Dr. David McGrath:

I will start with Deputy Penrose. He asked a single question but he had about 12 different questions in it. I will try to give him as brief a résumé as I can. The first part of the question was about the type of substances, how they should be managed and if they should be managed differently. It is important for the committee to know that we are owners and breeders and we represent owners and breeders who are focused on bringing transparency and integrity to the industry. If the IGB had published all the negative tests it would be really helpful because people would understand that more than 99% of all tests that are taken are negative. That is very reassuring to most people and it is very reassuring to us but that is a message that it not coming out. It is the 1% of tests that are not negative that is the problem, and it is how those tests are managed. Overall, 99% of dogs that are running and being tested are being run fair and square and you should know that the dog running next to you has tested negative but a small number of dogs are testing positive and they are undermining the integrity of the whole industry and that is a problem.

The first question Deputy Penrose asked was about the type of substances. There is an attempt in the Bill to differentiate between prohibited substances and controlled substances. Essentially, prohibited substances can never be present in the sample. An example might be stanozolol, which is an anabolic steroid, a Ben Johnson-type anabolic steroid or cocaine. They would be two very straightforward examples. Neither of those drugs is licensed in Ireland in any veterinary situation so if stanozolol is used in a greyhound as an anabolic steroid it means it came into the country illegally and then it was administered to a dog. It is not licensed by any medical or veterinary agency in Ireland. We have to go back and say there is a small number of such cases but they undermine the integrity of the whole industry. That is a very serious incident and from the point of view of our committee members any dog that tests positive for stanozolol should get a lifelong ban because that is an anabolic steroid and it gives an unfair advantage to the dog compared to any other dog and it cannot have got into the dog by any other method than being imported into this country and given to the dog. The same is true of cocaine. How else could cocaine have got into a dog other than it being imported illegally into the country, procured through some illegal source and given to a dog, horse or whatever it is? It seems really clear to us that use of those prohibited substances should result in a lifelong ban for the greyhound running and it is also a serious issue for the person who administered it. That is the serious end of the spectrum.

The Bill identifies the other group of substances as controlled substances, which may have got into a greyhound through any number of ways. A greyhound might have had tonsillitis and been put on an antibiotic. We can all understand that. With advanced testing, maybe six weeks later a minuscule level of the antibiotic might show up in a specimen. We could all understand and accept that is not going to affect the performance of the dog. Similarly for anti-inflammatories, if a greyhound had an injury and was treated by the vet with an anti-inflammatory several weeks down the line that might show up at a very low level.