Dr. Una May:

We do not refer to them as tolerance levels. There are minimum reporting thresholds for some substances, so therefore it will not be reported if it is below a certain threshold. Once it is reported, the substance must be explained. However, that is for a very small number of substances for which there are small reporting thresholds.

The coursing environment is unique to an extent but it is not entirely unique in that we regulate events such as mountain biking, orienteering and many activities that are not in the controlled environment of an arena, as such. It is similar enough. There are definitely extra challenges when one is not in an enclosed and secure environment. I cannot answer for the situation because I am not particularly familiar with the issues there.

Deputy Pringle asked about the level of detail. An example is the experiences of the Spanish anti-doping agency which recently lost its compliance with the world anti-doping code. Spain's laboratory lost its accreditation and suffered fairly serious reputational damage because it was not in a position to update its regulations to the latest version of the code because it required a change in legislation and no government was in office at the time. They were caught between a rock and a hard place, they could not change their legislation and lost their accreditation as a result. That was an example. Where new substances come out, new issues arise. For instance, meldonium was the product that Maria Sharapova was found guilty of taking. If one has to change the legislation to identify new substances when they come out, that creates a challenge. What we have done is we have removed all the detail on behalf of the Irish anti-doping rules which cover everything from the application of the rules, the definition of doping, the prohibited list, how we get medical exemptions for athletes who require medication for one reason or another, and the standards for testing, analysis of samples, results management, sanctions, appeals, reporting and public disclosure. All that detail is in the Irish anti-doping rules and what the Act does is recognise those rules as the official rules and recognise them as being compliant with the world anti-doping code. That gives us the extra support because of the code, which is not as straightforward in this case because there is no international body.

We go through a fair bit of external scrutiny. The Council of Europe carried out a monitoring visit to see whether we were compliant with its requirements. We fill out regular compliance questionnaires for the Council of Europe, UNESCO, and the world anti-doping agencies. I hope I have answered the question on strict liability.

With regard to article 16, it is more whether its principles can be recognised in some way. I do not know the correct legal terminology but it could state that where appropriate the rules of the Irish Greyhound Board would comply in principle with article 16 of the code. We could have something very general. I am afraid I am not familiar with the decriminalisation issue. A number of countries have criminalised doping, including France and Italy, and people can go to jail for it. We did not go this far in our legislation. We felt it was a step too far. Where there are serious issues we hope the various pieces of enforcement legislation, including the medicines Act, on which the Garda rely would help us.

The new code speaks about athlete support personnel, so people around the athlete, including coaches and trainers, and not just the athlete, are liable. They have a level of responsibility also where they might be administering a substance to an athlete. From our point of view, there are sanctions in sport and probably outside sport also.