New ‘mandate’ on greyhound welfare found wanting

They say size doesn’t matter but in this case I would have to disagree. It has taken two professional organisations – GREY2K USA Worldwide and the League Against Cruel Sports – near two years to compile a mere 14,600-word report on greyhound welfare that is sadly found wanting.

Worryingly, LACS fail to see a correlation between track configuration and the catastrophic number of injuries greyhounds sustain, and are seemingly unable to compute realistic figures for the number of greyhounds facing a premature death. Or at the very least are publicly unable to recognise and acknowledge either of the above.

The new report – The state of greyhound racing in Great Britain: a mandate for change – was published this October and carried with it much expectation, perhaps naïve expectation as LACS do not fall within the ‘anti’ camp but are rather a welfare charity pursuing measured change seemingly in the belief the humane treatment of greyhounds and commercial greyhound racing are not incompatible, and thus are labelled by industry officials as “welfarists” and “responsible.”

On a positive note, two areas of concern are covered well; kennel conditions (section 3.3.1) and the sale of dogs for research purposes (section 3.4.4). But a lack of understanding of greyhound racing in Britain is evident in other sections. Apparently, “dogs owned by GBGB trainers” will typically compete in several races in one day. That is simply not true and you can be sure industry officials will jump on errors like that to discredit the whole report.

The report further talks of just 1,000 retired greyhounds unaccounted for every year. How does it get that figure? By deducting the number of dogs homed by the Retired Greyhound Trust in 2012 (3,910), plus the homing figure attributed to other rescues (1,500) and dogs homed independently (1,500), from recent annual registrations for greyhounds to compete within the regulated sector. But according to the RGT, about 30 percent of their dogs were not registered for racing. In other words are non-graders if not having competed on independent tracks. It would be reasonable to assume a similar percentage applies regarding other homing figures.* 

Non-graders, however, do account for the majority of greyhounds facing a premature death with Ireland being the chief country of origin. Irish breeding figures in relation to greyhound racing in Britain remain conjecture but simple calculations provide a realistic estimate. It is essential to know how many dogs we are talking about – even a ballpark figure – but the report chooses not to compute any numbers; a major failing.

Injuries are covered in two sections – 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 – and while the overwhelming majority are linked to track configuration this is not given mention. Do not be surprised. Against a tide of credible research, LACS have stated: “We disagree that an oval greyhound track can never be made safe for the dogs participating.”

In Britain up to six greyhounds are pitted against each other on tracks that essentially comprise two straights leading into tight bends. The forces generated through the limbs on negotiating the turns, the potential to lose footing and inevitable interaction between runners on such tracks, are key factors in the appalling scale of injuries suffered by racing dogs every year. It is even now policy of one political party that new statutory legislation is necessary that would permit only greyhound racing on a straight course (for the precise reasons I give above). The League’s position on this is indefensible.

Amusingly, the report is being promoted widely by antis who support a ban on the betting on greyhound racing, but LACS are of the view that a decline in betting turnover, and thus a decline in funding for the racing industry by way of the British Greyhound Racing Fund, will have a negative impact on welfare. It is difficult to argue otherwise but here I must side with the antis. Guardian columnist Michele Hanson put it very succinctly: “As soon as you put humans, animals and money into an equation, you’re going to have problems.” Nowhere is this better illustrated than in greyhound racing.  

Ultimately, major welfare issues inherent in the ‘sport’ will never satisfactorily be resolved until such time racing is conducted only on a straight course and commercial operations cease; both, seemingly, alien concepts for LACS. That said, any measures that will improve welfare should be supported and here I include recommendations as detailed in the report. I just wish they had made a better job of it.

*Taking into account the number of non-graders that are homed, the figure for ex-racing greyhounds unaccounted for is about 3,000 and NOT 1,000! It is easy to understand why the incredible level of secrecy on the part of the GBGB surrounding the fate of retired greyhounds.

 

Comprehensive breeding and homing figures in relation to greyhound racing in Britain are covered in detail in the first and only publication of its kind: Behind the Lights, the Tote and the Non-starters 

The only publication of its kind: Behind the Lights, the Tote and the Non-starters

It is incredible to think that while controversy surrounding the treatment of greyhounds has rumbled on for decades, there is not a single book covering the subject… until now that is. From breeding legislation violations to the indiscriminate homing of greyhounds, the first and only publication of its kind - Behind the Lights, the Tote and the Non-starters - covers the primary welfare issues inherent in the British greyhound racing industry.

In parts controversial and based on many years painstaking research, it demolishes the propaganda perpetuated by industry officials but is written as an independent analysis to include also an objective look at the campaign opposing greyhound racing as well as the position adopted by a number of welfare bodies, namely the RSPCA, LACS, Greyhounds UK and the Dogs Trust.

A compelling read for anyone with an interest in greyhounds, their welfare and the racing industry.

Published by Grey UK

ISBN 978-0-9928394-0-6 

E-mail: greyuk@outlook.com 

 

   

Distributed by Action for Greyhounds

Tel. 07809 681691, 01603 469864, e-mail info@actionforgreyhounds.co.uk

Price: a mere £9.95 (excluding post)

Now available to ORDER ONLINE and promoted on Facebook

Saint and the devil

One of this pair has been a force for good in ending the horrific abuse of greyhounds bred for racing. She has used law to brilliant effect in closing many tracks in the USA and is now looking at where and how similar success can be achieved in Britain. The other person has caused upset and division where ever she treads and has likely done more harm than good in her ‘support’ of the British greyhound protection movement. Recognise the person who is the greyhounds' friend and the person who is not?

Drugs, greyhounds and self-regulation

The variety of drugs injected or fed to greyhounds that can potentially affect the animal’s performance - improve or impair - is matched only by the variety of excuses when the trainers are caught.

More recently two cases stand out not only because of the substances involved but also because of how each case was dealt with and the outcome.

In September last year the police interviewed trainer Anthony Fowler on reports he was selling cannabis. It transpired, however, Fowler was giving both cannabis and Viagra to a greyhound called Jake to affect the animal’s track time.

The matter was brought to the attention of the RSPCA and though Fowler had got rid of the greyhound - put down due to a shoulder injury… apparently - a successful prosecution was brought against the trainer at Hartlepool Magistrates Court.

On 9 August Fowler was banned from keeping dogs for life. The trainer was further given an 18-week custodial sentence, suspended for 18 months, and ordered to pay £1,000 costs.

There are two key points concerning the above: Fowler was not a licensed trainer and so not subject to the Rules of Racing under the Greyhound Board of Great Britain and the case was dealt with by a magistrates’ court.

The second case concerns a black and white greyhound bitch called Steer Me Home and trained by David Puddy. A urine sample taken from the dog at Central Park Stadium, Sittingbourne, in March this year was found to contain methamphetamine and amphetamine.

Both are central nervous system stimulants. The former is a Class A drug known colloquially as crystal meth. The latter is a Class B drug known as speed.

Puddy is a licensed trainer (attached to Sittingbourne) and at a GBGB disciplinary hearing held on 19 July was found in breach of rules 152 (i), 174 (i)(b) and 217. The disciplinary committee ordered that Puddy be “severely reprimanded” and fined £750.

A magistrates’ court is of course independent and the GBGB are the governing body for 25 tracks across England and Scotland. Puddy is still running dogs at Sittingbourne.

The GBGB press office stated this week that “with all cases relating to drugs the relevant authorities are informed.” Puddy’s partner, speaking on Monday, said neither the RSPCA nor the police had made any enquiries.

If there’s one positive to take from any of the above, it’s that Fowler was banned from keeping dogs for life. The fact, however, Fowler was caught in the first place had nothing to do with protecting animals.

Ultimately one is again left questioning whether the welfare of racing dogs is best served by a self-regulating industry. Furthermore, one has to question the relationship between the GBGB and other “relevant authorities.”

Greyhound track horror: a steward’s eye view

A new survey - the largest of its kind undertaken - offers a disturbing insight into the world of greyhound racing and the set task demanded of these athletes; the racing at speed on tight anti-clockwise tracks.

In Britain up to 6 greyhounds are pitted against each other on a track that essentially comprises two straights leading into tight bends. The forces generated through the limbs on negotiating the turns, the potential to lose footing and inevitable interaction between dogs on such tracks, are key factors in the catastrophic number of injuries suffered by the dogs every year.

It is impossible to give a detailed breakdown of injuries or a figure for greyhound’s euthanased as a result of injury. Such information is being collated by the industry but is not being made public (against a key recommendation within a Parliamentary Group report published May 2007).

What we do have, however, are the stewards racing comments covering the ‘performance’ of each dog in each race. How the dogs perform is of course a measure of safety and the comments make for sobering reading.

In 2010 the number of runners not finishing (DNF) or finishing at distance (DIS) was 4,513. The tally of runners recorded broke-down or lame was 1,812. Above figures are taken from a survey by Greyhound Watch covering the races held on tracks governed by UKAS accredited Greyhound Board of Great Britain.

The highest figures recorded in the survey for individual tracks are as follows: 68 DNF, Monmore; 290 DIS, Crayford; 231 broke-down/lame (timed finish), Sittingbourne; 296 broke-down/lame (overall), Sittingbourne.

Whilst a greyhound recorded DNF or DIS is not always an indication of injury, it is of course the more severe injuries prevalent in greyhound racing that either impair greatly a dogs time or terminate his/her race. Hock fractures are sadly all too common on oval tracks and invariably result in the animal being destroyed.

As a percentage of races contended, Sittingbourne had by far the highest figure for runners listed in the survey. On 15 January alone stewards at the Kent track recorded one greyhound broke-down and 11 greyhounds lame. A further 2 finished at distance after falling. For 7 of the greyhounds it was to be their last race.

The most serious injuries suffered by the dogs - to include longbone fractures - are commonly the result of a fall, and the number of runners brought down on oval tracks is horrifying. From the data compiled above that covers 5,565 runners, 2,315 are recorded falling. The breakdown is as follows: turn one, 1,309; turn two, 283; turn three, 272; turn four, 81; other, 370.

Figures clearly indentify the first corner as the most dangerous point on the track and the incidents that occur as the dogs enter turn one account for many of the greyhounds lost through injury.

1,938 runners listed in the survey did not contend another race. On greyhound-data.com there are 68 British based rescues alone listing retired racers as either available for adoption or adopted. A further section covers dogs independently homed/kept by their trainer/owner but only 188 of the runners can be accounted for in this way.

Many people might find the results of the survey disturbing but it does nothing more than provide a flavour of what is a happening on British greyhound tracks.

The survey does not cover the 11 independent tracks where it is thought safety is no better, nor does it cover the tens of thousands of trials held. Furthermore there is stark variation on what stewards include in race comments that at best highlight only a fraction of the injuries racing dogs incur.

Industry officials will tell you the injury rate is falling but there is a lack of evidence, not surprisingly, to support a substantial long-term fall. Indeed, if reports from grass roots members of the racing fraternity are anything to go by, the scale and nature of injuries in 2010 was as bad as it gets.

GBGB ‘retirement’ forms include a section for dogs put down due to injury (treatable or otherwise) and a request was made (twice) for the figure covering 2010. The governing body have yet to respond.

Survey information correct at the time compiled (July/August 2011).

Footnote:

Pro-greyhound racing charity League Against Cruel Sports believes it is possible for racing to be safe on oval tracks. LACS was repeatedly asked for evidence supporting their view but of course no such information has been provided. I fail to see how welfare is being promoted by a group that clearly has much to learn on the subject.

Update:

This subject is now covered in Behind the Lights, the Tote and the Non-starters, where additional information is provided.

Rescue speaks out on cruelty to greyhounds

Every year many thousands of greyhounds of no further use or value to the racing industry are disposed of and whilst many are killed, a large number will be adopted through rescues.

The idea, however, that all falling within the latter group had responsible owners who put the animal’s welfare and security first is very wide of the mark.

Chair of Lancashire Retired Greyhound Trust, Sarah Horner, was recently to speak out about life on the ‘front line’ and accused owners and trainers of dumping greyhounds on branch doorsteps and threatening to have the animal’s destroyed if not taken in.

According to industry governing body, Greyhound Board of Great Britain, the sport of greyhound racing is “well run, properly regulated and the welfare of the dogs is always the main priority of those involved.”

I’m not sure Horner would agree, having taken in racing dogs “with maggots crawling out of festering wounds” and dogs “covered in crap and pee, and emaciated.”

The above are ex-Belle Vue dogs, a track the rescue is now affiliated to under the new name Lancashire and Belle Vue RGT.

Horner states: “I had one Belle Vue owner bring a dog to me whose back leg was dangling the wrong way round, he had it in his arms and shoved the dog at me and said ‘see what you can do with him’ (and then) laughed and walked off.”

And according to Horner the above is an example of what is seen at many non-track based RGT branches.

The Ormskirk based branch has homed more than 40 greyhounds since its formation in October 2010; a figure to include greyhounds retired responsibly, greyhounds with injuries the owners are refusing to pay to have treated and greyhounds found as strays.

In 2010 the number of greyhounds homed nationally through the RGT fell by approximately 500 on the previous year.

Footnote:

It was at Belle Vue in 1926 that the first greyhound races in Britain were held and the fact, some 85 years later, we are receiving accounts of neglect as above speaks volumes about the true “priority” given to welfare.

IGB sink to new low

Is this Irish bred greyhound destined for China?

In an article published 27 February, The Sunday Times exposed recent discussions that have taken place between the Irish Greyhound Board and Chinese officials on the development of greyhound racing in China and the export of Irish dogs to meet the demand generated by the expansion.

Many animal welfare organisations including the Dogs Trust, Dublin SPCA, Irish SPCA and Blue Cross have expressed grave concerns about the discussions and are calling on the IGB to reconsider their plans.

In a joint letter to the media the group stated: “The future of Irish greyhounds in China would at best be short lived and at worst dire and unthinkable.”

No regulation of any kind exists in China to protect domestic animals and a track official at the Canidrome (currently China’s only stadium) is reported saying that 400 of their dogs judged too old to race are killed every year.

The IGB - a semi-state body - appear, however, indifferent on the greyhound’s fate if a quote in The Sunday Times is anything to go by: “We do not have any influence on the welfare standards adopted in other countries, and these matters are more appropriately dealt with by the country’s own legislative system.”

Not since the horrific pictures exposing the ill treatment and killing of Irish greyhounds exported to Spain has the industry faced such a backlash with British welfare organisations standing united with their Irish counterparts.

The IGB is being watched. If the collaboration with China goes ahead the Board will have lost all credibility and Ireland’s reputation will be irrevocably tarnished.

Track closures benefit greyhounds

The RSPCA reported that “at least 20 greyhounds a day - either puppies which do not make the track, or ‘retired’ dogs aged three or four - simply ‘disappear’, presumed killed.”

Adoption and litter statistics, however, point to a much higher figure though it is continuing to fall and this is despite the total for greyhounds homed through the Retired Greyhound Trust in 2010 being more than 500 down on the previous year.

British tracks fuelled the breeding of about 16,140 dogs in 2010. The total homing figure (dogs homed through the RGT and independently) for the same year is thought in the region 7,200. The figures for 2009 are 17,140 and 7,730.

The desire for only the highest performing greyhounds means about half all dogs bred for the track never make the grade and it is non-graders that make-up a majority percentage of dogs killed.

Breeder, trainer and owner Richard Newell famously said: “I think you all live in cloud cuckoo land if you think there aren't hundreds of greys put-to-sleep before they even reach the track in the UK. Hundreds of pups are too slow to grade, some don't chase, others fight, injuries as pups etc.”

But with the opportunity of a home given primarily to ex-racers it can be a little misleading comparing breeding and homing figures from the same year.

The mean annual total for greyhounds bred (to meet the demand generated by British tracks) across the last 3 years is about 17,940. The best estimate, making the same calculation for greyhounds homed, is 7,500.

Disparity between the above figures is notably down compared with mean annual figures covering 2007/8/9.

The Dogs Trust has rightly stated that “euthanasia of healthy, retired dogs is ethically indefensible.” The charity has further conveyed a need for the development of a system that matches the number of dogs entering racing with the numbers that can be rehomed.

Without wishing to state the obvious, it is never going to happen. Racing dogs are not just killed because of a shortage of homes, they are killed purely and simply on economic grounds.

Figures for greyhounds unaccounted for are falling but that is largely thanks to the continued decline in greyhound racing.

Since August 2008 five major tracks have ceased operating (Coventry, Hull, Portsmouth, Reading and Walthamstow). The subsequent fall of more than 19% in the number of races held on tracks governed by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain has of course dictated a significant reduction in breeding figures.

Whether we ever reach a point where at least half the greyhounds bred to meet the demand generated by British tracks receive a forever home is difficult to say but every track closure is a step in the right direction.

Footnote:

Industry officials mislead the public on the number of greyhounds unaccounted for by comparing adoption figures against figures for dogs that make it to the track. Information in a recent Henlow race card is a good example of this.

Greyhound breeding scandal

There exists in Britain the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 that was substantially amended by the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999.

Under the Act, a person keeping a breeding establishment for dogs will require a licence issued by the local authority. And for the purposes of the Act such an establishment is defined essentially as a business of breeding dogs for sale where a minimum 5 litters are bred across a one year period.

Key detail in the legislation, as you would expect, concerns the welfare and protection of brood bitches with licence conditions stipulating that any one bitch does not give birth to more than 6 litters of puppies, and that bitches do not give birth to puppies within a 12 month period of last giving birth.

It is legislation that is of course applicable to greyhounds as it is any other breed of dog, but as far as greyhounds are concerned the Act seems hardly worth the paper it is written on (what a surprise).

Due to the decline in greyhound racing in Britain the number of greyhound puppies bred annually has fallen dramatically over more recent years (litters recorded with the National Coursing Club (NCC) falling by more than 54% in the last 7 years) and there are now few establishments that require a licence.

Indeed greyhound breeding across the last decade in Britain has been spread very thinly with the infamous Charles Pickering (‘warned off’ in October 2010) being one notable exception. Other key players, however, include Craig Dawson, James Fenwick and David Firmager. All 3 are licensed trainers under the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB).

The NCC received 55 litter entries (across 24 dams) for Dawson between 01 June 2000 and 31 May 2010 (puppy total: 361). The total number of litters recorded for the above dams is 74 (other litters falling outside the time frame and/or recorded under a different breeder and/or with the Irish Coursing Club (ICC)).

Dawson, rightly in my view, has held a breeding licence for many years, but research highlights seemingly repeated violation of licence conditions. Looking solely at litters recorded under Dawson with the NCC, bitches gave birth on 14 occasions within 12 months of last giving birth.

When questioned about the above Dawson was to remark: “I didn’t know I was only allowed to breed one litter a year per bitch. Nobody has ever told me any different.”

A litter born September 2001 by Plasterscene Gem/Polnoon Lane and recorded under Dawson was the dam’s seventh litter, and 8 litters are recorded under Dawson for brood bitch Jackies Lady (whelping date for 4 of the litters within 12 months of the dam last giving birth).

Breeding data under Fenwick gives even greater cause for concern. The NCC received 101 litter entries (across 45 dams) for the trainer (attached to Newcastle) between 01 June 2000 and 31 May 2010 (puppy total: 641). A total of 158 litters are recorded for the above dams.

The maximum number of litters born within any calendar year falling within the above dates and recorded solely with the NCC is 18, with 5 or more litters consistently recorded across any one year period for much of the last decade. Fenwick, however, stated recently that he has never held a breeding licence in the last 10 years.

Whelping dates for 40 litter entries recorded under Fenwick with the NCC are within 12 months of the dams last giving birth.

A litter born August 2001 by Droopys Zidane/Ladys Guest and recorded under Fenwick was the dam’s seventh litter. Brood bitches Lydpal Frankie and Ballybeg Pumpkin are both recorded having 7 litters under Fenwick (the latter having a total of 8 litters (the eighth recorded under a different breeder with the ICC)), and 9 litters are recorded under Fenwick for brood bitch Any Chewing Gum (7 of the litters born within 12 months of the dam last giving birth).

In the light of the above it is interesting to note that Fenwick considered the restriction on the number of litters any bitch can have to 6 as “good and proper.” With Fenwick, however, not having a breeding licence he cannot be in breach of licence conditions.

The Act, perhaps drawn up with the best intentions, is clearly not protecting brood bitches in a number of ways: It depends on the honesty of the breeder; breeding establishments are seemingly not being monitored as closely as they should be and of course not all dams are covered by the Act.

Subsection (5) under ‘4A Breeding establishments for dogs’ would on the face it allow a person to breed any number of litters without requiring a licence (and so not be subject to licence conditions) if none of the puppies born are sold within a particular time frame. DEFRA were unable to provide clarification on the above! Of further concern is the fact different authorities have different interpretations of the Act.

The only breeder in research carried out where it is thought subsection (5) may apply is Firmager. Melton Borough Council could not say whether Firmager has held a licence in the past due to records lost in a fire. Firmager was unwilling to talk on the matter stating only: “We’re actually winding down breeding dogs, there’s no money in it and to be honest with you I wouldn’t have anything good to say about the GBGB.”

The NCC received 62 litter entries (across 31 dams) for Firmager between 01 June 2000 and 31 May 2010 (puppy total: 457) with 5 or more litters frequently recorded across any one year period up until October 2009. A total of 74 litters are recorded for the above dams.

Whelping dates for 13 litter entries recorded under Firmager with the NCC are within 12 months of the dams last giving birth, and 8 litters are recorded under the trainer for brood bitch Fast March (6 of the litters born within 12 months of the dam last giving birth).

And worryingly, as the number of breeders that require a licence diminishes, it does not necessarily follow that brood bitches are having fewer litters. Research has identified many dams that function simply as breeding machines with litters from any one bitch commonly recorded under different breeders. A period of only 7-8 months in-between whelping dates in also not uncommon.

The relevant local authorities are in receipt of comprehensive data compiled by Greyhound Watch on Dawson and Fenwick that again brings in question the role of the GBGB in protecting the welfare of greyhounds. It is astonishing to think that in 2010 the governing body was given UKAS accreditation.

Information correct at the time compiled (07 January 2011).

Update:

This subject is now covered in Behind the Lights, the Tote and the Non-starters, where additional information is provided.

‘Enough is enough’ declares greyhound owner

In just 3 months greyhound trainer and owner Dave Smith has seen 4 greyhounds retire through injury and the future of a fifth remains in the balance. Now Smith has declared “enough is enough.”

Smith is not a major player within the ‘sport’ of greyhound racing but as the person behind Greyhoundscene - the largest forum for UK members of the racing fraternity - and its associated website site greyhoundsforsale.co.uk, he is one of the best known.

Earlier this month Smith publicly stated: “I doubt I will ever buy another dog, I work bloody hard to earn a decent living for my family (and) I can no longer look my wife and kids in the face and tell them that’s another few grand I have wasted.”

The recent spate of retirements is said to have cost the owners £16,000. Smith further added that he would today “walk away from this sport” if he was not running the forum.

And the anguish felt by Smith is echoed by members of the racing fraternity across the country. “The sport is in a complete mess. Dogs (are) being injured left, right and centre,” writes owner Lee Calcutt, in a posting on Greyhoundscene.

Clash Hummer, Mustang Beauty, Oakfront Dame and Corrig Vieri are among the many greyhounds whose career on the track was recently prematurely terminated as a result of hock injuries sustained in competition, training or trials.

The scale of injuries has not escaped the attention of the recently formed Greyhound Owners, Breeders and Trainers Association who have described the situation as a “crisis.”

Chairman Martin White is reported saying: “The matter is of serious concern to practitioners, many of whom have been in touch with GOBATA reporting their individual experiences and frustration at what appears to be an inordinate amount of greyhounds suffering serious injuries.”

Discussions have taken place between the group and the ‘sports’ governing body - the Greyhound Board of Great Britain - to try and ascertain if statistics support the “deluge of complaints.”

I wish GOBATA the best of luck. Injuries to greyhounds remains one of the most sensitive and guarded subjects within greyhound racing.

Smith has stated that injuries this year are the worst he has ever known. The owner further added: “I like many others have slowly had the stuffing knocked out of me; recently I have spent more time going to the vets and physios than to the racetrack.”

The summer will typically see a rise in the level of injuries both on and off the track and perhaps there are other underlying causes not yet identified. That said the nature of greyhound racing in Britain - six greyhounds competing against each other on an oval circuit - is inherently lethal.

It is, however, when casualties command significant monetary value that owners question there involvement in the ‘sport’. £200 disposable BAGS runners rarely get a thought.

A study of studies: Why Britain’s greyhound tracks are inherently lethal

The act of racing one greyhound against another is not necessarily hazardous for the dogs. View racing at Odense (Denmark) and rarely will you see an incident resulting in serious injury but Odense is one of the few tracks where greyhounds run on a straight course (over a 260 metre distance).

In Britain, however, as in Ireland (and a number of other countries where greyhound racing is held) the dogs run on an oval-like circuit that essentially comprises two straights leading into tight bends. This configuration can prove lethal for the greyhounds with the risk of injury rising significantly when dogs are pitted against each other.

At the time of writing there are 25 tracks regulated under the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB) and 12 independent venues across England, Scotland and Wales.

Whilst all of the above are oval-like in configuration, variations exist from track to track in length of straights, banking and tightness of bends. There exists also huge disparity in the depth of sand (used for the surface and middle layers) and composition of base layer that in turn can affect the performance of a track.

Such variations impact on safety as does the maintenance of the track, operation of the mechanical hare, trap draw, grade, race distance and weather conditions. Research to date, however, would indicate that even where all factors relating to safety are judged ideal the frequency of injuries will never fall dramatically whilst dogs are competing on oval-like circuits.

Track ‘improvements’

In May 2008 the track at Owlerton (Sheffield) received both a new surface and drainage system costing in the region £125,000. General Manager Dave Perry was reported saying: “It is all about the welfare of our greyhounds here at Owlerton. The resurfacing of the track will improve our already high standards.”

Owlerton was a track that Perry apparently considered “one of the safest in the country” prior to the work carried out and with no change in its configuration was there ever likely to be a notable reduction in dogs injured?

On Greyhoundscene - the largest internet forum for UK members of the racing fraternity - the following posting was made in July 2008: “What’s going on at Sheffield - injury rates (have) nearly trebled since the track re-laid the surface at massive cost. All sorts of injuries being reported by all trainers - shoulders, wrists, gracilis, hocks… there'll be no sound dogs left at this rate!”

Similarly, two months following ‘improvements’ at Yarmouth Stadium in June 2010 to include a new surface and drainage and costing £190,000, owners were reporting a notable increase in the frequency of injuries - many serious - in both trials and races.

Anomalies in injury rates are inevitable and looking long term I would not expect such rates at either Sheffield or Yarmouth to be higher. By the same token I would be very surprised if either were to fall significantly.

Yarmouth Racing Manager Bill Johnson, speaking in August, believed the level of injuries had changed little since the work carried out. Perry said the injury rate at Sheffield had fallen but refused to say by how much as he felt the information could be used by those who appose racing.

Of course it’s good PR to claim 6 figure sums are being spent in the name of welfare, and I have no doubt that welfare is a factor (injuries to greyhounds are costly for both the owner and the business of racing) but if changes to the track have at best only a marginal impact on safety what other motive could there be for the money invested?

A clue can be found on another internet posting, again concerning the work at Sheffield: “Hopefully (it will) make the conditions fairer and remove the bias when the rain comes.”

Both the promoters and GBGB are seeking to protect and strengthen the integrity of racing. A good track surface, properly maintained, is a prerequisite for a consistent racing environment. This in turn gives the betting public the assurance that race outcomes are based solely on the dog’s ability.

It is further hoped that money being invested in ‘welfare’ will reduce the number of meetings cancelled due to bad weather that again can be very costly for the business of racing.

Injuries, Perry Barr

In a thesis published 1992 and titled The Nature and Incidence of Greyhound Racing Injuries, Agnew BP examined a record of injuries across 953 race meetings at Perry Barr (Birmingham).

Perry Barr was converted from a grass/sand track to a modern all sand facility in 1978 and data was examined from both before and after the change in the running surface was made. It is data relating to the modern facility that of course carries particular weight and the statistics make for interesting reading.

1612 injuries were recorded across 748 meetings. This was broken down as follows: shoulder, 205; carpus, 475; metacarpus, 24; forefoot, 127; hindmuscle, 227; hock, 58; metatarsus, 5; hindfoot, 144; cramp, 234; combination, 54; miscellaneous, 59.

Career ending injuries are commonly hock related and out of the 58 listed above 2 greyhounds were recorded retired and 21 were recorded destroyed. This data, however, is based solely on the immediate post race decision.

Particularly notable is the injury rate as a percentage of runners rose from 4.6 for the year prior to conversion to an all sand facility to 6.6 for the year following conversion. The percentage rate for the all sand facility does later fall (3.9 being the lowest figure) but the difference is not as great as might be expected for the change made in the track surface.

Notable also is the figures for single limb injuries as a percentage of total injuries recorded that rose from 65.2 for the grass/sand track to 81.2 for the all sand facility.

The survey at Perry Barr is one of a number of similar studies both in Britain and abroad across which there exists a lack of uniformity in the recording of information and findings. Where consistency, however, does exist is in the analysis of data and the evident correlation between numerous injuries and track configuration.

Agnew concluded that the principal causal factor for injury patterns was the “definite and set task demanded of these athletes; the racing at speed on tight anti-clockwise tracks.”

Cornering

Sprinting into a bend increases effective body weight and a human will respond to this by extending the duration of contact each foot has with the ground. As a result, forces on the legs are said to remain constant.

A study, however, by Usherwood JR and Wilson AM and featured in Nature (Vol. 438), found that in greyhounds observed there was no notable change in foot contact timings when the dogs entered a tight bend. As such, forces on the limbs were calculated to increase by approximately 65%.

The use of banking will reduce horizontal loads and this in turn may see a reduction in injury rates. It has been calculated, however, that the degree of banking required to negate such forces would be so high as to generate additional hazards for the greyhounds as well proving almost impossible to maintain.

Indeed modern thinking with regard turn one is to keep the banking to a minimum so allowing the outside dogs to remain wide with the optimum level more a judgement than a science and not easy to ascertain.

At best the bends on a track can be made safer but not safe and injuries are inevitable with the site of injury frequently dictated by the direction of turn. World renowned veterinarian Alessandro Piras gives a figure of 96% for the incidence of central tarsal bone fractures occurring in the right leg.

Bergh MS, in a thesis examining this phenomenon, noted: “These fractures have been classified into five types; all of which usually contain a dorsal slab component. The cause of these fractures has not been rigorously investigated, but it is suspected that racing in a counter-clockwise direction on oval tracks produces cyclic overload of the medial compartment of the right tarsus.”

Dee JF and Dee LG further link track configuration with injury patterns: “The fact that the race is run on a circular track, in a counter-clockwise direction, exacerbates the stresses of racing. These increased stresses are substantiated by the locations of metacarpal/metatarsal injuries: they occur most frequently on the ‘rail’ side of the affected foot, specifically metacarpal V of the left foot, metacarpal II of the right foot and metatarsal III of the right foot.”

Dog interaction

Whilst many of the injuries greyhounds sustain are linked directly with the forces generated through cornering, many of the more serious that include long bone fractures are the result of a fall and/or collision with other dogs.

The potential to lose footing when negotiating the tight bends of a track at speeds of up to 40 mph is high for a greyhound running solo. Pitch six greyhounds against each other and there are an alarming number of incidents in which greyhounds collide and fall.

A survey by Greyhound Watch covering all tracks governed by the GBGB identified turn one as the point on the track where the greatest number of incidents occurs. In January 2010 alone, 109 dogs were recorded falling/brought down in turn one against dogs not finishing/finishing at distance, with the true figure likely much higher.

The above including 4 greyhounds that fell in the opening race at Mildenhall on 15 January, 3 falling in the penultimate race at Nottingham on 05 January and 3 falling in the second race of the evening meeting at Newcastle on 23 January.

As the dogs hurtle into turn one they are reaching a higher speed and are more tightly bunched than at any other point in the race. The result can be mayhem. Further compounding the situation can be wide runners allotted an inside trap (and vice versa) and pups running with seasoned dogs.

With the pressure to fill race cards it is inevitable that on occasion greyhounds are not ideally placed as Andrew Johnston posting on Greyhound Knowledge Forum is only too aware: “I had a pup run at Newcastle… it was bowled over 3 times out of 8 races at the first bend, a totally green pup thrown in with seasoned adult racers, the poor pup got so smashed up the third time it had to be put-to-sleep.”

The track bends create also a hazard for the greyhounds on the straights as all 4 turns (that make up one full circuit) influence the conflicting lines greyhounds will run on the straights. This again can result in dogs colliding, with potentially devastating consequences.

Injuries, scale

It is impossible to give an exact annual total for injuries sustained and greyhound’s euthanased as a result of injury. Such information is being collated by the GBGB but is not being made public (against a key recommendation within a Parliamentary Group report published May 2007).

Though it has to be said the industry themselves do not have precise figures. Data compiled is based on track veterinary reports and many injuries are diagnosed only the following day (for the same reason above data recorded for Perry Barr is not complete). It has further been claimed that certain trainers who, at the time of a meeting, suspect a dog to be lame are not always having the animal checked by the vet in attendance.

What information is available, however, gives animal welfare charities and the like a good indication of scale.

Before Walthamstow closed I spoke with the racing office who stated that about 25 greyhounds were put down as a result of injury at the track over a 12 month period. Yarmouth office has given a similar figure. The number of races held at Walthamstow across one full year represented 4.7% of the total for GBGB tracks alone (figure based on the last full year of racing). The same calculation for Yarmouth in 2009 is a disturbing 3.1%.

In August this year the Swindon Advertiser reported the deaths of 4 greyhounds in as many weeks at the local track, all the result of incidents described as “in-running collisions,” and during a particularly awful spate of injuries covering a 4 week period last year at Belle Vue (Manchester), 6 greyhounds had to be destroyed.

At a single meeting on 15 January at Sittingbourne, steward’s recorded 11 greyhounds lame and one greyhound having ‘brokedown’. A further 2 finished at distance after falling. The total for greyhounds recorded lame/brokedown across January-March 2010 at the above track is 75.

It should, however, be noted that steward’s comments only hint at the scale of injuries. Perhaps a better indication of scale is the fact that at any one time a professional trainer will likely have as many as half his/her greyhounds out through injury.

From a wealth of information such as above it is very evident that the number of injuries sustained annually on British tracks is a 5 figure sum, many of which are serious and result in hundreds of greyhounds losing their lives.

Conclusion

The GBGB state that a quarter of a million pounds was spent in 2008 “improving the safety of tracks across the country, reducing injuries and helping to extend racing careers.” The GBGB, however, have yet to publish any evidence that injury rates long-term at any track have fallen dramatically.

And with tracks that are seeing a spate of fatalities apparently already among the safest in the country such evidence is never likely to materialise.

The Swindon racing office, in response to the recent deaths detailed above, is reported saying: “No expense is spared ensuring that we have the finest sand and fixtures on the track, plus the best track preparation, veterinary and racing teams in the business.”

The “finest” didn’t save Rackethall Kenny, Swift Abel, Wots Er Name and Daytwo, nor will the “finest” prevent thousands of greyhounds getting ‘smashed-up’ across the country every year.

Oval tracks are perhaps the most dangerous environment in which to hold greyhound racing. To members of the racing fraternity, however, they are likely the most exciting environment. Will a greyhound get round in one piece and make the winning podium or will it be the greyhound’s last race?

Trainers are undoubtedly passionate about greyhound racing but I have yet to speak to a single trainer who is passionate about greyhounds. The dogs are nothing more than a commodity - essentially a betting medium - and for that reason I do not expect the industry to ever change, fundamentally, the nature of greyhound racing in Britain.

Update:

This subject is now covered in Behind the Lights, the Tote and the Non-starters, where additional information is provided.

Greyhound homing scandal

Likely many people shopping recently in the sleepy Suffolk town of Leiston will have spotted an advertisement in the towns pet shop window for “12 greyhounds free to good home(s).” The ad raised various comments including “what will happen to those not taken” and “how come there are twelve available all at the same time!” Scratch the surface and revealed is widespread indiscriminate homing of greyhounds and a quandary the greyhound racing industry will likely never satisfactorily address.

Every year many thousands of greyhounds never make the grade to race or have their career on the track terminated due to injury, age or simply because the dog fell short of expectations. The majority are killed but in what might best be described as a public relations exercise the regulatory body has sought to increase homing figures that just 10 years ago were pitifully low.

The Retired Greyhound Trust (RGT), funded by the racing industry, officially homed 4,725 greyhounds in 2009, a figure that represents about one quarter of greyhounds bred to meet the demand generated by British greyhound tracks. Though a marked improvement on 1,893 in 2001 the annual homing figure has increased little since 2007.

Perhaps, without a massive boost in funding, the RGT is close to the maximum figure obtainable and feedback from members of the racing fraternity would indicate an ever increasing number of trainers are homing dogs independently, essentially for two reasons: the fee or ‘donation’ requested by rescues (to cover in part costs incurred including neutering) and the waiting list that commonly prevails.

The greyhounds advertised in the above pet shop were being off-loaded by trainer Chris Mosdall, a major player at Harlow stadium. When interest was expressed in homing two of the dogs Mosdall sounded delighted. No home check would be carried out and needless to say none of the greyhounds will be neutered prior to homing.

And whilst Mosdall was led to believe I had never previously adopted a greyhound, little advice was given. More worryingly, the trainer didn’t ask any questions about my situation concerning such matters to include work, home and garden. In theory I could be living on the top floor of a block of flats or banned from keeping animals.

Mosdall, however, had the uncanny ability to tell from my voice that the dogs would be well looked after and the opportunity to get rid of one, possibly two greyhounds, quickly at zero cost is of course incidental.

Further consider that a vet may charge in the region £35 to euthanize a track dog and the attraction of advertising a greyhound ‘free to good home’ is all too apparent. Even having the animal shot is not without cost and may result in disciplinary action. And with the survival of racing increasingly dependent on professional trainers and survival for the trainers increasingly dependent on running a large number of dogs such costs are now a key business consideration.

Margins are very tight even for successful players, a point Oxford champion trainer Michael Peterson touched on in conversation last year: “The finances in this sport are piss poor. A lot of trainers are basically just covering their costs which to be honest with you I am. I am not making bundles of money, I’ve got a young family and I have eight to nine dogs here that need homing.”

The result is frequently the independent and indiscriminate homing of greyhounds. Not surprisingly, many such dogs see a quick succession of ownership and many are later found neglected, abused and abandoned.

When of no further use or value as a racing dog, Rum Gal (trained under Margaret Bailey) was not placed with a rescue but rather homed independently and seemingly off-loaded without any concern given for the animal’s future welfare and security. Months later Rum Gal was picked up as a stray on the streets of Norwich.

Tasmanian Diego was given away just 2 days after her career on the track was terminated due to injury. No doubt the trainer, Ian Brown, was elated when the prospective owner, Angela Laver, agreed also to adopt Burgoyne Bunny who had retired through injury 4 days previously. Unable to cope, Laver off-loaded both greyhounds within a couple of weeks of signing the adoption forms. Burgoyne Bunny was later found abandoned in a flat and Tasmanian Diego spent just 3 months in her next ‘forever’ home.

And two young bitches, given away by Mosdall about five months prior to the ad in Leiston pet shop window, were picked up in the Wanstead area in appalling condition. Mosdall was to remark: “The people who do that to dogs should have it done to them, that’s the way I look at it.” My view is trainers should not be allowed to home dogs independently as there is a clear conflict of interest.

Furthermore, there is arguably a breach of Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB) Rules of Racing. Rule 18 covers responsibility of the owner and subsection 1, e states that when a greyhound is sold or found a home this action is to be carried out “responsibly.”

Mosdall was reported to the GBGB but is unlikely to face disciplinary action. Investigation Officer Clive Carr has previously visited Norfolk to follow up a number of similar reported breaches in the above rule but appeared more interested in those making the allegations than the allegations made and did not believe there was a case for any trainer or owner to answer.

Perhaps, as a representative of the regulatory body, this should come as no surprise. Officials no doubt appreciate the difficulties facing trainers and it suits the industry to turn a blind eye. A greyhound indiscriminately homed is still a greyhound homed and collectively the national homing figure receives a significant boost without any funding from the industry. This data can in turn be used to promote greyhound racing. The trainer wins, the industry wins and who cares about the welfare of greyhounds.

A simple amendment to Rule 18 that would help eliminate the above scandal was put to the regulatory body back in 2007 but dismissed out of hand, and whilst very evident apathy prevails so the tragedy will continue.

Update:

This subject is now covered in Behind the Lights, the Tote and the Non-starters, where additional information is provided.

Greyhound savaged at top kennels

A greyhound belonging to trainer Jill Llewellin - a major player at Belle Vue stadium - was recently put to sleep after being viciously attacked by another greyhound at Llewellin’s kennels.

The black male called Emerson Brock and affectionately known as Ben was resting in a pen when another male new to the kennels entered the enclosure. What followed Llewellin described as a “challenge between the two as if to (see) who was going to be top dog.”

Ben was not wearing a muzzle and during the fracas that took place pulled free a muzzle being worn by the other greyhound that, according to Llewellin, got Ben round the throat and “literally asphyxiated him.”

Llewellin said it took several minutes to remove the animal’s jaws from Ben, and further added: “Being a nurse I thought I could treat him myself… I walked him back to his kennel but he sort of went downhill overnight and he gradually lost consciousness. In the morning I took him to the vets and we said the best thing was to have him put down which was sad.”

The incident is all the more tragic as Ben was recuperating from injury at the time. In January he was recorded ‘DNF’ at Belle Vue but according to the trainer was “absolutely fine.” However, in a subsequent trial it is thought Ben had torn a shoulder muscle and was since been rested.

Why Ben was not afforded greater protection and, more importantly, why Ben was not seen by a vet immediately after the attack is not clear. Perhaps the beautiful black male would still be alive today if he had previously won the Derby.

It is understood no action is being taken against Llewellin by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain.

The killing tracks of Britain

It’s the penultimate race of the mid-day meeting on 13 January at Hall Green greyhound track, Birmingham. As the dogs hurtle down the back straight a stomach-churning crack is heard across the stadium and Gulleen Star quickly pulls up. According to the dog’s trainer Alan Bodell, the black male had “smashed his hock (left) completely in half.” The trainer further ads: “You just have to put them out of their misery as quick as possible… I’ve been in it (greyhound racing) long enough now to know what happens, it’s just not nice.”

The average age for a greyhound to retire from racing is about 3 ½ years after competing in approximately 50 races. Length of career, however, varies greatly and is frequently brought to an abrupt and sometimes horrific end through injury.

It is thought as many as 1,000 greyhounds are put-to-sleep annually following injuries sustained in races and trials on British tracks. And to put that into context, the figure is more than 10 per cent of new registrations in 2009 for greyhounds to compete on tracks regulated by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB).

Bodell justifies the death of Gulleen Star by saying greyhounds are for racing and the dog was doing what he enjoyed. It’s a line repeated by trainers over and over again who further justify the exploitation and abuse of greyhounds by referencing horse racing - a sport that in the state of Victoria, Australia, will see a ban on jump racing at the end of the 2010 season following the death of ‘just’ 20 horses over a two year period.

The extreme and unusual weather seen across much of Britain in January saw many greyhound meetings cancelled but where racing was not interrupted it was business as usual with an ever increasing number of greyhounds getting ‘smashed-up’.

For Loughmore Boy race eight at Peterborough on 2 January was to be his last. The beautiful black male collided with Kangaroo Brice on the back straight putting Loughmore Boy into the fence and shattering his left foreleg. Trainer Bryn Ford said the dog was in “such distress, frothing at the mouth… it looked like he was dying of shock.” The track vet quickly ended the animals suffering out of sight of spectators watching from the restaurant and bars.

At Oxford the following day Kilkeedy Blue was PTS after breaking his right hock whilst negotiating turn one and a week later Ardera Express broke his neck after he was bumped and knocked over on the Kinsley track, again whilst negotiating turn one.

Incidents such as the two above bring into question the configuration of tracks that essentially comprise long straights leading into tight bends. Put six greyhounds into the mix and its a recipe for disaster with numerous incidents occurring as the dogs hurtle into turn one (109 dogs recorded falling/brought down in turn one in January alone against dogs not finishing/finishing at distance (with the true figure likely many more)).

Malbay Katie survived the first corner but sadly not the second when running at Doncaster on 22 January. The steward’s comment read as follows: Blk1, Ck2 (baulked 1, checked 2). In reality the blue female was brought down and her right hind leg was “ripped-off” from above the hock, according to trainer Keith Davis, who further added: “Every dog went into the corner together and she was the meat in the sandwich.”

Davis, who described the accident as both “horrendous” and “freak,” sounded genuinely upset when talking about the loss of Malbay Katie but was philosophical also: “Once the dogs leave the trap unfortunately they are on their own and you have to take what comes.”

Many greyhounds are rightly PTS following injury but a large number are also destroyed solely on economic grounds. Indeed the GBGB conveniently provide a box for owners to tick on the ‘retirement’ form for precisely such an occasion (not applicable to national champions that are worth their weight in gold as breeding machines).

Another greyhound to break a hock at Hall Green in January was Glenske Sky. This dog, however, was to possibly escape the veterinarian’s needle. Trainer Gerry Ballentine had the greyhound examined the following day but apparently the injury was a “big job” with “no guarantee there’s going to be any results at the end of it.” The small detail of which hock it was Ballentine couldn’t remember and the black female was PTS on 12 January.

Hock fractures are one of the most common career ending injuries and invariably result in the animal being euthanased. Skywalker Brenda was no exception when her right hock gave way whilst competing at Poole on 15 January. The black female was just 24 months old.

And snapping a foreleg at Perry Barr, Birmingham on 24 January saw Fida Cascada join the tally of greyhounds to lose their life in the first month of racing this year, all in the name of sport, all soon forgotten. There is little room for being sentimental in greyhound racing and dogs can be replaced for a relatively modest sum of money.

In January stewards recorded greyhounds not finishing/finishing at distance 346 times - a figure covering 344 dogs. A further 93 dogs were recorded lame or ‘brokedown’. How many are to race again remains to be seen. How many were PTS is impossible to say - the industry makes sure of that. Injuries to greyhounds (believed a five figure total annually) and greyhounds PTS following injury is the most sensitive and guarded subject within racing.

What the GBGB will tell you is in excess of quarter of a million pounds has been spent on track safety improvement projects in recent years but if feedback from trainers is anything to go by, it has had at best only a marginal impact on the frequency and nature of injuries greyhounds sustain.

Who would have thought that we have in Britain animal welfare law intended to protect animals from pain, suffering and injury.

Update:

This subject is now covered in Behind the Lights, the Tote and the Non-starters, where additional information is provided.

Misguided petition

Going ‘online’ reaches thousands of like minded individuals and there are many benefits to this including the increasing popularity of online petitions. One such petition, submitted recently by Ms Maureen Purvis, is calling for the “Prime Minister to withdraw the proposed regulations under the Animal Welfare Act which cheat racing greyhounds of protection.”

It is a petition that is likely meaningless to the majority of the public but refers to proposed regulations drafted by Defra to promote the welfare of racing greyhounds in England. Essentially, the new legislation is intended to provide minimum welfare standards across all tracks in England and largely bring the independent (flapping) tracks in line with those tracks licensed under the Greyhound Board of Great Britain.

Key detail of the proposals includes the requirement for a vet to be present at all race/trail meetings and the provision of suitable veterinary facilities, greyhounds to be examined by a vet prior to each race/trial (and withdrawn if judged not fit to run) and injuries sustained to be recorded.

Such measures are vital because of the frequency and nature of injuries greyhounds sustain in trails and races. Injuries sustained annually across all tracks in Britain total 5 figures, and about 1,000 greyhounds are put-to-sleep every year following injury. And whilst standards at licensed tracks exceed the minimum requirements under the proposed regulations, that is far from the case for the majority of flapping tracks.

Limb fractures and, in particular, hock fractures of varying severity are common. Indeed trainer Craig Hopkins has stated: “Day in, day out, racing dogs break their hocks, it’s as simple as that.” Needless to say, the pain can be excruciating but the petitioner wants the withdrawal of new measures that, if properly enforced, will ensure dogs at all tracks receive immediate treatment.

Regulations, however, cost money for both the financially strapped track operators and trainers. And whilst trainers and owners are undoubtedly passionate about the racing of greyhounds, the dogs are merely a commodity - essentially a betting medium - and have little value. As such their welfare is not a priority.

It might, therefore, be reasonable to think Ms Purvis is a promoter or perhaps a regular on the track terraces each week, a fag in one hand, a betting slip in the other and her face plastered in pound-shop make-up (solely based on observation you understand). Ms Purvis was certainly held in high regard by the late Armine Appleton - a trainer of 30 years - who enjoyed her support at a racing disciplinary hearing.

As many, however, will know Ms Purvis is of celebrity endorsed Greyhounds UK fame - a group that if nothing else has raised the profile of greyhound welfare - but is not, and I stand to be corrected, seeking the abolition of racing. With though an unquestionable passion for the welfare of greyhounds why then a petition calling for the proposals to be withdrawn?

To the right of signatories listed it states: “These regulations cheat greyhounds out of the protection they deserve for the 99% of their time spent in kennels while racing and, when they are no longer able to race, protection from abandonment or destruction. They allow greyhounds to continue to be kept away from any independent publicly accountable inspection, defeating the purpose of the Animal Welfare Act.”

Not strictly true as there will be a requirement for all dogs to be earmarked and micro-chipped before competing on the track and this will offer limited protection to ex-racing greyhounds but certainly the proposed regulations do not cover many areas of concern endemic in greyhound racing. Is that, however, reason to scrap the proposals? Better surely, to have limited protection specific to racing dogs than none at all.

Backing the petition is Greyt Exploitations (GE) that, according to the ‘group’ website is “campaigning for the abolition of betting on greyhounds.” An admirable aim indicating perhaps a desire to see an end to racing but GE has this year been very much regulation focused and is supporting the petition, not least, on the assumption the proposed regulations are “unenforceable and worthless.”

In defence, GE reference a press release by Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS) in which it states: “The new legislation to be issued by Defra requires councils to issue licenses for greyhound tracks to operate. It does not, however, contain any offences, inviting track owners to break the law and leaving councils with no powers to prosecute them.”

The press release is, however, “not best worded” according to Defra. If flapping tracks do not comply with new regulations their licence can be revoked by the local authority and any track operating without a licence is committing an offence. The maximum penalties will be imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding £5,000 or both. Alternatively, the local authority has the power to suspend a licence until such time the track can demonstrate all licensing conditions will be met. The regulations are therefore, at least in theory, enforceable.

GE makes no mention of the above and believes a statement by Defra clarifying the powers of local authorities “serves no other purpose than to confuse readers.” On the contrary, Defra’s clarification enables the public to make an informed and qualified decision.

Of course, whether local authorities wish to use their new powers or not is another matter entirely. The RSPCA have been widely and in my view, rightly, criticised for not enforcing the Animal Welfare Act. Indeed GE is very damning of the RSPCA in a submission made as part of the consultation process on the proposed regulations. Would GE like to see the scrapping of the above Act in its entirety?

A video being used by GE to further strengthen their support for the petition is equally perplexing. Proposed regulations are specific to England and yet the video covers only flapping tracks in Scotland. Furthermore, the video highlights precisely the welfare issues that new regulations are intended to eliminate. To use words from a classic Elton John song, ‘it’s getting more and more absurd’.

All welfare groups are highly critical of the proposed regulations, none more so than the Dogs Trust, who are “appalled that the Government has decided to restrict greyhound welfare provisions to just trackside activity, thereby condemning thousands of dogs to a life of misery and in some cases an early death.”

It’s important also to note that whilst new legislation is essentially track focused it will impact little on the abhorrent scale of injuries greyhounds sustain - a point all welfare groups fail to mention and a point significantly that will never be adequately addressed through regulation.

The Dogs Trust, whilst critical of the new measures, also state in their submission to Defra: “(We do) not wish to see an end to greyhound racing in the UK, but we do wish to see an end to cruelty, exploitation and ‘light touch’ regulation.”

I’m sorry to drop this bombshell on the Dogs Trust, on also Greyhounds UK and the RSPCA who have yet to call for the abolition of racing, but the humane treatment of greyhounds and commercial greyhound racing are simply incompatible. No likely welfare regulations will cover and remedy all welfare issues from cradle to grave endemic in racing. The naivety of welfare groups leading up to Defra’s public consultation I found staggering.

I do maintain, however, the measures proposed are a significant step forward in protecting dogs running on flapping tracks in England, or will be if properly enforced. And more importantly, are likely the best protection the dogs will get. The petitioner though, backed by GE wants this protection withdrawn. Whilst no doubt driven by the best intentions, the petition I conclude is both ill-conceived and misguided.

On a more positive note, the ease in which petitions can now be compiled via the internet serves also to devalue them. Anyone can start a petition addressing any concern. Recent petitions include a call for the Prime Minister to make teachers correct errors when pupils make mistakes (5 signatures). And Jack Andrews is seeking a space flight launch pad and landing runway in England (1 signature (Jack’s)).

By 21 December 2009, 1,290 had signed the petition submitted by Ms Purvis so not a poor response but isn’t that, at least in part, due to ‘group mentality’? You know what I mean; someone says “jump” and the rest say “how high?” It is trait of human kind found amongst the majority of like minded persons but one, interestingly, few recognise within themselves.

Its worth also considering, signatories likely include members of the racing fraternity and advertising the petition on popular racing websites may double, treble, even quadruple the figure as it is the people who exploit these beautiful animals that are, in the main, apposed to any further regulation - regulation that will in fact see independent tracks closing.

Greyhounds afforded little protection in Scotland

Earlier this year a 12 week public consultation was held on proposals drafted by Defra for new regulations under section 13 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to promote the welfare of racing greyhounds in England. Amendments are to follow but essentially the proposals as they currently stand will come into force in 2010 (intended date: 6 April).

Whilst all welfare groups including the Dogs Trust have been highly critical of the proposals for not covering many areas of concern, the new regulations will provide minimum welfare standards across all tracks in England and largely bring the independent (flapping) tracks in line with those tracks licensed under the Greyhound Board of Great Britain.

New legislation will include the requirement for a vet to be present at all race/trail meetings and the provision of suitable veterinary facilities, greyhounds to be examined by a vet prior to each race/trial (and withdrawn if judged not fit to run) and injuries sustained to be recorded.

Incredibly, the majority of flapping tracks fall short of the above basic welfare measures. Following the recent and very welcome closure of Swansea’s flapping tack there remains only one independent track in Wales. In Scotland, however, there are five (Armadale, Ayr, Corbiewood, Halcrow and Thornton) and to put this into context, seven such tracks still hold races in England.

The new regulations are therefore very relevant to Scotland and yet the Scottish Government have no interest in adopting the regulations, stating that racing dogs are fully protected under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 (similar legislation in England does not protect such dogs).

Perhaps it is simply convenient to cite the above Act, either that or the Animal Health and Welfare Division are very naive.

Scottish policy is important not least because of the frequency and nature of injuries greyhounds sustain in trails and races. Injuries sustained annually across all tracks in Britain total 5 figures, and about 1,000 greyhounds are put-to-sleep every year following injury. Greyhound racing in this respect cannot be compared with any other activity, whether a sport, working or otherwise.

A vet with links to a Scottish flapping track (he will on occasion attend the track in a professional capacity but is not in attendance during trials and races) states many greyhounds competing on the circuit suffer serious injury - commonly fractures - and are transported to a veterinary practice to obtain treatment urgently needed.

The Scottish Governments (now former) Animal Welfare Policy Analyst, Scott McDowell, would not be drawn on whether he thought a vet should be present at trial and race meetings but is apparently not aware of any welfare problems at the tracks. He further ads in a letter dated 9 September 2009 that no welfare complaints in relation to any tracks have been received by the Scottish SPCA in several years.

I am not clear what precisely McDowell thinks should be a matter for the SSPCA but rest assured, if anyone sees an animal being ill treated at a flapping track it will not be brought to the attention of any welfare organisation for fear of reprisal.

Whilst new legislation is essentially track focused it will impact little on the scale of injuries greyhounds sustain. That said it is a significant step forward in protecting dogs running on flapping tracks, a significant step forward that is for dogs running on flapping tracks in England. The Scottish Government should hang their heads in shame.

Ruby for sale due to new stock arriving

In a one page fanciful article (courtesy of Our Dogs, 15 August 2008), Greyhound Star editor Floyd Amphlett, conjured up a romantic image of greyhound racing that had little in common with reality. “You build a kennel” writes Amphlett, “buy a greyhound, pay for its registrations, inoculations and the rest, apply for a licence and then race at your closest track. It is a hobby not so different to those of you readers of Our Dogs who enjoy agility training, fly-ball, or other assorted fun activities with dogs.”

Amphlett’s very evident fertile imagination is surely wasted as editor of a minority ‘news’ paper. The survival of racing is increasingly dependent on professional trainers such as Michael Peterson and indeed survival for the trainer is dependent on running a large number of dogs. Peterson’s kennel strength stood recently at 96 and he was to remark: “You need that many to pay the bills.”

Peterson - attached to Oxford - freely admits the ‘sport’ of greyhound racing is in turmoil, and in a series of forthright conversations gives an insight into the hard economics of being a trainer and the dog’s welfare.

It was dialogue instigated through yet another report of a greyhound found abandoned; a greyhound on this occasion that was raced and retired under Peterson. The white and black male called Chapelane Tom was picked up in the Croydon area mid July and taken to a dog pound. Luckily he was found a foster home and now has a secure future but who last owned Chapelane Tom had yet to be established.

The industries regulatory body should receive a completed form detailing the fate of all greyhounds retired but no such form for Chapelane Tom was ever received. Not to worry, Peterson keeps a record of his dogs. Unfortunately the book in question (for greyhounds retired in 2006) could not be found. The trainer, however, believed Chapelane Tom was adopted through the Watford branch of the National Animal Welfare Trust and had no doubt the dog was not homed independently.

Just four greyhounds have been adopted through the above branch in recent years and Chapelane Tom was not one of them. The search, however, for the 2006 book would continue or so the person making the inquiry was told.

Peterson has been training greyhounds for the last 7 years and took over from his father who has 45 years experience as a trainer. He is a major player at Oxford and a serious contender in this year’s Trainers Championship that is based on the number of winners.

It might seem a glamorous life but Peterson is running a business and the retirement of greyhounds is an additional drain on resources: “It’s hard to home racing greyhounds. The finances in this sport are piss poor. A lot of trainers are basically just covering their cost which to be honest with you I am. I am not making bundles of money, I’ve got a young family and I have eight to nine dogs here that need homing.”

Practical and ultimately financial considerations have seen an ever increasing number of trainers off-loading greyhounds independently. Peterson works with a number of rescues but keeps his options open: “I’m not being funny, anywhere possible to home a racing greyhound, ye know, anywhere.”

The trainer speaks favourably about Greyhounds 4 U (G4U) - a rescue that interestingly does not agree with yearly vaccinations, conventional wormer or flea treatment. Peterson’s dogs available for adoption through G4U are on occasion still running. Tragically that was the case for Aintsheapeach. The beautiful blue brindle female had been seeking a home through the rescue since May 2009 but was never to enjoy retirement. On 4 September 2009 Aintsheapeach was put-to-sleep after breaking her right hock in a BAGS meeting at Oxford.

Asked how many dogs he has lost at the track this year Peterson replied: “This year, probably four.” It was a question put to him in September and so whatever the actually figure might be, expect it to be higher come the end of December.

Aintsheapeach is one of a staggering 129 dogs to run on licensed tracks under Peterson during 2008. 69 greyhounds ceased running under Peterson during the same year of which 31 are not subsequently recorded racing (under a different trainer). Only 6 greyhounds from the latter figure are listed on greyhound-data.com either available for adoption or adopted.

Above figures highlight a movement of greyhounds that may surprise many outside the business of racing. Murtz Keano ran in Ireland before running on licensed British tracks under trainers S A Cahill, E Hall and M Daniels. The greyhound subsequently ran just 4 races under Peterson at Oxford and is now running in Denmark.

A new race owner is now sought for black female Reisk Ruby. The Peterson dog, born July 2007, is offered for sale “due to new stock arriving.” The terminology he uses is of course highly appropriate for a ‘sport’ in which the greyhound is just a commodity - essentially a betting medium - that official’s record in ‘units’. Ruby commands the relatively modest sum of £800 o.n.o.

The financial difficulties facing trainers are further compounded by the ‘elusive’ owner, as Peterson explains: “Say an owner gets himself into debt for some reason or can’t afford his kennel bill no more, suddenly you can’t get hold of the owner and then you’ve got 3 or 4 dogs lumbered with you. And to be honest with you 90 per cent of the time that’s what happens.”

It is a problem that has left Peterson significantly out of pocket: “I’ve got one owner that has moved up to near Newcastle and I can’t get hold of him. He basically owes me nearly 3½ thousand pounds which in this sport is a hell of a lot of money… He’s got one dog here, she’s four years old, OK, so… she’s probably got about 3 - 6 months left in her racing career tops and then basically I am lumbered with the bitch. I am lumbered with the bitch now because I can’t get hold of him.”

Peterson’s finances are further stretched this year after he was found in breach of rules 174 (i)(b) and 217 at a Disciplinary Committee Hearing on 14 April 2009 and fined £600. The judgement was made in relation to a urine sample that was taken from greyhound Arco Grace and found to contain procaine - a drug that can affect a dog’s performance and/or well being.

Arco Grace was available for adoption through G4U but is now with Oxford Retired Greyhound Trust who collected the dog from Petersons kennels on 6 October. A person speaking on behalf of the branch said of the greyhound: “It’s the worst bitch (health wise) we’ve ever picked up from any stadium and in actual fact he (Peterson) should be reported to the RSPCA.”

It’s all a far cry from the romantic image conjured up by Amphlett. Peterson describes the business of racing as a “very tough place, especially at the moment with the current financial climate.” And ads: “The sport itself is in turmoil, absolute turmoil.”

Since 1926 a total of 111 tracks were licensed under the now obsolete National Greyhound Racing Club. Under the newly formed Greyhound Board of Great Britain there remain only 27. The industry is crumbling and Peterson earmarks four tracks whose future would seem precarious: “Tracks like Coventry; how they survive I just do not know. There’s been a question mark over Hove for the last couple of years. Portsmouth, I think they’ve got probably a year maximum left on their lease… Wimbledon’s another one. (There has been) a question mark over Wimbledon for the last few years.”

From a welfare point of view and looking essentially long term, the closure of any track is of course good news. It is true the industry is responding to the outrage felt by an ever increasing number of people regarding the treatment of greyhounds but it would be naïve to think that any welfare initiatives are driven primarily for any reason other than wanting to protect the business of racing.

Many readers might have issue with Peterson. Many might have concern for the number of greyhounds the trainer has lost through injury or the 25 dogs not listed on Greyhound Data either available for adoption or adopted. Of greater concern, however, should be the fact that in the world of greyhound racing Peterson is one the good guys.

Put very simply the humane treatment of greyhounds and commercial greyhound racing are incompatible and that will never change. And in case you are wondering, Peterson never did find his 2006 book.

Thousands of greyhound pups unaccounted for

The breeding of greyhounds for the purpose of racing is a hit and miss affair at the best of times. Illness aside, both injury and temperament frequently dictate the fate of such dogs. Factor in the understandable desire for only the highest performing animal, and the ‘wastage’ figure rises enormously.

Even the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB) who govern racing on Britain’s 28 major tracks concede that a greyhound may never contend a race because the dog “is too slow …, because he or she is disinterested in chasing the artificial hare or because he or she simply interferes or plays with other greyhounds whilst running on the track.” Interfering with another dog commonly refers to fighting.

The GBGB admission is backed up in a Greyhound Watch survey that is the largest of its kind ever undertaken. And the disparity between figures for greyhounds bred and pups to subsequently contend a race is alarming to say the least.

The survey covered all Greyhound Stud Book litter entries received between 1 June 2005 and 31 May 2006 (Vol. 125), and showed that only 2,267 of 4,332 pups born are recorded racing. In other words, just 52% made the grade.

And with the figure of 2,267 accounting for just 23% of greyhounds to be registered for racing in Britain over a twelve month period (comparison made against the registration total for 2007 (9,751)), above statistics only hint at the scale of unwanted pups.

Looking solely at the number of greyhounds bred as a result of racing in Britain, the findings indicate that over a one year period about 8,882 pups are judged not fit for purpose.

We have in Britain, however, still meetings held on flapping (independent) tracks for which no figures exist. Such tracks are though minor players and attract both dogs that have previously been recorded racing as well as pups new to the track. Flapping tracks will, therefore, not impact greatly on numbers.

Members of the racing fraternity would also be right to point out that the best bitch in a litter will, on occasion, be retired directly for mating. In other words, used as a breeding machine and spending the rest of her life in a kennel.

Most bitches used for mating have though competed on the track, if only in a few races. Any Chewing Gum is recorded contending 6 ‘opens’ and one feature race and subsequently had a litter in October 2000, August 2001, June 2002, March 2003, December 2003, August 2004, April 2005, February 2006 and March 2007.

The survey also collated data relating to specific breeders and the findings make for interesting reading.

Litter entries received for Charles Pickering over the same period (June 2005 – May 2006) total 39 (38 identified in the index), and out of 198 pups born, just 90 reached the naming stage and only 46 (23%) are recorded racing (figures in the survey relating to ‘naming stage’ are based on information in Vol. 125 and all subsequent volumes of the Greyhound Stud Book that have been published).

All pups from 9 litter entries for Pickering that include a mating between Goahead Atlantic and El Premier - El Premier being the sire of the brood bitch, appear to have vanished. Pickering was the subject of an article in The Sunday Times (11 May, 2008) in which he was reported offering slow dogs to be killed for research.

Litter entries for breeder and trainer Ann McCarroll (attached to Newcastle) total 11, and out of 62 pups born, just 35 were named and 23 (37%) are recorded racing. One of the brood bitches - Agile Milly - was, along with other greyhounds, later rescued after the animals were booked-in at Marske Vets Ltd to be euthanased.

And just 9 (16%) of 55 pups from 11 litter entries for Ian Taylor are recorded racing. Pups named total 34 of which 18, curiously, are recorded under Pickering.

So what happens to the thousands of pups bred every year that never contend a race?

Interestingly, the GBGB ask the same question under ‘FAQ’s’ on the governing bodies website (without, not surprisingly, giving even a suggestion of numbers). Read further down and you will see the GBGB fail to provide an answer and use clever wording to imply such dogs are homed.

Homing figures for 2007 given within the Greyhound Forum, June 2008 report for all greyhounds are as follows: 4,479 homed through the Retired Greyhound Trust (RGT) and an “estimated” 3,500 homed by owners, trainers and other welfare charities.

How credible the above figures are, is, however, in question. RGT Director, Ivor Stocker, was recently to say: “There was certainly instances in the last two or three years were dogs have been counted on more than one occasion because the trainer put in a form and we (RGT) put in a form.”

And through the media, the governing body invariably compare similar figures solely against the number of greyhounds that retire from racing annually (about 10,000) and so, at the very least, imply all greyhounds homed are ex-racers (it looks good and negates the subject of non-graders).

The public are being misled. Most, but not all greyhounds homed, are ex-racers. The RGT have estimated that about 30% of greyhounds homed through their branches were not registered for racing.

If that percentage is applied across all greyhounds homed and if we assume no greyhounds were counted on more than one occasion (for sake of argument) that is 2,394 non-graders accounted for in 2007.

Homing figures for 2007 are up slightly on 2006, but have risen little subsequently. No matter how you look at it, it isn’t possible to account for the vast majority of greyhounds that are not recorded racing.

Eight breeders with litters recorded in the survey showing high ‘wastage’ were asked about the fate of the pups. Only one breeder responded, and the response did not address the specific issue of the animal’s fortune.

In a one page fanciful article (courtesy of Our Dogs, 15 August 2008), Greyhound Star Editor, Floyd Amphlett, was to state: “Greyhound breeders do not dispose of young pups through colouring or genetic issues.” Amphlett, on that point, was correct. What, however, he conveniently forgot to mention is pups are killed and killed in their thousands because they are simply judged not suitable for racing.

Update:

This subject is now covered in Behind the Lights, the Tote and the Non-starters, where additional information is provided.

Greyhounds in kennel hell denied loving homes

Kennels belonging to Eve Blanchard, a professional greyhound trainer attached to Poole stadium, have shocked greyhound protection groups because of the squalid conditions.

Ms Blanchard, now 74, charges £4.00 per day to anyone wishing to run a dog through her kennels that when filmed did not even have lighting. Of further concern is the lack of heating. Ms Blanchard, however, believes the little heat generated by a group of dogs living within a confined area and sound proofing installed about 20 years ago helps keep the animals warm during the colder winter months.

National Greyhound Racing Club Area Steward, Colin Betteridge, is aware of problems and Ms Blanchard was recently served with an Improvement Notice that covers issues including a leaking roof. Mr Betteridge will be visiting the kennels again in the near future to see if improvements judged necessary have been carried out.

Ms Blanchard had at one time about 70 dogs but said she now has only 30 and “most of those aren’t running because their side-lined and lame.” Until recently, the dogs included Corrig Cinders - a beautiful white and blue female - that was put-to-sleep at Poole track after sustaining a broken shoulder in a horrific incident whilst contending only her 17th race.

And the ‘lucky’ greyhounds that survive a career on the track are likely to spend the remainder of their life - perhaps another 7 years - in Ms Blanchard’s kennels.

Tracey Seymour, who runs the Devon and South-West branch of the Retired Greyhound Trust, said Ms Blanchard “doesn’t home her dogs with anyone. She lets them rot and die in her kennel… She’s the world’s worst nightmare. She’s one of these trainers that believe a greyhound should spend the rest of its life in a kennel rotting until it dies and then she gets people to go round there and dig holes and bury them rather than give them the chance of a home.”

Ms Seymour spoke with the trainer when first linking-up with Poole stadium, in the hope some of the dogs could be found loving homes but said Ms Blanchard “wouldn’t budge, she wouldn’t give her dogs over to a homing scheme at all.”

And whilst most people would find the conditions the animals are living in totally unacceptable Mr Betteridge said there is “no serious issue” and “nothing to be alarmed at.”

Information and quotes given above are taken from recorded conversations held on 18th and 19th December 2008.

A ‘sport’ in conflict with the Animal Welfare Act?

Under section (9) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 it states: “A person commits an offence if he does not take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which he is responsible are met to the extent required by good practice.” And subsection (2, e) covers specifically the need for an animal “to be protected from pain, suffering (and) injury.”

Similar legislation applies in Scotland under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, section (24), subsection (3, e).

The above begs the following question: Are trainers of racing greyhounds in breach of the relevant Act when running dogs on Britain’s tracks?

Safety at Yarmouth stadium has been a contentious issue for many years with trainers describing the track as both “diabolical” and an “absolute tip.” An inconsistent surface - said to be due to grading and drainage - and the inside rail are given as reasons for a very high number of injuries and fatalities.

Recent victims include Bluestone Lane and Daves Dasher. The former - a blue male - suffered a severe hind leg fracture on Wednesday 22nd October and was put-to-sleep by the track vet. He was just 30 months old and the third greyhound joint owner Ms Cossey has lost through injury. The following Monday, 27th October, Daves Dasher - a dark brindle male aged only 26 months - sustained a serious fracture of the right foreleg and was PTS also.

Commenting on the most recent fatality, Assistant Racing Manager Marcus Westgate was typically pragmatic: “It was just one of those really unfortunate things that happen in this game.” When pushed to give a figure for greyhound’s put-down due to injury each month he replied: “Maybe a couple, something like that.” Feedback from trainers, however, would indicate the true figure is higher.

On Saturday 18th October, spectators at Peterborough stadium were horrified to witness two greyhounds fatally injured. Glandore Queen - a fawn and white female - was recorded ‘brokedown’ after sustaining a hind leg fracture in the first race of the evening meeting, and Hanoi Son - a black male - sustained a broken hock when brought down in the fifth race.

The term ‘brokedown’ is occasionally used by race stewards to identify when a greyhound has suffered a potentially serious injury and, as a result, was unable to finish the race. Both Glandore Queen and Hanoi Son were PTS by the track vet out of view of customers watching from the restaurant and bars.

Sadly, fatalities such as the examples given are common across all tracks. It is thought as many as 1,500 greyhounds are PTS annually following injury. This, however, represents only the tip of the iceberg when looking at the scale of injuries sustained.

Last year stewards at Owlerton stadium (Sheffield) recorded greyhounds either lame or ‘brokedown’ 309 times; a figure covering a total of 272 dogs. For 141 of the greyhounds it was to be their last race.

Racing at the above track is regulated by the National Greyhound Racing Club (NGRC) and the figure of 309 translates to about 6,900 injuries sustained nationally when looking at the ratio between the total figures for races contended at Owlerton and all NGRC tracks combined.

Not all injuries, however, were identified in the stewards comments and above figures do not take into account the many trials that are held. In addition Owlerton has, according to Dave Houfton (husband of trainer Jane Houfton (a major player at the stadium who can supply you a racing dog for as little as £200)), a good record on safety: “Out of all the tracks in the country it’s probably… one of the safest and one that statistically would have a lot fewer injuries.”

Take the above factors into account and it’s likely to be a five figure total for injuries sustained nationally not including stats for the flapping (independent and unregulated) tracks.

Unfortunately, we cannot be any more precise than that. The Racecourse Promoters Association (RCPA) are compiling a database on injuries for NGRC tracks but have turned down all requests for information.

Editor of Greyhound Star, Floyd Amphlett was recently to imply that greyhound racing is little different to “agility training, fly-ball or other assorted fun activities with dogs.” Mr Amphlett has written much about greyhound racing but nothing quite so farfetched. No other activity, whether a sport, working or otherwise results in thousands of dogs getting ‘smashed-up’ every year.

Richard Newell - a breeder, trainer and owner of racing dogs - is a little more candid in his observation of BAGS (Bookmakers Afternoon Greyhound Service): “Don't tell me that the majority of BAGS trainers see their inmates as anything other than livestock? I doubt the majority of BAGS dogs get a daily gallop out in a field…, more like 10 minutes emptying out twice a day and a trip to the local track once a week running lame for £15 to line the pocket of a caring Bookmaker.”

Owlerton hold two BAGS meetings per week and the injury rate last year, as a percentage of total races held, was 10.3. In contrast, the figure is 7.8 when making the same calculation (based on the steward’s race comments) for meetings held on Saturday evening.

Risk of injury, however, whether a BAGS meeting or otherwise is evidently very high, as all who are involved in racing are only too aware. Mr Houfton speaks favourably about Owlerton but was also to add: “I’m afraid with greyhound racing a dog’s next race can be its last one.”

In considering a breach of the Animal Welfare Act a court of law may look at the issue of “good practice” but this would be missing the point. A track should be properly maintained and in good order, dogs have to be muzzled and passed fit to race (though it is widely acknowledged many do run when injured) but “good practice” at best only makes racing safer, it does not make racing safe.

The camber (or lack of it), drainage (where applicable) and rail have an impact on safety but it is the character of greyhound tracks - with fast straights leading into tight bends - that creates so many incidents and results in so many injuries and fatalities. And six greyhounds competing together multiply the risk with many incidents occurring as the dogs hurtle into turn one.

A trainer of 30 years, who, by the way, was fined £600 by the NGRC for refusing to run his greyhounds when he judged a track to be unsafe, believes the injury rate could only ever be significantly reduced if dogs competed on a straight course.

The RSPCA Senior Enquiries Administrator is adamant though, that greyhound racing as it currently stands is not in breach of the Animal Welfare Act, but was unable to provide any credible explanation to support her and, presumably, the charities view. Needless to say the RSPCA/SSPCA do not have the resources to take action against all 1240+ trainers running dogs on NGRC tracks alone.

Defra, who drew up the legislation, would not dispute a breach of the sections detailed but an independent legal expert thought no Judge would side against a trainer because of the political ramifications.