Transfer Of Dogs

[Honeybee]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

Well from what I have read there are certain people out there that are trying to blame the "New" BWRA Committee. This "disruption" started long before Doreen Hopkins took over as the new Secretary.

From what I have seen/heard no matter what Doreen tries to do in the interests of our ailing sport certain people are there ready to "shoot her/them down".

She has recently started posting all the information on K9 so that members are fully aware of pending meetings/decisions.

So why is it certain members are still not satisfied with what the BWRA are doing.

I also agree the way Sharon was treated after purchasing Sasparella was disgusting. Afterall, you can't blame the dog what the owners "fed" into it. In this instance it wasn't even the bitch that failed a dop test. Therefore, in my opinion when owners are banned for a set period the offending dog should also be banned and not any others the owners may have.

Isn't it about time we all got back to racing and stop all the bickering over "who said what etc". This is one of the reason why so many people are leaving the sport they are fed up with the arguments. Thats includes ourselves.

 

[Tony Taylor]

Jo Jess-Yes I believe the ban is almost up- but isn't this more about transferring dogs to 'dodge' the 28 day rule? I may be wrong-but thats what I was lead to believe and if so surely this is wrong-no matter who the people are-thats not the issue-its about rules being rules being rules..........Or else everyone will want to do it if they are ever in the same predicament -especially if the championships are coming up---
Karen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

It would seem obvious that the reason the dogs have been transfered is to circumvent the 28 day rule for championships. The dogs have not changed ownership in any real sense but just on paper to defraud the BWRA membership who wanted a ban. Those who are helping in this are bringing the sport into disrepute and that includes the BWRA committee if they have acted outside the rules. What is the point of having a ban if you can continue to race anyway?

Their have been several FULL meetings of the BWRA committee where the majority have consistantly been in favour of action against Tony and Yvonne., even though there have been noisy arguements to support them. To hold a meeting that deliberatly only has supporters of Yvonne and Tony present is against the democratic principles the BWRA is based on. The dogs would never have been allowed to run at champs with a FULL committee making the decisions.

 

[Tony Taylor]

Well from what I have read there are certain people out there that are trying to blame the "New"  BWRA Committee.  This "disruption" started long before Doreen Hopkins took over as the new Secretary. 
From what I have seen/heard no matter what Doreen tries to do in the interests of our ailing sport certain people are there ready to "shoot her/them down".

She has recently started posting all the information on K9 so that members are fully aware of pending meetings/decisions.

So why is it certain members are still not satisfied with what the BWRA are doing.

I also agree the way Sharon was treated after purchasing Sasparella was disgusting.  Afterall, you can't blame the dog what the owners "fed" into it.  In this instance  it wasn't even the bitch that failed a dop test.  Therefore, in my opinion when owners are banned for a set period the offending dog should also be banned and not  any others the owners may have.

Isn't it about time we all got back to racing and stop all the bickering over "who said what etc".  This is one of the reason why so many people are leaving the sport they are fed up with the arguments.  Thats includes ourselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I don't recall any advertisment for this particular meeting anywhere.

People are not satisfied because this decision over rules what the membership, the regional representatives and the est of the BWRA top table want.

As you say Sasperella was never found to have been doped and did not fail a drug test. Batesons other dog that did fail would not of been banned by the BWRA for the methyl xanthines as they were a "trace". There was aslo a trace of Ibuprofen from a muscle rub. Was it a coincidence that after being tested several times in the past they failed after having personal differences with Yvonne and Tony?

Sasperella really did have a new owner. It seems all that is happening in the case of Yvonne and Tonys dogs is that the names are changing on the BWRA cards.

 

[debbie]

so now whatever we do with our dogs, if you got a ban, we would just transfer them and they could still run,,

this as set such a presidence for racing :- " :- "

 

[sharon whincop]

I have noticed that my dog has been mentioned. What has not been said that although her ban was lifted it was still upto the clubs if they were willing to let me run. I was lucky because only 1 club would not lift their ban.

 

[thesonofpork]

why dont u ban the dog and not the owner?? just the dog that gets caught.. and if the same owner wants to dope another of there dogs they can ban the next dog this way the dog cannot be transferred to sumbody else.. just a thought

 

[Paws123]

You know what I find quite amazing in all this, is that the parties it concerns have internet access and comes on k9 quite frequently yet have not answered in the topic explaining or defending there actions,wonder why that is.

 

[gary farmer]

i think they did that before

and the website caught fire :- " LOL (w00t)

im gonig to find someone else to wind up now good luck

hope to see you all at warrick but i will only talk about the dog raceing



GARY

 

[Karen-Coral]

I think its a great step forward -Doreen posting on the net-its both informative and a good ground for debate providing its done respectfully of course-

Everyone has a right to their opinion and this is an open forum.

Sometimes it may be that you must agree to disagree-

My view is not a 'personal' one-I still believe rules should be followed-no matter who the people involved are-and I have been led to believe that this transfer is one of pure convenience - which if so makes a mockery of the whole affair.

So in the future if we are ever cautioned or banned-and the championships are coming up-I guess it will be ok to simply transfer our dogs over to another member too.

Karen

 

[Karen-Coral]

P.S

I'm sure everyone just wants to get on with racing-but its made difficult if you believe other members are taking the mickey :clown: and flaunting the rules whether they are written in black and white or not-

Surely the main rule in any sport is fair play on a level playing field.

 

[Honeybee]

Karen, I agree - it is a "loop hole" in the Rules. Only way to stop this is for a proposal to be put in to the Committee in future and let the members vote on it. Unfortunately that is too late for this year now. Be interesting to see if the dogs are transferred back again this year!!!!!

If a person(s) is banned from the BWRA through drug abuse and the ban is up say on the lst March, surely the offending dog is also banned until that time and, therefore, the 28 day rule would rule it out to compete at the Bends Champs. Just a thought.

 

[sharon whincop]

Hope this is sorted out before the champs. I for one am looking foward watching a nice days racing. :thumbsup:

 

[milly]

Hope this is sorted out before the champs. I for one am looking foward watching a nice days racing. :thumbsup:

same here

:thumbsup:

 

[John]

Karen, I agree - it is a "loop hole" in the Rules. Only way to stop this is for a proposal to be put in to the Committee in future and let the members vote on it.

Just a thought but does the two year rule on proposals which I understand was voted in to give proposals a chance to work meen that only those proposals cannot be voted on the following year by postal vote or does it meen that we only have proposals and postal votes every two years or can new proposals be voted on every year by a postal vote. If it is every two years that could be a long time for a proposal that is clearly not working (however genuine the proposal was at the time) if it is every year for new proposals clever wording of a new proposal could meen that you are voting on a proposal that was passed the previous year that should stand for two years (i think) under the rules at present. Loop holes are very difficult to close only the other week I was reading an item for sale on a famous auction site that alegdidly claims to have found loop holes in the legislation on speeding fines for motorists and people who claim to have been alegdidly let off speeding fines using these loop holes. The internet is a good place for an exchange of views and debate and also for informing of any news and I for one am grateful for the posts and would also like to thank committee members past present and future and other racers who put on events and opens outwith the two main bodies for their efforts doing what can be a very difficult job. I hope that the Bend Championships go well and you all have a great days racing and the dogs come off safe and sound.

 

[JOHNG]

the BWRA have left the door wide open by allowing these dogs to be transfered,like someone said it"s only so they can run at the championships if anyone gets a ban from now on other than drug failure all you have to do is transfer your dogs to another member and you can still go and watch them race :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :clown: :clown: :clown:

 

[johnnoble]

Im not bothered about dogs being transferred , as long as we dont have to set eyes on those two thieving , cheating people. Wherever they go they cause ill feeling& racing will never be the same as long as they are on the scene.

:rant:

 

[JoJess]

A man who speaks his mind I think the rule book will be ammended now that this has been brought to light dont you !! 8)

 

[john m]

If anyone called me a thief in regards to the I.R.G., I would be defending myself with all the financial paperwork and accounts that had been verified by accountants for the last three years.

By the showing of accounts you scotch any rumours and those who propagate such rumours finish with egg on their faces

Seems that some are content to let people have that opinion of them, but would anyone else who uses finances belonging to a group and not to themselves.

 

[mutley]

if i had taken a 2 year ban from the old fed i still would not be running my dogs now for speaking up for what i believed, i think if the equipment ect had been handed over when the last committee resigned and did not try to fold the nwrf all this trouble could of been avoided :blink:

 

[JoJess]

Have to agree here with you mutley :b