EDITORS CHAIR – ONE SIMPLE INNOVATION WITH HUGE BENEFITS

I was asked recently ‘what single thing would change the fortunes of greyhound racing?’

I replied that there were two. The first would be to persuade all betting companies to pay into the BGRF the voluntary payments from their overseas internet trading.

That would see the Fund bounce back from the anticipated £6.8m to the £13m that it used to be. It would make a staggering difference to the greyhound industry.

Betfair – who don’t contribute to the Fund – would probably give me significant odds on it happening.

The second idea is not new to Greyhound Star readers. But, I will repeat it anyway because, in my opinion, it could determine whether we still have a workable industry in ten years time.

The idea is simple – allow owners to keep and train racing greyhounds from their homes with no need for a kennel.

It may sound simple, but is much more complex and beneficial than it might first appear.

The idea is actually 40 years old, and urgently needs to be revisited.

For those not around in the 1970s, the ‘permit scheme’ was a brilliant face-saving idea invented by the NGRC who foresaw a declining future for the greyhound industry.

By 1970, dozens of NGRC tracks had closed and the Club cast envious eyes on the ‘flaps’.

They had already introduced a ‘C-licence’ scheme which was effectively a scheme which allowed unattached trainers to run in graded racing. Remember, at this stage, most greyhounds were kept in stadium owned racing kennels and handled by stadium employed trainers.

The problem was, the ‘C-licence’ was in itself too cumbersome, so the inspired NGRC invented permit racing.

The key, was that it enabled greyhound owners to train their dogs at home with no need for a kennel.

They were allowed up to four runners and were restricted that they could only race at their own track.

Rayleigh was the first, followed by Rye House, Yarmouth, Henlow, Cambridge, Ipswich, Halifax, Whitwood, Peterborough and loads more.

My first experience of permit racing was at Yarmouth in 1974. We had moved from flapping at Aldershot and dad took out his licence and carried on just as before.

Like all the best ideas, permit racing’s ethos was a simple one – many greyhound owners want to train them themselves, irrespective of their wealth or facilities.

Licensed flapping!

Sadly – being the NGRC, they managed to cock it up in the end by tweaking and tweaking the rules and eventually insisting all greyhounds must be kept in kennels, on the grounds of ‘integrity’ and ‘welfare’.

I never did get that one.

“What if one of the kids decided to give the dog some Maltesers on race day” demanded the former Chief Executive.

Clearly, the little sod wouldn’t think to go outside to the kennel or paddock! Doh!

As for the welfare of the dog being worse off in front of the fire, or in some locked up kennel five miles away. . . .

Run that one past me again.

Any here are a few reasons why I believe the GBGB needs to reconsider its licensing system.

1) NEW CONVERTS

There are many thousands of people, who have never been greyhound racing, but who may fancy the idea of a new hobby in which they can involve their families, easily and simply.

Back in the early 1980s, my father bred a very decent open race litter by Pat Seamur (who we had at stud). Two of the pups were taken on at twelve weeks by a young family from Gorleston who had never owned a greyhound before. Helped by the enthusiastic young kids, the pups were galloped on the beach at Gorleston and exercised on local playing fields. Both went on to win opens and the dog ran second in the Silver Collar at Walthamstow.

The entire family turned out to watch their pride and joy.

This isn’t about gambling, but dog ownership. Why would you want a Labrador if you could take the family pet racing?

2) RISK FREE TRIAL

Allowing the dogs to be kennelled at home would allow owners to try their hand at training without all the cost and commitment of building a kennel.

GBGB regulations are extremely tough, and many owners may not have the resources to build and equip the kennel, or would be brave enough to then discover that it isn’t for them.

In other cases, some ‘would-be’ trainers may not have the space for a separate building, combined with potential planning issues.

The GBGB’s Duncan Gibson told me that in his days as a stipendiary steward, he would often visit small kennels which were never used, the runners lived with the family in the house.

Greyhound racing has long relied on the flapping tracks for a supply of runners. They are now almost all gone. It is very difficult and expensive to ‘try your hand’ at training.

3) ALLEVIATING SHORTAGE

Nobody is suggesting that a novice owner should run dogs on BAGS or at other tracks.

But imagine a track like Harlow or Henlow filling some of their empty Saturday night traps with family pets. Are the bookies betting to silly over-round odds going to be phased?

Surely the tote can only benefit as the clueless party crowd try and find a runner to scream home?

Besides, even the absolute novice can soon develop into a very capable ‘hands-on’ trainer.

Shawfield racing manager Daniel Rankin tells me that the most consistent greyhound that ever ran at the track, lived in a multi story block of flats opposite the stadium.

The owner eventually had to give up his licence because the NGRC determined that every greyhound must have a kennel

‘It was more professional’ apparently.

4) BUILDING FOR TOMORROW

Most professional trainers started out as owners. They tried their hand at training – possibly before the NGRC/GBGB made it more difficult to get a kennel – and then progressed with ever increasing numbers of greyhound and a greater commitment.

Although many would be happy to remain small players, this entry-level step would surely lead to a future generation of professional trainers.

Today’s Saturday night owner-trainer may in five years time be a BAGS trainer with 40 runners.

5) WELFARE

I can see no grounds to believe that any amateur involvement would be beneficial to a greyhound’s welfare.

All the greyhounds would be subject at the track to full veterinary checks and the stipendiary stewards would still pay visits as they currently do.

The authorities may even build in a ‘probationary’ period to be followed by a simple test on animal welfare. ‘How do you worm a dog?’ ‘What is the treatment for sore quicks?’ etc etc

What pet Collie gets that level of attention?

There is also the issue of further interference by welfarists in kennel regulations. It is being suggested that greyhound kennels could come under UKAS regulation in the same way as track kennels.

This amateurisation of the industry would provide a decent argument to say, ‘treat us the same as other groups, such as owners with agility dogs’

6) REHOMING

Pet dogs do not need to be re-homed. They are homed. Indeed, it is one of the rare ‘failings’ of the system.

Many years ago, Yarmouth racing manager Dick Keable took me on a series of kennel visits to local trainers.

One was a lady who ran a guesthouse on the sea front. A couple of years later I asked Dick what had happened to the lady.

He replied that she wasn’t racing anymore because her two runners had both retired. Until they went to meet their maker, she was off the training list.

7) COST

God knows this industry is underfunded. But the small trainer isn’t in it for the cash. Sure, a bit of prize money helps pay for food and veterinary bills, but everyone expects to pay for their hobby, and the real payback is in excitement.

All of which, enables track to put a decent lump of their available cash into ‘runner money’ incentives.

As a result, the bigger trainers with the most runners, can be paid on a contract deal.

I challenge the GBGB and the Race Course Promoters Association to prove to me, and the Star’s readers, that a new permit scheme is neither workable or desirable.

Over to you guys!