3. I have taken into account that: a. This was the fourth offence of misuse of the whip by Mr Wheatley by using it above the permitted level in the previous 6 months. b. Those offences occurred in 124 rides, an offending rate of 1 breach in approximately every 31 rides, a relatively high offending ratio for a flat jockey. c. All breaches were for using his whip once above the permitted level. d. Each previous breach carried a 4 day suspension. The third breach received 1 days mitigation on penalty for not having offended for over 100 rides. e. The third breach had been on 6 September 2024, only 8 days before the last breach indicating that Mr Wheatley demonstrated a concerning disregard for both the Rules of Racing and the protection of horses from excessive whip use. 4. The Judicial Panel is required to consider the matter on referral because this would result in Mr Wheatley’s fourth suspension for using his whip above the permitted level and the three previous recent offences have all taken place within a six month period. 5. The entry point is a 28 day sanction, and the range of sanction is 14 days to 4 months. A period of sanction may be deferred, so long as the deferred period does not exceed 9 days or 1/3 of the total sanction. 6. The proposed sanction is 23 days, of which 7 will be deferred for a 6 month period or 200 rides. One of those days should be spent receiving specialised coaching. 7. I accept that this penalty is appropriate and reflects the aggravating and mitigating features of this case. However, Mr Wheatley should understand and expect that further breaches of Rule (F)45 would be overwhelmingly likely to result in a considerably more severe sanction. 8. The suspension will be 23 days with 7 days deferred making a total of 16 days suspension with one to be spent receiving specialist coaching. The deferred total to be deferred for 6 months or 200 rides and to be activated in the case of a further suspension during the period or before 200 rides. The BHA will contact Mr Wheatley regarding the dates of the active suspension and also the terms of the deferral.. Fiona Horlick KC, Judicial Panel Member Milton Harris 1. It is common ground between the parties that Mr Milton Harris is in breach of Rule (K)2.2 of the Rules of Racing in that he was on 30th April 2022 the trainer of SUPER SUPERJACK a horse which ran in the Golf at Goodwood race at Goodwood. Following post race testing of a urine sample from the horse, scientific analysis indicated the presence of a Category B Prohibited Substance namely 5H, a metabolite of dantrolene sodium. 2. Rule (K)2.2 provides: The Responsible Person must ensure that Prior to leaving the Racecourse, no Category B Prohibited substance is present in their horse’s body on a day on which it is engaged to run in a Race. 3. Dantrolene sodium is used on horses to prevent horses “tying up” in exercise. The Rule applies to prevent any presence of the substance on a race day and therefore if it is given to a horse a Trainer must ensure a sufficient withdrawal period before a race day. 4. After the positive analysis Mr Harris investigated the matter with his staff at the yard and took the initiative of contacting the BHA on the 5th and 16th May regarding a likely Adverse Analytical Finding due to inadvertent ingestion of Dantrolene. An explanation has emerged, not disputed by the BHA, that ingestion had occurred as a result of human error by a comparatively junior member of staff at the yard. The fact of human error does not of course exculpate a Responsible Person under the Rules unless he can show that he had taken all reasonable precautions to avoid the breach of the Rule. It is accepted that he cannot discharge that burden. Mr Harris put in place for the future the regime that only the Head Lad would have responsibility for handling of the medication. 5. Mr Harris has formally admitted the breach and the proposed procedure. The proposed penalty is a fine at the Entry Point in the guidelines of a fine of £1000 for a low culpability breach, as the breach is categorised by the BHA. Ultimately, acceptance of the procedure and proposed penalty is a matter for me as Chair of the Independent Disciplinary Panel. Having considered all the circumstances, I find no reason to refuse to give effect to the procedure and the penalty suggested. I order that the breach should be met by a fine of £1000 in the case of Mr Harris and that the horse must be disqualified. HH James O’Mahony, Deputy Judicial Panel Chair Sam Thomas INTRODUCTION 1. I am asked to consider under the fast-track protocol a proposed penalty in relation to a breach of Rule (K)2.2 of the Rules of Racing by Licenced Trainer, Mr Sam Thomas. 2. The admitted breach of the Rules of Racing Rule (K)2.2 is in respect of the presence of Triamcinolone Acetonide (“TCA”), a Prohibited Substance, in a post-race urine sample taken from the horse CAPTAIN WALLACE (IRE) after winning at Exeter Racecourse on 19 April 2024. 3. Rule (K)2.2 states that Prior to leaving the Racecourse, no Category B Prohibited Substance is present in their horse’s body on a day on which it is engaged to run in a Race. Pursuant to the Prohibited List Code, TCA is a Category B Prohibited Substance. BACKGROUND 4. The breach of Rule (K)2.2 by Mr Thomas arises from an Adverse Analytical Finding (‘AAF’) of TCA which was present in a post-race sample taken from CAPTAIN WALLACE (IRE) after winning the Bell Inn Bovey Tracey Novices Handicap Hurdle (Div 1) at Exeter Racecourse on 19 April 2024. Pursuant to the Prohibited List Code, TCA is a Category B Prohibited Substance. 5. CAPTAIN WALLACE (IRE) was registered as being in training with Mr Thomas when the horse provided its post-race sample. Mr Thomas has been a Licenced Trainer since November 2015 and currently trains from the Hollies Stables, Lisvane, Cardiff (‘the Yard’). 6. TCA has anti-inflammatory and analgesic effects. It has a pharmacological effect on mammalian body systems and is therefore a Category B Prohibited Substance. 7. There are no veterinary formulations containing TCA that are licenced for use in horses in the UK. However, TCA is frequently and legitimately prescribed to horses, administered by veterinary surgeons. It can be administered by injection into joints, muscles, or the synovial structures, such as tendon sheaths. 8. The drug, Kenalog, which contains TCA is licensed for use in humans in the UK. BHA INVESTIGATION 9. There was a BHA inspection of the Yard on 13 May 2024. Mr Thomas was present and was informed of the adverse finding of TCA in CAPTAIN WALLACE (IRE)’s post-race urine sample. Mr Thomas was immediately cooperative with the BHA officers. 10. During the yard visit Mr Thomas advised that CAPTAIN WALLACE (IRE) had been given a joint injection by the veterinary surgeon, JS, some weeks prior to the race. Mr Thomas showed the yard medication record book to the BHA officers. It was recorded that CAPTAIN WALLACE (IRE) had been administered Kenalog by JS on 14 March 2024 following a lameness examination. JS confirmed in writing that he had administered 10mg via a joint injection. 11. Mr Thomas was interviewed on 24 May 2024 by BHA officers. He said that joint injections were uncommon at his yard, he was advised by JS that CAPTAIN WALLACE (IRE) would benefit from one and JS gave standard joint injection advice which was to allow 21 days stand down time. In fact, Mr Thomas had allowed 34 days stand down time before racing CAPTAIN WALLACE (IRE) again. He had believed that to be sufficient and had relied on JS’s advice. He said that he would never use a TCA injection again and stressed how anxious he was not to breach any of the Rules of Racing. RELEVANT GUIDANCE 12. The BHA published guidance in February 2017 to trainers, vets, and other participants on the use of drugs, such as TCA. This stated that: • There was a mandatory stand-down period of 14 clear days following the administration of any intra-articular corticosteroid. • This period is not to be confused with a detection time or withdrawal period. The variables make it too difficult to publish a detection period. • Given the strict liability to ensure that there is no Prohibited Substance, an adequate safety margin should be chosen by a veterinary surgeon using their professional judgment considering the variables. This makes a specific discussion between vet and trainer essential. • Trainers who wish to establish that medication has cleared from a horse’s system before a race are also invited to consider elective testing. RELEVANT RULES 13. Rule (K)11 of the Rules provides: It is not necessary to demonstrate intent, fault, negligence or knowing use to establish a breach of Rule (K)2.2. 14. In accordance with Rule (K)14: The Disciplinary Panel shall impose a penalty on the Responsible Person for a breach of Rule (K)2 unless the Responsible Person establishes: 14.1 the precise route as to how the Prohibited Substance entered their horse’s body; and 14.2 that they had taken all reasonable precautions to avoid violating Rule (K)2. 15. According to the BHA’s table of penalties for a breach of Rule (K)2.2, the Disciplinary Panel must assess the level of culpability of the Responsible Person by reference solely to the facts that have been established (if any) relating to the source, the involvement of the Responsible Person and the precautions in place at the yard. SANCTION 16. Mr Thomas established the route of entry as he demonstrated CAPTAIN WALLACE (IRE) was injected with Kenalog by JS. 17. However, Mr Thomas did not establish that he took all reasonable precautions. The guidance is clear that specific advice is required for each time TCA is administered. However, Mr Thomas relied on generic advice from JS rather than having a specific conversation on withdrawal periods. Alternatively, he ought to have availed himself of elective testing in advance of the Race to ensure that the substance was out of CAPTAIN WALLACE (IRE)’s system. 18. It is appropriate to apply a low level of culpability in this case. The following factors are relevant: • Mr Thomas had received and relied upon some advice on the appropriate withdrawal period. However, he should have sought specific advice and/or undertaken elective testing. • Mr Thomas went beyond the mandatory stand down period of 14 days leaving 34 clear days between injection and the race. Thus, he had demonstrated some steps taken to avoid a positive post-race finding. • Mr Thomas was aware of the relevant guidance, there were no significant failings at the yard and the breach was a result of inadequate advice. • Mr Thomas has no previous disciplinary findings of this nature. 19. The starting point for penalty for a low culpability case is a financial penalty of £1,000, with a range of a caution to a £5,000 fine. The BHA proposes a financial penalty of £500. 20. As provided by Rule (L)47.4 of the Rules, a horse shall be disqualified if it tests positive for a Prohibited Substance and in accordance with Rule (L)49, it shall not be given a place in the Race and is not entitled to any prize money. CONCLUSION 21. I approve the financial penalty of £500. 22. CAPTAIN WALLACE (IRE) is disqualified from the Bell Inn Bovey Tracey Novices Handicap Hurdle (Div 1) at the Exeter Racecourse on 19 April 2024 and the prize money of £3,696.70 will be retained. Fiona Horlick KC, Judicial Panel Member Notes to Editors: 1. More information about the fast-track system can be found here. Please note, the BHA Judicial Panel is an independent body which encompasses the Disciplinary Panel, Appeal Board and Licensing Committee. It receives administrative support from the BHA via the Judicial Panel Executive.