ROB’S SHOUT - BLANKET DISQUALIFICATION RULE NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED

By Robert Heathcote | Thursday, September 9, 2010

Robert Heathcote is the leading racehorse trainer in Brisbane. 'Rob's Shout' - the personal blog of the premiership winning trainer will appear every Thursday on HRO.

The issue of the Ortensia disqualification has certainly been a major issue on the Australian racing calendar this year. (Ortensia was recently stripped of her Group 1 win in the Galaxy after returning a positive swab).

Rightly or wrongly it has created a lot of discussion both within the ranks of trainers and owners and, no doubt, amongst the general punting community as well.

I personally have an opinion on the issue and that is Ortensia should have been allowed to keep the race.

Yes, it’s easy to argue that the rule is set in concrete and it was broken, but I would like to see the new rule which was introduced back in 2001 amended to allow the authorities to use discretion in certain cases.

I am in no way blaming the stewards for making the ‘wrong decision’ as their hands were basically tied by the blanket rule which instructs them to disqualify any horse that returns a positive swab to any banned substance on race day!

This is no doubt a very unusual case, if not for the actual contaminant, but for all of the circumstances which have surrounded the Ortensia issue. The actual contaminant is called Ractopamine which is apparently used in pigs to increase muscle fibre.

The levels found in the tested sample were very similar to levels found back in 2004 /5 in Western Australia where it was found conclusively by the adjudicating stewards that the source of the contaminant was in fact feed contamination.

It should also be noted that Ractopamine is only available in a registered veterinary product called Paylean, which is a feed additive for pigs.

There has never been any historical evidence that it has been used in the horse industry and it certainly falls under the category of ‘non performance enhancing’, but we in the industry do know that there are many products which are swabable which do fall into that non performance enhancing category.

I would like to point out at this stage that the trainer, Tony Noonan, was not penalised in any way by the stewards which in itself is unusual in our industry.

That statement is in fact not entirely correct because Tony has already copped a pretty massive penalty … and I am not just talking about the $19 000 he has lost in his training commission either.

The stress of the initial positive swab finding and then the following extensive investigation would have taken a huge toll on Tony and his family.

I commend the stewards for making such a decision not to impose any further penalty on him.

The decision itself does suggest that no malice or intent was ever a part of Tony’s actions. I don’t believe there was any wrong doing on both the part of the trainer or for that matter even on the role authorities have taken in reaching their decision.

Taking the race off Ortensia was the only option the stewards had, but it’s the blanket rule itself that I would like to see changed to allow some discretion under such extenuating circumstances.

Tony Noonan has been training for twenty-five years with an unblemished record. It’s a shame that someone always has to suffer to see a rule changed or at least amended.

It will no doubt always be a mystery where the contamination came from as all previous incidences of this were apparently the result of feed contamination.

Such a high profile case will always add fuel to the knockers of this industry who jump up and down whenever there is a positive swab.

I have been fortunate that I have not had a positive swab at all in my time whilst I have been in the industry. Perhaps this has been good management but, looking at the Ortensia case, perhaps even some luck, because even the most diligent care can sometimes be derailed by unforeseen influences.

That’s not to say that we do not use swabable products in the general care and maintenance around the stable.

Products which are prescribed by registered vets have a time frame before a horse is allowed to race, so it’s essential that a very strict procedure is maintained when using health and therapeutic products in the stable. I am sure most, if not all, stables run the same rigid security measures.

I am more than happy to see the very strict policy of drug free racing policed by the stewards.

Sometimes there are irritating times for us regarding all of the swab procedures, but I liken it to the airport security that we all know is so common now. It is a necessary inconvenience.

I do also believe that a lot of ‘positive’ swabs in this industry are simply mistakes of timing, but in this sense we can go back to the earlier argument and that if a rule is broken the horse must be disqualified!

I am all for the ‘cheats’ getting caught and punished and perhaps I am a bit naive if I think that most have been!

I feel sorry for Tony and Ortensia’s owners just as I am sure Gino and his partners in Shellscrape and Chris Waller would, but they will happily accept the race under the current rules and, as some would say, rightly so.

My opinion though, is that the rule needs some tweaking in future!

More articles