What a terrible terrible week. We didn’t mind all the driving down to Hove, Kinsley or Glasgow. We’ve had seven winners, reached two Category One finals and can overlook all the hours on the road. But I am fuming, absolutely sick to my back teeth, over the disqualification of Blackstone Ollie for fighting in the Betfred Gymcrack at Kinsley.
The rule says a dog must be guilty of ‘deliberate interference’. I was in the centre of the track and saw nothing to cause me to even think that the dog had done anything wrong at all. The first thing I knew was when I was walking back after putting the dog away and a member of the public said ‘that was a bit harsh wasn’t it?’
I went to the racing office and they confirmed it. I couldn’t believe it. They showed me all the footage, the normal camera and the head-on camera. All I saw was our pup have his heels clipped at the second bend. His head went up, along the back straight, as the six dog moved across his path. That was it. He did nothing wrong but they disqualified him for that.
I spoke to several of the other trainers, including Paul Young, and they could see nothing wrong either. Tommy Smith, the owner of The Other Billy, offered to withdraw the dog from the semis. It was a fantastic gesture, but we can’t do that because the punishment would be huge.
We will go to the semis, and if we make it, we will run in the final too. But The Other Billy will be my last runner at the track. I have been a regular supporter of the Gymcrack and planned a whole team of runners for final night. But not now. In fact, at this stage I don’t even want to talk about our other finalists.
This isn’t about having a dog disqualified. I have had several over the years. I remember Newinn Rocket having his card marked and I said at the time, ‘the stewards had no other option’. That wasn’t the case this time. To disqualify a dog, the stewards must be 100% certain. I cannot see how the Kinsley stewards could have come to that conclusion.
Kinsley joint promoter John Curran has issued the following statement:
“Just for clarity, the three Stewards myself being one, reviewed the race replays several times are were unanimous in their decision that the four had interfered with the six dog coming off the second bend, that the interference and with the four having its head 90 degrees turned towards the six with contact being made with the six was deliberate hence met the criteria on disqualification. Local Stewards understand that young greyhounds can run awkward and the stewards looked at this however the race head on camera recorded that contact was was made by the four dog against the six dog coming off the second bend and that it was deliberate and it had caused interference with the six dogs race line.
As the third steward I was called to review the camera evidence, was fully satisfied that the two Stewards had called the disqualification in accordance with the rule . I know that it will have been disappointing for all the connections of the greyhound disqualified but the camera evidence provided to the stewards left no doubt there had been interference and it had been deliberate.”
