HC Holiday was entered in a race and won it. The purse was distributed, bets were paid, and no protest was filed. Yet three weeks after the fact, the AGCO has disqualified the horse and redistributed the purse (despite the fact that the rules state they should have frozen the funds) because of their own clerical error.
Last year, when HC Holiday was still a two-year-old, he was enrolled in the Lasix program at Woodbine. Once enrolled, horses must remain in the program for 100 days, after which time a form can be submitted to have the horse removed, if so desired.
HC Holiday didn’t end up racing at Woodbine last year and instead made his first start at Turfway Park in Kentucky, which does not permit Lasix in two-year-olds. This spring, when he returned to Woodbine and entered his first race, the status of his Lasix enrolment was in question. At the time, the AGCO’s database and website that tracks which horses are in the program were both out of service. As a result, Woodbine’s race office was not alerted about the horse’s status when the entry was made, as would normally be the case, and the AGCO stewards who are meant to verify all the entries did not check.
Accordingly, HC Holiday ran in the race without being medicated with Lasix and the racing program reflected that fact. Had the stewards discovered that HC Holiday was in the Lasix program on the day of the race, he would have been scratched before he ran.
Instead, the error was only discovered three weeks later when the horse was entered in another race and the AGCO system was back up and running. The entry was flagged by the race office, the issue raised with the AGCO, who subsequently disqualified HC Holiday from the race he had won.
As it happens, this same scenario happened to two other horses around the same time, one at Woodbine and one at Fort Erie. However, because neither horse won their race and the purse money they had won was less than the cost of the legal fees involved in the appeal, the owners opted not to pursue the matter.
Ivan Dalos, HC Holiday’s owner, did file an appeal with the AGCO in July and received disclosure documents in August. Dalos’s daughter, Colleen, had had many discussions with a variety of racing officials and knew that there was more information that the AGCO did not reveal in that document. Dalos’s attorney, Stephen Jack, twice requested that these communications be provided, but the AGCO twice denied their existence.
On September 16th, a motion was filed demanding that the AGCO produce all relevant documents. Shortly thereafter, the AGCO started to provide more documents that related to this case.
“Throughout the course of this appeal AGCO has unequivocally lied to the Applicant regarding disclosure,” wrote Jack in the motion. “Specifically, AGCO has denied on multiple occasions that certain disclosure did not exist, only to subsequently the [sic] very same disclosure they denied existed.”
The same motion made three requests of the Ontario Horse Racing Appeal Panel (HRAP):
1. Order that the matter be heard before 3 Panel Members instead of single Panel Member that was offered.
2. Order that this matter be heard In Person rather than by Zoom.
3. Order that the Alcohol and Gaming Commission Pay Legal Costs for the Motion
The matter was to be heard on Monday but, in a surprise move, the AGCO has filed a motion for dismissal. Despite having indicated that they were preparing for a hearing over the last three months, the AGCO’s new position is that Dalos is seeking a waiver of a rule of racing, specifically Rule 36.07, and that the HRAP does not have this authority.
This sudden turn of events has outraged Colleen, who is equally offended by the lack of a fair appeal process as to the fate of the placing of her father’s horse.
“Licensees should be entitled to a fair, honest and transparent appeal,” she said. “They had the information from the first day to file a dismissal, but to allow us to spend all our money on the process and at the last second ask for a dismissal is very disrespectful and not how our industry should work.
“My fear is that if they do this to us, nobody in the future will be granted an appeal. They will continue to dismiss everything. There is no racing rule that exists for this instance. This has never happened before. The horse was supposed to be scratched, the steward missed it, the horse ran and won. There is no rule saying that you can go back in time to disqualify. All we want is a fair hearing with a panel of three to show the facts and the data, but right now they are trying to prevent this from happening.”
The result of this case impacts more than just HC Holiday’s race record.
“We own HC Holiday’s stallion, Ami’s Holiday, and this is his first crop of babies,” explained Colleen. “We are trying to launch him as a big stallion, so the first crop is the most important. All the wins and purse earnings are incredibly important for the stallion’s future standing fees. Right now it’s showing that he doesn’t even have a win. That $60k purse and win will make a very big difference on what we can charge and serves as an indicator to his potency.”
Colleen is encouraging everyone to listen in on Monday’s motion. She is eager for as many people as possible to bear witness to how the justice system for the horse racing industry works.
“A lot of people are disappointed with how the AGCO are operating. People are upset, but they are beaten down and don’t want to argue further,” said Dalos referring to the Capsaicin case that was decided earlier this summer under similar circumstances.
“This is not the relationship we want with the regulator, so we want people to ask for the link and tune into the meeting. There are going to be a lot of people listening and hearing what HRAP decides. I shall remain positive and optimistic for a fair, transparent meeting on Monday and for our right to have our day in court and our appeal to be approved.”
You can obtain the Zoom link by emailing Racing Appeals Coordinator, Bianca D’Souza, bianca.d’souza@agco.ca.
More from Horses:
