Unnormalized Data Leads To Pointless Presentations?

[Yankiwi]

Brief study #5

 

1. What was the injury rate for Auckland's 2nd quarter (1 Nov to 31 Jan) in each the last 10 years?
2. How does the most recent 2nd quarter injury rate stack up with previous years rates?
3. Is there a trend, year on year, with Manukau's injury rate?

 

1) 10 years of 2nd quarter injury data summarized totals.

 

2) How does the most recent 2nd quarter injury rate stack up with previous years rates?

With 5.5% of all starters receiving an injury requiring a stand-down in the most recent quarter, it is the highest rate of overall injury over the 10-year period.

4.7% of the overall injuries were minor or medium. The increased rate of injury doesn't necessarily mean more dogs were getting hurt. It's most likely that the percentages are more in line with previous seasons (except the 22/23 season) due to the increased rate of post-race checks that were previously going unrecorded.

0.8% of overall injuries were major 1, major 2 or death/euthanasia. At 0.8%, it was exactly on the 10-year track average, but 33% over GRNZ's KPI target figure.

 

3) Is there a trend, year on year, with Manukau's injury rate?

The 2017/18 season was the safest. Well under GRNZ's current KPI season targets, realizing only half of the major injuries GRNZ is targeting for the current season.

As for trends, the first two season of the study returned rates higher than GRNZ current KPI.

The following three seasons returned lower than or close to equal with the KPI target.

Then from the 2019/20 season forward there was a very apparent steady uptick with injury rates rising well about the KPI.

The 2022/23 season saw the track at it's worse (in the study). Injuries were rife, races & meeting were abandoned, and the track was closed down for remedial work for about 3 weeks with racing operations moved to Cambridge during the interim. This explains the low number of starters during the 2022/23 season.

When racing had returned to the track for the final 4 weeks of that 2022/23 season second quarter, injury rates remained high with 1 entire race meet being canceled due to "weather & track conditions".

 

My summary:

The Auckland track can be run in a safe manner. I had done so in the 2017/18 season 2nd quarter. After a bit of a patch-up during the 2022/23 season Q2, it hasn't return to anything near safe with injury rates still ranking the highest in the country.

GRNZ has hired an Animal Welfare Manager and a Racing Safety & Infrastructure Manager for situations such as this. Why hasn't the injury rate seen a meaningful decline, back down towards where it's previously proven that it can be?

If my figures are unrealistic, like Chief insinuates that they could be, I welcome GRNZ to post their alternate data, which shows a differing result. If welfare underpins everything GRNZ does, why wouldn't they? Why would they leave my study unchallenged if it were off target in a meaningful way?

[Chief Stipe]

In answer to the Topic title - YES.

Any variance measures?

[Yankiwi]

According to the Stewards reports, if a dog started in a race and was reported as injured after a post-race vet check, it was recorded an injury.

If a race had started and events during the race forced that race to be abandoned, the injuries were recorded (as today's race 11 will be).

3/11/13 (the beginning point of data retrieval) to 30/1/17, the stand-down rule imposed was 81.1

5/11/17 to 29/1/23, the stand-down rule imposed was 56.1

5/11/23 to 28/1/24, the stand-down rule imposed was 41(1)

Injuries that required a stand-down that were reported coming from pre/post-race trials, were not recorded.

Anything other was not recorded as an injury (trainer reporting to a steward their dog had been injured during a race in the days following & so on).

[Yankiwi]

Unnormalized Stewards reports lead to worthless presentations.

I don't need to worry about GRNZ challenging this study, as of yet. The first rendition underrepresents the reality.

I've got to go back thru the 10 years' worth of data & reanalyze it.

So for now, throw out what look like the good Auckland seasons & probably consider the bad ones even worse.

Here's why.

29/1/19

Since the dog was put down due to injury, no stand-down was imposed.

 

Same here.

31/12/18

 

I'll come back once the other racing seasons have been completed with a 2nd edition presentation.

 

 

Edited February 12 by Yankiwi

[Chief Stipe]

36 minutes ago, Yankiwi said:

Unnormalized Stewards reports lead to worthless presentations.

I don't need to worry about GRNZ challenging this study, as of yet. The first rendition underrepresents the reality.

I've got to go back thru the 10 years' worth of data & reanalyze it.

So for now, throw out what look like the good Auckland seasons & probably consider the bad ones even worse.

Here's why.

29/1/19

Since the dog was put down due to injury, no stand-down was imposed.

 

Same here.

31/12/18

 

I'll come back once the other racing seasons have been completed with a 2nd edition presentation.

 

 

I don't get your point.

[Yankiwi]

https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/12930/stewards-report.aspx

This is where In the Stewards reports I pick up the injury data from.

56.1 is the rule that used for an injury requiring a stand-down during the race. It is a summary of all dogs from the race meet that were issued with a stand-down period.

I can ignore any of the other rules that are listed here for the dogs that were early scratched or for dogs that were late scratched prior to starting their race.

Therefore, for race #3 at this meet, only one injury of 10 days was recorded.

The vital information which had not been recorded here is a dog that ran in the race, was injured during the race & the injury was so severe it was euthanized at the track, as a dead dog doesn't require an injury stand-down.

In the stand-down report above, there is no mention of "Elaborate" breaking a hock & being euthanized in race #3.

Bellow, in the race description, it tucks the bad news away out of plain sight..

 

Back in April of 2014, the public was not even informed of a euthanasian.

 

So at some point between 2014 & 2018 the GRNZ/RIU had changed that protocol, and information about death/euth prior to that change, when every that was, will be underrepresenting of the actual data, as it's simply not available.

Maybe if it had been made available, I would have made a more informed decision about buying racing greyhounds in the first place. Like I had said before, never again.

Edited February 12 by Yankiwi

[Chief Stipe]

10 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

In the stand-down report above, there is no mention of "Elaborate" breaking a hock & being euthanized in race #3.

I think I saw that race - the dog broke down free of interference.  Didn't hit the rail.

[Yankiwi]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

I think I saw that race - the dog broke down free of interference.  Didn't hit the rail.

This isn't a rail study.

This is an injury study.

Whether a dog breaking a hock during a race and being euthanized after normalizing the data and allowing for variances actually had an injury in the first place is open for debate.

[aquaman]

13 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/12930/stewards-report.aspx

This is where In the Stewards reports I pick up the injury data from.

56.1 is the rule that used for an injury requiring a stand-down during the race. It is a summary of all dogs from the race meet that were issued with a stand-down period.

I can ignore any of the other rules that are listed here for the dogs that were early scratched or for dogs that were late scratched prior to starting their race.

Therefore, for race #3 at this meet, only one injury of 10 days was recorded.

The vital information which had not been recorded here is a dog that ran in the race, was injured during the race & the injury was so severe it was euthanized at the track, as a dead dog doesn't require an injury stand-down.

In the stand-down report above, there is no mention of "Elaborate" breaking a hock & being euthanized in race #3.

Bellow, in the race description, it tucks the bad news away out of plain sight..

 

Back in April of 2014, the public was not even informed of a euthanasian.

 

So at some point between 2014 & 2018 the GRNZ/RIU had changed that protocol, and information about death/euth prior to that change, when every that was, will be underrepresenting of the actual data, as it's simply not available.

Maybe if it had been made available, I would have made a more informed decision about buying racing greyhounds in the first place. Like I had said before, never again.

I use to expose this cover up on here back in that period 2014/2018. They being the NZGRA tried to bury the deaths by simply saying referred to Vet when in actual fact this was code for put down. They are slimey bas#ards and need close watching. You can check these reports from that period and you will find many occasions where the report simply states, referred to vet with no outcome which meant dead dog. I like to think that the exposure that I gave it on a public forum helped bring about the change.

[Yankiwi]

New results.

I have now searched every Stewards report for "euth". That identified the number of dogs that were noted as being euthanized. If the Steward reported a death & didn't use "euth" in the description (example - "was humanely put down") that would not have been captured in my data gathering.

One year further back in time added.

 

2017/2018 season Q2 was completed under GRNZ's current season KPI target, so it can be done.

2016/2017 season may have achieved the same milestone. It's likely overall & minor/medium injuries would have achieved it, while one or two unreported major injuries which ended with euthanasia would have brought the season over the 0.6% threshold.

GRNZ will have the data of the first four seasons studied here. They kept data such as this hidden behind smoke and mirrors for as long as they could, until their deception tactics were no longer effective for them.

Regardless, since that 2017/2018 season, overall thing keep getting worse & worse. They still keep putting them around the track, even though they fully know how dangerous it is & how dangerous it is going to become.

"Welfare underpins everything we do" is only a slogan. There is not meat on that bone. It's a talking point so they can feel good about themselves for the wonderful job they think they are doing.

If they don't want to invest in the Auckland track and fix it properly, like they had in Wanganui, then fair enough as its future is in doubt anyways. But if welfare really played any part in their thinking, they wouldn't be letting the dogs that they govern go anywhere near it.

Good things will not be happening on the track Sunday.

 

GRNZ could have been planning for a shift to Cambridge yesterday, after two dogs broke a hock the day before, but instead they decided to wait for more potential victims to sign up for going around Manukau next Sunday.

Edited February 12 by Yankiwi

[Yankiwi]

Hey John, thoughts about this?

During say November to May, what if the sandy surfaces of NZ tracks such as Auckland were to be groomed after a day's race meet, then water it at a slow steady pace overnight which would allow for the water to be absorbed deep into the track. Then the next morning, cover the track surface with a tarp, to help seal the moisture in by protecting in from direct sunlight & air movement. Maybe that tarp could have an insulation layer as well to help the heat of the tarp which would be absorbing the sunlight and heating the track surface.

Then the evening before the next race meet, uncover the track, take your moisture/hardness readings and water it again overnight at a predetermined pace to compensate for the reading taken, to have it perfect in the morning.

I know next to nothing about Cricket, but don't they cover the grass when it rains so they can control the amount of moisture in the ground? If so, why couldn't a dirt track be treated the in a similar fashion to help keep the moisture in?

[aquaman]

I'm no expert on track prep Charles, but figure you will not get anywhere unless the plumbing underneath, and the type of sand used is suitable then everything you do will be pushing shit up hill. Regards watering I always liked the idea of how some tracks in Aussie are prepared assuming the first two points are correct. They flood the track day before and morning of, huge amount of water put on. By the time first race rolls around track is like a beach with the tide out.

As for covering the track such as in cricket, fraught with problems such as wind lifting it, shade on some areas producing uneven drying, not to mention cost and man hours laying it. I prefer the flooding idea as it goes deep and even, but for this to work the water system would have to be purpose built. Just my thoughts.

[Yankiwi]

15 minutes ago, aquaman said:

I'm no expert on track prep Charles, but figure you will not get anywhere unless the plumbing underneath, and the type of sand used is suitable then everything you do will be pushing shit up hill. Regards watering I always liked the idea of how some tracks in Aussie are prepared assuming the first two points are correct. They flood the track day before and morning of, huge amount of water put on. By the time first race rolls around track is like a beach with the tide out.

As for covering the track such as in cricket, fraught with problems such as wind lifting it, shade on some areas producing uneven drying, not to mention cost and man hours laying it. I prefer the flooding idea as it goes deep and even, but for this to work the water system would have to be purpose built. Just my thoughts.

When that Aussie track expert (Brian Barrington) in 2014 came over he had mentioned that he couldn't believe how little water was being applied to NZ tracks. As a newbie at the time (only had been an owner for a couple of months) it didn't make a lot of sense to me. Now I've learned just how important track moisture is.

This is the one bit of advice he gave that GRNZ did trial, which in the end wasn't adopted long term after the trial, until PNGRC wanted to reinstate their 375m starting position many years later.

https://www.grnz.co.nz/News/1110/Lure-Driving-Trial

Isn't it funny how a failed trail in 2014 became a good idea in 2022 when GRNZ needed an excuse for changing a long term rule for the sole purpose of justification for reinstating a once dangerous starting position?

That failed trial vanished, when it was convenient for them to forget it.

 

Here's how they spun it in the 2022 annual report.

 

However, this was ruled out due to construction and logistical issues, so attention then turned to the previously scrapped 375m start. A report surfaced from around 2015 written by an Australian expert that recommended that the 375m boxes be realigned, as they were angled wrongly in relation to the running rail, and that the lure should be allowed to lead the greyhounds at box-rise by 10m.

Whilst there was no documentation to explain why these recommendations were not carried out, it provided reasoning that a safe 375m start could be created. Construction work commenced, the Rules were amended to allow a 10m lure and trials were successfully run from the new start, allowing racing to commence from April 2022.

https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/Annual report 2021/GRNZ Annual Report 2022.pdf

 

Well, the 10m may have helped things at Palmerston North 375m start. But that same 10m had a devastating effect at Manukau, tempting dogs to ignore the running rail when it was in between them and the lure anytime they were running off the pace midfield or further back in the pack. The 2014 safety rail didn't help to protect them, nor did the November 2023 safety rail. I wonder why?

 

 

[Yankiwi]

John, you're down the Chch way.

How about popping over to the Evans facility and asking Goldstar Hans what went wrong?

[Yankiwi]

2014 & the GRNZ board/headquarters methodology which proves they were not fit for purpose.

Aussie track expert had suggest twisting the PN 375m boxes a bit & running the lure out to 10m will make for safer racing there.

 

What did GRNZ do?

 

 

Lure Driving Trial

GRNZ in conjunction with some of the clubs recently invited Brian Barrington, a noted Australian track engineer with over 40 years’ experience in the industry, to visit our busiest race tracks to look at track preparation and racing and share any ideas on how the racing surfaces may be improved to ensure they race consistently and safely through all weathers. Brian visited Wanganui, Auckland and Christchurch tracks and shared many ideas and recommendations to assist track curators at those tracks.

During Brian’s visit he was of the opinion that from time to time the lure was placed too close to the lead dog causing the field to bunch up, particularly around the turn and recommended that the lure distance from the lead dog be extended. He said several Australia tracks had trialled this with considerable success in improving the racing and reducing racing injuries.

Accordingly the Wanganui Club with the assistance of the RIU will trial the Lure at a distance of 8-10 metres in front of the lead dog from Wednesday May 14th for a period of one month, RIU and club personnel along with GRNZ Welfare Manager Greg Kerr will be monitoring the trial.

 

Then GRNZ claimed this in their 2022 annual report.

Whilst there was no documentation to explain why these recommendations were not carried out, it provided reasoning that a safe 375m start could be created. Construction work commenced, the Rules were amended to allow a 10m lure and trials were successfully run from the new start, allowing racing to commence from April 2022.

 

 

Yes folks, GRNZ collaborated with the WGRC & the RIU to test the theory of a 10m lure to make for safer racing in Palmerston North, which is a horseshoe track, with a one-month trial on the Wanganui track. 

Many of the dogs running from the unsafe 375m boxes at PN also ran regularly from the 305m boxes in Wanganui. So, we'll trial the theory on the Wanganui track to ensure added safety at the PN track.

Wanganui.

 

Palmerston North.

 

Maybe if they weren't busy patting themselves on the back, they would have thought a bit more about what effect the 10m rule would have had on the other two northern & three southern tracks. They might have even tested the three southern tracks to find out what would occur in Auckland.

Edited February 13 by Yankiwi

[aquaman]

2 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

John, you're down the Chch way.

How about popping over to the Evans facility and asking Goldstar Hans what went wrong?

Clearly tried to take a short cut unlike the Stipe report that the dog checked of heels which in turn caused it to hit the rail. Very lucky to survive.

[Yankiwi]

5 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

2017/2018 season Q2 was completed under GRNZ's current season KPI target, so it can be done.

My cynical side decided to dig a bit further into this "well performing" quarter.

Did Auckland really overachieve and produce a safe track for three months?

The data clearly shows it did, so I wanted to find some other point of comparison.

With that, brief study #6 has been completed.

I've gathered the data from the other two turn tracks for the same period. Wanganui and its "potholes" & Christchurch and its "wall of death".

It returned some very interesting results!

 

 

All three tracks returned very good results (In GRNZ benchmarks).

 

Was it that all 3 tracks had luck going their way?

Did all three different track curators overperform during the same three-month period?

Were there very favourable weather conditions over the three-month period covering most of the country?

Were there multiple Stewards/Veterinarians working from some new playbook meant to make the numbers look good or appear better than the reality?

There will be endless possibilities so you can make up some of your own if you wish.

Since the JCA/RIB can consider a case to be provable where more evidence is tilting one way more than the others, you can be the judge to decide for yourself which is the most likely.

As for me, I smell a rat.

This is what tipped my balance of probabilities.

 

Since when does a fracture of anything get a 28-day standdown?

The dog returned to racing 3 months later.

[Chief Stipe]

3 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

My cynical side decided to dig a bit further into this "well performing" quarter.

Did Auckland really overachieve and produce a safe track for three months?

The data clearly shows it did, so I wanted to find some other point of comparison.

With that, brief study #6 has been completed.

I've gathered the data from the other two turn tracks for the same period. Wanganui and its "potholes" & Christchurch and its "wall of death".

It returned some very interesting results!

 

 

All three tracks returned very good results (In GRNZ benchmarks).

 

Was it that all 3 tracks had luck going their way?

Did all three different track curators overperform during the same three-month period?

Were there very favourable weather conditions over the three-month period covering most of the country?

Were there multiple Stewards/Veterinarians working from some new playbook meant to make the numbers look good or appear better than the reality?

There will be endless possibilities so you can make up some of your own if you wish.

Since the JCA/RIB can consider a case to be provable where more evidence is tilting one way more than the others, you can be the judge to decide for yourself which is the most likely.

As for me, I smell a rat.

This is what tipped my balance of probabilities.

 

Since when does a fracture of anything get a 28-day standdown?

The dog returned to racing 3 months later.

What was the measure of variance?  Standard deviation?

[Yankiwi]

12 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

What was the measure of variance?  Standard deviation?

My results.

 

 

Well, I see why you like variance so much. What a difference it makes. It almost makes you wonder why they have a vet at the track on a race day.

 

After applying a sample variance to the three different tracks, it has changed everything.

 

 

Ok, I'll man up & admit, I was wrong.

My apologies for far over-stating the past documented injuries to greyhounds by the RIU/RIB. All this time I believed that if a dog got injured, it got injured. I've now been enlightened, reborn, can see the errors in my former ways.

After applying a sample variance to the data I had collected, I'm not really sure how many greyhounds were injured during the 2017/18 Q2 racing season, but the combined injury percentage is well below GRNZ's KPI targets. Wow!

Well done to GRNZ. Well done AGRC. Well done WGRC. Well done CGRC.

Results such as these bring back some fond memories from my time spent in Hinsdale.

I should also add that anyone contemplating whether they should race their dogs on Sunday in Auckland, don't worry. You don't need to be concerned. This new data set nearly proves that the track will be safe, regardless of its past history & my biased prediction.

[Yankiwi]

Current up to date 2023/2024 season data (realized) at the end of yesterday.

 

Ok, I'll manipulate the data (temporarily) to make a point.

Imagine GRNZ shut down Auckland and transferred all racing operations to Cambridge since the beginning of the 2023/2024 season on 1 Aug.

I've taken all Auckland's starts and added them to the existing Cambridge starts. Then I've increased the existing injuries to the original Cambridge data, so their injury percentages equaled what they were originally.

Suddenly it makes the overall season much closer to the GRNZ KPI target & could be possible to achieve it when the weather changes more towards winter & the track become historically safer.

 

Suddenly overall injuries are nearly (0.1% over) within the KPI.

Minor/Medium injuries match the KPI.

Major injuries are nearly (0.1% over) within the KPI.

Moving this seasons Auckland's race meets to Cambridge could have made the racing season a safe season by GRNZ standards.

With no racing in Auckland it would give the opportunity to fix the track, similar to what they've done in Wanganui by using PN.

Water under the bridge. GRNZ has failed again.

Back to reality.

Ouch...

 

 

[Chapdog]

Hey Yankiwi seen this come up today from GRNZ, maybe an opportunity for you to get in and start trying to make changes from the inside.

https://www.seek.co.nz/job/73751155?ref=search-standalone&type=standout#sol=f80a666b24379d4b725961fda1c8df7e830beb05

[Yankiwi]

23 minutes ago, Chapdog said:

Hey Yankiwi seen this come up today from GRNZ, maybe an opportunity for you to get in and start trying to make changes from the inside.

https://www.seek.co.nz/job/73751155?ref=search-standalone&type=standout#sol=f80a666b24379d4b725961fda1c8df7e830beb05

Currently the safest track in the country. It would make a great place to learn the trade if their current curator was to play a key part in the training.

However, it's the wrong island for me, so I'll have to give it a miss.

However, here's an idea. Shut down Manukau, transfer their curator/curators down south for a year's worth training (well away from whoever they are getting their instructions from now) on a track that knows how to get the surface right. Transfer all racing to Cambridge. Completely overhaul Manukau and slow the track down.

Once Manukau is back up & ready to return to action, with either their 2014 or 2023 safety rail in place, bring the curators back & make the track a long-term success story.

[Yankiwi]

Here's another thing that I'm not going to dig into at this very moment, but I believe dogs are not being given enough time to rest/recuperate between race days.

Last Friday, the 16 Feb watch the #8 dog win a C4/5 race in style.

 

Gets to rest on Sat & Sun (17th to 18th).

Then goes back out today from the same 8 box after those two days' rest with a different style.

 

Out well again just like Friday but didn't end well.

Another career ending major injury (gracilis?) from race #1 at Addington for the spreadsheet once the stewards report gets posted later this evening.

[Yankiwi]

Same dog.

 

Won on Jan 22 with a race time +.01 over the meet best time.

Backed up 3 days later & didn't perform well.

Then Won again on the 16th in meet best time.

Today's result is far worse than last time it was given only two days rest (which are not in the race record yet).

Edited February 19 by Yankiwi

[aquaman]

You have to feel sorry for the dogs. Race till you drop. Hard to believe how dogs are raced in NZ.  Until recently they could race every 24hrs, and some trainers made a habit of doing this. Then they made a new rule that dogs cannot race consecutively until 48hrs has elapsed, so now we have trainers doing this all the time including subjecting them to a 900km round trip to Invercargill. Its little wonder there is so many injuries happening on NZ tracks. The bar is set very low.