Pete Harnden
Welfare is an emotive subject. I have spent a lifetime in this great sport of ours and I can honestly say that welfare standards now are as good as they ever have been. Are they perfect? No! Can they be improved upon? Always! As with any walk of life there is always a small minority who let the majority down. As far as I am concerned, if you are part of that minority you are not welcome in our sport.
Not only is any cruel or callous behaviour repugnant to the vast majority, it also undermines the efforts of those who try so hard to raise standards and awareness. The time has come whereby any that fall below an acceptable standard should have their licenses withdrawn by the GBGB.
Yes, those powers have always been in available, but the support structure in terms of available options for trainers have not. Until now. Initiative such as the injury recovery scheme are reducing the excuses of the worst culprits. To them, it is a case of ‘shape up or ship out’.
If this means that tracks are put under pressure for trainers, then so be it. This will mean that they have to pay a fair wage to the good trainers providing them with their product. This will also free up space at other tracks for those making a start in the sport to begin their careers.
I have listened to people talking lately about the best way to go about this. The latest suggestion was made on RPGTV on Friday evening that a compacted sport of anywhere between ‘six and fourteen super tracks’ was mooted. The very suggestion of this brought about the same response that it has done on each and every other time I’ve heard it made. The vast majority of respondents believed that this sport can ill afford to lose any more tracks and I agree with them.
The case being made for a reduction in the number of tracks was that it would reduce the amount of trainers needed and therefore the strongest and most welfare conscious would undoubtedly survive. Those whose welfare standards leave something to be desired would need to look for employment elsewhere.
That is just bizarre. There MIGHT be an argument to say, less racing is good for welfare, but why less tracks?
We have learned from experience that if you close a track, you lose people, and they are just as likely to be good ones who no longer live near a track, than bad trainers with a track on their doorstep. What happens to the little guy who wants to train four dogs at home, keep them all as pets and then re-homes them himself, when his nearest track is 100 miles away? He gives the game up. Does that help welfare?
I suspect, that like many of the viewers, I couldn’t support the ‘six to fourteen track’ argument because I believe greyhound racing could not survive on that basis.
We have already seen the tracks become reliant on the bookmakers cheques to a point that many don’t even seem bothered about filling their restaurants at the weekends. Now from a business point of view, that is very short sighted. Because many of tomorrow’s owners and trainers are people experiencing a greyhound racing for the first time as a night out. That’s still 21 opportunities to find those new people.
We have already lost all but the last remnants of independent racing which produced trainers like Rab McNair, Jimmy Wright and of course the great Charlie Lister OBE. Where do we develop the next generation of trainers? You can only choose the best (and most welfare conscious) if you have a decent variety to choose from. It is a major issue.
What happens to breeding? Could the Irish breeding industry remain viable if you only had a dozen tracks to breed for? That’s not an industry, that’s a small collection of businesses.
