Challenging the abolitionists

The Taoiseach recently referenced the importance of balance in society and not being absolutist in pursuing individual objectives to the exclusion of others.  The Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation represent greyhound owners and breeders who are the target of an animal rights campaign of social exclusion.

These activists wish to deny greyhound racing, horse racing, farmers, hunters, fishermen, zoos, aquariums, working animals, meat eaters and pet owners the same rights, opportunities, status and resources that are normally available to all members of society.

Greyhound racing in recent times has been systematically marginalised and excluded by certain media, Tourism Ireland, Failte Ireland and national TV broadcasting stations. Our culture and heritage is being threatened by policies that meet the needs of animal rights activists but not our needs.

Some politicians are bowing to the relentless demands of animal rights campaigners and allowing businesses, individuals and agencies to be harassed and forced to make social exclusion policies which are detrimental and damaging to rural pursuits, farming, pet ownership, tourism and any business involving animals. The animal rights perception of our heritage is not reality.
All judgement of what is right and what is wrong is relative to one who is doing the judging. By all means scrutinise animal welfare, scrutinise laws, traceability and regulations but above all scrutinise the attempts to bring about social exclusion.

Animal Rights Activists are experts in using propaganda, allegations and sensationalism but look closely at their accusations, their mistruths, their shame campaigns, their donation buttons, their billboards, their websites, their posters, their megaphones, their chants, their letters to newspapers and their entire modus operandi and reflect….
Please don’t allow the social exclusion of our heritage by animal rights campaigners.
Damian Matthews
Chairman IGOBF

New thinking urgently required

My comments below are really no more than thinking out loud, and probably a little simplistic. However, the message is serious and as someone who loves dogs and our sport I hope they will provoke some comment.

Having returned to ownership in the past 2 years, after a 20 year gap, I was looking forward to seeing what, if any, progress had been made on the key issues which bedevil our sport. Quite rightly, welfare headed the list. From what I have been able to gather, it’s clear that many good hearted, selfless people have worked very hard to achieve the great leap forward necessary to reflect the concern felt among the wider population about animal welfare. There’s always more to do but to everyone connected with caring for and rehoming our dogs you have secured real progress and I want to say a heartfelt thank you. Well done !
I am sure we can debate ad nauseum all the other things which irritate us but the one subject which eclipses all others is prize money. What I find disturbing is the complete lack of ambition across the industry to achieve a long overdue sea change. For a moment, let’s forget the negativity and look at what might be possible. We need to make everyone in sport sit up and take notice, and to show that we mean business. The spiral of decline must stop.
Owners already pay purchase prices, kennel fees, vets bills, physio, travel costs etc, and can reckon, with few exceptions, that they will pay very dearly for their 28 seconds of enjoyment once a week.
I now want owners to take one step further. An additional £20 per month on everyone’s kennel bill will secure for all time the major competitions in the sport, i.e. the Derby and  the Oaks, the traditional competitions we love but often find without sponsors, and, in common I think with Ireland, funding for  new graded competitions at individual tracks. The number of dogs in training multiplied by £240 per annum would raise upwards of £2 million.
The first innovation would be the £1 million Derby. By way of example, limit the entry to 192 dogs paying an entry fee of £250, raising £48,000.. In every round bar the final no prize money would be payable to the qualifiers for the next round.
Thus :
1st Round – 96 dogs eliminated, prize money for each dog £100
2nd Round – 48 dogs eliminated, prize money for each dog, £200
3rd Round – 24 dogs eliminated, prize money for each dog, £400
Quarter Finals – 12 dogs eliminated, prize money for each dog, £800
Semi Finals – 6 dogs eliminated, prize money for each dog, £1600
Total prize money, £48,000 paid for by entry fees
FINAL PRIZE MONEY
             1st –  £500,000
,            2nd – £100,000
              3rd –  £50,000
              4th –  £50,000
              5th –  £25,000
              6th –  £25,000
Winning Trainer –   £150,000
Winning Breeder – £100,000
In addition to the Derby, the sport needs to address the dearth of competitions for bitches only. Based on the same principles as above there ought to be two bitches only competitions each year, in case top bitches are in season for one of them. I don’t know the numbers, but, for example, each competition could be limited to 48 bitches with the prize money for the final being in the order of £100,000. Although this compares unfavourably with the Derby, bitches can of course enter all three. This would also be an opportunity to celebrate some of the brilliant women who have graced our sport by naming the events after them.
There are many of course but three who immediately spring to mind, Linda Mullins, Liz Redpath and Norah McEllistrim richly deserve to be honoured by our sport.
 With entry fees taking care of much of the subordinate prize money, the capital spend on the two major competitions would be £1.2million. The remainder raised each year would be allocated to other competitions, both Open and Graded, and any further surplus should go to welfare projects.
For precious little return, owners keep greyhound racing going. It is right they should be central to, and have influence on, the levels and allocation of prize money raised from their own resources. It would also rebalance the relationship between owners and those who govern the sport.
As regards the administration of the prize money fund, that will need to be worked through but an owners committee must have the final say. Such a committee would need to forge a new relationship with Promoters and perhaps be affiliated to, but independent of, the GBGB. Financial propriety would need to be observed, proper audits conducted and a constitution drawn up.
Such a revolutionary change would inevitably produce practical, legal and constitutional questions. That’s why we need good leaders who with goodwill can bring about the changes necessary. The best and most effective leaders have three things in common, integrity, confidence and humility. We must find those people to take the sport forward.
Finally, Bernard Levin once described one industry as, ” Here comes poor old Fido with his begging bowl”. He was talking about the Post Office, unable to fund itself and always begging for money.. He could have been talking about us. We need to change!.
Alan Brien 

The following letter was mentioned in a recent Zoom call with Gary Noble. Here are his ideas in more detail. Having been unsure at first glance, the concept has definitely grown on me.

Gary has obviously been required to go into detail, but the idea is really quite simple. It is a hybrid of the current open racing and graded systems. Basically the racing manager would choose the ideal trap for each dog – as he would (in theory at least!) in graded racing. But given there would inevitably be an excess number of particular traps, eg T3, then the random computer draw would kick in.

At a stroke it would nullify tactical seeding – Ed

 

Suggestions for Reform of Seeding and Open Race Trap Draws

The Idea is that the RM or Racing Office having seen a dogs Trials/ Races or acting on the Trial/Race comments designate an “Ideal Trap” to that dog for when it takes part in a race.

So instead of having Rails, Middle and Wide alongside a dogs name for seeding, we have a “Ideal Trap” number. For the purposes of allocating this “Ideal Trap”

It is suggested for seeding purposes that the dogs racing line initially from traps takes precedent. If a dog starts out from its preferred trap it is more likely to take the bend at its natural line.

For instance TENPIN (1) instead of TENPIN (rls). It follows that if the RM believes that trap 2 is its “Ideal Trap” it would show as TENPIN (2) and so on.

If a dog is unraced or going into an Open Race at a different track after running graded races or trials then the track RM at the track it has been racing or trialling at will designate the “Ideal Trap”.

This “Ideal Trap” will apply initially for 3 races unless the RM deems it obviously wrong at their discretion. After 3 races a review can be requested by the dogs trainer. The RM must review the “Ideal Trap”. Following the review the dog’s “Ideal Trap” which is again decided by the RM remains for a further 3 races unless the RM deems it obviously wrong. After 6 races the dogs “Ideal Trap” remains in place and a review can only be requested by the trainer under exceptional circumstances. After 6 races and throughout the dogs career the RM has the power to change the “Ideal Trap” at their discretion.

It would tend to be the case that dogs would generally fall into 3 “Ideal Trap” categories: Trap 1 , Trap 3 and Trap 6.

This could lead to a number of dogs with the same “Ideal Trap” allocations but would still mean a more accurate draw allocation would occur using the the draw system I will illustrate.

Example of a 36 dog competition with

3 heats of 6 runners

Entries are as follows with “Ideal Trap” alongside each name. The dogs will be allocated the draw by a computer programme that randomly draws the runners but allows for equal distribution among the “Ideal Trap” seedings between the Heats.

BEE MOX (1)

MUSICAL BOY (1)

ALBERTO (1)

CHAPLIN (1)

CRACKED ACTOR (1)

SON OF DEVIL (1)

SKID ROW (1)

LOVE LUCY (1)

JEWEL THIEF (2)

FIRST GIRL (3)

STARWISH (3)

MARTIAN BOY (3)

ANNIE GIRL (3)

LOTTERY WIN (5)

WHO GOES THERE (6)

DAISY CHAIN (6)

KILIMANJARO (6)

HILLTOP BOY (6)

The computer program will randomly make the draw which might result in the following 3 heats. It will also allow for guarding as well.

HEAT 1

  1. ALBERTO (1)
  2. LOVE LUCY (1) (GUARD)
  3. JEWEL THIEF (2)
  4. ANNIE GIRL (3)
  5. MARTIAN BOY (3)
  6. WHO GOES THERE (6)

HEAT 2

1.BEE MOX (1) (GUARD)

  1. MUSICAL BOY (1)
  2. SON OF DEVIL (1)
  3. STARWISH (3)
  4. LOTTERY WIN (5)
  5. DAISY CHAIN (6)

 

HEAT 3

1.CHAPLIN (1)

  1. CRACKED ACTOR (1) (GUARD)
  2. SKID ROW (1)
  3. FIRST GIRL (3)
  4. KILIMANJARO (6)
  5. HILLTOP BOY (6)

The thing is as we know a lot of “tactical seeding” goes on which is instigated by the dog’s trainer on entering an open race, particularly in multi heat competitions. The above suggestions will go some way to making this much more difficult to manipulate and should lead to a more generally acceptable situation for all parties.

It is also suggested that the computer generated draw be available to everybody to see on the GBGB website and other related places as soon as it takes place.

“Live” computer generated draws can still be done in major competitions with the program showing the dogs names appearing in the Heats individually as would be the case if it was being drawn as it is currently.

Gary Noble