what is this then?

and then you spat the dummy out after that.

Do something constructive instead of coming on this site 50 times a day and giving everybody a lecture because of your superior expertise.
You must spend hours a day just for this site. You have probably 50% of the posts on some topics but apparently you don't have time.

You contradict yourself but give everyone else lip for any minute thing you can find.

Well, this is my thread - you are free to wander off.

The quote you provided was my initial reaction to Grant's subject. Subsequently, he offered more info. I disagreed and so I withdrew.

But thankyou for admitting I have "superior expertise" on some subjects (although buggerall on others).

I have long been a supporter of a national structure for betting - ie one pool, several betting operators. It's not perfect but it would be a helluva lot better than what we have. The Productivity Commission thought likewise, as have others (even including disgraced former NSW Minister, Richard Face).

But I would go further.

Along with that, a common national prize money pool, including equal pay for equal grades, is likely to strengthen the industry in the long term. In effect, this follows the AFL and even NRL patterns where the main body of income is spread fairly evenly, subject only to special needs (such as the establishment of a new club). Individual club initiatives could be encouraged so long as they did not impact on the basic effort.

* Income is already gathered nationally. Some differing takeouts are present but they can readily be sorted out, if the will is there.
* A single pool increases the viability of the greyhound betting product which is now so small on a race-by-race basis as to turn off serious investors.
* Broadly speaking, operating costs are much the same everywhere yet rewards can vary by 100% or more. Kibble is still kibble. Petrol is still petrol.
* Much of the current movement of dogs is based on economic grounds, mostly prize money. That is artificial and undesirable.
* The smaller, and therefore weaker, states are under increasing pressure to hold the line. There is some risk that they could disappear out the back door, or take actions based only on survival rather than growth and profitability.
* Essentially, breeding is already national in character as sires and dams move back and forth across state boundaries.
* The stronger the small states are, the stronger is the national industry. The "weakest link" syndrome applies.
* Grading could be standardised or simplified rather than being subject to whims and unnecessary complexity.
* Publicity-advertising-GAP programming and the like could then be organised nationally and be much more efficient and productive.
* Sensitive and customer-friendly customer services could be offered rather than the poorly designed Ozchase system in place everywhere except in Victoria.
* Of indirect benefit would be the reduction of value in patronising overseas betting outlets. The Feds would like that but so would everyone depending on local income.
* Obviously, with all that nationalisation comes the need to set up national management with absolute control and branch offices in each state. The largely useless GA system would not be missed.

Naturally, there would be mountains to climb and rivers to cross before such changes could become real. But it could be done if we put the industry's interests first and personal attachments last.

Indeed, I suspect a majority of voters and a majority of states would be in favour if we put it to a referendum.

Graeme,

OK, I have a new policy - all others will be referred to as O/Ts. Still, I note your bio says you have an firm interest in training?

Anyway, you have shown me nothing. I used the term "overall race speed". In my book "overall" means the whole race, not the first 50m. There are no 50m races so why would anyone bother?

As for "typical distances" it is hard to easily access reliable records (nor do you offer any) but there are pointers. 150 years ago 400m racing (in UK) was dropped and replaced by much longer trips over open ground as well as greater supervision. 100 years ago mechanical hare racing arrived on circular racecourses, thereby enforcing 500 or so as the primary trip distance. In Oz we did have some straight tracks and one-turn tracks (eg Maitland and Cessnock) but by far the most common have also been circles with the same outcome - ie 500 or so.

In any event, recent history tells us that OTs are now preferring 400m or less in increasing numbers (64% v 54% a decade ago) so that amounts to two things - history is being reversed and the breed is getting weaker.

I am a "greyhound person" mate, just a little different to you as is always the case. And I have never used the word "stupid" to describe you or others, tempting though it might be. Lose the language and concentrate on the subject.

And I referred to big betting trainers as that is who I have observed over the years. No doubt they were owners as well but I would not know exactly what pure owners do as they are harder to identify.