Hi Paul,
You're not missing any more than myself or my BWRA regional reps - we don't know for sure why I was banned, our best guess is that it was convenient for the committee to have me removed. An earlier posting, can't quote exactly without checking, said something along the lines of 'we all remember how Mark treated the committee'. OK, if those people remember, please enlighten me on this forum, perhaps for the first time we'll get to the bottom of this. What I might do. though, once I get all my correspondence back from the office, is start telling the whole story in chapters from the beginning, including extracts from the letters I sent to the BWRA. I can promise you that it will make for very interesting reading.
Who controls drug testing? The simple answer to that is the sports authorities, in our case the BWRA and NWRF. All the laboratory requires is that a sample is received in an approved container that is properly sealed and labelled. The process of getting a sample from the donor (whippet) to the lab (HFL) is known as 'chain of custody'. And this is where I find the issue really interesting and a little unclear. Let's take the two cases where Xstasy was tested, first by the BWRA, then the NWRF.
When Xstasy was tested at the BWRA championships the sampling was not done by a qualified vet, not even by a BWRA official with any training. Instead, the BWRA gave this critical job to a volunteer with absolutely no idea of what the procedure entailed. Jane Poole wasn't worried though, and why should she be. She was still on a high from Xstasy's first title, and not having 'doped' the bitch, had no reason to suspect that anything would come of the test. She was concerned enough, though, to question the volunteer who went over to an outside tap and added water, how much is a mute point, before sealing the jar. Now before anybody says that this would have diluted the sample and makes a stronger case for the BWRA, let's not forget that all the test result 'proved' was that Xstasy had at some time in the previous few days consumed some form of a cocoa product, how much is unknown, possibly as little as a chocolate biscuit. Anyway, water or not, the sample was now technically invalid. The volunteer then took this sealed sample away, out of sight of Jane for some minutes, before returning and asking Jane to sign the container, which she duly did. This was a mistake on Jane's part, but anybody who's just won a title is so euphoric they're not thinking straight. I would probably have done the same thing in her position. This sample is now technically invalid yet again - in theory that could have been anything inside that container that Jane signed, how can she be sure it was still Xstasy's sample? Now I'm not suggesting that it wasn't, in fact all those concerned, including myself, believe that it probably was. But I challenge the BWRA to defend that in a court of law, where, I'm certain, the BWRA case to find Jane and Xstasy guilty would be thrown out. Now I know this sequence of events took place because I phoned the volunteer in question and he admitted to the fact. The trouble is that once that sample is received by the lab, they have no idea that all this took place. Their job is simply to test whatever is put in front of them for whatever the authority asks them.
The NWRF selected Xstasy for testing at Devon, I think it was the following year. Out of about 150 dogs, the NWRF, for some particular reason, chose only Xstasy to be sampled, despite the fact that the BWRA had tested her the previous year and found only cocoa. I believe the Hardys were being singled out, and I'll say this to those who brag about having been tested and think they're so squeaky clean - although I only raced for about 6 years, the kennel I was involved in was tested 5 times!!! 3 on Xspell, 2 on Xstasy. Twice cocoa was found, 3 times clear. So I argue, what was the point in the NWRF testing Xstasy in Devon? She had won the heavyweight section, which was quite normal, and she had managed about 3rd or 4th in the overall final, which again was true to form. And previous test results had proved over the years that the Hardy kennel and myself were not doping our dogs. Anyway, it was a scorching day in Devon, and I was concerned about the sample not being refrigerated, which it was supposed to be. I asked the NWRF what facilities they had to keep the sample safe. A classic reply came from one of the NWRF 'experts' - 'do you think the sun will add chemicals to it?' As it was, the sample was clear. You won't have read about that in Whippet News. In fact we wrote to both WN and the NWRF to ask why everybody else who passes a dope test gets a glowing write up in WN, but when it's one of the Hardy kennel, not a word! We still await an answer.
If the BWRA and NWRF were signed up to an umbrella British sports body and thus under the remit of the Sports Dispute Resolution Council, there would be some kind of control. Yes, there is supposed to be both an A and B sample, and the BBC Radio 5 show stated that the BWRA was in the wrong not to ensure this always happened.
Back to the question, 'who controls drug testing?' In our case, a few misinformed, poorly educated individuals in the BWRA and NWRF who refuse to acknowledge their blunders, threaten anybody who dares to question their authority, and who sit back contentedly and let innocent racers suffer the unwarranted label of 'drug cheat'.
That's who controls drug testing.
You're not missing any more than myself or my BWRA regional reps - we don't know for sure why I was banned, our best guess is that it was convenient for the committee to have me removed. An earlier posting, can't quote exactly without checking, said something along the lines of 'we all remember how Mark treated the committee'. OK, if those people remember, please enlighten me on this forum, perhaps for the first time we'll get to the bottom of this. What I might do. though, once I get all my correspondence back from the office, is start telling the whole story in chapters from the beginning, including extracts from the letters I sent to the BWRA. I can promise you that it will make for very interesting reading.
Who controls drug testing? The simple answer to that is the sports authorities, in our case the BWRA and NWRF. All the laboratory requires is that a sample is received in an approved container that is properly sealed and labelled. The process of getting a sample from the donor (whippet) to the lab (HFL) is known as 'chain of custody'. And this is where I find the issue really interesting and a little unclear. Let's take the two cases where Xstasy was tested, first by the BWRA, then the NWRF.
When Xstasy was tested at the BWRA championships the sampling was not done by a qualified vet, not even by a BWRA official with any training. Instead, the BWRA gave this critical job to a volunteer with absolutely no idea of what the procedure entailed. Jane Poole wasn't worried though, and why should she be. She was still on a high from Xstasy's first title, and not having 'doped' the bitch, had no reason to suspect that anything would come of the test. She was concerned enough, though, to question the volunteer who went over to an outside tap and added water, how much is a mute point, before sealing the jar. Now before anybody says that this would have diluted the sample and makes a stronger case for the BWRA, let's not forget that all the test result 'proved' was that Xstasy had at some time in the previous few days consumed some form of a cocoa product, how much is unknown, possibly as little as a chocolate biscuit. Anyway, water or not, the sample was now technically invalid. The volunteer then took this sealed sample away, out of sight of Jane for some minutes, before returning and asking Jane to sign the container, which she duly did. This was a mistake on Jane's part, but anybody who's just won a title is so euphoric they're not thinking straight. I would probably have done the same thing in her position. This sample is now technically invalid yet again - in theory that could have been anything inside that container that Jane signed, how can she be sure it was still Xstasy's sample? Now I'm not suggesting that it wasn't, in fact all those concerned, including myself, believe that it probably was. But I challenge the BWRA to defend that in a court of law, where, I'm certain, the BWRA case to find Jane and Xstasy guilty would be thrown out. Now I know this sequence of events took place because I phoned the volunteer in question and he admitted to the fact. The trouble is that once that sample is received by the lab, they have no idea that all this took place. Their job is simply to test whatever is put in front of them for whatever the authority asks them.
The NWRF selected Xstasy for testing at Devon, I think it was the following year. Out of about 150 dogs, the NWRF, for some particular reason, chose only Xstasy to be sampled, despite the fact that the BWRA had tested her the previous year and found only cocoa. I believe the Hardys were being singled out, and I'll say this to those who brag about having been tested and think they're so squeaky clean - although I only raced for about 6 years, the kennel I was involved in was tested 5 times!!! 3 on Xspell, 2 on Xstasy. Twice cocoa was found, 3 times clear. So I argue, what was the point in the NWRF testing Xstasy in Devon? She had won the heavyweight section, which was quite normal, and she had managed about 3rd or 4th in the overall final, which again was true to form. And previous test results had proved over the years that the Hardy kennel and myself were not doping our dogs. Anyway, it was a scorching day in Devon, and I was concerned about the sample not being refrigerated, which it was supposed to be. I asked the NWRF what facilities they had to keep the sample safe. A classic reply came from one of the NWRF 'experts' - 'do you think the sun will add chemicals to it?' As it was, the sample was clear. You won't have read about that in Whippet News. In fact we wrote to both WN and the NWRF to ask why everybody else who passes a dope test gets a glowing write up in WN, but when it's one of the Hardy kennel, not a word! We still await an answer.
If the BWRA and NWRF were signed up to an umbrella British sports body and thus under the remit of the Sports Dispute Resolution Council, there would be some kind of control. Yes, there is supposed to be both an A and B sample, and the BBC Radio 5 show stated that the BWRA was in the wrong not to ensure this always happened.
Back to the question, 'who controls drug testing?' In our case, a few misinformed, poorly educated individuals in the BWRA and NWRF who refuse to acknowledge their blunders, threaten anybody who dares to question their authority, and who sit back contentedly and let innocent racers suffer the unwarranted label of 'drug cheat'.
That's who controls drug testing.
