Talk:Doping in pigeon racing

First of all, it is only doping, if the substance tested for and found exceeds the threshold limit established for that substance. With testing equipment sensitive to parts per billion, all organizations realize that threshold limits are necessary, to differentiate intentional doping from incidental environmental contact. For example, most all of us who come in contact with paper money would flunk a cocaine test since most all paper money has residual cocaine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_currency

The reason we don't flunk a cocaine test at drug labs is because there is a threshold limit below which the amount is considered incidental environmental contact. If your child uses an inhaler and you hand it to them, you will get the substance on your palm and you might well flunk a test for the presence of vascular or bronchial dilators, if no threshold limits were established, but they are, for all sports and for all substances being drug tested.

Therefore, the fact that the Ghent drug testing lab used by Belgian and German sports organizations did not record on their report the presence of cocaine or the so called pain killer Mobitix (Paracetamol) which is called Acetaminophen in the USA, could well be that they were not applying a threshold limit in South Africa while they were at the Ghent testing lab.

We will not know that the presence of cocaine or Acetaminophen is a violation of drug policies until the ng/ml (for fecal samples) is disclosed. By the way, Acetaminophen does not have anti-inflamatory properties and that is why it is not listed as a banned NSAID (Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug), so this statement is inaccurate "Mobistix, a pain-killer used in humans which is believed to have been used to combat fever and inflammation".

Did Peta compose this article, because it seems to be the same folks that put all that stuff on the Racing Pigeon Page (which editors had to clear out about 17 months ago), the day the Peta article came out against the racing pigeon sport.

For example, this page says "One of the pigeons believed to be involved has previously failed a drug test, being linked to a doping clinic in Miami.[4]". Read the article, it is satire. That article says three of the birds under suspicion were Ben Johnson, Marion Jones and Lance Armstrong. The Miami clinic reference was just tongue in cheek.

"The practice is reported as being common knowledge amongst racers in Belgium [4]", again satire from the same article, a mimic of the Lance Armstrong story. But it is being presented as fact by the authors of this hack.

"In 1995 the British Department of Health mandated drug testing in order to protect the welfare of the birds.[1]", should read Belgian not British. Read the article!

This is a hack job pure and simple. It is the exact same methodology as was done on the racing pigeon page last year. Some threads of truth in a weaving of misinformation.

Until the KBDB (the Belgium National organization for the racing pigeon sport), verifies that the amounts found exceed the established threshold limits, nothing said, amounts to proof of doping. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid.

VanceJohn (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It uses reliable sources. If you spot a problem do please fix it but try not to introduce the bias demonstrated above. violet/riga [talk] 20:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Please explain the statement you made above, that I am exhibiting bias.

I added that Mobistix is really acetaminophen which is not a pain killer but a mild analgesic. No sense defaming a whole sport with a word like pain killer when Wikipedia itself calls acetaminophen "a mild analgesic".

Also, I removed the statement "The practice is reported as being common knowledge amongst racers in Belgium,[4]" as that is clearly in the section of the article which the author identifies as satire since it falls in the section of the article following this statement "...but it could be fun to guess. So let’s make something up:" The satirical reference is a paragraph which reads; "Besides, it was common knowledge in every coop in Belgium that racers were doping. How can it really be cheating when every other top pigeon was doing it, too?" You do know what satire is don't you. I do not think pointing out that glaring misrepresentation is showing bias on my part.

I did not want to do any of the editing on this page because I am a racing pigeon fancier and want to take proactive measures to protect myself from those who think I am a biased editor because of my participation.

I can say that I have been published on the subject of ethical drug testing for racing pigeons in Australia, Belgium and the USA. VanceJohn (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanceJohn (talk • contribs) 00:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

What a cluster flock this page has been. It turns out that several of the articles referenced on the page were just out and out wrong. It appears that these news organizations have a hard time translating Dutch and getting a second source before going to press.

Otherwise, they would have known that, it was caffeine not cocaine that was found in one sample.

Otherwise, they would have known that, it was Meloxicam not Mobistix that was found in five samples.

Otherwise, they would have know that the reason no enforcement action will be taken against the fanciers is not that the samples were submitted anonymously but rather that only laboratories certified by the Belgian Health Ministry, are authorized to process test samples. The South African drug testing facility has never sought certification, therefore, any test results from the South Africa lab are inadmissible in Belgium.

And that does not even address all the misinformation on the page before I cleaned it up earlier.

I could go on, but I will just reiterate what I said originally, this page has the same stink on it as the Peta controversy section on the racing pigeon page after the Peta video was released, last year, criticizing the racing pigeon sport. It took quite some time to clean out that plethora of misrepresentations. And, it has taken several days to do the same with this page as well.

You are probably thinking that I am biased, but lightning struck twice and both times were around Peta videos and articles painting the racing pigeon sport in a very bad light. And, both times much of the material was debunked upon intelligent examination of the claims, and review of the footnoted references.

I bet you are so proud to have highlighted this page of misinformation in the Wikipedia “Did you know” section of the front page. Nice job, just what an examination of the facts warranted. In retrospect, it seems that you were maybe in a little hurry to pile on.

Don't you at least have some sort of peer review process before you promote material to the “Did you know” section of the front page? And if you do, why did it fail so completely?

I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia not a tabloid. I think an ethical organization would publish a retraction in the same “Did you know” section of the front page, pointing out the failure to fact check the material, before promoting it.

I will toss one bone to those of you who need some victory in this matter, Meloxicam, in my opinion, is a more problematic substance that Mobistix. Meloxicam, actually has anti-inflamatory capabilities and is classified as a non-steroidal Anti-inflamatory drug.

If you want to read for yourselves my source for these comments, Do a Google search for “Schalk de Kock pigeon” scroll down to the listing “Het dopingdossier van de KBDB blijft de tongen beroeren” and use the Translate this page link

Or go to this page and read it in Dutch: http://www.pipa.be/en/newsandarticles/reports/het-dopingdossier-van-de-kbdb-blijft-de-tongen-beroeren

Whether you decide to even leave this page up, I will leave to the conscience of the Wikipedia community, as I do not want the hacks to spread gossip that I am “biased”. I will see what kind of review process, if any, Wikipedia has in place for dealing with outright misrepresentations published for the purpose of harming the reputation of 26000 racing pigeon fanciers, who enjoy their hobby in Belgium.

I hope you take action as it would be a shame if people started calling you Wikipetia.

VanceJohn (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)