Coursing club drops decision on trophy forfeiture

The Irish Coursing Club has agreed to set aside a decision that the teenage owner of a greyhound which won the Irish Coursing…

The Irish Coursing Club has agreed to set aside a decision that the teenage owner of a greyhound which won the Irish Coursing Cup in 1994 should forfeit the trophy and prize money of £10,000.

The High Court has been told that an ICC inquiry was held following a claim that caffeine was found in the dog's urine after it won the Irish Cup in February, 1994, at Clounanna, Co Tipperary.

Yesterday, Mr Liam Reidy SC, for the ICC, said terms had been agreed in the action brought against the club by Mr Uinseann Purtill, named as owner of Ballinveala Hobo, suing by his father, Mr Vincent Purtill, of Crecora, Co Limerick. But Mr Reidy said it did not follow from what he had said that the prize money went to the Purtills.

Counsel said it was "back to square one" and the situation which obtained immediately after the race. Because the Purtills' appeal to the High Court had acted as a stay of execution on the ICC decision, there had been no loss to the owner apart from that particular race.

READ MORE

An ICC general purposes subcommittee had declared the dog be disqualified from racing, coursing or breeding for two years and that the trophy and prize money be forfeited.

Mr James O'Driscoll SC, for the Purtills, had told Mr Justice McCracken his clients' primary claim was that there was perceived bias in the composition of the sub-committee.

It was alleged two members of the committee, Mr Brian Divilly, Claregalway, Co Galway, and Mr Michael G. Ryan of Commons, Co Tipperary, had an involvement with dogs in the competition. Both had sworn affidavits they did not have any gain of any financial kind.

Yesterday, Mr Reidy told Mr Justice McCracken he had been asked to state that in view of the Purtills' counsel, in his opening statement, saying this was not a case of "actual bias" on the part of the general purposes sub-committee but was concerned with a question of "perceived bias", the ICC was happy to have its order set aside. Further terms in the settlement were matters between the parties. Mr Justice McCracken approved.