What's going on Auckland?

[Yankiwi]

Today

Race # 2

#2 - 10 days.

 

Race #3

#4 - 7 days.

#3 - 10 days.

#1 - allegedly free from injury.

 

Race #4

#1 - 10 days.

 

Race #8

#5 not acknowledged in Stewards Report- No Vet check.

 

Race 12

#1 - 10 days.

#2? - Not vet checked.

 

July running totals.

[Chief Stipe]

11 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

Race #3

#4 - 7 days.

#3 - 10 days.

#1 - allegedly free from injury.

 

Aren't you being a bit mischievous with your analysis?

The blue rug dog (looks like a heavier dog than the 1 dog) came barrelling across and squeezed the 1 dog which spat out backwards like a pip then interfered with those behind it.  Arguably the 1 dog,  according to your theory, hitting the fence should have been injured but wasn't.

One injured dog didn't even hit the fence!

MIAMI TAN (1) - referred to the Veterinarian after interference first turn getting tightened then dragged down losing considerable ground and cleared of injury.BIG TIME STORM (3) - referred to the Veterinarian after interference first turn shifting out across hindquarters becoming unbalanced where it was reported to have left and right long head triceps, left gracilis and right sartorius pain with a 10 day incapacitation issued.GINGER SHAW (4) - referred to the Veterinarian after interference first turn becoming awkwardly placed near the rail where it was reported to have a laceration on the left hind with a 7 day incapacitation issued.

 

[Chief Stipe]

12 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

Race 12

#1 - 10 days.

AL'S LOADED (1) - referred to the Veterinarian after getting tightened first turn contacting the rail where it was reported to have right pectoral pain with a 10 day incapacitation issued.

So it was hurt on the right hand side not the side that hit the rail?  Presumably it could have hurt itself fighting back against the interference.

[Chief Stipe]

I've also seen another obvious bias in your analysis @Yankiwi.

You only record injuries that have occurred after a rail hit.  You also assume that every rail hit is the actual cause of an injury when it may not be. It may have been the interference in the first place.  Afterall dogs don't run into rails deliberately do they?

If you review the other meetings stewards reports you will find similar injuries that have happened and there is no obvious rail hit.  Those particular injuries are also only found after a vet check.  (Are all dogs vet checked after a race?).  

So to improve your analysis you should include ALL "injuries" at ALL tracks and THEN look for a correlation between interference and interference causing a rail hit causing injury.  As well as injury resulting from neither.

Your hypothesis is that the Manakau track is more prone to rail hits therefore more injuries occur.  You can't determine that unless you can pinpoint that a particular injury is the result of hitting the rail and not for other reasons e.g. the interference in the first place that led to the rail hit.

I sense you have a bias against the Auckland track.

In reviewing this I've come to the conclusion that the reasons vet checks are undertaken is essentially shooting the industry in the paw assuming that not all dogs are individually vet checked after a race.  

[Yankiwi]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

One injured dog didn't even hit the fence!

MIAMI TAN (1) - referred to the Veterinarian after interference first turn getting tightened then dragged down losing considerable ground and cleared of injury.BIG TIME STORM (3) - referred to the Veterinarian after interference first turn shifting out across hindquarters becoming unbalanced where it was reported to have left and right long head triceps, left gracilis and right sartorius pain with a 10 day incapacitation issued.GINGER SHAW (4) - referred to the Veterinarian after interference first turn becoming awkwardly placed near the rail where it was reported to have a laceration on the left hind with a 7 day incapacitation issued.

 

Wrong Chief.

(#1) un-injured dog wasn't reported as even hitting the fence.

 

(#3) injured dog that wasn't reported as hitting the fence.

 

(#4) injured dog that was reported as "awkwardly placed near the rail". It was difficult for me to determine exactly where the impact happened but assume it did occur as the injury was a "laceration on the left hind".

 

 

As for my spreadsheet data, I recorded only one rail contact (#4 due to stewards acknowledging being near the rail & the type of injury) for this race. I wouldn't want to be accused of skewing the data with reality.

[Chief Stipe]

39 minutes ago, Yankiwi said:

Wrong Chief.

(#1) un-injured dog wasn't reported as even hitting the fence.

 

(#3) injured dog that wasn't reported as hitting the fence.

 

(#4) injured dog that was reported as "awkwardly placed near the rail". It was difficult for me to determine exactly where the impact happened but assume it did occur as the injury was a "laceration on the left hind".

 

 

As for my spreadsheet data, I recorded only one rail contact (#4 due to stewards acknowledging being near the rail & the type of injury) for this race. I wouldn't want to be accused of skewing the data with reality.

Your bias is clearly evident - there is no way you can claim what you are from viewing those angles.

[Yankiwi]

39 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

You only record injuries that have occurred after a rail hit.

I record any injury reported for the dog that the stewards report to have contacted the rail, except the very rare instances similar to the one I've noted above.

17 minutes ago, Yankiwi said:

(#4) injured dog that was reported as "awkwardly placed near the rail". It was difficult for me to determine exactly where the impact happened but assume it did occur as the injury was a "laceration on the left hind".

 

43 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

You also assume that every rail hit is the actual cause of an injury when it may not be. It may have been the interference in the first place.

I don't assume anything. Dog hits rail - it received an injury in the race requiring a stand-down, I record it in my data. It's all I have to work with from official documentation.

 

45 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

(Are all dogs vet checked after a race?). 

All dogs are checked prior to the race.

Any vet checks undertaken after a race are noted in the Stewards Reports.

 

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

I sense you have a bias against the Auckland track.

The only negative bias I have against the Auckland track is the number of dogs striking the running rail their. If it was a different track where it was happening 3, 4 or 5 times as often as the remaining tracks, I'd be equally as relentless.

Nothing good is going to come from a dog hitting a steel rail. Can we at least agree on that?

9 years ago, GRNZ did something about it happening in Wanganui at a far slower rate than it been occurring in Auckland. GRNZ stated for the purpose of the Hansen report (if memory serves) that the safety rails would roll out to the remaining tracks within a year after the Wanganui test had been completed. That hasn't happened.

This month 17 contacts have been admitted by the Stewards to have occured in Auckalnd in 79 total races. For comparison, in Christchurch has admitted to one occurrence in 147 races.

Something is seriously wrong there.

My problem is nothing is being done about it. I've gathered data for Auckland and it' been a BIG problem for the last 18 months. Now I'm committed to bitch about it.

 

[Yankiwi]

32 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Your bias is clearly evident - there is no way you can claim what you are from viewing those angles.

What bias?

I made no claim.

Point out one false statement I have made in that post.

 

As for false claims, you said one dog hit the rail in race #3. The Steward said "awkwardly placed near the rail".

How can you claim the #4 hit the rail?

Edited July 24, 2023 by Yankiwi

[Yankiwi]

Hey Chief, don't ignore this question.

How many rail contacts do you believe my data should show for Auckland since the beginning of the month.

I'll make it easy for you - here's link to all of the Steward reports for that time period.

 

I've got 1 - https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15522/stewards-report.aspx

I've got 2 - https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15527/stewards-report.aspx

I've got 4 - https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15531/stewards-report.aspx

I've got 2 - https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15535/stewards-report.aspx 

(Note the reason I gave the above two & not just the one reported is here https://bitofayarn.com/topic/92681-whats-going-on-auckland/#comment-225338)

I've got 2 - https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15540/stewards-report.aspx

I've got 2 - https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15544/stewards-report.aspx

I've got 4 - https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15548/stewards-report.aspx

 

So there's the 17 out of the 79 races held in Auckland that I've recorded for this month.

                                                                                                             

Edited July 24, 2023 by Yankiwi

[Chief Stipe]

2 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

I record any injury reported for the dog that the stewards report to have contacted the rail, except the very rare instances similar to the one I've noted above.

But you don't record injuries to dogs that are interferred with that DON'T hit the rail nor injuries that occur to dogs that DON'T suffer interference NOR hit the rail.  Therefore your data selection is biased.

2 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

I don't assume anything. Dog hits rail - it received an injury in the race requiring a stand-down, I record it in my data. It's all I have to work with from official documentation.

 

You assume that hitting the rail caused the injury NOT the interference it may have received that caused it to hit the rail.

3 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

Any vet checks undertaken after a race are noted in the Stewards Reports.

 

But not ALL dogs after a race are Vet checked.  Only those that hit the rail and some of those that suffered interference or show obvious injury.  You don't know how many dogs suffer injury without hitting the rail or that suffer interference.  Therefore you have not control data.

3 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

The only negative bias I have against the Auckland track is the number of dogs striking the running rail their. If it was a different track where it was happening 3, 4 or 5 times as often as the remaining tracks, I'd be equally as relentless.

 

So more dogs suffer interference at Auckland - is that your hypothesis?

3 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

Nothing good is going to come from a dog hitting a steel rail. Can we at least agree on that?

 

Some dogs hit the rail and are not injured.  Depends on how the hit the rail - I imagine if they ran straigh into it head on then it would be more problematic than brushing the rail.  

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Yankiwi said:

How many rail contacts do you believe my data should show for Auckland since the beginning of the month.

 

 

1 hour ago, Yankiwi said:

So there's the 17 out of the 79 races held in Auckland that I've recorded for this month.

 

What is the hypothesis you are trying to prove?

That dogs in South Auckland race rougher?

[Yankiwi]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

What is the hypothesis you are trying to prove?

 

In 2014 GRNZ said they were going to put up a safety rail in Auckland (along with the rest of the NZ tracks).

https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/Documents/Final - 2014 AGM Annual Report.pdf

 

GRNZ hasn't done that.

Dogs in Auckland are currently and have been making contact with the steel rail at a very high rate for at least the last 19 months.

The rate of occurrence hasn't dropped.

The only measure I've seen to change anything is to bring the lure distance in front of the lead dog back with-in the distance clearly written in the GRNZ rule book.

 

We both know, along with everyone else that views these threads why it was moved back within legal distancing (most of the time). It was being run between 12m & 15m prior to my barking on BOAY.

 

 

GRNZ, Constitution proclaims this.

 

I expect GRNZ to do what they are mandated to do.

They are failing the dogs, participants & the entire industry.

[Chief Stipe]

7 minutes ago, Yankiwi said:

Dogs in Auckland are currently and have been making contact with the steel rail at a very high rate for at least the last 19 months.

So if you put in a Safety Rail they'll stop hitting it?

[Chief Stipe]

8 minutes ago, Yankiwi said:

The only measure I've seen to change anything is to bring the lure distance in front of the lead dog back with-in the distance clearly written in the GRNZ rule book.

But according to your analysis since that happened the hit rate has increased.

[Chief Stipe]

So just to help me understand your methodology.  How did you code the following report:

https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15548/stewards-report.aspx

 

[Yankiwi]

2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

So just to help me understand your methodology.  How did you code the following report:

https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15548/stewards-report.aspx

 

Like this

 

12 Races - 4 rail contact - 10 / 7 / 10 / 10 (Injury days per incidence)

The (4) contacts recorded are these.

 

 

I did not, I repeat, DID NOT include this one.

[Chief Stipe]

When are you going to provide the numbers for ALL injuries regardless of rail contact?

Has there been any research done on the rate of injury per race where every dog has been vetted?

These "10 day incapacitation" rulings mean what exactly?  The dog can't train for 10 days?  Or the dog can't race for 10 days or both?

This sort of vetting if done on racehorses would result in numerous standdowns.  BUT horse trainers manage performance based "injury" on a daily basis and race every 14 days.

[Yankiwi]

4 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

When are you going to provide the numbers for ALL injuries regardless of rail contact?

Has there been any research done on the rate of injury per race where every dog has been vetted?

These "10 day incapacitation" rulings mean what exactly?  The dog can't train for 10 days?  Or the dog can't race for 10 days or both?

This sort of vetting if done on racehorses would result in numerous standdowns.  BUT horse trainers manage performance based "injury" on a daily basis and race every 14 days.

 

I'll consider answering these questions after you answer this one question that I had asked of you not to not ignore.

I'm really over gathering data & information to satisfy your request, only to have you simply pass over the fact I've done it for you & have you move the goal post.

 

On 24/07/2023 at 12:54 PM, Yankiwi said:

Hey Chief, don't ignore this question.

How many rail contacts do you believe my data should show for Auckland since the beginning of the month.

I'll make it easy for you - here's link to all of the Steward reports for that time period.

 

I've got 1 - https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15522/stewards-report.aspx

I've got 2 - https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15527/stewards-report.aspx

I've got 4 - https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15531/stewards-report.aspx

I've got 2 - https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15535/stewards-report.aspx 

(Note the reason I gave the above two & not just the one reported is here https://bitofayarn.com/topic/92681-whats-going-on-auckland/#comment-225338)

I've got 2 - https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15540/stewards-report.aspx

I've got 2 - https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15544/stewards-report.aspx

I've got 4 - https://www.grnz.co.nz/catch-the-action/15548/stewards-report.aspx

 

So there's the 17 out of the 79 races held in Auckland that I've recorded for this month.

                                                                                                             

 

I'll just drop this next bit here for now, prior to updating it with further information I would like to add to it.

[Yankiwi]

New data formulations.

 

2023 running totals of the two turn tracks.

Auckland

• 18.48% chance of rail contact in any given race.
• 28.00% chance of receiving an injury requiring a stand-down during the race if contacting the rail.
• 5.18% chance of injury requiring a stand-down in any given race.

Christchurch

• 5.22% chance of rail contact in any given race.
• 7.14% chance of receiving an injury requiring a stand-down during the race if contacting the rail.
• 0.37% chance of injury requiring a stand-down in any given race.

Wanganui

• 4.44% chance of rail contact in any given race.
• 25.00% chance of receiving an injury requiring a stand-down during the race if contacting the rail.
• 1.11% chance of injury requiring a stand-down in any given race.

 

So, let's look at the extremes.

If you have a dog and it is in a race at Auckland, there's a 5.18% chance that a dog in that race (which could be yours) that a contact with the running rail will occur and require an injury stand-down.

If you have that same dog race in a race in Christchurch instead of Auckland, it's 14 times less likely that a dog in that race (which could be yours) that a contact with the running rail will occur and require an injury stand-down.

[Chief Stipe]

4 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

So, let's look at the extremes.

If you have a dog and it is in a race at Auckland, there's a 5.18% chance that a dog in that race (which could be yours) that a contact with the running rail will occur and require an injury stand-down.

If you have that same dog race in a race in Christchurch instead of Auckland, it's 14 times less likely that a dog in that race (which could be yours) that a contact with the running rail will occur and require an injury stand-down

But what is the "injury" rate for all dogs that are raced?

You don't know that because not all dogs are vetted after each race.  

You can't make your conclusions until you know that.

Vetting every dog that hits a rail is a nonsense.  Why not vet every dog that finishes a distant last?

[Yankiwi]

https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/Quarterly Reports/GRNZ Response to RIB Ministerial Review July 2023.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

Why isn't GRNZ mentioning the fact that greyhounds are striking the running rail three to four times as often per race in Auckland then they are on either of the other two track with a similar track configuration?

Does that not fit into at least one of the three Injury Reduction Strategy focus areas claimed in the same report?

 

 

I reckon it fits into all three of those focus areas.

This is not a new problem. It has existed since at least the beginning of 2022, or 19 months ago. I have no reason to believe it doesn't go back much further.

They even had said they were going to implement measure to protect against this 9 years ago.

Why did the RIB allow this race to be declared all clear?

 

Or this one?

 

They both breached the distance rule by at least 50%.

 

[Chief Stipe]

47 minutes ago, Yankiwi said:

They both breached the distance rule by at least 50%.

Did they both have injuries?

What's classified as an injury anyway?  The dogs are performance athletes and some are going to experience muscle injury.  But is a sore muscle that heals in 10 days really an injury?  

Your focus seems to be entirely on rail hits without a comparative analysis with all vetted injuries.

[Yankiwi]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

Did they both have injuries?

They both had a GRNZ rule that states the lure is to be kept between 4m and 10m ahead of the leading dog.

 

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

 But is a sore muscle that heals in 10 days really an injury?

If it receives a 10-day injury stand-down, then yes, according to the rule book.

Otherwise, this should be a question for a veterinarian.

I'm not a dog doctor, but I can read a rule book.

 

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

Your focus seems to be entirely on rail hits without a comparative analysis with all vetted injuries.

Yep.

GRNZ officially said this in 2014.

I firmly believe that a greyhound running hard out that comes into contact with a steel running rail is in very serious danger of being injured or killed.

I have ample data that reflects exactly that.

 

The #1 was euthanized after this contact with the rail, which happened this year at NZ's safest track, Addington.
 

 

If the safety rail had been installed in 2014 as GRNZ had informed it would be, it's quite possible that this #1 could be racing again tonight.

[Yankiwi]

Ouch!

Too bad there wasn't some form of safety rail that would provide some flexibility and absorb the impact.

 

Also note the lure distance here at about 8m, or the maximum distance allowable under the old rules prior to extending it out to 10m to suit the so-called need at Palmerston North with no regard given to what impact it may have on the other NZ tracks.

 

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

 

 

 

 

[Yankiwi]

Ouch

 

Luckily it didn't chop the dogs head off like it appears to have a couple of frames later.