Daniel Nixon

The appellant, a standardbred racehorse trainer, appealed a penalty imposed after his horse tested positive for a prohibited drug.

The positive test resulted from environmental contamination caused by the horse's groom, who took prescribed medication and frequently urinated in the horse's stall.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that the appellant established a defence of due diligence, as he took reasonable care and could not have reasonably foreseen the contamination.

The appeal was allowed in part; the $2,000 fine and two-year probation were maintained, but the six-month suspension was deleted.

The appellant, a horse trainer, appealed a ruling imposing a $2,000 fine, a six-month suspension, and two years' probation following a positive test for a Class 2 prohibited drug in a horse.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that the appellant met the burden of proof to show due diligence on a balance of probabilities.

The panel allowed the appeal in part, deleting the suspension entirely while confirming the $2,000 fine and the two-year probationary period.

The appellant, a standardbred racehorse trainer, appealed a ruling imposing a $500 fine and a 7-day suspension after his horse tested positive for furosemide above the permitted limit.

The appellant argued the testing process was unreliable, the horse was an outlier, he exercised due diligence, and the penalty was too severe.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the testing process reliable and insufficient evidence to prove the horse was an outlier.

The panel also found the appellant failed to establish a due diligence defence, as no acceptable explanation for the positive test was provided.

The penalty was confirmed as fair and proportionate.

The appellant, a licensed standardbred trainer, appealed the penalties imposed by track judges after three of his horses tested positive for the Class II drug Yohimbine within a ten-day period.

The appellant had unknowingly administered the drug via an unlabeled supplement purchased from an unlicensed vendor.

The track judges originally imposed $20,000 in fines, 3 years of suspensions, and 2 years of probation.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel found that while the appellant failed to exercise due diligence, he did not intend to cheat and had no prior positive tests in 34 years.

The panel allowed the appeal in part, reducing the penalty to a concurrent $5,000 fine, a 1-year suspension (with the remaining 6 months stayed conditionally), and 2 years of probation.