Greyhound Seeding

Everyone has an opinion but we never seem to make any progress on this particular topic. Unfortunately, greyhound racing always seems to shirk such thorny issues. Seeding is definitely one of them, especially on the open racing scene. Perhaps its time to set up a small group of experienced people to discuss the benefits of changing and improving the existing system so its as fair as it can be. A representative committee would include trainers, owners and ex-racing managers as well as GBGB officials to initiate implementation of their recommendations.

In an ideal world, each greyhound’s running style would dictate each trap allocation as follows:

  • Trap 1: Tight railer (TR) – seeks the inside running rail and hugs it round the bend
  • Trap 2: Railer (RL) – runs near to the rail but not tightly round the track contours
  • Trap 3: Rails-Middle (RM) – takes a course outside the railers but inside a middle path
  • Trap 4: Middle (MD) – genuine middle runner
  • Trap 5: Middle-Wide (MW) – runs slightly wider than middle
  • Trap 6: Wide (WD) – maintains a wide position when breaking

That’s the theory, but in practice the option of a middle-wide seed would rarely be used. Unfortunately, trap five tends to neither suit the middle or dependable wide runner so this extra seeding could probably be dispensed with. However, the addition of two additional seedings would have the following benefits:

1/ Safer racing with less scrimmaging at the first bend, although the lack of middle & wide runners, especially in the latter stages of competitions cannot always be avoided.

2/ Prevent tactical or the accusation of biased seeding in open racing.

3/ Provide a consistent approach.

4/ Take the responsibility away from the racing manager at the relevant track.

Once agreed, an independent panel could be set up and convene regularly. They could also adjudicate in an appeals procedure if a trainer can provide recent video evidence that a seeding should be reconsidered. The decision as to which greyhounds are selected for an oversubscribed competition is a separate issue but could be incorporated into its remit if necessary. I have my own views on this but that argument is reserved for another time.

Peter Walker

Romford Camera

As you tell and ask as it is unlike the other publication please on behalf of ex regular customers of Coral Romford Stadium with changes afoot research and enquire about the following.
It has been two years now and because of where the camera is placed we are unable to see the start, first bend, second bend, in fact all around the track including an impossible to call close finish.
With Arc getting involved in the next couple of years ( far more forward thinking than SIS) and also a new racing manager (other one couldn’t care less) any chance of someone finding a proper high up place to situate the all important camera to showcase the action fancy you might get a lot of disgruntled customers back?
Joe Stevenson
This subject has been raised here at least once previously, and I do not plan t0 continue with this particular discussion beyond this letter.
Our understanding is that although SIS site the camera, they can only do so with the permission of the stadium management. While nobody from either organisation has been keen to go on record, our understanding is that SIS chose ‘the least worse option’.
The suspicion is that the ideal slot might have impacted on the restaurant capacity, and had nothing to do with any attempt to mislead punters. Should Entain choose to contradict or expand on this matter their views would of course be published in due course.
Ed