Fresh from a fantastic one two in the final of The Good News At Stud Stakes Final at Perry Barr last night professional greyhound trainer John Mullins had some tough words for the rule makers at the GBGB. A passionate Mullins who has spent a life time honing his craft as one of the leading trainers the sport has ever produced made a heartfelt plea to the GBGB to reconsider the newly brought in 4-day ruling. Rule 147 now states –
In an impassioned plea to the GBGB hierarchy Mullins said “I just don’t get this new rule at all. We’re either professional trainers or we’re not , there’s no in between. If you’re capable of holding and being trusted to hold a professional license then you should be allowed to do so. If you’re not thought to be capable of holding a professional license then it’s quite simple , one shouldn’t be granted. Let me make this clear from the outset welfare is at the top of my thoughts every single minute of my life. At no stage would I ever risk the welfare of any of my greyhounds. They mean the world to me as they do to the vast majority of people involved in our sport. I’ll tell you now that there are plenty involved in the game myself included who would be the first to speak up towards anybody who came into our sport who felt any differently. The sport has made great and at times much needed strides on welfare in recent years but I do question are we now unnecessarily going overboard and in my view without anything like the much needed consultation that should be going on between those making the rules and those of us who are actually working with the dogs and holding ‘professional greyhound trainer licenses’. To the best of my knowledge none of the board members barring Peter Harnden hold such a license. It makes me wonder whether the people there are informed enough to be making such drastic rule changes without consulting with those of us who actually put a lead on a dog each and every day of our lives. I understand from press releases that board discussions must remain confidential at all times. I’m not naive enough to think that absolutely everything spoken about at board level can be released into the public domain but there certainly needs to be much more able to be brought by Peter as our representative to the table to be discussed and talked through. The pressure of important decisions can’t be placed onto the head of one man and the view points of other stakeholders must be sought. I’d personally suggest that there is a big difference between open class runners and graded runners. There needs to be some kind of flexibility here. I’d also question whether trainers are solely to blame over this situation in any case as at least some promoters and their racing offices need to be taking a long hard look at themselves. Some graded dogs are being put out too quickly by them that’s not in question. That’s a decision taken by racing offices and sure maybe trainers should speak up but in the present climate would that be accepted too often. There is a simple answer to that and that’s for racing offices to be more sensible with the gaps between a dog’s appearances. They shouldn’t automatically be presuming that a trainer will speak up even if they should do so , they need to take some responsibility themselves.
John Mullins & Peter Harnden
It all comes down so far as I’m concerned with allowing professionals to be professionals and consulting more with those of us actively involved. I’m not taking part in the Judgement Night meeting at Monmore for similar issues. For one reason or another I couldn’t trial my dogs in time. Why should I have to trial my dogs ? As a professional trainer if I can put a team together that I feel capable of running a track without a trial then surely my professional opinion should allow me to do so. Yet due to a local track rule I can’t do that. What makes it worse is this local rule is actually flawed beyond belief. I must trial a dog so it gets a look around yet then you’ll put a dog in for a solo trial and turn up to see that they’ve been placed into a two-dog trial. How does the racing manager who has never seen my dog run and myself with the other dog placed in the trial know they’ll not come together ? Sure they can go off race card comments to a degree but they’re only as good as the person who’s wrote them which often doesn’t mean a great deal.
There is just too much now being taken away from professional trainers. I’d ask that this rule change is reconsidered and if there really does have to be one in place then I strongly suggest the current 4 days is too much. Come and sit down with us let’s talk it through but let’s not be pandering to welfare cries for the sake of it because an inch becomes a mile before we know it”
GBGB Practitioner Director for trainers Peter Harnden responded by saying “I rate John Mullins at the very top of the tree when it comes to professional trainers in our sport. His knowledge is absolutely second to none. As stated by John I have to be extremely careful what is discussed from board meetings. I welcome John’s thoughts however and would appreciate them being passed on to the powers that be at GBGB headquarters. It could well be that in future a document is drafted at the end of a meeting which lists which items are to be treated as highly confidential and which items can be taken away to be discussed amongst our relevant stake holders. I’m sure this would aid myself , Ian Foster as owners representative and the other directors immensely. At present I must admit to often being placed between a rock and a hard place and I’m quite positive that Ian will also encounter this in the months ahead. I do agree and always have done that professional trainers should be allowed to train their greyhounds. There is no hard and fast rule to what is right and what is wrong and we need to respect the choices of people who the sport have already licensed as professionals. What I would say is no rule be it this new rule 147 or any other is stuck in place indefinitely. All rules can be reviewed be they new ones or old ones. Hopefully common sense prevails and we can look at ensuring a decision which is acceptable to all”.
