HOW THE TRUE BELIEVERS IN THE THREE CODES OF RACING AMALGAMATION CHANGE THEIR VIEWS IN A MATTER OF 7 MONTHS
Firstly, I'd like to express my anger regarding the article written by Bart Sinclair, published in the Courier Mail, dated 4th February 2011. I quote, “Irate senior representatives of the harness and greyhound codes have called a public rally to condemn the amalgamation of the control of the three racing codes.” Now, let's get this straight from the outset. NO senior representatives, from the greyhound code, have called for this meeting. Further, this is no `public rally', it's a meeting for discussion only. Sinclair's article uses the Greyhound Industry's name to promote his twisted vendetta against Mr. Bentley. It implies Harness and Greyhounds stand as one......NOTHING could be further from the truth!!
On 23rd May 2010 I attended a tricode meeting at Albion Park, called by Bill Dixon, to discuss proposed legislation for the amalgamation of the three racing codes. At this meeting I put forward a suggestion to withdraw the product of all three codes, as to display a united front, and pressurise the relevant authorities into provide more information before legislation was passed. My suggestion was met with strong opposition, based on, what I could only refer to as the `ME ME factor'.
Mr Price, harness owner, argued fields would be made up by those not willing to withdraw the product, thus gifting prize money to rival trainers. He is correct, however, missed the point each individual is only in control of their own choices. In effect, electing to nominate for races was merely a nomination of support for the proposed amalgamation. I am certain RQL are thankful to Mr Price for his support.
Mr Dixon argued “we can't afford not to race”......what, not for even one lousy race meeting? I asked Mr Dixon what he thought the harness industry would be able to afford after the amalgamation of its assets. I warned this was most likely the last opportunity to display a united front, of all codes, especially one involving harness and greyhounds. I mentioned if the harness industry weren't prepared to take a stance, there and then, don't bother turning to the greyhound industry down the track for support.
Now here we sit today, seven months after amalgamation, and BOTRA has cordially invited all greyhound participants to join them, quite laughable really.
Post amalgamation the greyhound industry has witnessed some enormous steps forward.
Gone is the Finish-on-lure, which 90% of participants were against.
Gone is Ms. Watson, the only person to sit on every Board which closed a greyhound track.
Redundant is Mr Beavis, for years he's been redundant in reflecting greyhound industry concerns anyway.
Out with the trash can goes Cronulla Park, what a dump.
Gone is the Brisbane Clubs power of influence, praise the Lord.
In, is transparency and industry consultation, even the chair of RQL is prepared to hold court with individual participants.
In, is a $1.5m increase to prize money, it only took a dozen years to achieve.
Proposed are two new racing complexes, including three greyhound tracks, and a straight facility for training.
And saving the best to last.......out with that abomination called Albion Park, three cheers, hip hip...
Twelve months ago the greyhound industry could of only dreamed about one of the above, now we have nine reasons to celebrate.
Given a little more time, there is no reason to doubt the possible announcement of a third racing complex, plus the introduction of a breeding scheme. Put another way, neither are a pipe dream any longer.
In answer to BOTRA's points of interest.
De-amalgamation?
No thank you, greyhound racing hasn't had it this good for donkey's years.
Appointment of three separate boards?
No thank you, it never worked in the past and it won't work in the future.
Each industry to appoint its own board?
Are you serious? Funny, the same old faces mooting this idea either contributed, or sat idly by, as the codes imploded. May I ask, who are the proposed candidates? Judging by some of the reasoning I've heard lately, `ME ME' would be the Chair for certain?
Any genuine greyhound participants, who have the best interest of greyhounds at heart, and not suffering the `ME ME virus', or pertaining to a group with their own hidden agenda, will reject any calls for de-amalgamation.
I'll end by asking a couple of questions of my own.
Why the importance to keep Albion Park?
It's run down, out dated, of poor quality, hard to access (and will be even worse to access when upgrades to Kingsford Smith Drive take place), goes under flood, costs a fortune to run, needs a fortune spent to upgrade the complex, favours one code and denies the other any fair use.....should I go on? Hell, a cynic would argue someone must be in it for `a make', any ideas?
Just one genuine reason to keep the run down hole will do......and please don't play the nostalgia card!!!!
The Harness Industry has no problem allowing Court action to save Albion? It has no problem forcing RQL to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars, of Industry money (greyhound money), on legal bills? Anyone ever bothered to ask Greyhound participants what they think of Albion Park?
Why is it okay for greyhounds to race inside of a trot track, yet not okay for the trots to race in side of a thoroughbred track? Surely what's good for the goose is good for the gander?
If ever the trots share a multi use facility with the thoroughbreds, and find themselves allowed to trial only once a week, say a Friday night, could one of the harness representatives let us know how it feels to be getting home in the wee hours of a Saturday morning? On second thoughts, don't bothering answering that, greyhound participants have been doing it for years, with no concern shown by harness participants. Funny how things change when the boots on the other foot?
Nick Grimley.
Mr Nick Grimley gave the QGBOTA permission to reprint his letter on the web site
|
