Yankiwi Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 (edited) In the last year or so in the greyhound code there have been 4 positive swabs for arsenic. Chloe Watson Mikayla Clark Arch Lawrence Jack Johnson In all of them it was attributed to their dogs chewing on pressure treated timber. Arsenic has been an illegal drug within the code forever, yet no positive swabs have been reported until recently. So, this begs the questions Have greyhounds just begun chewing on wood? Has this been going on forever & the RIB has just started to lay charges for it? Has the RIB just begun testing for it after all these years? Pressure treated timber has been around forever. Greyhounds have been kenneled inside treated timber enclosures forever. Dog have been known to chew on wood forever. Arsenic has been used in the timber treating process forever. If pressure treated timber is so dangerous to greyhounds and/or has such a likely risk of throwing up a positive swab, why hasn't GRNZ just banned its use? Something just doesn't sit right with any of this. Edited June 10 by Yankiwi 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 1 hour ago, Yankiwi said: Something just doesn't sit right with any of this. You don't sit right fullstop. Question: are most Greyhound trainers thick if they think they can administer Arsenic and not be detected? Yeah Na. The fact is like the other two codes testing thresholds of zero return positives due to environmental contamination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquaman Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 15 hours ago, Yankiwi said: In the last year or so in the greyhound code there have been 4 positive swabs for arsenic. Chloe Watson Mikayla Clark Arch Lawrence Jack Johnson In all of them it was attributed to their dogs chewing on pressure treated timber. Arsenic has been an illegal drug within the code forever, yet no positive swabs have been reported until recently. So, this begs the questions Have greyhounds just begun chewing on wood? Has this been going on forever & the RIB has just started to lay charges for it? Has the RIB just begun testing for it after all these years? Pressure treated timber has been around forever. Greyhounds have been kenneled inside treated timber enclosures forever. Dog have been known to chew on wood forever. Arsenic has been used in the timber treating process forever. If pressure treated timber is so dangerous to greyhounds and/or has such a likely risk of throwing up a positive swab, why hasn't GRNZ just banned its use? Something just doesn't sit right with any of this. Even in my day, you new not to build kennels or other housing for dogs because of the arsenic in treated timber. Even sawdust that I use to source from my local timber mill had to be untreated, and not because of a possible positive swab, but for the welfare of the dogs. Pretty simple stuff I would of thought, so this influx of positive swabs to arsenic is a mystery to me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted June 10 Author Share Posted June 10 14 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: The fact is like the other two codes testing thresholds of zero return positives due to environmental contamination. Try again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 13 minutes ago, Yankiwi said: Try again. Do you know how close 800 nanograms is to zero? 0.000000008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 What level of arsenic is harmful to dogs? Research shows that 20mg/kg of dry matter in pet food is not toxic. I doubt 800 nanograms per litre is anywhere near toxic. 1 hour ago, aquaman said: Even in my day, you new not to build kennels or other housing for dogs because of the arsenic in treated timber. Even sawdust that I use to source from my local timber mill had to be untreated, and not because of a possible positive swab, but for the welfare of the dogs. Pretty simple stuff I would of thought, so this influx of positive swabs to arsenic is a mystery to me. Why would anyone retrospectively test every bit of wood for arsenic and rebuild their kennels? Who could afford to? What level of arsenic is performance enhancing? I look forward to someone giving me an answer to that question. Arsenic is a heavy metal that is toxic. Long term exposure isn't in the best interests of a dog and certainly wouldn't be performance enhancing. At the end of the day it is easily detectable and only an idiot would risk deliberate administration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted June 11 Author Share Posted June 11 5 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: What level of arsenic is harmful to dogs? Research shows that 20mg/kg of dry matter in pet food is not toxic. I doubt 800 nanograms per litre is anywhere near toxic. If you believe the level GRNZ set is wrong, then so be it. However, GRNZ have set the limit for a reason & written it into the rules as such. That's the line in the sand that must be judgement must be upon. No-one has suggested it was a deliberate administration. You are the first to bring that up. What's going on with the two Cobalt positive investigations currently underway, or is that still a hush hush subject? The last one was seemingly forgotten when the investigators found a dead rabbit in the freezer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BitofaLegend Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 (edited) 6 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: What level of arsenic is harmful to dogs? Research shows that 20mg/kg of dry matter in pet food is not toxic. I doubt 800 nanograms per litre is anywhere near toxic. Why would anyone retrospectively test every bit of wood for arsenic and rebuild their kennels? Who could afford to? What level of arsenic is performance enhancing? I look forward to someone giving me an answer to that question. Arsenic is a heavy metal that is toxic. Long term exposure isn't in the best interests of a dog and certainly wouldn't be performance enhancing. At the end of the day it is easily detectable and only an idiot would risk deliberate administration. Not entirely true. Arsenic can and has been used as a performance enhancer in dogs. There has been sole research in Aus that suggests doses a little over this threshold has led to improved cardiovascular systems. Its not safe to do but doesnt stop people from doing it. Ironically enough though, it was the RIB forcing people to use treated timber and paint so i suspect this is apart of the reason. I've meet Arch Lawrence a few times and I would be very surprised if he purposely did anything of a sort with his dogs. The spike in arsenic cases this year for the most part all go back to the RIB and grnz meddling in the way kennels are built and what materials should be used. Ill let people draw there own conclusions here when these people forcing trainers to change kennel blocks that have had countless champions raced out of under the context of "welfare" to then return positives to the very thing they said is acceptable. Edited June 11 by BitofaLegend 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BitofaLegend Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 I could be wrong here but I believe muzzles in kennels are no longer allowed either so there arent alot of preventitive measures. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 1 hour ago, Yankiwi said: If you believe the level GRNZ set is wrong, then so be it. However, GRNZ have set the limit for a reason & written it into the rules as such. That's the line in the sand that must be judgement must be upon. No-one has suggested it was a deliberate administration. You are the first to bring that up. What's going on with the two Cobalt positive investigations currently underway, or is that still a hush hush subject? The last one was seemingly forgotten when the investigators found a dead rabbit in the freezer. Environmental contamination. The issue to address is what level of arsenic or cobalt is performance enhancing or detrimental to the health of the dog? Yeah Na. Let's set an arbitrary test level and justify our existence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.