Wong Suspended Two Years and Fined $25,000, Says He’ll Appeal

Trainer Jonathan Wong has been suspended for two years and fined $25,000 for a post-race metformin positive from last June after a Jan. 9 hearing before the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority's arbitration panel.

The two-year period of ineligibility retroactively starts July 1, 2023, when Wong's initial provisional suspension was first imposed.

He will also pay $8,000 of HIWU's share of the arbitration, in addition to his own arbitration fees.

As the maximum possible sentence for such a violation, the ruling marks the latest twist in a case that became entangled in the evolving rules of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act's (HISA) enforcement efforts. While the arbitrator rejected that this was contamination, several other Metformin cases have called into question whether or not possible environmental contamination should be treated the same way that other positives are treated.

The case also appears far from over. In a short statement, Wong wrote that he had appealed the ruling which could now go before the Federal Trade Commission, head to federal court, or both. Wong also explained that he would seek a temporary injunction against the ban.

“By the time this new story breaks, we will have already filed or will be filing our appropriate appeal, whether in Federal Court or with an Administrative Law Judge through the Federal Trade Commission. It is entirely possible we will dual-path this situation and file in both. In all instances, we will seek an Emergency Order with Injunctive Relief.  The facts and merits of the case will be heard,” Wong wrote, in a joint statement with his long-time owner, Brent Malmstrom.

Wong-trainee Heaven and Earth (Gormley) broke her maiden at Indiana Grand June 1 but subsequently tested positive for the prescription drug Metformin, a type 2 diabetes treatment that HISA has classified as a banned substance.

As a matter of protocol at that time, HIWU initially provisionally suspended Wong at the beginning of June when the A sample returned a positive finding for Metformin.

The HISA Authority subsequently announced that it had modified the rules surrounding provisional suspensions. Under the revised provisions, responsible parties who request B Sample confirmation following a positive test for a banned substance would no longer face a provisional suspension until the B sample findings are returned.

In Wong's case, he was notified on Aug. 9 that the B Sample confirmed the Metformin positive.

Though Wong was technically permitted to return to training for a brief period while the B sample was being processed, he explained at the time that his owners did not wish to transfer the horses back with the B Sample results expected imminently, and effectively has not trained since July 2.

Metformin ranks as the nation's third-most-prescribed human medicine, according to the consumer healthcare website Healthgrades, with more 20 million patients taking it. As a banned substance under HISA, a metformin positive comes with a possible two-year suspension and $25,000 fine.

Because of the possible severity of the sanctions and its ubiquity in the environment, metformin has been at the heart of several cases since HISA's anti-doping and medication control program went into effect that have led some to question whether HIWU is deploying too strict an enforcement approach to the drug.

In justification of its stance, HISA CEO Lisa Lazarus told the TDN last month that “we do have intelligence that metformin is being used intentionally to enhance performance.”

Furthermore, in October HIWU announced that internal reviews of its six contracted laboratories uncovered different limits of detection in blood for metformin, triggering a process of testing harmonization in blood across the labs for the drug. Until that point, all the metformin positives originated from just the one lab.

The Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit (HIWU) has posted a detailed explainer of the ruling on its website.

The report details how the A sample was sent to the HIWU-accredited Industrial Laboratories in Denver Colorado, while the B sample was sent to the Chicago Analytical Forensic Testing Laboratory in Chicago, Illinois, for confirmatory analysis.

According to the report, the Kenneth L. Maddy Equine Analytical Chemistry Laboratory at the University of California, Davis, conducted “Further Analysis” on the A blood sample “received from Industrial,” and on the “remainder of the B urine sample” received from the Chicago lab.

“Apparently, they can swing till they're happy,” said Malmstrom, when asked about that development.

Wong's legal team presented several defenses during the hearing, including that Heaven and Earth had a groom who urinated in the stall and frequently touched the horse on the mouth. They said that the groom was on Metformin, and had fled to Mexico after the finding, for fear he had contaminated the horse, and could not be found. He argued that the sample being sent to the Maddy lab for further testing—a third laboratory–suggested questionable conduct on the part of HIWU. The samples at all three labs were positive.

“There is, unfortunately, the simple fact that Mr. Wong has been untruthful in this proceeding. I find that Mr. Wong has not met his threshold burden of establishing the source of the contamination and thus there is no mitigation that might possibly be considered for Wong, and his sanction should be two years of Ineligibility,” wrote arbitrator Nancy Holtz in her finding.

“There is no doubt that Mr. Wong is an experienced, highly successful trainer who has climbed the ranks of this industry from the bottom up. His conduct and performance as a trainer presents a mixed bag: He has submitted numerous letters of support and praise from a constellation of highly regarded people in the horse racing industry. There is also no doubt that Mr. Wong has suffered financially, professionally, and emotionally from the Provisional Suspension and this will no doubt continue during the balance of the Ineligibility period. Balanced against these facts, however, is a record which does not support that Mr. Wong did much to prevent this contamination from occurring. If Mr. Wong was engaged in routine, frequent trainings of his staff regarding not urinating in the stalls, keeping hands clean and so on–which I do not believe–he certainly did not couple this with any level of monitoring, enforcement, or deterrence such as through imposing consequences for violators. Mr. Wong is no doubt a decent person who, in his own way, has tried to put the safety and welfare of his horses first. But despite his best intentions, the evidence is clear that Mr. Wong has abdicated his obligation as a Covered Person to protect the safety and welfare of the horses under his care consistent with ADMC Rules.”

The post Wong Suspended Two Years and Fined $25,000, Says He’ll Appeal appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Letter To The Editor: Actions Detrimental Or An Inconvenient Truth?

by Brent J Malmstrom

“Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people.”-Thomas Jefferson

I was made aware The Jockey Club published an article “HISA is Necessary” which appears to be a direct response to my letter to the Editor Actions Detrimental.

I would like to thank all the various industry participants who have reached out in support of what I shared and the concerns which were raised.

The Jockey Club is a breed registry. The author perhaps without knowing has acted as an agent for the Authority and or the person most knowledgeable and your commentary can only be interpreted as an on-the-record factual basis.

A more appropriate response could have been, `we appreciate you raising your concerns, we appreciate your perspective as an owner, and we acknowledge despite best intentions things haven't always worked the way they are intended.' This could have been used as a learning moment for the betterment of the collective. Or, they could have said, `we disagree with your point of view.' The question remains: how many industry representatives need to come forward before constructive dialogue is allowed to occur?

According to the author, I should be ashamed for raising concerns regarding the implementation of this Act and the potential material consequences the integration represents to the industry and the participants. A little reminder that we live by the rule of law and protections where the government can't deprive any person of “life, liberty, or property without due process.”

Contrary to the representation raised by the author, I am not a party to or affiliated with any lawsuits pertaining to this integration and adoption. Also, as a point of fact, it wasn't my horse in question, as the author suggests. I just happen to own around 30 other racehorses. Also, to date there has been no email or communications from HISA or HIWU regarding what happens when one of your covered persons (i.e. your trainer) has been provisionally suspended.

The author suggests that it is not possible to have any contamination event and the presumptive position would be anyone taking any of these types of medications under the general care of their doctor should not be training and or be involved in this sport as the tolerance level is zero. (Trainers, owners, grooms, track employees, racing officials, anyone…)

We should recap the significant events since my article was published. The Authority changed the Provisional Suspension rule to not to take effect until the “B” sample results were complete.  I believe they should have taken it one step further and waited until the provisional hearing; that would seem appropriate. Allow the labs to confirm the results and allow due process to the parties involved.

With regards to my statements about the permissibility of the medication in question, “Metformin”. I drew those statements from publicly available information: USADA;, WADA;, FEI (indeed, FEI even acknowledges some substances “are more likely to have been ingested by Horses for a purpose other than the enhancement of sport performance, for example, through a contaminated food substance); ARCI (see links below).

Why is all of this important?  There is a subset of medication that is common within our environment and the list of Atypical Findings as well as the “Banned vs Controlled/Prohibited” lists should continue to be reviewed. At issue is the difference in how these determinations were made and how they are treated (a monetary fine, points on your record, a suspension). Gone are the days of a fine and a few days suspension – we are now saying you could be out of the industry for months and or years for a violation from a positive caused by an environmental transfer. Why when these concerns are raised, must the attitude be, “you are anti-HISA” vs “it's in everyone's best interest to get this correct?”

What hasn't been discussed is what happens when the Authority doesn't follow their stated protocols i.e. Timelines for test samples, chain of custody of the samples (split samples not traveling together to the second lab), confirming the testing procedures are followed. Just because they say this happens doesn't necessary reflect what happens, unless the author is suggesting they will attest and stand behind this certification under penalty of perjury that everything is correct all the time. Remember the industry participants are paying four to five times more for these tests as it has been stated the costs were negotiated to ensure speed and accuracy.

There continues to be a significant lag when test results are returned vs. when horses competed. We continue to see issues related to results vs. claimed horses. In several examples the horse may have changed hands several times before an original test of an altered chemical finding was produced. The pervasive question continues to be now what?

The request from HISA and now The Jockey Club is to allow time for the failures to be corrected. The issues raised by my article were about the material impacts an altered chemical result could have on someone (any trainer). The suspension, the loss of income, the brand reputation risk of being labeled a cheater before any due process. Your asset being stranded and or impaired without any remedy and the inevitable issue of defending yourself with the IRS Section 185 the “Hobby Loss rule” just to name a few. Unattended consequences are particularly concerning as most if not all of this could have been predicted had the execution phase of this been well thought -out.

The Jockey Club statement asks us to give the Authority time because “this is a start-up,” as though we should just write a check and let the Authority learn the business and just trust them, they will get it correct. The inconvenient truth is a vast majority of this industry can't afford the pervasive “let me swing until I get it right” mentality.

The response simply ignored another concern raised the need for disclosures. Disclosures are the mechanism in place to ensure concerns raised are answered. To reiterate HISA representatives, continue to make representations about transparency and ethical conduct. I am struggling with this, given they make little to no disclosures around their overall operations. They are operating with an unchallenged budget with no certifications or disclosures. Perhaps this Start-up should understand the shareholder value proposition be accountable and be transparent to the collective.

If the talking point is correct there was collaborative engagement with all the various industry representatives, then why the roll-out challenges and the need for time to get this correct? Contrary to what The Jockey Club writer stated, it is the big-picture considerations which prompted my article. As I shared before, unless there can be balanced enforcement that affords equal protections to all parties we will continue to lack the necessary progress to move the industry forward.

The post Letter To The Editor: Actions Detrimental Or An Inconvenient Truth? appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Wong Provisionally Suspended After B Sample Confirmation

Trainer Jonathan Wong has been provisionally suspended after being alerted late Wednesday that the B Sample confirmed the presence of Metformin in a post-race test taken from his trainee, Heaven and Earth (Gormley).

Heaven and Earth broke her maiden at Indiana Grand June 1 but subsequently tested positive for the prescription drug Metformin, a type 2 diabetes treatment classified as a banned substance by the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA).

During a conference call Thursday morning before representatives from the Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit (HIWU) and a judge, a full hearing on the merits of the case was scheduled for Sept. 25, said Wong.

“There's zero sense of urgency,” said Wong. “I've been put out of work since July 2 because they hadn't adjusted the rules until 27 days later. But by then, I've lost my horses. I haven't made a paycheck for a month. And now it's going to be going on three months.”

Technically, this is the second time Wong has been provisionally suspended as the case has unfolded.

As a matter of protocol at that time, HIWU initially provisionally suspended Wong at the beginning of June when the A sample returned a positive finding for Metformin.

Late last month, the HISA Authority announced that it had modified the rules surrounding provisional suspensions. Under the new provisions, responsible parties who request B Sample confirmation following a positive test for a banned substance won't face any potential provisional suspension until the B sample findings are returned.

“If the B Sample confirms the A Sample, the Responsible Person shall be Provisionally Suspended upon Notification of the B Sample confirmation,” the new rules state.

Though that announcement technically permitted Wong to return to training while the B sample was being processed, he said that his owners did not wish to transfer the horses back with the B Sample results expected imminently.

“If I would have gotten notified on this positive today, I would still be allowed to train and go on as normal until my B Sample came back,” he said. “But I wasn't afforded that opportunity.”

Wong–who potentially faces up to a two-year suspension and a $25,000 fine–voiced frustration with other aspects of the way his case has been handled. This includes, he said, how the B samples of blood and urine were sent separately for testing.

“They were separated by eight days, which according to everybody I've spoken with is not how it's supposed to be done,” Wong said.

“If this would have happened a few weeks prior, this would have been a 15-day penalty,” said Wong, alluding to how trainer Wesley Ward served a 15-day suspension for a Metformin positive in a July 15, 2022 race at Monmouth. “Now they're threatening me with up to two years.”

As such, Wong said that he's considering his future in the sport, even if the full merits hearing skews in his favor. “I don't know, when all this is taken care of, if I want to go back to training,” Wong said.

“It brings a lot of stuff into perspective,” he said. “I've a wife, a 13-year-old, a 5-year-old, a 3-year-old and a 10-month-old. I miss so much of their life by putting work first and them second, for it all to be literally thrown away in a day over something I didn't even do.”

Despite these frustrations, Wong said that the concept of HISA is necessary for the sport.

“First and foremost, I'd like to give them credit for making the changes [to the provisional suspension provisions]. I applaud them for listening to people's complaints and suggestions, adapting and working to it,” Wong said.

“I totally have zero problems with HISA. I think it's something that's much needed. I just think it needs to be tweaked. It's a learning process. They're learning. Owners, trainers, jockeys, we're all learning as we go along with this,” said Wong.

“But when you're completely not awarded any opportunities from day one until your hearing, that's pretty much being charged as guilty until proven innocent,” Wong added. “I feel like I've been locked up and had the key thrown away.”

 

The post Wong Provisionally Suspended After B Sample Confirmation appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Weekly Stewards And Commissions Rulings, June 27-July 3

Every week, the TDN publishes a roundup of key official rulings from the primary tracks within the four major racing jurisdictions of California, New York, Florida and Kentucky.

Here's a primer on how each of these jurisdictions adjudicates different offenses, what they make public (or not) and where.

The TDN will also post a roundup of the relevant Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) related rulings from the same week. These will include decisions from around the country.

New York
Track: Belmont Park
Date: 06/27/2023
Licensee: Manuel Franco, jockey
Penalty: Three-day suspension
Violation: Careless riding
Explainer: For having waived his right to an appeal Jockey Mr. Manuel Franco is hereby suspended (3) NYRA racing days July 7th 2023, July 8th 2023, July 9th 2023 inclusive. This for careless riding during the running of the second race at Belmont Park on June 22nd 2023.

NEW HISA/HIWU STEWARDS RULINGS
The following rulings were reported on HISA's “rulings” portal and through the Horseracing Integrity & Welfare Unit's “pending” and “resolved” cases portals.
This does not include the voided claim rulings which were sent to the TDN directly. Some of these rulings are from prior weeks as they were not reported contemporaneously.
One important note: HISA's whip use limit is restricted to six strikes during a race.

Violations of Crop Rule
Belterra Park
William Vernon Bush – violation date June 29; $500 fine and one-day suspension, 13 strikes

Los Alamitos
Tiago Pereira – violation date June 25; $250 fine and one-day suspension, 7 strikes
Abel Cedillo – violation date July 1; $250 fine and one-day suspension, 7 strikes
Erick Garcia – violation date July 1; $250 fine and one-day suspension, 7 strikes
Cesar Ortega – violation date July 2; $250 fine and one-day suspension, 7 strikes
Edgar Payeras – violation date July 2; $250 fine and one-day suspension, 7 strikes

Pending ADMC Violations
Date: 06/09/2023
Licensee: Douglas Nunn, trainer
Penalty: Pending
Alleged violation: Intra-articular Injection violation
Explainer: For the use of an intra-articular injection on Smithwick's Spice, who won at Delaware Park on 6/9/23, within 14 days prior to Post-Time. This is a possible violation of Rule 3313—Use of a Controlled Medication Method in relation to a Covered Horse during the Race Period. This is also a possible violation of Rule 4222—Intra-articular Injection within 14 days prior to Post-Time.

Date: 06/04/2023
Licensee: McLean Robertson, trainer
Penalty: Provisional suspension
Alleged violation: Medication violation
Explainer: For the presence of Altrenogest—a banned substance—in a sample taken from Johnny Up, who won at Canterbury Park on 6/4/23. This is a possible violation of Rule 3212—Presence of a Banned Substance and/or its Metabolites or Markers.
Read more on the story here.

Date: 06/01/2023
Licensee: Jonathon Wong, trainer
Penalty: Provisional suspension
Alleged violation: Medication violation
Explainer: For the presence of Metformin—a banned substance—in a sample taken from Heaven and Earth, who won at Horseshoe Indianapolis on 6/1/23. This is a possible violation of Rule 3212—Presence of a Banned Substance and/or its Metabolites or Markers.
Read more on the story here.

Date: 05/28/2023
Licensee: Ricardo Legall, trainer
Penalty: Pending
Alleged violation: Medication violations
Explainer: For the presence of Levamisole—Controlled Medication (Class B)—in a sample taken from Merchants of Cool, who finished fifth at Belmont Park on 5/28/23. This is a possible violation of Rule 3312—Presence of Controlled Medication Substance and/or its Metabolites or Markers.
For the presence of Dimethylsulfoxide—Controlled Medication (Class C)—in a sample taken from Merchants of Cool, who finished fifth at Belmont Park on 5/28/23. This is a possible violation of Rule 3312—Presence of Controlled Medication Substance and/or its Metabolites or Markers.

Date: 05/28/2023
Licensee: Ray Handal, trainer
Penalty: Pending
Alleged violation: Medication violation
Explainer: For the presence of Zeranol—a banned substance—in a sample taken from Barrage, who finished second at Belmont Park on 5/28/23. This is a possible violation of Rule 3212—Presence of a Banned Substance and/or its Metabolites or Markers. Pursuant to ADMC Program Rule 3247(e), HIWU has lifted the Provisional Suspension based upon information submitted by the Covered Person and the review of relevant scientific information. The Equine Anti-Doping Notice has not been withdrawn.
Read more on the story here.

The post Weekly Stewards And Commissions Rulings, June 27-July 3 appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights