During this last year, there was a case put before the Kennel Club alleging the use of Anabolic Steroids in the G.S.D. Unfortunately there was insufficient evidence to warrant the case going forward and it was dropped.This incident sparked off a lot of discussion and all sorts of rumours and suspicions about who has and who has not used  drugs on their dogs. At this time we do not know if this incident is a one off or if it is the Tip of the Iceberg.

Over the years, the use of performance enhancing drugs has been discovered in many sports, including Boxing, Weigh lifting, Athletics, Football, Horse Racing , and more relative to us Greyhound Racing. In each sport, the use of such drugs was considered a form of cheating and has resulted in the introduction of a Testing Scheme to identify the transgressors. In some sports the situation has become highly complex with the use of a large range of drugs acting on different body systems to improve performance. There have also been many case of drugs being used to reduce performance - 'nobbling' has been found in Horse Racing for many years. This 'progression' has resulted in more extensive and costly testing regimes being developed to beat the cheats but serves to illustrate the lengths some people will go to in order to win.

It should come as no surprise therefore, that some of those involved in the showing of dogs would resort to such methods, particularly in the GSD where our showing methods demand a high level of performance.

There are many different drugs which can be used to enhance performance. These are not limited to simply Amphetamines and Anabolic Steroids. The National Greyhound Racing Club uses the services of the Horse Racing Forensic Laboratory Ltd. They carry out a standard screening programme to identify Prohibited Substances according to the International Agreement of Racing Authorities. This is a comprehensive list and is summarized over:
Substances acting on the nervous system.
Substances acting on the cardio vascular system.
Substances acting on the respiratory system.
Substances acting on the digestive system.
Substances acting on the urinary system.
Substances acting on the reproductive system.
Substances acting on the musculoskeletal system.
Substances acting on the blood system.
Substances acting on the immune system other than those in licensed vaccines.
Substances acting on the endocrine system; endocrine secretions and their synthetic counter parts.
Anti- infectious substances other than exclusively anti parasitic substances.

For the purposes of clarity, these include:-
Anti-pyretics, analgesics and anti- inflammatory substances.
Cytotoxic substances.
Diuretics.
Local anaesthetics.
Muscle relaxants.
Respiratory stimulants.
Sex hormones, anabolic agents and corticosteroids.
Substances affecting blood coagulation.

For those substances that appear naturally they have developed  agreed threshold levels in order to positively identify the misuse of such substances.

So, has the time come to introduce a testing scheme in dog showing? As prices rise and steaks get higher, the temptation to take short-cuts or cheat in order to win gets greater. Personally I believe it is long overdue and the affects of drugs may affect many breed for different reasons. At their meeting 11th July 1995, the GSD Breed Council agreed to approach the Kennel Club to investigate random blood testing. At the time of writing this article, we are not aware of the Kennel Clubs response to this approach. It may be when you are reading this, we already taking steps to investigate a testing scheme, courtesy of the Kennel Club, the Breed Council or both.
The instigation of such a scheme would not be an easy matter. There are many aspects to be considered, some of which are outlined below:

What to test for?

We could start with a simple list of obvious drugs such a anabolic steroids, amphetamines, barbiturates and the like. There detection may have an effect but it is likely to lead to a development similar to that seen in other sports. That is the switch to other, less obvious substances that affect different body systems but still give similar results. This would result in the testing scheme having to  continually adapt in response to changing methods of abuse. The net result would be that it could take many years to eradicate the problem.

An alternative would be to start with a full range testing regime which is in standard use for horse and greyhound racing. This would expose abusers at all levels of sophistication very quickly and would avoid the development period referred to above, resulting in swifter eradication of the problem and possibly a large monetary saving in the long term.

Where to test?

Initially one would imagine that only those competing for the highest honours would resort to such abuse, therefore samples for testing need only be taken from the winners at Championship Shows. That however, would be a naive view. There are many circumstances in which a dog could be 'prepared' for a particular show, such as the 2 Day Show, with a course of drugs which was completed far enough in advance of the show that these drugs would not be detectable on the day of the show. By avoiding earlier Championship Shows such a system of abuse would go undetected.

The other extreme is, perhaps, the system which prevails in athletics; that samples can be taken at any time any where. This would mean that you could be asked to allow a specimen to be taken from your dog at an Open Breed Show, Canine Society Show or even at your club training night.
The problem of when and where to test also has financial considerations. It is one thing to arrange sampling facilities at a Breed Championship Show but quite another to organize and finance a 'flying squad' to turn up at any show or any training night, anywhere in the country.

This matter would need careful consideration and it maybe that extensive sampling would be found necessary in the short term, reducing the number of sampling sessions being acceptable in time, until a balance is achieved. Consulting with the Jockey club and the National Greyhound Racing Club would probably assist in setting appropriate levels of sampling.

How many dogs should be tested?

In an ideal world it would be determined by statistics. You would simply count the number of individual dogs at Open Show level or above. The figure would be multiplied by the number of times a test would need to be done per year to guarantee detection of any prohibited substance. The resulting figure would be astronomical.
This is where finances come in again. The cost of the above would be prohibitive. In order to arrive at sensible numbers, it would be necessary to look at the costs involved and set an affordable budget. It maybe that this budget would not be simply an annual fixed expenditure but, initially, a reducing budget over a number of years. The purpose of this would be to enable a high level of testing in the first year, reducing to a level which balances cost against the desired minimum testing level.

Who pays?

This is the biggest question and perhaps a matter for the Breed Council and the KEnnel Club to discuss and resolve. A budget would need to be set based on realistic costing of the whole system - for sampling through testing and subsequent hearings of those who's animals test possitive. I am advised that the current cost of a standard drugs screen, such as those used in the Greyhound world is £125 plus VAT and a standard urine sample kit would cost £4 minimum plus VAT. In addition there would be the cost of a heat sealer to isolate the sample bottles £555 plus VAT and a number of urine collectors. On top of this would be the cost of postage, administration and the fee for an independent adjudicator/observer.
Should a sample be found positive, there would be an additional charge for a more extensive confirmatory analysis to ensure that the result is absolutely correct. If you add this together it becomes obvious that such a scheme would not be a cheap one to run. To put it into perspective a little, adding £1 to the entry fee of an average Breed Championship Show would be most likely to cover the cost of 2 testing samples.

What punishment?

Here is probably the trickiest question of all. A positive result may not simply be the case of a club ban via an SGM of aa KC Rule 42 hearing. It is likely that the RSPCA would take a very dim view of anyone found to be maladministering drugs to animals and would wish to prosecute. Each organization would have to determine the level of penalty for guilty individuals but it must be borne on mind that the owner is guilty of drug abuse.

There are many mitigating circumstances. For example a person whos dog is  being given a prohibited substance as part of veterinary prescribed treatment is not guilty of drug abuse but may be technically guilty of cheating if the animal continues to be shown whilst under such treatment. Different substances have different effects on the body. In most cases the drug will give the owner a short term gain in greater show success but may give the animal a long term health problem. Some substances have much worse side effects than others- it may well be that the type of substance abused will therefore affect the penalty of the owner.

Who takes the samples?

There are 2 official requirements in the taking of samples. The body instigating the test (The Breed Council or Kennel Club) would need to provide a responsible person to receive the samples at the venue on the day, and put them into tamperproof containers, seal, package and dispatch them to the laboratory.
A veterinary surgeon would be required to take the sample, as it is likely that an invasive sampling technique would be the most practical (you can not simply ask a dog to pee into a bottle!) The sampling method would have to be uniform and so the BVA would have to be involved, to agree the method before introduction. The alternative might be to employ a suitably qualified person to attend every sampling session. This may be more or less expensive depending  upon the number of samples, but would have a greater degree of consistency in sampling.

How would the testing scheme work?

It is likely that the scheme chosen would be similar to that used by the National Greyhound Racing club. This involves a sample of urine and, if necessary, blood from selected animals.
    These are put into tamper evident containers, sealed immediately, packed and posted to the laboratory.
           Once received there, the samples are split, part being used for immediate testing and part being stored. A series of tests is then carried out for the presence of any prohibited substances on the list compiled by the International Agreement for Racing Authorities.
    Should a test prove positive and before it is reported as such, the sample is subject to confirmatiory analysis. Only when this procedure is complete is any positive result reported.
    From this point on is pure conjecture but it may be that notice of  a hearing would be given to the exhibitor and a copy of the relevant report given to him. The case could probably be decided within the bounds of a normal Kennel Club Rule 42 hearing, the difference being, that if the case were proven i.e.. drugs abuse found to have taken place, then the RSPCA may wish to take the matter further.

Other practical considerations.

No testing scheme is going to get off the ground without Kennel Club approval. It seems likely therefore, that some new rules would be necessary to encompass such a scheme.
Also, assuming that sampling takes place at shows, exhibitors would  need to be made aware that their signatures agreeing to KC rules would include an agreement to samples being taken.
Before that, I would have thought that we need to see our own democratic process at work, to establish whether the majority of GSD club members want such a scheme. So far, this subject has only been discussed under 'correspondence' at the Breed Council meeting. This is a major issue for the breed because of its financial implications and direct effect upon exhibitors and their dogs.  Without the support of the exhibitors there would be difficulties and the Breed Council risk being labelled  dictators if action were taken without extensive consultation.
    Consultation with the BVA would also be necessary and they would have to notify the veterinary surgeons of the implementation of the scheme. This would be required in order to enable vets to advise exhibitors on such courses of treatment which involve he use of prohibited substances, thus disallowing the animal from exhibition.

In conclusion, there is no doubt that this is a major issue with many serious practical, financial and political implications. These would require lenghty and informed discussion with all involved parties before any decision could be made to implement a workable scheme. I sincerely hope that we find the will and the wherewith all to implement such a scheme for, if it is sucessful, we can be confident that our sport, in our country is 'clean'

Andrew Sykes 1996.

The GSD Helpline strongly support a scheme for random drug testing. They would like to point out that the case mentioned by Mr Sykes in paragraph 1 of the above article remains "Open" and has not been closed as suggested.