If a horse fails to thrive, the quantity, quality and availability of feed and the health of the horse (including the state of its teeth, the extent of parasitism and the horse's age) should be evaluated.

1. He agreed with the Guideline and that, when a horse was in poor condition, the evaluation called for was a vet examination because a number of causes could have been relevant, including the horse's age.
2. The evidence of Dr McKellar shows that Skating for Gold recovered to have a satisfactory body condition score by March 2017. His evidence was that, where the loss of weight was due to the horse being a windsucker, the only treatment required was for it to be fed up with the windsucking collar fitted.

1. There was no dispute that no veterinary treatment had been provided to Skating for Gold as at 29 January 2017.
2. I proceed on the basis that Dr Miles' comments about the testing undertaken by Dr Martin indicates that she was satisfied that testing was appropriate, taking into account that she was aware that Skating for Gold had already been wormed by Ms Thompson.
3. I accept Dr Martin's evidence that it was appropriate and necessary to undertake a vet assessment of a horse which has a body condition score of 1. His plain evidence, which I accept, was that he considered that assessment to be necessary in order to identify the cause of the horse's condition.
4. I find that once Ms Thompson became aware of Skating for Gold's condition on 25 January 2017, she was required to provide veterinary treatment in the form of a comprehensive medical assessment, including testing and a physical examination.
5. In my view, such a finding is consistent with common sense and responsible horse ownership - if a horse has a body score rating of 1 out of 5, it would seem to me to be readily apparent it is either seriously ill or is not receiving or able to absorb adequate feed. That calls for a vet to attend to assess the cause of the poor body condition and determine what short and/or long-term measures might be required to return the animal to good health. The fact that it turned out that worming and intensive feeding provided an adequate remedy in this case does not demonstrate that no veterinary attention was necessary.
6. I am satisfied that ought to have been arranged and completed by 28 January 2017. I have identified that date taking into account the following chronology of events:
   • On Wednesday, 25 January 2017, Ms Thompson saw the horse and realised he was in poor condition;
   • On Thursday, 26 January 2017 (public holiday), she did not attend again as she had horses racing;
   • On Friday, 27 January 2017, the horse was moved to Ms Thompson's stables;
   • On Monday, 30 January 2017, RVL conducted a routine inspection of Ms Thompson's property. Dr Martin was called to examine Skating for Gold; and
   • On the afternoon of Monday, 30 January 2017, after RVL and Dr Martin had left, Ms Thompson arranged for Dr Miles to attend.
7. The chronology shows that Ms Thompson made no positive efforts to have a vet attend until after RVL had inspected. That suggests that, had the routine inspection not occurred, no vet may have been called. I find Ms Thompson should have made arrangements for a vet to attend and examine Skating for Gold on Friday 27 January, Saturday 28 January 2017 or Sunday 29 January 2017.
8. For these reasons, I am satisfied a vet ought to have been called to assess Skating for Gold prior to 30 January 2017 so necessary veterinary treatment could be provided in respect of the horse's poor body condition, including treatment in the form of blood and faecal testing for the purposes of diagnosis and ongoing treatment planning.
9. Charge 2 has been proven.

1. At the 27 November 2018 hearing, the parties asked that, if I found one or more of the charges proven, a further hearing on penalty be listed. I have made orders for the parties to exchange submissions and for the matter to then be listed for a further half day hearing before me.

[1] Interview with RVL, 1 February 2017, page 16 and transcript of hearing before RAD Board, 14 March 2018, page 67.

[2] A third charge relating to an alleged failure to obtain necessary veterinarian treatment for a heel injury was found not proven by the Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board and so it is not necessary to consider that matter further.

[3] Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] 46 FLR 409.

[4] The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary.