Dr. Lynn Hillyer:

I will start at the beginning. Senator Daly asked about the difference between treatments, that is, where a vet has genuinely treated a horse in the yard and we go to that yard to make an out-of-competition testing visit. I believe that the Senator was asking about how we handled such testing. There is provision within our rules of racing, which trainers sign up to, allowing us to enter a premises and test at any time unannounced. That is the starting point. The Senator may know that we are in discussions with the breeders about how we work that same principle on stud farms, given that there are different factors to be considered when visiting a breeding premises as opposed to a training yard.

We have access to test horses in training yards and take samples.

We have access to medication records, which are important for understanding what is happening on the yard and whether there is compliance with medication record requirements. That is relatively new.

As to whether there is an issue when a therapeutic medication is found in a sample versus another substance, it is fair to say that I cannot think of a therapeutic medication that could be found in a horse that would cause an issue, provided it has been given legitimately and is recorded in the medicines register. That is how we differentiate between the two. It is a question of using the medicines register alongside the sample results and intelligently analysing the latter. Medicines registers have made such a difference to our approach since they were set up some years ago. They are crucial in this regard.

Medicines registers are also crucial for some of the more sophisticated ways in which we approach a number of these therapeutic drugs. I will cite an example. If a joint injection is given into a joint, the circulating concentrations of that drug are low compared with the amount that is doing the business at the joint. We recognised a few years ago that our testing hitherto - analysing the screening levels that have been mentioned at this meeting - was not applicable to these locally active drugs. A decision was made through the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities to introduce the concept of stand-down periods, which is what it says on the tin. After a particular sort of drug has been administered, there is a period within which the horse cannot race. I will not say "regardless of what is found in the sample from the horse at that time", because that is used as adjunctive information. The principle of the stand-down is regulated by the medicines register. We use the information we have to hand.

At the same time, it is important we not put too much of a burden on trainers and their staff to maintain registers. I am particularly conscious of the statutory requirement to keep certain information. We are discussing with colleagues how to streamline the situation in order that we are not asking people to double up on recording.

The Senator's second question was on security and a controlled area. This is a matter of strict liability. The first point to make is that we have strict liability, in that the trainer is responsible for what is found in any sample. However, we do our best to help trainers avoid getting into that position in the first place. That is key. Education has to be the starting point, that is, trying to prevent people from getting into trouble in the first place by, for example, not allowing prohibited substances in the stable yard. The stable yard is a controlled area in terms of risks, and people should try to avoid having substances there. They should become informed and educated about simple factors. A good example is fizzy drinks that contain caffeine.

People should try to become informed about cross-contamination from stable staff to horses via hands, which is easily done. For example, there was a recent positive test for a therapeutic drug that is common in humans, atenalol, which affects blood pressure. When traces are found in a horse, it can have an effect. Therefore, it is viewed as a substance that normally does not have a screening level. Trying to assess these areas is difficult, but we rely on expertise within our teams and overseas to ensure we are consistent.

The Senator also asked about investigations. I do not wish to discuss any ongoing investigation, but investigations relate what is found in the sample at that point in time to what has actually happened. The bottom line is an investigation needs to be thorough, transparent and process driven. It is fair to say that, given where the Turf Club was and where it is now going, there must be checks and balances along that path in order that people are aware of what is happening.

For obvious reasons, an investigation can be compromised if information is disseminated inappropriately or at the wrong time. As soon as information can be disseminated, it should be, especially to the people involved.

Each case is different. There are some substances in respect of which, on receiving initial information from the laboratory that something was found, I would act differently than I would had another substance of lesser concern been found, if that makes sense. It is handled case by case. Our investigation would proceed to a disciplinary procedure and, ultimately, sanction.

Does that answer the Senator's questions?

Deputy Pringle asked about how the relevant legislation is operating, testing and options in that regard. In terms of the optimal number of annual tests for a yard with 20 horses, a possibly over-quoted report by McKeever in the United States that was compiled probably 25 years ago consistently states that approximately 10% of racing horses in training should be sampled. Several tests have been worked out to be representative of that number. Things have moved on a little from there. One would do as many tests as one can with available resources but the distribution between on-course testing and off-course testing is the most important issue. There has been a huge shift, particularly in the past two or three years, towards off-course testing and intelligence-based or smart testing based on the World Anti-Doping Agency, WADA, principles. There is a pyramid with intelligence-led, risk-based testing at the top and more broad-brush random testing at the bottom. Any testing strategy should combine the two approaches with common sense. If one knows one has an at-risk population, the testing frequency would be different from that of a population deemed to be at lower risk. In terms of the parameters that assessment would be based on, it could include intelligence about stable employees, previous screening findings or patterns of drug usage or behaviour amongst veterinary surgeons. There is a plethora of facts that get taken into account. I cannot give a stock answer. The minimum testing figure is about 10%. We publish the results.