I have come across some disgraceful disciplinary decisions in my time but the one handed out to Seamus Cahill a few weeks ago is as bad as I have seen.
These are the main facts as I see them but you can form your own judgement on whether I am being fair and accurate by checking against the official GBGB report.
In brief, three weeks ago Seamus had to answer for a positive test on Live Annie when she ran in the Gymcrack Final at Kinsley back in April. Shortly after the semi finals, Seamus noticed that Live Annie had an eye infection. He treated her with some ointment. There was an unusual ten day gap between the semis and final. Anyway, the problem cleared up, and she ran in the final.
As in all category one finals, Annie was tested, as Seamus knew she would be, and she came back with a positive for dexamethasone which is an anti-inflammatory.
Seamus attended the enquiry in person and was, I believe, 100% truthful in his explanation, which I think makes perfect sense.
He had spotted that Annie had a ‘cold in the eye’, a problem he believed he had seen before and could easily treat. He used some ointment that had been used to treat a similar problem and cured it.
Yet to read the official report which seems to have made its conclusions solely on the evidence of the scientific advisor, Professor Tim Morris, you might think that Seamus has abused and been cruel to the bitch.
Firstly they refer to the range of side effects of the drug ‘including metabolic disturbances and response in the body’s response to infection, which by its nature could affect the performance and/or prejudice the wellbeing of a greyhound.’
Let’s start with the side effects. I don’t see any ‘possible’ or ‘potential’ in the official report. Which of us has ever taken any type of drug without seeing any number of ‘potential side effects include’, most of which didn’t occur? There is always the risk, but unless you accept it, no prescription would ever be issued for animal or human. If the ointment wasn’t deemed suitable and safe, Seamus wouldn’t have had it prescribed it in the first place.
Moving onto the ‘could affect the performance and/or prejudice the wellbeing of a greyhound’
So, would not treating her immediately, or hoping it would go away after a few days be better for her welfare? Who knows, after a few days of discomfort without treatment she might recover enough to race for the benefit of the owner, trainer, track and betting industry!
Virtually anything could affect the performance and /or prejudice the wellbeing of a greyhound. Even racing it. What a pile of face-saving, arse covering, politically-correct shit.
We then get into the timing of the treatment. Seamus claims that he finished the treatment outside the seven days required for the bitch to run. The prosecution came up with their scientific proof which implies that Seamus lied.
I accept that courts and inquiries have to form an opinion on whether people are telling the truth before they make a decision. But I wonder, if this was a court of law, would Seamus would be entitled to an expert to challenge Professor Morris’ view, which is at best, subjective? The GBGB’s whole case rested on this single opinion.
Unfortunately, Seamus is a greyhound trainer and it would probably cost him hundreds, if not thousands of pounds, to challenge the GBGB’s paid ‘expert’ with his own. What trainer can afford that? Is that natural justice?
Also – maybe I am being thick here – but were they really comparing ‘like with like?’ Professor Morris’ evidence appears, from what I read, to be based on tests of absorption rates following injection, not ointment.
Moving on, Seamus did use an ‘old’ opened tube of ointment, but there is not a trainer in the country who hasn’t done it. When the vets label these products with the names of the animals to be treated, they invariably write ‘various’ as was written on the tube Seamus used.
If Professor Morris’ had a child who had an upset tummy, would his wife throw away a bottle of medicine because it had been opened two weeks earlier?
The panel then laid into Seamus for not being qualified to diagnose the problem. Isn’t that what greyhound trainers do every day? Are they not saying, ‘I think that dog is lame?’, ‘it needs a rest’, ‘it has a sore shoulder?’. Are the vets the only ones capable of making a decision?
If Seamus thought she had a shoulder problem, would he have to ask a vet whether or not he could treat it?
So before going onto what really pisses me off about this whole thing, let’s just recollect that Seamus, who has been handling animals throughout his entire life, detected and cured a problem which enabled Live Annie to endure minimal suffering in the shortest period and then race.
While I accept that we cannot have a ‘wild west’ in terms of trainers treating their dogs with any kind of drugs they can get their hands on, this was clearly not the case. To charge Seamus with acting in a manner ‘prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct and good reputation of greyhound racing’ is just obscene.
Tell you what guys, you pay for a vet every day to check over every dog and take that responsibility away from the trainer who is just a handy scapegoat!
None of this is what really sickens me – I will tell you what does.
Seamus went into the inquiry and told the truth. He didn’t even take the ‘bail-out’ option offered by Professor Morris of blaming the meat. He would still have been charged, but the penalty would not have been as severe. He held his hands up, knowing that no matter how sound his excuse, he was responsible for a greyhound who had failed a drugs test. Instead, he was called a liar. He was expecting fine of probably £500-£600. He was actually fined £1,750!
Where on earth does a greyhound trainer come by that sort of money? You wouldn’t get a fine like that for winning the Epson Derby! It was also about three times the fine for some no too ancient cases where the drugs found were clearly being administered to stop a dog from winning. In my opinion, an off-the-scale more serious offence.
What’s more, Seamus is employed by Coral who have a proven record for sacking trainers with positive tests.
So the advice to trainers is clear. In future, don’t go into an inquiry and tell the truth. Be Manuel ‘I know nothing’. It might save you money.
Finally, this is not the first case recently where trainers have told me that they have come out of an enquiry feeling as though they have been treated with a complete lack of respect by the stewards. There is absolutely no need for it.
If I had been in Seamus’ position, I would have left my training licence on the table.
