RaceCafe..#1...Tipsters Thread.... Share Your Fancies For Fun...Lets See Who The Best Tipsters Here Are.
rouseabout

My personal suggestions for the future

Recommended Posts

Well thought out and written Ray and I agree with nearly all of it. Is there an age limit on being accepted back into the administration to the sport? You are just what we need again.

Mike Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Adcock,

I have the greatest respect for you and your achievements within the sport. I will not sign my name for the same reasons no one other than Mike has made comment. To speak out or speak up comes with jeopardy, and far too often draws contempt from within ranks. So, you can choose to read my personal response, or not.

1. ADMINISTRATION:

All levels of racing industry administration are top-heavy, overpaid and underperforming. A recent article from the NZ herald quotes Winston Peters with the following; "RITA inherited a structure which frankly has been living beyond its means for a number of years." The article goes on to say; "Two of the key issues for RITA, apart from the obvious lack of money and a worldwide pandemic, has been poor communication and outrage from industry participants over their staff levels and therefore expenditure. Both are justified."

Another issue is that we keep employing people who are not fit for purpose, lack foresight, and are disconnected from their membership. That has created a deep divide that prevents achieving the best outcomes for all. Instead, we are dictated to by hierarchical self-interest. So, in short, I totally agree there is a massive disconnect at all levels.

2. GREYHOUND FARMING:

"As we know there are probably four trainers with 100 to 200 dogs in training. They are known to have at least half the runners at a single meeting. Why? Answer GREED!"
The majority of industry participants would agree with that statement. I believe this behaviour has been encouraged and nurtured to enable the TAB to increase the number of races and race meetings in order to drive profit. COVID has exposed that thinking for what it really is. If the saturation model was effective the industry would have weathered the storm easily. We would not be facing financial hardship across all three codes. Our collective future can be described at best as fragile.

Monopolies are frowned upon in every industry but racing. Controls are put in place to encourage competition, and to prevent price-fixing. By allowing monopolies to dominate our industry we discourage competition and participant growth. There is no incentive to join the industry, none what so ever.

You suggest a $20 nomination fee per dog per race to discourage farming and support the cost of rehoming, returning GRNZ funds to stakes. For a trainer who has 4000 starts in a year that would put $80,00 dollars toward rehoming initiatives and costs. 6000 starts equals $120,000. You would be looking at around 2 million a year on last years stats.

3. REHOMING:

No longer the domain of a single entity i.e. GAP. The industry now funds several rehoming agencies under the Great Mates Adoption Programme banner. Under that one umbrella, we have been able to establish clear guidelines and expectations to achieve the best possible outcomes for all greys entering the programme. Assessments are consistent and time constraints have been removed. We also work with Corrections to assist with the very successful Prison Foster Programme. There are a number of reasons why the original model was changed. The most significant of those being various enquiries and Mesara Report. In a nutshell, the industry was found wanting. To achieve the expectations outlined in the various reports it was necessary to take back control. That control comes at a cost.

4. RACE DOGS & MEETINGS:

The number of tracks needs to be reduced in accordance with trainer population.
A second track needs to be built in the Christchurch area for obvious reasons.
Everyday stakes should remain the same for the next 12 months.
Feature and group races should be at least halved.
Cease race dog importation.
Possibly look at incentives to those who breed less than 50 dogs per year. That could take the form of reduced fees perhaps.
Alternatively, increase pup registrations for those who breed more than 50 dogs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do pose the question as to who is classed as these ‘farmers’ with 100 - 200 dogs in training

What defines a ‘Farmer’

When I look back at the numbers this season there are 2 trainers with 100+ dogs

The season prior there were 3.

When the data is loaded if a dog is transferred between 3 training facilities it would be a statistic on each one.

A fair few of the larger trainers are the one supplying the product to the smaller trainers and keeping them afloat.

 

Another note would be looking at the quality of breeding in NZ

The bigger breeders are generally putting top sires to quality bitches and are reaping the rewards

The one or two litter a year breeders are not always going to the Best Stud dogs and using inferior bitches in comparison 

 

I do recall sighting a document written by Ray Amer regarding breeding programmes.

Would you be able to share any of that information Mr Adcock as I’m sure you would’ve had conversations with Mr Amer about this. Or Mr Amer if you’re reading this could you please post your findings


Regards

Corey Steele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cory, I can see where you are coming from in a way, for example should all the Opawa dogs that make up the basis of your parents operation be added to the Opawa total or the Steele operation. Because in most instances the originator still has a financial interest in those dogs they should be added to their totals. If you look at it from that angle I am sure you will be able to work out whom Em is referring to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done Corey for adding to the conversation. Your point has been noted. On this, I have to agree with Mike. My quote from Mr Adcock didn't quite go far enough and for that, I apologise. It's not so much how many dogs a trainer is racing, although I believe a hundred or more is unjustifiably excessive. It's about the numbers bred to maintain that level of race dogs. 

Breeding and retirement are severely out of kilter. There are participants that will not accept that social licence is key to racing's longevity. To ignore public and political criticism has been the downfall of dynasties through the ages. "Let them eat cake", famous last words from a French institution. We must think smarter. As a youngster in this industry Corey, you need to seriously think about your future in racing. Have you got one?

It all comes down to "State of Origin". Short term the breeders and owners have to take responsibility for the dogs they produce. Long term breeding needs to meet sustainable levels where every dog bred has a reasonable chance of being rehomed after racing. Presently it's all about greed and ego and that is a poor reason to maintain the status quo. If truth be told the big boys are struggling to turn a reasonable profit despite taking the lion's share of stakes. COVID has exposed the financial flaws in their model, and we have all heard their anguished cries. More is not the answer.

Here's a question to ponder. The introduction of breeding only establishments. These farms would produce all of NZ's racing stock. They would be restricted to breeding quality only and would be capped. Half-yearly auctions would be held, limits placed on the number each trainer could purchase, and prices achieved would be subject to market demand. If these establishments were industry owned, profits could then be shared between rehoming initiatives and stakes. We would be creating jobs that would attract young people who in turn could go on to become trainers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Stables said:

So, if you owned and raced a quality race winning bitch, you would not be able to breed from her?

Breeding stock would have to come from the existing pool during the setup phase.
Owners would be able to sell quality bitches into the breeding programme and bid for any progeny produced or do a pup deal in lieu, example a two for one.
It would be one way of improving racing stocks, eliminate hereditary issues, and level the playing field.
Socialisation and breaking in would be standardised utilising best industry practice.
Pups would be auctioned ready to race to eliminate all risk that presently exists.
Pups that show no inclination to chase would immediately enter the adoption programme.
Brood bitches would be subject to regulation and retired into the adoption programme.
It would solve the overbreeding issue and remove the risk and cost that all breeders face.
It would produce healthy stock free of hereditary issues.
It would produce well-socialised dogs that would transition easily into pet life at retirement.
It's just an idea that could solve a number of industry issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admire your thought process Em but it would never work because of that word you mentioned in a couple of other posts GREED, Either the greedy with the right resources  would grab control and work it for themselves or somehow rort the purchase system ( bogus bidders) to ensure they got the numbers to dominate. There will never be a level playing field,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GOM said:

I admire your thought process Em but it would never work because of that word you mentioned in a couple of other posts GREED, Either the greedy with the right resources  would grab control and work it for themselves or somehow rort the purchase system ( bogus bidders) to ensure they got the numbers to dominate. There will never be a level playing field,

Sadly I totally understand your comment. If training numbers were capped ie not exceed 50 race dogs, any dogs purchased could not enter a kennel already operating at capped capacity. Dogs would need to be deregistered to make space for new purchases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stables said:

It sounds pretty much like the system they have in France where they have a National stud for both Thoroughbreds and Standardbreds

Something I am not familiar with. Can you elaborate and is the system working?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The National stud owns all the stallions and has strict rules about the breeding of satllions especially when it comes to non European bloodlines. All mares are bred to stallions at the National stud which keeps service fees to a realistic value

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Stables said:

The National stud owns all the stallions and has strict rules about the breeding of satllions especially when it comes to non European bloodlines. All mares are bred to stallions at the National stud which keeps service fees to a realistic value

Thank you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Master has spoken and I might add not before time.   We all know who he was referring to as greedy,   some might say parasites who live on or in a host and benefit at other's expense.  The original host was the body of GRNZ who at the time lacked leadership, were prone to corruption and manipulation by vested interests who were able to twist and bend conditions to suit themselves.    Perhaps greedy parasites is an honest appraisal.

    Like it or not we need large kennels.   Properly managed they provide stability for us all in various forms.    However we need to keep diligent to ensure they adhere to the rules which in the past they arrogantly flouted.  As Ray and others have indicated, there is evidence they still have the freedom to continue.

     The present administration is not responsible for the past and it has to be acknowledged that they inherited our rehoming responsibilities following the Hansen Report.    Other immediate issues stemming from the Messara Report have need time and resources to address.     We are all aware of the ongoing issues around rehoming and the apportioning of costs.    These should not be the sole responsibility of the breeders which would be unfair.    All stakeholders during the animal's racing career should contribute.    GRNZ  do not seem to be looking at a more equitable distribution of where the costs should fall.    

      I suggest an independent qualified consultant be employed to produce a plan for the future.     To avoid extra costs to the Association every breeder should provide some funds based on the number of breeding bitches in their kennels.   Alternatively  scratch the NZ Racing Series and reduce stake money for major races could be considered.

     Until a fair and equitable solution is found for rehoming,  IMPORTS MUST STOP. NO EXCEPTIONS.    Relieved of the rehoming burden, the Board needs to address the plight of our long-suffering grassroots.    They work long hours with no security and little return and already the industry is loosing some young talented personnel.    The small owner/breeders and trainers will be next to leave.    The big trainers will soon follow due to the simple fact that there will be nobody left to help subsidise and generate their income.     Regards Ray Amer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I find hard to understand Emotive is why you think establishing another track in Christchurchis justified. Why would you want to tie further funds in captal and where would the money ?come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Stables said:

One thing I find hard to understand Emotive is why you think establishing another track in Christchurchis justified. Why would you want to tie further funds in captal and where would the money ?come from?

Simple really Stables. It is an extremely high earthquake risk which when it comes will shut down harness and greyhounds in Christchurch. Invercargill and Dunedin's days are numbered, those licences will be transferred to Christchurch, possibly as early as July 31st. Life as we knew it is gone, restructuring is inevitable. Winston wants track numbers reduced, clubs to consolidate and centralise. He has made no secret of the fact that he has had enough of the bullshit. We were all given a year to sort ourselves out, we didn't. Possibly greyhounds could join the new synthetic track build. Wouldn't be a silly idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again I would ask, has Greyhound NZ got funds to establish a new track. If an earthquake sinks Addington then all racing in Canterbury will be at risk including Greyhounds. We had two pretty big earthquakes not so long ago and seemed to get through them okay. The most dangerous fault line in New Zealand lies under Wellington

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Stables said:

Once again I would ask, has Greyhound NZ got funds to establish a new track. If an earthquake sinks Addington then all racing in Canterbury will be at risk including Greyhounds. We had two pretty big earthquakes not so long ago and seemed to get through them okay. The most dangerous fault line in New Zealand lies under Wellington

I wouldn't know. Christchurch greyhounds have their own funds, and would possibly be eligible for a government subsidy/grant as part of a joint venture. TB's new all-weather track and infrastructure build would have to be quakeproof, that's a given. Winston has backed that project. Addington has already been closed once due to quake damage. The cumulative effects of successive shakes cannot be dismissed. If the other two tracks are closed and I believe they will be, there has to be a reliable, viable alternative. I do not believe Addington can sustain 4 meetings a week long term. It was never designed for that purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corey: the breeding information that you require has appeared in ON TRACK.   The first article co written with Dr Jim Edwards, Massey University, is of a general nature and the second article written with Dr Peter Amer, animal geneticist of Abacusbio, Dunedin, is of a more technical nature.   To others calling for a national stud, expert advice has indicated ongoing genetic issues due to our small base will cause ongoing welfare issues.     The birdbrain talk of another track in Canterbury is just a sideshow.    Ray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, grandad47 said:

Corey: the breeding information that you require has appeared in ON TRACK.   The first article co written with Dr Jim Edwards, Massey University, is of a general nature and the second article written with Dr Peter Amer, animal geneticist of Abacusbio, Dunedin, is of a more technical nature.   To others calling for a national stud, expert advice has indicated ongoing genetic issues due to our small base will cause ongoing welfare issues.     The birdbrain talk of another track in Canterbury is just a sideshow.    Ray.

So you are saying we are already breeding dogs with genetic issues and producing dogs with welfare issues? As far as I am aware very few breeders if any actually delve into the genetic abnormalities of any potential pairing. Rather, the focus is on speed and strength. I don't believe that information is actually available. It was suggested that the GRNZ keep a register of retired dogs and health issues that manifested after retirement. That information would have helped identify lines and crosses that should be avoided. It didn't happen. I am not advocating for a national stud, semen would be sourced from NZ, Australia, USA, and Britain, sires would need to be free of genetic issues. Only NZ bitches would be used.

Please explain your comment about a second Canterbury track?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is correct that we are  breding from dogs with genetic issues.

Brett Lee is a good example, with one testicle. Brett has left a legacy in the greyhound world by leaving the very best of dogs world wide, yet with that legacy went another and a negative genetic issue went worldwide as well.

If you were the manager of the National stud and had all the information on Brett Lee's huge results of his offspring on the track would you have allowed him to be used.

I believe the answer that should be no but it would take a brave woman to say no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.