Sandro,

A bit more accuracy would help.

All I have done here is to ask five or six questions based on some well-established assumptions. If you are unwilling or unable to supply answers then we will cross you off the list.

I did divert a little with Ryan because he disputed my method of assessing form. He is entitled to do that, of course, but it is outside the prime subject area.

As I said at the outset, I am not qualified to delve into the breeding area but I hoped that others were and could speak up. So far, it seems most just want to sweep it all under the carpet or abuse me for existing.

Equally, it has been said that many trainers are not interested in pursuing distance racing as it all takes too long and income is too far away. That view is supported by the poor nominations (numbers and class) for distance racing, particularly at provincial clubs, and for the continuing rise in numbers of short races.

This may also be why state authorities pay little attention to the trends in distance racing. Neither have they bothered to properly investigate the causal factors in the greyhound population decline.
Nor did they do much about live baiting until it all hit the headlines, and is doing so again today.

So be it - it's your loss. I don't stand to win or lose whichever way it goes, but you do.

You may call it pontificating. I call it a lack of attention to the trends and core values of a code that I have been indulging in for 50 years or more. Ignore it at your peril.

While you are looking at that, consider that the code is dying in USA and is only recently starting to recover a little in UK where breeding is still a long way behind the levels of 10 and 20 years ago (as is Australia).

Who are we? I suggest you mean ''ou''

I really couldnt give a rats ar$e if you crossed me off your list because I have crossed you off mine a long time ago

You are still trying to push your opinions on stayers and so on to everyone

Your assumptions are just that, Yours!!

They aren;t well established , they are only well established going by your own observations, they are far from well established

If you are talking about facts, then thats all they are, facts, not assumptions

When anyone decides to play ball with you and makes suggestions all you do is play the negative card each time, then you back track when you are proved wrong and then some time later you ask the same question in a different way which you have done in your first post, again, about the 7 day back up of stayers

You don;t want anyone's opinion unless it coincides with yours

That's why I don;t bother with you....

You have no useful suggestions to make to anybody who is actually involved in the sport

You don;t have enough expertise in any field to help the sport in its current situation

You do have a right to be here talking, but really you are just a waste of space on this forum because you don;t offer any knowledge at all

I think you have plenty to lose, because if greyhound racing ever folds, you won't have anyone to preach your bull$hite to

To some people you may be entertaining, even at times you might make a little bit of sense, but for me, after I have read one of your essays I am kicking myself as they are 10 minutes of my life that I will never get back

They are all your words, spelling mistakes and all, I have not inserted anything, they are direct quotes from you highlighting your contradicting statements Bruce! That's what the 'quote' button does.

You are the disappointing one Bruce, making claims you cannot prove.

Bruce Teague wrote:

You then asked for more evidence (than the Sydney Cup) so I went to some trouble to pull out the previous two heat/final examples and put them up here. You asked and I gave them to you. Given time, I could produce dozens more (and have done so in articles), all underpinning the same principle - that most stayers cannot repeat a performance 7 days later. Most, not all.

Some trouble, really ? All you have done is extract figures similar to what a journalist wld do....I want those figs analysed (track speed & checks included) to prove your point, which btw still does interest me if you can PROVE IT !!!!

Blind Harry cld have done what you did.

Bruce Teague wrote:

As for the question of track speed ... I did not assess that for the current examples because I have shut down my database. However, informal crosschecking suggests there was little or no difference between the heats and finals in these cases.

So in other words you cant prove it for the examples YOU quoted. "informal cross checking" ...seriously ? That's your proof you want all of us to swallow ?

You have wasted my valuable time with this topic of yours Bruce, and by your own admission you have proved ZERO !

Bruce Teague wrote:

End of that discussion. * * * * *

Now that's the understatement of the year! You've made sure of that, cos I'm no longer bothering commenting on this topic. People on the front page of greyhound data have never collectively been stupid, so please stop treating us as such.

Previously, it had had quite nice wins over 710m at Albion Park.

Too Much Of A Good Thing

Monday 14th November 2011 10:21 am.Bruce Teague

Some while back when Wentworth Park meetings were programmed on Saturdays and Mondays, I recall writing a piece about the doubts arising when dogs ran at both meetings. Was it too much to ask? How do we know if the dog will be fully fit the second time around?

In the event a trainer wrote back to give me the rounds of the kitchen. He was annoyed because he had sat up all Saturday night massaging his dog and otherwise treating it to get it right for the Monday race. In other words, mind your own business.

Well fine. A mighty effort, even if his dog did no good at the second attempt and usually they dont.

But there is not a vet in the world (going on published comment) that will recommend a dog racing twice in 48 hours, especially over longer trips. They need five to seven days for their body to replenish its store of goodies. The odd trainer has echoed that thought, too.

So why do they do it? And should there be a law against it in the interests of both the dogs and the unsuspecting public who bet on it?

To date Greyhounds Australasia has rejected that idea. Their reasons are unknown as normally they do not offer explanations.

What, then, would you do with this case? Hes My Future is a very handy dog with multi-distance experience. But lets summarise his recent performances.

◦22 Oct 7th WPK 520m
◦24 Oct Won BATH 618m
◦27 Oct Won MAIT 400m
◦31 Oct Won BATH 618m
◦3 Nov Won MAIT 565m
◦5 Nov Won WPK 720m
◦7 Nov 3rd BATH 618m raced like a tired dog, came out slowly, showed no dash against mediocre opposition started odds-on fav
◦10 Nov 2nd MAIT 565m odds-on fav time only average
◦12 Nov Last WPK 720m poor performance bumped into everything in sight started short fav stewards queried run

Thats 9 runs in 21 days, or one every 2.3 days, including five over middle distances and two over the long distance. The dog had done really well to win five races but how much blood can you get out of a stone?

The stewards were not impressed with the most recent Wenty run yet did not bring up the question of over-racing in their report. They will monitor future performances, which is little consolation to the people who made it a $2.40 favourite.

Even so, those investors will get no sympathy from me. Surely they could read the formguide and draw their own conclusions about the risks. Or is that asking too much?

This may be an extreme example but the problem has been around for a long time. For example, it is not hard to recall the career of stayer Chinatown Lad, record holder and big race winner. The dog raced virtually week in, week out, throughout 2008, criss-crossing the nation at the same time.

It had only a couple of short injury breaks amongst those 36 races. Its form got progressively worse in the latter part of the year and it was eventually retired after repeated failures.

Is it reasonable to expect a stayer to maintain form at that racing frequency in the first place? In the broad sense, you would think not, and Chinatown Lad certainly didnt. But lots of public money went down the drain as its form declined.

Broadly, the medical evidence suggests racing more than once weekly is not advisable, and even less often for stayers which suck a great deal more out of their systems each time they race. Who can forget the near-death experience of Boomeroo after winning the 2002 National Distance Championship at Albion Park on a drip for four days. And that was a very fit dog, not over-raced at all.

Racing rules are clearly needed to guard against abuses.

However, a related issue is that todays higher frequency meetings are being run with no discernible increase is the dog population. Hence the incidence of insufficient nominations, short fields and extra scratchings is increasing. All that tends to put pressure on trainers to run dogs more often than is desirable.

Thats a trend that is worth watching.

Bruce, once again it it not the trainers job to help the punter to make sound investments.

You may never understand this because as far as I know, you haven't tried your hand at training.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I had a bitch that had a record of 30 starts for 7-7-8 when she was in my kennel.
She was with 3 other trainers apart form me, her record outside of my kennel was 48 starts for 2-6-7.
She backed up 0.21 better over 731m after 7 days.
Later she backed up 0.34 better over 643m in 5 days.
I'm not saying I was a better trainer than anybody else, but I knew this bitch. I even knew what she was thinking.
She needed constant work. I would quite often trial her behind a lure 2 days before a race. Once I trialled her over 410m at Horsham on Tuesday night, then she won over 515m at Angle Park on Thursday night. Finished over the top of them like a jet.
Then I have had other dogs that couldnt handle anything other than lead walking in between a race every 10 days.

Each dog is different in its recovery. Just like human athletes. There is no 'one size fits all' approach.

You ask 'how do we know the dog will be fully fit the second time around'
Well unless you are the owner of the dog and have the right to ask the trainer, the way you know is that like the other 95 dogs in the kennel block, the dog has gone over the vets table and been passed fit to race.
Similar to footy. Players will be passed fit to play, then do a hamstring in the first 2 minutes. So we all look for someone to blame. Not all footballers go through the same routine before a game. Some do sprints, weights, swimming, boxing etc 5 days a week. Others have a light jog then play.

Its only money Bruce. If you keep losing on the punt, try punting on a sport you understand better.

Your assumption that only 1 in 1000 comply with the rule regarding notifications of injury is totally wrong.
Go to GRSA webpage, click on INTEGRITY, then on ADDITIONAL REPORTS.
They are there for all to see.

You may be missing the point when you state "Bruce, once again it is not the trainers job to help the punter to make sound investments".

Perhaps a lot of people adopt that policy but how does it help the industry? I would assert the reverse.

While I generally agree with your last post I would also suggest that the more that punters and gamblers know the more the industry will prosper - which, in the end, means the more money trainers will win. That is why the Racing Rule exists. It is also why formguides show some of the data you mention although I doubt 90% of investors read them.

Even more so at the gallops where you are required to advise stewards of any changes to racing patterns or jockey's instructions.

Wagering is all about who has the best knowledge.

Yes, I see all the Additional injury reports on the GRSA website. All very nice but there are not many and they are all after the event - including retirements - and therefore of little or no interest to the public. Also, I am not sure that any other admin does this?

Anyway my interest and my past observations concerned problems leading up to a race, not after it has run. That is the intent of the Rule. It is there that I find it rare to see a warning from the trainer about something that was affecting his dog. An obvious exception would be Britton and TT after the Assoc Cup heat.

However I have noted more than once where punters were denied the info. One was for an Egg winner and another for a (previous) Group winning stayer. We heard only after the race (and, no, I won't say which because that will only stir up an argument and I have published the info previously anyway). I will say that one of the trainers is no longer in business.

I hark back to my little example of the Sat/Mon backup story at Wenty where the trainer worked overtime to get his dog right. But the problem is that (a) he told us long after the event, (b) he never stated the nature of the repair and (c) the dog did not do well anyway. Additionally, if the dog was crook he is duty bound to report it prior to the Mon race - but he did not. Indeed, since he went into print about it, the stewards should have hauled him in and asked why not. But they didn't. I make that a triple nil-all draw. Nobody wins.

don't poke the bear, lol.

Trainers let the public know constantly and consistently about dogs that are injured before racing.

You will see the word SCRATCHED on the form guide.

That is my last poke.
You are only interested in trying to be relevant and keeping score of views and replies.
Good luck with it.

Could anyone suggest a Title ...

I like

Never let your persistence and passion turn into stubbornness and ignorance.

or
The Internet is a big distraction.by Bruce

"Winning friends and influencing people - A journey in getting everyone to agree with only your point of view"

or

Well, you know when people are no good at anything else they become writers.

You are a bit late. I wrote an e-book long ago - Greyhound Racing for Fun and Profit - 31,000 words, $14.99 - but have not updated it since 2014 so I won't offer it for sale now.

I sold quite a few and it was directed purely at newcomers to the game. I was always concerned that so many had no real idea of what it was all about. They still don't.

I would not dare address breeders or trainers because they already know everything.

But thanks for calling me a writer and not a journalist. I will die happy.

I have written for six or seven Publishers by invitation and never knocked any of them back.

But there is a limit to everything. Maybe next time?