A final report into the conduct of Tasmania's leading greyhound trainer has confirmed no animal welfare breaches were found, but he has been fined for using non-prescribed medication on a critically injured greyhound.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The five-month investigation by the Office of Racing Integrity and RSPCA Tasmania into a complaint against Exeter trainer Anthony Bullock involved statements from 12 witnesses centering on an incident at a Mowbray veterinary clinic on November 23.
In releasing the report - which largely follows a draft report leaked to Australian Community Media in March - ORI made two recommendations in an attempt to avoid a similar situation occurring again.
ORI recommended that an on-track vet surgeon be present at all greyhound events, including trials, or a maximum response time of 15 minutes be mandated. The other recommendation was for a review of euthanasia rules after the investigation found confusion and contradiction.
The incident involved greyhound Tah Bernard suffering a fractured right front foreleg during trials at Mowbray, after which Mr Bullock took the greyhound to a vet.
While at the vet, a woman - who made the complaint - queried why the dog was not being seen to, suggested there were options other than euthanasia, attempted to contact an animal refuge and then queried whether Tah Bernard could be surrendered to her.
She "started typing a message" to the animal refuge when Mr Bullock left with Tah Bernard, walking the dog on its back legs and supporting its front legs. A greyhound was heard to "strongly vocalise" at the trailer, but the investigation could not confirm if this was Tah Bernard or another greyhound in the trailer.
The report stated the situation was likely "physically awkward" for Mr Bullock attempting to manage two dogs at the same time.
Mr Bullock attempted to contact other vets and arranged to have one visit the next morning. He gave Tah Bernard two Onsior tablets which had been prescribed to another dog, and bandaged the injured leg, over two hours after the injury occurred.
A vet's report found the medication's effectiveness would have been reduced if the fracture was not splinted and the dog was not immediately confined to a cage.
Tah Bernard was euthanised the next morning.
The investigation looked into allegations regarding Mr Bullock's conduct at the clinic and the trailer, but did not find sufficient prima facie evidence of a breach of the Animal Welfare Act.
A steward's panel found Mr Bullock had breached the rules of racing by giving the greyhound non-prescribed medication.
The stewards found there were no aggravating factors and considered that Mr Bullock had been in the industry for 40 years with over 20,000 starters, and not breached rules in the past.
He was fined $1500, of which $750 is suspended.
On-track vet would have helped to avoid situation
The ORI report outlined how an on-track vet would have improved animal welfare outcomes and allowed for immediate treatment.
Vets only attend race meets, and not usually trials.
The report also discussed how an on-track vet could prevent greyhound trainers from coming into contact with people opposed to greyhound racing while visiting clinics.
"Aside from the contemporaneous treatment of animals, this will reduce the opportunity for the unnecessary conflict caused by trainers seeking treatment for greyhounds at public veterinary practices - where persons opposed to greyhound racing might be present," the report reads.
While Mr Bullock denied that he sought to have Tah Bernard euthanased at the Mowbray clinic - although this was within his rights if he had owner approval - vet staff had discussed the necessary paperwork and protocols for euthanasia.
The report found there was "a level of uncertainty" among staff about the process to follow regarding euthanasia of a greyhound.
"Whilst a framework does exist in relation to the destruction of animals with non-catastrophic injuries, there are a number of different documents which are produced by Tasracing as policy or guidance documents, and it was considered appropriate for the director to review these documents in the course of this investigation," the report reads.
"The documents when reviewed in the context of the investigation appeared to conflict in respect of certain information and there were other inconsistencies and errors.
"It is vital that it is appropriately considered and is accessible and accurate."
What do you think? Send us a letter to the editor:
Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content:
- Bookmark www.examiner.com.au
- Make sure you are signed up for our breaking and regular headlines newsletters
- Follow us on Twitter: @examineronline
- Follow us on Instagram: @examineronline
- Follow us on Google News: The Examiner