Peter Harnden
Last week I was fortunate to spend an evening in the company of one of football’s leading referees. My interest in footie is probably less than many of you, but what he had to say it was extremely enlightening and I found more common themes than I was expecting.
With the new season fast approaching the referees have been holding a number of meetings to ensure that they are fully up to date with any new rules or tweaks to existing ones.
It is clear that ‘consistency’ is a major priority in football refereeing. It is drummed into match officials over and over again. It is an official’s job to implement the rules as they are set out, not interpret them based on their own opinions and biases.
It got me thinking about greyhound racing offices and their implementation of the disqualification rule as set out by the GBGB.
Having watched numerous race videos sent to me from around the country, it is clear to see that there is a huge disparity between tracks, and even sometimes between staff at the same track.
Or between graded and open racing.
Or between ‘waiting’, ‘not chasing, ‘awkward’, ‘green’ and ‘aggressive interference’.
While there will always be a level of subjectivity in these decisions, are racing offices being given adequate guidance as to what constitutes a ‘DQ’?
As in football, there will always be grey areas where a particular action falls between legality and offence, but it is clear that there is a huge gulf in the disqualification criteria between track officials.
That results in disputes with owners and trainers who often feel that they are being unfairly treated.
No one wants races ruined by fighters, nor do they want novices to be harshly treated through greenness.
Should there be additional guidance? Should it be a factor if a dog fights as a consequence of being injured? Or a puppy in its first six races, as examples?
Whatever is decided, let everyone be on the same page. Because that would lead to greater consistency in the decision process.
Another point of interest concerned the rules created by individual stadium managements.
The home team doesn’t unilaterally decide how many subs they are allowed. Nor do they decide how many minutes the game will last.
(Unless it’s at Old Trafford – Ed)
This is obviously different to our sport. In the recent past rules have been set by individual promoters which must be followed, yet which differ from the rules set out by our sport’s governing body the GBGB.
I’m all for the exploration and implementation of change if this is based upon in-depth research and fact.
However should this be a local decision?
If the information available to instigate change is infallible then in my opinion the change should be national and rolled out in full by the GBGB. If there is any doubt at all that the change isn’t in the best interest of the whole sport then the question remains should it be allowed to be rolled out even at one track?
Thankfully I was part of a pro-active working group last week which was diverse in its membership and involved at least one person who had actively been involved in implementing the local rule of open dogs having to trial at their stadiums.
Rather than be averse to looking again at the decision to implement this it was pleasing that they agreed that we should if possible look at the data available to them to see if this backed up the decision.
As a group we spoke about gathering data going forward but the easiest option it was agreed was to utilise the data already available at the time when the ‘must trial’ rule was brought in.
One member of the group has gone away to look at the data and to see if there was anything which suggested that open dogs were being reported lame at a higher ratio to graded greyhounds who had obviously trialled around the tracks in question.
It was agreed that if the data didn’t show this to be the case then obviously this would very much call into question the enforced rule of having to trial and would back up the view points of many of the sports leading trainers that it is both costly and unnecessary.
With the data already saved at the group of tracks in question I’m anticipating receiving feedback very shortly and will be intrigued as to the information provided.
The current economic climate has bought one issue to the fore – though realistically it has been a consistent gripe for a long time now among trainers everywhere.
I am talking about racing offices accommodating trainers by utilizing their runners more efficiently.
I hear so many complaints about trainers being asked to travel with possibly three dogs on one day, two for the next meeting and another three for the following meeting.
I’ve been fortunate in my career to work under a couple of the best racing managers out there in the shape of Peter Robinson at Nottingham and now Andy Lismore at Towcester. Both gentlemen will go out of their way to make sure that where possible they can assist trainers in anyway they can.
Others seem much less sympathetic and remind trainers that they can demand those runners under the terms of their contracts.
The additional costs can be significant in terms of staff numbers, diesel costs and wear and tear on the vehicles.
The idea that it will make races less competitive if there are fewer trainers involved in each race is ridiculous.
In the higher grades, it is quite common at many tracks to have two kennels provide five or even all six runners in a race.
Last Sunday, in an open race at Towcester, Mark Wallis trained every dog in a five-runner race.
Were there any integrity issues?
If it’s possible to double or treble up on a kennel in an A1, why they can’t they do it in A6, where there is almost certainly a bigger pool of dogs?
The recent introduction of ear protectors at some venues was met with some distain in certain quarters. But like it or not, Health and Safety rules! I don’t suppose those tracks were any keener at the introduction than the staff who have to comply with the new rules.
Personally, I think there are bigger health issues for kennel staff. I am referring to the height level of second row kennels at some tracks.
Lifting greyhounds up to some of these kennels is quite an arduous task even for the most agile of us so I can only presume that it’s near on impossible for some of the older members of our community.
We know that the average age of trainer in the UK is rather on the high side and some of these people find it near on impossible to lift their greyhounds the height that they’re currently being asked to.
One trainer in particular contacted me last week after in his own words ‘putting his back out’ in doing just that and now looks to be facing a spell on the side lines.
One track that does have it right so far as their second row is concerned is Monmore with their raised platform it makes it such an easy job to accommodate and kennel the required numbers. This can’t be said for all venues though and is something that the GBGB and the venues with a particularly high second level of kennel need to be looking at immediately.
I would like to remind all trainers that I am keen to listen to their grievances and support them in any way I can. I plan to submit occasional articles designed to update trainers on industry developments through the Greyhound Star website.
I would hope that when my sentence is completed on the RPGTV ‘naughty step’, I will be able to respond on there too. No parole date so far!
I can be contacted by email at [email protected]
