Dr. Colm Gaynor:

There were a number of references, in this and the previous session, to drugs. It is an important matter and it will be difficult to deal with all the points in the time we have but I will say something general on the issue. Reference was made to the Morris report and I will also comment on that. I will then discuss artificial insemination.

Regarding the concerns about drugs, the committee has seen the two statutory instruments we have made. This is a first step and there will be more. The statutory instruments address issues which were clearly important. First, that the dog which was positive at the race should not race again until it is negative. Prior to this the dog could race on and on. Second, that the results are published when they are available, so there is no secrecy and no hiding and people know that we have found the results. The dog may be positive, and the results are described as “adverse analytical findings”, but it does not mean that any fault on the part of owners or breeders has been established. That is a separate issue which will be taken to the control committee.

We have also made public the control committee findings and its reasons in all cases regardless of whether there is to be an appeal. Members may recall that previously when a case was taken, because of the way the regulations were written, we could neither give the results when they were available nor mention anything about the outcome of the control appeal committee - if there was an appeal from the control committee on the one hand and if on the other hand, the person was found to have been in no way wrong. As a result, there was a gap in our ability to publish information. That gap is now removed. We particularly want people to know why the control committee says a case taken by the IGB was not good. We want it known why people were innocent as much as why they were guilty. That is what we have done with the regulations and more will follow.

We now have to get to grips with training, testing and other areas. We started on the sales side but we have more to do. To give this process a sound scientific grounding we have established a scientific committee, as explained by the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes. The expertise on that committee is international, is involved in the regulation of medicines, understands drug depletion studies and it knows how to compute the issues at the basis of drug control in the performance of dogs.

I will now turn to the Morris report. We have the final draft with us, dated 26 August. There will be issues with which to consult the industry and the committee has already discussed some of these today. We are interested in the advice Professor Morris can give us on what an internationally accepted standard is for how we do our business in this area. There will be people who will not agree with his views and we will have to see what they think.

I remind members about the idea floated at this committee on zero tolerance for drug use. People talk about zero tolerance in two different ways. On the street, zero tolerance in relation to rules is to the effect that no breach will be tolerated and everybody concerned will be prosecuted. However, another way in which people talk about it is to the effect that there should be zero molecules in a sample. That is the sense in which some people have raised zero tolerance. Members must realise that as science develops, as analytical capabilities increase and as machinery gets better there becomes less and less potential for no molecules in a sample.

If an animal is treated with something then as time goes on, it gets smaller and smaller and depletes in theory to zero eventually, but very slowly.

These are the issues we will have to talk about when we see the Morris report and consult on it. In international terms, the usual rule is that one establishes irrelevant levels, which do not influence better training or better racing and then use those to judge a pass or a fail. That is a discussion that will have to continue. We have no decisions on it at present but that is the way international animal sports operate at present.

In respect of Procaine and the positives that are found as a result of feeding category 2 meat to dogs, we fully acknowledge that is a problem. There is unfortunately, however, research from the United States that shows the injection sites of the animals that have been treated contain residues which can result in positives that were never intended by trainers or owners involved who fed their dogs that meat. We do not accept this and we are reviewing it at present. There will be discussions about it. In our view some constraint has to be placed on category 2 meats usage in greyhounds to avoid this in some cases, or in other cases to prevent people from potentially being allowed to fly under the radar. We do not want that.

I will speak briefly on the artificial insemination regulations. As members may be aware, the artificial insemination regulations contained a provision that required the use of semen from a dog that had died within the past two years to cease. There was a debate for some time about whether that rule should continue to exist. In that time dogs continue to be registered in the stud book. The Irish Greyhound Board has no role in registering dogs in the stud book that belongs to the Irish Coursing Club, ICC and we have no way of forcing the ICC to correct the matter. We have two situations which we have had to resolve. From 1 November 2014, we amended the regulations to remove the provision about the two year provision with a clear indication to everybody that we would examine the science behind this rule and the business case for it and come back if necessary with a proposal for what the rule should be. We started looking at the science aspect and it is a question of looking at the degree of inter-breeding that has occurred and whether it is at an acceptable levels in terms of pedigrees in dogs, etc. When we have a better idea of where that is going we will be able to take a science approach to that decision and the contribution which artificial insemination might make to it. There is the question of the business case and the best rule in terms of developing the industry on the breeding side. That is an issue for the future and we will probably change things.

Are we running short of time?