Greyhound vet guilty of disgraceful professional misconduct

Please note
This is an archived news story.

The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has this week found a Staffordshire-based veterinary surgeon guilty of disgraceful professional misconduct after he had administered a prohibited substance to a racing greyhound.

At a hearing that concluded on Wednesday [14 March 2007] Mr Mpho Lesolle MRCVS admitted to treating a greyhound - 'Past Experience' - for hypothyroidism, prescribing it with the prescription-only medicine Soloxine in February 2005 and advising its owner that he could race the dog.

The Committee heard that Past Experience had later that month won a 660m flat race at Perry Bar Greyhound Track in a greatly improved time.

A resulting full Stewards' Inquiry in November 2005 found that both Mr Lesolle and Mr Paul Meek, the dog's owner, had acted in breach of the National Greyhound Racing Club (NGRC) rules [see note 4] by allowing the dog to race (on Mr Lesolle's advice) while it was not free of medicines that could affect its performance or well-being.

Mr Meek was reprimanded and fined £300, and Mr Lesolle was severely reprimanded and fined £750.

The Committee heard expert evidence from Dr Jill Maddison and Dr Carmel Mooney MsRCVS who stated that Soloxine was the appropriate medication to give to a greyhound suffering hypothyroidism and that it would be inappropriate to then withdraw such daily medication from a hypothyroid greyhound.

They agreed, however, that to race a greyhound under such treatment would contravene the Club's rules.

Mr Lesolle told the Committee that his first duty of care as a veterinary surgeon was to the welfare of the animals. He had firmly believed that in prescribing Soloxine to Past Experience, he was returning the dog's metabolism to its normal state, which in his opinion at the time did not break the NGRC's rules.

However, he conceded at the hearing that his interpretation, upon reflection, was wrong and that he ought to have known it did contravene the rules.

After hearing all the evidence in the case, the Committee accepted that Mr Lesolle did not know his advice to Mr Meek was wrong but considered the NGRC's rule to be unequivocal.

Mr Brian Jennings, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee, said: "Mr Lesolle's failure to familiarise himself with the NGRC's rules, in his capacity as a licensed track veterinary surgeon, fell far below the standard expected of a veterinary surgeon in his position. The charge of disgraceful professional misconduct is therefore proved.

"However, we are mindful of the NGRC's penalties already imposed and, in view of the mitigation and testimonials advanced on Mr Lesolle's behalf, we have no wish to impose any further penalty on him.

"We do, though, expect Mr Lesolle to revisit and thoroughly familiarise himself with the NGRC's rules and conduct his practice accordingly."

For more information please contact:

Ian Holloway, Senior Communications Officer, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
020 7202 0727 / [email protected]

Notes for editors

1. The RCVS is the regulatory body for veterinary surgeons in the UK and deals with issues of professional misconduct, maintaining the register of veterinary surgeons eligible to practise in the UK and assuring standards of veterinary education.

2. RCVS disciplinary powers are exercised through the Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees, established in accordance with Schedule 2 to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (the 1966 Act). The RCVS has authority to deal with three types of case:

a) Fraudulent registration
b) Criminal convictions
c) Allegations of disgraceful professional conduct

3. The Disciplinary Committee is a constituted judicial tribunal under the 1966 Act and follows rules of evidence similar to those used in a court of law.

4. Rule 217 of the NGRC Rules of Racing states:

'A Greyhound, when taking part in a race or trial, must at that time, be free of medicines, tonics or substances that could affect its performance or wellbeing, the origin of which could not be traced to normal, or ordinary feeding. The only permitted exceptions to this rule are

(i) medicinal products which have been authorised by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate for the suppression of a bitches season, prescribed by a veterinary surgeon

(ii) medicinal products which have been authorised by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate as anti-parasitic drugs (for internal/external) parasites or as vaccines'

5. Further information, including the charge against Mr Lesolle and the Disciplinary Committee's findings and judgment can be found via RCVSonline at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.