Ontario Racing Commission
RULING NUMBER COM SB 027/2012
COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – JULY 23, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF THE RACING COMMISSION ACT S.O. 2000, c.20;
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING BY
STANDARDBRED LICENSEE JAMES W. MARCHMENT
On June 4, 2012, the Judges issued Standardbred Official Ruling SB 43392 wherein James Marchment (Marchment) (C2905) was given the penalty of a $500 fine for violation of SB Rule 6.20 (b), misconduct prejudicial to the best interests of racing, by supplying medications to another participant. The medications supplied were not prescribed by a veterinarian for the horse Lizabel.
On June 6, 2012, Marchment filed a Notice of Appeal, pursuant to Rule 24.01(b) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.
On July 23, 2012, a Panel of the Ontario Racing Commission (ORC), comprised of Commissioner John Macdonald, convened for the purpose of hearing this matter.
Neil McCoag appeared on behalf of the Administration of the ORC. Marchment attended the Hearing and was unrepresented.
After reviewing the evidence, hearing the testimony of Judge Craig Walker, Investigator Oleh Kupraty, Chief Veterinarian Dr. Bruce Duncan and Marchment, and upon considering the closing submissions, the Panel denied the appeal but reduced the fine to $200.
The transcript of the Panel’s Reasons for Decision is attached to this Ruling.
DATED at Toronto this 31st day of July 2012.
BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION __________________________________
John L. Blakney Executive Director ONTARIO RACING COMMISSION
STANDARDBRED HEARING
IN THE MATTER THE APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING OF JAMES W. MARCHMENT
Held Before: John Macdonald, Commissioner
These are an excerpt of the proceedings in the above mentioned matter held before The Ontario Racing Commission, Re: JAMES W. MARCHMENT, taken before Toronto Court Reporters, Suite 1410, 65 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, at 10 Carlson Court, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario, on the 23rd day of July, 2012.
Appearances: Neil McCoag, agent for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration
Hearing continued ...
MR. CHAIRMAN: The difficulty I have here is that notwithstanding your good intentions, Mr. Marchment, there are certain things that people would consider somewhat negligent but then because you were helping a friend to treat a horse that was described to you as being ill. The first thing is you did not see the horse and I don't think you would ever do that again probably but if there is a next time you are saying you are going to do it again but you would probably at least see the horse and you heard Dr. Duncan tell you that mucous could come from a number of different illnesses. As a veterinarian he would be able to help identify that if he was there. Now you did try to get a veterinarian. You tried one. There is unfortunately not as many in the area. There was a second one but there didn't appear to be any attempt. Now what we don't know and there is no one to inform. This is 8:00 on a Sunday night and this horse has developed mucous that evening or was it there all day. There is no evidence as to how long this horse had shown that symptom and that's just one symptom, although, you did indicate or someone did that there was a cough as well. Now I'm not a veterinarian and I don't do horse training. It could have the heaves for all I know. There are different things for different views and the second problem that you had was that the drugs that you had were for your horses. Now you have indicated and Dr. Duncan confirmed Borgal is not a prescription drug so that's not the problem. That's why I was asking you about the trade name. Gentisin is a prescription drug and that's one that should not have been used for any other purpose than your own horses which had been prescribed for you. Those drugs that you had prescribed for you were for your own use and your use only for your horses and as much as you wanted to help a friend that was not the way to go about it unfortunately under our current rules. It was a prescription drug and to be used not for someone else. The Commission does have the power to go off track to do investigations into medications and interview witnesses and that sort of thing but this, that's not the case. Here is they want to discourage a friend, acquaintance from using prescription drugs at their facility for someone else's animal without having even seen the horse, which makes it even worse and there should have been a veterinarian and that's my biggest offence here. Now I understand your motivation and I don't think this is the sort of thing that, notwithstanding what you say you might do, that you would do the same thing again without at least going a step or two further like a veterinarian and even seeing the horse yourself and then you would stick with non prescription drugs. Now notwithstanding all of that I find that there is some mitigating circumstance here, your desire to help, so I'm going to reduce the fine from $500.00 to $200.00 but I clearly want to see that there should be a fine so you understand this is not something that you should do, notwithstanding that you wanted to help a friend. Any questions?
MR. MCCOAG: No, sir.
MR. CHAIRMAN: This matter is terminated.
MR. MCCOAG: Thank you.
CERTIFIED CORRECT________________________________
RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR Commissioner of Oaths