Post by BVADMIN on Mar 15, 2018 10:12:50 GMT
TAKEN FROM RACINGPOST.COM
Prevention always better than the cure with costly injuries....
BY JONATHAN KAY
GREYHOUND RACING is about to release injury data and is making such a drama about it that even the sport’s biggest supporter must be wondering whether there is something to hide.
Of all the slots in the calendar to publish it, deciding on Cheltenham Festival week when there is so much else going on can be seen as naive at best, cynical at worst.
Greyhounds are canine athletes. Injuries happen to athletes in any discipline, although many Internet forum keyboard warriors who profess to love the sport do seem to forget that.
Injuries will happen; the big issue is how they are dealt with. If the individual greyhound is perceived to be regarded as an economic commodity then the sport deserves all the criticism it gets.
But as long as every track, and especially so in this era of manic racing schedules, prepares the running surface correctly while adhering to best practice then as a supporter of greyhound racing I am comfortable with that.
Trainers have a major role to play too as animal husbandry is so important.
I doubt there is a greyhound in training who is 100 per cent sound – think of your own daily niggles – but it is vital that handlers who see them daily keep on top of niggles. And if that means taking a dog off the racing strength for a couple of weeks then so be it.
If the sport wants to give the ‘antis’ ammunition then running lame dogs with the prospect of a minor concern becoming catastrophic is the perfect way to go about things.
If we accept that injuries are part and parcel of any sport, then the big issue is what we do when they occur.
Quite rightly, there is a groundswell of opinion among genuine greyhound folk that ‘economic grounds’ should be removed as an acceptable reason for euthanasia on the green greyhound retirement form.
As a journalist reporting on greyhound racing, I now refuse to use the line that an injury was ‘so severe that there was no other option but to put the dog down’ as it is basically nonsense. In 30-plus years covering the sport, I reckon I have seen less than ten injuries which would fall into that category.
The unpalatable truth is that many people just do not want to face the costs involved in repairing a greyhound who may not be able to race again.
The vast majority of owners, and increasingly tracks, understand their moral obligation in such circumstances, but I think some who make their living from the sport do not.
Being charitable, do bookmakers do enough given the profits they make from greyhound racing?
Prize-money may have seen a welcome move in the right direction as a result of the SIS/TRP media rights battle, but that only applies to greyhounds who are actually on the racing strength. What about those who require recovery time? Or those who will be unable to race again?
Any bookmaker hiding behind the voluntary nature of contributions to the Fund and withholding payment should hang their heads in shame.
Of course, it is only right that such payments are channelled in the right direction and do not just boost a promoter’s balance sheet, but I am confident that is now – finally – understood.
That has been emphasised by GBGB managing director Mark Bird, who says extra money forthcoming will be targeted at welfare, and in that light JenningsBet turned from non-payer to payer to the Fund.
It’s easy to understand why the bookies would not want to simply top up promoters’ coffers.
Nevertheless, as things stand there is simply too much of a burden placed on bona fide owners in terms of bearing the costs when a greyhound is unable to race for whatever reason.
A lame greyhound costs just as much to keep as a sound one and bookmakers, desperate for ‘product’, need to acknowledge that. Any greyhound qualified to race at a track but unable to do so for whatever reason should receive a payment, perhaps equating to half of a kennel fee.
Owners know their responsibility and generally acknowledge and act on it. Do all bookmakers?
Prevention always better than the cure with costly injuries....
BY JONATHAN KAY
GREYHOUND RACING is about to release injury data and is making such a drama about it that even the sport’s biggest supporter must be wondering whether there is something to hide.
Of all the slots in the calendar to publish it, deciding on Cheltenham Festival week when there is so much else going on can be seen as naive at best, cynical at worst.
Greyhounds are canine athletes. Injuries happen to athletes in any discipline, although many Internet forum keyboard warriors who profess to love the sport do seem to forget that.
Injuries will happen; the big issue is how they are dealt with. If the individual greyhound is perceived to be regarded as an economic commodity then the sport deserves all the criticism it gets.
But as long as every track, and especially so in this era of manic racing schedules, prepares the running surface correctly while adhering to best practice then as a supporter of greyhound racing I am comfortable with that.
Trainers have a major role to play too as animal husbandry is so important.
I doubt there is a greyhound in training who is 100 per cent sound – think of your own daily niggles – but it is vital that handlers who see them daily keep on top of niggles. And if that means taking a dog off the racing strength for a couple of weeks then so be it.
If the sport wants to give the ‘antis’ ammunition then running lame dogs with the prospect of a minor concern becoming catastrophic is the perfect way to go about things.
If we accept that injuries are part and parcel of any sport, then the big issue is what we do when they occur.
Quite rightly, there is a groundswell of opinion among genuine greyhound folk that ‘economic grounds’ should be removed as an acceptable reason for euthanasia on the green greyhound retirement form.
As a journalist reporting on greyhound racing, I now refuse to use the line that an injury was ‘so severe that there was no other option but to put the dog down’ as it is basically nonsense. In 30-plus years covering the sport, I reckon I have seen less than ten injuries which would fall into that category.
The unpalatable truth is that many people just do not want to face the costs involved in repairing a greyhound who may not be able to race again.
The vast majority of owners, and increasingly tracks, understand their moral obligation in such circumstances, but I think some who make their living from the sport do not.
Being charitable, do bookmakers do enough given the profits they make from greyhound racing?
Prize-money may have seen a welcome move in the right direction as a result of the SIS/TRP media rights battle, but that only applies to greyhounds who are actually on the racing strength. What about those who require recovery time? Or those who will be unable to race again?
Any bookmaker hiding behind the voluntary nature of contributions to the Fund and withholding payment should hang their heads in shame.
Of course, it is only right that such payments are channelled in the right direction and do not just boost a promoter’s balance sheet, but I am confident that is now – finally – understood.
That has been emphasised by GBGB managing director Mark Bird, who says extra money forthcoming will be targeted at welfare, and in that light JenningsBet turned from non-payer to payer to the Fund.
It’s easy to understand why the bookies would not want to simply top up promoters’ coffers.
Nevertheless, as things stand there is simply too much of a burden placed on bona fide owners in terms of bearing the costs when a greyhound is unable to race for whatever reason.
A lame greyhound costs just as much to keep as a sound one and bookmakers, desperate for ‘product’, need to acknowledge that. Any greyhound qualified to race at a track but unable to do so for whatever reason should receive a payment, perhaps equating to half of a kennel fee.
Owners know their responsibility and generally acknowledge and act on it. Do all bookmakers?
