The Greyhound-Data Forum has been created to act as a platform for greyhound enthusiasts to share information on this magnificent animal called a greyhound.
Greyhound-Data reserve the right to remove any post that is off topic, advertisements or opinions they consider to be offensive.
If you answer then please try to stay on topic. It's absolutely okay to answer in a broader scope but don't hijack posts by switching to something off topic.
In case you see an insulting post: DO NOT REPLY TO IT!
Use the report button to inform the moderators so that we can delete it.
Dave Cunningham Ireland (Verified User) Posts 2081 Dogs 0 / Races 0 28 May 2016 05:25
(0)
(0)
Seamus Casey wrote:
I have said it before and I'll say it again. Each and every one of the dogs that have been mentioned in the control committees report should the moment they are found positive have a hair follicle test carried out on them and if it is found that they are on steroids then have the premises they were trained closed down for 12 months first offence and for life after that.
Agree 100% with ye Seamus, If we were to put this suggestion to the board do you think they would be in favour of hair follicle testing, I think not some how as they have no will to clean up the drugs IMO.
Dave Cunningham Ireland (Verified User) Posts 2081 Dogs 0 / Races 0 28 May 2016 05:38
(0)
(0)
Tony Gallagher wrote:
I see the main problem being the current system that is in place:
Test results are published before a hearing has been held which naturally prompts people to assume guilt and post in forums such as this. The problem is if the trainer is found not guilty whether it be on a technicality or not the person posting could be sued.
In my opinion the correct procedure would be that once the IGB has been notified of a positive the dog cannot run until such time a hearing takes place (hopefully within 14 days). Once the hearing has been held the result should be published within 24 hours.
Hi Tony, You are correct with you assumptions, the system is totally ineffective and has to be changed for the betterment of our sport, they have made it worse by publishing their findings before the hearings this causes more harm than good IMO.
Lynda Bonner United Kingdom (Team Member) Posts 6240 Dogs 77 / Races 15 28 May 2016 07:32
(0)
(0)
Publishing the findings before the hearings is a step forward for transparency and integrity in my opinion.
This has highlighted the inconsistencies that need addressed by our governing body.
1. It has brought to our attention the positives for a spate of procaine, then a spate of pentobarbital, which may or may not have been acquired through the food chain.
2. Acquiring through food chain isn't currently an acceptable reason for testing positive for these substances.
3. Penalties have been applied inconsistently.
Either the acceptable thresholds of these substances needs to be amended, or the acceptance of reasons for testing positive needs clarified/enforced, but most importantly penalties need to be applied consistently. These actions are the responsibility of our governing body and until they address these then it's likely we will keep deflecting from the key issue and continue debating amongst ourselves on matters of whether people are playing the system, intentionally or not.
Change the system where needed and enforce the rules.
Michael de Ward Ireland (Verified User) Posts 2191 Dogs 4 / Races 1 28 May 2016 08:04
(0)
(0)
Tony Gallagher wrote:
charlie deery wrote:
The owner should be banned along with the trainer because they know what the trainer is up to or they should do we cant even buy a dog at the sales any more because of drugs
I was not going to get involved in this thread but Charlie your post is beyond belief.
Firstly when the dog is under the trainers care 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year you think the owner knows or should know what the trainer is up to.
There is only two ways the owner could find this out:
1. Ask the trainer if he is drugging his dog and of course the trainer would say NO. If an owner asked a trainer this he would probably be told to take his dog to someone else as all trust would be gone.
2. The trainer gets a positive. Now if the owner finds out this way why should they be banned?
Lets take it a step further, if we follow your proposal and the owner gets banned does that mean all the dogs he owns and has with other trainers also cannot run?
You also stated that:
"we cant even buy a dog at the sales any more because of drugs"
Well if I was thinking of buying a dog from the sales I certainly wouldn't after reading that, do you really think this helps the industry?
This thread has done a lot of good but also some damage along the way. It has created an "us and them" scenario between big and small trainers which I believe is wrong as all trainers should be trying to make the sport drug free and all trainers should be united in this cause. This "us and them" scenario has stopped this from happening. Now owners are coming under attack, will this help unite the sport? of course not.
I see the main problem being the current system that is in place:
Test results are published before a hearing has been held which naturally prompts people to assume guilt and post in forums such as this. The problem is if the trainer is found not guilty whether it be on a technicality or not the person posting could be sued.
In my opinion the correct procedure would be that once the IGB has been notified of a positive the dog cannot run until such time a hearing takes place (hopefully within 14 days). Once the hearing has been held the result should be published within 24 hours.
Tony,Charlie's reference to the sales was probally triggered by a dog bought from sales,ran a few times up here in the north west and then was not allowed(barred from racing) to run in a final on Derry's big gala night as the test from the sales trial came back positive... Now how the hell is that fair on the lads that bought at the sales--GISGRACE,DISGRACE,DISGRACE.... What a kick in the teeth then when certain people walk outa hearings having positives quashed... Furthermore if one looks at certain dogs on the positive lists printed since last Oct,it's diffucult to figure out when/if atall they were banned and re-tested as there ain't much of a break in their racing...
Lynda Bonner United Kingdom (Team Member) Posts 6240 Dogs 77 / Races 15 28 May 2016 09:19
(0)
(0)
Several dogs bought at the sales recently have been suspended from racing due to positive tests. This is therefore a valid concern for people who are buying dogs at the sales. But then it's also a concern for anyone buying dogs at any time as there seems to be a delay around positive tests getting published. Buyer beware is still the best advice.
Tony Gallagher Australia (Team Member) Posts 5918 Dogs 12961 / Races 40209 28 May 2016 09:28
(0)
(0)
Michael, how is fair on the people selling dogs though the sales who are not cheating.
Should all be "tarred with the same brush" as Charlie had done.
Dave Cunningham Ireland (Verified User) Posts 2081 Dogs 0 / Races 0 28 May 2016 10:20
(0)
(0)
lynda bonner wrote:
Publishing the findings before the hearings is a step forward for transparency and integrity in my opinion.
This has highlighted the inconsistencies that need addressed by our governing body.
1. It has brought to our attention the positives for a spate of procaine, then a spate of pentobarbital, which may or may not have been acquired through the food chain.
2. Acquiring through food chain isn't currently an acceptable reason for testing positive for these substances.
3. Penalties have been applied inconsistently.
Either the acceptable thresholds of these substances needs to be amended, or the acceptance of reasons for testing positive needs clarified/enforced, but most importantly penalties need to be applied consistently. These actions are the responsibility of our governing body and until they address these then it's likely we will keep deflecting from the key issue and continue debating amongst ourselves on matters of whether people are playing the system, intentionally or not.
Change the system where needed and enforce the rules.
Lynda, I agree with publishing the findings before hearings but they need to publish the dogs who have been re tested and any dog which is suspended not just the findings that is my point, but we do not hear any of this important information and this leaves people with bad thoughts the board must be 100% more transparent with stakeholders.
Laurence Lee Ireland (Verified User) Posts 507 Dogs 2 / Races 0 28 May 2016 12:18
(0)
(0)
Why is one trainer with 4 positive tests for Pentobarbital in 4 major races gets off scot free and another trainer from Cork has one positive for the same substance in a trial only and is fined 100.It don't make sense.
Sean Hickey Ireland (Verified User) Posts 634 Dogs 11 / Races 0 28 May 2016 13:06
(0)
(0)
Laurence - that man from Cork is an ordinary owner and not a Trainer and represented himself.
Several dogs bought at the sales recently have been suspended from racing due to positive tests. This is therefore a valid concern for people who are buying dogs at the sales. But then it's also a concern for anyone buying dogs at any time as there seems to be a delay around positive tests getting published. Buyer beware is still the best advice.
As I posted earlier about drugged dogs sold at auction:- "This is surely a provable case of fraud (Making gain or causing loss by deception, contrary to section 6 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001.)I'm sure the purchaser at Thurles did not know that the dog was drugged so was certainly decieved into parting with his (or her)money. Therefore both making gain and causing loss were involved."
Tony Gallagher wrote:
"Well if I was thinking of buying a dog from the sales I certainly wouldn't after reading that, do you really think this helps the industry?"
The I.G.B.are making the same mistake as you by thinking that if it's not reported it will go away.It won't, it just gets worst.The more noise that honest anti-drug owners and trainers can make the more chance that the powers that be will get off their butts and do the job that they are paid for.That would help the industry. You say this thread is creating an "us and them scenario" Not so, there is an us/them divide, us, the honest trainers and them, the drug pushers.Although the high profile trainers seem to have immunity,I make no distinction between large or small. Just cheats and honest trainers. We have always trained our own dogs and always will but if I had a dog with a trainer who had a dog tested positive that dog would be gone from that kennel immediately.
Tony Gallagher Australia (Team Member) Posts 5918 Dogs 12961 / Races 40209 28 May 2016 15:04
(0)
(0)
charlie deery wrote:
The owner should be banned along with the trainer because they know what the trainer is up to or they should do we cant even buy a dog at the sales any more because of drugs
Bryan Davies wrote:
As I posted earlier about drugged dogs sold at auction:- "This is surely a provable case of fraud (Making gain or causing loss by deception, contrary to section 6 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001.)I'm sure the purchaser at Thurles did not know that the dog was drugged so was certainly decieved into parting with his (or her)money. Therefore both making gain and causing loss were involved."
Tony Gallagher wrote:
"Well if I was thinking of buying a dog from the sales I certainly wouldn't after reading that, do you really think this helps the industry?"
The I.G.B.are making the same mistake as you by thinking that if it's not reported it will go away.It won't, it just gets worst.The more noise that honest anti-drug owners and trainers can make the more chance that the powers that be will get off their butts and do the job that they are paid for.That would help the industry. You say this thread is creating an "us and them scenario" Not so, there is an us/them divide, us, the honest trainers and them, the drug pushers.Although the high profile trainers seem to have immunity,I make no distinction between large or small. Just cheats and honest trainers. We have always trained our own dogs and always will but if I had a dog with a trainer who had a dog tested positive that dog would be gone from that kennel immediately.
Bryan, Please don't put words into my mouth. Charlie indicated you could not buy a dog at the sales because of drugs.
No where did I say it should not be reported.
I am not making a mistake:
you cannot assume all dogs at sales are being drugged,
you cannot assume all big trainers are drugging dogs or that they have immunity,
you cannot assume all owners know what their trainer is doing and are in on it.
If people are trying to add to the decline of the sport in Ireland please continue with the broad statements and no one will buy dogs.
It would be better not only to state the amount of positives but also state facts, that in relation to the number of dogs racing this is a small percentage. Yes pressure the powers that be to get rid of anyone doing the wrong thing but do it in a constructive way.
I do agree that any person that innocently buys a dog from anywhere and can prove that they did not drug the dog has a strong court case against the previous trainer.
Tony,without wishing to upset anyone,I was not putting words into your mouth,I merely quoted you and attempted to answer your question. indeed, Charlie's sweeping statement is misleading, but consider team member Lynda Bonner's post (a person not given to exaggeration and usually a reliable source of information);-"Several dogs bought at the sales recently have been suspended from racing due to positive tests" Having attended a few sales recently (as a potential buyer)and observed testing procedures,it would be stretching things to say that several dogs were tested at each sale so working on this hypothesis,many of the dogs tested showed positive. Suffice it to say that I recently bought a dog privately out of an advert on Data and am delighted with him.
Tony Gallagher Australia (Team Member) Posts 5918 Dogs 12961 / Races 40209 28 May 2016 16:27
(0)
(0)
Hi Bryan, the one thing I think we all agree on is that racing/sales should be clean. We all have different opinions on how this should be achieved but this is natural and promotes discussion.
By the way, probably off topic but just to establish my credentials:- I've been hooked on dog racing since I walked my first dog onto a track in 1955, I have always loved greyhounds and love to see a field of great dogs putting their heart into a battle to be first.We have contested at a high level sometimes with success.Some people may remember the Almost prefix, almost chilli for example, Waterford masters consolation final winner and at her peak was the then fastest bitch over Shelbourne park's 525 trip the only dog at that time to go faster than her was the great premier fantasy. Three years ago I was so disgusted and disillusioned thatI got out of dog racing, but like all addictions it came back to bite me,
Joe Mc Gorrey United Kingdom (Verified User) Posts 1292 Dogs 2 / Races 0 28 May 2016 17:01
(0)
(0)
tony the evidence is there in black and white about men getting caught at the sales and id say alot of people will not buy from the sales in future times the only way to go in this game is to buy a young pup and rear it yourself jmo
Laurence Lee Ireland (Verified User) Posts 507 Dogs 2 / Races 0 28 May 2016 17:21
(0)
(0)
sean hickey wrote:
Laurence - that man from Cork is an ordinary owner and not a Trainer and represented himself.
It don't matter who represented who, rules are rules and they should be the same for everyone.
Liam Taylor (Verified User) Posts 517 Dogs 0 / Races 0 29 May 2016 00:40
(0)
(0)
Some people hard on Charlie Deery's post but he is only posting what most greyhound owner's know, hard to disagree with what he say's, Let's be honest, call a spade a spade..If Im wrong I would be more than happy for someone to say why I am. Im not giving out about anyone but I honestly think athlete's should only be allowed to perform to their ability..No Drug's.....
Dave Cunningham Ireland (Verified User) Posts 2081 Dogs 0 / Races 0 29 May 2016 06:23
(0)
(0)
liam taylor wrote:
Some people hard on Charlie Deery's post but he is only posting what most greyhound owner's know, hard to disagree with what he say's, Let's be honest, call a spade a spade..If Im wrong I would be more than happy for someone to say why I am. Im not giving out about anyone but I honestly think athlete's should only be allowed to perform to their ability..No Drug's.....
No Drugs, Zero Tolerance is the only way forward IMO if a dog is on any type of medication it should not be running, Contamination through the food chain is a feeble and pathetic excuse used by weak trainers, those animals are trained to be top athletes and should be running on their merits and not on banned substances, the IGB must change their operating procedures if we are to see this sport radically cleaned up, if the IGB are not capable [which they are not] of doing their jobs properly get a new board in place who will operate by the rules and carry out proper procedures JMO.
Charlie Deery Ireland (Verified User) Posts 233 Dogs 0 / Races 0 29 May 2016 10:16
(0)
(0)
Tony Gallagher wrote:
charlie deery wrote:
The owner should be banned along with the trainer because they know what the trainer is up to or they should do we cant even buy a dog at the sales any more because of drugs
I was not going to get involved in this thread but Charlie your post is beyond belief.
Firstly when the dog is under the trainers care 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year you think the owner knows or should know what the trainer is up to.
There is only two ways the owner could find this out:
1. Ask the trainer if he is drugging his dog and of course the trainer would say NO. If an owner asked a trainer this he would probably be told to take his dog to someone else as all trust would be gone.
2. The trainer gets a positive. Now if the owner finds out this way why should they be banned?
Lets take it a step further, if we follow your proposal and the owner gets banned does that mean all the dogs he owns and has with other trainers also cannot run?
You also stated that:
"we cant even buy a dog at the sales any more because of drugs"
Well if I was thinking of buying a dog from the sales I certainly wouldn't after reading that, do you really think this helps the industry?
This thread has done a lot of good but also some damage along the way. It has created an "us and them" scenario between big and small trainers which I believe is wrong as all trainers should be trying to make the sport drug free and all trainers should be united in this cause. This "us and them" scenario has stopped this from happening. Now owners are coming under attack, will this help unite the sport? of course not.
I see the main problem being the current system that is in place:
Test results are published before a hearing has been held which naturally prompts people to assume guilt and post in forums such as this. The problem is if the trainer is found not guilty whether it be on a technicality or not the person posting could be sued.
In my opinion the correct procedure would be that once the IGB has been notified of a positive the dog cannot run until such time a hearing takes place (hopefully within 14 days). Once the hearing has been held the result should be published within 24 hours.
Tony would you really rather not know that dogs were found drugged/doped at sales and people could/may/did lose their money buying them and hide the truth so the Industry would flourish as for owners theirs a lot more owners knows whats going on than you think is it any wonder why we are struggling so long to get this sport on the right footing when theres so many people ready to let the wrongs go by if i was giving a dog to a trainer i would know the answer to that question its down to owner to ask every thing
Johnny Moyles Ireland (Verified User) Posts 5878 Dogs 45 / Races 0 29 May 2016 10:16
(0)
(0)
So anyway. If the sport in Ireland is that crooked how come the Irish dogs are wiping the floor with the English trained dogs in their own showpiece then?
Do you have questions how to use the Greyhound-Data website?
