Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Reserved Decision dated 23 May 2022 – John McInerney

THE CHARGE:
Information A15815 alleges that, “on or about 22 February 2022, the Respondent, John McInerney, being a Licensed Public Trainer, failed to comply with the GRNZ Health and Welfare Standards (Welfare Code) and in doing so failed to provide proper care for the welfare of HOMEBUSH HERO, a Greyhound under his control, by not physically inspecting the dog to ensure it was free from injury prior to racing”.

THE RULE:
84. A Licensed Person shall at all times comply with the Welfare Code. In particular, and without limitation, the Licensed Person shall provide proper care and accommodation for the Greyhounds under his/her control and such accommodation shall be subject to the approval of the Association and be open to inspection by Officials or Stewards or Racecourse Investigators at any time.

The Health and Welfare Standards of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association provides as follows:

8 HEALTH
8.1 All greyhounds must be visually and physically inspected at least once daily to monitor their health and welfare.
8.2 The person checking greyhounds should note if each greyhound is:
a. behaving normally
b. showing signs of illness or distress
c. free from injury and able to move about freely.
8.3 Appropriate action must be taken if any changes in health status are detected and recorded.
8.4 Immediate veterinary care must be provided for sick or injured greyhounds, to relieve pain, suffering and distress.

THE PLEA:
The Charge and relevant Rules were read to the Respondent and he acknowledged that he understood them. He then indicated that he denied the charge.

STANDARD OF PROOF:
The required standard of proof, this case being a disciplinary proceeding, is the civil standard of on the balance of probabilities. The Committee considers that the nature of the charge in this case does not require a higher standard.

EVIDENCE OF DR TERRI McCURDY:
1. Terri McCurdy BVSc is a Registered Veterinarian. She has been a vet for 27 years and has been contracted to the RIB as a raceday greyhound vet at Ascot Park for 10-12 years.
2. The Greyhound, HOMEBUSH HERO, was presented to her prior to kennelling on 22 February 2022 for a routine pre-race inspection. It had a tail bandage, which is not uncommon.
3. A tail bandage is used to dress a wound caused by damage at the end of the tail, often referred to as “happy tail” – an injury to the tail usually caused by wagging the tail against something sharp, rough or continually against a hard surface which may cause the tail to bleed, split open and sometimes the tail may become damaged. These injuries can bleed a lot and each wag can throw droplets of blood sending them and insecure bandages some distance. The injury can cause the dog pain with each wag. The wound is likely to get infected if the wound continues to stay open and, particularly, if the tailbone becomes exposed. Continued trauma caused by wagging can prevent the wound from healing, and it is common for a tail to have to be amputated.
4. The witness said that she would inspect 2-3 dogs per meeting presented with tail injuries and, on the odd occasion, she would bandage a small tail wound herself pre-race. Tail wounds are often bandaged prior to travel to prevent blood transfer.
5. She conducted the pre-race inspection on HOMEBUSH HERO which included her examining the bandage and giving the tail a gentle squeeze along its length, including over the bandage. If the wound is sore or infected the dog will usually react with pain to a gentle squeeze and there is normally a distinctive smell if there is infection. HOMEBUSH HERO did not react and she did not smell any infection, although she was wearing a Covid face mask.
6. The bandage, approximately 7-8 cm long, was dark coloured and appeared clean and well-affixed. It is unusual for the McInerney kennel to have tail injuries. She did not recall inspecting many.
7. After the dog’s race, she conducted a standard post-race inspection, a general check over including all major muscle groups, at the request of Chief Stipendiary Steward, Scott Wallis. She detected no issues with the dog’s body and then inspected the tail under the bandage. It was very well affixed so she cut it off, taking care not to injure the tail. She discovered a 6-7 cm long necrotic tissue wound with the tail bone exposed along the length of the wound. She could see and smell infection which indicated that the wound was around 1-3 days old. It was difficult to tell exactly how long the wound had been infected. There was an area of darker, dried blood at the distal (tip) end of the tail. The dog must have been experiencing some pain from the infected wound.
8. A photograph of the wound prior to clipping, cleaning and re-bandaging was produced (Exhibit “A”). The dog reacted when she clipped the wound, but did not react much when it was cleaned, so it did not seem especially painful at that time.
9. She injected the dog with 3ml of Betamox (a long-acting antibiotic) to address the infection. She recommended that the tail be amputated as soon as possible. It is not recommended to give non-steroidal pain relief immediately pre-surgery, and she was unsure when the dog would be operated on. Her standard post-race Veterinary Examination report was produced (Exhibit “B”).
10. She expressed the opinion that the dog and the wound should have been checked by the Trainer on the morning of the races prior to kennelling and should not have raced.
11. If the injury was bandaged on Sunday, and the wound was only 1-2 cm long, it was feasible for damage to worsen with the infection causing further damage and for the tail to split further.
12. Dr McCurdy then explained, with reference to her evidence (paragraph 7 above) that when a dog sustains a wound there will be bleeding, pain, swelling, inflammation which are the initial stages of the wound healing but, as it progresses, pus would appear but not straight away, probably after a couple of days to become necrotic tissue. “Necrotic” means dead or dying, so for a wound to appear dead and dying indicates some time has elapsed since the initial injury. The tailbone would not usually be exposed, as it was, unless the tissue around it had died away. If it had been cut by a sharp object there would be bleeding and it would look different than it did.
13. The Respondent had Dr McCurdy confirm that he was present when she inspected the dog and passed it fit to race. Before the dog was kennelled, extra tape was put over the tail. She confirmed that there was no smell or pain shown. The wound had gone past the inflammatory stage and, as the tissue had died away, it became less painful. She said that, had the bandage been removed on Monday, it would have looked “pretty not nasty” and on Tuesday it would have looked pretty much what it looked like in the photograph. She suspected that it would not have been a nice, clean wound when it was bandaged on Sunday. She did not accept that the injury could not have happened while the dog was kennelled or having been caught in the boxes.
14. Dr McCurdy said it was not possible for a wound to go from “beautiful and clean” to that post-race condition, “horrible, nasty, infected wound” in 4-6 hours. She could not smell it before the race because she had a mask on and the wound was covered by a bandage. Had she sniffed the bandage carefully, she believed that she would have smelled it. She did not detect any pain during the pre-race inspection because she may not have “poked” it in exactly the right place. The majority of the wound had dead and dying tissue and, therefore, did not have the same nerve supply.
15. The Respondent put it to Dr McCurdy that the wound may have been pulled apart when the bandage was taken off. Dr McCurdy outlined that if that was the case, the wound would have been bleeding and red and fresher-looking. She had been very careful removing the bandage taking the bandage off but, in any event, that had not caused further damage, she said.
16. Dr McCurdy said the wound was a necrotic one, comprised of dead and dying tissue. When the pus has done its job and taken away the infection and damaged tissue, the next stage is granulation tissue which has basically no feeling at all. This wound was almost at the granulation stage.
17. The Respondent put it to Dr McCurdy that the next morning, when the dog was inspected by Dr Koning, there was a lot of pain and no smell. She replied that the wound had been cleaned and the dog had been administered an antibiotic. It had also just raced and adrenaline may have been a factor. She would be surprised if the wound was still painful in the granulated area but it could still have been painful on the “healthy end” of the wound, closer to the dog’s body. There would be less pain in the area where the bone was exposed.
18. In response to a question from the Committee, Dr McCurdy said that happy tail will normally start as a minor injury needing protection, but if it gets to the stage where the tissue around the bone is damaged and the bone gets exposed, the injury is more likely to get infected with the bone becoming exposed and infection tracking up the tail. The wrapping of the tail is principally to protect the tail and let the body heal. There would normally be a reaction from a dog, when inspected, if the wound was “nasty and necrotic”. The dog may not have reacted to touching if the painful area was not touched on inspection, she said. Dogs vary in their pain response, she said. The inspection process involved looking at the bandage. If it appeared nice and clean and appeared it had been recently re-bandaged and she would then feel along the length of the tail. A tail injury should be actually looked at and rebandaged every 1-2 days. HOMEBUSH HERO’s wound was far worse that the average wound resulting from happy tail.
19. Finally, in re-examination, Mr Irving asked Dr McCurdy whether, in her experience, she had had a dog presented post-race where an injury to a tail has resulted from being caught in the boxes. She could not recall, but it was possible, she said, but any such injury would be bleeding and have the appearance of a recent wound.

EVIDENCE OF SCOTT WALLIS:
1. Mr Wallis is employed by the RIB as the Chief Greyhound Steward. He has been a full-time Greyhound Steward for 11 years and the Chief Steward since June 2019.
2. He was Chairman of Stewards at the meeting of Southland Greyhound Racing Club at Ascot Park on 22 February 2022.
3. Following a poor showing by HOMEBUSH HERO, he requested that it undergo a post-race veterinary examination. The RIB vet on duty that day was Terri McCurdy.
4. As a result of what Dr McCurdy’s examination revealed, he requested Trainer, John McInerney, to report to the Stewards’ Room. Mr McInerney presented and was shown a photograph taken by Steward, Mr Vinnie Munro. Mr McInerney was genuinely surprised. He said the tail was fine on Sunday when it was wrapped. Mr Wallis told him that it was unacceptable for a greyhound to be presented to race in this condition. He reported the incident by email to the Welfare and Investigation Managers.
5. It is the preference of all on-course Greyhound veterinarians to pre-race examine with no strapping so that any issues can be easily detected. The McInerney kennel, because of the large number of runners at a meeting, is given dispensation to strap their greyhounds prior to the pre-race examination. This is because of time constraints between races and the distance from the kennel block to the starting boxes, which would otherwise result in significant delays in the starting of races.
6. The dispensation is not given to any other trainer or kennels. It is afforded with the expectation that the strapping will not hide any pre-existing injury. However, he added, the tip of a Greyhound’s tail for a happy tail injury is allowed to be taped at any race meeting.
7. Mr McInerney had Mr Wallis confirm that his kennel had not any other problems with tails. Mr Wallis said that he was not aware of any such problems.
8. Mr McInerney then asked for a replay of HOMEBUSH HERO’s race in which it had performed poorly. He suggested to Mr Wallis that the dog could have been injured jumping from the boxes, perhaps having caught its tail. The boxes at the Invercargill track have a roll-a-door, he said. The dog had come up with the lid when it jumped.

EVIDENCE OF JONATHAN TONY McINERNEY:
1. Mr McInerney is a kennel hand, Licensed by Greyhound Racing New Zealand, and is employed by the Respondent. He has been involved in the Greyhound industry all of his life.
2. He checked all of the race dogs as usual, including HOMEBUSH HERO, some time between 9.30am and 3.00-3.30pm on the Sunday prior to the Tuesday race meeting. He had 96 dogs to do, which included those racing at Addington the following day. “60-odd” were going to Invercargill in three vehicles the following day.
3. HOMEBUSH HERO had a bleeding tail so he taped it like he normally did, with white strapping tape. There was just “a tiny bit of blood” on her tail from banging it in the kennel before she was taken out.
4. He was interviewed by RIB staff on 24 February and shown a photograph of the tail taken after the Invercargill race. He said that it was not nearly that bad when he had strapped it up. The photo showed a lot of hair had come off the tail where he had bandaged it.
5. The exposed area was covered in flesh like a normal tail. There was only blood on the very end, approximately 1cm from the tip. He strapped the tail and wrote in the treatment book that he had strapped HOMEBUSH HERO’s tail. A copy of an extract from the treatment book was produced. He also noted in the book “no smell, look at when home”.
6. The only reason one would have to check the tail again between Sunday and Tuesday would be if it was bleeding through the bandage. He believed that HOMEBUSH HERO had also been strapped for the same bleeding tail when it raced the previous week at Christchurch (15 February) and the meeting before that at Invercargill (13 February). The bandage had been taken off on 16 February prior to being reapplied on Sunday, 20 February.
7. The bandage is usually taken off not long after a dog races and it is usually fine but, prior to a race when it is getting excited, it will start wagging it again and it re-occurs.
8. HOMEBUSH HERO got home from Invercargill at about midnight on 22 February and he took it to their own vet, Dr Monique Koning, at 8.30am the following morning. She examined the tail after removing the bandage and agreed that the tail should be amputated. She booked this in for 12.30pm on 25 February. He also gave the dog a Caprieve (anti-inflammatory) and a Clavulox (antibiotic).
9. He was unable to explain how the tail got into that state between when he strapped it on the Sunday morning and when it was looked at after the race on Tuesday. He did not know when it could have happened. He wondered whether the dog had got it caught in the boxes when she came up with the lids.
10. Mr Irving asked Mr McInerney to confirm that the bandage had come off HOMEBUSH HERO on 16 February, two days after it had raced at Addington, having been taken off on 14 February after having raced at Invercargill on 13 February and reapplied before the race on 15 February. The bandage was then re-applied on Sunday, before travelling on Monday 21 February.
11. The witness said, in reply to a question from the Respondent, that there is a gap in the roll-a-door. The dog had come out upright. Its tail would have been up when the dog came down again. The dog then received a check (recorded in Stewards’ Report).

EVIDENCE OF CARLA HEDGES:
1. Ms Hedges was called by the Respondent to give evidence. She is employed by the McInerney kennel. Part of her duties is to do all of the strapping at home and at the track.
2. She said that, on the Sunday prior to the trip to Invercargill, Mr McInerney jnr was checking over the dogs as she was working on dogs. He brought in HOMEBUSH HERO, looked at her tail and decided to strap it for the trip because she always wags her tail. He proceeded to strap it and told her to keep an eye on it on the trip. She did so, kept an eye on her. No blood had appeared on the bandage, the dog seemed quite happy and there was no reaction from the dog when she squeezed the tail before kennelling her. The white strapping was coming a little loose so they applied some black tape to keep it on.
3. The Respondent said that he placed the dog on the vet’s table for inspection by the vet. The dog seemed “fine” up to that stage, Ms Hedges said.
4. She had been present when Mr McInerney jnr initially put the bandage on and the injury was nothing like it looked when the bandage was removed post-race. She said that, prior to bandaging, there was no smell and the wound was “obviously quite fresh”.
5. Mr Irving asked the witness whether she was familiar with the provisions of the Welfare Code and the requirement to visually and physically inspect a greyhound at least once daily. She attested that she checked the dog on the Monday by squeezing the tail with no reaction. The bandage was not removed because it was not easy to take it off and put it on again. There was no blood on the bandage. She saw no need to take the bandage off.
6. The Respondent asked Ms Hedges how regularly HOMEBUSH HERO would have been checked on the trip to Invercargill and how many times on the Monday. It would have been checked at each of the three stops on the trip. It would have been taken out, walked, fed. After the staff breakfasted, the dogs would be taken out again, walked and checked. Prior to kennelling on raceday, she was checked again before handing her over to the Respondent. The Respondent had helped her put the black tape on.
7. Mr Irving asked whether it would not have been prudent, being aware of an existing injury/wound, to check 48 hours later prior to racing by removing the bandage and checking under it. There was no blood on the bandage, she said. Neither did she consider the injury to be a serious one. There was blood present on the bandage after the race and before it was removed.
8. Finally, Mr Irving asked Ms Hedges whether she recalled where the wound was and how big it had been prior to bandaging on the Sunday. She could not say exactly but agreed with the Respondent that it was “pink and raw”, but right at the tip and much smaller than the wound when uncovered post-race.

GREYHOUND PRODUCED
The Respondent had Johnny McInerney bring a Greyhound into the hearing room to illustrate a wound similar to that which HOMEBUSH HERO, he claimed, would have had prior to it being bandaged on the Sunday prior to the Tuesday race. The wound on the dog produced had healed and “crustified over”, but HOMEBUSH HERO’s was pink and raw with a bit of blood but the same size and in the same place, at the tip of the tail, it was alleged.

EVIDENCE OF DR MONIQUE KONING (VETERINARY SURGEON):
1. Johnny McInerney had brought the dog to her early on the morning of Wednesday, 23 February. The tail was incredibly painful when she saw it, which was to be expected. A photograph was produced. The wound was reasonably similar to how it appeared in the photographs taken after the race when the bandage had been removed. An appointment for amputation was made on her advice.
2. The wound that she inspected was quite clean so she was unable to say when it first got into that condition. It could happen quite quickly, she said, possibly in one day. It was quite likely that it had happened as a result of the tail striking something. The bandage would have helped but there is virtually no healing power in the tail, because there is no tissue.
3. Looking at the photograph taken after the race, she said that there was not much necrotic tissue. There was no fresh blood but the bandage would have, hopefully, prevented that. It was put to her that there was not a lot of blood on the bandage.
4. If the wound had been in that condition at the pre-race inspection, she would have expected some reaction from the dog. Pain tolerance does vary from dog to dog. Post-race adrenaline could also possibly affect the dog’s pain tolerance. The injury must have happened sometime between the pre-race and post-race vet inspections, she said.
5. Cross-examined by Mr Irving, Dr Koning said that the wound looked very similar in the photographs taken post-race and on the following Friday morning. The best indicator, however, was not the look of the wound but, rather, how the dog reacted to it pain-wise. The bandage was masking the tail, “splinting” it, using the tailbone as a splint. Ideally, a bandage should be taken off to check any possible wound but, in a racing situation, this is not feasible. A vet cannot rely on a bandage; it has to be taken off. A wound can deteriorate very quickly.
6. It was possible that, when the tail was first bandaged, there may have been an infection festering underneath the known wound that could not be observed until it burst open. The tail may have been bandaged in good faith with the infection sitting there so the wound would have been older, and appeared older.

CLOSING SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT:
1. Mr Irving referred to the requirement in the NZGRA Health & Welfare Standards that “greyhounds must be visually and physically inspected at least once daily to monitor their health and welfare”.
2. The witness, Carla Hedges, gave evidence that she inspected the dog but, given that there was knowledge on the Sunday of an injury/wound to the point that it required strapping or bandaging, there is an added expectation, with an existing injury, that it should be checked properly, especially after 48 hours, by removing the bandage and inspecting the tail on the morning of the race. That would have revealed, he submitted, the injury that was shown in the photographs produced.
3. It was the position of the Applicant that the further damage to the wound did not occur from being kennelled at the racetrack, from jumping from the boxes or during the race, but that the wound had deteriorated over the preceding 48 hours from a “reasonable amount of infection” causing the wound opening further up the tail to a wound of 7-8 centimetres in length. Had that check been done, it would have been discovered. It would have been discovered also had Dr McCurdy removed the bandage as part of the pre-race inspection.
4. Given that the animal welfare aspects of Greyhound Racing are under the spotlight at the present time, compliance with the welfare standards in the Welfare Code in clauses 8.1 to 8.3 is particularly important.
5. The seriousness of the wound is shown by the fact that it resulted in amputation of the infected part of the tail.

CLOSING SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:
1. The Respondent submitted that, as far as the Health & Welfare Standards are concerned, he and his staff had done all that was required of them. The dog was bandaged, as it had been on two prior occasions, for the same injury. Had the dog had an underlying infection, they would have been aware of it.
2. The dog travelled the day after it was bandaged. It was checked, walked and fed on at least three occasions. It had been further checked on the day of its race. The tip of its tail was checked for any pain and the bandage inspected for signs of blood. It was further checked prior to kennelling and, at the pre-race inspection, it was checked and passed fit to race by Dr McCurdy.
3. The Respondent submitted that the condition of the injury deteriorated as quickly as it had as a result of sitting in a kennel for 11 races, or in the boxes where the tail gets wagging. He could think of no other explanation but there are a number of possibilities, he submitted. The dog has now had its tail “fixed” and is back racing.

REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The Respondent, Licensed Greyhound Trainer, John McInerney, has been charged with a breach of the NZGR Health & Welfare Standards (“the Welfare Code”).
2. Paragraph 8.1 of the Welfare Code provides that “all greyhounds must be visually and physically inspected at least once daily to monitor their health and welfare”. That requirement is the crux of this case.
3. Mr McInerney is the trainer of the Greyhound, HOMEBUSH HERO, which was taken to race at the meeting of Southland Greyhound Racing Club at Ascot Park, Invercargill, on 22 February last.
4. The Greyhound performed poorly in the race, and a post-race veterinary check was ordered by the Stewards. The Veterinarian, Dr Terri McCurdy, reported on the condition of the tail, that had been bandaged, “Infected tail – bone exposed. Clip & clean, Rebandage”. Photographs of the wound, produced at the hearing, revealed “a 6-7cm long necrotic tissue wound with the tail bone exposed along the length of the wound”.
5. We heard evidence that HOMEBUSH HERO had a pre-existing “happy tail” injury. The tail had been bandaged for earlier races at Invercargill on 13 February and at Addington on 15 February. It was removed on 16 February, the next day following the Addington race and, relevantly, reapplied on Sunday, 20 February, in preparation for travelling to Invercargill.
6. That evidence is significant as evidence of a known injury that the dog had, that was being looked after by bandaging for each of its two races prior to the race at Invercargill on 22 February. We believe that this is significant in that it showed that there was enough concern for the dog’s welfare as early as 13 February.
7. The witness, Johnathan McInerney, gave evidence that the wound, when he bandaged it on Sunday, 20 February, was approximately 1cm from the tip if the tail. The witness, Carla Hedges, had seen the injury before it was bandaged and confirmed that and said that there was blood only at the very end. Later, she said that the wound was “pink and raw”. This ought to have raised cause for concern.
8. Dr McCurdy gave evidence that, when she removed the bandage, she could see and smell infection indicating to her that the wound was 1 to 3 days old. There was also an area of dried, darker blood at the distal (tip) end of the tail. She said that it was feasible for the wound to be only 1-2 cm long on the Sunday, but to worsen, with the infection causing further damage to form necrotic (dead or dying) tissue after a couple of days.
9. Dr McCurdy also gave evidence that there would normally be a reaction from a dog, with an injury in that condition, when inspected, but not necessarily if the painful area was not touched. She added that a tail injury should be looked at every 1-2 days.
10. The Respondent’s Veterinarian, Dr Monique Koning, inspected HOMEBUSH HERO on the morning of 23 February. She found the wound to be similar to what it was in the photograph taken after the race, but it was clean and she was unable to say when it got into that condition. She added that it could happen quickly, possibly in one day. When she looked at the photograph, she did not see a lot of necrotic tissue and there was no fresh blood. Neither was there any fresh blood but, she said, the bandage would probably have prevented that. She proffered the opinion that the injury must have happened sometime between the pre-race and post-race vet inspections. Dr Koning’s evidence was of limited assistance, as her involvement with the dog’s injury was post-race.
11. It cannot be explained how, what we heard was a minor tail wound, some 1-2 cm in length at the very tip of the dog’s tail, could become the nasty wound depicted in the post-race photographs. A number of theories were advanced, principally by the Respondent, but the Committee finds that the cause was, most likely, a rapid deterioration in the wound between Sunday and Tuesday, through having been neglected and not inspected. We are satisfied that, had the wound been inspected in the interim – that is to say, between Sunday and Tuesday – its state of deterioration would have been apparent.
12. The Welfare Code is specific in requiring that the Greyhound should have been “visually and physically inspected at least once daily”. This was an injury known to the Respondent and/or his staff and there was evidence that they were aware that the injury had existed at least as early as 13 February, prior to racing on that day. This was 9 days prior to the Invercargill race which resulted in the present charge.
13. It appeared that Carla Hedges was the person responsible for looking after HOMEBUSH HERO in Invercargill. She stated that she was aware of the requirements of the Welfare Code. Her “inspection”, on the day prior to the race, involved inspecting the bandage and squeezing the dog’s tail for blood. The bandage was not removed as part of the “inspection” because, Ms Hedges said, it was too hard to take off and put on again.
14. The Committee finds that such a cursory inspection did not meet the required standard under the Welfare Code. The dog had an injury that had been known to the Respondent and his staff for a week when it was bandaged on Sunday, 20 February. In the light of this knowledge, it was reasonable to require them to carry out a thorough check on that known injury prior to presenting the dog to race which, as a minimum should have involved removing the bandage to check the updated state of the injury, given that it had been bandaged on Sunday some 48 hours earlier, that the dog had undergone a long trip to Invercargill, and that it had been kennelled for all of Monday and part of Tuesday, before being presented to race on Tuesday. The Committee finds that it was neglectful not to have carried out such a check, and a breach of the Welfare Code.
15. The Committee finds that it is most likely that the fully-blown wound would have been discovered had the bandage been removed on the Monday or, at the latest, Tuesday pre-race. We do not accept that the state of the wound had worsened as a result of anything that happened after the dog was kennelled and it is pure speculation to suggest and most unlikely, given Dr McCurdy’s evidence, that the wound got into the state it was as a result of anything that happened before the start of the race, upon leaving the boxes or during the race.
16. In any event, this case is not particularly concerned with the exact mechanism in which the wound worsened. Rather, it is the lack of follow-up in checking the status of the known wound. Putting aside the suggestion that this wound occurred post the pre-race vet check, as that suggestion is not accepted by the Committee, or regardless of whether the wound had worsened as a result of wagging or being kennelled prior to the pre-race vet check, the obligation remains on the Respondent to have checked the wound.
17. In reaching its decision, the Committee has placed considerable weight on the evidence given by Dr McCurdy, which we found compelling. Her qualifications and experience with racing Greyhounds are not in dispute, and she was the person best qualified to comment on the state of the dog’s injury, being the “first responder”, as it were. It is accepted that the severe decline of the tail wound was not identified at the pre-race inspection stage. However, the Committee places weight on the status of the wound at this point, referencing the necrotic tissue present and also the possibility of not touching the exact sore area of the tail. This is a case, we find, where it is clear that the use of smell and touch over top of a bandaged tail rather than removing the bandage to inspect the tail has led to the extent of injury being missed. That being said, however, the Committee is of the view that the wound should have been visually inspected by removing the bandage the day prior, or on raceday, in order to meet the Welfare Code. The Committee finds that, had this been done, the extent of the injury would have been discovered, meaning the dog would not have been presented to race.
18. The charge is one of not physically inspecting the dog in the 48 hours between its tail being bandaged and being presented to race, to ensure it was free of injury prior to racing. The Committee finds that the required standard of inspection under the Welfare Code was not met for the reasons given above.

DECISION:
The charge is found proved.

PENALTY AND COSTS:
The Applicant is required to file written submissions as to penalty and costs with the Registrar by not later than 31 May 2022. The Respondent is to file his written penalty submissions in reply by not later than 7 June 2022.

RG McKenzie
Chair