Jump to content
RaceCafe
Sign in to follow this  
what a post

Trackside coverage

Recommended Posts

Does trackside actually think they are doing anyone a favour when hiding and censoring race coverage of dogs who get hurt. Clearly there is a message in their coverage. We don't want anyone to see coverage of this aspect of the sport.  I like having a bet on the dogs,but I'm beginning to wonder that this deliberate policy of cover ups is done because something rather distressing is part of the sport. What other reason can there be?

Compare that to the coverage you get on the harness code when there is an accident. Recently there was one at Invercargill,the harness trackside coverage showed there was nothing to hide by displaying it several times. Maybe the trackside side of the harness sport just give their followers more credit for having a brain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too fail to understand that type of morbid fascination. Most viewers have a brain, most would have viewed an incident in normal time and don't need a frame by frame breakdown. If they do they can rewind the footage at their leisure. All racing animals have connections, trainers, owners, breeders, and hands who have an emotional attachment, maybe we just care more about the dog and the connections involved.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Booby Bec said:

Dont quite understand where you are coming from there.  Do you enjoy seeing dogs, horses or people for that matter in pain?  Im more than happy for all accidents to be censored

I'm coming at it from a transparency and a double standard view point..

I believe that dogs getting injured is part of the sport,just as it is for the horses. Its exactly the same in any sport. Do you watch the big hits in League,the rugby injuries,the car crashes at motor sport.Do you watch any of those reality hospital programmes,ever worked at the freezing works, ever eaten  beef when you know  what they do with the merely days old bobbycalfs,ever watched the multitude of tv programmes where humorous unfortunate incidents are caught on video.  I could go on and on. If you do any of the aforementioned then I believe you display double standards.

The only way anything ever improves is to first accept things are what they are,then look at ways to improve or help.  Covering up,censorship,whatever way you put it is an indication of industries approaches to areas that need refined. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, what a post said:

I'm coming at it from a transparency and a double standard view point..

I believe that dogs getting injured is part of the sport,just as it is for the horses. Its exactly the same in any sport. Do you watch the big hits in League,the rugby injuries,the car crashes at motor sport.Do you watch any of those reality hospital programmes,ever worked at the freezing works, ever eaten  beef when you know  what they do with the merely days old booby calfs,ever watched the multitude of tv programmes where humorous unfortunate incidents are caught on video.  I could go on and on. If you do any of the aforementioned then I believe you display double standards.

The only way anything ever improves is to first accept things are what they are,then look at ways to improve or help.  Covering up,censorship,whatever way you put it is an indication of industries approaches to areas that need refined. 

You have no power to change anything and you are dreaming if you think you do. You also have very limited knowledge of the sport, reporting protocols, welfare initiatives, and remedies. We have our own standards, we are not bound to conform to yours. If you are so fascinated by misfortune, record the reality TV shows that amuse you so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Emotive said:

You have no power to change anything and you are dreaming if you think you do. You also have very limited knowledge of the sport, reporting protocols, welfare initiatives, and remedies. We have our own standards, we are not bound to conform to yours. If you are so fascinated by misfortune, record the reality TV shows that amuse you so much.

Typical ignorant reply. You have no idea  what I know. You completely miss my point.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, what a post said:

Typical ignorant reply. You have no idea  what I know. You completely miss my point.   

Well, I only have what you told us to go by,  "I like having a bet on the dogs." And because you like having a bet, you would like everyone to conform to your way of thinking. That pretty much sums it up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Emotive said:

 you would like everyone to conform to your way of thinking. That pretty much sums it up.

 

That would be the perfect world if that could happen emotive.  My point was why do trackside,and obviously you,feel the need to censor parts of your sport when other sports with similar issues do not.  I believe the other sports have it right,and greyhound racing have it wrong.  I had the same issue when I decided to follow  the jumpers last year. Found it pointless when in some of the trackside raceday coverage you would see 3 or 4 horses falling,but when you watched the replays they would skip the jumps at which the falls occurred.   Obviously a lot of you work on the theory that if you don't replay something then no one will notice.  I really think that strategy is dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, what a post said:

Does trackside actually think they are doing anyone a favour when hiding and censoring race coverage of dogs who get hurt. Clearly there is a message in their coverage. We don't want anyone to see coverage of this aspect of the sport.  I like having a bet on the dogs,but I'm beginning to wonder that this deliberate policy of cover ups is done because something rather distressing is part of the sport. What other reason can there be?

Compare that to the coverage you get on the harness code when there is an accident. Recently there was one at Invercargill,the harness trackside coverage showed there was nothing to hide by displaying it several times. Maybe the trackside side of the harness sport just give their followers more credit for having a brain. 

Yes Trackside are doing all of us a favour by not replaying those races where dogs have fallen. This also applies for the other two codes. I do like it when the commentator mentions in their call that the dog/dogs have picked themselves up and finished on the arm, it's always pleasing/reassuring to hear.

You make mention of one harness incident at Invercargill, what about those races where the horse has chocked down, broken it's leg to name a few, did you enjoy seeing the replay. Unless you recorded it on My Sky you wouldn't have seen it on Trackside. The dogs that you bet on are much loved and we do care for their health and safety just as you would with your own family, and yes their will be accidents from time to time as their are in most competitive sports but our sport isn't like the UFC. 

Always good to get new blood on this site and share their opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why I keep getting asked if I enjoy seeing replays of horses,dogs ,people getting injured. To me that's a strange assumption to make,its not been in any of my posts.   I guess its a way of trying to undermine my argument.   Oh well ive made my point,whether people got it or not.

By the way,can anyone out there in greyhound land tell me why Waikato do not have a first sectional relating to the first bend. for 375m races,  All other tracks have it,why not Waikato. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to address the last part of your comment. "Obviously a lot of you work on the theory that if you don't replay something then no one will notice."
You are assuming that every viewer has the ability to understand and analyse what they see? They don't.
Anyone who follows racing in earnest, whether he/she be a regular punter, a trainer, owner, or industry employee, develop the ability to assess races in real time.
They use video replays to assist in their particular area of interest or role. Stipends also view/review, assess, and report on the same race footage.
That information which includes injuries is then made available in the official stipendiary report. That report is available to anyone who wishes to read it.
The stats are constantly reviewed, and areas of concern are identified, modifications made when possible or appropriate.
You said: "
The only way anything ever improves is to first accept things are what they are,then look at ways to improve or help."
So I will ask, based on what you have seen, what changes would you make to improve injury stats?
And as a layperson what qualifications do you hold that would be helpful to our existing processes?
"I really think that strategy is dumb", your words, but that may not be everyone's view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, what a post said:

Not sure why I keep getting asked if I enjoy seeing replays of horses,dogs ,people getting injured. To me that's a strange assumption to make,its not been in any of my posts.   I guess its a way of trying to undermine my argument.   Oh well ive made my point,whether people got it or not.

By the way,can anyone out there in greyhound land tell me why Waikato do not have a first sectional relating to the first bend. for 375m races,  All other tracks have it,why not Waikato. 

Easy to assume based on your previous posts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Emotive said:

I am going to address the last part of your comment. "Obviously a lot of you work on the theory that if you don't replay something then no one will notice."
1)You are assuming that every viewer has the ability to understand and analyse what they see? They don't.
2)Anyone who follows racing in earnest, whether he/she be a regular punter, a trainer, owner, or industry employee, develop the ability to assess races in real time.
They use video replays to assist in their particular area of interest or role. Stipends also view/review, assess, and report on the same race footage.
That information which includes injuries is then made available in the official stipendiary report. That report is available to anyone who wishes to read it.
3)The stats are constantly reviewed, and areas of concern are identified, modifications made when possible or appropriate.
4)You said: "
The only way anything ever improves is to first accept things are what they are,then look at ways to improve or help."
5)So I will ask, based on what you have seen, what changes would you make to improve injury stats?
6)And as a layperson what qualifications do you hold that would be helpful to our existing processes?
"I really think that strategy is dumb", your words, but that may not be everyone's view.

Just addressing some of your points. ive numbered them to make it easier. Ill assume you are talking about injuries.1)seeing something only once does not somehow create an illusion that everything is ok. On the contrary, i believe people have the  intelligence to conclude that when normal after race coverage changes,and a replay is not shown,then they will assume it is a result of something unfortunate happening. It would be a automatic red flag  2) So why bother with the after race censorship. 3) That's what I expect,so why bother censoring the trackside coverage. 5) Injuries, o.k. so thats what they want to cover up. Obviously they must think they have too.  I obviously don't think that is necessary.   6)Common sense.

 

1 hour ago, Emotive said:

Easy to assume based on your previous posts. 

 I think that's just a  dumb assumption,still your not alone in saying that   Good night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, what a post said:

Just addressing some of your points. ive numbered them to make it easier. Ill assume you are talking about injuries.1)seeing something only once does not somehow create an illusion that everything is ok. On the contrary, i believe people have the  intelligence to conclude that when normal after race coverage changes,and a replay is not shown,then they will assume it is a result of something unfortunate happening. It would be a automatic red flag  2) So why bother with the after race censorship. 3) That's what I expect,so why bother censoring the trackside coverage. 5) Injuries, o.k. so thats what they want to cover up. Obviously they must think they have too.  I obviously don't think that is necessary.   6)Common sense.

 

 I think that's just a  dumb assumption,still your not alone in saying that   Good night.

Your argument is all over the place. I'm not censoring anything. Never said watching something once is intended to create an illusion. People see whatever they want to see. And you never answered my questions.


You are the one who brought up injuries, I just replied to your diatribe.

Quote: "I believe that dogs getting injured is part of the sport,just as it is for the horses. Its exactly the same in any sport. Do you watch the big hits in League,the rugby injuries,the car crashes at motor sport.Do you watch any of those reality hospital programmes,ever worked at the freezing works, ever eaten  beef when you know  what they do with the merely days old booby calfs,ever watched the multitude of tv programmes where humorous unfortunate incidents are caught on video.  I could go on and on. If you do any of the aforementioned then I believe you display double standards."

I see no double standard as I don't watch the above. I don't find unfortunate incidents humorous. You, on the other hand, seem to be fixated, you should have that looked at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any race incidents are seen in the live telecast on trackside.If you want to see it again simply push the rewind button and then use the slow mo option on your remote.Technology today allows you watch things over and over again on demand in your own time.

Remember the other 2 codes and sporting codes dont have a dellusional idiot tracking EVERYTHING that happens in their codes.To the extent of even ringing dog transporters demanding evidence of greyhounds being shipped to China.

AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, what a post said:

I'm coming at it from a transparency and a double standard view point..

I believe that dogs getting injured is part of the sport,just as it is for the horses. Its exactly the same in any sport. Do you watch the big hits in League,the rugby injuries,the car crashes at motor sport.Do you watch any of those reality hospital programmes,ever worked at the freezing works, ever eaten  beef when you know  what they do with the merely days old bobbycalfs,ever watched the multitude of tv programmes where humorous unfortunate incidents are caught on video.  I could go on and on. If you do any of the aforementioned then I believe you display double standards.

The only way anything ever improves is to first accept things are what they are,then look at ways to improve or help.  Covering up,censorship,whatever way you put it is an indication of industries approaches to areas that need refined. 

Its the same mentality that pervades the Stipe reports, censor anything that is deemed to be contrary to the official spin/line. By doing what they do on trackside, ie cutting the head on's short because a dog is deemed to be hurt, only hurts those that want to be able to determine what happened, and how it happened. It also reinforces the notion there is a lot to hide. My opinion is, if they have to mislead the public on the warts in the sport, then they deserve to be shut down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aquaman said:

Its the same mentality that pervades the Stipe reports, censor anything that is deemed to be contrary to the official spin/line. By doing what they do on trackside, ie cutting the head on's short because a dog is deemed to be hurt, only hurts those that want to be able to determine what happened, and how it happened. It also reinforces the notion there is a lot to hide. My opinion is, if they have to mislead the public on the warts in the sport, then they deserve to be shut down.

That argument is so weak. The race and any incident are shown in real-time. We all record the races for the purpose of understanding how it was run. There are buttons on your remote that allow everyone to replay and view the footage at different speeds. Race day replays are discretionary, they do not change the race result. Those who need to determine what happened are in the minority, not the bulk of viewers. Maybe Trackside initiated their own market research and made a decision accordingly. Races with incidents aren't the only races that don't include head-on replays. How often are the replays cut to go to some silly race in the middle of nowhere, or cut because there is a big race at Ellerslie? Often. Then we all have to wait for the replay to come up on the results page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, aquaman said:

Its the same mentality that pervades the Stipe reports, censor anything that is deemed to be contrary to the official spin/line. By doing what they do on trackside, ie cutting the head on's short because a dog is deemed to be hurt, only hurts those that want to be able to determine what happened, and how it happened. It also reinforces the notion there is a lot to hide. My opinion is, if they have to mislead the public on the warts in the sport, then they deserve to be shut down.

fully agree with everything you have said. Going by the replies on here it seems many believe there is a need to prevent members of the public viewing races in which dogs get injured,then they point out anyone can view it on the nz greyhound website anyway. One assumes they realise anyone includes those who do not support the sport.       

 

14 hours ago, Emotive said:

 

I see no double standard as I don't watch the above. I don't find unfortunate incidents humorous. You, on the other hand, seem to be fixated, you should have that looked at.

this comment reflects the way you have viewed my statements,i think it unfortunate you have knowingly or mistakenly put a spin on what I have said to discredit my comments, I don't take it personally as I know its an emotive subject,and you clearly have strong beliefs.  I just hope you are consistent in standing up for welfare issues when commenting on all issues and personalities related thereto, My concern from your comments would be you may believe in dealing with welfare issues out of the view of the public.,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, what a post said:

fully agree with everything you have said. Going by the replies on here it seems many believe there is a need to prevent members of the public viewing races in which dogs get injured,then they point out anyone can view it on the nz greyhound website anyway. One assumes they realise anyone includes those who do not support the sport.       

 

this comment reflects the way you have viewed my statements,i think it unfortunate you have knowingly or mistakenly put a spin on what I have said to discredit my comments, I don't take it personally as I know its an emotive subject,and you clearly have strong beliefs.  I just hope you are consistent in standing up for welfare issues when commenting on all issues and personalities related thereto, My concern from your comments would be you may believe in dealing with welfare issues out of the view of the public.,

I have very strong views regarding welfare. You have tried to make a case for a cover-up without actually speaking to the people concerned. There are several players involved in the coverage and scheduling of races in NZ, Sky, Trackside, TAB, RIU, GRNZ, and the other two codes. The live feeds are channeled through a central controller, who may change from day to day. What is then broadcast to the public, could be as simple as the controller's personal taste or, could be dictated by numerous feeds coming in close proximity? I actually went through some recorded footage and found a number of incidents that were replayed, so there is no evidence what so ever that backs your conspiracy theory because incidents would not be replayed at all. You obviously are looking to find fault but offered nothing to back up your view. And it is just a view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, modest mouse said:

Just looked at race 2 replay from Cambridge yesterday. It was a very sanitized version. 

Yet the race later in the day showed all. It's very hard to make a conspiracy case when the footage is not consistent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched the dogzone which reviewed the  Wanganui dogs from last Friday. There it was,a replay of the dash for cash. The presenters reviewed the race in a respectful yet transparent way as you would expect from the 2 quality broadcasters that presented that show.  Judging by many comments on here most would have chosen to turn their tvs off,either that or they have double standards. It does highlight tracksides inconsistent coverage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×