"The tracks should fund the Injury Retirement Scheme" says Peter Harnden

A letter from Trainer's representative Peter Harnden 

We received a letter from Peter Harnden, the trainer's representative on the GBGB board discussing the Injury Retirement Scheme.It has been published in full and without amendment. 

Dear Editor,

The GBGB’s Injury Retirement Scheme is a valuable initiative. When a greyhound suffers a career-ending orthopaedic injury at a licensed track, help with veterinary treatment can make a real difference to that dog’s future. The scheme exists to give the greyhound the chance of a full and active life in retirement. No one involved in racing should want that support weakened.

But there is a question the sport should now face: who should pay for the scheme? If an injury happens on a racecourse, the racecourse itself should bear the cost of the support needed afterwards. That would recognise the track’s responsibility for the racing surface and conditions, while giving every track a clear financial reason to put injury prevention at the top of its priorities.

This is not an accusation that every injury is caused by poor track preparation. Greyhounds are athletes, and injuries can happen despite careful preparation and maintenance. The circumstances can be complex. But tracks control important parts of the environment in which dogs race: the surface, its preparation and maintenance, drainage, watering and the consistency of conditions. Those responsibilities should carry a meaningful financial consequence when a dog is injured there.

Tracks will rightly argue that some trainers see more injuries than others, and that trainers must look at their own methods and the condition of the greyhounds in their care. That may well be true. But if we are going to make that argument, let us first see the evidence. We need to know whether the figures support it, and whether the pattern changes from track to track.

GBGB does publish annual injury figures, but the public data is presented nationally. It gives totals, broad categories of injury and rates against the number of runs. It does not show the breakdown by individual track or trainer that would allow us to compare their records fairly. The published figures cannot tell a trainer whether their dogs are being injured more often than expected, or whether a particular track has a higher rate than others. A raw number of injuries, without the number of runs and proper context, cannot answer those questions.

The detailed information must be made useful to the people who need it. Track vets record injuries and report them to GBGB. Trainers should receive clear information about injuries to their own greyhounds, including the type and circumstances of each injury, and regular summaries of their own injury rates against their number of runners and starts. They need that information in time to review their kennel practices and make adjustments. If trainers are expected to improve, they must be given the evidence that would help them do so.

The same principle applies to racecourses. Owners, trainers and the public should be able to see anonymised track-level figures, including injury rates in relation to racing activity and the broad types and seriousness of injuries recorded. That would allow genuine comparisons, help identify potential patterns and show whether changes to track preparation are working. Publishing only a national total tells us how many injuries were recorded across the sport; it cannot show where attention is needed.

The Injury Retirement Scheme has paid out more than £1.7 million since it began in 2018. That is significant support, and it shows the scheme is doing useful work. But if the cost continues to sit chiefly with a central fund, tracks may not feel the direct financial connection between the way a track is prepared and the support required after an injury. A system in which tracks fund the scheme would make that connection much clearer.

The principle is straightforward: the track should pay for the scheme when an injury occurs at that track. It could be managed through a ring-fenced fund, with contributions from every racecourse and the fund paying eligible claims promptly. A track should not be able to delay treatment while arguing over who is to blame for a particular injury. The greyhound’s welfare must come first; the funding arrangements should never become a barrier to care.

Contributions should be designed fairly. A simple charge for every injury could disadvantage tracks that hold more meetings, and raw counts alone could create an incentive to under-report. The fund should include a basic contribution from every track, with a variable element based on independently reviewed injury rates in relation to runs, injury severity and regular safety inspections. All injuries must continue to be recorded and reported, with independent veterinary oversight. The figures and scheme spending should be published so the system can be scrutinised.

A track that acts on inspection findings, maintains its surface to a high standard and shows sustained improvement in its independently assessed record should have that recognised. Where problems persist, the financial contribution should rise and the track should have to explain what it is doing to address them. The point is not to produce a league table for its own sake. It is to make good preparation, careful maintenance and honest reporting part of the track’s financial interest as well as its welfare duty.

From 1 January 2026, the GBGB Rules of Racing require racecourses to have an Injury Retirement Policy. That is a useful step. The next step should be a funding arrangement that encourages prevention, guarantees help when an injury occurs and gives trainers access to the information they need to improve. A policy on paper cannot achieve those things by itself.

There will be tracks that object. Some may say the cost is unpredictable or that they cannot be held responsible for every injury on their circuit. Those are fair points to consider when designing the fund, but they are not a reason to leave the cost disconnected from the place where the injury occurred. A shared, transparent scheme can spread unavoidable costs while asking tracks with poorer records to contribute more. If racing expects owners and trainers to meet their responsibilities, it must expect racecourses to meet theirs too.

The goal should be to reduce injuries to an absolute minimum. No funding model can promise that every injury will be prevented. But when the people responsible for preparing and maintaining the track also have a direct stake in the cost of injuries sustained there, the incentive to get every detail right becomes stronger. Sharing the evidence will also allow trainers and tracks to identify patterns and act on them. That is a sensible step for the dogs, for owners and trainers, and for the long-term credibility of the sport.

The Injury Retirement Scheme should remain in place and continue to provide prompt help for injured greyhounds. Going forward, racecourses should fund it, and the detailed injury data should be made available in a way that helps both tracks and trainers improve. The track is where the injury happens; the track should share responsibility for the cost of helping that greyhound recover and retire well.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Harnden

GBGB Trainers representative