To memory, I thought the original author of this most famous quote was an American politician, but now everyone wants to claim it, including one of my fictional heroes:
It is certainly true to dog racing, though a more accurate line might be ‘every asshole has an opinion.”
Now I’m not knocking opinions, the world couldn’t operate without them. No invention, discovery or breakthrough was ever made without someone thinking ‘this could work!’
The problem comes when we take opinions as being fact, forgetting that they are subjective views. And often they will prove to be wrong.
For some time now, I’ve had concerns about some of the (well-meaning) decisions being made by the Greyhound Board in relation to welfare.
I have no doubt that all decisions have been made with the best of intentions, but how often are they based on beliefs and not facts?
In my opinion, GBGB welfare policy is guided by three factors:
- The least important is ‘how will this look to the antis?’ In other words, how can they spin, possibly an entirely innocuous action or policy, to make us look bad?
- What can we do to keep Government on-side, even if those initiatives are comparatively ineffective?
- Will this initiative actually improve welfare?
The decision to introduce a ‘four day rule’ was brought in with the best of intentions. I think it is now generally accepted that it was driven by the owners representative at the time, Paul Carpenter.
The idea was to prevent racing offices pressuring trainers to run a dog against their better judgement. Or – just as valid – to prevent callous or disinterested trainers – now quite often also the owner – from cynically prioritising prize money and bonus payments over a greyhound’s best interests.
Personally, I am uncomfortable about the Four Day Rule for three main reasons:
1) We have managed almost 100 years of racing without a need for it.
2) I think trainers should be allowed to train.
Neither of which hardly stacks up as a watertight argument. Certainly no one can question the noble intent behind the plan from a true greyhound fan. And let’s face it, Paul may well be proved right. Maybe there was no other option; this nut needs a sledgehammer.
But, my biggest concern is that the rule was introduced – and justified – when supported by apparently minimal scientific evidence.
I gather it was something to do with the recovery rate of muscle tissue post trauma. But no further detailed explanation was forthcoming.
Why? Because I doubt that the evidence would have held up to scrutiny yet we have thousands of examples that would appear to contradict ‘the science’.
There was no mention of levels of fitness, diet, pre and post race preparation and conditioning, and incredibly. . . . race distance!!!
And how many racing greyhounds were involved in this study exactly?
In short – in my opinion, it was not an objective decision. It was a ‘finger in the air’ guess – made with the best of intentions.
Previously, the Entain and ARC tracks introduced a ‘must trial’ policy for their tracks and now it seems there is some – but by no means universal – pressure to make it a rule of racing!
It was brought about following an incident whereby a dog without experience at Nottingham (allegedly) was incorrectly seeded and brought about a serious injury to another dog.
First up – let us applaud that both promoters were attempting to welfare in front of profit. They knew that the rule would cost them runners and so it has proved. I have not and do not believe that tracks are indifferent to injuries. After five decades following greyhounds, I simply don’t.
But as John Mullins pointed out – have those changes actually achieved anything significant?
Personally I was against ‘must trial’ for virtually the same reasons as I was against the Four Day Rule. It has never been necessary, trainers should be left to train and finally, I saw no significant evidence to back up its introduction. But plenty to suggest it was flawed.
Just as a reference, if we look at two of the most high profile career ending injuries last year, two former ante post Derby favourites, Bockos Doomie and Tenpin. How do they fit into the ‘must trial’ scenario?
It was the heats of the Blue Riband at Towcester where Doomie had just completed two solo trials. The problem was always the trap draw. Doomie was known to be the ultimate fanatically brave railer. He was drawn trap three and was absolutely guaranteed to dive to the inside at the first bend. He did just that and broke broke a leg. He was an accident waiting to happen. The only thing that might have saved him was a ‘RR’ seeding. But lack of course knowledge played zero part in the incident.
Tenpin broke his leg in a solo trial at Perry Barr.
Was the ‘must trial’ rule simply a kneejerk reaction to perhaps a racing incident?
Could the trainer have done things differently? Could the racing office? Hindsight has all the answers.
In my time in racing, this rule was never considered necessary, and in my opinion, still isn’t.
Maybe a tweak to the rules that would require a trial prior to a change of seeing?
But there are going to be some very pissed off people if they are informed any time soon that the ‘must trial rule’ is a ‘done deal’
What really irritates me is that we have the data available to help determine these subjective welfare decisions.
There are hundreds of thousand of lines of form for a start.
We have injury statistics coming out of our ears over decades.
If the tracks are badly prepared, put aside the in-fighting and egos. And sod the antis. Work out which ones are – and why!
What percentage of injuries can be attributed to bad track preparation? I have no clue. 10%, 50%, 90%
What do the figures tell us, because most trainers also have minimal understanding of track preparation.
What percentage of injuries is down to track size and shape including bend radius and banking? 20%? 40%?
How many injures are caused by inadequate preparation by trainers racing semi-lame dogs?
How many injuries are due to over-racing?
Can we live with more sore muscles if we can reduce the number of long bone fractures?
How big a factor is breeding, or diet?
If you are going to tell trainers when they should race their dogs, why not tell them what they should be doing between races?
Where does it stop?
One final point – something that was pointed out to me quite recently. In 2019 there were 410,607 ‘runs’ by individual greyhounds which resulted in 765 hock injuries.
In 2021 there were 359,083 runs, a 13% decrease. But the number of hock injuries actually showed a 6% increase to 811.
In future, I don’t want to hear that any Board director has used their position to change the fabric of racing based on a best guess. Because as John Mulllins pointed out, combine the ‘four day rule’ and the ‘must trial rule’ and you will almost certainly increase injury rates due to the likely increased gaps between performances.
That is just his opinion of course (though it is based on probably more greyhound expertise that the entire GBGB Board of Directors combined).
Not that I want John’s opinion.
I want pure objective facts – for the sake of everyone, but particularly the dogs.
Finally my thanks to a friend in the betting industry (despite his black bookmaker soul) for the following suggestion for on an amendment to the 2023 Greyhound Derby. This is goat racing. The important bit isn’t the goat – it is the fact that the handler has to be holding onto the lead when they cross the winning line.
Now that would give an interesting twist to the ante post market!
