Tag Archives: University of Melbourne

Greyhound racing says it’s transparent, so we used AI to check – dog by dog

Posted on June 15, 2026 | Leave a comment

When an industry publishes its own welfare data, how can anyone check it? We built AI agents to go through the public records on fatalities in greyhound racing and found a rising death rate

By Dr Mia Cobb and Dr Simon Coghlan, University of Melbourne

When we saw data published by a greyhound racing regulator in the UK, something about the dogs didn’t add up.

According to their report, the rate of dog deaths in races from 2022 to 2024 was stable. However, that number had actually risen from 99 to 123, while the number of races had fallen over the same period.

The maths was not mathing.

The fatality rate (which is calculated as the number of dogs that died on the track while racing, divided by the total number of individual dog runs, multiplied by 100 to express it as a percentage) was presented as 0.03 per cent across three consecutive years.

But when we ran the sums and reported them to an extra decimal place, we saw the fatality rate had risen by 30 per cent.

By reporting this information to only two decimal places, the increase in dogs dying in races was masked.

So, when an industry that relies on animals publishes welfare data, how can the public – or the policymakers making decisions about that industry’s future – know if the headline figures portray the real situation?

In the UK, there is a regulated industry with public-facing records, a governing body that publishes welfare data and a long-running debate about whether that data tells the full story.

For researchers interested in animal welfare, the UK greyhound industry also presents a genuine test case for a new method.

In fact, the question we wanted to answer was not specific to greyhound racing, it was broader.

When welfare-relevant information exists across multiple public sources but has never been systematically assembled, can AI agents do that work reliably, ethically, transparently and at scale? If so, what can we learn that the industry’s reporting doesn’t tell us?

Building our greyhound data set

The Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB) is the governing body that licenses and regulates commercial greyhound racing in the UK.

_{Falls affect one in six racing greyhounds. Picture: Getty Images}

It holds detailed records on every dog registered there, including country of origin, racing history, injuries, destination when racing ends and reason for leaving racing.

While some of this information is publicly visible, a good deal of it is not.

We made six requests for access to GBGB data, but none gave us access to the data we needed. We were told that most of what we wanted was already on their website. It wasn’t – at least not in any form that allowed independent analysis.

So, we built the dataset ourselves.

Using AI agents – software that performs repetitive tasks under continuous human supervision – we pulled together information from several public websites to uncover animal welfare insights for 31,028 greyhounds that raced in licensed UK competitions.

That’s around 1.27 million race starts across 22 licensed tracks between January 2022 and March 2026.

We gathered data from five public registries, and by cross-referencing these sources, we were able to get a relatively complete view of the whole population, not just a sample.

Thanks to the AI agents, what would have taken months of manual research was completed in days.

What the data tells us about greyhound racing

As we went through the data, we began to see things that the industry’s transparency has not previously revealed.

The typical greyhound’s racing career is 30 starts over 11.9 months. Most dogs race for less than a year.

More than 85 per cent of greyhounds racing in the UK were bred in Ireland.

_{The typical greyhound’s racing career is 30 starts over 11.9 months. Picture: Getty Images}

This matters because dog breeding and rearing in Ireland falls outside the jurisdiction of the British system which is later responsible for their welfare.

One in four racing dogs – around 24 per cent – experienced at least one adverse event (including injuries or fatalities) during our observation period, with falls affecting one in six dogs.

These ‘adverse events’ are recorded by track officials at the race but have not been made available to the public at a track level, even when the Scottish and Welsh parliamentary committees asked for it.

The GBGB publishes one annual list of aggregated injury figures that covers all licensed tracks.

This has meant that the public, researchers, regulators and even greyhound trainers have not been able to independently check whether conditions at one track carry greater risk.

Our data finds that some tracks are five times more likely to result in adverse events for dogs than other venues.

Where our trail goes cold

Of the 31,028 dogs in our dataset, 73 per cent had left GBGB-regulated racing by the end of March 2026.

The GBGB publishes an aggregate of annual figures on retirement destinations. It reported that 94 per cent of dogs leaving the industry in 2024 were rehomed or ‘retained by trainers’.

But, importantly, the wellbeing of these dogs cannot be independently verified because it falls outside the registered racing regulations.

_{Over the last year, parliaments in New Zealand, Wales and Scotland have all decided to ban greyhound racing. Picture: Getty Images}

Why this matters beyond greyhounds

An industry’s social license to operate depends on public trust. In an era of growing concern for animal welfare, that trust will increasingly require verifiable evidence.

The GBGB is not unusual in its approach to information disclosure.

Across animal-reliant industries, data tends to flow inward to self-governing bodies, and is only released outward in tightly controlled formats.

Independent researchers like us face fragmented public registries, opaque systems and, when we ask directly, deflection or refusal.

What our study shows is that technology can sometimes help overcome this information imbalance. AI agents, applied carefully and with human oversight, can compile population-level welfare datasets from publicly accessible sources, at a scale and speed that makes independent scrutiny genuinely and ethically feasible.

It does not give us the data the GBGB holds privately. Nothing can do that, short of the governing body releasing it.

Over the last year, parliaments in New Zealand, Wales and Scotland have all decided to ban greyhound racing.

Here in Australia, Tasmania may follow. Western Australia is mid-way through a formal inquiry. South Australia’s greyhound racing industry faces a government-imposed reform deadline in July 2026.

In each of these places, the same question is being asked: how do we know the welfare assurance offered by the industry is real?

For the first time, we can describe the dogs racing in the UK in detail. It’s making these animals visible.

_{How do we know the welfare assurance offered by the industry is real? Picture: Waggles Photography}

We know things we didn’t know before.

More than half of the greyhounds are black. There are as many females as males. Most of them are bred in Ireland. They start racing at around 21 months. And within a year of their first race, most have disappeared from public view.

Whether this visibility is used to hold the industry to account is a separate question.

Source: This article was first published on Pursuit. Read the original article.

The article has been republished on this blog thanks to a Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives 4.0 International license

What the global decline of greyhound racing means for all dogs

Posted on August 31, 2025 | Leave a comment

I’ve just read this piece by Dr Mia Cobb of the University of Melbourne and had to share it. Thankfully, it was published under a Creative Commons license to enable re-publication with citation.

For decades, greyhound racing has appeared resilient to welfare concerns. Despite ongoing media exposés about injury rates, training methods, doping and questions about how racing dogs live when they’re not on the track or where they go when no longer competitive, the industry continued operating in Australia.

But something has changed globally over the last year, and it has big implications for dogs worldwide.

_{This rapid cascade of bans signals something much bigger. Picture: Getty Images}

But what does this mean for the other dogs in our lives? The detection dogs in our airports, the dogs assisting people with disabilities, those supporting students in our schools or even the dog asleep on your couch?

The ripple effect beyond the racetrack

My research shows that over 95 per cent of people say dog welfare is very important to them. Yet most of us rarely think about the lives of dogs in our communities beyond our beloved four-legged companions at home.

We may donate to assistance dog charities, watch border detection programs on TV and admire search-and-rescue teams helping in disaster zones without considering what daily life looks like for these canine workers.

As people become increasingly conscious about animal treatment, from farm animals to those in entertainment, this awareness is expanding to include all the ways we ‘use’ dogs.

_{Our expanding awareness of animal treatment now includes all the ways we ‘use’ dogs. Picture: Getty Images}

The recent greyhound racing collapse demonstrates how quickly public support can evaporate when welfare concerns aren’t adequately addressed.

Consider the contrast between those who embrace scrutiny versus those that resist it.

Some organisations or operators working with dogs proactively demonstrate their welfare standards, welcome independent oversight and engage openly with concerns. Others operate behind closed doors or respond defensively when questions arise about how their animals are bred, reared, housed, trained and rehomed.

Those thriving under increased public attention share common approaches: they treat welfare as a core priority rather than a compliance exercise, even when it means making major changes to the way in which they operate (for example, their training methods or the equipment used).

They also understand that genuine transparency builds public trust in ways that defensive responses never can.

But there’s an important distinction between real change and ‘welfare washing’ surface-level improvements designed more for public relations than to genuinely assure animal wellbeing.

The public is becoming increasingly sophisticated at spotting the difference.

The speed of recent racing bans – three jurisdictions in around 18 months – shows how rapidly momentum can build once public opinion shifts.

What earning trust looks like

The organisations embracing increased welfare scrutiny share common characteristics.

They proactively demonstrate care standards rather than waiting for pressure. They welcome independent monitoring and engage genuinely with concerns rather than dismissing them.

_{There’s a reframing from dogs as tools we use to co-workers we partner with. Picture: Getty Images}

Most importantly, they recognise that working with dogs comes with profound responsibilities.

This reframing, from dogs as tools we use to co-workers we partner with, means ensuring dogs have agency in their daily lives – the ability to make choices about when to rest, opportunities to be dogs rather than just workers and environments that offer them positive social and physical experiences.

It means transparency about career length, retirement plans, injury rates and living conditions. It means treating welfare as a core business priority, not a public relations exercise.

The dogs supporting our lives

International Dog Day provides an annual opportunity to shine a spotlight on all the dogs we rely on in our lives, not just our pets at home.

t’s a chance to ask: are we caring for these animals as well as we can?

The greyhound racing industry’s decline shows what happens when the answer is unclear or unconvincing.

Public trust, once lost, is extraordinarily difficult to rebuild, especially when alternatives exist that don’t rely on the use of real animals.

Everyone relying on dogs should be asking themselves: if public attention suddenly focused on our operation tomorrow, would we welcome that scrutiny? Can we demonstrate genuine care for our animals’ wellbeing, not just their productivity?

The dogs supporting our lives – whether working at airports, guiding people safely across roads or living as companions in our homes – deserve nothing less than our full consideration of their wellbeing.

_{Are we caring for these animals as well as we can? Picture: Getty Images}

And as the racing industry is discovering, the public increasingly expects to see proof of that care, not just promises.

Those who can show genuinely wagging tails and happy dogs will thrive.

They’ll be part of building a sustainable future where our partnerships with dogs are genuinely rewarding for both species. Those who can’t may find themselves wondering how something that seemed so permanent could disappear so quickly.

The choice is theirs to make – but the window for making it may be narrower than they think.

Dr Cobb delivered invited, plenary and keynote international addresses on canine welfare at the Joint Symposium for Working K9s, International Working Dog Conference, International Guide Dog Federation Conference and the Canine Science Forum in 2025.

Source: This article was first published on Pursuit. Read the original article.

Robot dogs likened to Facebook

Posted on May 14, 2015 | Leave a comment

The Sony Aibo

Sharing your live with a beloved dog is going to become unsustainable, says an Australian researcher, leading to a shift to companion robotic dogs.

Ugh.

Dr. Jean-Loup Rault, an animal welfare researcher at the University of Melbourne, Australia says that this prediction is similar to describing the power of Facebook to someone 20 years ago. “If you’d described Facebook to someone 20 years ago, they’d think you were crazy. But we are already seeing people form strong emotional bonds with robot dogs in Japan.”

Dr Rault says that when a robot dog dies in Japan because it is not repairable, many owners hold a funeral for it.

Dr Rault says the consequences of a shift towards robotic pets will be good for people who suffer from allergies, but may also cause a shift in ethics – with people more detached from the suffering of mortal beings.

I don’t want to live in a world that goes backwards in terms of animal welfare. And I can’t cuddle up in bed at night with a robot, nor see the blissful look on its face when I massage it.

I hope Dr Rault is wrong.

Kathleen Crisley, specialist in dog massage, rehabilitation and nutrition/food therapy, Canine Catering Ltd, Christchurch, New Zealand

You can read Dr Rault’s article in the journal Frontiers of Veterinary Science by clicking here.

Source: Market Business News