BWRA Corruption

[butch]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

I havnt botherd posting till now, didnt want to add coal to the fire. But I must agree with Mutleys post........Very good timing as always Mark. Things have changed you are living in the past, which is dead and gone.

I and many other racers are sick of hearing the same thing every year.

How can you really expect the present committee to go into things that happened years ago before most of them where committee members.

Take Mutleys advice let sleeping dogs lie.........Give it a rest.

 

[mutley]

too true butch i think we should all stop and think about whats going to happen to our sport when the ruling bodies finally say enough is enough :angry: they get constant greif from certain people why not try and help for a change instead of all the negitive crap wich keeps rearing its head :angry:

 

[mutley]

tony you seem to know a lott about rules why not go forward for bwra im sure the chairman would oblige

 

[mkp]

It ain't gonna happen, guys. Why waste time with comments that don't add to the topic? Have either of you listened to the BBC tape? The BWRA denied me a fair hearing, this forum offers me that. You don't like it, don't click on.

mkp

 

[michelle]

tony you seem to know a lott about rules why not go forward for bwra im sure the chairman would oblige

BTW this topic has nothing to do with who wants to go forward for bwra chairman/top table etc etc ( and tony certainly doesnt)

This topic is about what happened about the drug testing issue a few years back and whether mark has a point or not.

 

[mutley]

who do you think you are ive been racing dogs a lott longer than your breif encounter with our sport :angry: to tell me not to come on k9 after youve been on it 2 mins, and stiring it up again, a few may listen mark or do you find our forum to be a captive audience.....as i said you were caught out take it like a man .wasnt zero tolerance back in 96 was it .plenty have since passed tests myself included, give it a rest or if you cant take it dont click on ey.......

 

[butch]

not doing yourself any good at all Mark. I have raced whippets for years never got a bad test result yet. As for coming on k9 it is for all menbers comments not just one ones you want to hear.

 

[Tony Taylor]

Butch

As for coming on k9 it is for all menbers comments not just one ones you want to hear.

This is true.

Those that are prepared to put their names to their replies are entitled to their opinions. Anyone who doesn`t want to read about this topic shouldn`t click on it - they can then find out about it as second hand gossip.

It would appear from reading the replies that K9 members are interested in this topic.

Mutley

Any posistion I may hold in the BWRA is upto the members to decide; the chairman has no say in the matter - the BWRA is not his to dictate to ( perhaps).

The rules are printed in the BWRA membership card for all to read - its not a particularly thick document, so all who have read it ought to be as expert.

The commitee threatened to resign over the kickboard issue if it went against them: it went against them and they are still there. It is a shame that the membership can force an EGM over a trivial matter but prefers to ignore an issue that could and has had serious implications for individual members and the long term welfare of the sport.

I suspect that it would be a mistake to think that the chairman of the BWRA has the full support of all his inner circle in all his recent decisions.

 

[butch]

Tony I am not interested in this topic as such, as I said it was all along time ago and should be laid to rest. It still comes up at this time every year.

My main concern is the damage Mark has tryed to do over the years to our sport.

The present committee do not deserve this treatment year after year.

Mark has said very little about his behavour towards the committee forcing them to ban Mark for bringing the sport into disrepute. I am posting nothing else on this topic as it would be a waste of my time. Alot of us can remember how Mark acted towards the committee.

If a dog is raced only when fit to race. And fed as a whippet should be fed you have

no fear of being tested. A bit of chocolate and drop of tea can not be blamed for the past results coming back positive.

 

[Vicky]

A bit of chocolate and drop of tea can not be blamed for the past results coming back positive

Can you explain?

 

[Judy]

Reading this from the outside ( I don't race non-peds), when Butch and Mutley say that Mark was "caught out" they seem to be under the impression he was banned for giving his dog a performance enhancing drug but I thought that he wasn't one of the people who had a dog tested. Can someone clarify ?

It seems to me that all Mark did was stick up for his friends and gather information which proved the BWRA committee were wrong to ban them on the evidence of the tests. Am I wrong ? Sorry. it wasn't reported that much in WN at the time so I don't know the whole story. Interesting thread though.

 

[michelle]

A bit of chocolate and drop of tea can not be blamed for the past results coming back positive.

I think this is wrong. Have you any proof this is true?

 

[Vicky]

To be honest i'm not interested in personal feuds between Mark & the chairman (or whippet news for that matter) i wanted the facts for by own benefit as all i had heard like most other racers were gossip on the grapevine (coz god knows whippet racing is full of it!).

Judy if you ask Mark i'm sure he'll post the documents on, i would imagine you would find it quite interesting reading, it's statements from high up people in the dog world like David Poulter (President of Society of Greyhound Veterinarians), Paddy Sweeney (Greyhoudn Vet) also the BBC, which have opened my eyes.

Also i believe if the copyright is ok Nigel is going to have a go at putting the recording up on here so that people can download it & make their own mind up.

 

[mutley]

ive said what i think on this matter so i reckon the best thing to do is to stay of this topic if people dont use drugs they wont get caught simple enough guide line,i think with the amount of money that the tests cost ,that the testing labs know the difference in chocolate , coffee coco pops ect to enhancers.

 

[JoJess]

I for one did not count the banning of kickboards a trivial matter, that decision took away our right to choose how we raced our whippets......... :w :c :8

 

[tony warren]

mark i now know where i saw you last and im not having a dig but it was at the nwrf bend champs ,and yes i agree with butch and mutley now is not the right time

for this all to be draged up again ,we are trying to bring new members into the sport not frighten them with all this bickering lets get back to it being a good sport where you get to see all your freinds from all over the country, and let me tell you ive been tested myself well not me the dog by both bodies and found them to be ok and done right,plus as i said before drink and drugs is something we get tested for at work quite reg and ive asked them about a list being put out for the men but as i said there is none at my work either as there are so many on the market but we are to ring up and tell them what med we are on and they will say yes ok to work or there stand us down on light duties.plus your ban must be up why not come back and bury the hachet. :c

 

[Judy]

Hi Mutley, Are you not missing the point? I don't know all the ins and outs of the whole story (so maybe I shouldn't stick my nose in, some will say, but it is interesting) but just from what I have read here, it would seem that the whole point that Mark is trying to make is that people were banned whom he believes were not using drugs and so it's not so simple as "don't do it and you won't get caught"

He is trying to make the point that according to his research the results of the tests could have been arrived at from a dog ingesting only small amounts of chocolate such as any of our pets might be given as a treat. Or steal . If this was the case then their owners were not cheating and should not have been banned. The issue revolves around the interpretation of the results. However much money they cost, it may not be realistic for lay people to interpret them. I know my dog can have a simple blood test, but I still have to rely on the vet to interpret what they may mean. It's not the results of the tests that is being called into question but what they mean.

The BWRA obviously came to the conclusion that the owners were cheating but the experts that Mark has spoken to would seem to agree that they weren't. If a mistake has been made then it should be rectified.

It' OK for other people to say "well, even if they were innocent, it was a long time ago, so let's forget it" but I don't think those same people would say that if it was them that had been deprived of their sport. I know I would be devestated.

Mark, have I interpreted what I have read correctly or not? Also, some people have suggested that you should just start racing again and forget it but are you able to? I thought you had been banned. :8

 

[mkp]

There are a few accusations to respond to, and it's such a pity because these ridiculous and totally erroneous charges, fired it must be said from just two sources, are a waste of forum space and deflect from what is an otherwise serious issue. However, I must address them in order to set the record straight.

Judy, who seems to have read and studied the postings, unlike others, is absolutely right. I wasn't one of those 'caught out', thus the request that I 'take it like a man' has no relevance. In fact, Judy, they weren't even friends that I was sticking up for. Jan Ambrosini I knew to say hello to because she had a very good dog that mine used to race against. Colin Nevison and Rab Patterson to this day I wouldn't recognise if they came up to me and said hi. Jane Poole I did know, but we've never been friends.

When I first discovered this site I knew that my topic would cause controversy. That is why I contacted Nigel first and asked for permission to become a member. He then consulted the moderators who in turn gave their blessing. The only thing expected was that I stick to the rules, and so far I believe I have. I'm not totally immune to the slagging off I've received from certain BWRA members. Sometimes I want to respond in kind, but when that happens I simply turn off the computer and wait till I've cooled down before replying. But one thing I think I can safely say is that I tell the truth, stick to the facts, and if I don't know the answer then I admit as much. Anyway, Butch and Mutley, allow me to put you back on the correct course, because you are patently misinformed.

1) I did not advise you 'not to come on k9'. That is not up to me. I was suggesting that you not click on my topic if it upsets you so much. There are plenty of other topics around.

2) 'a few may listen'. Last I looked there were over 1,250 hits.

3) Please, please, try to come to grips with the fact that I was not caught, and that I am simply defending others. I know it's difficult to take in, so I'll dumb it down for your. My dog wasn't one of those failed a BWRA test.

4) Who do I think I am? Nobody special. Not particularly qualified to talk about dope testing. Which is why I wrote to authorities worldwide and gathered enough factual information to conclude that the dogs and owners I represent are innocent, and that the BWRA have been more than a little negligent. My opinions are nothing on their own. But they have been supported, among others, by the BBC, The Independent and most importantly, the greyhound division of the British Veterinary Association. Which leads me to my next point.

5) 'a bit of chocolate and tea cannot be blamed?' OK then, substantiate that with documentation from an accredited source. I've got the British Veterinary Association, unanimous committee decision, on my side says you're wrong. I reckon that's worth about 4 aces. You got a straight flush? Let's see it!

6) 'testing labs know the difference in chocolate, coffee cocp (sic) pops ect (sic) to enhancers.' You know much about the testing labs? I've probably phoned and written to the HFL about 20-30 times. Got quite a file together. Do you understand the difference between a screen assay and a confirmatory analysis? Because the BWRA and NWRF didn't seem to. In fact, even though the lab wrote a letter to the BWRA stating that the results in some cases were not even positive, the BWRA still went ahead and punished the owners!!! I should know, I have a copy of that letter, and the BWRA doesn't like it. In fact, I developed such a 'relationship' with the Horseracing Forensic Laboratory in Newmarket, whom I accused of dealing with a corrupt organisation (BWRA) who were punishing innocent people, that one Friday afternoon a couple of years ago, I drove down there and demanded some answers. They asked me to leave, but I settled down in the lobby with the crossword. They sent security down to ask me to leave, and I wouldn't. In the end they called the police, who sent 2 squad cars. To cut a long story short, the police ended up on my side, and got a promise from the lab that they would answer my questions, which the police deemed were fair. So if the threat of police won't budge me, Butch & Mutley, honestly, what chance have you got with your comments?

7) Enhancers. Is it not enough for you that the British Veterinary Association has said, quite categorically, that the substances found in the dogs I represent did 'not have a performance enhancing effect'? The labs are not asked whether or not substances found enhance performance or not. They are simply asked to detect for certain substances. It is up to the authorities' veterinary surgeons to determine whether or not any substance found affects performance. In the case of the BWRA, whose rule 26 clearly states that the vet should be consulted in the case of a positve result, I am convinced that this did not happen. In other words I believe that the BWRA committee, not for the first time, broke their own rules. But perhaps you can correct me on this. With facts please, not slagging off.

I'm gonna wind this up. I hope that others can make intelligent, valid points, even if it means that I have to admit to mistakes. One last point. When you, Butch & Mutley, insist that I quit this topic, it's not just me you are doing a disservice to. It's also all the other members who have the right to click on and make up their own minds. Who are you to tell them what topic they can look at? I respect your right to an opinion. And I respect your right not to click on to 'BWRA Corruption'. You'll be doing yourselves a favour if you opt for the latter.

 

[mkp]

Judy & Tony,

Been composing for ages, just seen your postings. Judy, you've got it spot on as far as I can tell. I'd think about coming back, Tony, but as far as I know I've had a lifetime ban. Since the BWRA won't clarify this, maybe you could contact them for me and ask if my ban is up. But I'm pretty sure I know the answer.

mkp

 

[RealMadYid]

I must be missing something here...why exactly was MKP banned from the BWRA?

My only other query is who controls drug testing, and is there a A & B sample as in athletics (for example) for independent testing?

Other than that I have no previous knowledge of this bizzare topic..

Paul