Non Raceday Inquiry – NZTR v M Oulaghan 13 August 2009

hearingid: 2219822ad4a69ab2bb62879d5a36d0de

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 01/01/2001

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry - NZTR v M Oulaghan 13 August 2009

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

NON RACE DAY HEARING

Enquiry held Awapuni Race Course Thursday 13^th August 2009.

Informant:          R. Sanders - Chief Stipendiary Steward

Defendant:         M. Oulaghan – Horse trainer

Information:      5594

Rule:                  707 (6) (A)

Present:             R. Neal – Stipendiary Steward

Observer:           M. Barnsley

Chairman:         T. W. Castles

Member:             I. Smith

Trainer M. Oulaghan admitted a breach of Rule 707 (6) (A) in that you the trainer and person in charge of the horse THE JOLLY DANCER, failed to advise the Stipendiary Stewards of an occurrence that had the potential to affect the performance of the horse during the running of the race.

NON RACE DAY HEARING

Enquiry held Awapuni Race Course Thursday 13^th August 2009.

Informant:          R. Sanders - Chief Stipendiary Steward

Defendant:        M. Oulaghan – Horse trainer

Information:      5594

Rule:                  707 (6) (A)

Present:            R. Neal – Stipendiary Steward

Observer:          M. Barnsley

Chairman:        T. W. Castles

Member:            I. Smith

Trainer M. Oulaghan admitted a breach of Rule 707 (6) (A) in that you the trainer and person in charge of the horse THE JOLLY DANCER, failed to advise the Stipendiary Stewards of an occurrence that had the potential to affect the performance of the horse during the running of the race.

After the rule was read, Mr. Oulaghan queried the rule and its number.  Mr. Neal informed the committee there was initial confusion on the original rule as served on Mr. Oulaghan however after discussion with the parties involved rule number 707 (6) (A) was deemed to be appropriate. 

 Mr. Oulaghan confirmed this and reiterated his guilty plea.

Mr. R. Neal submitted the summary of facts.

Summary of Facts

1.       Mr Oulaghan is a licensed public trainer and is the person in charge in all respects of the gelding THE JOLLY DANCER.

2.       On Saturday 27^th June 2009 Mr Oulaghan presented THE JOLLY DANCER to race in the Hawke’s Bay Steeplechase at Hastings racecourse.  The horse was unplaced on that occasion.

3.       On Saturday 11^th July 2009 Mr Oulaghan presented THE JOLLY DANCER to race in the Wellington Steeplechase at Trentham Racecourse.  This being the horse’s subsequent start to the Hawke’s Bay race.  On this occasion THE JOLLY DANCER was withdrawn from the race near the half-way point.

4.       As a result of this performance Stewards requested a veterinary examination of the gelding and during this examination it was revealed that the horse had undergone an operation for an Epiglottic Entrapment.  Such operation being conducted some 3 days after the Hawke’s Bay race.

5.       Stewards subsequently interviewed Mr Oulaghan and he freely admitted that the operation had taken place and it had been done so in an attempt to clear the airway obstruction.

6.       Mr Oulaghan, when asked why he had not advised Stewards of the operation, stated that it was his belief that as the condition had occurred outside the seven day window then it was not incumbent on him to duly advise.

7.       When advised of his duty under Rule 707 (6) (a) Mr Oulaghan stated that he was not aware of the requirement and readily acknowledged that he should have.

8.       Mr Oulaghan was subsequently charged with a breach of Rule 707 (6) (a) being that he failed to advise Stewards of a condition or occurrence that had the ability to affect the horse’s performance during a race.

9.       When presented with the information Mr Oulaghan admitted the breach.

Mr. R. Neal then submitted information on the Epiglottic Entrapment operation performed on THE JOLLY DANCER and why notification is required.

Epiglottic Entrapment

What is an Epiglottic Entrapment?

The epiglottis is a triangular flap of cartilage that functions as part of the seal of the entrance to the larynx during swallowing.  In some horses a fold of membrane on the floor of the throat may entrap the epiglottis.  When the horse breathes out forcibly during strenuous exercise the membrane balloons up like a sail and obstructs the outflow of air from the lungs.

Unlike most other equine larynx and pharynx conditions, Epiglottic entrapment is not characterized by noise production.  In fact, these horses generally make no noise during exercise or competition.  However, riders often report that horses with this condition cough violently or act as if they are choking when pulled up after a race or workout.  The coughing fit occurs because the movement of the epiglottis (which must seal off the airway during swallowing) is impaired.  Consequently, horses cannot accomplish the quick reflex swallowing necessary to clear the pharynx of secretions during high-speed exercise.  These secretions build up, enter the windpipe and stimulate the choking-like syndrome after the animal has stopped.  The excess secretions may also contribute to the resulting poor performance.

Jockeys also report that affected horses occasionally appear to hold their breath during competition and exhibit a great exhalation sigh when pulled up.  Horses must accomplish both inspiration and expiration within the confines of each stride cycle.  With an Epiglottic entrapment, the free border of the entrapping tissue balloons up during expiration, but not during inspiration.  This effectively creates a one-way flutter valve that impairs the flow of exhaled gases, but not the flow of inhaled gases.  As a result, at every stride, the horse inhales more air than it can exhale, resulting in the gradual buildup of reserve gas within the lung.  This gradual expansion of the chest, combined with the expiratory rush at the end of the race, leads riders to believe that horse is holding its breath.  This syndrome results in impaired racing performance.

Why is notification required?

Unacceptable racing performances are investigated so that any veterinary problem that may have contributed to the poor racing performance may be identified and treated if possible.

The trainer of a horse identified as suffering from a condition that may impact on its racing performance who has that condition investigated and treated and that the horse demonstrates it suitability to race to the satisfaction of an Office of the Veterinary Regulation Department.

Mr. Oulaghan agreed and accepted both the summary of facts and the information on the operation carried out on THE JOLLY DANCER.  He did point out to the committee a local reporter did report on the Thursday prior to the Wellington Steeplechase that THE JOLLY DANCER had had an operation, and believed the public would have been informed.

Mr. Neal told the committee that this may have been so but the proper channels to inform the betting public at large was through NZTR via the Stipendiary Stewards.

THE JOLLY DANCER had performed poorly at Hastings on Saturday 27^th June and the betting public were entitled to know of any steps taken by the trainer in an attempt to improve the horse’s performance.  The Wellington Steeplechase is a prestigious race attracting a lot of interest from the betting public.  Mr. Neal informed the committee of Mr. Oulaghan’s frankness and helpfulness to the officials when approached and during the period of investigation.

Mr. Oulaghan told the committee that he had made an error of judgement and that it has been misguided.  It was more out of ignorance of the rule and he certainly regretted not taking the steps of informing officialdom of the horses operation.  The treatment was done for improvement of performance but it was as shown on race day to be the opposite.

Submissions on penalty

Mr. Neal asked for a monetary penalty, to reflect this breach and suggested a range of between $500 - $800.  He produced results of similar like breaches of the rule and asked the committee to consider them when arriving at a penalty.  He believed Mr. Oulaghan’s frankness in his admittance must be tempered with the fact that the breach was committed on a major steeplechase day and that the betting public had not been notified from official channels of THE JOLLY DANCER’s treatment.  He presented a summary of Mr Oulaghan’s charges over the long period of time he has been training and agreed that it was at a very high standard.  Mr Oulaghan had no comment.

Decision and Reason

Mr Oulaghan, this committee concurs with the submission from Stipendiary Steward Neal that a fine is appropriate for the breach of this rule.  We have given credit to you for your admittance, your cooperation with the authorities and your good record over many years of training.  However, it is the duty for trainers to be up to speed on the rules of racing and ignorance is no excuse.  Rules are put in place for the good of the industry and the betting public must have all facts placed in front of them when they consider placing a wager.

In this case this did not happen.  We have looked carefully at other breaches under this rule while no similar like breaches were submitted we did note, and take account of:

Offence (A) in 2006 where a fine of $800 was imposed for failing to inform stewards of a condition of a horse. 

Offence (B) in 2009 where a fine of $500 was imposed for presenting a horse to race that was not in a fit condition.

We also did consider Offence (C) brought by NZTR for a horse treated for a condition not notified.  This charge was dismissed.

We concur that there was no deception in what happened but hope this charge sends a clear message for people in the racing industry to understand the rules they operate under. 

This committee fines you the sum of $650.00.

No requests for costs were made.

TW Castles                          I Smith

Chairman                            Committee Member

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 707.6.a

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid:

race_expapproval:

racecancelled:

race_noreport:

race_emailed1:

race_emailed2:

race_title:

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid:

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport:

waitingforpublication:

meet_emailed1:

meet_emailed2:

meetdate: no date provided

meet_title:

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation:

meet_racingtype:

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: