GBGB Trainers rep Peter Harnden has written to GBGB to ask them to consider reviewing Rule 147 otherwise known as the recently introduced ‘Four Day Rule’ writes Floyd Amphlett.
He said: “I asked for feedback from trainers and I’ve certainly got it. The new rule was brought in with the best of intentions but I think it’s fair to say that there have been a number of unintended consequences that could be considered contrary to good welfare. I don’t plan to go public with them at this stage. I understand that Rule 147 is due to be discussed at the next meeting of the welfare committee in about a week’s time and hopefully we will be able to report back after that.”
The ‘unintended consequences’ are believed to include injuries caused by trainers using their own gallops and paddocks whereby they might otherwise have kept runners ‘ticking over’ with sprint trials. This was inevitable, given trainers could not guarantee when their runners would next compete. Open races regularly fail to fill and racing managers cannot guarantee to find the correct grade for a dog when it would ideally want to race next.
The net result is that under, or badly, prepared dogs face a threat of injury at least on par with greyhounds being over raced.
A number of trainers have contacted the Star to enquire whether the Board were able to demonstrate that the new rule was necessary. Looking at the tracks who race their dogs most often, is there any evidence to suggest that their welfare has been compromised? Or indeed that the dogs are actually over raced?
Perhaps equally as important, a couple of issues have been raised that question whether GBGB was actually acting within its own rules when it sanctioned the Four Day Rule.
Our understanding is that any significant changes planned by GBGB should – according to Lord Donoughue’s original agreed plan (Articles of Association) – work ‘from the bottom up’. The ‘main stakeholders’, in other words, owners, trainers and racecourse promoters, should be canvassed first. Their views should have been fed back to their representatives, and through them to the veterinary and welfare committees, and then onto the main board for its consideration.
That seemingly did not happen in this case. The decision, albeit well meant, was made ‘from the top’ with insufficient consultation.
In addition, the Board seem to have taken on the views of a veterinary expert and taken them at face value. While that expert is highly regarded, his views could only be viewed as ‘opinion’. Short of having his data checked by peer review (the data is ‘confidential’ and cannot be challeneged), it cannot be considered as ‘fact’ and should not have been considered by the Board as such.
In a previous case involving the allowing of water to racers in staidum kennels, a full scientific study was carried out before regulations were introduced.
Furthermore, we understand that the Board were not working to specific advice of ‘four days’ but heard evidence that the gap between track performances might be ‘between three and five days’.
At the very minimum, there is now a considerable industry wide demand that Rule 147 be suspended until the peer review takes place and then, if necessary, introduced in trial form.
