Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome our witnesses, Mr. Kavanagh, Mr. Egan, Dr. Hillyer, Mr. Cronin and Dr. Pearce, this morning. I thank both groupings for their presentations.

At the outset, while it may be well known, I am probably obliged to put on the record that I have skin in the game. I am a member of the Association of Irish Racehorse Owners, AIRO, and the Irish Thoroughbred Breeders Association, ITBA. I have a brood mare and the first of her progeny is commencing a racing career out of Mr. Pat Martin's yard. I have, therefore, skin in the game in that regard but I also have a dedication and personal passion for the business, industry and sport by virtue of the fact that I have been the voluntary chairman of Kilbeggan Racecourse for more than a decade. I am, therefore, putting all that on the record. I have interest in the industry and the sport and a passion for it.

It struck a chord with me as a young man, back in the day. When I had a newspaper, I would read the sports section and my reading ended there until later in life when my political involvement led to a keener interest in public affairs. I would start at the front of the paper and finish before I got to the sports section. I will say reservedly, however, that unfortunately, on three out of the past four Sundays, I found myself starting at the back of the newspaper and what I read has not been good for the industry and the sport for which, as I said already, I have a passion.

The old justice motto of being innocent until proven guilty is actually read in reverse when it is a person in the public domain or a public body spending public money or if it is a public representative or an organisation that is of public interest. Unfortunately, in that situation it has to be read as guilty until proven innocent. Once accusations or assertations are made, one is then duty-bound almost to prove one's innocence.

In that regard, I have some questions for the industry. Mr. Kavanagh and Mr. Egan will probably know who is best suited to answer them. The questions are along the lines of what actions the organisations have taken since this scenario started and what further actions they intend taking, as I probably say bluntly, to prove their own innocence. As I said, in the public eye, one is guilty once the accusation is made. I say that with the greatest of regard; I am not making any accusations myself.

I would like to hear from the industry's side from whichever body believes the question is most appropriate to it. We are here today, with the best interest of everybody at heart, to get to the bottom of the situation. As has been outlined by the Chairman, we are not a court of justice.

Have or would the witnesses consider holding their own inquiry into any of the allegations that have been made? As licensing bodies, all people out there who are in the industry either have a permit or a licence, which would be overseen or issued by one or other of the witnesses' organisations. Would they not think it appropriate that this hearing or inquiry should have been, could be or perhaps still will be, hopefully, held by them to get to the bottom of and put to bed or solve some or many of the allegations or if they are false, maybe take some action against those who are making them?

With regard to the IHRB, and in particular, the third article in the Sunday Independent, there was some coverage on some anonymous letters and correspondence received by the IHRB. Anonymous whistleblowing correspondence is how I would put it. Very strong allegations were made that complaints were not acted on. I would like to hear the IHRB's comment on them. Does it have a file of complaints which, as has been said, have not been acted on? I believe the board deserves the right to explain that one a little bit further.

I have some questions for Dr. Hillyer and Dr. Pearce on the testing side. In preparation for Dr. Hillyer, when she does a bit of googling, a number of articles come up which to which she contributed. One that struck me from not long after her appointment bore the headline, "mucking out the Turf Club’s stables". I would like to give her the opportunity to explain that a little bit more. What was she saying she was going to muck out there? That headline reads badly now. It may not have at the time.

As I said at the outset, while the numbers of tests being carried out is impressive, we are where we are now and changes need to be made to go back to prove the innocence of the associations and the industry. I believe 2,449 tests - just shy of 2,500 - have been carried out, be they on racecourses or private properties. Is there an available record of the results of all those tests on file in the IHRB? Can they be accessed by somebody through a freedom of information request or are they always forwarded to the people responsible for the horse post testing? Do they get a copy irrespective of whether it is an adverse analytical finding? Is there a record of all those samples taken having been actually tested?

I would also like a little bit more clarification in that regard. The IHRB in its submission stated, in particular when referencing winners on track, that samples of blood, urine or hair or both are taken. The IHRB, therefore, takes both blood and urine and, on occasion, also hair. In that situation where it would take both blood and urine, are both tested? Again, when hair is also taken, are all three samples tested? I would like a little bit more discussion or explanation from the experts, Dr. Hillyer and Dr. Pearce, on the whole hair issue. Hair testing seems to come up a lot for discussion and debate when we are discussing this issue. It seems to be the better of the three samples for testing and seems to give a more historical reading of what substances may have been administered farther back or previously in the horse's career. Even in humans, one hears of somebody testing clear but if one uses a hair sample, it will show if they have a history of taking substances. I assume it is the same with horses. While the numbers the IHRB is testing are good and impressive, perhaps less is more. If we were doing less and concentrating more on hair, would we perhaps be coming up with better results? I would like to hear the witnesses' comments on that.

Based on the accusations, for want of a better word, to have ten adverse analytical findings, all of which were not of substances that are fully banned, would portray the image that things are rosy in the garden but unfortunately, as I said, we must prove they are at this juncture.

In that regard, perhaps Dr. Pearse will comment a little bit more on the actual testing. Are the same substances tested for in the Irish samples as would be in the British Horseracing Authority, BHA, samples? I know the laboratory caters for both Irish and UK racing. Is his brief to test or look for the same substances in both jurisdictions or do we have a different test?

In addition, perhaps he would enlighten us a little more about how the drug developers seem to be able to stay ahead of the testing. How quickly and adequately are the powers on the other side of the fence developing new drugs for which, perhaps, we are not even testing? Mr. Egan or Dr. Hillyer might also comment on the recent food issue that was detected in France but which did not come up in any of the Irish tests. Could they explain that? Are the French and English tests more severe than ours? Could there be an issue with our tests?

I have covered a great deal so I will give the witnesses the opportunity to respond. If there is time at the end of the meeting, I may come in again.