Nnwrf Drug Testing 2009

[mutley]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

another way to look at it Chris if no one has been caught maybe its because its such a good deterrent . do agree with random testing . we did try random testing over the last few years Devon Scotland etc . i personally think its a waste of money but thats just my own opinion :- " think chez post hits the nail on the head cheating all for what a trophy and a couple of quid but there will always be the odd cheat in every sport

 

[bett leeson]

i just think that if anybody is willing to dope there dogs for a bit of plastic or a bit of glass and the pennies you pick up think nothing of the welfare of there dogs and should not be welcome in the sport

just my opinion

azuro punto, molly milly mandy, pasha

 

[Fleesh]

Around 8 people were caught cheating on a degree course last year (i.e buying essays instead of writing their own/plagarism/copying from another student), given the average intake that's 10% of people, 1 in 10.

If you wanted to apply that number to whippet racing then you could say that for every two 5 dog races, one owner was cheating (in some form or another, though maybe not necessarily drugs) - puts things in perspective.

 

[Paws123]

Someone mentioned testing all the champions think it was Chris, it would be great to do all champions thats 29 in total ... twice a year cost around 12 grand without any confirmatory analysis tests...wonder how much each members membership's would be

 

[rob67]

Someone mentioned testing all the champions think it was Chris, it would be great to do all champions thats 29 in total ... twice a year cost around 12 grand without any confirmatory analysis tests...wonder how much each members membership's would be

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Could cost £12 or £12,000 for me denise I still have no faith in drug testing as it is, altho maybe we might get a discount if we order in bulk :lol:

Think the fact that there are very few 'facts' about the accuracy of drug testing proving that it is a deterrant makes it difficult to get on board. No positive drug screens means what? I'm sure, depending on which side of the fence you sit on it will mean different things.

chris

 

[Paws123]

Someone mentioned testing all the champions think it was Chris, it would be great to do all champions thats 29 in total ... twice a year cost around 12 grand without any confirmatory analysis tests...wonder how much each members membership's would be

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Could cost £12 or £12,000 for me denise I still have no faith in drug testing as it is, altho maybe we might get a discount if we order in bulk :lol:

Think the fact that there are very few 'facts' about the accuracy of drug testing proving that it is a deterrant makes it difficult to get on board. No positive drug screens means what? I'm sure, depending on which side of the fence you sit on it will mean different things.

chris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Chris HFL are the top testing lab part of a world company , they don't just test whippets :- " they test for Athletes, Veterinary services among many more ... i personally have 100% trust in there work , they are a massive million pound company , not a back street lab

I don't think they would lie and say a test is okay if its not, however if you are saying Linda's covering anything up with results , i am sure she will allow you to see paper work we have as long as the dogs owners are okay about it

No positive drug screens means what? maybe most people don't feed there dogs drugs and are genuine dog owners or maybe when they run with the NNWRF there dogs don't win ...who knows

 

[rodders]

The reason I proposed drug testing with the BWRA was because I believe we should be running on a level playing field whichever organisation we are running with.I also believe that yes we all want to win,but to a few(I don't just mean in whippet racing) they must win at all costs,and it's not for the prize money or the trophy,it's the 'WIN' it's the 'GLORY' and the admiration of their fellow competitors.Having said that if we believe that there are plenty of cheats in whippet racing,then why race with them in the first place. :wacko: I know that when I go racing I go to race my dogs against like minded people who have put the work in with their dogs,and if I was busy thinking so and so is cheating,then I would give up the sport,that simple.Here's a question.Which is worse or are they both as bad,the person who cheats,or the person who puts the question mark over the competitor that has just beaten them?How many times have you heard 'That person got there title with one organisation but when running with the organisation thats testing,they lost :- " Will end by saying that if the members reject my proposal I will be lobbying the Fed to drop drug testing.All just my opinion

 

[toadfish]

The reason I proposed drug testing with the BWRA was because I believe we should be running on a level playing field whichever organisation we are running with.I also believe that yes we all want to win,but to a few(I don't just mean in whippet racing) they must win at all costs,and it's not for the prize money or the trophy,it's the 'WIN' it's the 'GLORY' and the admiration of their fellow competitors.Having said that if we believe that there are plenty of cheats in whippet racing,then why race with them in the first place. :wacko: I know that when I go racing I go to race my dogs against like minded people who have put the work in with their dogs,and if I was busy thinking so and so  is cheating,then I would give up the sport,that simple.Here's a question.Which is worse or are they both as bad,the person who cheats,or the person who puts the question mark over the competitor that has just beaten them?How many times have you heard 'That person got there title with one organisation but when running with the organisation thats testing,they lost :- " Will end by saying that if the members reject my proposal I will be lobbying the Fed to drop drug testing.All just my opinion

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

well put karen

graham

 

[sherry]

over the years there have been positive drug tests thats in 14 years that i have been racing so i think it shud stay. yes it is ridiculous that people wud drug their dogs to win a title or wotever but YES it has happened over the years.

 

[wild whippies]

Personally, I'm all for voting on the day for a dog to be drug tested. First race card of the day could have a duplicate list of dogs running. Owners, could watch the first round of racing and vote if they felt a dog was running out of form as it were and drop their votes in a ballot box. After finals run, lists examined and any dog that 'stands' out should be tested that day.

This could be done at any event. There is no need in my eyes, to have a vet or veterinary nurse present so long as the procedure is witnessed independantly and preferably by 2 individuals who are instructed properly.

Some may feel this is some form of victimisation but I find that a weak excuse and I feel the owners should see passing a test under such circumstances a reassuring form of self-gratification.

Good post Elise :thumbsup: I spend a small fortune each year just to have my name on a list of registered nurses. I get no 'benefits' to this as it's for the public's best interests alone. When Dobs got a tendon strain, I spent nearly £1,000 in a month on laser treatment, swimming, osteopath examinations and diesel costs.

I spend £80 / £100 a month running my dogs at wessy. A days racing is about £60 for me travelling alone. I know others don't or cant have these kind of costs but we've got to be realistic here, if your dog got a serious injury, could you afford the care required? If you can't, my own opinion is that you shouldn't be racing dogs.

So when I'm asked if I'd be willing to pay more for drug testing then I have to say yes, but the proviso is that such testing should be done in a manner where it is most effective and acts as a deterrant throughout the racing calendar.

 

[Paws123]

Personally, I'm all for voting on the day for a dog to be drug tested. First race card of the day could have a duplicate list of dogs running. Owners, could watch the first round of racing and vote if they felt a dog was running out of form as it were and drop their votes in a ballot box. After finals run, lists examined and any dog that 'stands' out should be tested that day. This could be done at any event. There is no need in my eyes, to have a vet or veterinary nurse present so long as the procedure is witnessed independantly and preferably by 2 individuals who are instructed properly.

Some may feel this is some form of victimisation but I find that a weak excuse and I feel the owners should see passing a test under such circumstances a reassuring form of self-gratification.

Good post Elise :thumbsup:   I spend a small fortune each year just to have my name on a list of registered nurses. I get no 'benefits'  to this as it's for the public's best interests alone. When Dobs got a tendon strain, I spent nearly £1,000 in a month on laser treatment, swimming, osteopath examinations and diesel costs.

I spend £80 / £100 a month running my dogs at wessy. A days racing is about £60 for me travelling alone. I know others don't or cant have these kind of costs but we've got to be realistic here, if your dog got a serious injury, could you afford the care required? If you can't, my own opinion is that you shouldn't be racing dogs.

So when I'm asked if I'd be willing to pay more for drug testing then I have to say yes, but the proviso is that such testing should be done in a manner where it is most effective and acts as a deterrant throughout the racing calendar.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Good post jac, but i need to point one thing out , when hfl was approched about testing and giving the NNWRF a drug testing program think we had to have a vet or vet nurse taking and handling the tests ..

 

[wild whippies]

Ah so it's a proviso of HFL? (presumably for their reasurance?)

Is it possibly for an individual to undergo training that would deem them competant in that specific procedure?

The reason I ask is that I've been told that urine tests are obtained from greyhounds and racehorses prior to racing events and wondered if these have always been carried out by a vet along with tests obtained on the day?

The problem with having a vet or a veterinary nurse obtaining samples is that these have to be booked in advance which takes out the random factor that is needed to be a worthwhile, consistent deterrant.

 

[ahorsnall]

Personally, I'm all for voting on the day for a dog to be drug tested. First race card of the day could have a duplicate list of dogs running. Owners, could watch the first round of racing and vote if they felt a dog was running out of form as it were and drop their votes in a ballot box. After finals run, lists examined and any dog that 'stands' out should be tested that day. This could be done at any event. There is no need in my eyes, to have a vet or veterinary nurse present so long as the procedure is witnessed independantly and preferably by 2 individuals who are instructed properly.

Some may feel this is some form of victimisation but I find that a weak excuse and I feel the owners should see passing a test under such circumstances a reassuring form of self-gratification.

Good post Elise :thumbsup:   I spend a small fortune each year just to have my name on a list of registered nurses. I get no 'benefits'  to this as it's for the public's best interests alone. When Dobs got a tendon strain, I spent nearly £1,000 in a month on laser treatment, swimming, osteopath examinations and diesel costs.

I spend £80 / £100 a month running my dogs at wessy. A days racing is about £60 for me travelling alone. I know others don't or cant have these kind of costs but we've got to be realistic here, if your dog got a serious injury, could you afford the care required? If you can't, my own opinion is that you shouldn't be racing dogs.

So when I'm asked if I'd be willing to pay more for drug testing then I have to say yes, but the proviso is that such testing should be done in a manner where it is most effective and acts as a deterrant throughout the racing calendar.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

have to agree i mean if no testing might make people think twice spending large sums to travel if could be beat un fairly.i mean its to protect the dogs racing too from this abuse :thumbsup:

 

[Paws123]

Ah so it's a proviso of HFL? (presumably for their reasurance?)Is it possibly for an individual to undergo training that would deem them competant in that specific procedure?

The reason I ask is that I've been told that urine tests are obtained from greyhounds and racehorses prior to racing events and wondered if these have always been carried out by a vet along with tests obtained on the day?

The problem with having a vet or a veterinary nurse obtaining samples is that these have to be booked in advance which takes out the random factor that is needed to be a worthwhile, consistent deterrant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Have asked Linda to ask HFL the same thing ... if someone could be trained and responsible for all the testing and handling ... this however would probably come down to another competitor that will be at all NNWRF events ... The greyhounds have a person that is employed by the NGRC to just do this job and i am sure he will be paid for it

 

[Paws123]

Someone mentioned testing all the champions think it was Chris, it would be great to do all champions thats 29 in total ... twice a year cost around 12 grand without any confirmatory analysis tests...wonder how much each members membership's would be

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Could cost £12 or £12,000 for me denise I still have no faith in drug testing as it is, altho maybe we might get a discount if we order in bulk :lol:

Think the fact that there are very few 'facts' about the accuracy of drug testing proving that it is a deterrant makes it difficult to get on board. No positive drug screens means what? I'm sure, depending on which side of the fence you sit on it will mean different things.

chris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Chris HFL are the top testing lab part of a world company , they don't just test whippets :- " they test for Athletes, Veterinary services among many more ... i personally have 100% trust in there work , they are a massive million pound company , not a back street lab

I don't think they would lie and say a test is okay if its not, however if you are saying Linda's covering anything up with results , i am sure she will allow you to see paper work we have as long as the dogs owners are okay about it

No positive drug screens means what? maybe most people don't feed there dogs drugs and are genuine dog owners or maybe when they run with the NNWRF there dogs don't win ...who knows

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

What are you on about denise..................where in my post do you think I have said anybody is lying or that Linda is covering anything up? I said that i have no faith in drug testing and as a deterrant and as a detterant I think it sucks, my opinion. Think you need to read my post in full, not in bits as I think you may have read it.

What's the problem in asking "No positive drug screens mean what?" it could mean that no-one is giving their dogs drugs, ot that no-one has got caught. What is the harm in asking that?

I'm not sure what your problem with my post is, why would i want to see anyone elses drug results, or question linda..................unless you are saying i should?

let me know.

chris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

There is no problem in asking Chris or giving your opinion , same as there should be no problem in me answering or giving my opinions despite what i post ...fact is its you that has no faith in drug testing or its accuracy , so if you could explain in more detail why you think this then maybe someone with more knowledge on present drug testing can reply or it can be debated sensibly :thumbsup:

 

[rob67]

Someone mentioned testing all the champions think it was Chris, it would be great to do all champions thats 29 in total ... twice a year cost around 12 grand without any confirmatory analysis tests...wonder how much each members membership's would be

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Could cost £12 or £12,000 for me denise I still have no faith in drug testing as it is, altho maybe we might get a discount if we order in bulk :lol:

Think the fact that there are very few 'facts' about the accuracy of drug testing proving that it is a deterrant makes it difficult to get on board. No positive drug screens means what? I'm sure, depending on which side of the fence you sit on it will mean different things.

chris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Chris HFL are the top testing lab part of a world company , they don't just test whippets :- " they test for Athletes, Veterinary services among many more ... i personally have 100% trust in there work , they are a massive million pound company , not a back street lab

I don't think they would lie and say a test is okay if its not, however if you are saying Linda's covering anything up with results , i am sure she will allow you to see paper work we have as long as the dogs owners are okay about it

No positive drug screens means what? maybe most people don't feed there dogs drugs and are genuine dog owners or maybe when they run with the NNWRF there dogs don't win ...who knows

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

What are you on about denise..................where in my post do you think I have said anybody is lying or that Linda is covering anything up? I said that i have no faith in drug testing and as a deterrant and as a detterant I think it sucks, my opinion. Think you need to read my post in full, not in bits as I think you may have read it.

What's the problem in asking "No positive drug screens mean what?" it could mean that no-one is giving their dogs drugs, ot that no-one has got caught. What is the harm in asking that?

I'm not sure what your problem with my post is, why would i want to see anyone elses drug results, or question linda..................unless you are saying i should?

let me know.

chris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

There is no problem in asking Chris or giving your opinion , same as there should be no problem in me answering or giving my opinions despite what i post ...fact is its you that has no faith in drug testing or its accuracy , so if you could explain in more detail why you think this then maybe someone with more knowledge on present drug testing can reply or it can be debated sensibly :thumbsup:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I guess from your post you have now read it in a more sensible frame of mind and now realise you read it incorrectly, my fears are adequately represented in my previous posts should you choose to read them correctly. If anyone could answer my questions then that would be fantastic. They too are adequatley represented in my posts and as you are so good at quoting me then I'm sure you will have no prob in picking them out :cheers:

chris

 

[Paws123]

Thanks for your constructive feedback Chris its been noted along with the other replies given off NNWRF k9 members :thumbsup:

 

[rob67]

Thanks for your constructive feedback Chris its been noted along with the other replies given off NNWRF k9 members  :thumbsup:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Thats fab denise, when could we expect some feedback and answers :cheers:

chris

 

[Paws123]

WHEN EVERYONES THAT WANTS TO HAVE HAD THERE SAY :lol: Your only one NNWRF member chris out of nearly 200 :thumbsup:

 

[marielou]

Hi Dee as one of the other 200 members I just thought I'd give my views....my opinion is down to simple math

I understand that the fed hold some 16 racing events a year with an average entry of some 60 whippets which gives us a yearly total of 960 dogs per year.

The fed tests at 2 events per year, 3 tests per event...a total of 6 tests

This gives the fed a six in 960 chance of catching someone and with those sort of odds I think we would be better spending the money on lottery tickets, then if we win we can afford a proper drug testing programme