Nnwrf Drug Testing 2009

[weathergirls]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

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

 

[Fleesh]

I suppose we can moan about an increase in membership fees but then again if I sit and think about it being a member of the RAC costs me £46 per year (and they only organise/do anything for me in the unlikely event that my car breaks down, not like the Fed organising an event at least once per month). I just paid out £30 membership to the National Union of Students (who give me 10% off everything useless, but are there in the unlikely event that I need them) and another £25 for the Baroness Hale Law Society. My Athletics Club membership comes to the tune of £70 per year - and all I get is a vest !!!

Considering the above I must admit although an initial expense to members we currently get off pretty lightly with both the BWRA and the NNWRF as re: membership costs. Especially for organisations that provide support and organise events/prizes/facilities for members all year round, the benefit of which we are able to experience at least two weekends out of every month of the year.

At the end of the day, if we want these measures in place to enable our sport to carry the credibility of a well organised community we must be willing to pay for it.

 

[rodders]

Thanks for the breakdown Linda :thumbsup:

 

[debbie]

WELL PUT FLEESH :thumbsup:

 

[Vicky]

I'm with Fleesh. If it means deterring / catching CHEATS then in my eyes it will be money well spent.

 

[kenny m]

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:

 

[GRAHAM PEM]

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}>

​

SPOT ON KENNY I WILL BE PAYING MINE. :thumbsup:

 

[sherry]

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}>

​

SPOT ON KENNY I WILL BE PAYING MINE. :thumbsup:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

me too :thumbsup:

 

[DavidH]

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}>

​

in a nut shell :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[Tommy Carr]

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}>

​

Well said kenny

 

[bett leeson]

I WILL PAY THE FEE THEY ASK BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THEY SHOULD DO RANDON TESTS NOT ONLY AT CHSMPIONSHIPS BUT AT ANY MEETING AND NOT ONLY ON THE WINNERS

 

[DavidH]

I WILL PAY THE FEE THEY ASK BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THEY SHOULD DO RANDON TESTS NOT ONLY AT CHSMPIONSHIPS BUT AT ANY MEETING AND NOT ONLY ON THE WINNERS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

the way foward,random tests :thumbsup:

 

[Fleesh]

I WILL PAY THE FEE THEY ASK BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THEY SHOULD DO RANDON TESTS NOT ONLY AT CHSMPIONSHIPS BUT AT ANY MEETING AND NOT ONLY ON THE WINNERS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I think all class finalists (i.e heat winners) should be drawn out of a bag on the day (any NNWRF event and all winners in together) at the trackside by a member immediately after the first round, owners being notified immediately so the samples can begin to be taken in the break immediately following the first round which is usually the longest break due to consolation programmes being compiled etc.

 

[rob67]

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

 

[sonnyk]

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}>

​

l am with you chris georgina

 

[DavidH]

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}>

​

what is diddly squat,some local bottle :- " but as it is now scum could stop giving whatever for a couple of weeks up to champs. then dope up at any other meeting.random tests think will deter and better value as you will get 52 weeks cover instead of 1 week,thats advertised testing :wacko:

 

[Paws123]

I am interested to see the results of the bwra latest proposal forms , weather members want drug testing brought back in or not

Think if the majority want it then i think the NNWRF should continue ..with new costing , if the majority don't want it i think the NNWRF should drop it ...as both organizations have the same members

 

[rob67]

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}>

​

what is diddly squat,some local bottle :- " but as it is now scum could stop giving whatever for a couple of weeks up to champs. then dope up at any other meeting.random tests think will deter and better value as you will get 52 weeks cover instead of 1 week,thats advertised testing :wacko:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Think your'e right david about people knowing when testing is and stopping whatever it is they give.

Altho at the fed bend champs last year, we found a white round tablet on the track beside the traps, gave it to the committee and the concensus of opinion was that it was pro-plus..............so even the threat of drug testing does not stop some people, perhaps if all champs were to be tested then it might be more of a deterrent, as it is, drug testing seems useless to me, unless something changes, or somebody can help me answer my questions?

chris

 

[stuart worcs]

its a shame drug testing has to take place

:rant: some people must be desperate to win a trophy :rant:

just my opinion

chez

 

[Vicky]

its a shame drug testing has to take place  :rant: some people must be desperate to win a trophy :rant:

just my opinion

  chez

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

It is a shame and you are right, sadly some people have no conscience.