BWRA Corruption

[mkp]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

'After the 1996 farce, the BWRA tightened up. Sample procedures were improved, and legal advice was sought. No positive tests have been found in the last two years. The association, who chose not to appear in this programme, maintains that all the procedures are correct now and base on good scientific facts. On The Line has shown that this is not the case. They punish without telling owners what they're testing for, ban for substances that are not performance enhancing, outlaw a chemical which it is impossible to keep out of a pet, prosecute on the basis of a test that the labs say is not positive, proceed without testing a b sample and set levels which are meaningless.'

These are not my words. This is an extract from a BBC Radio 5 show 7 July 2000, a show that lasted for 25 minutes, took months to prepare including getting approval from the BBC lawyers, and was placed between a program about Premier football corruption the week before and corruption in world boxing the week after, so amazed were the BBC by the goings on of the BWRA committee. Imagine, a whole show dedicated to whippet racing on national radio! And how much coverage did the Whippet News give to this phenomenon? Not a single word, I'm afraid, is the answer.

My name is Mark Pettitt. Some of you will know me, but for those who don't I was once a BWRA member and even a BWRA rep. I believe I hold the dubious distinction of being the only member ever to be banned for life. My crime? Well, I'm not entirely sure, but the BWRA describes it rather vaguely and somewhat conveniently as 'bringing the sport into disrepute'. In a nutshell, I went to bat for 4 innocent members who had been disgracefully and falsely dubbed drug cheats by the BWRA committee. My findings proved that not only were the committee members incompetent, but they had tampered with some evidence and falsified laboratory documentation in order to justify their stance. Once I uncovered their corrupt activities I wrote to each one of them and suggested that their positions were now untenable. Their response was typical of their corrupt behaviour. They held 2 national meetings to warn and then ban me, but despite it being a clear case of abuse of rights, neither myself nor my regional representatives were invited to either of these meetings!

I have given up trying to get support from the membership. But I will never give up the fight to clear the names of those dogs, owners and myself. Whether or not I ever race whippets again is immaterial. Using this forum may or may not help my campaign, and to be honest I'm not entirely sure what I hope or expect to gain from it. We will have to see.

 

[Whippet-les]

hello mark i had a lot of people behind you in the northeast i handed your literature

around and was rallying people to your cause .i informed you of this and you said you would get back to me saying you had enough members (bwra)to get an

extraordinery general meeting called i never heard anything more from you i was

told by another racer that you had hit the bottle but i can understand that and i can relate to this being in the right and being punished but mark theres no proper

racing left to get back to.

 

[jade scott]

in responce to , no proper racing to go back to, i find that statement a bit severe, there is always room for improvement in any organisation and both BWRA and the Fed could make inprovements. However I expect that as it is left to the few people who put themselves out to keep the sport going progress would be slow. How many times have we all heard members complainning aloud about some decission

or other, it would make all helpers more likely to listen to complaints if they were spoken to in a decent manor. Both the Fed and BWRA would be doing the members a wrong if they choose not to listen to and make changes if there is constuctive ideas put forward.

 

[jasper.]

hear....hear.well put jade.

 

[Vicky]

Mark, any idea if we can get a copy of the bbc show?

 

[Whippet-les]

jade i meant by proper racing was the amount of dogs that use to enter for opens

up and down the country,not having solo's to win your class .the amount of clubs

i've seen close through the lack of dogs in the past ten years . so forget opens go back and strengthen the clubs and only have four big meets a year ie championships where nobody will no what your against until you turn up and race them,without clubs there will be no opens

 

[NEILPEM]

i agree clubs are suffering through the amount of open's being run.

 

[mkp]

If I've 'hit the bottle' is the worst the rumour mill can come up with then I suppose I should be grateful. I have emptied a few bottles of painkillers in the past couple of years having had 3 shoulder operations in 18 months, which is the real reason I've been a bit quiet lately. As for an EGM, well that's a sore point with me. I had collated more than enough proof in my investigations that warranted a vote of no confidence against the top table. In fact, there was even evidence that certain BWRA funds were not being spent as was being reported in Whippet News. By that I mean that the dope tests supposed to have been done did not match up with the end of year figures. The cynic, such as myself, would say that that is why this committee hangs on to it's power for dear life. I'd love to see the books. Anyway, I was advised by my region not to start an EGM, especially given that at the time I was not the most popular kid on the block, as well as there being a paucity of members with the courage to sign any petition. With promises that the committee could not last forever I took a back seat. There was a flicker of life in the membership a year or two ago when Ted Fox was supposed to get an EGM together, but that fizzled out. It's the cowardice of the membership that upsets me even more than the bullying of the committee. How anybody can look themselves in the mirror after a day's racing knowing what happened to jan Ambrosini is beyond me. A full year after she was banned she was still in tears when I spoke to her on the phone. I watched Jane Poole lose 2 stone in weight shortly after she and Xstasy were banned. If anybody really wants to find out what the BWRA committee has done, then listen to the BBC tape. The BBC sent me a master copy of the show, and I had about 30 copies professionally made in a studio. They cost me about £1.00 each to have made but I will gladly send a free copy to anybody that wants to know the truth.

By the way, it's 10:30 on a Friday night and I've just downed a pint of tap water.

Did have a pint and a half of John Smith's at lunch down the pub, though.

 

[anna]

I remember something on teletext about that time. It was about a dog whippet and the owner was banned. Also others were banned too if I remember right.

 

[butch]

Ive not evan had a glass of orange juice tonight but Im reading a message on this tread and its deleted next minute. I think the whole thread should be deleted its way out of order. :angry:

 

[Tony Taylor]

Any poster who is not known to the community as a whole who posts deliberatly inflammatory material will be deleted by ALL the moderators.

Mark has put his name to his posts, so we all know who he is, and until he starts unfounded or personal insults his posts are valid. If you disagree with what he says and can argue coherently against it then you should do so. Not deleting his comments doesn`t mean agreement with them.

 

[Tony Taylor]

Mark,

Can you demonstrate that the BWRA at the time was "corrupt" as opposed to being incompetant or ignorant on this issue ( I had some input in an instance where a racer received a lengthy ban and I was concerned that someone who could not even spell methyl-xanthene was prepared to pontificate on its pharmacutical properties - I still have the original transcripts).

It`s been some time since these events unfolded and most of the relative participants have let the subject rest ( albeit by leaving the sport) and as such I`m not sure what you hope to acheive by resurecting this.

I would imagine that any sensible person who has done any sort of research into this matter would conclude that those banned were unfairly treated and that "drug testing" is at best a farce but are there any realistic chances of changing the opinions of those who have instigated the bans? The chances of an apology for being wrong are less than zero.

Jade,

Whippet racing, as Les has explained, has taken a turn for the worse. The quality of racing dogs is still improving in depth but not, unfortunatly, in breadth, and I personaly agree with him. I doubt if anyone can really constructively critisise those that help at opens, as they generaly do a great job, but there are those who have influence in the major racing bodies that have some responsibility for what has occured and shouldn`t be sheilded from critisism by loyalty to the racing bodies they represent or dogs they have bred. You can discuss this as politely as you want with those that have have banned members but the volte face required by the evidence will never happen - they wil never ever admit they are wrong and that they owe these people an apology - but they should.

 

[tony warren]

mark in a way i can see why your upset but as of late im very put off by all the bickering amongest ourself,s in whippet racing lets just get on with racing and fun and letting our little dogs race as you know as well theres a lot of work involved in setting open,s up and running and i think some time,s people think sod this someone.s only going to moan that this was not done right or that ain,t. the way i see things at the moment as well as being involved in greyhound racing there is so many subtances on the market not just enhancers as you can see from the lastest greyhound derby winner just to many to list plus theres new ones on the market everyday so where do you start and im not having a go at you but lets just see you back racing and let sleeping dogs lie i know its a bitter pill to swollow when you feel your right and there wrong but hey were not on this earthy long so make the most of it, now some people say were slow with our tests at the bwra and the feds well the derby winner failed his tests in the third round of the derby and it was not till 14 days after the final that it came back possitive, now it was not an enhancer he proved possitive for but an anti inflamartry but i hear you say it never enhanced the dog no but if it was injured with bad swelling it was not fit to run. well i hope this makes good reading and hope to see you all at the champs and good luck to all :c ??? :w

 

[JOHNG]

MARK DO YOU THINK YOU SHOULD LET THE SUBJECT DROP I CAN SEE YOUR POINT OF VIEW BUT DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU ARE GOING TO GET ANYWHERE [ PERSONALLY I DONT THINK SO] BY KEEP BRINGING THE SUBJECT UP,WE ALL HAVE OUR OWN OPINIONS ON THE MATTER,RIGHT OR WRONG I CANT SEE THE BWRA CHANGEING THERE DECISION,THE PEOPLE CONCERNED HAVE TAKEN THEIR PUNISHMENT AND GOT ON WITH THE HOBBY WE ALL LOVE i.e. WHIPPET RACING

JOHN GILL

 

[Tony Taylor]

Tony Warren

I suspect the NGRC knew the result of the failed test but weren`t entirely sure as what to do!

Anti-inflammatorys are banned in part because the bookies don`t want an injured dog in the race as it can lead to a betting coup if the dog is a favorite and runs badly because its injured. The anti-inflammatorys can mask the injury from the track vet and in the parade.

The dog in the derby final obviously had recovered from whatever injury it had to qualify. The test, I believe found a trace.

I agree that treatment of an injury will improve performance but so long as the dog isn`t using painkillers to enable it to run ( which would produce a larger level in the test) I`m not convinced that dogs/owners should be penalised if its obvious the positive result is because of prior treatment.

A greyhound trainer we know failed a test for ibuprofen on a dog he had only had 2 weeks which he claimed ( and he has no reason to lie to me) must of been due to the previous trainer. In this instance the test found a "trace" He received a slap on the wrist fine. The NWRF banned Batesons for 2years.

 

[JoJess]

Hiya mark, hope you are well

 

[mkp]

I'm glad the NWRF has been brought into the topic, as far as I'm concerned they're just as bad as the BWRA. They claim to follow NGRC guidelines. Then they should find out what those guidelines are. Last I heard they had zero tolerance for everything including xanthines, and bans for those failing tests. Well I just received an e-mail from Frank Melville, chief executive of the NGRC. It says 'The NGRC does have a threshold for theobromine, which takes into account any amount that would be contained in normal foodstuffs.' And unlike the NWRF they don't ban trainers for theobromine findings, they fine them.

Please, don't anybody ask me to stop my campaign again. It won't happen. If you don't like the topic, don't click onto it. I'm not forcing anybody into the discussion, it's for those that want to be informed and make their own judgements.

So, given that I won't give up no matter how much pressure is put on me, here are the options to bring the issue to an end -

1) The BWRA committee members admit that they made a mistake, reinstate the banned dogs & members, and allow me a fair trial. This, of course, will not happen.

2) The BWRA membership forces the top table to come clean via an EGM. This too will not happen, there is not the will nor enough members with the courage required.

3) It goes to court. This is an option I am desperately trying to avoid but one that seems inevitable. Kate Hoey, former Sports Minister, after reading my case, advised me to take the court route. I would consider it a failure to have to do so as it would bankrupt the BWRA.

4) I give up. This is the only option that cannot possibly happen. Believe me.

5) We go to the Sports Dispute Resolution Panel. This is like going to court but without the monstrous expense. I quote from Jon Sidell, director of the SDRP in July 2000, '.... I confirm that the Sports Dispute Resolution Panel would be willing to assist in the resolution of your current dispute with the British Whippet Racing Authority although any involvement on the part of SDRP is dependent on the consent of all parties to the dispute being given.'

Now here's my offer. Let's take option 5. If the SDRP rules in favour of the BWRA and against me, and there seems to be plenty of you who think the BWRA have done no wrong, then I will incur all costs and drop the campaign.

 

[johnnoble]

hiya Mark, nice to see you are still fighting a just cause.

Its time this drugs situation was sorted out once and for all. At the moment people can be banned for the least little thing, the governing bodies [bWRA&NWRF] do not know enough about drug testing proceedures and the zero percent tolerance is absurd.

At least you have studied drug testing proceedures and a lot of what you say seems to make sense.

[ Whippets are pets first and racers second. ] I still give my dogs tea and coffee which is left in the bottom of my cup,and anything else they might fancy.

[Greyhounds are machines] and are treated as such, if they cant run they they are surplace to requirements and are disposed of.]

WHIPPETS AND GREYHOUNDS CANNOT BE COMPARED.

Id rather be banned than deprive my dogs of all the titbits which they enjoy.

[None of which are performance enhancing]

 

[Vicky]

I agree entirely with what John's just said - if i ever did get tested chances are my dog would fail, not only do we have a 14 month old baby who loves to feed the dogs whenever we're not looking but the dog is a complete thief & lives for food (also i'd feel more at ease if testing was done by an independant body - but that's another thing altogether). The last champs i had her caged for 2 weeks before hand when she wasn't with me & it just got ridiculous, god knows how people go on with dog's that actually have a chance of winning & being tested, i'd be out of my mind with worry even though i know i do nothing sinister, you just can't trust anyone in the sport these days & the fact that people are being banned for stupid things is very sad.

The next thing people will be wondering why memberships are falling & why your always racing against the same few people with club's closing left right & centre.

Some people might not agree with what Mark's saying or wonder why he's still trying to shed some light on the matter, k9 is open to anyone who wants to post something that others might be interested in - he's done nothing wrong on the board so far & like the rest of us he's talking about something that he find's worth talking about (also something that a lot of racers have never heard his side of!), he's given his name, not had people guessing & not made any vicious attacks on other members & so far he's had quite a few replies so it's obviously something people still want to talk about!!

 

[mkp]

Hi John Noble, a name I recognise!

You make an important point with regard to titbits and dope testing in whippets.

The NGRC and the horse racing authorities ban anything not normally found in feedstuffs. They know that cocoa products can find their way in, so they allow certain levels before taking action. But, and this is why we in whippet racing are unique in the world of animal racing, our competitors are pets and treated as such. We do not isolate them from the real world in secure kennels, or in the case of horses, stables. We let them off the lead when we walk them. They have the run of the house which includes the kitchen and everything inside. For those with kids running around with biscuits and candy flying security is next to impossible. And this is why the BBC investigation concluded with '.... outlaw a chemical which it is impossible to keep out of a pet.' Impossible is a pretty strong word, and should send shivers down the spines of all racers. But they realised that a pet would eventually gain access to banned substances in our processed foods. This fact hasn't sunk in with the NWRF, and the BWRA, as far as I know, has yet to consult any expert authority to find out what a realistic level is for a pet. Even then, we have to consider if these levels affect performance. The BWRA rule 26 states clearly that any substance found is only illegal if, in the opinion of the vet, it affects performance. Now I spoke to Mrs. Jones, the then BWRA vet, on several occassions, and she says she was never consulted by the BWRA. So I found the highest authority in the land, the greyhound division of the British Veterinary Association, and asked them for their opinion on a level of 15ug/ml theobromine, which is over the level found in Xstasy. Their unanimous decision was that it would have no effect at all. In the words of David Poulter, 'how do you stimulate a whippet?' You see, theobromine is a weak cousin of caffeine, and although it may gee up a sleepy old greyhound or horse, in whippets, which are naturally on a high when they come to the racetrack, it has no effect whatsoever. Xstasy, Hillside Lad, Avalanche and Don Ambro all won their titles fair and square, on their own merit, and without the aid of outside agencies. Don Ambro's case is slightly different, though, having unusually high levels of the xanthines but this is because he was tested long after his racing had finished and long after Jan Ambrosini had rewarded him with loads of chocolate.

All this information was available to the BWRA. In the first instance they were simply ignorant, I grant that. But they've had 5 years to rectify the situation and what initially would have cost them a few stamps to write to those concerned with letters of apology has now developed into a full blown conflict that has detracted from the fun of racing. How you, the members, solve this is still in your hands while you have a vote. I don't have that option. I can only battle away from the outside. It would be nice if somebody from within your ranks could let me know why the BWRA committee has chosen to maintain their stance and preserve the ill feeling in the sport when a simple apology would go a long way to restoring order.