First the Dogs and now our Gallopers are on Methamphetamine!

[Chief Stipe]

59 minutes ago, Yankiwi said:

I expect to see a disqualification of 3 to 4 years after this appeal. 

That would be an injustice if they succeed.  Assuming you are meaning Turnwald's sentence.

[Taupiri Wonder]

1 hour ago, Yankiwi said:

 I expect to see a disqualification of 3 to 4 years after this appeal. 

I cannot agree with You on this Charles.

Unless You are referring to The LP who travelled south with Zipping Sarah!

I believe Trainer A Turnwald is no more likely to be guilty of administering P to her dog,than Big Red Sharrock to his two horses.

[Yankiwi]

3 hours ago, Taupiri Wonder said:

I cannot agree with You on this Charles.

Unless You are referring to The LP who travelled south with Zipping Sarah!

I believe Trainer A Turnwald is no more likely to be guilty of administering P to her dog,than Big Red Sharrock to his two horses.

Denis Schofield didn't administer any Meth to his dog & got 24 months. However Denis did offer a plausible reason how the dog came into contact with the Meth. In Denis's case, the agreed source was a family member who was not a GRNZ LP.

Keith Toomer didn't administer any Meth to his dog & got 14 months. However Keith did offer a plausible reason how the dog came into contact with the Meth. In Keith's case, the agreed source was a family member who was not a GRNZ LP.

Angela Turnwald didn't administer any Meth to her dog & got 4 months. Angela did not offer any plausible reasons as to how her dog could have come into contact with Meth until after the race & at the winning podium.

In Angela's case, since it was proven the Meth had to be ingested prior to the race and I suggest the most probable source would be one or more of these~

• the LP that traveled from Foxton to Chch with the dog,
• the friend of that same LP in Kaiapoi (LP ?),
• one of the owners (LP) or supporters of the owners (LP's?) that would have likely been in proximity or in contact with the dog prior to the race as well as after the race.

Obviously the initial defense was going to be the dog came in to contact with the Meth AFTER the race, therefore it wasn't "presented to race" with a class 2 drug in its system. Obviously, two of the owners or their supporters had admitted that they were holding a smoking gun, right?

 

[Chief Stipe]

On 26/05/2021 at 5:28 PM, Yankiwi said:

Denis Schofield didn't administer any Meth to his dog & got 24 months. However Denis did offer a plausible reason how the dog came into contact with the Meth. In Denis's case, the agreed source was a family member who was not a GRNZ LP.

Keith Toomer didn't administer any Meth to his dog & got 14 months. However Keith did offer a plausible reason how the dog came into contact with the Meth. In Keith's case, the agreed source was a family member who was not a GRNZ LP.

Angela Turnwald didn't administer any Meth to her dog & got 4 months. Angela did not offer any plausible reasons as to how her dog could have come into contact with Meth until after the race & at the winning podium.

In Angela's case, since it was proven the Meth had to be ingested prior to the race and I suggest the most probable source would be one or more of these~

• the LP that traveled from Foxton to Chch with the dog,
• the friend of that same LP in Kaiapoi (LP ?),
• one of the owners (LP) or supporters of the owners (LP's?) that would have likely been in proximity or in contact with the dog prior to the race as well as after the race.

Obviously the initial defense was going to be the dog came in to contact with the Meth AFTER the race, therefore it wasn't "presented to race" with a class 2 drug in its system. Obviously, two of the owners or their supporters had admitted that they were holding a smoking gun, right?

 

All you've established is that there is zero evidence that Turnwald was responsible for giving P to the dog.

You've also left out the possibility that it was an unidentified third party not connected to the kennel.

Also you are being lean with facts.  For example in the Scholfield case wasn't it established that Denis was helping to "play the system"?

Also in that case it wasn't a "plausible reason" that was offered it WAS the reason.  Therefore blame could be assigned.

The RIU and the JCA appeared to have accepted in the first hearing that Turnwald hadn't administered the P or knew about it.  Hence the offering of what turned out to be an implausible reason in the first instance.

She changed her plea after finding out that the results indicated that the dog ingested the P prior to the race.  That doesn't diminish the fact that she could only offer the explanation that she initially did.  

You could argue that she did the RIU and JCA a favour by pleading guilty to presenting a dog with P in its system.  That doesn't make her guilty of administering it.

My understanding is that neither Turnwald nor her partner when tested returned a positive to P.  In contrast in the other cases it was clearly established that there were people handling the dogs in the kennel who where P users.

[Guest Whyisit]

7 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Another point - although I disagree that the TA positive was swept under the carpet as due process was followed resulting in a disqualification and a fine you could point the finger at why was the P cases at New Plymouth "swept under the carpet"?

Maybe someone was in line for tap on the shoulder by the queen.

[Chief Stipe]

6 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

Shut up & know nothing is what I'd expect to hear from the accused & their connections if foul play was possibly at hand. I expect to see a disqualification of 3 to 4 years after this appeal. 

Why would you expect 3 to 4 years when the RIU at the original hearing only asked for 14 months?

 

From the Judgement:

(f) Apart from the mandatory disqualification of the greyhound from the race, the RIU submitted that the Respondent be disqualified for 1 year 2 months......

However, it accepts that those cases involved facts where there was a connection between some person attached to the stable complex having had a past history of Methamphetamine use – which is not the situation in this case.....

19. We do not see that a lengthy disqualification is appropriate in a case such as this. It is important that Trainers take all possible steps to comply with the Rules, and there is crucial need to deter other, and to signal to the Greyhound Industry that Methamphetamine related breaches cannot be tolerated. A fine is not sufficient to meet the various sentencing factors. We conclude that an order for disqualification is necessary.....

20. We take as a starting point 8 months disqualification. There are no aggravating factors. We accept, and give credit for, the Respondent’s blameless record, over a lengthy period of successfully training Greyhounds. We note that she has paid the winning stake to her syndicate owners and recognise that she is further “punished” through loss of her percentage of the winning stake, she also incurs the reputational loss of being the Trainer of the winner of a Prestige race. For those mitigating factors we allow a significant discount of 50%.....

That is how they got to 4 months.

The RIU wanted 14 months.

 

[Chief Stipe]

3 minutes ago, Whyisit said:

Maybe someone was in line for tap on the shoulder by the queen.

Why don't you just post what you think without the encryption?

[Guest Whyisit]

2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Why don't you just post what you think without the encryption?

At least Huey got it.  I think I got a bit of Thommo encryptilitus fever still getting over it sadly there is no vaccine available for it yet

[Freda]

On 24/05/2021 at 7:39 PM, jess said:

No-one's putting their hand up to administering P/meth to their animals. So there is a lot of talk about how a horse can "inadvertently" return a positive to meth - mostly supposition/speculation.  Like whether it can be picked up (absorbed through the skin, feet or by inhalation) in a box where a meth-user has pee'd in the corner - or from casual contact with an owner who's used P?   We really don't know for sure.  And in the ensuing investigation - how much do negative tests on the people associated to the horse mean?  If these are urine tests undertaken some time later - possibly not much, as P is so rapidly metabolized/excreted).   And we might never know about these various theories producing positive swabs in horses - I mean imagine designing a trial to test these (& other) theories - good luck getting that past an ethics committee! 

It’s all got me wondering though.  If there was an individual who was a meth addict & who worked with horses in several capacities (short of race-day riding) – would this be a concern?  Would it be any more of a concern if that person frequented a racing complex?  Would (– or should!) this situation attract attention/action from the authorities?  Not sure how many of you can think of someone you know, in your areas, who could fit this description – or partly fit the description.  But if you can – how come it’s allowed to continue?    

Besides those pesky positive race-day swabs – competent & focused investigations could yield benefits and enable risks to be mitigated.  What comes to mind is enhancing safety & integrity - & reducing exposure of young industry participants to drugs.  Who knows – it could also bring change & support to the hypothetical individual/s to get themselves clean & sorted?  God knows there are enough people hell-bent on shooting our industry down - why would we hand them the gun & the bullets? – because that’s what we seem to be doing currently. 

 No use being those 3 monkeys with their hands over their ears, eyes & mouth - that won't make it go away.  IMO there needs to be a more serious commitment to cleaning up our act.  Detecting & dealing with drug users in the industry will bring short term bad press – but allowing it to continue could wreak long term havoc – to horse, human and the viability of racing. So what will we choose?

J. 

Good post Jess.

I recently had an interesting conversation with a couple of former meth users, with whom I am quite well acquainted.  So, with this topic in mind, I thought I would try and understand some of the ramification wrt humans.  Obviously, equine metabolism/physiology is very different, so extrapolating responses of horses from human experience is probably not a lot of help.

Certainly though, from their experience, absorbing through the skin seems very unlikely.  Smoking, injecting, or ingesting, they said, some in prisons will eat it, as they have no 'equipment' to use to smoke/inhale.  A good hit?  high for five days to a week or more, so that being the case, it seems likely that a heavy user would certainly have traces in their system to be picked up in that time frame.

Thorny topic wrt horses, the 'ethics' point you made, certainly pertinent, but it seems that some sort of trial to test contamination options would really be the only way to stop people being hung out to dry for nothing - or, in the other case, getting properly dealt with.

As for therapeutic drugs - threshold levels seem fair to me, although not consistent with the need to present drug-free, necessary in most jurisdictions.  But, lay people must understand that the sensitivity of modern testing really needs a different response.

And, a slight digression - I was told by a stipe recently, that it was unacceptable to apply an animalintex to a horse post-race, under the current rules. I told him that the rules were effing ridiculous, and that it was an animal welfare matter. Didn't apply to me, the discussion  was hypothetical,  but I did say to him, in the context of the chat, that I would make a helluva fuss if I was prevented from caring for a horse injured after a race.

[Guest Whyisit]

According to  MaggieS on the other site something is coming up in the media later on today. Maybe on the Raceday boxes.

[Guest Whyisit]

Red is exonerated

  https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/racing/300319299/trainer-exonerated-of-any-blame-after-horses-tested-positive-for-meth

[Chief Stipe]

Environmental contamination AGAIN!  Although Sharrock has been exonerated the horses will still be disqualified and once again the Owners will suffer.

There needs to be something done to address the issue of having a zero tolerance threshold.  With environmental contamination it is very unlikely that the levels in the horse were performance enhancing let alone have any affect whatsoever.

 

[Thomass]

So good old Big Red had a wee chat in his bro's lug and guess what..

Bro being on the Board...pulled some strings...whispered sweet nothings in Cammy Georgus George's lug...

And they're having a review!

What a f in surprise that is!

[Gospel of Judas]

12 hours ago, Thomass said:

So good old Big Red had a wee chat in his bro's lug and guess what..

Bro being on the Board...pulled some strings...whispered sweet nothings in Cammy Georgus George's lug...

And they're having a review!

What a f in surprise that is!

Surprised Cammy, not got drinking mate off his we ban as well. Having Geogre on board in first place kind shows you how bad of shape NZ Racing is in. After all past performances in Racing industry.

[Huey]

Whats this one all about?

SHADOWS CAST | Manawatu 3 April; raced with prohibited substance in system; disqualified from 1st.

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Huey said:

Whats this one all about?

SHADOWS CAST | Manawatu 3 April; raced with prohibited substance in system; disqualified from 1st.

NON RACEDAY INQUIRY RIU V M OULAGHAN - DECISION DATED 6 JUNE 2021 - CHAIR, MR N MCCUTCHEON
Created on 31 December 2020

Before a Judicial Committee of the Judicial Control Authority under the Racing Act 2003

AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Thoroughbred Racing

BETWEEN Mr S Irving of the Racing Integrity Unit (RIU)

Informant

AND MR M OULAGHAN Licenced Trainer

Respondent

Information No. A14112

Charge: Admitted

Judicial Committee: Mr N McCutcheon, Chair - Mr B Mainwaring, Member

Present: Mr M Oulaghan, Respondent
              Mr R Cunningham, Owner of SHADOWS CAST
              Mr N Bullock (RIU)

Venue: Awapuni Racecourse, Palmerston North

Date of Oral Decision: 3 June 2021

Date of Written Decision: 6 June 2021

______________________________________________________________________________
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
______________________________________________________________________________

The Charge, Rules and Penalty Provisions

On the 03 April 2021 at Awapuni Racecourse, being the Registered Trainer and person in charge of the horse, presented ‘Shadows Cast’ to the Manawatu Racing Club’s meeting for the purpose of engaging in and did engage in Race 8 – the Bramco Granite & Marble Flying Stakes and failed to present the said horse free of the prohibited substance ‘Citirizine’, in breach of the NZTR Rule 804(2) and therefore subject to penalty pursuant to Rules 804(7) and 804(8).

Rule 804(2)
When a horse which has been brought to a Racecourse or similar racing facility for the purpose of engaging in a Race or trial to which the Third Appendix hereto applies is found by a Tribunal conducting an inquiry to have had administered to it or have had present in its metabolism a Prohibited Substance, as defined in Part A of Prohibited Substance Regulations, the Trainer and any other person who in the opinion of such Tribunal conducting such inquiry was in charge of such horse at any relevant time commits a breach of these Rules.

Rule 804(7)
A person who commits a breach of sub-Rule (2) or (3) or (4) or (5) or (6) of this Rule shall be liable to:
(a) be disqualified for a period not exceeding five years; and/or
(b) be suspended from holding or obtaining a Licence for a period not exceeding 12 months. If a Licence is renewed during a term of suspension, then the suspension shall continue to apply to the renewed Licence; and/or
(c) a fine not exceeding $25,000

Rule 804(8)
Any horse connected with a breach of sub-Rule (2) or (3) or (4) or (5) or (6) of this Rule shall be, in addition to any other penalty which may be imposed, disqualified from any Race or trial to which the Third Appendix hereto applies and/or be liable to a period of disqualification not exceeding five years.

A letter from Mr Godber, General Manager of the Racing Integrity Unit authorising the filing of the Information had been received by the Committee.

Mr Oulaghan confirmed that he understood the Rules and that he admitted the breach.

Summary of Facts
Mr Irving presented the following Summary of Facts, which Mr Oulaghan acknowledged, were agreed by him.

1. The Respondent, Mark Kenneth Oulaghan, is 64 years old and is a Licensed Class A Trainer under the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing New Zealand (NZTR).

2. Mr Oulaghan trains the 8yo gelding ‘Shadows Cast’ which won Race 8 - the Bramco Granite & Marble Flying Stakes’ Open Handicap, at the Manawatu Racing Club’s meeting at Awapuni Racecourse on 03 April 2021.

3. ‘Shadows Cast’ earned his owner Mr R. Cunningham gross stakes money of $27,000.

4. The horse was post-race swabbed (#79856) and on 15 April the NZ Racing Laboratory Services issued an Analytical Report detailing the sample positive to Citirizine.

5. Citirizine is a second generation antihistamine used to treat and prevent allergies such as rhinitis (hay fever) and skin allergies such as hives. It works by blocking the chemical histamine in the body which is released during an allergic reaction.

6. Under the Prohibited Substance Regulations for the Rules of Racing, Cetirizine is a prohibited substance under 1.1.2 and 1.1.7, capable at any time of causing either directly or indirectly an action or effect, or both an action or effect within one or more of the mammalian body systems.

7. Antihistamines are also specifically listed under 1.2.19 as a prohibited substance for the purpose of a horse racing on a raceday or a trial to which the Third Appendix applies.

8. Cetirizine is not registered under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) for use in horses in New Zealand, however there are recorded uses in the literature.

9. According to the NZTR Chief Veterinarian advisor, using the accepted Toutain model the withholding period for Cetirizine would be 5.6 days. In the European Horserace Scientific Liaison Committee (EHSLC) advisory the Detection Time is listed as 4 days.

10. On 21 April Mr Oulaghan was interviewed at his stables at Awapuni and detailed that he had given ‘Shadows Cast’ a course of ‘Zista’ as prescribed by his vet for the treatment of “mild hyperemia (in the) upper airways” discovered when the horse was scoped on 09 February.

11. ‘Zista’ is a human antihistamine containing 10mg of Cetirizone Hydochloride and is available across the counter at pharmacies.

12. The clinical particulars of Cetirizine as listed, is the relief of symptoms associated with seasonal allergic rhinitis and perennial allergic rhinitis. Symptoms treated effectively include sneezing, rhinorrhea, post-nasal discharge, nasal pruritus, ocular pruritus and tearing.

13. Mr Oulaghan stated that, based on vet advice, in the weeks leading up to the race he gave ‘Shadows Cast’ 10 tablets of ‘Zista’ in the evening feeds, including on the Thursday afternoon before the Saturday race.

14. He also stated that when the vet prescribed the ‘Zista’, he was not advised of any withholding time for the product.

15. Inquiries with the vet confirmed that she prescribed a 14 day trial course of Zista (140 tablets) on 09 February and would reassess the horse after that time.

16. She stated that there is no recommended withhold time (RWT) for Citirizine based on the Equine Veterinarian Association guideline that she refers to and that Citirizine is not listed on that List. She therefore believed that it was not a Restricted Veterinarian Medicine (RVM) or a Prohibited Substance. She did advise Mr Oulaghan not administer Zista on raceday or the preceding day.

17. On 10 March the vet re-scoped ‘Shadows Cast’ and following some improvement she prescribed another 14 days of Zista.

18. If used every day this course would have run out on 23 March, however Mr Oulaghan stated that he missed some days and therefore had enough supply to give 10 tablets on the Thursday before the race.

19. Mr Oulaghan did not contest the swabbing process.

20. Mr Oulaghan has trained racehorses since 1984 and his NZTR record details he has had approximately 4330 starts for 491 winners. He has no previous charges for breaching the Prohibited Substance Rule or any other NRI charges.

Penalty Submissions of the Informant
Mr Irving presented the following Penalty Submissions

1. The Respondent, 64 year old Mark Kenneth Oulaghan is a Licensed Class ‘A’ Trainer under the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing New Zealand.

2. He first held a Trainer’s Licence in 1984 and is currently training from his stables at Awapuni.

3. The Respondent has admitted a breach of Rule 804(2).

4. The circumstances are detailed in the attached Summary of Facts which have been agreed.

5. The penalties which may be imposed are detailed in the attached Charge Rule and Penalty Provisions Document.

6. The RIU believes that an appropriate penalty for this breach is a $5,000 fine.

7. Chief Veterinarian advisor to the RIU states in his report: Under the Prohibited Substance Regulations for the Rules of Racing the antihistamine Cetirizine and its metabolites are a prohibited substances under 1.1.2 and 1.1.7 of those substances at any time of causing either directly or indirectly an action or effect, or both an action or effect within one or more of the mammalian body systems and secondly antihistamines are specifically listed under 1.2.19 of substances falling within the categories of substances. (Refer attached Report)

8. Citirizine is listed under the EHSLC (European Horserace Scientific Liaison Committee) as having a 96 hour ‘Detection Time’ and estimated by the Chief Veterinarian Advisor to have a withhold time of 5.6 days. (Refer attached EHSLC Guideline)

9. Citirizine is not listed in the NZEVA guidelines for Prohibited Substances as there are no ACVM (Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines) registered products for use in horses on the market in NZ. It is not a Restricted Veterinary Medicine; however it states on the guidelines under the heading ‘A Guide for All NZVA Members’ that …“The list is not a list of all prohibited substances nor all drugs that are tested by the New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services”… (Refer attached NZEVA Guideline)

10. Although there is no requirement to establish the cause of administration for a breach of the Prohibited Substance Rule, the RIU investigation concluded that the positive swab resulted from the treatment of ‘Zista’ as prescribed to Mr Oulaghan by his vet.

11. ‘Zista’ is a human antihistamine with each tablet containing 10mg of Cetirizine Hydrochloride, available from pharmacies ‘over the counter’.

12. It was prescribed in 2x14 day courses of 10 tablets in the daily feed.

13. It is undisputed that the vet failed to inform Mr Oulaghan that ‘Zista’ was a prohibited substance and had an associated withhold time.

14. ‘Shadows Cast’ swabbed clear in his next race on 24 April at Riccarton, with the treatment of ‘Zista’ having been stopped three weeks earlier.

15. Mr Oulaghan did not bet on ‘Shadows Cast’. An analysis of TAB betting records revealed no unusual bets associated with the horse or the race.

16. As per the JCA Penalty Guidelines effective from the 01st May 2015 the starting point for a Thoroughbred or Harness Racing first ‘Presentation’ offence is $8000.

17. Under Rule 804(8) ‘Shadow’s Cast’ is required to be disqualified from the race.

PREVIOUS CASES
18. RIU v B Towers (2015) – HR trainer, 2x positives for same horse to the decongestant and bronchodilator Clenbuterol. Penalty: $4,000 fine. In this case the Trainer had been using a non-prohibited substance (Bromo Tmps) to treat his horse and when this finished, he requested more from his vet, however the vet gave him a similar product (Airway Tmps) which was prohibited. The Trainer disputed the vet had informed him that it was a different product which was prohibited and had a withholding period.

“In aggravation, the Committee considered that Mr Towers has had experience in the racing industry over a number of years and must understand that there is an onus of responsibility upon him to ensure he presents a horse for racing without a prohibited substance in its system. While it is clear that the evidence does not fully support the proposition that his vet Mr Robbins definitely advised him of a withholding period for the product Airways Tmps, Mr Towers accepts that the ultimate responsibility rests with him as the Licensed Trainer. It is also clear that he did not make adequate enquiry into the use of the Airways Tmps product…”

19. RIU v A Neal & L Neal (2015) – HR Trainers, positive to the anti-inflammatory Flunixin. Second breach. Penalty: $5,500. In this case the Trainer was treating the horse for a cold and was advised by the vet that it had a 4.2 day withhold. They gave it six days to be safe but still returned a positive.

“In assessing an appropriate Penalty, the Committee felt it necessary to have the views of the parties relative to the issue of negligence made known. We stated that there is no evidence of this matter involving an ‘illicit’ deliberate or intentional administration of Flunixin. In these types of hearings, where negligence may be an issue, there are 3 levels of such negligence: (a) deliberate (b) gross (c) a failure to take proper care.”

It is submitted that in the case of ‘Shadows Cast’ it has been the vet who has been negligent in not identifying ‘Zista’ as being a Prohibited Substance and having a detection time and therefore Mr Oulaghan can only be guilty of low-level carelessness, acting on vet’s advice in good faith, albeit from a relatively ‘junior’ and not his usual vet.

MITIGATING FACTORS
20. Mr Oulaghan has been fully cooperative throughout the investigation and admitted the breach at the first opportunity.

21. Mr Oulaghan was acting on advice from his vet who failed to advise him that the product prescribed was prohibited and also failed to advise him that the product had a withhold / detection time.

22. Mr Oulaghan has been involved in Thoroughbred Industry all his life and has an exemplary record throughout his 37 years of training.

23. The Respondent has had in excess of 4330 starts for 491 winners and has no previous breaches of the Prohibited Substance Rule.

AGGRAVATING FACTORS
24. Mr Oulaghan, although acting in good faith on the advice of a vet, still has the ultimate responsibility to take proper and reasonable care for what is administered to his horses.

25. The race was a Listed race with a $50,000 total stake.

26. The RIU are seeking no costs.

CONCLUSION
27. Given the recommended starting point of $8,000, the aggravating and mitigating factors as listed and the overall circumstances considered in this case, it is submitted that a $5,000 fine is an appropriate penalty.

Penalty Submissions by the Respondent
Mr Oulaghan asked that the Committee take into account his excellent record over many years and that his Veterinary Surgeon had failed to advise him that the product prescribed was prohibited and also failed to advise him that the product had a withholding/detection time. Mr Oulaghan added that he fully understood that it was his responsibility to present his horses drug free, but on this occasion, he felt that he had been let down by his vet.

Mr Cunningham, the Owner of 'Shadows Cast’ and in support of Mr Oulaghan said that the horse had been swabbed and blood-tested many times and on those occasions the results were always clear. He said that the reason the horse was treated on this occasion was because it was suffering from pollen or something of that nature. He added that Mr Oulaghan should have been advised of the withholding time by his Veterinary Surgeon whom you rely on for professional advice.

Reasons for Penalty
In giving due consideration to penalty, the following matters were taken into account:

- Mr Oulaghan’s exemplary record in racing since 1984

- The breach was admitted without undue delay

- Other penalties imposed for a breach of Rule 804(2)

- The Race was a Listed event with total prize money of $50,000

- A significant mitigating factor was that the Veterinary Surgeon failed to advise Mr Oulaghan that the product prescribed was prohibited and also failed to advise of the withholding/detection time. This was due to her believing that there was no recommended withholding time for the drug Citirizine based on the Equine Veterinarian Assn Guideline that she refers to and that Citirizine is not listed on that list. She therefore believed that it was not a restricted veterinarian medicine or a prohibited substance.

The JCA Penalty Guide starting point for a breach of Rule 804(2) is a fine of $8,000, however taking into account the aforementioned Reasons for Penalty the Committee determined that a fine of $4,000 was appropriate.

Penalty
Mr Oulaghan was fined $4,000.

Disqualification
Pursuant to Rule 804(8) ‘Shadows Cast’ was disqualified from the said event.

Costs
There was no order as to costs.

N McCutcheon
Chair

[Chief Stipe]

Essentially a stuff up with withholding times and poor vet advice.

[Freda]

A fundamentally honest man hung out to dry.

Shitty treatment. 

Edited June 15, 2021 by Freda

[nomates]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

Essentially a stuff up with withholding times and poor vet advice.

And what happened to the vet ? Are they not working within the racing industry when administering to racehorses ? Mark should not have had to carry this on his own , not when your paying big bloody dollars to a so called fully qualified professional and relying on them to know their job . Christ there is trainers i know that are barely literate , and they are supposed to know this shit , give me a fecking break .

[Chief Stipe]

1 minute ago, nomates said:

And what happened to the vet ? Are they not working within the racing industry when administering to racehorses ? Mark should not have had to carry this on his own , not when your paying big bloody dollars to a so called fully qualified professional and relying on them to know their job . Christ there is trainers i know that are barely literate , and they are supposed to know this shit , give me a fecking break .

Well Mark didn't quite help himself by not following the instructions to the letter.  He missed some days and then administered later.

That said what the Chief Vet was quoted as saying isn't exactly reassuring either!

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

7. Chief Veterinarian advisor to the RIU states in his report: Under the Prohibited Substance Regulations for the Rules of Racing the antihistamine Cetirizine and its metabolites are a prohibited substances under 1.1.2 and 1.1.7 of those substances at any time of causing either directly or indirectly an action or effect, or both an action or effect within one or more of the mammalian body systems and secondly antihistamines are specifically listed under 1.2.19 of substances falling within the categories of substances. (Refer attached Report)

8. Citirizine is listed under the EHSLC (European Horserace Scientific Liaison Committee) as having a 96 hour ‘Detection Time’ and estimated by the Chief Veterinarian Advisor to have a withhold time of 5.6 days. (Refer attached EHSLC Guideline)

9. Citirizine is not listed in the NZEVA guidelines for Prohibited Substances as there are no ACVM (Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines) registered products for use in horses on the market in NZ. It is not a Restricted Veterinary Medicine; however it states on the guidelines under the heading ‘A Guide for All NZVA Members’ that …“The list is not a list of all prohibited substances nor all drugs that are tested by the New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services”… (Refer attached NZEVA Guideline)

 

 

[Chief Stipe]

I've said it many times before and I'll say it once again the whole area therapeutic drug use needs to be addressed with consideration given to a wider assessment of approved drugs, withholding times and most importantly threshold levels.  Was the level of Citrizine in the horses bloodstream performance enhancing or even therapeutic?

These zero thresholds are a complete nonsense. 

[nomates]

1 minute ago, Chief Stipe said:

Well Mark didn't quite help himself by not following the instructions to the letter.  He missed some days and then administered later.

 

Irrelevant , he was under the impression no withholding so wasn't an issue going on instructions . Done it myself .

[Chief Stipe]

13 minutes ago, Freda said:

A fundamentally honest man hung out to dry.

Shitty treatment. 

Don't forget the owner who is of pocket to the tune of more than $30k!  $27k in stakes plus expenses.

[nomates]

4 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

8. Citirizine is listed under the EHSLC (European Horserace Scientific Liaison Committee) as having a 96 hour ‘Detection Time’ and estimated by the Chief Veterinarian Advisor to have a withhold time of 5.6 days. (Refer attached EHSLC Guideline)

 

WTF is 5.6 days , christ you've got to stand there with a calculater and watch to work it now .

 

5 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

9. Citirizine is not listed in the NZEVA guidelines for Prohibited Substances as there are no ACVM (Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines) registered products for use in horses on the market in NZ. It is not a Restricted Veterinary Medicine; however it states on the guidelines under the heading ‘A Guide for All NZVA Members’ that …“The list is not a list of all prohibited substances nor all drugs that are tested by the New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services”… (Refer attached NZEVA Guideline)

 

And why the Feck isn't everything on the list , for christ sake it's just looking like laziness or amatuer hour . 

So if you a trainer don't rely on your vet knowing or being able to find out , jeeezzzuuus , maaarrryyy and cchhhrriiissssttt .

[Chief Stipe]

15 minutes ago, nomates said:

Irrelevant , he was under the impression no withholding so wasn't an issue going on instructions . Done it myself .

But that isn't how the rules are written is it?  The vet gave wrong advice and Oulaghan didn't stick to the instructions.  If he had he may have got away with it albeit by accident than design as he "missed days" then gave the horse some on the Thursday before the race as he had some left.  At the end of the day under the rules the buck stops with the trainer.