When I was 14 I wanted to be a vet. I’d always loved animals, dogs of all kinds, particularly greyhounds, and I regularly raised money for the RSPCA.
But the real clincher in my planned career choice was James Herriott. I’d read all the books long before ‘All Creatures Great and Small’ appeared as a film and popular TV series.
My ambition was never realised for one reason or another. I probably wasn’t bright enough, and I definitely wouldn’t have been mature enough to stick with seven years of study.
Many years later, I happened to be chatting with one of the Star’s advertisers. Long term readers will recall a company who supplied mail order veterinary products (on prescription) including wormers, flea treatments etc.
Anyway, it turned out that the old boy who set up the company knew ‘James Herriott’. The firm was based in Thirsk in Yorkshire where Alf Wight (his real name) was the local vet.
According to the old boy, most of Herriott’s stories were ‘borrowed’. Basically, veterinary students have to spend a year ‘in the field’ where they see veterinary work at first hand.
They would chat between themselves about their experiences and stories they had heard and Alf would quiz the students visiting him.
Nothing wrong in that – and absolutely necessary. No single vet has that many interesting tales to tell.
What was sad was that according to the old boy, Alf Wight wasn’t particularly liked by the locals and that there was very little local support to create a museum in his old surgery.
I thought that was quite sad.
You cannot be involved in the greyhound industry for very long and not come across members of the veterinary community.
My dealings have been mixed, though most of the bad experiences haven’t been with industry vets.
I recall accompanying a friend to one of the multinational corporate clinics that are appearing in our High Streets and on the retail parks. Her Golden Retriever had been bitten, not badly fortunately, by a Pit Bull.
We were finally allowed into the surgery where the owner was quoted £450 for treatment by a young, assertive, Eastern European female vet.
I “helpfully” contributed that the only treatment that was required was six stitches, an antibiotic jab, with a course of oral antibiotics and that the vet was a total crook.
It was suggested that I leave (and I wasn’t surprised).
Then, a few weeks ago, a friend of the family, whose girlfriend is a vet, told the story of a middle aged couple who had brought their 13-year-old dog into the surgery.
They were told that the dog could be saved but the treatment would be in excess of £5k. He was clearly reluctant, she was in tears. A week later, she reappeared with the dog and a debit card. She had left her husband “because he wanted to kill a member of our family”. Pretty extreme but some could understand the attachment to our faithful pets.
A decent old school vet would have suggested that there was nothing could be done and that the dog should be put to sleep.
A ‘no guilt’ decision with the dog’s best interest at heart, not the vet’s bank balance.
I’ve known some bad vets but also some great ones.
As a teenager I could only observe in admiration as Bruce Prole examined and operated from his surgery at the Northaw kennel complex.
Potters Bar based David Poulter was a massive greyhound enthusiast and played a major role in the British Breeders Forum. The great Aussie vets Jim Gannon and John Kohnke (if you don’t know who they are, I suggest a quick google search) have both been guests in my home. Northern Irish vet Michael Watts, like Kohnke, was a hugely valued contributor to the Star.
Plunket Devlin was right up there among the very best of his profession in injury diagnosis and treatment. There was the innovative surgery of Allesandro Pires. Current trainers speak highly of Stefano Malegori, while there is currently no more popular vet in the industry than Towcester’s Polly Smith.
Apologies for the many who I haven’t mentioned but who do a great job.
Certainly, when you are whelping down a bitch at 4am in the morning and you fear you may lose her and her litter, there is never a more welcome set of headlights.
Perhaps my fondest memories though are of Paddy Sweeney. I am not sure that I have ever met a more decent human being and one hell of a vet.
At some stage I will recycle a couple of the articles that were written following visits to his surgery, and post retirement in Humberside.
I particularly recall one story that really summed up the great man from Donegal.
It was in the 1940s, when distemper was rife, that Paddy discovered that he had a dog with antibodies to the disease.
On a regular basis for around 18 months, Paddy would drive halfway across the country to the Government Research facility where the dog’s blood would be drawn.
Half a century on, as Paddy told the tale there were tears in his eyes for “what I had done to that poor animal”.
The GBGB are reliant on vets both for their expertise and their status as observers and arbiters of animal welfare.
The GBGB Board of Directors includes vets Simon Gower and Professor Madeline Campbell, then there is the Executive Veterinarian Tiffany Blackett who heads a whole team of newly appointed regional regulatory vets.
Track managements and trainers are coming to terms with the latest arrivals and it would be fair to say that reviews are mixed.
‘The antis within’ was one statement I heard recently, though I don’t think that is the case and even if it was, it’s not necessarily a bad thing.
(Not that the appointed vets should be against greyhound racing; that would make them hypocrites – or sleepers!).
No – I am referring to veterinary independence. It helps no one in the long term if the vets are considered too malleable or ‘bought and paid for’ by the greyhound industry.
They should certainly be a cause for good.
For years, I have complained that there was zero interaction between vets. While some were achieving fabulous surgical results, some of their colleagues were clearly not up to scratch.
If you wanted to know who the best vets were – don’t ask a vet – ask a trainer.
So I can only applaud introduction of regular seminars which, along with shared feedback, should lead to greater expertise and improved best practice.
But are they tackling the right issues?
Greyhound racing is hugely underfunded and when one area accounts for so much of the funding, don’t we deserve to know that the money is being well spent?
The word ‘transparency’ is used a lot and the Board has made great strides in the production of statistics around previously hidden information such as traceability. However, owners and trainers are often kept in the dark about what the vets are up to. Presumably the track promoters are fully briefed by their various representatives on the Board.
One story in circulation suggests that there is currently a GBGB veterinary study into the genetics component of race injuries.
As someone who has studied bloodlines for over half a century, I can say that they are probably wasting their time.
I don’t doubt that there is a genetic component. Indeed I can name certain bloodlines that are more robust than others and freak litters where several littermates have each made 150-200 races.
The problem is, the variables are so many, and the data so difficult to accurately compile, that the world doesn’t yet have a super computer capable of crunching the numbers.
Besides, how many generations of greyhounds would it take to breed out any bad traits?
By far the greater concern though is this – if the vets are looking to improve welfare at its most basic level – why do they seem to be targeting trainers and not tracks?
If the Board vets have not yet realised it, I will be clear in my view.
Tracks, specifically track surfaces that are not up to scratch, are mainly responsible for injuries – not trainers.
Proving it, just takes logic.
If all tracks were equal, we can assume that injuries would be spread roughly equally across the industry based proportionally on the number of races held at each track.
They are not.
A story reaches me that I cannot confirm – but am convinced is true – that one track has claimed for at least two and a half times as many serious injuries as its next closest rival.
Not surprisingly, some of the other tracks are raging, particularly those who seldom make a claim against the Injury Recovery Scheme.
While the track owners jealously guard their injury figures, the Board vets will have access to them. And if they don’t, they can easily access the Board’s own Injury Recovery Scheme figures.
But there is a ton of evidence if they choose to look for it.
Just one example, what is the current injury rate at Central Park?
I would bet big that it is a fraction of what it was before ARC invested heavily in it. At least that is what the locals will suggest.
If the industry vets really are serious about welfare, I suggest they study the data and then start asking some straightforward questions of tracks.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A short follow-up observation following last week’s piece about betting percentages.
At Doncaster on Monday there was a three runner A4 where they returned 4/6f, 8/1, 5/4 in finishing order for a return of 116%. Six races later there was a B3 which returned 10/3, 5/4 and 11/10f. SP return 115%.
But here is the thing. The first race saw all three runners covered by two and a half lengths.
The second race saw winning margins of ‘sh, ¾’.
It is worth noting that the Doncaster racing offices are pretty good at close finishes. There were three five-dog races where the entire field were covered by 2½, 3 lengths, and 3 ½ lengths.
But the three-runner fields concept got me thinking. If I am a punter in a betting shop, I’ve had a great run for my money no matter who I have backed.
Not like National Hunt fields where the 1/5fav normally wins by two fences.
There was only three six-runner events on the Doncaster card and they each returned at 127%.
This isn’t about exciting racing. It is about bookmaker profits.
“Editors Chair is an opinion article written by Floyd Amphlett who has been with the Greyhound Star since 1987. Floyd has experienced all of the major developments in greyhound racing for the past 40 years and maintains an enthusiastic interest in the progress and future development of the industry.”
