It has been quite a learning curve since being appointed a GBGB director.
Apart from being sent notification of my responsibilities as a company director under the Companys Act 2006, I have also been told to sign a form stating that I won’t speak to the press.
To date I have not signed it and am taking legal advice as to whether I need to do so.
I am not being difficult, but one of my reasons for taking on this role was because I was unhappy at the GBGB’s lack of transparency and failure to communicate. I note that Paul Ephremsen states the same concerns in his resume for the position as the owner’s representative.
So until the position is clear, I will be very guarded as to what I state on record.
What I can do, without compromise, is continue with the campaign to seek an industry standard on prize money for abandoned meetings.
Basically, there were some meetings lost to the weather during the winter. It is bad luck for everyone when it happens but welfare has to take precedence.
My issue has been with tracks who have not called off meetings until after the dogs have kennelled, and have then refused to pay appearance money.
As far as I am concerned, once the dog has been kennelled, the trainer has fulfilled his part of the contract. I think track owners should commit to pay appearance money in those rare cases.
It is very early days but the early response has been good. John Curran at Kinsley was the first to agree, Richard Brankley has also agreed on behalf of the Ladbrokes tracks, and I have provisional agreement with several others which I just want to confirm. Clive Feltham at GRA has reserved the right not to pay, though that is not to say that he wouldn’t.
I’ll update everyone when I have more details.
Is it surely just a coincidence that after being attacked by the GTA for representing trainers on the GBGB board of directors, I suddenly find I am being pursued by the people who would like to shut down the greyhound industry?
They have been holding placards outside the track asking about ‘the 68 missing greyhounds’. It is absolute rubbish, a complete fabrication and I can prove it.
Yes, we lose the occasional runner to injury, and there was a spell a couple of years ago when we had a bad run. Nobody was more distressed than me.
But to suggest that I have a policy of not rehoming my ex-racers is a 100% lie. It reminds me a bit of Patsy Cusack being accused by the GTA of sending his dogs to Ireland to be put to sleep. Only for someone to point out that they had been re-homed by Geryhoundhomer.
I carry out all my responsibilities in terms of the green forms, as per GBGB rules. And I am certainly not going to be held to judgement over every single ex-racer.
Firstly, I refuse to be bullied. Secondly, it isn’t always easy to keep track of ex-racers over a long period of time, particularly when they have been re-homed through a charity. The new owners are often not interested in keeping in touch, or don’t know where to start. Ask any trainer if they could name where all their ex-racers have been re-homed.
Thankfully some do. For the sake of this column, I asked Mark Pierremont, who helps me with the dogs, to find what we had lying around. Here are a few examples:
There are plenty of other examples. Some of the names on the ‘missing list’ are still in the kennel, including Salacres Gem who will be mated when she comes into season.
(I can confirm that these are just the first batch of what we have received. We may publish some more in future columns, but I think this makes the point – Ed)
FINALLY – I would ask all owners to vote in the forthcoming GBGB owners election. If myself, and whoever gets the position, are going to strongly present the case for owners and trainers at the board, we need to do so with a strong mandate. It is no good just moaning and doing nothing. Lets have some unity and a significant turn out.
