reported anonymously:

"All track servicing equipment and vehicles destroyed

Hare disabled and destroyed

Holding boxes used to release awaiting greyhounds sabotaged

Holding pen for dogs wrecked

Spray painted messages left for the owners to clear up.

Thinking about buying Portsmouth Greyhound Track? You’ll be buying one
heck of a maintenance bill. Enjoy…… we’ll be back time and time and time
again until you close down FOR GOOD.

A.L.F."

Portsmouth no reply to any letters sent to them with welfare concerns.

The O'Malleys Shez incident was unfortunate these things happen in life, good management learn from them. Portsmouth did nothing until it appeared in the local paper.

Portsmouth at the NGRC inquiry agreed to man the 438m trip but never did.

I feel it is inevitable that a greyhound will get knocked over on the first bend of a 438m race and turn back, at this point it is impossible to trip the hare and the likely outcome is injury or worse.

The injury sustained by the starter highlights the consequences.

With modern technology you could have a hard wired system of solonoid valves that operate say 6 trip switches, this would cost a few quid but would allow the hare to be tripped very easily.

It is about caring enough and I think it is a GRA issue look at Catford - Football Focus, Oxford - Paul Walden, Belle Vue - Injury Rates.

I am happy not to discuss specifics, the point I think it amplifies is that an unpredictable dog or dogs could quite simply in the worst case be killed by the hare system and all because the promoter will not put in place a proper system to trip the hare.

Just my view of what I have seen and heard.

I am sure you remember the dog that killed itself a couple of years ago when it dived in head first and hit the box they used to cover the hare with at Wimbledon.

Dear UGO

Thank you for your help since I approached you for guidance about submitting a complaint regarding the race on 19 April in which Omalleys Shez broke his leg. I was so angry that I could not focus on how to proceed. Explaining the events of the race to you so that you could understand, helped me provide a clear statement to the NGRC in advance of the hearing.

The NGRC stewards decided not to allow Tim to attend the hearing. Tim did however accompany me to the hearing as moral support. Noel Thompson explained what would happen in the meeting and made us feel very welcome. I was surprised to learn before the hearing that after all of the statements had been read out we could all ask questions.

My main concern about the race was that although an injured dog was on the track and still moving around, the race was not stopped. In the time before the hearing I learned more about the hare at Portsmouth myself. It was explained by the track representative that the inside hare at Portsmouth is carried on a metal arm which sticks out and holds the hare on the end. If the hare is stopped with the arm out, the dogs following the hare on the inside of the track will run into it. The track representative said that he had seen two dogs somersault over this type of hare when it was stopped in a trial a couple of years ago. He described the hare to the stewards as "agricultural".

The only way to stop the hare safely is to "trip it". There are two points at the track where a "trip" can be set on the rail, so that when the hare passes the arm goes up and the hare flies on to the track. The dogs are then not at risk of running into the arm. On the evening of the race in question there was someone at one of the trips, where the races end, and no one capable of setting the trip next to the other one.

Omalleys Shez broke his leg on the second bend, and the other dogs ran the 3rd, 4th and 5th bends before the call for trip the hare came. They claim they had incorrectly thought that the trained person was at the trip on the 6th bend. I said that I thought that the hare had passed the "trip" before the call was made, and it was therefore too late anyway. The statements taken from track personnel all emphasise how dangerous it is to stop the inside hare.

The track's statements said that there was someone on every bend during that race as usual. Initially no one made any attempt to catch the dog. A spectating trainer was the only person who could jump on to the track to try to catch him.. When asked if they had made any changes since the race they said that they now had someone covering every bend! They also said that someone also now covered the other trip (the last one before the line) all the time. As an afterthought they said that this was only in 610m races.

The senior steward said that something good had come of this inquiry then.

There were discussions about the age of the hare, and how it is the last one in the country. They said that it had some uses as it it a noisy hare with a hare shaped object on the end, and dogs who won't chase the modern quiet hares will chase this one.

I was thanked by the senior steward for bringing this matter to the NGRC's attention. I thought that the track's explanations were weak and inconsistent, however after their deliberations the stewards chose to "accept the tracks explanations." If you have any questions please let me know.

Kathryn Knight

Edition thirteen

And to our friends in Portsmouth, we agree, it is genuinely upsetting to watch a dog run nearly a circuit with a broken leg. It must have been a relief when they eventually got their act together and stopped the hare. You ask were the racing office even watching the race. Good question. Knowing Portsmouth, you would have to assume they weren't watching because they hadn 't backed anything in that particular race.

ANOTHER INQUIRY THAT NEVER REALLY HAPPENED was the affair of Portsmouth trainer Ron Jeffrey who had been taken to court for serious neglect of a dog. Just what are we supposed to think? That the RSPCA and his local council got it wrong? Or is the RSPCA doing NGRC inquiries now, and is Aldershot Council doing the fines? The problem with current NGRC policy on inquiries is that the worse the offence, the less likely it is to be openly examined for fear of drawing attention to the situation and bringing Greyhound Racing into disrepute. Unfortunately, as we all know, the worst offences are invariably serious welfare issues. So as long as Frank Melville and Co. stand back and let the RSPCA and local councils do the job for them, there is only one outfit bringing greyhound racing into disrepute and that is the NGRC!