Nnwrf Drug Testing 2009

[Trojan]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

Rose karen.................always go for the bit in the middle myself :lol:

chris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Bit in the middle sounds good to me :thumbsup: I'll have to try Rose too

 

[DavidH]

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:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: spot on

 

[stuart worcs]

maybe one way around this testing to get results

is tell the owners of the said dogs which are going to be tested

after they have run their heat

designate a committee member or who ever is doing the tests

to stay with the dog until they get a sample

99% of the dogs will need to go to toilet in the time from the heats

up till the racing has finished

im getting in to this posting now

chez

 

[kipper fluke]

Question ??? As the majority of racers belong to both the BWRA--and the NNWRF-

would it not be an option to join forces on the drug issue?TESTING--

working in harmony ---

The one thing i dont like about testing is any committee members knowing when/who/why/ where--this takes out the random aspect of testing --

careless talk cost lives it was said during the war---

steve

 

[stuart worcs]

Question ??? As the majority of racers belong to both the BWRA--and the NNWRF-
would it not be an option to join forces on the drug issue?TESTING--

working in harmony ---

The one thing i dont like about testing is  any committee members knowing when/who/why/ where--this takes out the random aspect of testing --

careless talk cost lives it was said during the war---

steve

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

would make no difference to stu @ me who tested our dogs

it was just a suggestion about committee member doing it

and it would be random

if the dogs are chosen on the day

sounds like committee members can be trusted to

run the meetings set track up etc etc

but not to test??

cant have it both ways

 

[weathergirls]

simple,dont join,if against,join,if you want to catch the cheats,and save a dog or 2,becouse at the end of the day,the dogs will be killed giving them drugs,,,clean in sport,we will be paying ours :thumbsup:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I think it's a bit of a shame that the underlying suggestion is that if you dont agree with drug testing then you are quite happy to let people cheat and to be seen to not care.

Just wondering 1) what evidence there is that drug testing in it's present form works? IMO To say that all tests have come back negative means diddly squat.

and

2) How cost effective is it?

Just looked back at this years drug testing and only 55% of samples were able to be screened by HFL......not sure what cost implications that has? Out of all the years drug testing has taken place, only 70% of tests taken were tested.

Also wondering whether drug testing in its current format is the way forward. If you are going to spend near enough £3000 on it would it not be more sensible to make it more likely to stop those using drugs if there was random testing, initiated by a suitably qualified person who is not linked to whippet racing.

I would be more inclined to accept testing if there was proof that it works, that all champs were tested, if it were random and if it were carried out independently.

And the above in no way means I condone drug use in whippet racing, just want proof before i shell out good money

chris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I will answer your questions Chris to the best of my knowledge which I am more than happy to say is very, very limited in regard to the giving or taking of drugs. The reaction and accusations I or anyone involved with drug testing in whippet racing would get if they had this knowledge does'nt bear thinking about.

My involvement with the NNWRF drug testing programme is to decide when testing will be done and arrange for a vet/nurse to attend, give out the testing kits and instructions to owners and fill out the relevant doccuments. The rest of the committee are informed on the day.

Due to previous testing procedures in whippet racing which I am not going to go into detail about as its done with and in the past, The NNWRF had to agree to strict guidlines from the HFL for them to consider a drug testing programme for whippet racing, one of the rules being samples must be obtained by a vet or qualified vet nurse, Chris Cornish can verify this as she was invited to attend the meeting as an independant with myself and the HFL

Q. 1) What evidence drug testing in its present form works To say all tests have come back negative means diddly squat

A) whats to say it isn't working I think its great to know a dog that has won on its own abillity. It has never been stated all tests have come back negative, whereas it has been stated tests have passed.

Q. 2) how cost effective is it

A. ) its an expensive excersise however only samples that undergo teting are charged for

reasons for some samples not being alligible to undergo testing are beyond our control the main one being to get a dog to pass enough urine naturally

Testing is done at random and at random events

how cost effective would it be to have a suitably qualified person not linked with whippet racing to initiate the whole procedure Do you know what a vet would be wanting to charge to take this on board I doubt very much they would have the slightest interest in doing it, also take into account that the majority of our events take place on a Sunday or a bank holiday weekend,

in 2005 the fee for a vet to attend for approx 1- 1/2 hrs and oversee the taking of samples was £200. One of the reasons the members agreed on a vet/nurse as a way of keeping costs down .

To test all champions great in an ideal world but again it comes down to cost to test

29 champions at one event [throws your random test out of the window] would cost in total £10,856-15p = £64-62p per member

As for the overall drug testing programme and procedures these were voted in by the majority of NNWRF members in 2005. The NNWRF committee have not had any written request to change this agreement. A review on the costs has had to be undertaken leading to an increase in 2009 but if drug testing is to continue it has to be paid for, if members wish to end the drug testing programme this will need to be done in the correct way and the descision will be made by NNWRF members voting

 

[debbie]

my daughter joined k9 yesterday folks, her name is sammy, she tried putting another post on to explain who she was but her posts have been suspended,she chose the name nightmare as thats what all this is at the moment, as now people know i take charley my grandaughter to some events and was at the event where there was an inncident, samantha was concerned, she has been reading all k9 for a while now,

debbie and sammy

 

[rodders]

Just 2 questions Linda

1.What is the difference between the 'core screens' and the 'gold screens'?

2.I know the descision has been made to change to gold screens,but could you explain why or why members have requested a change?

Thanks

 

[mutley]

i think its should be done away with it causes far too much trouble imo :- " Hobie my a...e the funs gone and fun and enjoyment is what this sport really needs right now cheats mainly cheat themselves they must live with it if a dogs good its good...... drugs wont make a donkey any faster

 

[rob67]

Since evreyone is being asked their opinion, I thought i would write mine. I dont normally post but this is important to me.

I have no faith in the fed drug testing programme, or in the committee. I do not believe that only one committee member knows until the day when drug testing takes place and I have no faith in it being random, reason being that on the day that roxy won ch of ch's there were several comments made both on and off the track about her having an extra run yet still getting faster each time. Lo and behold 15 mins later I was requested to go to the box to be told to have roxy ready for a drug test at the end of racing.

The result of the test was that she passed, but the letter from HFL stated

"Screening tests indicated the possible prescence of low level xanthines. As agreed no confirmatory analysis was performed"

We asked a committe member what this might entail and we were told it could have been off the dogs rub we used. We now know that the substance is found in caffeine, choc etc and I do not believe the accuracy of the drug test as roxy has access to any of these substances.

Linda stated that all drug tests passed, but not all came back negative. I just wonder if anyone else has had a result like this and how they felt about it.

ROB (not chris)

 

[milly]

Since evreyone is being asked their opinion, I thought i would write mine. I dont normally post but this is important to me.
I have no faith in the fed drug testing programme, or in the committee. I do not believe that only one committee member knows until the day when drug testing takes place and I have no faith in it being random, reason being that on the day that roxy won ch of ch's there were several comments made both on and off the track about her having an extra run yet still getting faster each time. Lo and behold 15 mins later I was requested to go to the box to be told to have roxy ready for a drug test at the end of racing.

The result of the test was that she passed, but the letter from HFL stated

"Screening tests indicated the possible prescence of low level xanthines. As agreed no confirmatory analysis was performed"

We asked a committe member what this might entail and we were told it could have been off the dogs rub we used. We now know that the substance is found in caffeine, choc etc and I do not believe the accuracy of the drug test as roxy has access to any of these substances.

Linda stated that all drug tests passed, but not all came back negative. I just wonder if anyone else has had a result like this and how they felt about it.

ROB (not chris)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Nice to see you have an opinion Rob :thumbsup:

Just wanted to say that we had the same result with Pennysworth,her sample contained the same as Roxy's.

At the time our result was published in the Whippet News telling everyone this, which we thought to be abit unfair, because you know what people are like :- "

Hazel(not Geoff)

 

[stuart worcs]

I WAS JUST WONDERING WHY A TEST HAS TO BE RANDOM?

NO ONE SEEMS TO BE USING DRUGS ON THEIR DOGS

SO THERE IS NO NEED FOR IT TO BE RANDOM FROM WHAT I CAN

SEE OF IT

 

[toadfish]

I WAS JUST WONDERING WHY A TEST HAS TO BE RANDOM?NO ONE SEEMS TO BE USING DRUGS ON THEIR DOGS

SO THERE IS NO NEED FOR IT TO BE RANDOM  FROM WHAT I CAN

SEE OF IT

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Hi Stuart

I think you will find that the resaon that drug tests are called random is so people dont think that they are being got at. but i will say some people are more random than others

yours in sport

Graham

 

[dart]

BIG PROBLEM WE RACE OUR PETS WHICH LOT ARE IN HOUSE DOGS WHEN DID ONE OF OUR DOGS PINCH SOME FOOD OFF ONE OF OUR PLATES EXAMPLE; CHOC BAR/LICK OUT OF A COFFEE CUP/SOME CEREAL/ LOTS OF OTHER THING YOUR DOGS HAVE ACCESS TO IN OUR HOME IT IS OR RIGHT IN DRUG TESTING GREYHOUND THEY ARE IN STRICT KENNEL ALL THE TIME I HOLD A GREYHOUND LICENSE FOR 15 YEAR WHIPPET RACING IS HOBBIE NOBODY RACE FOR MONEY DRUG TEST IMPRACTICAL IN WHIPPET RACING COST TO MUCH MONEY.

 

[Paws123]

Since evreyone is being asked their opinion, I thought i would write mine. I dont normally post but this is important to me.
I have no faith in the fed drug testing programme, or in the committee. I do not believe that only one committee member knows until the day when drug testing takes place and I have no faith in it being random, reason being that on the day that roxy won ch of ch's there were several comments made both on and off the track about her having an extra run yet still getting faster each time. Lo and behold 15 mins later I was requested to go to the box to be told to have roxy ready for a drug test at the end of racing.

The result of the test was that she passed, but the letter from HFL stated

"Screening tests indicated the possible prescence of low level xanthines. As agreed no confirmatory analysis was performed"

We asked a committe member what this might entail and we were told it could have been off the dogs rub we used. We now know that the substance is found in caffeine, choc etc and I do not believe the accuracy of the drug test as roxy has access to any of these substances.

Linda stated that all drug tests passed, but not all came back negative. I just wonder if anyone else has had a result like this and how they felt about it.

ROB (not chris)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Rob no one force you to join the NNWRF your entitled to your opinions but do think a letter to Linda who deals with the drug testing might of been more appropriate measure to get one to one answers.. rather than on k9 , as the way i see it you haven't got the full facts

As for your dogs test showing the presence of low level xanthines..i can not comment on it as to be honest Ive haven't seen your test results or any others as a matter of fact , however had HFL though the levels where high and showed concern to the dogs welfare, i am sure your test would of come back saying fail on it and gone straight for the second annalists test .. or if the testing had been zero %

xanthines don't just come from caffeine

 

[milly]

its simple if you dont like the way the nnwrf is ran dont bother joining its far better than trying to spoil it for those that appreciate the hard work people are willing to put into try helping running the sport its getting pathetic and all this because of someone who put in dispute there own breeding whether its true are not  this is damaging the sport when will it end

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Read the next months whippet news, it explains it all :thumbsup: :rant:

 

[Paws123]

As you will all be aware  there is a need for a significant price increase for testing as  costings were initially done in 2005 I have posted the intended programme /costs for 2009 on the NNWRF forum    there will also be the same info in Whippet News
constructive  feedback from the NNWRF members is allways welcomed but please take into account when replying the NNWRF committee have no control on the cost of drug testing and if it is to continue it has to be paid for

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

This topic was to inform 2009 members of the increases.. the way this topic is going by yet again the 3 or 4 people that continue to bring the NNWRF down on k9 is looking really bad ... think most members are aware of whats going on here ... question for Rob and Chris if you felt the need now after 1 year to question Foxys test why did you not approach one of the NNWRF committee that were at last Sundays race meeting whiles you were very chatty with small talk instead of wait till you get behind a key board

I WONT BE ADDING ANY REPLIES TO SOME AS THEY ARE NOW ON IGNORE , THE SAME AS THEY WILL GET AT THE TRACK

 

[tinarpoole]

I AGREE WITH MUTLEY AND DARTS RECENT POSTS THERE JUST SEEMS TO BE A VENDETTA NOT ONLY AGAINST THE NNWRF BUT ALSO AGAINST THE BWRA.LOTS OF PEOPLE DEDICATE LOTS OF TIME SERVING THE MEMBERS AND ITS A THANKLESS TASK ITS A MIRACLE THEY STAY IN OFFICE WITH ALL THE ABUSE.YOU CANT STOP THIS NEGATIVITY AND IM NOT INTENDING TO POST ON K9 ANYMORE OTHER THAN REPORTING ON THE RESULTS AT THURROCK

 

[weathergirls]

I am not prepared to get into a debate on here about what has been found in anyones test results it only goes to show the intentions of a very small group of members which by the way includes two banned members this little group are intent on trying to pick holes into everything the NNWRF committee do or post on this forum These people have little or nothing constructive to contribute at a members meeting and sadly can only communicate if thats what you can call it behind a computer screen

on behalf of the NNWRF committee I have used this forum to keep members informed and updated however I feel this will be the last time that info will be available on here and I am certain the rest of the committee will agree it is a sad fact when a vindictive minority group can deprive the rest of the racers

 

[mutley]

totaly agree