Dr. Michael Weber

The appellant, a horse trainer, appealed a 5-year suspension and $20,000 fine imposed after two of his horses tested positive for aminorex.

The Ontario Racing Commission Panel found that while the absolute liability rule for positive tests prevailed, the appellant had exercised due diligence and no causal link or source for the aminorex could be established.

Consequently, the Panel allowed the motion to vary the penalty, setting aside the suspension and eliminating the fine in its entirety, while placing the appellant on probation for six months to permit ongoing investigations and out-of-competition testing.

The appellant, a horse trainer, appealed penalties imposed after two horses tested positive for aminorex, a Class I drug.

The panel heard expert testimony that the only known source of aminorex, other than direct administration, was through levamisole, which was not implicated here.

Given the absolute liability rule but the lack of a determined source for the drug, the panel adjourned the appeal for six months to allow for further investigation into other potential causal links and alternative measures for dealing with aminorex positives.

A conditional stay of the penalties was granted in the interim.

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.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee and trainer, appealed two rulings suspending him and imposing fines after a horse he trained tested positive for furosemide.

The Ontario Racing Commission heard expert testimony that the horse was a rare outlier unable to metabolize the drug normally, and that the appellant had done everything possible to comply with the rules.

The Commission granted the appeal and reduced the fines and suspensions to zero, applying the strict liability defence.

The appellants, a licensed owner and a licensed trainer, appealed Notices of Proposed Orders to suspend their licenses for three years following the death of their horse after a race.

Toxicology testing revealed the presence of Reserpine, a prohibited tranquilizer.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that the drug was administered after the horse was claimed, but could not identify who administered it.

Applying the Trainer Responsibility Rule, the Commission held the trainer of record responsible as the de facto trainer, but allowed the owner's appeal due to a lack of evidence of his complicity.

The trainer's penalty was varied to a one-year suspension and a $5,000 fine, considering his long history in the industry and candour.

The licensee, a thoroughbred trainer, appealed a Stewards' ruling that suspended her for one year and fined her $5,000 after her horse tested positive for caffeine, a Class II drug.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel found no evidence that the caffeine came from an external contaminant or previous exposure to coffee.

However, considering the licensee's good record and lack of intent to gain an unfair advantage, the panel allowed the appeal in part, reducing the suspension to six months and the fine to $2,500.

The appellant, a thoroughbred trainer, appealed a Stewards' decision suspending him for one year and fining him $5,000 after his horse tested positive for codeine and morphine, both Class I drugs.

The appellant argued the positive test resulted from environmental contamination, specifically poppy seeds or human source contamination.

The Commission rejected this defense, finding it could not account for the presence of codeine and that the appellant failed to meet the strict liability standard of taking all reasonable care to protect the horse.

The appeal was denied, but the Commission stayed the last two months of the 12-month suspension in recognition of the appellant's previous good record.

The appellant, a standardbred owner/trainer, appealed a ruling suspending him for 180 days and fining him $5,000 after his horse tested positive for Phenylpropolamine.

The appellant argued the horse must have come into contact with the drug while in the retention barn.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the trainer is strictly liable for the condition of the horse and that the evidence did not establish that the horse was contaminated in the retention barn.

The appellant horse trainer appealed a ruling that found him in violation of the Rules of Standardbred Racing after his horse tested positive for elevated TCO2 levels.

The appellant argued that the test was invalid because the blood sample was taken 28 minutes prior to the race, outside the 20-minute window prescribed by the rules.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, accepting expert evidence that taking the sample further from race time actually benefited the horseman.

The panel concluded that the elevated TCO2 level could only result from human interference and upheld the violation.