour the nearby turn which is flat as a pancake thereby avoiding the constant running off which characterises 535m races and causes disruptions, possible injuries and an extreme box bias.

you obviously haven't been there lately.

It is pretty well cambered. Dogs run off there for various reasons.
Dogs that know the track or are trialled there regularly generally don't run off unless it is in their genetic make up, injury or a design flaw in their muscular/skeletal system

In fact it is so well cambered that from the 400m start there is incredible carnage nearly every race when they hit that first corner

Instead of examining plans, track layouts and whatever else you do, you should try standing behind a box watching the dog you have a put a lot of time, money and effort into and watch it get slaughtered 20 metres after the start

I don't expect you to understand Bruce, because most punters have pretty cold hearts with no regard for the animal they so faithfully put their money on

Bruce Teague wrote:

As for Victoria yes, every Vic one-turn track has a 400. In every case they are more problematical than their brother 450s. Here is one example. At Geelong 460m the best box is box 1. At Geelong 400m the best boxes are 1 and 8 those in between get squeezed out as the field quickly forms into an arrowhead shape as they try to get around the nearby turn. Murray Bridge sure, the planned 450m should be fine. The shorter 340 will not be for all the above reasons. And they are going to put the 550m start on the bend, despite all my protestations!!!

Again, name one circle track that doesn't have interference where 8 dogs converge on a corner

The trick is to reduce the incidence and severity of it

Bruce Teague wrote:

There is one (non-racing) exception. Cessnock 400m fields suffered much less than the above examples due to the fact that it was part of a wide sweeping turn with a huge radius. More room. Too far away to see properly but there you go.

Cessnock was and still is a very nice track, but there was also interference from the 400m start, just less of it

Bruce Teague wrote:

Now you say there is some capacity at GRNSW to do wonderful things with track layouts. Where exactly, and where is the evidence? History says there is none.

Historically there is not much....we are in a brave new world now with far different agenda's than were there before

There is the theory and the practice.

There are - or were - three moveable boxes in Oz - at Bulli 400m (and for a while 680m), Horsham 410m and Geelong 600m (albeit a slide-in, not a drop-in). In each case, they were pointed into the nearby turn so that answers the question right away. It was a wrong trying to make a right. No obvious advantage.

At Geelong, it was a deliberate compromise in order to achieve a 600m race and there was little space around that area to construct a full traditional box area together with a run-in area. In the other two cases it was a matter of someone thinking it might be a good idea. No particular investigation or analysis, nor any comparable experience elsewhere. A wet finger.

Theory? I am hard put to find reasons to support them. At Bulli and Horsham other options are available. For example, prior to reconstruction, the Horsham 410m was deliberately sited well off the track proper, although still subject to the squeeze problem due to the short run to the turn (which is still present). The new Horsham 400m start is not the worst - perhaps helped by the introduction of the wide lure and better cambering - but I doubt you could show that it improves on the options used for the old 410m.

The strict answer to your question is no. They cannot make for better racing of their own accord. Whether you have corner starts or not is a function of other things, mostly the overall size and shape of the track. Whether moveable or fixed the box location is going to be decided by the track's "owner" and the demand for certain races.

One-off, the drop-ins are more expensive due to manufacturing costs, use of tractor, more electrics and extra labour for the driver. (Presumably, you would need a second tractor as the other one would be busy tidying up the circuit). The prospect of having one moveable rather than 3-4-5 fixed sets might reduce costs but that is arguable and sounds like a laborious way to run the shop. I would not be adamant about it, though, but they do not address the main problem anyway, as I have outlined. Perfect boxes will not improve a bad track. Bad boxes will still make a good track worse.

I might add a further matter - there needs to be some examination of the overall sizes of the box structure as a case could be made that spreading them out more might help with early interference. (IE bigger plugs between boxes). To be proven.

Not sure if any of this has been tested by UTS as I have not asked them about it.

Trainers always speak fondly of the tracks they win at.

The real SEQ problem is that there is never anyone in charge. Volatile politics at all levels makes for an environment where it is impossible to run a sensible business venture - in racing anyway.

At Albion, the disruptive starts for 395m and 600m are a function of the battle between dogs and trots. Both starts are squeezed into their current locations because the land available is restricted by the space required/demanded for a trotting training circuit. (Not the racetrack - just the figure 8 training circuit).

(Note: in case you missed my point about the 600m start, go and stand behind the boxes. You will see the box 1 is actually pointed into the nearby rail, so that dog has to veer right before joining the race proper).

At Parklands, the authority saw fit to install dual winning posts as a sop to the poor fellas displaced by the closure of Beenleigh (itself a horribly designed track). Madness! It always had a flat home turn anyway, obviously because of the level necessary to cater for an old but disused 732m start. And the industry is still whistling for the promised $10k government compensation for the closure.

Logan track planning was well advanced but government compounded after demos from a handful of local greenies.

Ipswich is the saddest of all. Its horror 431m start - easily the worst in Australia - could have been fixed in a flash had the club and the authority accepted its shortcomings and acted to move the boxes. And, like the Richmond example, they could simultaneously have fixed the flat 520m first turn which throws dogs off. The 630m start could also be improved. I have been pointing this out for 20 years.

Ipswich has been further confused by on/off/mysterious plots to move everything to a joint horse/dog track. I doubt they were helped by visiting Cranbourne to see how a tricode complex works. Answer - not very well. Cranbourne has a fine grandstand. In front of that is a very deep and wide grassed area where huge crowds can gather for the odd big meeting, as at Flemington or Randwick. Then there is a big thoroughbred track, then a very big trotting track and finally a dog track where tiny ants wander around looking for something to eat. Fans don't watch the races, they look at the monitors, which they can do just as well at home.

The solution is simple. Give the lot to Gerry Harvey and let him run things. But best of luck to QGBOTA.

The animal is our biggest asset, placing tracks inside others divorces the public from experiencing the dogs up close, most on here would have been hooked taking 10 steps from thriving betting rings to the track fence and watching parading dogs, this is why it will be difficult to entice crowds back, a very sterile environment in a lot of places.

Exactly. The principle has also been highlighted by the generally good reaction to GAP promotion days, perhaps also to displays at Shows. Another was the Uncle Bens caravan which once did the rounds of shopping centres - with mums and pups. Sadly, it crashed for budgetary reasons but could well be revived with solid support from greyhound authorities. Yet another was the open day (for charity) at Sam Cauchi's Rocky Ridge Farm where thousands came along and the local rag ran a four page spread. That sort of thing is not easy for the proprietor but it is worth its weight in gold.

A few such intimate tracks have been mentioned on these pages - notably Moss Vale and Beaumont Park (both now deceased), while others show potential but maybe could be sparked up a bit.

All of the above should be preceeded by a wide and serious promotion of the animal itself - history, development, purity of breed, speed, performance, care, etc etc. A decent brochure would be a good start.

It all revolves around the will and the imagination of authorities and clubs to make the connections, not just on feature event days but every week.

Here's a deal. I won't tell you how to train and you wont tell me about punting or gambling.

Meantime I have to make one correction to your claims. You said
"the owners and the breeders ... and trainers invest their money ... and in the case of breeders and trainers their life and souls into the sport as well".

The last bit is fine. The first bit is wrong. They, and you, are investing the punters' money, not your own. The main reason you race dogs is to win money so you can fund your business and look after your old age. Punters provide that money. And good luck to you all.

As for punters and gamblers, there has been a massive change in their profiles over the last 25 years, and more so again over the last 10 years. Put simply, professional and serious punter numbers are down, mug numbers are up. That equals a huge loss of knowledge for the industry.

On the question of track design and 400m racing, I have explained it in detail several times, with evidence. That, incidentally, would include the fact that outside boxes for Richmond 535m (and Meadows) provide the smallest number of winners of all Australian tracks. Inside dogs veer off, belting outside dogs trying to get over. If you don't understand all that, it's your problem, not mine. I have nothing more to give but I do watch Richmond races every week without fail.

An agility team made up of retired racers performing at shows ,would be a bonanza for GAP, its not whether we can afford it, rather can we afford not to.

No deal Bruce

I watch Richmond every week as well and disagree with you

Funny you don't provide any evidence about good dogs who get slaughtered off bend starts and the punters money that goes down the drain on those dogs. Forget about career ending injuries, but oh yeah, you haven't got a clue about that. That's just another dog you won't be betting on, right?

Then you jump to The Meadows, whinging about dogs who can't win off Box 8. Big deal.

Poke the Bear lost off the 1 box in the first heat of the Australian Cup. He began slowly. He got caught behind Dogs.
Is there something wrong with the 1 box at The Meadows as well?

Opal Nera just killed them with early pace off the 8 in an Australian Cup heat.
Bewildering was favourite and lost off the 6 box. He's a slow beginner...

Guess what...that's greyhound racing!!

You have not provided any evidence at all. All you have provided are moanings about punters losing money.

Punters have no knowledge of the workings of the industry...they have knowledge about punting.

Punters like you are statistical geniuses, but when the race doesn't play out for you, its just as convenient to blame the track for your punting systems shortcomings.

If greyhound racing was gone, punters would punt on something else.

Guess what....I couldn't give a rats ar$e what punters want. Only the TAB, bookies and other punters care.

If we let the bookies take over the sport then it will end up like the UK where the bags racing run for 30 pounds first prizemoney or about A$70 for the win.

If you think it so bad here, have a good look at UK racing and see if you want that to be the future for Australian racing.

Wake up to yourself.

I don't think you are qualified to decide what happens in the lives of greyhound participants and their greyhounds

I am no expert but I am better qualified than you at it

Good night

I am going back to the beginning of this discussion as there is too much verballing and abuse on it now.

What you suggest is perfectly logical in some ways. However, it will never happen for political and other reasons.

First, pollies enter the game whenever their electorate looks like losing something and a few locals make a noise. It does not matter what they said or did before, they do not like to lose brownie points (or votes).

The other political issue is that effective control has always rested with GBOTA and NCA, now GBOTA alone. They will never give up that power, they have to be voted out. But what will replace them, particularly when many clubs lack commercial punch?

Second, centralising regional racing immediately removes many
communities from any exposure to greyhounds or racing. A smaller portion of the state population is therefore no longer an actual or potential supporter - or even an owner, trainer, breeder, punter, hobbyist, employee, contractor or whatever. There is a net loss and financial viability then depends on mugs in pubs ion Timbuktu.

The contrary argument, as you mention, is that the current situation is a dead loss so we can't do any worse. But it would be near unavoidable that the resultant industry would be a smaller and less influential one. That has a cost, too.

Right now the industry has two major assets - lots of dogs (albeit declining at the moment) and plenty of skilled trainers.

It also has two major liabilities - poor tracks and a hopeless public image. But both of those are readily fixable, they just need professional attention. An additional loss would be any potential patronage of such a remote track(s).

To effect improvements, you need major reform in the way the industry is run. Hard-nosed, visionary, competent management is essential.

Failure to seek that change could easily give you the result you are after, but through the back door. And you and your colleagues could then be out of a job.

Of course, there are risks. The new CEO came from a mob which failed to gain much public support on the Gold Coast. We shall see. And the quasi-USA system proposed is not working well there either, mostly for financial reasons. In both cases, and in ours, support from the general public is critical. Always start with that.

John,

I did not see that program but your comment indicates that Mestrov knocked back a suggestion that skins should be permitted.

This tells us nothing more than he is doing what he is supposed to do - applying the rules.

He is a newcomer and would not be full bottle on the subject anyway. However, he has signed up - literally - to enforce the rules of the land. If he does not do that he is defaulting on his obligations.

The subject has just been done to death in various forums and a rule has been introduced (with national implications). That occurred in a climate of live baiting which demanded that authorities take a wide look at such areas - directly and indirectly. Certainly, their historical performance is questionable, as we learned in the McHugh report, but that is water under the bridge.

Today, the appropriate action is to accept the present, then to build a fresh case with fresh evidence (not easy, I realise) and put that to authorities so that the rule can be amended. That could take a year or two.

Personally, I get the impression that authorities over-reacted (and NZ followed suit) but they did have valid concerns while trainers failed to justify their case.

That case appears to have been based entirely on the view that dogs will not chase, or will not chase as well, unless they have something more realistic to run after. That is an assertion, not proof. It is not especially supported by "outside" animal experts. There is also some confusion between what is necessary during education and what happens during racing where artificial material has long been the standard.

I could add - on a related subject - that some trainers are protesting that dogs are no longer chasing due to the use of the hooped lure. There is not the slightest evidence of that so, at best, all they are doing is extrapolating an experience they may have had with an individual dog, perhaps even one which has not raced. Is it possible - as occurs with many dogs - that it would not have chased under any circumstances?

Whatever, it is not reasonable to dump on Mestrov simply because he is following a recently established rule. Only time will tell whether he has a closed mind.

We all now that he's there to toe the party line..!!