Greyhound owner loses challenge to €1k fines and withholding of €36,500 prize money
A greyhound owner has lost a High Court challenge to the imposition of €1,000 in fines and the withholding of €36,500 in race prize money arising out of giving feed containing a prohibited substance to three of his dogs.
Owen McKenna, New Inn, Cashel, Co Tipperary, claimed findings of an Irish Greyhound Board (IGB) control committee were made in breach of fair procedures, arbitrary and based on errors of fact, among other things.
Ms Justice Miriam O'Regan dismissed his challenge.
The dogs, 'Farloe Rumble', 'Offshore Bound' and 'Farloe Blitz' were run at Shelbourne Park on September 5, 2015, when samples were taken an later sent for testing to the UK.
They were found to contain hydrochlorothiazide which could affect greyhound performance.
The IGB imposed five fines totalling €1,000 and ordered the prize money of €36,500 won by the dogs would be forfeited.
It also found Mr McKenna engaged in a reckless feeding regime for which he must accept the consequences. He brought an appeal to an IGB control committee which was dismissed.
Mr McKenna then brought court proceedings seeking to quash the decision.
He argued, among other things, there was a break in the chain of evidence relating the time the samples were in the UK laboratory.
He also claimed that the feeding regime he operated could only be considered normal.
The IGB control committee opposed the application.
Ms Justice Miriam O'Regan said, in relation to the claim of break in chain of evidence while the samples were in the UK, the court heard evidence that the UK lab was of the highest accredited standard.
She said Mr McKenna's failed to establish that a caution by an IGB control committee some two months before the 2015 Shelbourne Park race meeting formed the basis of the findings he sought to challenge.
She accepted the IGB's arguments that Mr McKenna's feeding regime could not be considered normal and ordinary feeding.
There was ample evidence to show Mr McKenna did not have the required category of feeding licence to feed what he did to the dogs, she said.
Nevertheless, he continued to feed this particular category of food and was aware that this was a risk he took, she said.
She was also satisfied he had not established the requisite proof to condemn the decision based on his claim about its impact on his livelihood.
