Anybody who ever believed the expression ‘it must be true because it is in the paper’ is at best, naïve. Anyone applying the same principle to the internet is asking for trouble.
On Thursday, I took a call from an old friend and passionate greyhound carer. Clearly angry and upset, he had been informed by someone with strong website connections, that a Crayford employee had been reduced to tears after seeing the bodies of a number of greyhounds laid out of the floor in the vet’s room.
There was nowhere else to put them apparently; the freezers were full. There were just so many injuries!
Having become a cynical 30-year journalist, following a spell as a cynical copper, my first reaction was ‘Really!’. (The actual response included a weary sigh and a bit of eye-rolling)
I promised to investigate but asked for more detail.
Sure enough, the call was returned. Not only did he reiterate the claim, he embellished it to state that there were SEVEN cadavers on the floor.
I did my own research and discovered some of the background to what seems to have been a crappy week for Crayford, but one that bore no resemblance to my phone message.
Basically, they had had one terribly unfortunate trial session. A novice hurdler and fallen badly and had to be destroyed and a dog returning from injury had broken down and also had to be euthanised.
They were two freakishly sad events that might have occurred a year apart, instead of on the same day.
(I remember something very similar happening at White City many years ago and involving a couple of Springbok hopefuls. In those days though, nobody operated a ‘save-if-at-all-possible’ regime for injured dogs.)
Further digging into the alleged ‘carnage’ revealed that in the previous two months there had been just TWO additional greyhounds destroyed. (From approx 3,600 race runners and 1,000 trialists)
All details were logged according to GBGB regulations by the track vet. God only knows where the figure of SEVEN bodies was arrived at, on the vet’s floor or anywhere else!
Clearly – as expected – the freezer story was a complete lie. An absolute fabrication from beginning to end that had caused great distress to people working at the stadium.
So why would anyone make it up?
One theory suggested the story kicked off because of a dispute over whether one of the greyhounds could have been saved.
My source tells me that the vet considered it to be in the animal’s best interests that it was put to sleep and the kennel acted accordingly. Imagine if they had gone against the vet’s wishes!!!
Connected or not, it is obscene that someone with greyhound racing’s best interests at heart would create the story or participate in its spreading. Talk about ‘feed the antis’!
The stadium itself is hugely popular with the locals and does a lot for the local community. I know of several non-greyhound folk in the Dartford area, who just love the place for a great night out.
Personally, I am not a particular fan of the tight circuit, but like a lot of doggie people, I am a bit of a hypocrite.
I spent many of my teenage years on tracks like Aldershot, Clacton, Huntingdon and NGRC tracks such as Watford and Cambridge that were similar sorts of circuits to Crayford, but nowhere near as well prepared.
Many of use still hanker after the big circuits such as White City, Harringay and Wembley, but the small ones always existed too, Stamford Bridge, Clapton, Catford to name but three.
Sure, you get more strung-out fields on some small circuits, but that doesn’t make them more dangerous.
Is a moderate greyhound taking the short run to the banked Crayford first bend is in more danger than the Derby runner going at full speed into a distant White City first bend with no banking?
The injury returns for the small circuits are, I understand, very similar to the bigger tracks.
I remember multi-times champion trainer Linda Mullins telling me that she had no issues when she ran graded dogs at Crayford for many years. Her advice: ‘only run dogs there that are suited to it’.
As to what type of dogs will run the track, you can seldom predict. It certainly has little to do with the greyhound’s physique, as there have been a number of Golden Jacket winners in excess of 37kg.
Some ‘industry experts’ will tell you that Crayford is deliberately a small circuit as it was designed to cause upsets for betting shops.
I remember the accusation being put to former Head of Stadia, Gordon Bissett. It was on the day that the Ladbrokes man unveiled his new Monmore racing circuit, redesigned to be the best in the industry and costing more than £1m back in 1997.
Bissett’s response?
Since there would only ever be one winner in every race, all he wanted was straight fair racing. From a betting point of view, he wanted the backers of all six dogs to still be excitedly clutching their betting slips as the dogs crossed the winning line.
The reality of the small circuit was simpler. Greyhound racing was in the doldrums when the old Crayford Stadium was demolished. To comply with planning regulations, which would allow for the sale of the land to build the adjacent supermarket, they had to build a new stadium.
The pen pushers at Ladbrokes HQ, effectively built the smallest track that they could get away with.
Within a year of the opening of the new stadium, the place was bursting at the seams and despite their best efforts, they were unable to get their hands on the land they had previously sold off.
Crayford will always be a Marmite circuit. But, along with sister stadium Monmore, offers some of the best owners and trainer benefits of any track in the country, and boasts one of the best re-homing schemes.
Of course there is a simple solution for any owner or trainer with a Crayford issue.
Instead of slagging the place, simply don’t run your dogs there. You won’t be missed.
