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 02 Feb 2014 18:21
(0)
(0)
Tom Caffrey Ireland (Verified User) Posts 1352 Dogs 5 / Races 0 02 Feb 2014 17:49 I maybe a little out of touch with all this stuff as I am not a pharmacist but I have few questions from a small bit of research. 1. If procaine is not in Knacker meat why have the racing Authorities in US and Aus changed their testing procedures to account for levels of procaine which may come through meat products. Read attached link EXTERNAL LINK The guys in NSW even say "The most likely source of Procaine in a positive greyhound swab is from the greyhound being fed meat from an animal that has been treated with Procaine Penicillin." I also believe cooking the meat will not get rid of the procaine but maybe wrong on that one. 2. A number of posters on data have admitted failing tests for Procaine. Michael Sharkey admitted he was done for it a couple of years ago (I believe) and he believes the only way it could have got into his dogs was through meat. Ken Duce made a similar claim. (I actually believe both parties as I believe they both respect their dogs). Karin Milling admitted giving an injection for a throat infection and again I think she is genuine. (Apologies to the 3 posters but it is on record on this site see link CLICK HERE ). I also know of one other positive in Tipp and one in Kerry and both parties are small owner trainers and both believe it got there through the meat. So now my question how come no one is mentioning these people ? Do they need the book throwing at them also ? Personally I don't believe so. 3. People are saying Procaine is being used to mask other drugs such as EPO, how is this done and how can it be proved. Also why would someone mask and illegal drug with another illegal drug. Now I hate drug cheats and have signed Dave's petition but I will be honest I think Dave has an opportunity to sort out testing for the greater good but if its purely a witch hunt we will have lost an opportunity. There is a lot of hysteria around and perhaps some balance is required.
Dave Cunningham Ireland (Verified User) Posts 147 Dogs 0 / Races 0 02 Feb 2014 19:09 Tom, good point ,but this petition was never launched as any witch hunt , it was launched at getting positive swabs published in the sporting press for all to see , The swabs they published are nothing short of a betrayal to all honest and clean doggie men, You mentioned Karin Milling admitted giving an injection , then why has she not bothered to clear her name by answering 3 simple and honest questions put to her regarding her results . Also Procaine is well known to be a masking agent for stronger preforming class A drugs, cocaine , being the one widely used on dogs, All class A drugs are a jailing offence .
seamus just type into google banned drugs in greyhound racing click on best practice guide igb and go to page 34 35
Thanks Tony but there is no list or guide for withdrawal other than for a few anti inflammatory. Still I guess that's how it has to be. its up to us all to check for every thing that is used but I have to say that's tough. But I guess its fair but I do think plenty of people not trying to cheat can be caught by not knowing the withdrawal time, or even not thinking it is a prohibited drug. But for those on here to brand them cheats is terrible, some may be cheats, some I bet are not.
I just hope all those calling Cheat know how easy it is to make an innocent mistake. I hope it never happens to them.
Pat Finn Ireland (Verified User) Posts 278 Dogs 3 / Races 0 02 Feb 2014 18:56
(0)
(0)
Seamus McCloskey wrote:
tony micks wrote:
seamus just type into google banned drugs in greyhound racing click on best practice guide igb and go to page 34 35
Thanks Tony but there is no list or guide for withdrawal other than for a few anti inflammatory. Still I guess that's how it has to be. its up to us all to check for every thing that is used but I have to say that's tough. But I guess its fair but I do think plenty of people not trying to cheat can be caught by not knowing the withdrawal time, or even not thinking it is a prohibited drug. But for those on here to brand them cheats is terrible, some may be cheats, some I bet are not.
I just hope all those calling Cheat know how easy it is to make an innocent mistake. I hope it never happens to them.
Ignorance of the law is not a defence and any us could be wrong if we do not follow the correct guidelines with regard to withdrawal periods .If we break the rules we should be punished. This is not happening at the moment in all cases
We need to stayed focused on Petition which is not about any individual but about stopping the use of illegal drugs in dogs when they are running in trials or races
any chance getting the positives under the freedom of information act
Pat Finn Ireland (Verified User) Posts 278 Dogs 3 / Races 0 02 Feb 2014 21:48
(0)
(0)
Seamus McCloskey wrote:
No actually its about naming those who have tested positive and letting others call them cheats.
Ignorance of the law is no defence in law but it is a reason why not all are cheats.
Seamus,
No it is not about naming anybody or calling them cheats.
It is to get us all on an even footing and letting dogs run on their merits
If you give a dog a prohibited substance and it is in their system when it runs it is cheating whether intentional or not
Dave Cunningham Ireland (Verified User) Posts 2081 Dogs 0 / Races 0 03 Feb 2014 17:08
(0)
(0)
Sent another Email to Talking Dogs today no reply from Michael.
Dave Cunningham Ireland (Verified User) Posts 2081 Dogs 0 / Races 0 03 Feb 2014 17:15
(0)
(0)
I received phone call from Minister Hayes office today as they promised, I am to be sent an Email with the proposed changes to rules and regulations from Minister Hayes office , not received yet.I will post it asap.
Pat no doubt there are cheats but an innocent mistake is not cheating. A Cheat is defined as; Transitive verb to deceive or mislead somebody, especially for personal advantage. intransitive verb to break the rules in a game, examination, or contest, in an attempt to gain an unfair advantage.
To Cheat or to be a cheat, there must be an intention to take unfair advantage, that's all I'm saying. If you or I or anyone makes a mistake they are entitled to be fined, banned if that's the rule or whatever the defined punishment may be. But unless they, you, or I intended to take unfair advantage we are NOT cheats and to tar all with the one brush is just wrong.
Dave Cunningham Ireland (Verified User) Posts 2081 Dogs 0 / Races 0 03 Feb 2014 18:56
(0)
(0)
Seamus McCloskey wrote:
Pat no doubt there are cheats but an innocent mistake is not cheating. A Cheat is defined as; Transitive verb to deceive or mislead somebody, especially for personal advantage. intransitive verb to break the rules in a game, examination, or contest, in an attempt to gain an unfair advantage.
To Cheat or to be a cheat, there must be an intention to take unfair advantage, that's all I'm saying. If you or I or anyone makes a mistake they are entitled to be fined, banned if that's the rule or whatever the defined punishment may be. But unless they, you, or I intended to take unfair advantage we are NOT cheats and to tar all with the one brush is just wrong.
Seamus, If you go back to page 13 you will notice that a person found guilty with [procaine] pleaded her innocents ,but has failed miserabley to clear her name imo by avoiding to answer 3 simple questions relating to her positive sample, surely Seamus it would be in her own interest to have her name cleared and not branded a cheat . can you see my point Seamus, I for one would have answered very fast to clear my name BUT, I would not have put myself there in the first place .
Pat Finn Ireland (Verified User) Posts 278 Dogs 3 / Races 0 03 Feb 2014 18:57
(0)
(0)
Dave Cunningham wrote:
I received phone call from Minister Hayes office today as they promised, I am to be sent an Email with the proposed changes to rules and regulations from Minister Hayes office , not received yet.I will post it asap.
That is a positive developement.
Dave Cunningham Ireland (Verified User) Posts 2081 Dogs 0 / Races 0 03 Feb 2014 19:15
(0)
(0)
Pat Finn wrote:
Dave Cunningham wrote:
I received phone call from Minister Hayes office today as they promised, I am to be sent an Email with the proposed changes to rules and regulations from Minister Hayes office , not received yet.I will post it asap.
That is a positive developement.
I for one hope it is a positive development Pat as morals are very low since the IGB published their 1st 16 POSITIVES, the next Publishment better be of more interesting and up to date reading.
Tom Caffrey Ireland (Verified User) Posts 1488 Dogs 5 / Races 0 03 Feb 2014 19:34
(0)
(0)
Dave Cunningham wrote:
Seamus McCloskey wrote:
Pat no doubt there are cheats but an innocent mistake is not cheating. A Cheat is defined as; Transitive verb to deceive or mislead somebody, especially for personal advantage. intransitive verb to break the rules in a game, examination, or contest, in an attempt to gain an unfair advantage.
To Cheat or to be a cheat, there must be an intention to take unfair advantage, that's all I'm saying. If you or I or anyone makes a mistake they are entitled to be fined, banned if that's the rule or whatever the defined punishment may be. But unless they, you, or I intended to take unfair advantage we are NOT cheats and to tar all with the one brush is just wrong.
Seamus, If you go back to page 13 you will notice that a person found guilty with [procaine] pleaded her innocents ,but has failed miserabley to clear her name imo by avoiding to answer 3 simple questions relating to her positive sample, surely Seamus it would be in her own interest to have her name cleared and not branded a cheat . can you see my point Seamus, I for one would have answered very fast to clear my name BUT, I would not have put myself there in the first place .
Your being a bit unfair Dave, and I think Seamus is hitting nail on the head. The lady in question I believe admitted her guilt she (or a VET) applied an LA antibiotic and ran her dog after 7 days, but it was a fairly innocent (or uninformed) mistake as she said she was not aware the antibiotic contained procaine, hardly a hanging or banning offence. It was hardly masking cocaine.
Dave Cunningham Ireland (Verified User) Posts 2081 Dogs 0 / Races 0 03 Feb 2014 19:49
(0)
(0)
Tom ,please tell me where I can read that womans post of her admitting her guilt .if I have missed it ,I will say so.
Tom Caffrey Ireland (Verified User) Posts 1488 Dogs 5 / Races 0 03 Feb 2014 20:04
(0)
(0)
Karin Milling wrote:
Well I am one of the people on that list !!
My dog was treated with an injectable antibiotic (sore throat) the week before the race and it turned out that the antibiotic contained Procaine !!!
As dogs don't process procaine very well and the antibiotic was a Long Acting (LA) it showed up in the test.
I would have thought that was an admission Dave.
John Daniels Ireland (Verified User) Posts 613 Dogs 3 / Races 0 03 Feb 2014 20:43
(0)
(0)
Tom Caffrey wrote:
Karin Milling wrote:
Well I am one of the people on that list !!
My dog was treated with an injectable antibiotic (sore throat) the week before the race and it turned out that the antibiotic contained Procaine !!!
As dogs don't process procaine very well and the antibiotic was a Long Acting (LA) it showed up in the test.
I would have thought that was an admission Dave.
i'd question the vets knowledge not to advise the owner not to run
Do you have questions how to use the Greyhound-Data website?
