Further ...

The penny has dropped. I see your point.

As a firm condition of the race, a requirement to go straight to GAP is ridiculous. The bureaucracy has failed to consider the "unintended consequences".

Obviously, some renegotiation is needed.

Currently, you have half a dozen options for your retiring dog, one of which is GAP. The race publicity so far reduces that to just the one. That means that a world champion would end up in the hands of some lovely couple who are happy to leave it in the backyard in Timbuktu - until, of course, someone whispers in their ear that more millions are in the offing. So they flog it.

(Fernando Bale is now earning at the rate of $1.2m p.a. - with a waitlist).

The source of this silliness would be the government's penchant to demonstrate that it supports whole-of-life care and convince the public that they are nice people. So the answer then is to include a condition which does that.

For example, the winner could be required to donate a large sum to GAP expenses. Big cheque, lots of photos and Bob's your uncle. Everyone is happy.

And you nick off to the breeding barn, fingers crossed that it produces good progeny.

With very little detail provided and the race being so close obviously people are going to rely on the wording of whatever has been released so far.

I accept that the wording may be wrong and we need to wait until the proper conditions of entry are released to know.

However, I also believe that a professional and competent organisation would have ensured the wording was correct in all of their press releases and statements. I would also have thought that they would have released the exact conditions of entry at the same time.

It appears all we have got is a work in progress. No conditions of entry. Nothing on what happens to the Vic Peters heats that are meant to be on the same night. Either they are going to have about 15-16 races on the night or they are expecting changes to be made to the already published group calendar. We don't even know what distances all of the support races are going to be run over. I assume they will all be 520m but then I would also have thought you would have a distance race to support so maybe one of them is a 720m.

EXTERNAL LINK
I then became angry.
I also began to wonder where all the animal rights groups are in all this...I couldn't find one who was asking for the DONATE button to be pushed to help the farmers and the ANIMALS they so vehemently protect.
NOT ONE.
Aussies helping Aussies, you know?
Not one cent being asked for the dying animals...millions of them!

So, wondering if I could get some feedback from the masses, and from you, Mr. Mestrov, because I know you are reading this.

I totally understand the arguments put forth about looking after the grass roots before a race like this...I get it, and I agree.
But this race is now set in stone and one can only hope that the next phase is to address the real issues of regional p/money and tracks.
This race is a promotion of industry, Govt, and Ladbrokes...as plain as day.

Proposal.
Everything remains the same except ONE thing.
The ONE MILLION DOLLARS to the winner becomes $500,000.00.
The other $500,000 is donated to these amazing people.. EXTERNAL LINK The race can still be promoted as the 1 MILLION DOLLAR CHASE because it is.
It can now be promoted as the GRNSW/LADBROKES/FOR FARMERS/MILLION DOLLAR CHASE.
$500,000 first prize is still the biggest prize for a Grey race that I know of, nothing to sneeze at.
Suddenly what was a colossal promotion for all 3 sponsors becomes a massive show of solidarity of Australians and the industry's genuine care for our farmers.
10 MILLION couldn't buy that integrity.
Many of the heats will be run in regional centres, some where the drought is...do you get it, NATIONALS?

As a side benefit, it shoves it right where the sun doesn't shine to that mongrel, insensitive, cruel, a$$hole of an organisation called PETA and all the others who are sitting on their hands while this disaster unfolds.

???

Politicians + big business = toxic mix

Propose a Crystal Meth/Crackies 300m maiden and you might get more luck with government sponsorship... sad but true.

Jason,
The regional votes might not mean that much to the Libs, but they certainly do to the NATS.
I'm not sure if I'm reading it right but I think that's why this series was structured around regional heats so the exposure to regional voters would be more prevalent.

Having said that I understand where you are coming from.
Having said THAT, from a public's POV, the industry's gesture towards farmers will do no harm, quite the contrary.

Anyway, it's a thought.

Cheers Jason.

"social sluts"...I like that. Lol.

Some great ideas there, Bob.
It is easily built upon with clubs naming races in aid of the farmers.
PTB could easily align with the farmer help groups.
I knew the drought was bad but until I went searching I didn't fully grasp the extent of it.
IT IS A DISASTER!

Adam,

Checking all the publicity, I can find only two references to post-race disposal: (1) to GAP, and (2) keeping it at home (which is ambiguous).

This is unsatisfactory and must be challenged. It also runs counter to GRNSW/GWIC existing rules which specifically state what the options are. In theory, this would therefore require a formal change to existing regulations.

My guess is that the Minister's office wanted to get welfare/GAP into as many conversations as possible to show what great fellas they are. But their enthusiasm ran away from them.

One particular reference is by Adam Pengilly of SMH, immediately following the initial announcement. In that piece, he also wrote that they were using taxpayers' money, rather than correctly attributing it to unclaimed TAB dividends - ie from punters only.

That twit Fitzy/SMH committed the same error and also quoted biased views from an independent re-homer group, ignoring the opportunity to quiz GRNSW or many others. Like Baird and Grant, Fitzy does not like greyhound racing or betting on sport, perhaps a remnant of the days when he stuck his head into too many scrums and got no pay for it.

I have written to the SMH but doubt I will get published. GRNSW should be doing the same and insisting on corrections.

I can't find this anywhere on the GRNSW website now so by the time they actually put up the terms and conditions this may not be accurate. (It may also mean that GRNSW did not write this in the first place but it seems a lot of effort for anyone else to go to.)

My understanding is that it went on the website today and then was taken down but not before someone obviously had noticed it. Thank you to whoever that was.

If you go to page 2 you will notice that it has the entry fees for the qualifiers.

You win the race, do something wrong 5 years later and they want the funds back ?

Am i reading correctly ?

24.
Any prizemoney must be immediately repaid to GRNSW if the owner or trainer of
that greyhound is found guilty of a contravention of the GWIC Greyhound Racing
Rules at any time during or following the Event and/or any Associated Event
(whether the conduct the subject of the contravention took place before or after
the Event and/or any Associated Event). The amount of any repayment, and from
whom it may be recovered (being any
person who was awarded the prizemoney), shall
be determined by GRNSW in its discretion. The amount of any repayment under this
clause may be recovered by GRNSW as a debt in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Sounds like everybody at the table the night they made this up were either high on energy drinks & caffeine or the giggle-weed.

What a waste of time - me giving you $550 & you giving me $10 grand back.

Would have been easier to just make the unplace prizemoney 9 grand & no GF fee as the same outcome would have been achieved with less hassle.

Real...How tight is this mob?

Come to think of it, sounds like the horse mob have got their finger in the pie with the making of this rule.

Your referenced LINK, which is read-only, is authored by GRNSW.

It still contains the silly or ambiguous condition that the winner, when retired from acing, must either end up on the owner's couch or be properly rehomed.

Effectively, that means that it cannot pursue stud duties. So potential earnings of several million dollars at stud are to be dismissed in favour of a one million dollar prize.

I have seen many odd things done by racing authorities over the last 50 years but this would have to take the cake. (Aside from the stated conditions, there must be some doubt as to its legality).

I believe there are many examples of a YES answer to your first question - either sex. Similarly, many have retired and then come back to racing.

But let's assume you have a really top racing dog. Do you enter it in the $1m race, in which case you realistically have somewhere between a 1 in 20 and a 1 in 50 chance of winning - value $10k to $50k plus preliminaries?

Or do you skip the race and put it to stud or motherhood and look at several years of income at perhaps $10k to $50k p.a. - or a minimum of three litters - say 20 pups - worth a total of $20k to $100k?

(Please fill in your own figures - I am just guessing).

The major variable here is not the big race but how you assess the worth of the dog for breeding. Whatever your conclusion, the odds do not favour an entry in the big race - ie some owners would quickly bypass it, which defeats the whole purpose of the exercise.

Alternatively, some owners could pick up good dollars in the preliminaries and then scratch it from the big one. They would also have potential earnings from other feature events to consider.

In any event, offering just the couch/rehome options is sheer madness. It suggests the Minister's office dreamed up the basic conditions and asked GRNSW to fill in the empty boxes. Both deserve sacking purely on the ground of incompetence.

Not to mention the removal of a potentially great bloodline from the industry.

There are other ways of achieving the Minister's aim of promoting welfare than this. All it needs is a bit of imagination.