The Special Commission of Inquiry into greyhound racing has begun to report on what will be a thorough inquisition of how the sport is run in NSW.
On the surface, the recent exposure of internal e-mails from the former CEO of GRNSW, Brent Hogan, raised questions on the seriousness and depth of the Inquiry. This e-mail from Brent Hogan was of particular concern:
“Appoint a panel headed by a prominent QC … a technical expert (f*** knows who this is but must be independent of us, like a head of a vet school or some dog whisperer with a PhD), and a probity/process advisor … Will give Government comfort.”
“Gives us time to make appointments on Monday (even if all we can say is that the taskforce/commission of review/etc. will be headed up by Big Shot QC.””.
However, the Minister for Racing didn’t seem to accept this scheme was the best course of events. Instead, he swiftly stood down the CEO, altered the terms of reference and increased the investigative powers of the Commissioner, hardly decisions that protect those that were in charge of managing the sport.
GRNSW was a case study in poor management
Instead, the release of these e-mails paint a picture of how greyhound racing was managed in NSW for so long, and that picture is more like one your child brings home from pre-school rather than a Da Vinci. Directionless with a complete lack of attention to detail.
One e-mail, from a strategist states that “we always knew this day would come” begs the obvious rhetorical question of ‘why the hell weren’t you do something about it?’
But unfortunately, the highest levels of management of GRNSW had almost become a parody of themselves by this stage, combining many of the worst excesses that modern management in Australia has to offer.
The sort of management that was dividing people in the sport rather than uniting them. The sort of management where debate was discouraged and dissent was not tolerated. The sort of management that never reflected on where the sport really was and where it was going, instead perpetually claiming to take a new direction without ever outlining what that direction was, or what was wrong with the one they left behind.
The most striking feature of GRNSW was the enormity of their collective glass jaw. Any minor jab and it would shatter in a million pieces. We’re not talking about ill-informed criticism from a few blokes at the pub, but rather from some of the most respected professionals in the sport.
Probably the best example of this was their treatment of a highly respected veterinarian, Dr Ted Humphries. Dr Humphries has a long association with greyhound racing, and was a former board member and 15 years ago a key whistleblower in the ICAC investigations that exposed corruption from within the ranks of the stewards.
GRNSW disbanded the veterinary advisory board, a key structure that enabled veterinarians to provide some independent oversight of the sport. The idea that racing regulates vets, rather than the other way around, has always struck me as rather counter-intuitive.
Further, they had abandoned the drug testing procedures of both random swabbing and at the stewards’ discretion in favour of the latter. This was despite random swabbing being a key element in preventing corruption, as no-one could predict when they were going to get tested.
When Dr Humphries criticised GRNSW in the papers and on TV, the response was swift, and on 28th November 2013 warned off Dr Humphries, officially for not assisting GRNSW in their inquiries. GRNSW were so unwilling to confront reality, shooting the messenger had become the only option, rather than addressing the substance of their critics.
There really is only one option for greyhound racing in NSW to take. It’s to be honest with the risks involved in the sport and how to mitigate them. It’s to be honest with how much it is going to cost to implement changes and who is going to pay.
But it’s also to be honest about how the future management of the sport is to be conducted in the best interests of all concerned, and this requires the Commission to properly investigate and report on the past management practices of GRNSW.
Equally, the Commission must also be aware that the words of management at the top of greyhound racing ought not to be taken as gospel.
Nathan Absalom
Roar Guru
I have declared myself as a member of the GBOTA on my author bio, I have never been a member of the Greyhound Action Group. I am assuming that you are alluding to the fact that my mother is a director of the GBOTA, but I speak for myself only. If I wasn't comfortable with people knowing who I am, I would have used a pseudonym. I am happy to declare that, from time to time, I receive free entry tickets to Wentworth Park and the odd function. I have previously linked in my second article for the Roar all the material from the Upper House Inquiry, the transcripts are here: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/greyhoundracing
Jeff
Guest
Nathan, shouldnt you really be declaring your conflicts of interest first? It hard to see you as an unbiased commentator, and whilst you may believe some of the nonsense you have written, the new management at GRNSW have not changed any of the policies you have been critical of. They have not re-instated the vets board, due to some fairly damning self serving conflicts of interest, and as we have seen from both the EPO scandal in greyhounds and the cobalt scandal in gallops, vets have been a big part of the sports problems. As for the swabbing, how restoring protocols from the 80's, some first initiated by disgraced steward Rodney Potter, would help integrity has never been obvious, and that is probably why none of the called for changes have been adopted by the new management. Division within the sport, well yes GRNSW wears plenty of the blame, but to not mention the Greyhound Action Group, which run a 3 year terrorist campaign against both the management of the sport and anyone who even questioned them, shows your bias. There is no end of official stewards reports of threats and abuse against participants by this group, yet somehow their involvement in the break-up of discipline within the sport goes unremarked. The question has to be asked, would stewards have been more pro-active on issues such as live baiting if they hadnt spent all that time conducting Inquiries into the actions of a few malcontents, and trying to protect people(something they did a poor job of, as well) And finally after you declare your conflicts of interest, how about then going to the evidence given to the Upper House Inquiry by the leaders of the Greyhound Action Group and GBOTA in relation to live baiting. Be brave and print the answers they gave when questioned by Dr Kaye from The Greens. GRNSW werent the only ones in denial, but at least they had the defense of not being part of the sport at the grassroots. The Greyhound Action Group and directors of the GBOTA dont have that defense, some were part of the small Londonderry community, where the live baiting occurred, one had his dogs trained by one of those named, and for them to argue that they didnt know, is ridiculous.
Nathan Absalom
Roar Guru
Hi Jeff, I have addressed this Exhibit already, it was published this morning, here: http://www.theroar.com.au/2015/10/01/greyhounds-special-commission-of-dodgy-numbers/ Briefly, if you read the memorandum carefully you would understand why the opposite is true, it is in the financial interests of GA to exaggerate the numbers. GA only receive funding via the State bodies, they are trying to introduce breeding license fees to give themselves a steady income flow. This memo was after $2 million a year. It's in there, read it. I have previously been asked to test claims made by GA with regards to breeding, and found them to be misleading. Indeed, I actually tendered this evidence to the Special Commission, and to the legislative review of greyhound racing that preceded it, including raw data.
Jeff
Guest
The figures quoted by the commission's counsel are from a memorandum signed by Scott Parker, CEO of Greyhounds Australasia. It's not in the interests of GA or the industry to exaggerate the statistics so as to make the situation look worse than it actually is. It is therefore entirely appropriate for the commission to rely on those figures. The memorandum was Exhibit J at the inquiry, and you can see a .pdf copy of it at this link: http://www.greyhoundracinginquiry.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Exhibit_J.pdf
Nathan Absalom
Roar Guru
Sorry, should say "nearly 1 000", not "at least 1 000".
John Tracey
Guest
The bulk of canines adopted are puppies with a low euthanasia rate. The number of adult dogs is much less and with a much higher percentage of euthanasia. (see submissions to the puppy farm inquiry). The rate of euthanasia is not acceptable in both cases but the problem of not getting to approaching zero is universal.
Nathan Absalom
Roar Guru
Oh no, those figures he quotes are incorrect. At least 1 000 greyhounds are known to retire each year in NSW, according to the working dog alliance report (http://www.thedogs.com.au/Uploads/Review%20and%20Assessment%20of%20Best%20Practice.pdf). Further, he states that only 600 greyhounds are rehomed nationally, with over 100 by GRNSW. That's incorrect, I asked GRV for their figures for my last article, and they were 834 and counting. He also makes a claim that the "attrition rate" for pups cannot be improved, but I debunked that rubbish with my first article here on the roar. The graph is here on my twitter account (https://twitter.com/Nathan_Absalom/status/618901545191518208), look at it, he's plainly wrong.
John Tracey
Guest
The figures quoted by the SC from Ga and South Australian reports do not make any logical sense and the cheats defence is always that 90% of people do what they do. (see ICAC investigation transcripts 2000 and USA earlier reports. The rebuttal made by Nathan should be a rebuttal made by the greyhound legal representative at the special commission of inquiry. The greyhound population should be entitled to have legal representation to balance the SC assisting the inquiry. This was the case at the parliamentary inquiry (The Industry had a combined representation of GRNSW, GBOTA and GAG headed by an ex treasury professor). GRNSW is at a hard place as they are the greyhounds representative by law and at the moment they are in administration so it is probably difficult for them to play a dual role of supporting the Minister and also the industry ( I an not saying that this does not amount to the same thing but it is difficult) GA is made up of representatives of the various control boards of which the three main control board members have been sacked. While GA have been found out for not keeping worthwhile statistics , the statistic "guestimates" have been quoted for the purpose of sensational press releases. The SC assisting talks of the cavalier nature of the greyhound industry, this is no doubt tempered by the e-mail discovery from GRNSW but whether this reflects the whole of the greyhound population is doubtful. The silence of the National Greyhound Body AGRA is deafening. If the National Body is silent then they will let the industry be represented by people who are there to settle old scores irrespecitive of the damage they may do to the silent majority.
Nathan Absalom
Roar Guru
Those numbers sound extremely dubious to me. To maintain a stable population you would need at least 15% of the population and it's highly unlikely so many brood bitches would not make the age of 4. It's also contrary to what was published by the Working Dog Alliance report. I've been asked to check various assertions by Greyhounds Australasia when they've tried to introduce fees to breed (a money grab basically) and found they didn't make any sense at all. I'll look at the transcript when it's up Dez, it's a crime to mislead the commissioner, even for counsel assisting, so a response may require delicate writing. But I should be able to fact check the assertions and if they're wrong, you'll know about it.
Dez
Guest
He placed the blame equally with the participants by allowing the indifference to suffering and accepted mass disposal of dogs. The old "prove those numbers" has been proved and "RSPCA kills more dogs" has shown they destroy only 16%. ..“As little as four in every 100 greyhounds born each year will make it beyond about 42 months of age,” counsel assisting the special commission of inquiry into the NSW greyhound industry Stephen Rushton SC said to The Australian. “As many as 96 in every 100 healthy young greyhounds born each year will be destroyed by the industry which bred them.” I don't think this is the soft inquiry everyone expected.