The following is a submission made to the GBGB Racing Committee in December, outlining, what I, and many others, consider to be a significant area for reform in racing in Britain (Ireland has no such issues).

Regular readers of the Star will find little new in this submission and while future funding of the industry remains its single greatest issue, a need to fundamentally change our view of what we are, and where are strengths lay, are also fundamental to the future of the greyhound industry.

If you agree with the sentiments below please contact your racecourse promoters and the GBGB and lets take this thing forward

 

TRAINER LICENSING & KENNEL REVIEW

Overview

Greyhound racing continues to see a decline in the number of people willing and able to train greyhounds. One simple measure can effectively arrest that decline while offering significant financial and welfare benefits to the industry.

The re-introduction of a ‘permit scheme’ would allow novice trainers to easily and cheaply become greyhound trainers, and arrest a licensing structure that seems to have removed several rungs at the lower end of the ladder for potential enthusiasts.

History

Conscious of the declining number of owner trainers (C-licence) and professional trainers, the NGRC introduced the permit scheme in 1965.

It allowed ‘hands-on’ greyhound trainers, who could only race on independent tracks, the opportunity of training in a small way from their homes.

Crucially, there was no need for a kennel. Nevertheless the stipendiary stewards visited the prospective trainer’s home premises and offered advice in relation to security and welfare of the dogs including recommendations on fencing, bedding etc.

The rules were simple. No owner could have more than four greyhounds and they could only race on the designated permit tracks. Otherwise, all rules of racing applied.

In the following years, large numbers of tracks switched from ‘independent’ to permit status, conscious that without an opportunity for ‘hands-on’ training, they would never have persuaded their trainers to ‘jump ship’ to NGRC racing.

Roughly a third of today’s GBGB racecourses are former permit tracks and a significant number of current trainers are former permit holders including multi time champion trainer Mark Wallis.

For reasons of ‘integrity’ and to ‘increase professionalism’ the NGRC scrapped the permit scheme in 1998. Many former permit trainers were able to build kennels, others were prevented to do so by planning regulations or finance and were forced out of the industry.

 

 

Implementation

Re-introducing permit racing would appear a relatively simple task requiring amendments or Rules of Racing 5-10 and amending training of stipendiary stewards accordingly.

It would also appear favourable to provide literature and advertising to encourage members of the public, who may not even be regular racegoers, to become amateur greyhound trainers.

It may also be desirable to provide DVDs or digital downloads to explain basic welfare and training. This could easily be accompanied by a simple test.

 

 

Negatives

If the permit scheme was so wonderful, why was it scrapped?

Personal memories of discussions with former NGRC staff are of concerns that permits made the industry look ‘amateur’. By encouraging trainers to invest in better kennels, it was better for ‘integrity’ and ‘welfare’.

I cannot be objective on this because I have always totally dismissed these claims.

In terms of welfare, is a greyhound, being kept as a pet in a family home in a better welfare environment that one kept in a lock-up kennel perhaps some distance from the trainer?

Furthermore, whatever knowledge limitations the permit trainer might have, their dogs seldom went short of attention. How might that compare with a professional trainer with two staff and 70 greyhounds?

In terms of integrity, the NGRC often cited the famous ‘Malteser’ argument. How would you stop children in the household from feeding the dogs Maltesters and potentially failing doping control?

The argument is best summed up by GBGB welfare officer and former stipe Duncan Gibson who has stated ‘If the kids are going to give the dog sweets, they’ll do it in the kennel or the garden anyway.’

As for the argument that ‘amateur’ greyhounds would lead to erratic racing, I can find no grounds for this historically.

The fact that an amateur trainer has a kennel does not mean its dog won’t appear at 2 kilos overweight at kennelling. The industry has many safeguards including weighing and veterinary checks to ensure it wouldn’t happen. It seldom did previously.

As for betting on races with ‘amateur’ greyhounds in them. . .nobody is suggesting that these dogs run on BAGS. But quite often even BAGS prefer a non-BAGS meeting to introduce new runners.

Permit runners would fill empty traps on a Saturday night and keep totes ticking over.

 

 

Positives

The re-introduction of a ‘permit trainer type’ scheme would offer massive benefits to the industry.

 

  • It would allow a new generation of animal enthusiasts to become greyhound trainers. These might be people with an existing interest in the sport or a whole new group, including young families. Why buy a Labrador pup when we could have a greyhound and train him ourselves? I have personally seen this occur on numerous occasions under the previous scheme.
  • It would act as a first step towards a greater involvement in the industry for trainers who would eventually build larger kennels. This is a proven link.
  • Permit trainers are not just trainers, they are owners too who would contribute significant sums to the industry across the board.
  • Permit trained greyhounds are not just racers, they are family pets who are kept as such at the end of their racing careers, easing the burden on re-homing. Ironically, it is arguably a weakness in the system whereby permit trainers drop out of the industry for a period of time until the old racer goes to meet his maker and they start again.
  • Permit trainers get their joy from handling their pet. They require very little monetary reward. Most tracks already operate schemes rewarding bigger kennels with bonus in addition to prize money. The introduction of permit trainers would allow for improved stadium revenue and increasing those bonuses to the kennels that really needed them. Moreover, experience has shown that when a permit trainer happens to stumble on an exceptional greyhound, they will often transfer it to a professional in the hope of it achieving maximum potential.
  • The industry would be forced to look at its kennelling regulations and acknowledging that the priority should be the welfare of the greyhound, not the build quality of its home. How could any welfarist condemn a running their family pet on a greyhound track, yet condone the pet kept for competitive agility classes? This is largely an amateur sport but is unnecessarily considered, by some, to be wholly commercial industry exploiting animals. Allowing greyhounds to race ‘from the sofa’ would enforce the reality.

 

 

Conclusion

I contend that there is no reasonable reason not to re-introduce a type of permit scheme for the reasons outlined above.

The only thing preventing it, has traditionally been the intransigence of the industry’s regulatory body.

Hopefully the changes in the industry and its current requirements can be reflected in a fresh approach.

 

 

Floyd Amphlett

20 December 2015