bamboozla

Agree, lets do 7 dog fields and play around with inury classification. No attempt at population control or broadening the base of owners and trainers which is precisely how we got here. Biggest kennels earn the most money and have the worst welfare records. Lets listen to the conflicted Board and suits in paid jobs engaging in group think and all heavily incentivized to keep the status quo. Pisses me off no end.

The GRNZ and the Board want to rally the troops around around what is essentially a business as usual approach to defending the sport, wanting to get all particpants behind their startegy. In broad strokes this boils down to challenging the perception of injuries/unsafe tracks and animal welfare, highlighting the economic impact of closing the sport and the cost to the SPCA, tweaking race field composition and drawing some kind of legal sympathy from the government. I am afraid and all most certain this won't be enough. My strategy is fairly simple, -less dogs and less meetings (6 meetings per week initially, 500 dogs bred per year) -smaller kennels and more owners (max 30 dogs in work) -slower and safer tracks (one turns and deeper slower surfaces on 2 turn tracks) As an industry we must be self sustainable in terms of rehoming and welfare. Shipping dogs off to America is not a strategy, having dogs waiting for a gap kennel for 18 months is not a strategy, nor is breeding more dogs than we can rehome domestically on an ongoing basis. With less concentrated ownership from the handful of 'super kennels' and the economic model employed you get a deeper pool of owners and trainers. That larger base of owners can rehome many more dogs internally and having kennels with hundreds of dogs and few owners. Obviously this would need to happen incrementally but is entirely achievable and would be inline with racing in Australia. We can debate the 'how did we get here' argument for ever and assign blame but that just wastes precious time. If we want a sport our kids and grandkids can have the feedom to enjoy then we simply must do things differently. If the GRNZ can't back the right approach then it is about time everyone else bands together and fights for the future of the sport.

Fair enough, done from me.

Plenty of people on here with significant skin in the game, not going to buy that argument. In terms of bringing down the sport the blame for that lies 100% elsewhere, in the very places should it not have been pointed out repeatedly I suspect you would be arguing should have been called out by numerous participants who have lurked around here over the years. These Administrators you speak of sure have made themselves scarce, I can't recall one ever reaching out to me, not once. Plenty of effort the other way..

I can't agree more, the sheer level of effort and persistance on his part demonstrates a passion for the issues not the actions of someone trying to undermine the sport. Even as these forums have becaome less populated over the years as many left the sport he has continued on trying to shine a light on the problems even with only the Stipe for company at times. Having been away from this forum myself for sometime I read over some old threads going back 6 years or more and it is all the same issues, largely the same cast of characters letting the game down. Just the number of people trying to speak out has declined with time as they gave up and left with Yankiwi close to the last man standing. People lament what they conveniently label 'keyboard warriors' when the opinions expressed don't suit there own and comfort themselves with the fact that they are too busy doing the hard work to read this garbage. All well and good but when you have your head down for years and finally look up and see oblivion then perhaps they should have paid a bit more attention.

Unfortunately the incentive strucutre these days sees a better financial outcome for trainers from a racetrack euthanasia than a retirement liability.. just another perverse outcome from disjointed policy.

https://www.miragenews.com/austrac-takes-ladbrokes-and-neds-operator-entain-1379104/#google_vignette

There were cerainly efforts made to right the ship from well meaning people who could see this day coming. By that time Rendle had annoited himself as king he had no interest but self interest. Contributions to charity for the betterment of the image of the sport were made, did head office show the slightest appetite to build on that goodwill. ZERO. The road from small trainers in the 90s supplying the majority of dogs racing for $600 to the farmers supplying the bulk and racing for thousands is a rather long journey. My memory is probably a little hazy so others might want to fill in some of the gaps. Some might disagree entirely, but this is my take. Prizemoney back in the day really wasn't enough to sustain many 'professional' trainers so most operations were small affairs where participants mixed racing with day jobs. I can't recall the numbers but I would guess on any 10 race card you likely had 20 or more trainers represented. Around the time dogs moved to Addington in the early 2000s you started to see a lot more opportunities being provided to greyhounds in terms of race dates and prizemoney started to increase paving the way for more people to race as a full time occupation. The bigger operations like Homebush were just emerging but there was a wide spread of small to medium sized trainers up and down the country with maybe 10-20 dogs max. Greyhound racing was something to be proud of and certainly not sneered at by the general public. Crowds were good and public perception was good. The mix of NZ bred and Aussie bred dogs was starting to skew pretty heavily towards Aussie dogs as NZ didn't breed in sufficient quantity or quality to match what you could get off the plane ready to race. In reality most kiwi dogs were probably 6-8 lengths behind what you could source from oz for less than 5k landed. The overall percentage of dogs that raced compared the total population of dogs in NZ was likely reasonably high and the dogs not good enough to race never made it to NZ as opposed to breeding litters and the inevitable losses from slow dogs or dogs that never made it to the track for various reasons. Most small trainers kept a few as pets and a few were probably adopted out, there was unlikely a large number seeking rehoming on an annual basis. As the volume of meetings picked up and the prizemoney improved, the prices being paid for dogs duly rose. The emergence of the Opawa and Thrilling kennels arrived with better breeding lines and training operations. The trend to NZ breeding was underway but I'd guess in the mid 2000s it was probably 50/50 in terms of AUS/NZ breeds contesting most races and skewed towards the AUS dogs in group races. Around this time or maybe a bit later the NZ breeding bonus scheme started which in addition with the increased costs to bring in imports put a rocket under the NZ breeding industry and permanently shifted the economics. From then on breeding to race was the most cost efficient method to get a racing stock and the real farming operations took off. With an ever expanding number of racing dates it seemed like the winning strategy, with that kind of industrialisation of the sport the smaller operations struggled to compete on an economies of scale basis, not to mention the vast improvements in facilities and methods. The ticking timebomb started about then, animal welfare wasn't really a thing, live baiting was relatively commonplace as it had been historically and what people did with dogs after racing wasn't discussed much either. With more dogs being bred an ever growing number of dogs were surplus to requirements every year and after the small trainers left most can guess where the majority of those went. The NZGRA were pretty happy with the growth of the sport and seemingly had no objection toward the farming model that was emerging. Prizemoney was on the rise, kiwi dogs were proving their worth and going to Sydney and Melbourne to take on feature races. The governance structure which didn't seem to be such a problem in the amateur days never moved with the proffesional age. Clubs become fiefdoms of trainers and their cronies as did the board as money took over. Most of the CEO's from that period on were pretty happy to punch a meal ticket, fill in a line of their resume and jump ship at the earliest opportunity when the problems started to emerge. NZGRA never wanted to acknowledge a problem or show any foresight, they were obstinate to change and completely out of touch with what modern professional administration should be. The clubs fought and retained too much control for too long in my view, when the sport needed a strong leader there was none. Scoot along to the modern era and kiwi dogs are winning the lions share of big races and the race cards are stacked with incredible quality on feature nights and the prizemoney is scarcely believable compared to the amateur days. Kiwi dogs are more than capable of mixing it with dogs abroad which is a real succes story that a lot of people wouldn't have believed possible 20 years ago, if only the governance had moved with that same speed. When dogs were banned in NSW some decade ago, instead of being the wake up call it should have been, standards continued to erode and the rot continued with more instances of crap decisions than I could care to mention. The farmers kept on farming, welfare became an unsustainable liability in the scale NZ was continuing to breed. In my view at least there should have been a complete reset in terms of objectives and sustainability a decade ago. Success has many fathers and failure is an orphan as the saying goes, but this sure isn't one of those.

Spot on, factory farming dogs was a model that should never have been encouraged, permitted or allowed. No such operation exists in Australia, the closest thing to it is probably the Wheeler operation but they don't train and spread dogs out across a number oftrainers. Farmers love their animals but in reality they are a commodity, be it sheep, cattle or dogs. The small trainers while not being as professional in their methods or having the facilites only trained and bred the number of dogs they could handle and could home or keep as pets themselves. To the factory farmers and their owners they were a balance sheet liability at day 1 of retirement and dealt with accordingly. Becuase they were enabled to do that it forced the hand of other participants who needed to compete to stay above water and a race to the bottom was swiftly enacted, periodically interepted by bouts of accountability forced upon them by the various reviews and negative publicity. The small trainers were inevitably forced out leaving the farmers to mass produce dogs, fill an ever larger racing calender and push those dogs to breaking point. Dogs racing 3-4 times a week in numerous instances, dogs racing at 13 months old and thrashed until they broke then disappeared with seemingly little accountability. Stewards not even bothering to do their jobs, a board stinking of self entitlement and a head office all seemingly happy to let it happen. The fact that the previous administraitions let that happen is terrible, but I am guessing no one is going to put their hand up and say they got that wrong. Ditto the farmers still feeding off the beast they created. I have no doubt if trainers were limited to say 30 dogs max and strict racing protocols around dog management had been implemented a decade ago the industry would be thriving.

The only credible option is to admit the failings (warts and all) from the actions of participants right through to those of the Board and CEO's over the past 20 years and pledge to rid the industry entirely of those elements and reset the governance. That would take a number of people having to fall on their swords and admit they were either inept or complicit to those failings. Admit you got it wrong, identify the real reasons why and hope against hope that with an entirely clean sheet and regimented operating framework that the public would be willing to give you a window to prove yourself before the curtain does fall. If the same bad actors still present are allowed to operate in any capacity there is absolutely no hope. There has been some progress, the problem is that that progress has been weighed down badly by the dead weight dragging the sport into oblivion.

Been no lack of effort over the years, blocked at every turn. Sure I am not alone in that regard, can't just keep investing time and effort in an outcome that the administration doesn't want to see.

The Cole situation was really the tipping point, In Victoria the GRV to their credit outed Graeme Bate in 2014 who was bigger than Ben Hur and a member of the Greyhound Hall of Fame for positive swabs. In NSW they took a very hard line after greyhound racing got an 11th hour reprieve with many big names banned, yet perversely in NZ there was a complete nonchalance about these same issues. I remember visiting for cup week and all the talk was about 'dodgy aussie bastards' and not 'shit we better make sure we up our game'. The board became infected with kennel stooges from all the main players to keep the status quo going and Rendle as thief in chief. Cole gets off what should have been a slam dunk case and then it seemed like all pretence to running a clean sport was done. Just cheat, lie and steal as long as you can seemed to be the motto.

Entirely true, the smug arrogance and dismal performance of the administration, the board and various parties holding the strings of power would be a perfect case study on how not to run any sport. Unfortunately the power and control of the sport for the last 20 years has often languished in the hands of the inept, the self-serving, the disinterested and the self-destructive. Close your eyes and there is nothing to see, close your ears and hear nothing negative. Keep getting paid and kick that can down the road until it is someone else's problem. Finally that can can't be kicked no more and the falacy of an administration is there for all to see, the price to be paid by the quiet majority while others have lined their pockets and long sailed off to greener pastures.

As a longtime owner, breeder and enthusiast this is all very sad but unfortunately entirely predictable yet it was entirely preventable. I will be forever thankful for the lessons learned watching dogs at QE2 after school in the 90s, developing skills that have served me well for a lifetime. So sorry for the genuine salt of earth people this sport was built on when races were worth a few hundred dollars and dreaming of having a dog that might win 10k one day was like racing Phar Lap. May the red light flash and the bunny forever be set in motion.

Yes that was Eckles, appealed largely because there was nothing to lose and a Galaxy finalist. If it wasn't in the final I doubt the trainer and owner would have appealed but as is their right to do so. This whole idea or precedents being set by certain decisions in the past is pretty worthless. You could pick apart virtually any instance on any track if you trolled through every decision made by stewards or not made for that matter. If your mate drove at 120k from Ashburton to Chch and dont get pinged by you can hardly argue against a ticket being clocked at 115 just because they weren't pinged for doing 120.

As a matter of personal opinion I have no issue with the dog probably getting a warning in this instance but that doesn't negate the lengths the Board went to insert themselves into this process. Really it isn't much different to get pulled over by the cops, blowing over the limit and saying 'well my mate is a police officer and he reckons because I have never had an accident and can still drive safely then clearly it is absurd to suggest I have been affected by alcohol'

Wow, we are really plumbing the lows now. So now we have the entire board and the commentator weighing in on something they have no right place to do so. Maybe we should ask Trevor Wilkes his opinion or maybe some punter in the street or ask around a few different trainers. Isn't that what the stipes are there to do, make a rules based judgment free of outside influence. This is a poor/embarrassing look for Hannan the Board and Rosanowski for that matter, no chance they would be weighing in on this for some hobby trainer with 2 dogs in the garage.. Rendle is what he is, no surprise he is leveraging everything he can to get what he wants. Just his natural state. The fact the dog has won 8 from 9 in fast times, irrelevant. The fact the dog led all the way, irrelevant. The below statement kind of blows me away, the only absurdity on display here is the Board. Not uncommon at all for dogs to jump in front chase half heartedly and win easily especially in lower grades. You see it all the time. Absurd that the Board thinks it appropriate to make sweeping statements that restrict stewards from making rules based judgements. [20] The Board considered “it would be an absurdity to take a view that the dog which led from the start and won the race by a healthy margin could at the same time be said to have failed to pursue the lure.”

Has something changed regarding replays, surely not back to the dark ages..

SOLD

Layla - 9 Starts 3 wins 4 placings Lightly raced, plenty of wins left in her, make a nice middle grade bitch with potential to get over 450. Has placed in only attempt at 520m at Addington but better suited to easier 500m. Good box speed and chase. No injuries. Won her last 2 starts. Nommed for C2 heats Friday. $5,000 Contact via email mulberrymike@hotmail.com

To me JMac just wants to be the 'cheapest to deliver' supplier of racing dogs. Whether they are good or bad is of little consequence. What matters is getting the highest number of dogs to the track week in week out and use a saturation strategy to supply the highest percentage of dogs possible for any given meeting thereby guaranteeing as much stake money as possible for the cheapest price. When you have 6 or more of the runners in any low grade race mathematically you are guaranteed a return if you can do it often enough. All you need to do is nominate every dog possible as often as possible. Whether they are fit or not, fast or slow really doesn't matter. Just need to play the numbers game. What hasn't been considered is that other trainers with elite level dogs probably don't want to risk racing a JMac dog in a low grade race and risk bringing the virus home to infect their good dogs. I am sure there would have been some nervous trainers with dogs engaged in next weeks Addington features who perhaps didn't nominate this week for entirely that reason. They get penalised so JMac can be greedy and reckless.

If the dog that tested positive came from a small kennel this obviously plays out very differently and GRNZ and the board are patting themselves on the back for their pro-active actions in protecting the sport by suspending the kennel. You can only assume JMac has been given "too big to fail" status and the GRNZ/Board has baulked and bent over. Never been a fan of a Dictator type approach to managing anything but at this point the sport needs someone to step in and overhaul everything at once. A complete reset of all levels of administration. Sure it would be painful but there is no light at the end of tunnel we are in now, just the certainty of a black hole of oblivion.

Not suprised at all GRNZ has become a dumping ground for poor/uninterested administrators like Dore and many previous. LP's have continued to elect the same self-serving Board Members repeatedly which has been just as detrimental. There needs to be a circuit breaker pulled very soon of this becomes a death spiral and we are done and finished.

Your answer looks very much like Mr Dore over-rides the Vets.

Not a good look, but then this is the Accountant/Board Member that acts as special legal advisor when your Amazing Chase descends in a farce. I would say yet again get out the broom but I think in this case you need the high powered industrial leaf blower to remove the garbage.