RULING NUMBER COM SB 016/2015
COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – JUNE 26, 2015
NOTICE OF DECISION
IN THE MATTER OF THE RACING COMMISSION ACT, S.O. 2000, c.20;
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING OF ANTHONY MACDONALD AND CHRISTOPH GROSSENBACHER
Anthony MacDonald, licence # 194G79, appealed against Rulings Number SB 46161 and SB46162, wherein he was charged for violation of Rules 9.09 (b), 26.02.01, 26.02.02 and 26.02.03 (c) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.
Christoph Grossenbacher, licence # 6A1517, appealed against Ruling Number SB 46163, wherein he was charged for violation of Rule 8.11 (i) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.
Date of Hearing: June 26, 2015
ORC Panel: John W. Macdonald, Commissioner
Counsel for the Appellants: Robert Burgess
Counsel for the Administration: Catalin Tripon
Decision:
The Panel allowed the appeals and eliminated the suspension and fines.
As a result of the decision allowing the appeal for Mr. Macdonald, the original placing of the horse in the race will be restored and the purse distribution will be made pursuant to such placing.
A transcript with the Panel’s oral Reasons for Decision is attached to this Notice.
DATED at Toronto this 14th day of July 2015.
Jean Major
Executive Director
ONTARIO RACING COMMISSION
STANDARDBRED HEARING
IN THE MATTER OF THE RACING COMMISSION ACT, 2000, S.O. C.20 AND THE RULES OF STANDARDBRED RACING:
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEALS AND REQUEST FOR HEARINGS OF ANTHONY MACDONALD AND CHRISTOPH GROSSENBACHER:
Held Before:
John Macdonald Commissioner
Sandra Meyrick Commissioner
These are an excerpt of the proceedings in the above mentioned matter held before The Ontario Racing Commission, Re: ANTHONY MACDONALD and CHRISTOF GROSSENBACHER, taken before Toronto Court Reporters, Suite 1410, 65 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, at 10 Carlson Court, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario, on the 16th day of June, 2015.
Appearances:
Catalin Tripon,
For the Ontario Racing Commission Administration
Robert Burgess, Q.C., for MacDonald and Grossenbacher
Hearing continued ...
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please be seated. Thank you all for your attention to this and the witnesses for coming. You have been a big help to us. We had a fair amount of speculation as to what happened here, everything from milk thistle that might affect the liver enzyme, fatty tissue which was another thing that wasn’t proven as to why that was a factor in the length of time it took to eliminate the mepivacaine. I looked at a number of things and the report on STONEBRIDGE RIDGE by Dr. Grossenbacher showed what he had done, when he had done it, the fact that it was 160 mgs. less than the suggested use by some of the material and the authorities where they might go as high as 300 mgs. We have a technical problem here that we all know about that is the trainer’s responsibility and Anthony MacDonald the appellant in one or two cases knows that. It’s an absolute liability rule but I think it was interesting to note that the judges, even though the guidelines for them show that the suspension is for a longer period of time and the fine is higher, that they felt that there was some good reason for doing a minimal suspension and fines. We also heard here, and it is not the first time, qualitative versus quantitative. It’s not the rule in Ontario. We still have the old rules where is you find a prohibited substance it is a positive test regardless. We had testimony that the small amount here, the 4.9 nanograms, had no effect on the horse’s performance. We understand that but that’s not what the rules here say. If you have a positive test it’s there. There was also interesting evidence and Dr. Llewellyn made that very clear that if the blood had been tested the metabolites would have shown whether the drug went through the horse or it didn’t go through the horse but notwithstanding that there was a positive test and it showed in the urine sample. When we got right down to it we have evidence that the guidelines, and that’s the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Association guidelines, the argument whether it is outdated or not kept up, testing may be more accurate than it used to be but in any event the evidence was that the guidelines were followed and we accept that and that makes a big difference in our mind that yes, it was a positive test and how it managed to survive that long with going past the guidelines is difficult because the trainer and the veterinarian, particularly in this case, followed what they expected. Yes, there is the section in the rules that say the trainer has the ultimate responsibility and you have to be careful and that’s where they tell you about the compounding factors of some but we looked at the materials and what the horse was given. The veterinarians that were asked all said that the 160 mgs., along with all the other things, should not have affected the guidelines. The guidelines should have been something that trainers and veterinarians particularly can rely on. We are disappointed obviously that they can’t in some cases and that’s why in the rules they say beware. I’d hate to say what the crude version of that is but this is something that they are protecting themselves by leaving that loophole. Well, we don’t think that loophole is good enough. We found here that the two veterinarians for the respondent and Dr. Llewellyn thought that the standard of care was exemplary. Dr. Robson backed it up and thought that the standard of care had been exercised and on the basis of that we are going to allow both appeals and obviously eliminate the suspension and the fines that went with it.
As a result of the decision allowing the appeal for Mr. Macdonald the original placing in the race will be restored and the purse distribution will be made pursuant to such placing.
Thank you all.
CERTIFIED CORRECT:_________________________________
RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR
Commissioner of Oaths