Reasons For Decision In Moreau Appeal Released
The Horse Racing Appeal Panel's official Reasons For Decision in the appeal of trainer Richard Moreau have been released.
As originally reported by Trot Insider on Wednesday, Oct. 7, the Horse Racing Appeal Panel dismissed the appeal of Moreau — who faced a 10-year ban with $40,000 fine after Funtime Bayama tested positive for DPO — as follows:
- The Horse Racing Appeal Panel varied the penalty to a five-year full suspension with two years and four months being stayed and a monetary penalty of $20,000.
- The portion of the suspension to be served will terminate on March 22, 2027. Should Moreau have a positive test for a non-therapeutic, Class I or Class II drug during the stayed portion of the suspension, he may be required to serve the stayed portion together with any other penalty that may be imposed.
- All of the other provisions contained in Standardbred Official Ruling Number 2893588 dated Oct. 31, 2024 remain.
The full Reasons For Decision follow.
HORSE RACING APPEAL PANEL
TORONTO, ONTARIO – OCTOBER 7, 2026
SB HRAP 05049 2026
NOTICE OF DECISION
IN THE MATTER OF THE HORSE RACING LICENCE ACT, S.O. 2015 C. 38 Sched. 9;
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL BY RICHARD MOREAU OF
STANDARDBRED RULING NUMBER 2893588
Date of Issue: October 7, 2026
Horse Racing Appeal Panel (Panel):
- Stanley Sadinsky, K.C., Chair
- Dr. John Hayes, Member
- Nicolle Pace, Member
Appellant: Richard Moreau
Counsel for the Appellant: Jean-Marc MacKenzie, Robert MacKenzie
Counsel for the Registrar: Brendan van Niejenhuis, Alexandra Heine
Decision: The Panel dismisses the appeal and varies the penalty for the reasons set out below.
WHEREAS Richard Moreau ("MOREAU") is licensed with the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario ("AGCO") as an Owner/Trainer/Authorized Agent, Licence Number HPR8958;
AND WHEREAS ON June 10, 2024, MOREAU was the trainer of record for FUNTIME BAYAMA;
AND WHEREAS as a result of the Certificate of Analysis #117913 confirming the presence of Darbepoetin alfa ("DPO") for the horse "FUNTIME BAYAMA" (tattoo number 1WP27), in a sample collected on June 10, 2024, as part of the Out of Competition Testing Program for the North America Cup, DPO being a prohibited performance enhancing nontherapeutic substance, the use of which adversely affects the integrity of racing;
AND WHEREAS MOREAU is found to have violated Rules 26.02.01, 26.02.02, 26.02.03(a) and (b) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing;
AND WHEREAS in accordance with Rules 4.02(i), 6.04, and 6.49 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing and Policy Directive 1-2018, MOREAU is hereby fully suspended for a period of 10 years and issued a monetary penalty of $40,000.00 and the suspension shall be served from July 23, 2024, to July 23, 2034, inclusive;
AND WHEREAS in accordance with Policy Directive 1-2018, MOREAU is required to complete the AGCO Equine Medication Use and Awareness Program before reinstatement;
AND WHEREAS all horses owned in whole or in part by MOREAU are not eligible to race during the above noted suspension period, in accordance with Rule 6.13.01 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing. Any horses trained by MOREAU are ineligible to race but may, with the consent of the AGCO Race Officials, be released to another trainer in good standing or sold, in accordance with Rule 26.08 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing and Policy Directive No. 2-2008;
AND WHEREAS in accordance with Rule 6.01(a) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing, MOREAU is prohibited from accessing association grounds, including the "Winner’s Circle", with the exception of the grandstand, while his licence is suspended;
AND WHEREAS on August 6, 2024, MOREAU filed a Notice of Appeal;
AND WHEREAS at the request of the Parties, the Panel convened on December 10, 11 and 12, 2025 and on March 19 and 20, 2026 to hear that part of the Appeal dealing with the validity of the Certificate of Positive Analysis that found that the blood of FUNTIME BAYAMA did contain synthetic DPO;
AND WHEREAS on April 22, 2026, the Panel rendered an Interim Decision on the aforesaid issue set out above, upholding the validity of the Certificate of Positive Analysis that found that the blood of the horse, FUNTIME BAYAMA did contain DPO which is synthetic EPO;
AND WHEREAS the Panel reconvened on July 17, 21, 22, August 6, 31, September 1 and 2, 2026, reserving its decision;
TAKE NOTICE that the Panel dismisses the appeal as follows:
1. The Panel varies the penalty to a five-year full suspension with two years and four months being stayed and a monetary penalty of $20,000;
2. The portion of the suspension to be served will terminate on March 22, 2027. Should MOREAU have a positive test for a non-therapeutic, Class I or Class II drug during the stayed portion of the suspension, he may be required to serve the stayed portion together with any other penalty that may be imposed;
3. All of the other provisions contained in Standardbred Official Ruling Number 2893588 dated October 31, 2024 remain.
The Panel’s Reasons for Decision are attached to this Notice.
DATED on this 7th day of October, 2026.
Stanley Sadinsky, K.C., Chair
Horse Racing Appeal Panel
Dr. John Hayes, Member
Horse Racing Appeal Panel
Nicolle Pace, Member
Horse Racing Appeal Panel
REASONS FOR DECISION - RICHARD MOREAU
BACKGROUND
The Horse Racing Appeal Panel (PANEL) originally convened on December 10, 11 and 12, 2025 and March 19 and 20, 2026 to hear the Appeal of Richard Moreau (MOREAU). By an Interim Decision dated April 22, 2026, the PANEL upheld the validity of the Certificate of Positive Analysis that found that the blood of the horse, Funtime Bayama (the HORSE) did contain DPO which is synthetic EPO. (SB HRAP 0511 2026) MOREAU is the trainer of record of the HORSE. This was Part 1 of the Appeal.
The PANEL then re-convened on July 17, 21, 22, August 6, 31, September 1 and 2, 2026 to hear the remaining issues in the Appeal, Part 2.
The same counsel that appeared in Part 1 also appeared in Part 2 with the addition of Robert MacKenzie on behalf of MOREAU.
In his opening statement, Mr. van Niejenhuis, Counsel for the Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (REGISTRAR; AGCO) advised that he would call no witnesses in his case in chief but would cross-examine the witnesses called on behalf of MOREAU who, as the trainer of record bears the onus of establishing that he exercised due diligence in seeking to avoid the positive test result. Mr. van Niejenhuis reserved his right to call witnesses in Reply, if so advised.
Messrs. MacKenzie called 17 witnesses; Veterinarian Dr. Christoph Grossenbacher (GROSSENBACHER); Veterinarian Dr. Garth Henry (HENRY); Trainer Justin Turcotte (TURCOTTE); AGCO Inspector Brian Sharpe (SHARPE); Owner Bradley Grant (GRANT); Owner Adriano Sorella (SORELLA); Owner Sylvain Descheneaux (DESCHENEAUX); Groom Paul Shakes (SHAKES); Trainer Brett Lester (LESTER); Former owner Kenneth Middleton (MIDDLETON); AGCO Inspector Bradley Capes (CAPES); Groom Steve Labonte (LABONTE); Investigator Joseph Nino (NINO); Former trainer Justin Filion (J FILION), Driver Sylvain Filion (SYLVAIN), his client, Richard Moreau (MOREAU) and Veterinarian Dr. Pierre Tardif (TARDIF). Mr. Van Niejenhuis called 1 witness in Reply; Senior Commission Official Mike Weber (WEBER).
An additional 5 Exhibits were entered into evidence on consent, the first on condition that only the Tabs referred to in the oral evidence would constitute evidence in the Appeal ; Exhibit 8 – Appellant’s Supplementary Book of Documents containing 16 Tabs (ASBD); Exhibit 9 – Appellant’s Second Supplementary Book of Documents containing 8 Tabs (ASSBD); Exhibit 10 – Report of Agence d’investigation, L’Executif dated July 28, 2026 with the exception of Appendices 3a, 3b, 4a, 5a, 5b, 5c and the references to them on page 3 of the Report; Exhibit 11 – Excel Spreadsheet prepared by WEBER dated September 26, 2024; Exhibit 12 – Horse Ownership Transfers between Bayama Farm and S. Filion Stables, dated October 15, 2024 (updating Exhibit 9, Tab 4).
Following the hearing of the evidence and the submissions of counsel, the PANEL reserved its decision and it is now delivered with Reasons.
THE EVIDENCE
GROSSENBACHER is an experienced veterinarian and is currently the President of the Ontario Association of Equine Practitioners. He testified that he has known MOREAU and provided veterinary services for him for just under 10 years. He described MOREAU as an excellent trainer who is very conservative when it comes to medications for his horses. He is careful regarding withdrawal times and always provides for extra time to allow a horse to eliminate a drug. MOREAU always takes GROSSENBACHER’S advice when it relates to the treatment of a horse. GROSSENBACHER attended at MOREAU’S premises (the FARM) nine times in May and 10 times in June, 2024.
GROSSENBACHER testified that MOREAU’S FARM is always clean and in a proper condition and his staff is treated well. His horses are healthy, well cared for, well fed and "happy." The premises are secure with a locked gate, fencing and cameras in the two barns. It is a "great operation."
GROSSENBACHER testified that in May and June, 2024 SYLVAIN, the regular driver of the HORSE and part of the family that bred and owned the HORSE, was at the FARM on most occasions when GROSSENBACHER was there. And on occasion, GROSSENBACHER spoke on the telephone with Yves Filion (YVES), the father of SYLVAIN and the sole owner of the HORSE through Bayama Farm Inc. When SYLVAIN or YVES first instructed him to provide veterinarian services for the HORSE, GROSSENBACHER checked with MOREAU who said "whatever they need, they can get. They’re fine. They know what they’re doing." Each time that GROSSENBACHER treated the HORSE, he testified that he advised MOREAU about what he had done. Moreau did not seem concerned.
The HORSE was being prepared for the Elimination Race and the final of the prestigious Pepsi North America Cup Race to be run at Mohawk Park on June 15th. (Exhibit 8, Tab 2) The HORSE raced on May 4th, 11th, 24th, June 8th and then on June 15th in the North America Cup. In these races, the horse finished in the top 3, mostly winning and was in excellent form and health. (Exhibit 1, Tab 10) On SYLVAIN’S direction, the HORSE’S blood was tested on April 24th, May 14th, 23rd, June 4th and 17th. (Exhibit 8, Tab 1) GROSSENBACHER testified that he found this to be unusual as the test results were all normal except that the June 17th test showed significant elevation in red blood cell count, hemoglobin and hematocrit that no permitted substances would produce but all within the normal range. (Exhibit 1, Tab 1A) GROSSENBACHER felt that these routine tests were unnecessary as the horse was in good health and was racing extremely well but he nonetheless followed SLVAIN’S instructions. He did not ask SYLVAIN why he wanted the blood tested so often. MOREAU was continually informed and seemed content with SYLVAIN’S involvement. A record of GROSSENBACHER’S services is found in Exhibit 8, Tab 2.
GROSSENBACHER testified that there is no recommended withdrawal time for DPO as it is a prohibited medication. DPO has a small detection window.
In cross-examination, GROSSENBACHER testified that it was important to keep MOREAU fully informed of the services that he was providing because as trainer of record, MOREAU’S "head was on the block."
HENRY is a veterinarian who has worked with MOREAU and has known him for some 40 years. He testified that he is very familiar with MOREAU’S FARM and was once a co-owner of the property. He felt that there was great security in place with a locked gate, fencing and cameras. He described MOREAU as hard working, generous and had a stellar reputation. MOREAU always took advice from him when he was attending to MOREAU’S horses.
HENRY was familiar with the bloodwork that was ordered by SYLVAIN in May and June 2024 and could not understand why this was done as the HORSE was healthy, racing very well and did not appear to be tying up. He testified that owners rarely intervened with the therapeutic plan for a horse.
HENRY testified that DPO is detectible within a week of an administration and to be effective, it had to be administered on a continual basis. He felt that testing blood five times from April to June was excessive and to him, made no sense. He also testified that it was extremely rare for an owner to instruct a veterinarian to administer to a horse. But in cross-examination, HENRY did acknowledge that with this HORSE, a unique situation existed where an experienced and qualified horseman such as SYLVAIN who came from a highly regarded family of horsemen and who was knowledgeable in all aspects of racing, provided input on the care of an exceptional HORSE.
When asked by the Chair of the Panel whether if he was the trainer of record and responsible for the HORSE would he be curious as to why all these blood tests were being asked for? Henry replied, "We’re talking about a specific situation with the Filions…I’m not the one to tell Yves Filion that his horse doesn’t need a blood test…Is it abnormal? Yes. Is it worth picking a fight with an owner, a trainer, a veterinarian? Probably not."
TURCOTTE is a trainer and driver of standardbred horses who was working as an assistant trainer for MOREAU in May and June, 2024. He testified as to the excellent care that MOREAU’S horses received and that working for MOREAU was like being with a family. MOREAU was very generous with his staff. MOREAU was always careful with medications. In cross-examination, TURCOTTE acknowledged that the cameras in the barns did not cover the entire barn area.
TURCOTTE felt that at times MOREAU appeared to be frustrated with SYLVAIN’S involvement with the HORSE but allowed him to continue as he likely felt that owners were permitted to do what they wanted.
SHARPE testified that after the AGCO received the results of the screening test performed on the blood of the HORSE that indicted the presence of an EPO "hit," he, along with Inspector CAPES attended at MOREAU’S FARM unannounced on June 24, 2024 to conduct an investigation. Aside from inspecting the premises, they subsequently took statements from MOREAU, SYLVAIN, GROSSENBACHER, TURCOTTE, Andrew Harris (HARRIS) and Steve Labonte (LABONTE). They also tried to interview YVES and J FILION but were unable to do so. J FILION did not answer their repeated requests and his AGCO licences were and remain suspended. YVES advised through his counsel that medical problems rendered him unavailable.
SHARPE and CAPES subsequently prepared an extensive Inspection Report dated October 16, 2024 (Exhibit 9, Tab 1). The AGCO’S Licensing and History Report on MOREAU was also reviewed. (Exhibit 1, Tab 1C) It showed that from 2015 to 2024, the AGCO had conducted some 33 unannounced visits to MOREAU’S FARM to conduct inspections or draw blood from horses for Out of Competition Testing (OCT) testing.
During his inspection, SHARPE testified that he found MOREAU’S premises to be in good order, medications were properly organized and stored, the horses were in good condition, there was a locked entrance gate that required a code to open and there were cameras in both barns. In addition, there was no evidence of the presence of DPO and MOREAU was co-operative at all times.
In a subsequent attendance at the FARM, OCT testing was performed on 22 of MOREAU’S horses including the HORSE and the test results were all negative for prohibited drugs.
The Record of Moreau as a trainer disclosed that he has had over 35,000 starts with 7,168 wins and with purses exceeding $78 million. He has clearly been a very successful trainer. (Exhibit 8, Tab 13)
Resulting from their interviews, SHARPE testified that the Inspectors had information that SYLVAIN had played a role in performing some duties with the HORSE and this led to a suspension of his licences with the AGCO and a monetary penalty. During SHARPE’S evidence, a document was introduced that allocated training duties of the HORSE between MOREAU and SYLVAIN. (Exhibit 1, Tab 12) This document indicated that MOREAU was responsible for feeding and trucking the HORSE to and from the racetrack and for entering the HORSE to race. MOREAU also provided the groom for the HORSE and the feed that the horse would receive. SYLVAIN was allegedly responsible for securing farrier services, instructing the veterinarian as to what services to provide for the HORSE, scheduling the jogging and training the HORSE and for determining the equipment that the HORSE would wear. SYLVAIN also determined what vitamins and minerals the HORSE would receive. SYLVAIN and sometimes YVES and J FILION also dealt with the horse in the paddock of the racetrack when the HORSE was in to race.
An audio recording was made of the interview that the Inspectors conducted with SYLVAIN on August 7th and it was played during SHARPE’S evidence. (Exhibit 8, Tab 12). In the interview, SYLVAIN advised the Inspectors that in May and June, 2024 he was at MOREAU’S premises very often and that he jogged and trained the HORSE. YVES was also there during the weekend of the North America Cup Race as was J FILION. SYLVAIN advised that the HORSE is owned by Bayama Farm Inc. which is a Filion family business controlled by YVES and operates in Quebec.
SYLVAIN stated that if one of their horses such as this HORSE raced in Ontario, he was the ‘point person’ for the owner. He advised that he consulted often with YVES and took directions from him sometimes including the securing of vet services. YVES would sometimes order the vet work directly. SYLVAIN stated that he had no other responsibilities regarding the HORSE except for jogging it frequently and training it two days before a race. He also stated that MOREAU or LABONTE not him would give the HORSE vitamins and minerals. In addition, SYLVAIN stated that one Sebastian Leblanc visited the HORSE in its stall while he was there.
SYLVAIN advised that the groom of the horse, LABONTE, an employee of MOREAU drew blood from the HORSE on SYLVAIN’S instructions for testing. SYLVAIN advised that blood testing was being performed to monitor if the HORSE was sick or tying up.
SYLVAIN did not keep logs of the medication, supplements or tests that he ordered. He also testified that he did not administer DPO to the HORSE.
Following listening to the recording, SHARPE testified that it appeared to him that SYLVAIN was acting in part as a conduit for YVES’ instructions. SYLVAIN advised that YVES wanted the blood work done for nutritional purposes.
The Inspectors received an email dated August 14, 2024 from counsel for YVES that included a medical certificate outlining YVES’ medical issues that precluded him from giving a statement to the inspectors. (Exhibit 9, Tabs 1 and 8) The Inspectors also reviewed the Standardbred Canada Track IT Record dealing with YVES that indicated that YVES drove and trained horses at Rideau Carleton Racetrack in July and August, 2024. In addition, YVES on behalf of Bayama Farm Inc., sold a number of horses including the HORSE in May through August, 2024. (Exhibit 9, Tab 4)
SHARPE also referred to an article in the Paulick Report dated April, 2015 that set out how EPO was to be administered and monitored. It suggested that the red blood cell count of a horse that had received EPO had to be followed. (Exhibit 9, Tab 5) This was compared with the blood tests for the HORSE that occurred in May and June, 2024.
In cross-examination, SHARPE agreed that the wagering public expects that the trainer who is listed for a horse, is actually training that horse.
In re-examination, SHARPE agreed that the trainer of a horse cannot exclude its owner absolutely from visiting the horse.
GRANT is a major owner of Standardbred horses and sits on the Board of Directors of Woodbine Entertainment. He testified that he has employed MOREAU as the trainer of some of his horses for 12 years. He described MOREAU as an excellent and honest trainer and before his suspension he had 15 to 20 horses with him. He appreciates the constant reports that he receives from MOREAU about his horses and has never had a negative experience or a positive drug test result with him. He trusts MOREAU completely.
GRANT has visited MOREAU’S FARM and describes it as an excellent facility for training horses. He has the passcode to enter the front gate.
GRANT testified that he does not believe that MOREAU gave the HORSE DPO and when he is re-instated, GRANT will return all of his horses to him.
SORELLA is a major owner and breeder of Standardbred horses and has employed MOREAU as his trainer for some 10 years. He testified that MOREAU cares for his horses and SORELLA Is satisfied that they are in a secure place. He has been to the FARM many times and it is a well-kept facility. He arrives unannounced and has the code for the gate. He described himself as a "hands off" owner and leaves it to MOREAU to make decisions about his horses, how they will jog, train and race. MOREAU is "on top" of each horse and is in charge of the operation. MOREAU does not utilize excessive vet work and takes care with respect to the withdrawal and cut-off times of medications.
In cross-examination SORELLA testified that he is convinced that MOREAU did not give DPO to the HORSE. He also believes that none of MOREAU’S employees would "dope a horse" and he always expects that nothing illegal will ever happen to his horses.
DESCHENEAUX is an owner of Standardbred horses and is the President of the Quebec Jockey Club. He testified that he has had up to 10 horses with MOREAU between 2021 and 2024 and feels that his horses were well cared for and protected. He has been to the FARM about 50 times and testified that the property is "beautiful." He has the code for the gate and sometimes visits with others.
DESCHENEAUX described MOREAU as knowledgeable, good with horses and his employees and is a "straight guy." MOREAU does not use vets often and he has DESCHENEAUX’S trust.
SHAKES is a groom and trainer who works for MOREAU. He testified that when he began to work for MOREAU and when MOREAU was describing his system of training to him, MOREAU told him "I do not take chances. I have too much to lose. I have my farm. I have my horses to lose and I have all my help." MOREAU did everything "by the book."
SHAKES testified that the horses receive excellent care and that the staff were treated very well. Once MOREAU is confident that a groom knows his job, he is given flexibility as to how it is performed. MOREAU "oks everything" and is careful with medication and cut-off times. When AGCO officials attend at the FARM to conduct inspections or draw blood from horses, MOREAU is always totally co-operative.
SHAKES testified that the HORSE was at the FARM in May and June, 2024 and that SYLVAIN was there almost every day. YVES and J FILION usually came on weekends when the HORSE was racing and would come to the FARM on the Sunday mornings as well. He observed SYLVAIN instructing the vet what to administer to the horse and SYLVAIN took over the vet work…. "We had no say." SHAKES thought this was unusual as MOREAU always instructed the vet. He testified that MOREAU never ordered regular blood work and did so only if a horse was sick or raced poorly.
On race days when SHAKES was in the race paddock with the horses, he observed that the FILIONS were there with the HORSE and they took over the preparation of the HORSE to race. In his experience, this was not common for owners.
SHAKES testified that he would "bet his life" that MOREAU did not give the HORSE DPO.
In cross-examination, SHAKES testified that he was given discretion as to how he would do his job and that MOREAU expected that his staff would not let him down. He testified that SYLVAIN was the only person who would jog and train the HORSE and that the FILIONS were sometimes in the HORSE’S stall alone with the HORSE. It appeared to him, that MOREAU allowed the FILIONS to deal with the HORSE as they did.
LESTER is a Standardbred owner, trainer and groom and worked for MOREAU from 2018 to 2022. He described the FARM as very well maintained and as a groom, he was given some discretion in working with the 4 or 5 horses assigned to him. He testified that MOREAU directed the feeding, supplements and medications that a horse was to receive and LESTER and the other grooms constantly reported on their horses to MOREAU. MOREAU treated his staff very well. He was careful with cut-off and withdrawal times and all medications were stored in MOREAU’S office. When vet work was done, a member of staff was always present
LESTER testified that blood work was only performed when a horse was sick or tying up and not if a horse was healthy. When AGCO Officials attended at the FARM, MOREAU instructed his staff to be totally co-operative with them.
LESTER never saw DPO at the FARM. Owners visited the FARM rarely and in cross-examination, LESTER acknowledged that a trainer of record is responsible for protecting his horses and that choosing anyone to visit or assist in the care of a horse is always a risk.
MIDDLETON is a former owner and trainer and had a long career as a race announcer. He testified that some years ago, MOREAU trained horses for him and he got to know him very well and they became close friends. MIDDLETON has visited the FARM many times as has the pass code for the gate.
MIDDLETON described the FARM, the fencing and the gate. He testified that MOREAU gave "fantastic" care to all of his horses and treated his staff very well so there was little turnover. In addition to housing horses in his two barns, MOREAU sometimes housed horses on his neighbour’s next- door property. There was an unlocked gate between the two properties and the neighbour sometimes used MOREAU’S training track for his own horses.
MIDDLETON testified as to MOREAU’S excellent character, that he was trusted and respected as an excellent trainer. In all his years as a trainer, MOREAU has had only one positive test for Lasix.
MIDDLETON testified that as to the DPO positive, that he didn’t know who did it but "what I do know is that Richard Moreau didn’t do it…His greatest crime in all of this was trusting people."
CAPES testified that he attended with SHARP at the FARM on June 24, 2024 to perform an inspection, conduct OCT testing and subsequently, he co-authored the Inspection Report dated October 16th. In addition to the parties that were interviewed and listed in the evidence of SHARPE, CAPES testified that they also interviewed Andrew Harris (HARRIS) who subsequently purchased the HORSE. He testified that HARRIS was "angry" when he learned of the positive test result for DPO.
CAPES testified that the cameras in the barn where the HORSE was housed, did not cover that area. He also reviewed the sales of horses from Bayama Farm to SYLVAIN all dated June 1st but not paid for until October 15th and this caused him concern (Exhibit 12)
CAPES noted the contradiction in the statement of SYLVAIN where he said that he only fed the HORSE liquorice and did nothing but jog and train the HORSE while others indicated that SYLVAIN did much more including the ordering of vet work for the HORSE and the preparation of the HORSE to race while in the racetrack paddock.
CAPES also testified regarding the efforts that were made to obtain statements from YVES and J FILION that were unsuccessful while at the same time, both YVES and J FILION were actively engaged in racing and training horses in Quebec. (Exhibit 9, Tab 2)
CAPES testified that MOREAU told him that he was going to hire a private investigator because he, MOREAU wanted to get to the truth as to what happened that led to the positive test result.
When questioned by Panel Member Pace, CAPES testified that there was a second unlocked entrance to the FARM from a neighbouring property and that MOREAU did not keep a log book recording visitors to the FARM.
LABONTE was the groom of the HORSE at all relevant times and testified as to the location in the barn where the HORSE was housed. He indicated that when the HORSE was brought to the FARM, YVES selected the stall where the HORSE was to be located and it was in an area not covered by the camera in the barn.
LABONTE testified that he received numerous calls from YVES and J FILION giving him directions as to the HORSE’S routine and equipment. SYLVAIN instructed the vet as to what was to be administered to the HORSE and all three FILIONS were actively involved in the racetrack paddock in preparing the horse to race.
LABONTE testified that SYLVAIN directed that blood work was to be done weekly on the HORSE and he was told by SYLVAIN that this was being done because the horse was low on vitamins. LABONTE believes that YVES was "calling the shots" and that SYLVAIN was constantly reporting to YVES as to what was being done with the HORSE.
NINO is an experienced private investigator who was retained by MOREAU to help determine what led to the HORSE testing positive for DPO. He testified that he interviewed many persons and examined many court and other records. He subsequently prepared a Report dated July 28, 2026 containing his findings and recommendations (Exhibit 10) The Report included a number of attachments and the Panel, when admitting the Report into evidence, directed that the attachments relating to criminal records and reference to them on page 3 of the Report should be excluded and not form part of the evidence
NINO interviewed Sylvain Cote (COTE), veterinarian TARDIF, Dany Mainguy (MAINGUY), TURCOTTE, LABONTE and SYLVAIN and in his testimony and in his Report, he outlined what he had been told by all of them.
COTE, a trainer of Standardbred horses told NINO that he had previously used TARDIF as a veterinarian and that TARDIF had provided him with DPO for use on one of his horses. A copy of the invoice was annexed to NINO’S Report as item #1.
MAINGUY told NINO that he was a breeder of Standardbred horses and a former brother-in-law of J FILION. He advised that he had worked for the Filion family at Bayama Farm in 2007 – 08 and had seen DPO in the stable refrigerator. He also advised that the Filions had administered DPO to their horses and that SYLVAIN and J FILION were aware of this. MAINGUY also advised that he thought that MOREAU had never used DPO.
TURCOTTE advised NINO that YVES and J FILION did not co-operate with AGCO Officials when they attempted to get statements from them.
LABONTE advised NINO that Julie Filion, a sister of J FILION had posted a picture of him with the HORSE on her Facebook page on June 9, 2024 but removed it the next day.
SYLVAIN was first interviewed by NINO on October 31, 2024. SYLVAIN advised NINO that he retired from racing two weeks before. He advised that he had no knowledge of DPO until this positive test occurred and that he was shocked when he learned of it. He confirmed that the HORSE was sold following the Pepsi North America Cup race to an American buyer and was racing in the United States. He recalled that TARDIF had treated the HORSE at one time as he had treated a number of Filion horses in Quebec. SYLVAIN advised NINO that his main job was racing the HORSE, nothing more. SYLVAIN denied that he had given the HORSE DPO. He advised NINO that his father, YVES suffers from Alzheimer’s and has dementia.
NINO had difficulty arranging an interview with TARDIF. When he finally met him on November 20, 2024, TARDIF advised that he spoke on the telephone with J FILION in March, 2024 and that J FILION had requested information about medications for horses. TARDIF advised that he had not done business with the Filions for ‘a very long time’ and had never prescribed DPO to any of the Filions or to COTE.
NINO also contacted the Order of Veterinarians of Quebec to determine whether TARDIF had ever prescribed DPO to the Filions. He spoke with one Sophie Voyer who advised that she checked with the Quebec Order of Pharmacists and found no prescriptions issued by TARDIF to the Filion family.
NINO in his Report concluded that the involvement of the Filion family with the positive test result was a possibility (underlining ours). He found that there was "no conclusive evidence" of who administered DPO to the HORSE. He was suspicious of YVES, J FILION and TARDIF because of their unwillingness to co-operate with him and with the AGCO in providing information regarding the positive test result.
NINO also made recommendations in his Report that MOREAU improve the restrictions of access to his horses with more camera coverage and implementing a visitor’s log system.
In cross-examination, NINO acknowledged that TARDIF may have been unwilling to provide information to him because of his professional requirement to preserve the confidential information of clients. Also, NINO did not inquire whether COTE secured DPO for race horses as opposed to other animals. In addition, MAINGUY did not provide information as to who was using the DPO that he saw on the Bayama Farm premises in 2007-08 and which horses, if any, may have been involved. MAINGUY also acknowledged that he does not have good relations with the Filions and would not provide NINO with a written statement for fear of the Filions.
J FILION is a son of YVES and a brother of SYLVAIN. He testified that in 2024, his health was bad as he had a drug addiction problem at the time. He did not respond to the requests by AGCO Officials to provide information on this case as he was in no state to do so.
He testified that Bayama Farm Inc. is owned and controlled by his father, YVES and that he is not an owner. Although he worked for his father as trainer in the past, in parts of 2024 he only did physical work on the farm from time to time. In May and June, 2024, he was well but then had a relapse in July and August.
J FILION testified that when his father had a horse racing in Ontario, he would retain an Ontario trainer and in this case, he retained MOREAU to train the HORSE. He testified that YVES would instruct MOREAU on most things involving the HORSE including what vet work was to be done.
When the HORSE was at the FARM, he testified that he visited "on occasion" on and around the weekend that the HORSE was racing and YVES asked him to be his "third eye" while there. He testified that he went to the racetrack paddock to help out and identified himself as a visitor. He testified that he did not instruct MOREAU’S groom who was also there. He also went into the retention barn when the HORSE was in retention before a big race again just to help out.
J FILION testified that he played no part in the subsequent sale of the HORSE. He also testified that he had no involvement with any vet work that was done and that he did not call TARDIF in the spring of 2024. He had the pass code for the entrance gate and when he was at the FARM, there were always people there.
In cross-examination, J FILION testified that when he went to the FARM, it was with YVES, SYLVAIN, his sister Julie and sometimes with other friends. MOREAU did not supervise his visits nor his attendance at the racetrack paddock or the retention barn. When he was at the retention barn, he helped feed the HORSE and walk the HORSE outside its stall.
In re-examination, he testified that he never gave the HORSE any medications.
SYLVAIN is a very successful driver of standardbred horses, is an O’Brien Award winner and was inducted into the Canadian Horse Racing Hall of Fame in August, 2024.
He testified that while the HORSE was in Quebec, it was trained by YVES who made all the decisions. Bayama Farm Inc. is the owner of the HORSE and YVES is the sole owner of that corporation and SYLVAIN testified that he owns no part of the corporation.
SYLVAIN testified that in 2023 and 2024 he was not employed by Bayama Farm Inc. and when the HORSE was sent to Ontario, he worked with the HORSE because he loved to and because YVES asked him to keep an eye on the HORSE. YVES determined when the HORSE would race and SYLVAIN reminded MOREAU to enter the HORSE accordingly.
SYLVAIN jogged and trained the horse at MOREAU’S premises and he, YVES and MOREAU decided on a training schedule. SYLVAIN testified that he spoke with YVES about the vet work that should be done and he then instructed GROSSENBACHER what to do. SYLVAIN testified that this included giving the HORSE Blood Shots after a race and MOREAU did not know about this. As to the vet work to be done, SYLVAIN testified that he spoke directly with GROSSENBACHER and he believed that GROSSENBACHER would later advise MOREAU as to what was done.
SYLVAIN testified that routine blood work was done because the HORSE had tied up a few weeks before the Pepsi North America Cup Race and to ensure that the HORSE was not tying up nor sick. SYLVAIN also testified that "the vet" told him that the HORSE had tied up and that it was SYLVAIN who told LABONTE to draw blood for the tests.
In May and June, 2024, SYLVAIN’S corporation purchased and took possession of horses from Bayama Farm Inc. because YVES had dementia but the horses were not paid for until October 15 (Exhibit 12) These horses included the mother of the HORSE.
While the HORSE was at the FARM in May and June, 2024, SYLVAIN was there four or five days a week. SYLVAIN testified that J FILION and YVES were only there two or three times on weekends when the HORSE raced. SYLVAIN testified that J FILION was allowed in the retention barn by LABONTE because there was no one else there to check on the HORSE and to see that it ate well and that MOREAU knew of this.
As to the shoeing of the HORSE, SYLVAIN testified that decisions were made in consultation with YVES and MOREAU was consulted and agreed.
As to equipment changes, this was directed by SYLVAIN in discussions with MOREAU.
SYLVAIN testified that he played a part in the subsequent sale of the HORSE by being the liaison between YVES and the buyers. He knew that the buyers were upset when they subsequently learned about the positive test result.
In cross-examination, SYLVAIN testified that although MOREAU’S staff may have thought that he was "calling all the shots" with respect to the HORSE, it was YVES who was doing so. He testified that MOREAU knew everything that SYLVAIN was doing and did not object. SYLVAIN acknowledged that he did more with the HORSE than an ordinary catch driver would do because it was his father’s HORSE.
MOREAU is a very experienced and successful trainer of standardbred horses. At the time of this incident, he had some 60 horses in his care, 10 grooms, two assistant trainers and two other employees.
MOREAU testified that in 2024 each of his grooms had the care of five horses and a routine of training was followed. A neighbour rents 25 stalls from him as well. The HORSE in question was located in a stall in the lower barn, a stall selected by YVES.
MOREAU testified that owners seldom came to visit their horses with the exception of the Filions.
MOREAU’S veterinarian was GROSSENBACHER who came to his premises four days a week. The arrangement was that MOREAU pays GROSSENBACHER for his services and then charges those services to the owner of the horse being treated.
MOREAU testified that he ran a very tight operation and used medications for his horses sparingly. He only drew blood if a horse performed poorly, tied up or was sick. He is careful with withdrawal times for medications and always allows extra time than recommended. He always follows the advice of the vet. MOREAU testified that he thought that the Filions were instructing the vet overly often in dealing with the HORSE. LABONTE was the groom of the HORSE.
MOREAU testified that he has known the Filion family all his life and has trained some 15 horses for them in the past. He described them as horsemen with great experience. In dealing with the HORSE, the Filions were much more involved than with any other of their other horses. SYLVAIN was present four days a week and YVES and J FILION were there on weekends when the HORSE raced. YVES called him once or twice while the HORSE was in his care but he spoke with SYLVAIN quite often about how the HORSE was doing. The HORSE was healthy and racing very well. Overall, the HORSE was at the MOREAU farm from mid-May to late June, some five weeks.
When he agreed to take the HORSE, he was not told about how involved the Filions would be but he thought that this was an "exceptional situation." He felt that collectively the Filions did a lot. SYLVAIN directed the vet, jogged and trained the HORSE, dealt with the blacksmith and with equipment changes. MOREAU testified that he knew that SYLVAIN was instructing the vet and thought that it was "ok" for the Filions to be involved. He knew that the HORSE’S blood was being tested routinely. He testified that by allowing the Filions to be involved, he "took the risk." He also agreed that J FILION could be present with the HORSE in the retention barn but ordinarily, he would not allow an "outsider" to go to the retention barn. He was aware that J FILION had a substance abuse problem but he seemed well when he was at the FARM.
The HORSE’S racing schedule was pre-arranged by the Filions and SYLVAIN would remind MOREAU to enter the HORSE to race as trainer of record. MOREAU would arrange to truck the HORSE to and from the racetrack.
MOREAU testified that he knew all the while that he was "responsible" and now feels that the owners are responsible as well. He testified that the Filions had access to the HORSE without his regular supervision.
MOREAU testified that when the HORSE was sold, the buyers contacted him about its equipment only. The Filions never asked him about the positive test.
In cross-examination, MOREAU confirmed that he permitted the Filions to be involved with the HORSE and that he was aware of it all except for the giving of the HORSE Blood Shots.
In a question from Panel member Pace, MOREAU testified that he was aware that the camera in the lower barn did not cover every area.
TARDIF testified that he has been a veterinarian for some 47 years and has never treated a horse owned by the Filions. On one occasion when he was the track veterinarian, he euthanized a Filion horse at Trois-Rivieres Racetrack when it broke down during a race.
TARDIF testified that he used EPO as a last resort on a few occasions when a horse with severe anemia that was not racing and did not improve with the use of folic acid and supplements. He knew that the drug could be harmful to a horse. He once prescribed it for one Sylvain Cote at the end of a racing season.
TARDIF testified that he remembered that J FILION phoned him in 2024, but he couldn’t remember the subject of their conversation.
TARDIF was shown Exhibit 9, Tab 1, the record of the results of blood tests for the HORSE between June 17 and August 14, 2024 and noted that the first test indicated too low haemoglobin, haematocrits and red blood cell counts while the last test showed those items as too high. He testified that the high results could have been caused by dehydration.
TARDIF was the last witness called on behalf of MOREAU.
In Reply, WEBER testified that he was asked in September 2024 to do an analysis based on the information then available of the division of responsibilities between MOREAU and SYLVAIN for the HORSE. He testified that he created a spread sheet (Exhibit 11) that indicated that SYLVAIN had 64 per cent of the care and control of the HORSE while MOREAU had 18 per cent.
In cross-examination, WEBER acknowledged that if he had information from both J FILION AND YVES, his analysis would have been more complete and if the analysis had been done with the information available in 2026, the result may well have been different.
THE ISSUE
In his submissions, Mr. van Niejenhuis advised that the REGISTRAR was not alleging that MOREAU administered or instructed someone to administer DPO to the HORSE. Therefore, the only remaining issue is as follows: Even if MOREAU as trainer of record did not administer or instruct someone to administer DPO to the HORSE, has MOREAU established on a balance of probabilities and with clear, cogent and convincing evidence that he exercised due diligence in protecting and safeguarding the HORSE from interference by anyone and took all reasonable precautions to guard the HORSE? If not, what is the appropriate penalty?
THE RELEVANT RULES OF STANDARDBRED RACING (IN PART)
- 26.02.01 A trainer shall be responsible at all times for the condition of all horses trained by him/her. The trainer must safeguard from tampering each horse trained by him/her and must exercise all reasonable precautions in guarding, or causing any horse trained by him/her to be guarded, from the time of entry to race until the conclusion of the race...Without restricting the generality of the foregoing, every trainer must guard, or cause to be guarded by the exercise of all reasonable care and protection, each horse trained by him/her so as to prevent any person from obtaining access to the horse in such a manner as would permit any person not employed by or not connected with the owner or trainer from administering any drug or other substance resulting in a pre-race or post-race positive test.
- 26.02.02 Any trainer who fails to protect or cause any horse trained by him to be protected and a positive test thereby results or who otherwise violates this rule, violates the rules.
- 26.02.03 Notwithstanding 26.02.01, the Commission and all delegated officials shall consider the following to be absolute liability violations:
(a) Any trainer whose horse(s) tests positive for any substances determined to be non-therapeutic;
(b) Any trainer whose horse(s) tests positive resulting from the out-of-competition program;
- 26.05 When the Judges decide that someone other than the officially named trainer of record is actually in charge, custody of, or in care of a horse, the Judges shall have the right to hold such person responsible instead of, or in addition to the person named as trainer of record.
- 26.06.01 A person shall not represent himself or herself to be the trainer of a horse unless he/she is actually training that horse.
- 26.15 The trainer of record of a horse shall be a licensed trainer who has the day-to-day care and or custody and or control of the horse and is responsible for the training, allocation or direction of training duties at the stable.
- 6.49 An owner or trainer may be held wholly or partially responsible if any drug substance or medication administered or prescribed by him results in;
(b) the confirmation of the use of erythropoietin or any of its synthetic derivatives for the purposes of the Rules and, if held wholly or partially responsible, may be subject to a monetary penalty and/or suspended by the Judges.
THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
Mr. van Niejenhuis submitted that for the purposes of determining whether MOREAU as trainer of record discharged his obligation to guard and protect the HORSE from tampering by anyone, it is not necessary to determine who administered DPO to the HORSE.
He submitted that the named trainer of record is relied on by the bettors as the person who had care and custody of a horse and prepared the horse to race. And in this case, there is ample evidence that others, such as SYLVAIN, J FILION and YVES were given access to the HORSE by MOREAU and that collectively the Filions participated in a significant manner in directing steps that were to be taken in preparing the HORSE to race most notably in the Elimination Race and the Pepsi North America Cup.
Mr. van Niejenhuis reviewed the evidence of J FILION, SYLVAIN, GROSSENBACHER, LABONTE, SHAKES, TURCOTTE and MOREAU as to the activities of the Filions at the FARM. He also reviewed the evidence of DESCHENEAU, LESTER, GRANT, SORELLA, HENRY, MIDDLETON and TARDIF.
Mr. van Niejenhuis submitted that this is an absolute liability offence as provided in Rule 26.02.03(b) and that the trainer of record is responsible. Due diligence is no defence but is relevant with respect to penalty. In support of these positions, he cited Re Primeau, [2022] CanLII 67709, and Shakes v. Ontario Racing Commission, [2013] ONSC 4229.
As to penalty, Mr. van Niejenhuis submitted that the penalty of a 10-year full suspension and a monetary penalty of $40,000 as recommended in the Ontario Penalty Guidelines, Policy Directive No. 1 – 2018 (AGCO GUIDELINES) for a first offence for a non-therapeutic drug such as DPO was reasonable and in the public interest but that the Panel clearly has the discretion to adjust it in the circumstances of this case.
Mr. Robert MacKenzie submitted that the Filions had the care and control of the HORSE and he reviewed the evidence of SYLVAIN, GROSSENBACHER, J FILION, SHAKES, TURCOTTE and MOREAU as to the activities of the Filions when they were at the FARM. He also referred to the evidence of DESCHENEAU, HENRY, SORELLA, LESTER, WEBER and TARDIF.
Mr. MacKenzie submitted that the term "trainer" in Rules 26.02 and 26.03 meant the trainer who had the actual care and control of a horse and not the ‘trainer of record.’ Accordingly, he argued that these Rules did not apply to MOREAU and it was not he who had the duty to protect the HORSE. Mr. MacKenzie noted that both terms are found in the Rules and if it was intended that these Rules should apply to the trainer of record, they should have so stipulated.
Mr. MacKenzie also submitted that DPO was not necessarily a non-therapeutic drug as outlined in the AGCO GUIDELINES as it can be properly used on a horse that has extreme anemia. He submitted that the Association of Racing Commissioners International Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances Penalty Guidelines (ARCI GUIDELINES) for a first offence Class 1 drug should apply in this case not the AGCO GUIDELINES.
Mr. MacKenzie submitted that the penalty imposed should be proportional to the degree of care, control and responsibility that the Filions had on the one hand and MOREAU had on the other and on this basis, the penalty for MOREAU should be time already served. Mr. MacKenzie cited the Armata decision ([2026] HRAP 05020 2026) where the penalty for the trainer of record was reduced as a result of a finding that the owner of the horse in question likely tampered with the horse surreptitiously.
Finally, Mr. MacKenzie submitted that MOREAU’S sterling record in only having two positive tests for Lasix in a career involving some 35,000 starts should be a mitigating factor in determining penalty.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
As stated above, as a result of the Registrar’s decision not to allege that MOREAU administered or caused someone to administer DPO to the HORSE, the only issue to be determined in this de novo Appeal is whether MOREAU established on a balance of probabilities and with clear, cogent and convincing evidence that he exercised due diligence in protecting and safeguarding the HORSE from interference by anyone and took all reasonable precautions to guard the HORSE. If not, what is the appropriate penalty?
It is undisputed that once the positive test result is proven to be valid, the onus shifts to MOREAU to establish that even though he was the trainer of record for the HORSE, he should not bear responsibility and be excused by establishing that he exercised due diligence in protecting the HORSE from anyone and that he took all reasonable precautions to guard the HORSE. (Re Primeau, supra)
In making this determination, it is not necessary for the PANEL to determine who actually administered DPO to the HORSE. Furthermore, we find that the evidence of WEBER is irrelevant in considering the singular issue in this Appeal.
There is no question that owners are entitled to have access to their horses. However, if owners are permitted by the horse’s trainer to participate in the preparation of their horse to race, the trainer is obligated to oversee and supervise their activities. This did not happen in this case. MOREAU appeared to give YVES, J FILION and SYLVAIN unfettered access to the HORSE without substantial supervision and oversight. And while MOREAU was sometimes advised of their activities, he chose not to intervene. It remains an open question as to whether the actions of any of the Filions constituted them ‘trainers’ of the HORSE within the meaning of the Rules.
MOREAU’S approach to training in this case was far different from his usual routine. This is perhaps best illustrated by the evidence of GROSSENBACHER who asked MOREAU what he should do when he had received directions from SYLVAIN with respect to an administration of medication for the horse and MOREAU replied, "whatever they need, they can get. They’re fine. They know what they’re doing." In our view, this constituted a clear failure to exercise due diligence.
One can understand why MOREAU made this decision in this most unusual circumstance. He had known the Filion family for some 35 years and was well aware of their expertise as horsemen and their considerable success. The HORSE was sent to him for only a five-week period while it was being prepared to race in the Pepsi North America Cup. However, in our view, that did not excuse him from discharging his responsibilities as trainer of record to protect his horse from everyone who had access to it even those connected to the HORSE’S owner. And MOREAU himself in giving evidence candidly testified that he was responsible as trainer of record for what had occurred – "my name was on the paper."
MOREAU, as trainer of record entered the HORSE to race while it was in his care. His name appeared in each race program. The wagering public was entitled to expect that he and his staff had prepared the horse for each race and many would wager on the HORSE for that reason. They would rely and were entitled to rely on his known expertise and past success when considering how to wager on the race.
We agree that MOREAU had taken significant steps to provide security at the FARM. His staff was well trained. The entrance gate was locked and access to the premises could only be had by someone who had the entry code or was ‘buzzed in’ by MOREAU. Furthermore, there were nine cameras on the premises including a camera in the barn where the HORSE was kept. In addition, the entire property was fenced.
However, many individuals had the access code as outlined above and could enter at will sometimes bringing guests with them. There was no record kept of who came and went. The camera in the barn where the HORSE was kept did not cover the HORSE’S stall. There was also an unlocked gate between MOREAU’S premises and the adjoining property that was used by the next-door neighbour and by others who travelled back and forth.
We reject Mr. MacKenzie’s submission that Rules 26.02 and 26.03 do not apply to a trainer of record but only to the actual trainer. In our view, in the context of these Rules the term "trainer" may mean both the trainer of record and the actual trainer, usually the same person.
Mr. MacKenzie cited and relied on the Fairlie case. This was a thoroughbred case where the majority of the panel of the Ontario Racing Commission found that the trainer of record should be relieved of responsibility for a positive test result. The evidence established that his assistant trainer who was also named in the program, had administered a prohibited drug to the horse. The dissenting opinion disagreed and held that both the trainer of record and the assistant trainer should be held responsible. (Re Fairlie, ORC Ruling Number COM TB 002/2005)
This case can be distinguished on a number of grounds. First, the assistant trainer was named in the program thereby, in our view constituting him a second or alternative trainer. Second, Thoroughbred Rule 29.11(c) (now Rule 29.11.03) provides that an assistant trainer may substitute for and shall assume the same duties, responsibilities and restrictions imposed on the licensed trainer. There is no such Standardbred Rule. And in any event, we prefer and adopt the reasoning of the dissenting opinion.
Mr. MacKenzie also argued that the ARCI GUIDELINES as to penalty should apply in this case and not the AGCO GUIDELINES. He also argued that DPO is not necessarily a non-therapeutic drug and that category in the AGCO GUIDELINES should not apply when determining penalty.
We disagree. In our view, the AGCO GUIDELINES are paramount and apply in this case and DPO is a non-therapeutic drug when administered to a horse that is racing.
Finally, we have considered the cases cited by Mr. MacKenzie regarding penalty where trainers were given lesser penalties than the one given to MOREAU. Penalties in other cases are of little value in determining the appropriate penalty in this case as the circumstances of each case are radically different.
PENALTY
The penalty imposed on MOREAU was the recommended penalty in the AGCO GUIDELINES for a first offence involving a non-therapeutic drug such as DPO. In our view, this recommended penalty may well apply to someone who is found to have administered or instructed someone to administer the drug to a horse but not necessarily to someone who is simply found liable pursuant to the absolute liability rule. And in any event, the penalty guidelines are only guidelines.
We agree with Mr. van Niejenhuis who submitted that this PANEL has discretion to determine and if appropriate vary the penalty having regard to the evidence before it.
Having regard to all of the unique circumstances of this case, we have concluded that the penalty imposed should be varied to a five-year full suspension with two years and four months being stayed and a monetary penalty of $20,000. Should MOREAU have a positive test for a non-therapeutic, Class I or Class II drug during the stayed portion of the suspension, he may be required to serve the stayed portion together with any other penalty that may be imposed. MOREAU’S suspension began on July 23, 2024 (Standardbred Official Ruling No. 2756963). For clarity, this means that the two year and eight-month suspension to be served will terminate on March 22, 2027.
RESULT
This Appeal is dismissed but the penalty is varied to a five-year full suspension with two years and four months being stayed and a monetary penalty of $20,000. The portion of the suspension to be served will terminate on March 22, 2027. All of the other provisions contained in Standardbred Official Ruling Number 2893588 dated October 31, 2024 remain.
(with files from the Horse Racing Appeal Panel)