Many of you will know Northern Irish vet Michael Watts is a regular and popular columnist in the Greyhound Star newspaper. For the first time, we are letting Michael loose on the net. A great read as always – enjoy
Floyd Amphlett
Editor
Doctors Differ, Patients Die
Have you ever heard of The Turing Duck Test? I am told it has been much misquoted over the years but the saloon bar version of it goes roughly like this: if something looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck then the chances are it is probably a duck. Let us apply the same hypothesis to greyhounds. Coursing or track, retired or racing, whether under GBGB rules or in the independent sector, if it is registered in the Greyhound Stud Book or it’s Irish, American or Australian equivalents, it is a greyhound. As a practising veterinary surgeon I approach the treatment of each and every greyhound in pretty much the same way. I make an assessment of its health and welfare needs based on its history and my clinical examination, then see what I can do to best meet those needs. For me it is, as the Americans say, a no brainer. When I first became a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons more years ago than I care to remember I swore an oath to do my best to look after all the little furry animals entrusted to my care, or words to that general effect. The exact wording does not matter now and it did not then as I didn’t need the Royal College to remind me why I was there. I knew that was what I had signed up for the day I first tiptoed through the gates of the veterinary college in Dublin as the greenest sixteen-year-old student you ever saw in your life. I have been doing my best to live up to that standard all my working life. Some days it comes easier than others, some days it works better than other, but you have to keep on keeping on. That is the name of the veterinary game, or it is as I see it anyway. Now I have no ambitions to be the Mother Theresa or the Sir Galahad of the veterinary profession. I wouldn’t even get an interview for those particular jobs. I do think however that the veterinary profession, with all its wealth of knowledge of animals health and welfare, should take a lead in the animal welfare debate and set a standard for that bloke on the famed Clapham omnibus to follow. If elements of the veterinary profession choose to abdicate this particular responsibility then they may find themselves passing the baton to well-intentioned amateurs whose hearts may be in the right place but whose lack of formal qualifications and experience militate against their chances of success. Moreover if veterinary surgeons who work within the greyhound industry duck responsibility for greyhound welfare they may find that those who pick up the baton and run with it turn out to be less than sympathetic to the use of dogs in sport.
In a quiet moment the other day I was trying to keep up to date with current trends in prescribing for racing greyhounds by idly turning the pages of a standard veterinary textbook which in the circumstances should probably remain nameless when I stumbled upon a comment that “it does matter whether the greyhound is racing on a licensed or unlicensed track”. This remark brought my attempts at self-improvement to an abrupt halt. The more I thought about it, the more I thought that from the point of view of the veterinary surgeon prescribing for a racing greyhound it should most definitely not matter whether the dog in question raced at a GBGB track or in the independent sector. First of all the division between the G.B.G.B.-regulated sector and the independent tracks is largely an artificial construct. However when an application is made to the G.B.G.B for the grant or renewal of a licence or registration, Rule 4A (1) B of the G.B.G.B. “Rules of Racing” stipulates that one of the criteria that the Greyhound Regulatory Board or the Director of Regulation must consider is whether the applicant “has been a supporter of any non-GBGB racecourse in England, Scotland or Wales”, suggesting that the G.B.G.B wishes to preserve the distinction between the two sectors. It is difficult to estimate the degree of overlap between the racing strength of the G.B.G.B sector and those of the independent tracks because the two sides of the house do not compare notes or publish statistics. In the course of his in-depth investigations into the greyhound industry back in 2007 Lord Donoughue was informed that at least 30% of the greyhounds that raced at independent tracks also raced in the regulated sector. As My Noble Lord’s sources are undoubtedly better than mine, I would not argue with that figure. A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then and the picture has undoubtedly changed so perhaps all we can do at present is to suggest that the number of greyhound who race in both sectors of the industry is probably too large to ignore. Clearly in these circumstances a veterinary surgeon cannot simply categorise his greyhound patients as racing either in the G.B.G.B sector or on independent tracks if a substantial number of them do both. What purpose would be usefully served by so dividing the greyhound population?
Anybody with even a nodding acquaintance with the independent sector knows that there is no routine testing of the greyhounds that race there for drug residues. If there are no rules or regulations that state that dogs should race drug free at independent tracks, and no system of testing race dogs to confirm that they are free of drug residues, does that mean that a veterinary surgeon is free to prescribe any drug he or she wishes to any dog running at an independent track for any purpose? All those with an I.Q. in double figures should be able to work that one out. I am thankfully not a lawyer but my understanding is that every veterinary surgeon has some legal responsibility for the welfare of animals under his care. Administering, prescribing or supplying medication to enable a sick or injured greyhound to race when this is clearly not in its best welfare interests could presumably be construed as a breach of this duty of care. You might think that the Eleventh Commandment applies to such situations, and that the end justifies the means for those who escape detection. Should the brown stuff hit the ventilation however, the courts are unlikely to take such a charitable view. As my esteemed colleague said elsewhere in the selfsame article that sparked off this discussion “it could be argued that if a greyhound requires treatment it is probable that it is not fit to race”. When I sat down the other day to renew my annual registration with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, which I have to do if I wish to keep on working, for the first time ever I found myself obliged to provide the College with a list of my criminal convictions. These days almost any transgression more serious than a parking ticket is likely to attract the unwelcome attention of the Royal College. The College is always likely to take a particularly dim view of offences involving breaches of animal welfare legislation, and rightly so. If a drink driving conviction can result in a spell of gardening leave for a veterinary surgeon, why would he put his career on the line over a spot of dodgy prescribing designed to get an injured dog first past the post at the local flapper where the prize money is pathetic and the returns for a betting coup little better? How much time do you really want to spend with your family? Discretion is as ever the better part of valour.
Now the Devil’s Advocate in me might argue that it was all right to allow to race a dog who had been receiving veterinary treatment, who had recovered, whose treatment had been completed but in whose system perhaps lingered some traces of the drugs used. Take for instance the case of a dog who got spiked in a race a week ago and had been on antibiotic treatment as a result. His wound has healed up reasonably well now and he appears to be sound when he is galloped at home. He got his last dose of antibiotic a couple of days ago. If you were to race him at a G.B.G.B track and he was unlucky enough to be selected for a random drug test he would probably test positive for antibiotics and be in breach of the G.B.G.B. Rules of Racing. Could he legitimately race at an independent track, given that there is unlikely to be a vet there to examine him before racing or anybody to collect a urine sample from him for drug testing? Perhaps that was what my esteemed colleague had in mind when he made that unguarded comment about the importance of knowing where his patients were likely to race next? I have to admit that this argument is a lot less black and white than most of the others we have been discussing here. If a gun was put to my head I think I would try to suggest that in practical terms it is not possible to be entirely certain that a dog has recovered fully from an illness or injury while there are still drugs present in its system which may be masking the clinical signs to some extent.
A few years ago in the run-up to the creation of the G.B.G.B it became the practice in certain circles to talk about the regulated and unregulated sectors of greyhound racing in the U.K. With the advent of the Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations (2010) all greyhound racing is regulated to some degree so there can no longer be said to be an unregulated sector. I am no cheerleader for regulation of the greyhound game, having a romantic anarchistic belief that no regulation would be necessary if every greyhound was owned and trained by decent folk who did the right thing. However I am not sorry to see an end to talk of the unregulated sector, a term which I always felt was a pejorative one intended to blacken the reputation of the independent sector which believe it or not does actually contain some decent folk who try to do the right thing.
Even if, and to my mind that is a very big if, the prescribing of medication for a race dog could not be said to have had an adverse effect on its welfare, the deliberate administration to a greyhound of a substance that would be likely to affect its performance in an event on which members of the public could place bets might be deemed to constitute fraud. I am not sure if they still make you sew mailbags in prison but I am quite happy not to find out from personal experience, if you get my meaning.
Forget the letter of the law for a moment, and the risks of getting caught. What is more important is that which is morally right. Going right back to where this discussion kicked off, if members of the veterinary profession are to lead the welfare debate within the greyhound industry they should be insisting that it is unethical, and morally repugnant, to encourage anyone to race a dog that is currently being treated with veterinary drugs or who has been treated with drugs recently enough for it to be likely that residues of these will still be detectable in its urine or blood. In other words, when prescribing medication for use in greyhounds racing on independent tracks, veterinary surgeons should apply the same criteria as they would when dealing with dogs destined for G.B.G.B. racing.
I know some of my professional colleagues are comfortable with the use of some anti-inflammatory drugs in greyhounds racing at independent tracks in as much as it allows some older greyhounds to race for longer and thus reduces the level of wastage among race dogs. I can understand their argument, without altogether buying into it. For me it is the thin end of the wedge. As my esteemed friend so sapiently remarked in that article about the correct use of medicines in racing greyhounds “analgesia facilitating trialling or racing can conceal injury and make it worse”. He might have gone one step further and suggested that for a veterinary surgeon to provide analgesia so that a greyhound who is lame or injured can trial or race is probably unethical. Of course in the era of internet pharmacies and at a time when every trainer seems to be able to get a wide range of drugs from friends in low places, or friends in Ireland, or both, I have no control over what medication my clients give their dogs. All I can do is advise them what to do in the best welfare interests of their charges and in the interests of keeping within the spirit and letter of the law. Doctors proverbially differ, and patients die. It would be a poor do if vets differed, and greyhounds suffered as a result.
Twitter: @GSUnderTheRadar
