Fine Only For Valium Positive In Dubbo Greyhound Winner
Written By Kevin Pitstock Monday 27th August 2012
Greyhound Racing NSW Stewards have just released details of a stewards inquiry that took place on Wednesday 22 August 2012.
GRNSW Stewards inquired into analystâ€™s reports that the post-race urine sample taken from Te Mata Dorris after that greyhound won the Sportingbet Maiden, at the Dubbo meeting on Thursday 24 April 2012, had been analysed and confirmed to contain the prohibited substances Oxazepam and Temazepam.
Evidence was taken from owner/trainer Warren Jarvis, his partner Julie Carter and Dr Adam Cawley, Science Manager of the Australian Racing Forensic Laboratory. Written evidence was entered from the Australian Racing Forensic Laboratory, the Racing Science Centre (Qld) and Dr Craig Suann the Senior Official Veterinarian for Racing NSW.
In evidence, Mr Jarvis gave an admission that a quarter of one Valium tablet was given to the greyhound in amongst its breakfast on the morning of the race in question, and that thisadministrationwas reliant upon advice given by his veterinarian to counter poor box manners which was causing the greyhound to have back problems.
Mr Jarvis pleaded guilty to a charge under Greyhound Racing Rule 83(2)(a) in that he presented Te Mata Dorris for the race in question not free of a prohibited substance as the urine sample taken from the greyhound was found to contain Oxazepam and Temazepam.
After considering submissions on penalty Mr Jarvis was fined the sum of $1,000.
In determining penalty, Stewards took into consideration that Mr Jarvis had no history in relation to this rule since being licensed in 1994; the guilty plea entered by Mr Jarvis together with his forthright evidence; his personal circumstances and the hobbyist nature of his training; his involvement in the industry which involves having 35 greyhounds on his property which is said to be of health assistance to him due to a previous injury which prevents him from obtaining other employment; his reliance on veterinary advice prior to administration albeit with a degree of negligence on his behalf given he had an incomplete understanding of what the administration might produce; the nature of the substance involved being the first of its kind; previous penalties given to other persons in relation to the rule and the effects that such findings have on the image of greyhound racing.
Under Greyhound Racing Rule 83(4) Te Mata Dorris was disqualified from the race in question and placings amended accordingly.
Mr Jarvis was advised of his right of appeal.