Trotter Bob said...

Other than the races themselves, things move very slowly in horse racing.

posted at 8:01 PM on Jun 27th 2008

Eli Solomon said...

Andrew:

I suspect that Rule 18.08.01 gives the ORC the authority to confiscate the purse money (and other trainer/driver fees) earned, and redistribute it after a violation has been established. I would infer that it is contingent, in whole or in part, upon the application of Rule 1.09. Perhaps Rule 1.09 is the more important one to pursue to shed more light on the total rationale behind the ruling.

The ORC release of June 26, 2008 states:

"As a result of the presence of darbepoeitin-alpha (DPO) found in the blood sample taken on August 29, 2007 and the known long lasting effect of DPO, in accordance with Rule 1.09, the horse MICHELLES POWER is hereby determined to be ineligible to race between August 29, 2007 and November 24, 2007 inclusive.”

The implication of that paragraph is that Rule 1.09 enables the ORC to establish the term of the violation and penalty for a drug known for its “long lasting effect”, starting from the date of detection, until a future date, either as specified by the number of days within which the drug is known to have its long lasting effect, or as the ORC has specified or sees fit.

The original ORC announcement of the ruling on April 29, 2008 states in part:

"...Under new rules which came into effect January 31, 2008, a horse which receives a positive test for Class I, II, III, TCO2, or a substance determined to be non-therapeutic will be declared ineligible to race in Ontario for a period of 90 days."

This raises two unanswered questions:

First, if the "new rules" were promulgated on January 31, 2008, how would the application and relevance of those new rules be able to be retroactively applied to August 29, 2007 – unless the new rules had a provision for such retroactive application?

Second, if the retroactive applicability of the rule is deemed valid from a statutory, regulatory, or legal perspective, why has the ORC identified a period that covers 88 days, and not their stated 90 days?

And regarding the (unfortunate) bettors, for obvious logistical and other reasons, there is no provision, and it would be impossible to have any provision, to reimburse the bettors who bet against Michelles Power; or, for that matter, to retrieve the monies paid out to those who did bet on her.

The pari-mutuel system does not require identification by name, address, etc. of the individual placing a bet. And, since the pari-mutuel betting system is a zero-sum game, it would be impossible – after the fact - to shuffle the monies around and “take from Peter to pay Paul”.

Although complete restitution is a noble objective in such cases, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.

From Andrew: Thanks, Eli. I still want to understand why there was a delay between taking the sample and testing of it, and why the owners should be presumed to have knowledge of the offense before they were notified of same by the ORC (if, indeed, that occurred).

posted at 2:03 PM on Jun 27th 2008

Paul Siegel said...

I believe Jess Frederick is wrong when he says "The ORC knows the horse has tested positive, but continues to let the horse race".

My understanding is that the positive test was obtained from a frozen blood sample originally taken in 2007, but the testing itself was done shortly before the positive was announced in April, 2008.

From Andrew: Good point, Paul. And then the question becomes why the long delay between taking the samples and testing them?

posted at 12:39 PM on Jun 27th 2008

doug gillies said...

Mr Fredrick is dead on. This trainer was out once before and was allowed back! What a disgrace for all of us and its exactly why our attendance and handle are dropping, the public hates a cheat.

posted at 12:38 PM on Jun 27th 2008