Greyhound Network News

 


The aim of the Greyhound Network News (GNN), the online publishing equivalent of the Greyhound Protection League (GPL), is to use stories of things that have happened in and around greyhound racing to convince us that racing is inhumane, evil and abusive. They would have us believe the type of things they report occur on a regular basis. Well, here it is, summer 2001 and GNN is featuring the Summer 2000 issue on their web site. This issue has three articles dealing with greyhounds and each story is now at least two years old. Apparently, they've had nothing to report since then.

One of the three stories is about a 10 year old brood that suffered a stroke and the owner was going to put her down. She couldn't walk. According to GNN, she is now in a home and "thriving despite other ongoing medical problems related to her mistreatment." So, a stroke is mistreatment when it's a greyhound involved? Most of us would put down an old dog that had a stroke and couldn't walk anymore.

Another story is about some dogs that died as a result of being hauled cross-country in hot weather. The hauler was fined and I'd be willing to bet doesn't get much business from owners of  dogs worth thousands of dollars each anymore. Is that story a true indictment of the racing industry as a whole or one man who contracted to move dogs? The owners lost valuable dogs due to this man's idiocy yet GNN wants to blame them.

The third story is about a man who defrauded racing greyhound owners while claiming to be operating an adoption agency but in reality, he was selling the dogs to a medical research facility. He got owners to give him dogs because they trusted him--after all, he was a member of the NGA. GPL and  GNN twisted that into something to blame on the racing owners somehow. Yes, it was discovered this man was an NGA member, but he did this while wearing the hat of adoption rep. Now, just which group should be indicted for that?  To top it off, GPL wasn't going to let any of these victimized owners get their dogs back so they could give them to adoption groups of their choosing; GPL wanted to give them to groups of THEIR choosing, in effect stealing the dogs again. Dogs that, it could be argued, legally belonged to their original owners. Rather self-righteous, I'd say.



Back