Yankiwi Posted February 19 Author Share Posted February 19 GRNZ - "Welfare underpins everything we do". Under the rules a dog can race twice a week for three weeks, then on the fourth week can only race once. So within the rules, a Dog can run a 747m race in Cambridge on Thursdays, 3 weeks in a row AND run in 779m races in Auckland on the 3 following Sundays. Then on the fourth week, it can run in one distance race in either of the two venues. This hasn't ever happened to my knowledge & likely never would. But the rule book (which is where GRNZ makes so many claims that's where they have strengthened animal welfare) wouldn't stop a trainer, if they were crazy enough, from doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted February 20 Author Share Posted February 20 Unnormalized racing calendars will lead to safer racing. Track the data after these two race meetings have been completed GRNZ (as I will be). Then after holding both northern meetings for the week in Cambridge, compare that data with any other week of injury data from 1 Jan 2024 to 18 Feb 2024 in the north. Let the future proof be the pudding. Disclaimer: This post is forward looking in nature. This is not financial advice; it is greyhound welfare advice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 Great that you picked up on my suggestion are looking at other variables rather than just track conditions. Now you just need to normalise the data and add a variance estimate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted February 20 Author Share Posted February 20 37 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: Great that you picked up on my suggestion are looking at other variables rather than just track conditions. Now you just need to normalise the data and add a variance estimate. I've always presented my data on an individual track basis. So no other new variables here Chief, other than two race meets on a safer track (Cambridge) than one of the two meets in Auckland. I've proposed this already a couple of times on this forum. I've even come straight out & told the powers to transfer a meeting from Auckland to Cambridge, remember? On another note, I have noticed that you haven't yet discredited my near perfect prediction for injuries to be sustained in Auckland last Sunday. Initial prediction - https://bitofayarn.com/topic/92681-whats-going-on-auckland/page/7/#comment-253234 Results - https://bitofayarn.com/topic/92681-whats-going-on-auckland/page/7/#comment-253712 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 1 hour ago, Yankiwi said: On another note, I have noticed that you haven't yet discredited my near perfect prediction for injuries to be sustained in Auckland last Sunday. Your predictions are flawed because they are based on flawed assumptions and data. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted February 20 Author Share Posted February 20 19 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: Your predictions are flawed because they are based on flawed assumptions and data. Thank you Chief. The results were nearly spot on, so I'm satisfied. If I took out the 4 dogs that were early & late scratched, so they didn't start, I'd have been perfect. Original prediction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 4 hours ago, Yankiwi said: Thank you Chief. The results were nearly spot on, so I'm satisfied. If I took out the 4 dogs that were early & late scratched, so they didn't start, I'd have been perfect. Original prediction. Still flawed. The sad part is you don't know why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted February 20 Author Share Posted February 20 47 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: Still flawed. The sad part is you don't know why. Don't need to know why your wrong, when you get it right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 8 hours ago, Yankiwi said: Don't need to know why your wrong, when you get it right. But you're not right and you've admitted that. Remember your one turn vs two turn stats? You're blinded by bias and a vendetta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted February 21 Author Share Posted February 21 Brief study #7 How does the speed of travel over the racing surface effect racing injuries? Would be a very difficult study to undertake properly without automation, so I simply have chosen to take the easy way out to gain some perspective. Each individual track, each sprint and middle distance, using the track record time for each distance, average each tracks combined distance results. Injury data is from my overall 2023/24 season, which is still underway & being recorded. The spreadsheet has been arranged in descending order of average speed (fastest average KM/H top, slowest KM/H bottom). Take away. The two fastest tracks are currently returning high percentages in minor injury data but remain well within GRNZ's KPI major injury target. The two slowest tracks are currently returning the highest percentage of major injuries per start. All three two turn tracks are slower than the slowest one turn track. Biggest surprise - Cambridge & Southland middle distance record time, the dog averaged a faster average speed than the sprint record time, each by roughly 1/2 KPH. Most importantly (to me), this is not an avenue I'll expend any further energy on pursuing at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 @Yankiwi will you please publish (upload to BOAY) all your raw data. Then other data scientists can review it for its veracity. Thanks in advance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted February 21 Author Share Posted February 21 59 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: @Yankiwi will you please publish (upload to BOAY) all your raw data. Then other data scientists can review it for its veracity. Thanks in advance. No, I will not. Not after the relentless battering you send my way and the discrediting of everything I say, to be frank, you don't deserve it from me. Under better circumstances I would consider doing so. But were we are at now from my viewpoint, not a chance in hell. You want it, go get it yourself. If you want professional data, maybe a GRNZ funded risk factor study will suit your needs? https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2021.737146/full Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 1 hour ago, Yankiwi said: No, I will not. Not after the relentless battering you send my way and the discrediting of everything I say, to be frank, you don't deserve it from me. Under better circumstances I would consider doing so. But were we are at now from my viewpoint, not a chance in hell. You want it, go get it yourself. If you want professional data, maybe a GRNZ funded risk factor study will suit your needs? https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2021.737146/full Fine then you are only interested in your biased agenda rather than dog welfare. If you are confident that your data stacks up then you would post it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted February 21 Author Share Posted February 21 3 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: @Yankiwi will you please publish (upload to BOAY) all your raw data. Then other data scientists can review it for its veracity. Thanks in advance. Why is it that you're polite when you want something from me, 20 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: Fine then you are only interested in your biased agenda rather than dog welfare. If you are confident that your data stacks up then you would post it. then you're rude, bordering on obnoxious, when you don't get your way? When you do get your way, you simply discredit what I had presented or said. Maybe it's time I try a new tactic, which I notice you play an awful lot with me. I'll stop even acknowledging that you even asked me a question and just move on to the next thing I choose to share or say. Why should I feed the shark, when all it wants to do is eat me? It's been interesting responding to you in the past. The new chapter begins now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted February 21 Author Share Posted February 21 (edited) This is what the data looks like from a safe racetrack in Q3 of this racing season. This is what the data looks like from an unsafe racetrack in Q3 of this racing season. This is what happens when you correlate the all-tracks all starts data from Q3 of this racing season, when you combine the safest track, the least safe track & all the other tracks in between, which is the one & only way GRNZ presents the injury data publicly. What that does is casts a dark shadow on safe tracks & sugarcoats the unsafe tracks. Unless either unsafe tracks get fixed or are not used & the racing reallocated elsewhere, which could be done using the data I've collected, there won't be any sugar left for anyone for much longer. GRNZ can't eventually present full season data where two quarters (Q1 & Q4) reached their KPI target spot on & two quarters (Q2 & Q3) were well about their KPI target. The average of the four quarters will end up somewhere between spot on & really bad. How can GRNZ spin that to make it sound like they've improved animal welfare by reducing injuries? The Govt won't be looking for excuses from GRNZ, they will be looking for results. Edited February 21 by Yankiwi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 9 hours ago, Yankiwi said: then you're rude, bordering on obnoxious, when you don't get your way? Pot Kettle Chazza. 9 hours ago, Yankiwi said: When you do get your way, you simply discredit what I had presented or said. 9 hours ago, Yankiwi said: Why should I feed the shark, when all it wants to do is eat me? Chazza you are quick to post illegally sourced raw data on another sub-forum but refuse to post your own data. Contrary to your fears if your data is accurate and the assumptions drawn from it are accurate when subjected to recognised statistical methods then you are appeasing your critics NOT feeding the sharks. Your failure to post the raw data opens you up to criticism that may or may not be fair. Sadly the end result is your credibility is reduced. Worse contrary to your goal of "saving greyhound racing" you are aiding its demise. Feel free to continue posting your brightly coloured spreadsheet extracts that have no validity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted February 21 Author Share Posted February 21 Well done Chief. 2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: Pot Kettle Chazza. 2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: Chazza you are quick to post illegally sourced raw data on another sub-forum but refuse to post your own data. You've authored a post that could deserve a response from me. I bit further on into it, I actually detect a hint of some possible respect. Maybe you have learned that there are different ways of talking to different people to get the result from them you're trying to achieve. Before I proceed to respond to the remainder of your previous post, can we reach a long-term agreement on the following? Firstly, my name is Charles or if you prefer to use Yankiwi, that is fine too. Either of those would be respectful when addressing me on this forum. Using anything else I consider to be something you've made up for me in your own mind which is childish & disrespectful. We're both big boys, can we refrain from the name calling? If you'd prefer that I use "Chief Stipe" instead of shorting it to "Chief" as I generally do, please let me know because I what to show you that same respect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted February 22 Author Share Posted February 22 Can probably add this while I still wait for an answer to my truce offer above. 14 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: you are quick to post illegally sourced raw data on another sub-forum but refuse to post your own data. I assume you're referring to the GRNZ funded study I had provided a link to? If so, since when is googling a subject, scrolling past the numerous "anti" website that are trying to shut down greyhound racing, and finally finding an actual source of some real data "illegally sourcing raw data"? I didn't source anything from their website, I provided a link to their website that they had made publicly available, which I happened to find. Or is it your belief that gathering information manually, made publicly available by GRNZ on their own website is "illegally sourcing raw data"? If this is your allegation, then wouldn't it be rather silly of me to attach a spreadsheet that I had entered the gathered data into on the BOAY forum? Or were you just pissed off at me, so you decided to make a false allegation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 8 hours ago, Yankiwi said: Can probably add this while I still wait for an answer to my truce offer above. I assume you're referring to the GRNZ funded study I had provided a link to? If so, since when is googling a subject, scrolling past the numerous "anti" website that are trying to shut down greyhound racing, and finally finding an actual source of some real data "illegally sourcing raw data"? I didn't source anything from their website, I provided a link to their website that they had made publicly available, which I happened to find. Or is it your belief that gathering information manually, made publicly available by GRNZ on their own website is "illegally sourcing raw data"? If this is your allegation, then wouldn't it be rather silly of me to attach a spreadsheet that I had entered the gathered data into on the BOAY forum? Or were you just pissed off at me, so you decided to make a false allegation? No the Covid data you provided a link to. Post your raw data. At least attempt to be credible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted February 22 Author Share Posted February 22 On 20/02/2024 at 2:34 PM, Chief Stipe said: Great that you picked up on my suggestion are looking at other variables rather than just track conditions. Now you just need to normalise the data and add a variance estimate. This I think is where you have gone way off track about what I am doing. We're butting heads because you are trying to take the study that I'm conducting to a much more in-depth & far further reaching direction than I am. I've collected & correlated the injury data for the sole purpose of identifying how individual tracks are performing with injuries and then compare all six of them (something GRNZ hasn't been willing to release prior). That's been successful. I wanted to know (as I believe any owner/trainer who races their dogs from either from a welfare or financial standpoint should know), which tracks are more dangerous than others (especially within the 3 individual regions). I know I'm always highlighting Akl/Camb. You view this as a bias or vendetta. It is neither of those. It's because the two tracks in the north, there is an enormous difference with injury risk between the two of them & the physical distance between them is minimal. I focused very little energy on Palm/Wang because those two tracks are of very similar (almost exact!) injury risk. I haven't focused very much energy (yet) on Chch/South, where again there is a hung difference in injury risk but the physical distance between the two tracks is enormous. My study doesn't need further variables. "Yes injured or no injured", along with which track, how many starters & how bad the injury was. Basic stuff. I don't need variances. a dog either incurred an injury or did not incur an injury. If the meeting was on a sunny, rainy, hot, cold, calm, windy - not relevant to my study. They raced - they either got hurt or didn't. If they abandoned a race meet for whatever reason, no effect on my study - no data entry whatsoever. If they abandoned an individual race because of a reason of the way it was run (lure stopped/ unfair start), it is included as the dogs came out of the boxes and chased the lure, even though it was declared a no-race. Trainer, moon phase, track hardness, day/night - not accounted for. When a dog raced - it got injured or it didn't get injured, wherever they were racing. That simple! If you want a deeper study or one in a different direction than I have, you're more than welcome to do it. I'll continue to do nothing more or nothing less, unless I decide to pivot. Bullying/harassment/discrediting are not reasons I will decide to pivot. Now what you may have been wanting to hear. Once you're prepared to accept & fully understand what I have done, as well as accept it's likely that's as far as I will be going with it, then and only then I will consider uploading my 2023/24 Quarter 1 spreadsheet, for you to go over and not find the problems you reckon that you will find, then move the goalpost so you have some good reason in your mind to rubbish what I have achieved. Right now, I'm not prepared to do so, because you'll simply discredit it because I didn't allow for a solar flare getting a dog's attention which caused it to run into the running rail. In my study if that happened, the Steward allowed the race to go ahead & that dog got hurt. It's that simple. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 3 minutes ago, Yankiwi said: This I think is where you have gone way off track about what I am doing. We're butting heads because you are trying to take the study that I'm conducting to a much more in-depth & far further reaching direction than I am. I've collected & correlated the injury data for the sole purpose of identifying how individual tracks are performing with injuries and then compare all six of them (something GRNZ hasn't been willing to release prior). That's been successful. I wanted to know (as I believe any owner/trainer who races their dogs from either from a welfare or financial standpoint should know), which tracks are more dangerous than others (especially within the 3 individual regions). I know I'm always highlighting Akl/Camb. You view this as a bias or vendetta. It is neither of those. It's because the two tracks in the north, there is an enormous difference with injury risk between the two of them & the physical distance between them is minimal. I focused very little energy on Palm/Wang because those two tracks are of very similar (almost exact!) injury risk. I haven't focused very much energy (yet) on Chch/South, where again there is a hung difference in injury risk but the physical distance between the two tracks is enormous. My study doesn't need further variables. "Yes injured or no injured", along with which track, how many starters & how bad the injury was. Basic stuff. I don't need variances. a dog either incurred an injury or did not incur an injury. If the meeting was on a sunny, rainy, hot, cold, calm, windy - not relevant to my study. They raced - they either got hurt or didn't. If they abandoned a race meet for whatever reason, no effect on my study - no data entry whatsoever. If they abandoned an individual race because of a reason of the way it was run (lure stopped/ unfair start), it is included as the dogs came out of the boxes and chased the lure, even though it was declared a no-race. Trainer, moon phase, track hardness, day/night - not accounted for. When a dog raced - it got injured or it didn't get injured, wherever they were racing. That simple! If you want a deeper study or one in a different direction than I have, you're more than welcome to do it. I'll continue to do nothing more or nothing less, unless I decide to pivot. Bullying/harassment/discrediting are not reasons I will decide to pivot. Now what you may have been wanting to hear. Once you're prepared to accept & fully understand what I have done, as well as accept it's likely that's as far as I will be going with it, then and only then I will consider uploading my 2023/24 Quarter 1 spreadsheet, for you to go over and not find the problems you reckon that you will find, then move the goalpost so you have some good reason in your mind to rubbish what I have achieved. Right now, I'm not prepared to do so, because you'll simply discredit it because I didn't allow for a solar flare getting a dog's attention which caused it to run into the running rail. In my study if that happened, the Steward allowed the race to go ahead & that dog got hurt. It's that simple. And that ladies and gentlemen is a very description of the reasons why @Yankiwi'Yankiwi's analysis is flawed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted February 23 Author Share Posted February 23 11 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: And that ladies and gentlemen is a very description of the reasons why @Yankiwi'Yankiwi's analysis is flawed. And ladies & gentlemen, that's why the data won't be released (at least on this forum). @Chief Stipe has tunnel vision which won't allow him to possibly accept what I have accomplished for what it is. I was supposed to compile the data that he wanted. Surely, he's right & know far more about Greyhounds than I do. Go on & race your all your dog's up in Auckland 9 days' time and see how it goes for you & how many you can back up there a week later. If it doesn't go well, you can ask Chief why. Good luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 1 hour ago, Yankiwi said: And ladies & gentlemen, that's why the data won't be released (at least on this forum). @Chief Stipe has tunnel vision which won't allow him to possibly accept what I have accomplished for what it is. You haven't accomplished anything. Unless you upload your raw data we have no way if checking the veracity of your conclusions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted February 29 Author Share Posted February 29 Completely pointless current quarter & season to date injury results. Q3 (one month in). Shout out to Southland: Well Done! Season to date (7 months in). Heaps of green south of Cambridge. Northern red severely hurting the overall average (Leading the pack? Mr. Dore?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 So explain the reasons for the variance in the start of Q3 compare to YTD for Cambridge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.