Thats understandable because everything revolves around moving bits of paper or making up new bits of paper. Its not management but administration. Its a bureaucracy pretending to run a business.

Long term in so-called Strategic Plans we see lists of waffly ideas which never really reach fruition. They are never audited and are soon forgotten. Whether they are good or bad is irrelevant.

Worst of all is that the industry is terribly fragmented. State by state, rules, regulations and practices vary according to whims or historical biases and opinions. We cant even settle on the age of a Veteran/Masters dog.

Heres something to remind you. All the states authorised Greyhounds Australasia to come up with an answer about how many pups should be bred in each state. So GA hired a very expensive consultancy to work that out.

What did they come up with? Nothing. The file must have got lost.
How much did it cost? No idea.
Will the state governments do anything? Probably not, but there are threats.
Would it be legal anyway (ie restricting greyhound breeding)? Very doubtful a restraint of trade.
What did the Alliance do about it? Well, it certainly implied more than once that some sort of breeding limit would be OK. Yes, really.

Breeding limits do not apply to horses (I would like to see them try) nor to any other dog breed, puppy farm or to any other animal, in fact.

In short, the industry is a shambles.

There are many aspects of the industry worth investigating in some depth. Today, in the following post, I mention just one betting.

As a greyhound writer for over 20 years I am well used to hearing compliments, brickbats and abuse from readers no less than on this blog. Water off a ducks back, although usually I try to respond to well-put questions or criticisms.

At the outset, I said I came on Greyhound-Data to learn more about the industry. Well, I now have a greater appreciation of how trainers think - and they are the dominant force here. That doesnt mean they are always right, especially not when they are wandering out of their specialty. Punting is a classic example.

I get tagged as a professional punter. Very wrong. I am not and never have been a pro. Yes, I have been a serious punter all my life ie I do the form, try to understand the track and the makeup of the field and finish the year a bit in front. But it is a hobby, a limited one, not a vocation. I have always had other things to do.

Anyway, I keep saying I have now quit punting on dogs. I no longer do the form but I do keep a fatherly eye on things. So, what is my problem? Why have I quit? There are three major factors.

First, average field quality has dropped as more low standard dogs enter the game (by administrative decree). While initially confined to low class races which can be ignored, they have a way of filtering through to normal races, particularly because of the overall shortage of runners. There they get in the road. An allied challenge is that many dogs fail to run out a solid trip, whether for breeding, training or whatever reasons. The outcome is frequently a race which lacks betting appeal.

Second, with very few exceptions, tracks are poorly laid out, leading to excessive disruptions and therefore greater unpredictability. A higher injury rate goes with that. I base those claims on multiple observations and on comprehensive data and analysis of stuff like winning boxes, dividends, race falls, comparisons between tracks, all sorts of times, and dog histories.

Third, the betting market is stuffed. No matter how brilliantly you analyse the race you will be hard put to apply your dollars effectively. The already modest pools are now spread more thinly amongst the TAB (regulated) and eight or so prominent corporate bookies (unregulated). Market share has shifted from the first group to the second, leaving all with less satisfactory offerings. Information is either poor or slow to emerge or prices are terrible once you get there. Oh, for the days when you could match your wits against a dozen or so real bookmakers.

Todays punter is therefore looking at hefty penalties (books are in the range 117%-133%) even before the above three issues come into play. Add it up and you are dealing with an extra cost of 40%-50% before you reach for your wallet. No amount of knowledge can overcome figures like that. Not over time. You will lose, so whats the point?

Thats why I am out.

You may say that is a personal view but it is also my finding about the sport in general. The detail may be debated but the basic facts cannot be denied. The industry is on life support, saved for the moment only by the average Aussies liking for a gamble. Not a cheery prospect.

What galls is that all the above are man-made issues. They are all fixable. Yet the evidence tells us that they are either ignored or that those in charge think they are not worth attacking. Or maybe they just dont know how.

What is more worrying is that greyhound racing is in strife all over the world, not just here. Nobody has found the magic potion to apply to a wounded and outmoded industry, whether in England, Ireland or America.

I have mentioned punting but that is just the tip of the iceberg. We are trying to run a corner store in a world where supermarkets and big discount stores dominate. As occurred with banks, airlines or traditional department stores, only a big shakeup will help.

* * *

Note1: Poker machine, casino or sports match deductions are much smaller than the above say 5%-15% - which has a lot to do with their increasing popularity. However, irrespective of the size of the deduction, you still have to locate knowledge, if any, which allows you to overcome the handicap.

Note2: Some of the above reasoning does not apply to the gallops due to their large betting pools, somewhat greater regulation and better competition. Even so, their betting growth is ordinary at best. The trots are going out the back door, helped by poor integrity. Sports betting is leaping ahead.

Note3: The motives and methods of trainers are vastly different to those of punters, and different again for gamblers. Dont try to mix and match the possibilities better to try to understand what makes each tick and concentrate on your strengths.

I agree with most of what you say, but most of it is about the state of the industry, not the fate of the industry.

Even Blind Freddie can see an industry in decline, but somehow you think that the PTB can, or will, stop the rot if they listen to your negative observations

Maybe it is time for a reality check, breeding is in decline, the raceday crowds are gone forever, and the industry share of the punting dollar is shrinking fast.

If private enterprise was running greyhound racing in NSW, it would be out of business by now, unless the razor gang was let loose. Are the PTB persisting with an outdated business model?? The corner stores are gone, banks are shutting branches, telephone boxes are disappearing, and so on and so on, times change.

Bruce, the PTB that you hope will save the day, need to move with the times.

If the PTB cannot save the day, then it is up to you to draw on your wealth of experience, and offer some practical and realistic ideas, not negative thoughts.

The world does not owe the greyhound industry a living.

Certain people thrive on confrontation. You Brucey, are one of those people. To the extent that you create new threads that pretty much go over the same stuff, then when nobody responds, you add another comment to keep it on page one.
Relevance deficit syndrome.

And trainers are not the dominant force on here. In fact you will find that most people commenting on here are not trainers.

If you don't want to punt on greyhounds, then don't.
I don't bet on horses. But I don't jump on the horse racing threads and tell them why.

The admins are representative of every admin in this country and around the first world countries. Highly educated fools who are paid to change systems without consulting the people who know what's wrong.

Admittedly, that's pretty quick typing Bruce.
Unless, you have all your comments saved and then you roll them out when there is nothing controversial happening...

First of all, to answer Tony, I rarely post anything that I have not previously drafted and reviewed often several times then copied onto the page here. I seldom write quickies. Hence my general item (above) was quickly followed by the more specific one on reasons for quitting betting.

Second, most of the comments so far have addressed me, not the topic which is the likely future fate of the industry. Not very helpful.

Third, these comments and many others have followed 20 years of submissions to racing authorities, Ministers, Parliamentary Inquiries, government inquiries, the McHugh Commission, various Strategic Plans, the Productivity Commission plus over 1,000 paid articles, many of which have been reprinted (pirated) in other publications. Mostly, the points and the proposals I have made - at the time and in hindsight - have proved correct and worthwhile but have been ignored. Should I give up?

Fourth, references to action by the PTB (ie state racing authorities) are pointless. They have no power, and little inclination, to change the system. In practice, they are averse to criticism or outside contributions. Thats our primary problem. Only Ministers and governments can bring about change. Invariably, PTBs will continue on with whatever they did last year, plus or minus a word or two.

Fifth, re If you don't want to punt on greyhounds, then don't. Jamie, you have missed the point. It is not a matter of want to but of cant. My recreational outlet has been destroyed. And I know of many like me.

In this context and others, I have repeatedly listed new measures and changes which need to be adopted to advance the industry not negative thoughts but hard proposals to be implemented. Check back, folks.

Let me add some comments to provide more perspective.

1. Over the last 20 years there has been a massive change in customer profile basically from more knowledgeable to pretty ignorant yet it has been barely recognised or attacked by those PTBs. They have watched solid industry supporters fade away (in company with many older trainers, formguide sales and the good old commission rooms).
2. With a hiss and a roar GRNSW is aggressively pushing its latest baby a Friday night series of squibs races at Wenty. Considering his background, this is a strange move by CEO Mestrov as not only does it run smack up against the opening of the NRL season but against a blockbuster at the SCG between 100 year old foes, the Rabbitos and the Roosters. Soon, you will be able to add AFL matches to that list.
3. Moreover, it is looking for 18-35 year old fans whose main occupation on Friday nights is to head for the boozer (it may well get some but they will be at their usual watering holes).
4. Whatever patronage is achieved on those Friday nights will be sucked away from traditional meetings (at least half a dozen) which offer proper races. Aggregate turnover is unlikely to increase just as adding extra meetings on Saturday nights from 2010 reduced takings at the once dominant Wenty and Meadows meetings, thereby making them less attractive betting propositions.
5. Encouraging more 280m dashes will not improve breeding outcomes and is also likely to weaken race predictions as these events turn on what gets out of the box quickly. They are jumping contests, not races.
6. Shrewdly, Mestrov is diverting attention from the costs of the 280s by simultaneously increasing prize money for C Class racing in the bush. Not sure who is paying for advertising costs, which would be significant.
7. Ian, the private enterprise option is too big a subject for the moment perhaps later.
8. Jamie, call it confrontation if you like. I call it identifying shortcomings and challenging poor strategies and decision-making. I dont like seeing 3rd and 4th rate processes.

Bruce, recently I 'identified a shortcoming' at GRSA where they remove any video replay where a dog has a fall.
You bluntly told me to take it up with GRSA.
So you seem to have this attitude that you have a free reign to create posts about everything in the industry, a lot of which you have very limited understanding of, but jump on any other thread to downplay and dismiss the concerns of others.
You continually point out that you have been a paid journalist for 20 years. We all know trainers that have trained for 20 years and are still failing to win much. Longevity does not equate to quality in any industry.

Rubbish.

Grant,

Congratulations on your initiative. Hopefully, a few thousand people will get behind you.

I am not sure I have the time to do what you ask properly (it's a huge job) but I will dig out some stuff I have previously put on this site.

Meantime, have a think about two critical elements .....

1. The wonders of the breed.

2. The long term failures of the current system and therefore the need to replace it with a better one.

If participants just come up with achievable goals that will make our Industry thrive & encourage new participants it is going to be of assistance.

Our beautiful,exciting breed should be on display to the general public through ads showing speed in racing & laid back temperament & beauty in adoption.

We have now had almost 75 years under the current system - ie a government appointed Board with all the management authority. Politics at various levels is always dominant.

If you don't want to move away from that then I cannot contribute anything useful.

The greyhound industry should honour the laws of the land (no more, no less) as everyone else does - with the only exception being the betting area where the government is also responsible for protecting NSW citizens.

Government cannot ever run a commercial business well. Only an independent organisation can do that. Name one major sporting or primary industry that is run by the government - well or otherwise.

Pitching a few goals at GRNSW is a waste of time. They will waffle for a while and do nothing as they have done ever since WW2. It's not the people but the governance system which has failed.

GWIC is irrelevant for the moment as it is totally an arm of government - legally.

The Australian Grand Prix Corporation is responsible for staging the annual Foster's Australian Formula One Grand Prix at Melbourne's Albert Park in March and the Australian Motorcycle Grand Prix at Phillip Island in October.

The Corporation is responsible to the Minister for Tourism and Major Events.

Agree Ian-We need a COMMERCIAL ARM with the Govt conducting the regulatory side -help us design it.

I am sure many people enjoy the Grand Prix as well as other motor racing events - albeit the concept is starting to run into trouble worldwide. It also benefits from monster subsidies from manufacturers and countries wanting to promote themselves for various reasons.

Melbourne pinched the local one from Adelaide by offering more subsidy.

Typically, governments offer inducements to all sorts of industries or events to set up in their neighbourhood. The net benefits are always dubious and often rely on intangible items on the balance sheet. Witness various campaigns to move Tests, Grand Finals and SOO from one state to another - all orchestrated by special units of a department specifically charged with doing that.

Legalised bribery is not the same as running a business, especially not when we are talking about a one-off.

Bob,
You and others asked for comments and, when you got them, you abused the writer and avoided the subject.

By his violent reaction, Grant disqualifies himself as the leader of a campaign to upgrade the code. It seems that unless you agree with him you don't count.

You guys are attacking operational matters - which is fine - but the real problem is the governance of the industry. Hence my point that asking the referee to change his ruling is a waste of time. It will not happen. You have to go the people who write the rule book.

Incidentally, the possible incoming Racing Minister is a former top union official with a Bachelor of Economics and a liking for the outdoors but no obvious racing exposure. Prepare yourself.

If Toole is to continue, greyhound racing will be better off trying to influence the Premier and Treasurer as Toole is a confessed anti who is interested only in getting re-elected (via the million dollar race).

The reasons FOR are nominally understandable - ie commercial considerations should not influence integrity decision-making. Fair enough.

However, advisors making those choices produce no evidence at all that the joint operations, as such, are harmful. They identified a problem but then generated a solution out of a thought bubble. (Just as they did when condemning "overbreeding" as the cause of euthanasia hassles).

The reasons AGAINST are equally strong - ie it destroys teamwork, consistency and efficiency.

A split assumes that the organisation, or its boss, is not capable of running the show when differing interests are in play, as in one department versus another. What it really means is that you have a bad manager.

Further, the separation, by definition, encourages one sector to chase different objectives to the other - which can be confusing or destructive.

More confusing is that in NSW the Commercial side is bound to supply funds to Integrity. On what basis would such funding be made?
For example, it has no control over staff numbers yet, in effect, it must pay them.

Look around and you will find that companies of all shapes and sizes handle the joint responsibilities every day of the week. Sure, there will be a bit of to and fro amongst the departments but that is normal in any organisation. They are all trying to do better in their specialty.

In practice, a split is more costly in total - as it was when NSW tried it previously. It can also mean one side goes off half-cocked - as Qld has done with inconclusive investigations or the wholesale swabbing of every dog at a single meeting.

Banks split off money-advice operations to separate companies, whereupon they adopted different ethical practices, ripped off customers, and got themselves into strife with the Royal Commission.

BHP mining engineers don't turn out stuff the company can't sell but metals that fit into the company's financial and marketing structures. Airline pilots and salesmen have vastly different tasks to perform but all are dedicated to offering customers the best possible product. And so on.

Unity is strength.