Is Drug Testing A Waste Of Time &money

[mutley]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

exactly val :blink:but its not the governing bodies that takes the tests its left to other trainers :blink: with a vet their could be no arguments but can they afford it so your right where do we go from here .....

 

[tanglewood]

In a word no we do not have the money to do PROPER testing, however it is after all an amateur sport we do it for fun (apparently) however how much fun its been in recent years I will leave that up to each individual to decide. From our point of view the sport is being pulled apart and not just through drug testing the attitude seems to be if one person can get something over on the other at any cost then lets go for it, drag each others name through the mud no matter what the harm to the sport, gone are the days of all being happy and having a laugh. hopefully we will sort each oher out before it all goes to Hell

 

[Paws123]

In an ideal world then nobody would dream of drugging there dogs, but sadly the past few years have proved other wise...weather the % of the test was over or under the stated amount allowed.

I think the banning of people is pathetic maybe a hefty fine might be better, the sport is on a decline anyway, we can not allow people to be banned for using drugs any more.

I think testing should be kept in and done randomly rather than just championship events, also agree that no other competitor should be involved in the taken, handling or post of test, a professional person should be brought in to do this job.

Being the registrar of the nwrf i reckon if memberships were increased by £5 a year this would give sufficient funds to do the job properly.

All members should be allowed to vote on this ( weather to have testing or not and the increase in membership) say by using a ballot box at a championship event .

Some one on this topic asked this

unless we are given some indication what to look for ,i know you cant name names ,but someone knows what is being used ,i think it should be exposed every time , instead of pretending it doesn't happen. Phil

Take a look at the ngrc inquires theres some interesting reading ngrc inquires

just my opinion

 

[tanglewood]

A hefty fine is one solution however it in no way compensates the person who has been beaten from the so called drugged dog, are we saying now that the methods that we have previously used are bogus then?after all if we have NOW decided that the proper way to take tests is through a vet can we say the previous test that have been taken are wrong or at least there is a window of doubt in the results?It seems to me this sort of thing should maybe been sorted out before we even attempted to start taking tests.

 

[Paws123]

however it in no way compensates the person who has been beaten from the so called drugged dog

No its not very nice at all ,i remember a 13 year old getting beat in a photo finish with his bitch 2 years off the belt

are we saying now that the methods that we have previously used are bogus then?after all if we have NOW decided that the proper way to take tests is through a vet can we say the previous test that have been taken are wrong or at least there is a window of doubt in the results?

Could well of been wrong we will never know, but do think the taken, handling and posting of test should be handled by an outside and who better than someone that is experienced in that field of work...i don't think a committee should leave themselves wide open to the s**t they took a few years ago. If the majority of members want testing to stay the job has to be done as accurate as possible, leaving no loop holes.

 

[tanglewood]

OK so we have now decided that an official outside of racing is to be responsible for taking handling etc. of tests no argument over that, however are we allowing the independant official the right to decide which dogs are tested? This would probably still be left to organisers of the event and then the doubt of it being above board still goes on.

 

[Paws123]

I thought it was drawn out who got tested ?

 

[tanglewood]

Well they are not really are they Dennis as both supremes get tested and isnt there a rule which says anyone who has previously failed a test is now tested?

 

[Paws123]

I don't know about the bwra's ruling in dogs that have failed tests...i was tested 2 years off the belt with the old nwrf are you saying my dog was targeted...when gaz asked why he was been tested a second year he was told it had been drawn out.

When 2 bwra members asked for a certain dog to be tested at last years bwra straight champs and offered to pay for the test as the dog failed a test the year before, the answer was that they were waiting to see what won sup...maybe someone from the bwra committee that uses k9 might answer your question.

 

[tanglewood]

Not saying your dog has been targeted at all, are you then doubting the possibility that your dog could have been picked out twice in a row? We were tested 3 times in a row twice from the old fed and once from the new, we were also tested once from the B.W.R.A. thats lots of money to spend on one dog to get back four clear tests dont you think. and that is my point, even though all previous test from us had came back clear bacause of the rules we still had to be tested.

As for whoever asked whoever to test a dog at any previous Champs that does not concern me and I need no committee member from the B.W.R.A. to answer any question, what does concern me however is as a paid up member of both organisations I am entitled to have a say in where and how the money is spent for testing after all if the membership does go up five pounds I will be contributing

to it.

I am not saying that any organisation is biased not getting involved in the play one of against another game, however I do think mistakes have been made in the past and if we are to carry on testing then we should be learning from those mistakes instead of burying our heads in the sand and hoping everything will come out okay in the end.

 

[Paws123]

however are we allowing the independant official the right to decide which dogs are tested? This would probably still be left to organisers of the event and then the doubt of it being above board still goes on.

A few years ago at the Scottish derby when you tested ,how did the decision get made on who to test?

Not saying your dog has been targeted at all, are you then doubting the possibility that your dog could have been picked out twice in a row? We were tested 3 times in a row twice from the old fed and once from the new, we were also tested once from the B.W.R.A. thats lots of money to spend on one dog to get back four clear tests don't you think. and that is my point, even though all previous test from us had came back clear because of the rules we still had to be tested

No i never doubted i was ever targeted my dog won Sup Vet both years and was the best Vet on the field that year. I do how ever think that all Sup should be tested at champs as they have beaten every dog in the country that year, Biddy been one of our greats and winning Sup many times over the past 4/5 years.

what does concern me however is as a paid up member of both organizations I am entitled to have a say in where and how the money is spent for testing after all if the membership does go up five pounds I will be contributing to it.

I agree that all members of both organization should have that say, thats why i suggested a vote and a ballot box that was my opinion.

I am not saying that any organisation is biased not getting involved in the play one of against another game,

I don't think anyone is playing one against the other, after all we are all members of both and have the right to ask if we feel some thing is been done wrong , as for testing that why i said that a professional outsider should be brought in to take test, and minimums the risk of any complains arising like a few years ago.

 

[JoJess]

Peter here, I think testing should be done ,after all it does act as a deterant doesn't it ??

 

[mutley]

if we cant afford the petrol how can we afford testing Pete (w00t) i think me and you should just have the crack about good guitars and music like we did in Scotland ey :thumbsup: does it act as a deterrent mmmmmmmmmmm maybe

 

[tanglewood]

As for testing in Scotland the decision was made to take tests from all finalist in main Derby and send of two, this decision was made before the Derby was won however. Although dont realise what significance it has I am after all in no doubt that there were folk who had doubts then about how it was done therefore the remark I made about the doubt going on stands wherever testing is taking place.

You say you expected to be tested being the best veteran on the day then why would Gary have to ask why you were being tested?

Glad we both agree that everyone does have a say in how things are ran however please remeber there is no right and wrong opinion everyone is entitled to say what they think without it becoming a slagging match or others feeling offended because someone doesnt agree with them.

I think we agree that testing methods are not perfect but we now seem to be dragging up old stuff from the past instead of giving ideas for the future, so I think its time for me to leave this subject here have enjoyed the debate with you though Dennis and its good to hear anothers opinion

Val

 

[JoJess]

I think there should be random drug testing

Where money is involved you will always get some people who will try to cheat, drug testing exists I think so as to protect the majority against a very small minority who may/or may not try to bend the rules. :cheers: ....JoJess

 

[sherry]

erm jj wot money exactly do we win in whippet racing i might b ablle to understand if we were racing 4 thousands of pounds people cheating but i doubt it.! if people want to cheat to win a trophy or a few letter befor thier racing name then that to me is bloody sad!

 

[mutley]

As for testing in Scotland the decision was made to take tests from all finalist in main Derby and send of two, this decision was made before the Derby was won however. Although dont realise what significance it has I am after all in no doubt that there were folk who had doubts then about how it was done therefore the remark I made about the doubt going on stands wherever testing is taking place.
You say you expected to be tested being the best veteran on the day then why would Gary have to ask why you were being tested?

Glad we both agree that everyone does have a say in how things are ran however please remeber there is no right and wrong opinion everyone is entitled to say what they think without it becoming a slagging match or others feeling offended because someone doesnt agree with them.

I think we agree that testing methods are not perfect but we now seem to be dragging up old stuff from the past instead of giving ideas for the future, so I think its time for me to leave this subject here have enjoyed the debate with you though Dennis and its good to hear anothers opinion

Val

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

My point about the Scottish derby test were the same as sup at champs, the overall winners were the ones tested and rightly so as they were the best dog on the day

As for Gary asking why he was tested a second year beats me, i reckon he just like to moan now and then, you know what most men are like (w00t)

Thanks for the debate, its nice to know people can still have there opinions with out uproar and arguments

DEE POSTING IN GAZS NAME...SORRY FORGOT TO SWAP USER NAME OVER..SO THATS HIM MOANING AGAIN

 

[JoJess]

erm jj wot money exactly do we win in whippet racing i might b ablle to understand if we were racing 4 thousands of pounds people cheating but i doubt it.! if people want to cheat to win a trophy or a few letter befor thier racing name then that to me is bloody sad!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Exactly :b

 

[unwanted]

exactly (w00t)

 

[JoJess]

if we cant afford the petrol how can we afford testing Pete (w00t) i think me and you should just have the crack about good guitars and music like we did in Scotland ey :thumbsup: does it act as a deterrent mmmmmmmmmmm  maybe

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I agree mmmmmmmmm maybe (peter) :blink: