It’s a legal exchange that arguably cast serious doubt that a cohort of Victorian trainers were essentially cheating.
In racing, there is nothing more damaging to a trainer’s reputation or business, just ask the five stables involved. All had been charged after their runners tested positive to a breast cancer drug, known as Formestane – a substance not available in Australia.
As the drug saga involving the five training operations dragged through the courts in late 2025, racing’s lawyer of choice, Damian Sheales, was zeroing in on Dr Edwina Wilkes, RV’s Regulatory Veterinarian.
In her own words to the tribunal, her job is “focused on anti-doping”.
We’ll try our best to keep the legal and scientific jargon to a minimum – but a crucial concession from RV’s vet may see the trainers walk away with little to no penalty.
The trainers are accused of presenting horses on race day with breast cancer drug Formestane in their system.
At the heart of the case is whether Formestane can occur naturally (endogenously) in horses, or whether it can only find its way into a horse’s system if it is administered by a human (exogenously).
But Sheales contends, on behalf of the trainers, that it is a hormone that could be naturally produced. RV argue the most plausible explanation is cheating.
The trainers are not fighting the fact that testing from their runners show levels of Formestane – but they are at a loss to know how it ended up in their systems. Investigations from RV, too, have not been able to show why these horses have tested positive.
Sheales told the tribunal that “very, very low levels” of the substance were detected.
Given the trainers are charged with a “presentation” offence, it essentially means they are automatically guilty if a horse is presented for racing with the drug found in their system unless they can prove otherwise. RV does not need to prove how it got there.
‘’So obviously the trainers, being accused of administering these substances – it’s incredibly reputationally damaging,’’ Sheales told the Victorian Racing Tribunal.
And herein lies the problem – there are another 19 cases to come, Betsy reported this week, many of them too claiming their innocence, hanging on the outcome of this hearing.
‘Racing Victoria does not accept that there is a positive explanation’
Despite teams of investigators who interviewed every trainer, turned up unannounced at some of their stables and looked into the case, they couldn’t find a single piece of evidence of cheating. But RV sought punishment regardless because the horses had the substance in their system, which is their right.
In persisting with this charge RV took the view that that the levels of Formestane were more likely to have come from administration rather than appearing naturally.
While RV doesn’t technically need to prove that the Formestane was administered by a human, they addressed the issue in expert statements tendered to the tribunal.
The breast cancer drug in question, when broken down in the body, essentially creates testosterone.
“Racing Victoria does not accept that there is a positive explanation that the presence of these substances is endogenous [naturally produced], pursuant to which the trainers could have reduced or absent culpability,” Sheales told the tribunal.
Essentially, RV are saying that the trainers probably cheated.
RV’s position in the tribunal was supported by a number of arguments, including by a report from its vet, Dr Wilkes, who said the drugs being administered was a more likely outcome.
Dr Wilkes cited scientific studies in arguing her belief.
The problem is, one of the reports she cited in a report tendered to the tribunal never said what she argued. It’s a critical error, especially when you are indicating the trainers are cheating.
A crucial error
Dr Wilkes cited a scientific study from an author known as Moeller, who she said made claims that went to support the position that the most plausible explanation for why the substances might be present – that they were likely to have been deliberately given to the horses. The problem was, Moeller’s report never said what Dr Wilkes said it did.
Another author, known as Knych, wrote that Moeller had made relevant scientific findings in a report, but that’s wrong too. Dr Wilkes quoted Knych’s work in her statement to the racing tribunal.
Simply, Dr Wilkes was accused of taking the word of another expert about a secondary source of opinion which backed her up her arguments. She denied this, claiming it was a citation error.
Wilkes also said the Moeller report was presented at a conference, where Knych might have heard Moeller provide more information and data about the study.
RV’s legal representative, Adrian Anderson, backed up this version of events.
‘’Because this is a conference proceeding, she may have been able to access a more complete dataset, so that’s why she’s referenced – where she’s written that there, “Moeller et al,” she’s referring to the study that’s presented in the conference proceeding,’’ he said.
Nevertheless, the key data was not in the written paper.
‘Twisted things in a most favourable way for her master, being RVL’
Despite the crucial evidence she claimed was wrongly cited, Dr Wilkes rejected suggestions she never read the report she cited or relied on others who had written similarly, rather pointing to a citation error.
Sheales wasn’t buying it.
“I’m going to be contending, just to be fair to you – [Dr Wilkes] is biased, commenced her investigation to please her masters … and has twisted things in a most favourable way for her master, being RVL,” tribunal transcripts show. It’s a summation rejected by Dr Wilkes.
Dr Wilkes conceded under questioning that she did not make efforts to contact Knych to clarify a possible error or seek clarification.
‘You’re telling lies now’
The Moeller paper Dr Wilkes was relying on to prosecute her arguments is hard to get. Members of the public cannot access it.
When asked by Sheales how she obtained it, she said she could not remember.
Dr Wilkes attended a conference years ago where the topic and the papers were discussed.
‘’I can’t remember, sir. I can’t remember when I was writing this statement and I accessed this paper. It’s in my files on my computer at the moment, so I don’t remember how I downloaded the PDF and saved it. That’s two years ago,’’ she told the tribunal.
Dr Wilkes claimed the citation in her evidence was an honest mistake, something Sheales also took to task, suggesting to Dr Wilkes she hadn’t even read the paper, an allegation she repeatedly denied.
“You are being untruthful when you said – you’re telling lies now – in relation to you read this paper … that is a knowing lie by you?” Sheales asked.
“No, it’s not,” Dr Wilkes responded.
‘’I’m talking about back in the time – I’m talking about back at the time and you, sitting here, know you are being untruthful when you said – you’re telling lies now – in relation to you read this paper before you wrote paragraph 85. That is a knowing lie by you? Sheales asked Dr Wilkes.
“No, it’s not,” she replied.
Dr Wilkes’ evidence, as well as expert evidence from experts defending the trainers, was later withdrawn in a deal between both sides.
That leaves the door open for the trainers to argue that Formestane might occur naturally, meaning the trainers might face little or no punishment.
“You can’t trash the reputation of a trainer amongst other trainers faster”
Whether she read the report or not is fascinating, but the damage had been done – Dr Wilkes’ report was a crucial piece of the puzzle that RV relied on to charge the trainers. It’s a legal exercise that has cost the trainers tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees alone, plus the loss in prize money and blacktype, not to mention reputational damage.
It’s a grave error.
While RV are at pains to say publicly and privately they never charged the trainers with administering anything, it is mischievous at best. They have argued the substances are more likely to have been deliberately administered. The inference matters.
Sheales, in arguing at the tribunal that it’s important the world knows the trainers didn’t cheat, warned there were more set to fight their charges too for the same drug, tested by the same partly-owned Racing Victoria lab.
Reputations aside, if the tribunal is comfortable there might be a rational explanation for the substances, the penalty for presentation would be far lighter.
Because as Sheales noted, “you can’t trash the reputation of a trainer amongst other trainers faster”.
“I’m not trying to verbal anyone or anything – but there’s another 15 cases coming. They’re not going away … there was a detection two weeks ago,” Sheales said.
“So notwithstanding all this publicity and all this stuff which I was going to go to with the witness, they’re still popping up.
“Sirileo Miss gets stood down for 12 months – as you know, it’s been in the newspapers, ‘mystery’ whatever – but they’re still getting detections.
“Surely if some substance was floating around, you would think they would stop using it. I’m not saying – I’m just talking out loud and, with respect, I can’t tell RVL what to do … I’ve been really dealing with this allegation, because the trainers take it very personally, as you can imagine, that they’re administering steroids.”
‘Yes, it’s possible’
Sheales, however, received confirmation from Dr Wilkes that she could not rule out the possibility that Formestane in the horses could have been produced naturally.
“Can we just now go to – dealing with – do you accept that Formestane – it’s possible that Formestane is naturally produced by horses or do you say, no, it’s not possible, in your opinion?” Sheales asked.
“It’s possible from what we know of humans, but we don’t have any evidence of that in horses,” Dr Wilkes said.
“That’s what I’m saying, I accept that there’s no studies or the like at the moment, a paucity of evidence, but you accept that it’s possible that Formestane – appreciate there’s no empirical evidence to support it, but you agree at the moment and say the evidence is such that you can’t rule it out that it’s possible?”
“Yes, it’s possible,” Dr Wilkes said.
Just the beginning
And here lies the crucial element that even Racing Victoria would agree. Very little science exists that has studied whether the substance in question can in fact be produced by horses to levels that is causing charges to be laid.
Which begs the question: If Racing Victoria or any racing authority cannot be certain that the levels of Formestane can in fact be naturally produced – and despite lengthy investigations cannot produce a single piece of evidence of cheating – what is the fair outcome here?
As this cohort of trainers fight to clear their names – and countless more now face the same agonising [and costly] process – the burden should be on RV to ensure the trainers they are charging deserve the pain they are about to endure.
