A greyhound owner whose dog allegedly tested positive for drugs after finishing second in the Irish coursing derby earlier this year has taken a High Court challenge to the Irish Coursing Club's decision to forfeit the prize money, fine him £5,000 and ban him from racing and breeding for a year.
Mr Leslie Hill of Middle Road, Saintfield, Co Down, owner of Toy Razor, was given leave yesterday to challenge the ICC's actions in judicial review proceedings. He also secured an injunction restraining the ICC from holding a disciplinary or any hearing on the purported finding of a substance in the dog's urine sample where the alleged substance was not an improper or prohibited substance under the ICC's own rules.
Mr Justice O Caoimh was told the hearing of an appeal against a finding by the ICC general practices subcommittee that there had been a breach of its Rule 88, was due to take place today.
In an affidavit, Mr Hill said his dog was beaten in the race at Clonmel on February 1st last by another greyhound known as Big Fella Thanks. The ICC took urine samples for testing from all the greyhounds which competed that day.
He was asked if he wished the sample to be split and initially indicated that he did. But, having taken advice from the veterinary surgeon who was taking the sample, and on being informed that nobody else had sought to retain a split sample, he waived his right to take a split sample.
The secretary of the ICC in a letter dated March 18th had informed him that Toy Razor had tested positive for amphetamine and had stated that an inquiry would be held by the general practices subcommittee to see whether there had been a breach of Rule 88 of the ICC rules.
This provided for penalties to be imposed on dog-owners and dogs whose sample tested positive for a drug or stimulants which the executive committee considered improper. To his knowledge the only specific substance considered improper by the ICC was caffeine.
Mr Hill said he was a believer in good sporting practices and abhorred the use of drugs or stimulants in sports. To his knowledge, his dog had always run clean races and, from her track record, did not require the assistance of any artificial stimulant.
In a letter of July 29th to his solicitor, the ICC had said there was no list of stimulants prohibited by the club. Despite the fact that amphetamines were, therefore, not banned by the ICC for the purposes of Rule 88, the ICC went on to say there were no acceptable levels of amphetamine and that any level of the drug was banned.
Mr Gerard Hogan SC, with Ms Siobhan Phelan, for Mr Hill, argued the ICC was in breach of fair procedures in its inquiry.