Dr. Lynn Hillyer:

In terms of blood, hair and urine, urine is the traditional matrix or substance or part of the body that we take to analyse. The reason, and Dr. Pearce may explain it further, is that we get a very good window on what is happening with the horse.

Blood represents a much smaller window of time. Each of these matrices has its strengths and weaknesses. Some substances show better in blood and some will show better in urine.

Regarding hair, we started administering substances to experimental horses and researching on hair some 15 years ago. Hair has been a research tool for 15 or 20 years where horses are concerned. The Senator is right, in that hair testing is used in respect of people. With horses, we have the advantage of having much more hair - mane hair and tail hair, which can go back years. It was clearly going to be an exciting opportunity to be able to understand better how long we can detect drugs in our horses.

Operationally, we have been using hair in Ireland since 2018. I was using it across the water before then. It is important that Dr. Pearce speak to the committee on this because he is the expert. From an operational and regulatory point of view, hair gives us a larger window of time, more confidence in the blood and urine results that we find and more of an understanding of how long the drug has been in the horse or for how long the horse has been exposed to it. It also allows us to take samples in a non-invasive way. Taking a blood sample has to be done by a veterinary surgeon. Taking a hair or urine sample can be done by a non-vet, which makes it more applicable across a wider field in terms of our strategy.

The straight answer to the question of which of blood, hair and urine is better is that they are all good in their own way. The best way to use them is together in a complementary fashion and to be careful about when to use which one. We have used all three successfully to prosecute cases or to see cases through to a proper conclusion. In every case, the hair has added value, the blood has added value and the urine has added value. In the ideal world of limitless resources and time, we would take blood, hair and urine from every horse, but what we have to do is use the three together strategically. On the racecourse, we typically take blood and urine for a period of time as a period of target testing. If we want to follow up on a case, we take a mixture of the matrices. I hope I have answered the question, but I will leave it to Dr. Pearce to go into more detail.

The only other matter I wish to comment on is the idea of less being more. I am a great believer in less being more. It is about quality, not quantity. We are keen to try to do both in our anti-doping strategy, though. Not only have we increased the numbers - the numbers for June were significant - but we have had to balance out an absence of activity earlier in the year due to the pandemic. We had to be cognisant of the landscape within which we were working, but we have made up for that in June by taking advantage of our authorised officer status from 21 May. It is not just about numbers, though. It is a question of what is being tested for and how it is tested. This means that the expertise of laboratories must be relied on.

Without further ado, and if it is okay, I will pass across to Dr. Pearce and allow him to fill the committee in on the technical laboratory side of matters.