Dr. Allison Moore

The appellant, a licensed horse trainer, appealed a one-year suspension, $5,000 fine, and two years' probation imposed after his horse tested positive for Ethanol, a Class II prohibited substance.

The appellant admitted to injecting the horse with vodka prior to a race to calm it down, but argued he was unaware of a recent notice regarding Ethanol testing and sought a reduced penalty based on a prior case involving procedural irregularities.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding that Ethanol had been a prohibited substance since 2008, the appellant failed to exercise due diligence by administering an unapproved substance without veterinary advice, and there were no compelling reasons to vary the minimum penalty.

The appellant, a licensed standardbred owner and trainer, appealed the penalty imposed after his horse tested positive for furosemide (Lasix) following a race.

The appellant argued that the positive test resulted from a faulty perivascular injection by a veterinary technician, which caused a longer elimination time for the drug.

The Panel found that the appellant demonstrated due diligence, albeit with some limitations, and accepted veterinary evidence supporting the perivascular injection theory.

The appeal was denied, but the penalty was varied by upholding the 7-day suspension while waiving the $500 fine.