1. How did the BWRA arrive at the 8-10% band for xanthines?
These figures first cropped up at the national committee meeting 11 Jan 1998.
At the same meeting the lab report of Avalanche at 9.3ug/ml theobromine was discussed. Jennings is on record as saying "all levels ..... were professionally discussed with the HFL". I don't believe it. I think the BWRA committee made up the 8-10 band to suit the Avalanche lab report.
2. If the theobromine found in Xstasy did not come from chocolate, where do Jennings and Ragnoli think it came from?
'There are other substances involved'. Jennings quoted in The Independent.
'The quantities of chocolate you would need to get these levels are huge'. Ragnoli quoted in the same article.
3. Who did the BWRA check with to verify that substances found had any effect?
BWRA Rule 28 is quite clear, a veterinary authority must be consulted in the event of a positive lab report to determine whether or not said substance(s) affected the dog's performance. The BWRA did not consult Mrs. Jones who was the BWRA vet at the time (I visited her surgery and asked her). The BWRA did not, as they claimed at Xstasy's appeal, consult the HFL. I have a letter from the HFL that says 'HFL does not undertake research on the effect of drugs on sporting performance.' The BWRA lied. And I don't think they consulted anybody.
4. Why did the Whippet News not publish nor even mention the BBC Radio 5 investigation into the BWRA?
The editor finds room to mention holidays to the Canaries or meetings with the Magpies in her editorials, but an investigation on national radio into BWRA dope testing incompetence warrants nothing.
I must admit to knowing the answer to this one but I'd like other views.
5. On the same topic, I sent Pauline Wright a copy of the tape with her assurance that she would post her opinion of it on this site. We're still waiting.
Plenty more where this came from, but this is enough for now.
These figures first cropped up at the national committee meeting 11 Jan 1998.
At the same meeting the lab report of Avalanche at 9.3ug/ml theobromine was discussed. Jennings is on record as saying "all levels ..... were professionally discussed with the HFL". I don't believe it. I think the BWRA committee made up the 8-10 band to suit the Avalanche lab report.
2. If the theobromine found in Xstasy did not come from chocolate, where do Jennings and Ragnoli think it came from?
'There are other substances involved'. Jennings quoted in The Independent.
'The quantities of chocolate you would need to get these levels are huge'. Ragnoli quoted in the same article.
3. Who did the BWRA check with to verify that substances found had any effect?
BWRA Rule 28 is quite clear, a veterinary authority must be consulted in the event of a positive lab report to determine whether or not said substance(s) affected the dog's performance. The BWRA did not consult Mrs. Jones who was the BWRA vet at the time (I visited her surgery and asked her). The BWRA did not, as they claimed at Xstasy's appeal, consult the HFL. I have a letter from the HFL that says 'HFL does not undertake research on the effect of drugs on sporting performance.' The BWRA lied. And I don't think they consulted anybody.
4. Why did the Whippet News not publish nor even mention the BBC Radio 5 investigation into the BWRA?
The editor finds room to mention holidays to the Canaries or meetings with the Magpies in her editorials, but an investigation on national radio into BWRA dope testing incompetence warrants nothing.
I must admit to knowing the answer to this one but I'd like other views.
5. On the same topic, I sent Pauline Wright a copy of the tape with her assurance that she would post her opinion of it on this site. We're still waiting.
Plenty more where this came from, but this is enough for now.