Jeremy Noseda

1. The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry on 29 September 2016 into the analysis of the urine ordered to be taken from LIBRISA BREEZE, trained by Jeremy Noseda, by the Stewards at Windsor after the gelding was unplaced in the Bet Now With the Ladbrokes App Handicap Stakes on 28 June 2015. The sample tested positive for a prohibited substance, temazepam, in breach of Rule (G)2.1 of the Rules of Racing. The Panel also considered whether or not to take action under Rule (A)74.2 Ground 3 in respect of the possible disqualification of the gelding (Case 1). The Panel also enquired into the analysis of the urine ordered to be taken from LIBRISA BREEZE, by the Stewards at York after the gelding was placed second in the TitanBet.co.uk Stakes on 10 October 2015. The sample tested positive for a prohibited substance, triamcinolone acetonide (TCA) in breach of Rule (G)2.1 of the Rules of Racing. The Panel also considered whether or not to take action under Rule (A)74.2 Ground 3 in respect of the possible disqualification of the gelding (Case 2).

2. Prior to the enquiry, both parties had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting and Mr Noseda had requested that the matter be heard in his absence. The BHA had no objection and its case was presented by Sheena Wynn.

3. The Panel accepted Mr Noseda’s admission that he was in breach of Rule (G)2.1 in respect of each positive result, and that in each race the gelding must be disqualified. The BHA accepted that there was no suggestion that in either race had Mr Noseda been involved in any dishonesty or cheating. The BHA also accepted that there was no concerns regarding the betting on the horse in either race.

Case 1 – Windsor 28 June 2015

4. The urine sample taken from LIBRISA BREEZE was found to contain temazepam, which is a prohibited substance. The trainer exercised his right to have the ‘B’ sample analysed, which confirmed the original finding. Temazepam is a short acting benzodiazepine with properties similar to those of diazepam. High doses of diazepam and other benzodiazepines can be used for euphoriant effects. There are no licensed preparations of temazepam that are licensed for use in horses or any other animal.

5. Mrs Wynn stated that on 23 July 2015, following the positive analysis, BHA Investigating Officers interviewed Mr Noseda at his stables and he was unable to assist in identifying the source of the temazepam. Examination of Mr Noseda’s yard and veterinary diaries showed no entry for temazepam or any related substance, e.g. diazepam, for the gelding or any other horse on the yard nor was temazepam found anywhere on the yard. Mr Noseda’s veterinary surgeon, Tom O’Keefe, of Rosedale & Partners veterinary practice was present on the yard at the time and confirmed that temazepam would only be used by his practice under theatre conditions and he could not assist the Investigating Officers to understand the source of the temazepam.

6. A BHA Investigating Officer attended Windsor racecourse on 12 August 2015 in order to make enquiries with the racecourse stables. The CCTV footage identified that no unauthorised person entered the Horse’s stable box whilst the gelding was on the racecourse. The only persons identified entering the gelding’s stable box were Mr Noseda’s staff members. The racecourse stables documents confirmed that the box that the gelding occupied on 28 June 2015 was last occupied on 8 June 2015. The Clerk of the Course at Windsor also provided Certificates of Compliance confirming that on 15 June 2015 all previously occupied stables were Level 1 cleaned, which included the box occupied on 28 June 2015 by LIBRISA BREEZE.

7. On 1 September 2015 a BHA Inspecting Officer attended Mr Noseda’s yard and interviewed staff members who may have had contact with the gelding prior to and on the day of the race and they all denied having taken, or recently taken, temazepam.

8. The Panel noted that further work on the sample had been conducted at LGC who had identified that the temazepam had been through the gelding’s system. Further, it had been reported by LGC that the substance benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine, was present in the sample. It was explained that this finding suggested a possible source of human contamination.

9. Mrs Wynn stated that in light of this evidence, it was the BHA’s position that a possible source of the temazepam in the sample, and it went no further than a possibility, was from exposure to these substances from human contamination. The BHA had not obtained any evidence to support such a possibility, but maintained that it remained a possibility. Despite the BHA’s enquiries, it had not been able to establish the source of the temazepam.

10. After considering the evidence, the Panel was unable to establish the source of the substance, and could not therefore be satisfied that the administration of the substance was non-intentional and that the trainer had taken all reasonable care.

Case 2 – York 10 October 2015

11. The urine sample taken from LIBRISA BREEZE was found to contain TCA and a hydroxylated metabolite of it, which are prohibited substances. The trainer did not exercise his right to have the ‘B’ sample analysed. TCA is a synthetic corticosteroid with anti-inflammatory and analgesic action. There is currently no licensed veterinary preparation of TCA for use in horses. However, there are preparations of TCA that are licensed for use in humans, for example Adcortyl® and Kenalog®. These preparations can be and are commonly prescribed for use in animals under the ‘cascade’. The cascade is a legislative provision in the Veterinary Medicines Regulations which allowed veterinary surgeons to prescribe unauthorised medicines that would not otherwise be permitted. There are no welfare concerns with the use of either of these preparations under the cascade.

12. Mrs Wynn stated that on 9 November 2015, following the positive analysis, BHA Investigating Officers interviewed Mr Noseda at his stables. Prior to the interview, Mr Noseda’s yard and veterinary diaries were examined and there was an entry recorded that LIBRISA BREEZE had been injected in its back on 24 September 2015 with 2ml Adcortyl®: and Saragyl 1 ml: 5ml. Mr Noseda had explained that following a winning race in late September the gelding had been showing signs of stiffness and appeared to have had stiffness to its back. Mr O’Keefe had attended the yard and following review of some x-rays had treated the horse.

13. Mrs Wynn confirmed that it was the BHA’s position that the source of the TCA was the administration of Adcortyl® on 24 September 2015.

14. The Panel accepted Mr Noseda’s admission of a breach of Rule (G)2.1 in both cases and in each case imposed a fine of £1,000 (total £2,000). It was not asked by the BHA to consider a contribution to the costs associated with the analysis of the ‘B’ sample.

15. Under Rule (A)74.2 Ground 3, the Panel disqualified LIBRISA BREEZE from the race on 28 June 2015. It also disqualified the gelding from the race on 10 October 2015, placing ARABIAN ILLUSION (FR) second, MARSH PRIDE third, EMERALD (ITY) fourth, AZRAFF (IRE) fifth and PADDYS MOTORBIKE (IRE) sixth. The Panel directed that any prize money paid out in relation to the above races be returned.

Notes to Editors:

1. The Panel for the enquiry was: Philip Curl (Chair), Ian Stark and Roger Bellamy