BWRA AGM / Testing etc etc

[milly]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

you have my vote for the PM's Job Lass. :cheers:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

PM job, surely Jacs & Marielou should be on the committee!

They both seem to know what they are talking about :thumbsup:

ps. either of them could take the **** from me, so to speak :b

 

[rodders]

Will stick by what I said earlier.Keep testing :thumbsup: and believe that as both BWRA and NNWRF are about whippet racing,then an agreed drug testing practise can be practised by both,organisations.

Haven't got 8 dogs Chris but being well over 40 know exactly what you mean I enjoy the banter on K9 too Karen

 

[marielou]

Will stick by what I said earlier.Keep testing :thumbsup: and believe that as both BWRA and NNWRF are about whippet racing,then an agreed drug testing practise can be practised by both,organisations.
Haven't got 8 dogs Chris but being well over 40 know exactly what you mean I enjoy the banter on K9 too Karen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

You obviously have a very clear idea of how you see this cooperative drug testing policy working Karen. What sort of protocols would you like to see adopted to make the whole thing more workable? How do you think it should be financed?

If you have any suggestions that could help to make this can of worms more successful I'd be really interested

All the best

Marie

 

[rodders]

Neither organisation runs a zero tolerance policy,Marie so why can't they run under the same policy.If both organisations tests are screened by the HFL,and the tests are taken by a qualified person,then it should be acceptable to all whippet racers.As for financing the tests,all NNWRF members finance the tests taken by the NNWRF,why cant BWRA members do the same.Don't know what membership numbers are for either organisation,but do believe if we can finance one we can finance the other Karen

 

[milly]

I have to say that after lots of reading and careful thought that I really wish both organisations would stop drug testing. I agree that cheating in any form is deplorable but the drug testing issue seems to cause more bad feeling and aggravation than anything else.
There are people in all walks of life that cheat just as there are people who level accusations at fellow competitors due to jealousy and drug testing just seems to make the situation worse. We have seen through various rows that when people hold strong opinions it doesn't change them whatever the result.

Whippet racing is a very small hobby in the scheme of things and from what people tell me has shrunk over the years, surely we should be spending our limited resources on improving racing for competitors and perhaps encouraging others to join in. Afterall drug testing is very expensive as has been previously stated and doesn't seem to achieve a positive outcome for racers as a whole.

I have searched for any references to those that have had a positive drug test and I have to say that the amount of "guilty" folks are so few that to me it doesn't warrent the amount of bad feeling the drug testing issue generates. I know some will say that even one shouldn't get away with cheating and in an ideal world I would agree but we don't live in an ideal world, I'd be happier seeing these few guilty people keeping their ill gotten gains than see people fight and argue and ultimately leave a wonderful hobby because they don.t like all the agro.

Just my opinion

All the best

Marie

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Jealousy in whippet racing (w00t) I thought it was only in lurcher racing. But the

green eyed monster spurred me on for years on the lurcher scene, like it will on the non-ped scene

 

[Vicky]

Both Jac & Marielou seem to have done their homework and absorbed past very detailed threads on drug testing, i wish a lot of others would do the same as i still feel the biggest majority of non ped racers still don't understand the drug testing procedures and what is / isn't tested for and to what levels.

I still feel if it to be done then it is to be done 100% correct, the testing procedure isn't my issue but gaining the sample is, i am still not convinced after watching a few dogs being tested, my own included, that this is satisfactory and the vet taking the sample really needs to appreciate the implications of the outcome.

Going back to what i said before about people doing their homework and this also relates to what Geoff says on the old "green eyed monster", i still hear people saying certain dogs "must be on something", and thats after having one or more clear tests come back on that particular dog - will people ever be satisfied????

 

[marielou]

Both Jac & Marielou seem to have done their homework and absorbed past very detailed threads on drug testing, i wish a lot of others would do the same as i still feel the biggest majority of non ped racers still don't understand the drug testing procedures and what is / isn't tested for and to what levels.I still feel if it to be done then it is to be done 100% correct, the testing procedure isn't my issue but gaining the sample is, i am still not convinced after watching a few dogs being tested, my own included, that this is satisfactory and the vet taking the sample really needs to appreciate the implications of the outcome.

Going back to what i said before about people doing their homework and this also relates to what Geoff says on the old "green eyed monster", i still hear people saying certain dogs "must be on something", and thats after having one or more clear tests come back on that particular dog - will people ever be satisfied????

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I couldnt agree with you more Vicki, I suppose thats why I've come to the opinion that I have. Even leaving the expense issue aside, the sniping that happens even following negative results to me makes it a procedure of little value. If folks arent reassured by negative results or convinced by positive ones I can't see a valid reason for putting people and dogs through the stress of doing them.

There is also another issue here, a very difficult one for our commitee members who do a thankless job at the best of times and that is what will happen if someone takes the matter to litigation following a positive result or a leak to the racers of a test result. Who will stand up with our committee and be prepared to put their pennies in the pot? We live in a very litigation conscious society now (sad but true) and I feel it may only be a matter of time. Faced with that sort of possibity I'm not sure how many people would want to serve.

All the best

Marie

 

[wild whippies]

Personally, I think the BWRA was mislead somewhat when they was informed by a solicitor that they could end up going to court and folk loosing their homes etc. If your paying a solicitor for legal advice, they'll tell you anything is possible but a barrister will tell you the facts of where you really stand in a court of law.

Firstly anyone wishing to sue the BWRA for a ban wouldn't have a case as being a member of their organisation is a privelege, not a right. If your banned from a club for breach of their own rules then technically you have no case in a British Law court. It would only be if the club or organisation commited an unlawful act that a person could take a case to court, examples being exclusion due to race or age. Even your gender is a mine field for the law courts as British Law accepts working men's clubs even in today's PC society.

Anyone interested in researching this further might like to read Sports Law by M.J.Beloff & M.Demetriou, there are electronic articles online.

 

[milly]

I rest my case :thumbsup:

 

[marielou]

Personally, I think the BWRA was mislead somewhat when they was informed by a solicitor that they could end up going to court and folk loosing their homes etc. If your paying a solicitor for legal advice, they'll tell you anything is possible but a barrister will tell you the facts of where you really stand in a court of law.
Firstly anyone wishing to sue the BWRA for a ban wouldn't have a case as being a member of their organisation is a privelege, not a right. If your banned from a club for breach of their own rules then technically you have no case in a British Law court. It would only be if the club or organisation commited an unlawful act that a person could take a case to court, examples being exclusion due to race or age. Even your gender is a mine field for the law courts as British Law accepts working men's clubs even in today's PC society.

Anyone interested in researching this further might like to read Sports Law by M.J.Beloff & M.Demetriou, there are electronic articles online.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I wouldn't dispute that you've researched this aspect well Jac but I was thinking of the much muddier legal waters of defamation, difficult cases to prove/ disprove at best especially when we already have concerns regarding sample collection. I'm not sure that I would be prepared to risk my money when a solicitor has already said there are risks. What I can tell you from personal experience is that no matter how noble or right your cause the lawyers still get very rich

I must just say how nice it is to be having a good informative debate if only to air the issues :thumbsup:

All the best

Marie

 

[wild whippies]

Agree with where your coming from Marie, just wanted to highlight that there's little cause for concern if a member decided to sue an organisation for a ban. :thumbsup: However organisations aren't immune from harm and their greatest concern should be that it maintains the respect of it's members, something which has already enlightened, experienced whippet racers.

The problem with libel/ slander is you have to proove a loss, something which would be very difficult for a member to provide evidence of when they've been excluded from one sole organisation. As you've said the lawyers tend to be the sole beneficeries in these cases especially when you consider future puppy sales / stud fees etc accounting for a rather negligible amount in the non-ped racing world.

Interestingly, the law works both ways on this, in that if a sole member did something that put an organisation at a loss, the organisation could take it upon themselves to sue that individual for the harm caused and recoup their financial losses. I doubt any of our organisations would go to these extremes but the option is there available to them. (This shouldn't be confused with past legal cases which come under a different agenda)

 

[kris]

there was a case in the dog world a few years ago where a member of the north of england dobermann club took the club to court and successfully sued them because hed bred his bitch just under the 12 months between seasons required by the club members and they threw him out of the club..i only found this out as a friend of ours who i bumped into at a trade fair was on the committee and he said this guy nearly bankrupted the club.i cant remember all the ins and outs of the case but he was technically wrong in that the bitch was mated and had pups just under the 12 month deadline,and as a member he agreed to the rules and regulations in force at the time he joined.anyway he won.they lost.and it cost them a pretty penny i believe.cant remember if he said all the committee members had to chip in or if it was paid for out of club funds cos it was some time ago and we were both in a hurry at the time when he told me about it.we do live in an increasingly litigious age.mightnt it be a good idea to think about insurance for this sort of thing?i have insurance for product liability,anyone suing me for falling over something in the shop etc etc,all in all its a pretty comprehensive policy we have for the business and its fairly cheap too and gives us peace of mind.you have to have this sort of thing these days as people will sue at the drop of a hat now. :thumbsup:

 

[wild whippies]

It would be interesting to know the exact grounds for suing this individual allegedly had and how valid there claims were because it appears the North of England Dobermann club still have the 'ipso facto' (which means that a certain effect is a direct consequence of the action in question) rule with regards to expulsion of their members. Furthermore there has been no change made to the North of England's Guidelines with regards to breeding a Dobermann under 2 years.

The only reason I could see would be the fact that this is a guideline and not a rule and therefore may not bear the consequence of expulsion?

Obviously it's hard to know, without knowing the full facts. :unsure:

 

[milly]

there was a case in the dog world a few years ago where a member of the north of england dobermann club took the club to court and successfully sued them because hed bred his bitch just under the 12 months between seasons required by the club members and they threw him out of the club..i only found this out as  a friend of ours who i bumped into at a trade fair was on the committee and he said this guy nearly bankrupted the club.i cant remember all the ins and outs of the case but he was technically wrong  in that the bitch was mated and had pups just under the 12 month deadline,and as  a member he agreed to the rules and regulations in force at the time he joined.anyway he won.they lost.and it cost them a pretty penny i believe.cant remember if he said all the committee members had to chip in or if it was paid for out of club funds cos it was some time ago and we were both in a hurry at the time when he told me about it.we do live in an increasingly litigious age.mightnt it be a good idea to think about insurance for this sort of thing?i have insurance  for  product liability,anyone suing me for falling over something in the shop etc etc,all in all its a pretty comprehensive policy we have for the business  and its fairly cheap too and gives us peace of mind.you have to have this sort of thing these days as people will sue at the drop of  a hat now. :thumbsup:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I must drop into your shop then Kris

 

[kris]

crikey,dont even joke about that! :lol:

sorry cant remember all the ins and out of it jac,but i know the guy i spoke to was furious still about it and it had happened some time before.i too cant understand why he was able to sue as he agreed to the clubs constitution when he joined.but he did sue and he did win and he won quite a bit in damages i believe.sometimes a case isnt always as straightforward as you think in law. :- "

 

[tanyia]

What an interesting debate for a change without nasty comments. Do we not all sign the back of our bwra cards to abide by all rules ? If so I dont see how a court case could come into it.