A couple of weeks ago, Kevin Hutton had two runners in a Sittingbourne open. Jet Stream Jack and Jet Stream Duke went to traps as evens joint favourites and crossed the winning line separated by three quarters of a length.

In recent weeks I have seen four-runner races at Harlow at Henlow with two kennels supplying two runners apiece in each race.

What happened?

They all ran to form of course.

Unless you are in this industry though, you probably wouldn’t believe it.

Mention ‘greyhound racing’ to a civilian and they will normally ask about feeding pies, chewing gum between toes and drugs.

Or the edgier ones will ask ‘do they really put them all to sleep?’

And don’t get me started on injuries. Listening to the antis, I am amazed that six dogs ever complete the course.

Anti greyhound racing rhetoric has been with us since the beginning and much of it WAS deserved.

The first trace of dissent that I have come across, traces back to October 1926, three months after the opening of Belle Vue.

A correspondent for the Daily Express wrote “There was far more betting than on any ordinary racecourse. I saw a woman with a baby in her arms laying her shillings. Children in their early teens betted as freely as their elders. Boys in school caps and knicker-suits, girls in hats with ribbons of secondary schools pushed their way from bookmaker to bookmaker asking odds and staking where they secured the best price. Working girls of the typist and shop-assistant class wagered by the half crown or five shillings..”

The same correspondent correctly predicted a huge future for the new industry, and the warning, “When greyhound racing spreads from its present headquarters in Manchester, there will arise a most intense controversy. Sermons will be preached against it because of the betting aspect of the game”.

Dog racing’s first Achiles Heel was its gambling element. Sure enough, the clergy lined up to castigate the industry and then the various Governments set out to break it.

You could argue that the politicians were simply out to screw every penny in taxes – if it wasn’t for the fact that without exception, horse racing got away scot free.

Class war: and no attempt to hide it.

Then of course there was the associated crime. The staggering growth of dog racing made it a magnet for crime of all types; from money laundering to illicit gambling.

The welfare side was not on the horizon for generations on either side of the world wars. When you have witnessed the Blitz, rationing and mass unemployment, a broken hock is not going to raise your hackles.

The same applied to home finding, though it wasn’t just a ‘greyhound issue’ – animal charities were of infinitesimally less significance during the industry’s first 40 years.

But things changed.

Huge chunks of gambling legislation reduced the risk of ruin to the weak-minded, needy, and greedy gamblers.

Dope testing, reduced rewards, and greatly improved bookmaker security and monitoring, made huge inroads into integrity.

As attitudes to animal welfare changed, greyhound racing tackled re-homing and injury management.

Track preparation became less concerned with gambling repercussions and more to do with safety.

In 2015, the most popular breed walked past my front door on a daily basis is a greyhound. There must be a dozen different ex-racers.

On a recent underground journey to Wembley, one of my fellow passengers spent 45 minutes telling anyone who would listen, about his little blue bitch who raced at Romford.

She was not ‘rescued’ she was officially re-homed – muppet!

More than half of registered dogs go through the RGT. Thousands more are re-homed without the need for the charity. All are strictly monitored.

Millions have been spent, and are still being spent, on track preparation and equipment. All injuries are recorded and made available to animal welfare organisations.

The number of career ending injuries – still confidential – is believed to be significantly less than 0.1% of all performances.

Even then, the term ‘career ending’ does not differentiate between ‘fatal’ and merely ‘performance affecting’ such as a strained gracilis or sprained hock or even ‘financially not justifiable’. A scenario dog finishes with a sore muscle but given its age, the sensible scenario is to retire it.

Drug testing – where the industry is incredibly adept at shooting itself in both feet – is carried out to such an exacting standard that probably nobody reading this article, would escape without a four figure fine.

(Certainly nobody who has had a coffee or paracetamol in the last eight hours.)

The number of positives is again less than 0.1% and most of those are clearly due to carelessness rather than malevolent intent.

Yet when the new GBGB chairman is appointed, his first job, will not be to get parity with horseracing – but to persuade DEFRA that we are not the bunch of arses that the British public seem to believe.

Talk about giving a dog a bad name!