Following a lengthy campaign by the greyhound media and grass roots, ARC and Entain have reversed their decision to require trial form for all their open race entries.

Press Release

Arena Racing Company (“ARC”) today confirm the removal of the requirement for greyhounds to complete a satisfactory trial prior to acceptance in open races at the group’s five tracks, Central Park, Newcastle, Nottingham, Perry Barr and Sunderland. 

Rachel Corden, Greyhound Operations Director for ARC, “The requirement has been the subject of recent debate with some open race trainers, which we have been following.

“Taking various views into consideration and also pending the GBGB Welfare & Veterinary Committee’s full review of a requirement to trial for open racers, we will be removing the requirement. The WVS Committee currently ‘recommend’ that open race greyhounds trial and therefore our requirement will change to a recommendation.”

“Having a positive impact on greyhound welfare is something that all stakeholders should be able to collectively agree on and we hope that trainers will follow the recommendation. In our experience, over the last year, most trainers do want their charge to have had a recent look at a track prior to entering it in an open race or competition, which we will continue to welcome. All tracks run differently and there can be only be a benefit in a greyhound having had an opportunity to experience a track prior to running it in a race situation.

“Where a trainer is seeking a seeding change we reserve the right to ask for a preparatory trial to back up any intended change of seeding, so trainers are advised to plan ahead.

“We will keep the change under review”. 

 

Press Release

The four Entain tracks have today announced the removal of the requirement for greyhounds to complete a satisfactory trial prior to being accepted into an open race at their tracks.

Ian Smyth, Director of Stadia at Entain said:

“We introduced the requirement for a greyhound to have trialled or raced within a reasonable timeframe at our tracks in January this year following a number of concerns raised by high profile trainers and owners and a small number of racing incidents towards the end of 2021. The requirement to trial was introduced solely with the best interests of greyhound welfare at it’s heart. The large number of open race greyhounds who continue to trial elsewhere before entry into competition would suggest that the majority of trainers believe this is the right approach.

“We planned to complete a review of it’s impact towards the end of summer. This review included assessment of track injury data from both 2021 and the first seven months of 2022. In addition I have spoken to a number of trainers, based both at my own tracks and elsewhere, to seek their views on the need to trial and have also considered the public comments made by owners and other trainers.

“It is clear from that feedback that the majority of trainers and owners would like the choice of whether to trial before open racing at a track the greyhound is unfamiliar with. The review of the data shows that any variation is minimal in the number of races where incidents take place. It also shows that there is no discernible difference between graded and open racing despite graded racers requiring a number of trials before being able to race. This is balanced by the accepted fact that open racers are naturally able to show more track craft which would allow a for a potential reduction in those injury rates.

“When assessing these facts and considering the GBGB Welfare committee position which recommends but does not enforce a trial before acceptance into an open race we have taken the decision to remove the requirement for a greyhound to have either raced or completed a satisfactory trial to enter into an open race at our tracks. We do fully endorse the GBGB recommendation that a trial should be completed prior to entry but this will ultimately be the decision of the owner and trainer.

“We do retain a responsibility for the welfare of all greyhounds who race at our stadia and where a request for a seeding change is received for any greyhound without recent form at the track in question or where there are no form lines to support the request we reserve the right to ask for a trial to take place before confirming that revised seeding. Trainers are asked to consider this when planning entries and should contact the individual racing office in good time where they wish to request a change of seeding.”

 

From the Editor:

Like the majority of greyhound fans, I am delighted at the re-think by these two major track promoters. However, I have consistently stated, since the ‘must trial’ rule was first introduced, that it was unnecessary.

No doubt, social media will be revelling in the change of policy. They will view it as a ‘climb down’ to turn their own personal animosity towards the companies or individuals as some kind of victory.

I don’t see it that way. In my view, ‘must trial’ was simply a sledgehammer to crack a nut and common sense has prevailed.

But that nutty (or knotty) problem hasn’t gone away!

Let’s not forget, this rule was not brought in to seek any commercial advantage. Quite the opposite in fact. In my view, it was considered necessary due to a lowering of standards by certain racing offices and trainers.

Yes trainers!

It seems that calling out trainers, even bad trainers, is not permitted. Well I’m doing it.

We all know that accidents can happen when six greyhounds race into a bend at 40 mph. But the chances can be minimised. It is clear that too many trainers decided to ‘take a chance’ by running dogs at tracks for which they were not suitable – at least not without a trial – and hoping for the best.

Even the best trainers can get it wrong. But whether it is Charlie Lister, Lesley Reynolds or Mark Wallis, they all know/knew that greyhounds come in all types. Some can adapt to tracks, others can’t. 95% of greyhounds benefit from a trial. A percentage of those absolutely need one – particularly around certain tracks.

There is no hard and fast rule. There is nothing about the dog’s size or speed that gives a clue.

But rather than send the vulnerable dogs for trials, at the cost of a tank of diesel, they risk the careers of their own dogs, but also any other random hound that they happen to be racing against.

Worse still – some of this is done as a calculated gamble by tactical seeding.

Racing offices have a part to play too.

If there is any doubt, particularly with young inexperienced dogs, demand a trial.

Change of seeding – demand a trial.

Want to be accepted for the competition? A trial would help your case.

Any course of action will vary, dog to dog, trainer to trainer.

And yes, there will be some confrontation.

‘Why are you making my dog trial? You wouldn’t make Patrick Janssens trial his dog’ Its discrimination.

‘No – but I wouldn’t expect Patrick to enter a dog that needed a trial.’

We don’t need ‘written rules’. We need professionals behaving like professionals.