Finally, after more than 12 months of mind-boggling and depressing nonsense, someone outlined the very real problems that racing in Australia has left alone for far too long and offered some solutions to those problems.
Last Thursday, a review of the integrity structures of Victorian racing by former British Horseracing Authority chief executive Paul Bittar was released, and I urge anyone with an interest in any code of racing in Australia, whether participant or punter, to read it.
» Horse racing on The Roar
» 2016 Melbourne Cup
» Australian racing calendar for 2016
» The Roar’s Top 50 racehorses in Australian history
» Re-live Black Caviar’s astonishing career
The document appears to be the result of thorough research, much thought and considered reasoning, free of internal bickering and scapegoating. The review was created to answer the question of whether the commercial and integrity functions of racing should be separated, and recommended that a new Victorian Racing Integrity Unit (VRIU) should be established for all three codes of racing, as much to address the perception of conflicts of interest as real ones.
However, the review identifies this is not the right question, and instead appears to argue the financing of integrity and welfare, the education of participants, and communication strategies are at least equally important, if not far more so, and are just not being given the attention they deserve.
There’s too much in the review for one article, so I’ll focus on the education and communication strategies for now. For far too long, racing has opted for a punitive approach when creating, implementing and enforcing rules, rather than a modern co-ordinated approach.
“When investigating other sports, a key distinction identified was the commitment to educate participants and not simply police them. This links to code stakeholder feedback suggesting there is a lack of support in educating licensees in welfare and integrity issues and how to develop best-practice operating processes and systems (e.g licensed trainer facilities). This is less structural than cultural, but seen as a key requirement to be further developed”.
When communicating their message, most notably during the cobalt debacle, it’s been unclear as to who exactly Racing Victoria (RV) is communicating to and why. The review had this to say on communication.
“However, there is a failing in the development and execution of a strategic communications approach specific to integrity services including the public management of key cases and issues. This has meant RV’s ability to get its message across is often compromised or reactive. This strategic communications failing is recognised by stakeholders, many staff and the RV Integrity Council. In particular, the distinction needs to be made between raceday incidents, and those issues that move into a more complex legal forum”.
I’d fully agree with that.
For Greyhound Racing Victoria (GRV), the change in recent times has been as drastic as it was essential. Although they were more progressive than any other greyhound racing jurisdiction in the country, the last 12 months has seen a dramatic escalation not only in their welfare initiatives but also their commitment to education and communications.
“GRV has a much stronger communications strategy and engagement program to support its approach and the cultural change required of its participants. GRV is building a communications strategy that seeks for the participants to be ‘taken on a journey’ and helps them understand what good regulation is and why it is important to the future sustainability and the growth of the sport”.
But really, when it comes to education and communication it’s saying that racing administrators need to treat people like adults (well, except for the ‘taken on a journey’ bit). Tell people the broad outline of what you want out of them and why, give them the information they require and allow them input on how to get there.
And not ‘fill in a form to be ignored’ input, but the opportunity that focussed workshops and semi-formal education sessions provide. When you change rules, make it clear why these rules have changed and inform people how they are to comply, think how people can inadvertently transgress the rules and make sure it doesn’t happen.
Mr Bittar is right, let’s just hope that the powers that be can look past the headline, read the review and enact the recommendations. In an ideal world, the States would surely follow.
john tracey
Guest
Jason, The "instrumental" argument extends to all animals including all companion dogs. The extreme view is that all non human animals should be returned to the wild. Age racing was carried out at Young NSW for 6 years. It involved brood bitches from 3 years to 13 years of age running in time heats max 4 starters over 174 meters . There was an average of about 80 starters per year and the heats were intermingled with the race program. The grand champion was the greyhound awarded on the time differential between the ages. Greyhounds kept a good speed record up to and including 8 year olds. From 9 onwards the greyhounds lost their speed. Some greyhounds reappeared over the various years and in two instances greyhounds had competed in all the six series. Generally the greyhounds only started once every year but some also started in other age races which were a feature in NSW prior to the current contract arrangements. The potential for age racing needs to be explored well beyond the current narrow prism and this amongst other things will evolve.
Jason Caley
Guest
Jeff: Pathway and Masters are not the same. One is age based the other is time based. Pathway racing in NSW link here: http://www.thedogs.com.au/NewsArticle.aspx?NewsId=7389 Yes they these racing dogs have jobs. So do police dogs, customs dogs, cattle dogs, explosives dogs, guide dogs, guard dogs etc. ;) Dogs bred for a purpose and with a reason in mind. It's called selective breeding. And like all of the other classes of working dogs, there comes a time when they are retired. Any of your breeding arguments raised about racing dogs applies to all other classes of dogs bred for a purpose. Not all of them are suitable. Oh well selective breeding in all animal based industries and selective arguments on this board. At least its consistent.
Jeff White
Guest
Jason Caley: Only people have jobs. And some of those people use dogs as tools in their jobs. In the case of racing greyhounds, they are used as instruments, in much the same way that racing cars are used by their owners and drivers to make money. Greyhounds don't have jobs any more than cars have jobs. As for breeding, the fact that the breeder has a purpose in mind for the dogs he or she produces (or as you would put it, a "job") is not a justification. It is no consolation to the discarded pups who never race, or the dogs who race for one or two years before being discarded, that there was a "purpose" behind their being bred. They still find themselves abandoned by their breeders and owners as soon as they can no longer produce income; which for most of them is a death sentence. That doesn't sound like much of a "job" to me. Your remarks about Pathway Racing (or Masters Racing as it's called in NSW) make no sense unless you assume that those races actually replace existing races involving younger, faster dogs. As far as I am aware, this is not the case. The races for slower, older dogs are held in addition to the existing regular races.
John Tracey
Guest
Jeff, "It is a bit of a stretch concluding that greyhound welfare presents an irreconcilable conflict" because the NSW greyhound control board (in caretaker administration) is a bit wet between the ears. The Bittar report which incorporates the 68 mainly Victorian welfare guidelines and rules is a better guide at this stage. NSW awaits the findings of its special commission of inquiry and the NSW Government response to the findings.
Jason Caley
Guest
^^ Another opinion piece Jeff with no attributions to the authors nor their qualifications and experience. As stated previously, Pathway racing permits dogs to extend their careers. If turnaround is reduced, because supply to industry requirements are reduced, breeding numbers are lessened. Dogs race longer, new dogs dont need to come in to kennels as quickly because there are opportunities for slower dogs or dogs that are out of form. The average punter doesn't care if a dog runs 29 secs or 31 secs, so long as it wins. The average trainer doesn't care either so long as their dogs can get an opportunity to compete. On the topic of unwanted breedings, look to the endemic plaque of cats in Australia because of unfettered and unregulated breeding of pet cats. The RSPCA does a push after each and every Christmas because of this matter of cat breeding. At the very least greyhounds are bred for a reason and with a sense of purpose. They are dogs with jobs. You may as well question wasteage in customs beagles and sniffer dogs when they lose interest in their jobs.
Jeff White
Guest
How does greyhound welfare present an irreconcilable conflict with the racing industry? Read this: https://coalitionprotectgreyhounds.wordpress.com/2016/05/22/why-does-grnsws-proposed-local-rule-106a-miss-the-point/
Jason Caley
Guest
Jeff - not all pet owners take their dogs to run unfettered around with other dogs at unleashed dog parks. I visit my retired as pet racers every year. They are allowed to run where it is safe to do so. Responsible ownership is a greater problem in the pet industry and with mutts than it is in greyhound racing. That's a matter individual responsibility and unfortunately some adults just aren't responsible. As for statistics, that is absurd as pet parks are unregulated so there is no footage nor duty of disclosure in the form of veterinary reports of dog park inicidents, local council stats etc. Risks of injury in sports are everywhere. Sorry but this extends to agility and flyball for dogs. This extends to little athletics and child sports. The injury argument carries no weight whatsoever. All living creatures crash into things, fall over, trip etc. This is not a unique aspect for greyhounds on a track. It is an aspect associated with dog ownership. Yes wastage is reduced by virtue of turnover being lessened because the dogs' careers are extended. Simples. Less turnover per annum means less wastage per annum. Now I won't be responding to anythng else because these are opinions being posted. Each reader can determine their own position. Your position and mine on this subject are evident. I have no desire to alter your position but this is a counter to some of your claims. Bye now - gotta go walk my dogs :)
Jeff White
Guest
Please explain to me how "extending the racing career" of a dog reduces "wastage". The dog needs to be retired at some point, whether sooner or later, so the numbers of cast-off dogs from the industry remain the same. Besides, extending the dogs' careers is doing no favour to the dogs. It just exposes them to prolonged risk of injury and death, while reducing their already slim chances of being adopted (since the public favour adopting younger dogs). And if racing industry dogs are so much safer than pet dogs (which of course is an absurd proposition without any statistical or scientific foundation to support it), why would responsible racing dog owners give their dogs away to become pets and live the risky, unregulated lifestyle of a couch potato?
Jason Caley
Guest
The structural separation between policing (i.e. integrity) and promoter (i.e. racing administration) will ultimately become essential. Modern governance that eliminates any conflict of interest whether it is perceived or real in publicly accountable organisations is a requirement in all listed companies. Greyhound Racing will ultimately need to adhere to ISO 9000 (quality management) and ISO 38500 (governance) principles, not to mention risk management for organisations as described by ISO 31000. When we separate policing from promoting, we'll be in a better state of affairs. It may take a while, but this change is inevitable.Greyhound racing is ultimately a business, but it will adapt and survive. It is in the unique position of being a business that is steeped in tradition and lost step of evolution around it. Times have changed and the industry recognises this. It is such a pity that some with vested interests such as anti-racing proponents are now posting negative comments on social media about new initiatives such as 'Pathway racing' instigated by the authorities to permit slower or out of form greyhounds to compete in lower grades and for less prizemoney. Such initiatives extend the careers of the racing dogs. These same anti-racing proponents used to argue that slow dogs were a major component of wastage. Now that opportunities are afforded to the same dogs, they claim that racing is cruel full stop. It seems to me that the racing industry responded to a social concern, and even then, it is considered not good enough. This is unfortunate since it is certainly an evolutionary and positive step. It affords continued careers for these racers and let's face it dogs are competitive and love to run. Just go to your local dog park if you don't believe me. The benefit of racing greyhounds is that the dogs are conditioned appropriately, maintained and fed appropriately and vets are present. No-one can say the same for local dog parks where dogs run and play off-lead but accidents do happen. Racing is at least strictly regulated. Pet-parks are not.
John Tracey
Guest
Hi Fred, Nice continuum using the pig in the same way you use greyhounds to satisfy your purpose, it would have been less revealing and more forceful if you had used the lipstick analogy with Donald Trump as the subject. Even the most devoted donation gatherers must be impressed with the Victorian approach to animal welfare. www.racing.com/news/2016-05-24/bittar-clarifies-review-recommendations https://4a5b508b5f92124e39ff-ccd8d0b92a93a9c1ab1bc91ad6c9bfdb.ssl.cf4.rackcdn.com/2015/06/Greyhounds-recommendations-table.pdf
John Tracey
Guest
Jeff and Nathan, These prompts might be helpful to the debate. www.racing.com/news/2016-05-24/bittar-clarifies-review-recommendations https://4a5b508b5f92124e39ff-ccd8d0b92a93a9c1ab1bc91ad6c9bfdb.ssl.cf4.rackcdn.com/2015/06/Greyhounds-recommendations-table.pdf
Nathan Absalom
Roar Guru
It's great that you have chosen an example where you're demonstrably wrong. Education and communicating most certainly did substantially bridge the gap between greyhounds that were born and greyhounds that were named (the "missing" figure) from 40% to a touch over 20%. The article was here http://www.theroar.com.au/2015/03/24/greyhound-racings-welfare-success-shouldnt-be-ignored/. GRV have demonstrated (and, for that matter, the Greyhound Board of Great Britain where the author was from) that finance, education and communication matter enormously, with the number of greyhound adoptions soaring (http://www.theroar.com.au/2015/08/17/victorias-greyhound-adoption-program-goes-from-strength-to-strength/). But go on, continue to use numbers out of context where a proper analysis actually undermines your argument, and combine it with folksy American sayings that are as patronising as possible.
Nathan Absalom
Roar Guru
"It does not even mention live baiting at all, which was a large part of the impetus for having this review done". I'm sorry, but a simple "find" on the pdf document shows that "live baiting" was mentioned 16 times in the report. You simply couldn't have read the report and made that statement if you were willing to genuinely engage in debate. I will not respond further to you, as you are not arguing in good faith.
Jeff White
Guest
I have read the report. No consideration is given to the reason why animal welfare and integrity issues are constantly arising in the industry, or why there is widespread resistance among greyhound industry participants to even the most meagre reforms that GRV puts in place to deal with those issues. The report's methodology is highly technocratic, treating animal welfare as an abstraction, and integrity vs. commercial promotion as essentially a governance problem that can be solved by changing management structures. It gives no consideration to what the term "animal welfare" actually means, and doesn't even attempt to review the current state of welfare and integrity in the racing industry. It does not even mention live baiting at all, which was a large part of the impetus for having this review done. You did say that, according to the report, "the financing of integrity and welfare, the education of participants, and communication strategies are at least equally important, if not far more so" than the question of whether the commercial and integrity functions of racing should be separated. You went on to claim that education and communication is better than a "punitive approach". I assume that means you would prefer that animal abusers not be fined or have their licences supended, but rather should be required to attend sensitivity training seminars, where they will be "educated" about how to treat animals with respect. And yet at the same time you say you want them to be treated like adults! Nobody encouraged greyhounds to rip living rabbits, piglets, and possums apart because they were never told it was morally wrong to do so. Nobody gave a horse cobalt or gave a greyhound amphetamines because they didn't get the memo from the industry regulator. These are not problems of communication or education, except for people under the age of 5 years.
BARBARA HYATT
Guest
Yet another meaningless Unit that does nothing but try to justify horse and dog deaths. Jumps need to stop. Greyhound racing needs to stop.
Nathan Absalom
Roar Guru
No, the solution to live bating and doping is not solely education and communication, but it is certainly part of it, and I didn't say that anyway. "There is too much in the review for one article, so I'll focus on education and communication for now" was the dead giveaway on that one. Finance and investigation are also important, more so in my view, but they were not the focus of the article, partly because I've written extensively about this before but if the message isn't getting through, then I guess I'll have to write about it again. In other sports, issues such as domestic violence are treated as an integrity issue and education is a major part of addressing that issue. Does that not have a victim? Is education not worthwhile here, or should we just assume these sports are nurturing morally dysfunctional individuals? It's the 21st century, we know the value of education and there's no excuse for neglecting it in any area, in my view. The Bittar report rejects that there is an inherent conflict between animal welfare and racing that cannot be addressed, and for good reason. You do realize that you didn't actually make a criticism of the Bittar report, you simply dismissed it because that was easier? As I said, I urge people to read the report and take the time to understand what is being said. It's a weighty document that deserves consideration.
Jeff White
Guest
Really? The solution to live baiting and doping with cobalt and EPO in the dog racing industry is "education and communication"? Treating people like adults means you don't assume they are innocent children who don't understand the difference between right and wrong, between cheating and playing fair, between respecting animals and abusing them for profit. Unlike the case in other "sports", welfare and integrity issues in racing are largely concerned with actual victims of criminal activity. These are not problems of lack of communication and lack of education. They are symptoms of an industry that attracts and nurtures morally dysfunctional individuals who are motivated by greed. The best criticism that can be raised against the Bittar report is this: It fails to recognize that the conflict of interest between animal welfare and the commercial use of dogs as disposable and replaceable commodity units is a conflict inherent in the very nature of the enterprise, and that you cannot have commercial dog racing without causing harm to tens of thousands of dogs. Integrity and welfare functions, whether separated or not from the commercial functions of the industry, can never be more than a public relations exercise designed to justify the continued existence of the industry.
John Tracey
Guest
The reluctance of the thoroughbreds to associate with the smaller codes is a cultural divide which has existed since racing started and probably was the reason the the Malcolm Scott review in NSW and also the 2000 NSW ICAC inquiry which recommended the melding of the codes in the manner recommended in the Victorian report, was not done. The reason that the integrity spend on the thoroughbreds is greater has something to do with economies of scale. The final item on the cut and paste below shows the thoroughbreds ability to meld with other horse interests allowing the expansion in the public interest which puts them at an advantage over the greyhounds which are more isolated in the canine empire. The Victorian report has a lot of food for thought and should be road tested with participants and dispute resolution input. The release of the special commission is due at the end of this Month as well. Cut and Paste---- Victorian Racing (Thoroughbred's) Board reaction to the Victorian Inquiry (selected items) (b) Thoroughbreds are very reluctant to be associated in any way with greyhound racing, due to (i) the impact issues such as live baiting may have on the RV brand and reputation of thoroughbred racing, and (ii) concerns about “cross‐code contamination” if problems arise in other codes; (c) The RV investment has been significant, and this contrasts with the other two codes; RV is keen to build its association with other equine sports. This type of link exists in a number of overseas jurisdictions and is a positive engagement program for RV to pursue, but does not preclude RV from joining forces with HRV and GRV in the delivery of integrity services. The proposal for a VRIU does not preclude RV from forging stronger links to other equine disciplines and sports, or pursuing more actively policies and programs associated with equine welfare.