ÃÈÃÃÉçÇø

22 Dec 2016 Disciplinary Panel - Referrals from Racecourse

Paul Morgan

1.  On 22 December 2016, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry into the analysis of the blood sample ordered to be taken from POTTERS CORNER (IRE), trained by Paul Morgan, by the Stewards at Ffos Las after the gelding was placed second in the EBF Stallions ‘National Hunt’ Novices’ Hurdle race on 21 February 2016. The sample tested positive for omeprazole sulphide, a prohibited substance as defined in Schedule (G)1 paragraph 7, in breach of Rule (G)2.1 of the Rules of Racing.  The Panel also considered whether or not to take action under Rule (A)74.2 Ground 3 in respect of the possible disqualification of the gelding.  Also, whether Mr Morgan was in breach of Rule (C)13 by virtue of his failure to keep an accurate record of Treatment administered to a horse under his care and control.

2.  Prior to the enquiry, both parties had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting and Mr Morgan had requested that the matter be heard in his absence. The BHA had no objection and its case was presented by Andrew Howell.

3.  The Panel noted that the BHA’s former Veterinary Adviser (Equine and Welfare) Dr Lynn Hillyer had provided a Drug Brief regarding omeprazole.  Omeprazole is a proton pump inhibitor used to prevent and treat gastric ulceration in horses and is administered orally.  Omeprazole may be capable of having a pharmacological effect on multiple mammalian body systems and pursuant to Schedule (G)1 paragraph 7, is a Prohibited Substance prohibited on raceday only.

4.  There are three licensed products available for use in horses that contain omeprazole: Gastrogard®, Pepizole® and Ulcergold®.  There are various other preparations available in other countries and via the internet.  As well as direct administration of a licensed product to the horse, Dr Hillyer noted that as with any orally administered medication or drug, there is the potential for environmental contamination resulting in an Adverse Analytical finding.

5.  On 6 April 2016 BHA Stable Inspecting Officers attended Mr Morgan’s yard unannounced, however, Mr Morgan was not present due to having to travel to Newton Abbot for family reasons. Mr Morgan was contacted by telephone and raised no objection to the Inspecting Officers conducting an inspection of his yard.

6.  Inspection of the medication records present on the yard, namely the NTF Book and the Yard Diary it was noted that Mr Morgan had made no entries for medication to any of the horses in his care or control in the NTF Book since 29 October 2014. One of the Inspecting Officers recalled that Mr Morgan had been spoken to by a BHA Team Coordinator during a routine inspection of his yard on 16 February 2016 reminding him of the importance of maintaining a full and detailed record of any medication administered to horses in his yard.

7.  Mr Morgan employed the services of veterinary practice Summerhill Equine Veterinary Partnership and enquiries by the BHA were responded to by Veterinary Surgeon, Kevin Bishop. Mr Bishop had stated that he had carried out a gastroscopic examination on another horse in Mr Morgan’s yard on 21 January 2016 and had prescribed a full month of Gastrogard® at a dose of one full tube per day.  He later had a telephone conversation with Mr Morgan who had informed him that he had decided to turn out that horse and would commence the treatment at a later date. During this conversation Mr Morgan had also asked whether it would be useful to administer the Gastrogard® to POTTERS CORNER as he had been unhappy with his coat, condition and how his work was going.  Mr Bishop had advised Mr Morgan that he could administer a full dose of Gastrogard without diagnosing ulcers.  He had advised monitoring for a response to treatment and that Mr Morgan should keep a record of the treatment so that Mr Bishop could sign the authorisation on the trainer’s medical record.  He had also advised an eight day withdrawal period before racing.

8.  On 12 April 2016 Mr Morgan was interviewed by the BHA Stable Inspecting Officers. Mr Morgan had confirmed that he initially made entries into a diary before transferring them to the NTF Book, however, he had conceded that he had been somewhat lax in the process as there was nothing in his current NTF Book.

9.  Mr Morgan had stated that he had administered the Gastrogard® to POTTERS CORNER on roughly the 26 or 27 January with the final administration being the 13 February 2016. He had based this account on an entry in the Yard Diary, however, the BHA submitted that the reliability of this source of reference was questionable. There was an entry in the Yard Diary on 26 January, however, no entry on 27 January.  There was another entry on 30 January that could also be interpreted as being the date on which treatment was started.  Mr Morgan had confirmed that he had administered one tube of Gastrogard® per day over the course of 14 – 18 days. No Gastrogard® had been found on the yard and therefore the BHA’s conclusion was that there was excess Gastrogard® unaccounted for and that this had raised the question as to whether a further dosage may have been administered to POTTERS CORNER in the intervening days.

10.  The Panel also noted that Mr Morgan had not challenged the finding, and did not elect for analysis of the ‘B’ sample.

11.  The BHA accepted that there was no suggestion that Mr Morgan had been involved in any dishonesty or cheating. Mr Howell also submitted that where the source could not be identified, the trainer, as the responsible person had strict liability.

12.  Having considered the evidence, including the submission from Mr Morgan, the Panel was unable to establish the source of the substance, and could not therefore be satisfied that the administration of the substance was accidental and that the trainer had taken all reasonable care.

13.  The Panel found Mr Morgan in breach of Rule (G)2.1 and imposed a fine of £1,000.  The Panel also found Mr Morgan in breach of Rule (C)13 in failing to accurately record treatment administered to horses under his care or control and fined him £800. In increasing the fine above the entry point, the Panel took into account that Mr Morgan had been reminded at a previous yard inspection of the importance of maintaining a full and detailed record of any medication administered to horses in his yard.

14.  Under Rule (A)74.2 Ground 3 the Panel disqualified POTTERS CORNER (IRE) from the race placing PRESELI ROCK (IRE) second, NEVER EQUALLED (IRE) third and APACHE OUTLAW (IRE) fourth.  It directed that any prize monies paid be returned.

Hugo Palmer

1.  The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry on 22 December 2016 to consider whether or not Hugo Palmer, a licensed trainer, had committed a breach of Rule (G)2.6 of the Rules of Racing, in that prior to racing at Ascot on 15 October 2016 a member of his staff was found in possession of substances other than normal feed and water in the racecourse stables.  The substances in question were electrolytes and a sachet of Trimediazine Plain, a prescription-only antibiotic which would not have been given approval to be in the stables.

2.  Prior to the enquiry, both parties had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting and Mr Palmer had requested that the matter be heard in his absence. The BHA had no objection and its case was presented by Lyn Williams.

3.  Mr Williams informed the Panel that a member of Mr Palmer’s staff attending ARCHITECTURE (IRE) and GALILEO GOLD, trained by Mr Palmer, was in possession of prohibited substances in the racecourse stables, however, the Stewards allowed the horses to race but ordered that ARCHITECTURE (IRE) and GALILEO GOLD be tested after the race.  Confirmation has since been received from the laboratory that the samples that were taken had been reported negative for any prohibited substance, and having no wider integrity concerns, the breach of Rule (G)2.6 had been referred to the Panel.

4.  Mr Williams also informed the Panel that in respect of the electrolytes that were not considered a prohibited substance, no further action would be taken.

5.  The Panel noted that Mr Palmer had admitted a breach of Rule (G)2.6

6.  The Panel accepted Mr Palmer’s admission and found him in breach of Rule (G)2.6.  The Panel imposed a fine of £1,000 upon him.

Francois Rohaut

1.  The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry on 22 December 2016 to consider whether or not Francois Rohaut, a licensed trainer, had committed a breach of Rule (G)2.6 of the Rules of Racing, in that prior to racing at Ascot on 15 October 2016 a member of his staff was found in possession of a substances other than normal feed and water in the racecourse stables. The substances in question were electrolytes and a sachet of Ekygard Flash, a complementary feeding stuff.

2.  Prior to the enquiry, both parties had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting and Mr Rohaut had requested that the matter be heard in his absence. The BHA had no objection and its case was presented by Lyn Williams.

3.  Mr Williams informed the Panel that a member of Mr Rohaut’s staff attending SIGNS OF BLESSING (IRE), trained by Mr Rohaut, was in possession of a prohibited substance in the racecourse stables, however, the Stewards allowed the horse to race but ordered that SIGNS OF BLESSING (IRE) be tested after the race. Confirmation has since been received from the laboratory that the sample that was taken had been reported negative for any prohibited substance, and having no wider integrity concerns, the breach of Rule (G)2.6 had been referred to the Panel.

4.  The Panel noted Mr Rohaut’s written submission that his travelling lad had been due to give SIGNS OF BLESSING (IRE) the Ekygard Flash when the horse arrived in Chantilly, the day after the race, to help him endure the long journey back to Pau (700 miles). Mr Rohaut had admitted a breach of Rule (G)2.6 and had since instructed his travelling lads to have a special box for these products and that this box must stay in the horsebox.

5.   Mr Williams also informed the Panel that in respect of the electrolytes that were not considered a prohibited substance, no further action would be taken.

6.  The Panel accepted Mr Rohaut’s admission and found him in breach of Rule (G)2.6.  The Panel imposed a fine of £750 upon him.

Notes to Editors:
1. The Panel for the enquiry was: Lucinda Cavendish (Chair), Philip Curl, Ian Stark