Greyhound owner challenges fines for doping and contamination

A greyhound owner has asked the High Court to quash a decision which led to the withholding of €36,500 in race prize money after he was fined for doping/contamination of three of his dogs.

Owen McKenna, New Inn, Cashel, Co Tipperary, claims findings of an Irish Greyhound Board (IGB) control committee, later upheld by an appeal board, were arbitrary, based on errors of fact and made in breach of fair procedures.

An IGB control committee had in February 2017 imposed five fines totalling €1,000 on Mr McKenna in relation to the dogs Farloe Rumble, Offshore Bound and Farloe Bliztz, which had run at Shelbourne Park on September 5th 2015.

It also decided the prize money of €36,500 would be forfeited.

Mr McKenna lodged an appeal and an appeal committee later upheld a finding in relation to a substance, hydrochlorothiazide, which could affect greyhound performance as there are no threshold levels for this prohibited substance.

It also found Mr McKenna engaged in a reckless feeding regime for which he must accept the consequences.

His appeal was dismissed, the fines upheld and the forfeiture of the prize money affirmed.

Mr McKenna brought High Court judicial review proceedings which Ms Justice Miriam O’Regan began hearing on Thursday.

He wants orders quashing the appeal committee findings.

He says they are serious sanctions which affect his right to earn a livelihood and his right to a good reputation and amount to unlawful discrimination against him in relation to other dog owners.

He claims he was not afforded fair procedures.

He also alleges a failure in the chain of evidence in that the samples from the dogs were sent for analysis to the UK for three months.

There was also a failure to give reasons as to why the feeding regime was other than normal.

He also says the IGB had changed its feeding policy in November 2015 and retrospectively applied this new regime to September that year (when the dogs raced). There was no breach under the previous regulations, it is claimed.

The IGB opposes the application and the case continues.