Chief Stipe

Breeders aren't breeding horses at the moment for many reasons. The biggest of which is the state of the economy. There isn't a lot a spare cash around unless you get a handout of printed money from this Labour Government.

Did you consider that if someone had a broodmare that was worth sending to Captain Treacherous that they couldn't do a deal with the Stud? The list price isn't necessarily the service sell price. Afterall horse traders are horse traders.

Pinn scores first Saturday wins www.racing.com Apprentice rider Wiremu Pinn has teamed up with the red-hot Ciaron Maher stable to record his first Saturday metropolitan winner in Australia. On a three-month loan to Cranbourne trainer Michael Kent on the back of a breakout few seasons in New Zealand, Pinn’s performance to score on hot favourite Extratwo in the second race at Labrokes Park Sandown drew praise from punters and prompted some encouraging words from co-trainer Dave Eustace. "He’s a good young lad at the right weight and he seems a very relaxed sort of character," Eustace said of the 24-year-old. "We see him a bit in the mornings where he helps us out and I’m sure if he keeps her head down, he’ll go far." Eustace said Pinn showed a cool head on Extratwo, who was sent out the $2 favourite. "It was actually nice for her to settle in behind," he said of the Toronado filly. "I said to Billy (Pinn) she doesn’t have to lead so I was actually delighted to see him take that advice and she travelled nice and strong without over-doing it. "Actually when she quickened up she was still quite green under pressure and he did the right thing and straightened her up and put the stick away and she rounded it out well and you’d think she’s going to continue to progress through winter." WATCH: Extratwo wins at Sandown. Pinn said Extratwo had left quite an impression on him after handling her rivals easily. "She’s definitely the fastest filly I have ridden since I have been here on Australian turf," Pinn said. "It’s good to get a winner for Ciaron and David, They are cool guys and obviously they are top class trainers." Eustace has been in Australia for a number of years but the former Englishman is still to come to terms with AFL as he admitted after the race that he was unaware the filly had such a prominent part-owner as a champion Melbourne footballer. "Clayton Oliver is in the horse and I didn’t know who he was until seven days ago," Eustace said. The win of Extratwo was part of a wonderful start to the Sandown meeting for Australia’s leading stable with Maher/Eustace training the first three winners, including the first two quinellas. Pinn didn’t waste time in finding a second Saturday winner as just two races later he booted home the mare Frigid for trainer John Leek Jnr in the BM70 (1600m). Pinn made it a treble in the final event of the day with an extraordinary ride aboard Deepstrike. Co-trainer Michael Kent was still shaking his head at the post-race interview after Pinn took Deepstrike from last to first up the inside rail, despite having discussed going around the entire field for his final sprint. "The secret’s out now," Kent said of the emerging rider’s talents. John Leek Jnr had similar thoughts after Pinn won aboard Frigid. ‘’This kid is going to be a superstar,’’ he said. WATCH: Pinn makes it a double at Sandown.

Then be the hero and file a complaint.

Mmmmm how is Entain going to buck the trend? Is it prudent for NZTR to increase stakes?

Racing Victoria announce prizemoney reductions despite POCT increase – BOAY Racing News www.racenews.bitofayarn.com Racing Victoria have announced sweeping reductions in prizemoney returns to participants in response to weakening betting turnover. Racing Victoria (RV), the principal authority governing thoroughbred horse racing in Victoria, Australia, has recently declared a reduction in prizemoney for the imminent racing season. This momentous announcement, coming on the heels of extraordinary growth in prize money and bonuses in recent years, is a strategic response to a potential $30 million funding shortfall for the upcoming season, resulting from a downturn in wagering and a delay in returns from the recent Point Of Consumption Tax (POCT) increase. Taking a step that is being viewed as a unique response to these circumstances, RV is not merely slashing prizemoney, but also introducing a tenth race on Saturdays, in an attempt placate local participants from the wider impact of the reductions. This move, which will be experimented with for a period of one year starting from the new season in August, is expected to allocate a total of $3.52 million in prize money. RV is marketing the additional race as a potential boon for smaller stables, but the reality is that it won’t offset the reduced participant returns from the prizemoney reductions. The general consensus in the industry is that this additional race could help boost betting turnover, thus providing a shot in the arm to RV finances. The reduction in prizemoney will impact a range of races including high-profile ones and country benchmark 64 races. Races such as the All Star Mile will see a drop from $5 million to $4 million in the upcoming season. Likewise, early spring Group 1 races including the Memsie Stakes, Makybe Diva Stakes, Underwood Stakes, Moir Stakes, and Turnbull Stakes, will see prize money reduced from $1 million to $750,000. Other races feeling the pinch of this monetary squeeze include the Moonee Valley Gold Cup, The Bart Cummings, Alister Clark Stakes, MVRC Vase, and the VRC St Leger. The reduction will also filter down to the country premium benchmark 64 races, which will see a decrease from $37,500 to $35,000. Midweek metropolitan races, barring the maiden races, will also witness a dip in prizemoney from $55,000 to $50,000. Public holiday meetings will be hit as well, with prizemoney being brought down to $65,000, excluding Black Type races. Despite these cuts, RV’s Chief Executive, Andrew Jones, underlined the fact that the total prizemoney on offer next year, which is upwards of $315 million, represents an 80% increase compared to 2015, and is $25 million more than what was available two years ago. Emphasizing that as revenue ebbs and flows, so must expenses, Jones highlighted how Racing Victoria is endeavoring to lessen the impact of this reduced revenue on participants and owners by delivering cost savings and drawing upon the Industry Sustainability Fund. The challenge for the industry now, Jones stated, is to return to growth in tougher economic times, which necessitates an efficient and aligned industry, along with a relentless focus on fans and punters. There was no word from RV on what savings would be sought from burgeoning administration costs, not the money pit that is the Racing.com media arm of RV.

Rehoming every retired racehorse every year forever is not sustainable. Let alone the cost to the industry of tracking them. It's another case of kowtowing to the anti-racing brigade. As for the moot argument about the industry maintaining its "social license". Why does it have to if the industry sustains itself?

Geez no wonder RIB costs are sky rocketing! This would have to be one of the longest judgements ever.

Non Raceday Inquiry (Part 2) – Written Decision dated 2 June 2023 – Mark Walker racingintegrityboard.org.nz Introduction [1] The Racing Integrity Board (RIB) filed Information A17973 which relates to a Prohibited Substance charge against Licensed Class A Trainer, Mr Mark Walker (the “Respondent”). This charge arises from TOKYO TYCOON’S first placing on the 11th of March 2023 in Race 5, the Group 1 Sistema Stakes at the Auckland Thoroughbred Racing Club meeting at Pukekohe Park. The Respondent is the Trainer of TOKYO TYCOON. [2] Prior to this hearing, TOKYO TYCOON was disqualified from it first placing pursuant to Rule 903(b), and in its Written Decision (Part 1), which was published on 17 May 2023, the Adjudicative Committee directed that the official placing in the Sistema Stakes be amended in accordance with the Part 1 Decision. [3] During a teleconference between the parties on 16 May 2023, the Respondent admitted the charge. This Written Decision, (Part 2), relates to the Penalty Hearing which took place at the Cambridge JC on 31 May 2023. Following the hearing and in consideration of the evidence and submissions, the Adjudicative Committee imposed a fine of $7000 and ordered the Respondent to pay the costs of $2,447.61 for analysis of the ‘B Sample’. The Charge [4] Mr M Clement, The Chief Executive RIB authorised the filing of charge. The charging document, via Information No. A17973 provides that: On 11 March 2023, TOKYO TYCOON won Race 5 being the Group 1 Sistema Stakes at the Auckland Thoroughbred Racing Club meeting at Pukekohe Park. ‘TOKYO TYCOON’ is a 2-year-old Bay Gelding trained by Mark Walker. TOKYO TYCOON was post-race swabbed at 15:35 hours. On 24 March 2023, New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services (NZRLS) issued a Certificate of Analysis detailing the sample positive to the Prohibited Substance – Meloxicam. Meloxicam is defined as a Prohibited Substance under the Prohibited Substance Regulations, Part A – (1.2.21) within the meaning of the Rules. The Relevant Rules [5] Rules 804(1) and 804(2) provides that: (1) A horse which has been brought to a Racecourse or similar racing facility and which is found by a Tribunal conducting an inquiry to have had administered to it or have had present in its metabolism a Prohibited Substance shall be, in addition to any other penalty which may be imposed, disqualified for any race or trial to which the Third Appendix hereto applies in which it has started on that day. (2) When a horse which has been brought to a Racecourse or similar racing facility for the purpose of engaging in a Race or trial to which the Third Appendix hereto applies is found by a Tribunal conducting an inquiry to have had administered to it or have had present in its metabolism a Prohibited Substance, as defined in Part A of Prohibited Substance Regulations, the Trainer and any other person who in the opinion of such Tribunal conducting such inquiry was in charge of such horse at any relevant time commits a breach of these Rules. Penalty Provisions [6] Rule 804(7) provides that: A person who commits a breach of sub-Rule (2) or (3) or (4) or (5) or (5A) or (6) of this Rule shall be liable to: (a) be disqualified for a period not exceeding five years; and/or (b) be suspended from holding or obtaining a Licence for a period not exceeding 12 months. If a Licence is renewed during a term of suspension, then the suspension shall continue to apply to the renewed Licence; and/or (c) a fine not exceeding $25,000. The Facts The key salient facts are summarised as follows: [7] The Respondent in this matter, Mr Mark Walker, is the Chief Trainer at Te Akau Racing Stables in Matamata. Te Akau Racing currently have one hundred and eighty-one thoroughbreds registered as ‘in training’ with NZTR. Circumstances [8] On 11 March 2023, TOKYO TYCOON won Race 5, the Group 1 Sistema Stakes at the Auckland Thoroughbred Racing Club meeting at Pukekohe Park. The gross stake money for 1st place was $184,000. [9] TOKYO TYCOON is a 2-year-old gelding trained by Mark Walker out of Te Akau Racing. He is owned in partnership by the Meadowbank Masters Racing and Te Akau Satono Samurai Racing Partnerships. [10] TOKYO TYCOON was post-race swabbed on 11 March 2023 at 15:35 hours. [11] On 24 March 2023, New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services (NZRLS) issued a Certificate of Analysis detailing that the sample obtained from TOKYO TYCOON was positive to the Prohibited Substance Meloxicam. [12] Meloxicam is defined as a Prohibited Substance under the Prohibited Substance Regulations of the NZTR Rules of Racing falling under clause 1.1.6 and in the category of substance – Part A (1.2.21) anti-inflammatory agents within the meaning of the Rules. [13] Meloxicam is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug for the alleviation of inflammation and relief of pain in both acute and chronic musculoskeletal conditions in horses. Meloxicam is permitted in race day samples as a therapeutic substance to a regulatory limit of mass concentration of 10 micrograms per litre in urine. The NZRLS has reported that the level in this sample is reported as exceeding 20 micrograms per litre (upper level of calibration used). Its presence therefore above the regulatory limit of 10 micrograms in a race-day sample is, prima facie, a breach of the Rules. [14] Meloxicam is listed on the NZEVA Period of Detection List with a listed possible withholding time of 4.2 days and a detection time of 3 days. [15] On 27 March 2023, Investigators from the RIB undertook enquiries at Te Akau Racing Stables and the subsequent interview of the Respondent along with five other Te Akau Racing employees and their independent veterinary. [16] These enquiries established that in the week prior to the G1 Sistema Stakes on 11 March 2023, TOKYO TYCOON was boxed in Box 3 of the Colt Barn. [17] Copies of both the medication record book and whiteboard outlining individualised horse treatments for the horses boxed in the Colt Barn were obtained. TOKYO TYCOON is referred to in these records by his stable name – Katsu. [18] A review of these records notes that Katsu was due to be administered Meloxicam on the 4th, 6th, and 7th March prior to the raceday on 11 March 2023. [19] Records identify that RARE COMPANY; stable name Powell was boxed in Box 2 being directly next to Box 3 where Katsu was boxed. [20] The medication record book highlights that Powell was due to be scoped and administered ‘melox’ (Meloxicam abbreviated) on the 10 March 2023. [21] Both Colt Barn Forepersons were interviewed and confirmed during interview that they are the only two Te Akau employees apart from the independent vet who would be responsible for administering Meloxicam to Katsu. [22] Meloxicam administered dosage between the two Forepersons appears to differ slightly with one stating they administer 10ml and the other – “A syringe full so they’re 13/14ml.” Administration is undertaken by way of oral paste syringe to the back of the horse’s tongue. [23] Te Akau Racing has both external and internal CCTV Security Cameras operating in the Colt Barn, which is recorded to a hard drive. RIB subsequently requested disclosure of the footage for the week leading up to race day on 11 March 2023. [24] On 28 March 2023 the Respondent advised the RIB that he had reviewed the internal CCTV footage. He advised that the footage identifies one of the Colt Barn Forepersons entering ‘Katsu’s’ box 3 on 10 March 2023 at 08:42 hours and appears to administer a syringe, which he believes to contain Meloxicam. [25] On 29 March 2023 the RIB attended Te Akau Racing and reviewed the said CCTV footage and obtained an electronic disclosed copy. This footage highlights that both Forepersons are doing their rounds and checking on boxed horses in close proximity to where ‘Katsu’ was boxed. [26] At 08:39 hours a Foreperson is sighted entering Katsu’s box 3. The footage highlights that a syringe had been left on the ground directly adjacent to box 3 prior to 08:35 hours when the disclosed footage commenced. [27] The footage shows that at 08:42 hours a Foreperson uplifted this syringe from the ground in front of box 3 and administered orally to Katsu. [28] In consultation with Te Akau Racing Managers, they believe that the syringe identified in the footage is identical to the veterinary supplied Meloxicam Syringes. [29] A secondary interview was subsequently undertaken of the Foreperson in question and the CCTV footage was played to them for the purpose of seeking their response and explanation in relation to their actions in the footage. In response to questions, one of the Forepersons stated – “Maybe its FILTA BAC. That’s in the same tube as Meloxicam, it looks the same, but I know he’s got white socks and we were treating his mud fever”. On completion of viewing the oral administration via the horse’s tongue the Foreperson became visibly upset and stated – “I’m really sorry”. The foreperson further admitted to “giving him half a Pro-Dosa and the Meloxicam”. [30] This ½ Pro-Dosa and Meloxicam being recorded in the medication record book to be administered to Powell on 10th March 2023. When questioned further to how this has occurred, the Foreperson stated – “I’ve obviously put it down because I’d gone to see whatever was happening and then I’ve gone back and just assumed and I didn’t look properly.” [31] It is the RIB’s position that administration has occurred through human error around the mistaken identity of the two horses – Katsu and ‘Powell’ that were boxed next to each other. The RIB therefore does not believe that there was any nefarious intent on behalf of the Foreperson or Te Akau Racing to the oral administration of Meloxicam. [32] Enquiries were undertaken with NZTR Chief Veterinarian Dr Andrew Grierson regarding Meloxicam and its absorption rates. These revealed that Meloxicam is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) patented by Boehringer Ingelheim in 1997. Meloxicam blocks the COX-2 more than it blocks the COX-1 inflammatory response to an injury. Dr Grierson further reiterates that the detection time listed on the NZVA WHT list has Meloxicam as a detection time of 72 hours (3 days). Stating however that 72 hours is definitely not the withholding from racing. The NZVA withholding time for Meloxicam is clearly listed as 1.4 times 72 hours being 100.8 hours or 4.2 days. [33] The B Sample was independently tested by the Hong Kong Jockey Club (HKJC) Racing Laboratory and on analysis, the presence of Meloxicam was detected. [34] Throughout this investigation, the RIB has found Mr Walker and his Te Akau employees to have been extremely cooperative. [35] The Respondent has no previous judicial history involving prohibited substances. However, the RIB drew the Adjudicative Committee’s attention to an historic offence in August 2000 brought by the RIU against Mr Walker for falsifying a document (jumping certificate) resulting in a 4-month suspension and $5,000 fine. This historic information has only come to light post filing of Summary of Facts. Penalty Submissions (Applicant) Introduction [36] The Respondent faces one Information, alleging he has committed an offence under Rule 804(2). He has admitted the breach and on admission of breach – ‘TOKYO TYCOON’ was subsequently disqualified as per Adjudicative Committee Written Decision dated 17 May 2023. Offending [37] The details of the Respondent’s offending are contained in the Racing Integrity Board Summary of Facts, which have been referred to earlier in this decision. Penalty Provisions [38] The penalties which may be imposed are detailed in the Charge Rule and Penalty Provisions document and are set out in paragraph 6 of this Decision. Sentencing Principles [39] The four principles of sentencing can be summarised briefly: Penalties are designed to punish the offender for his / her wrongdoing. They are not meant to be retributive in the sense the punishment is disproportionate to the offence, but the offender must be met with a punishment. In a racing context, it is extremely important that a penalty has the effect of deterring others from committing similar offences. A penalty should also reflect the disapproval of the RIB for the type of behaviour in question. The need to rehabilitate the offender should be considered. The RIB submits that the first three principles apply in this matter. Precedent Cases [40] There are no directly comparable cases in New Zealand or Australia that we have identified involving the commodity – Meloxicam in a Group 1 or Black Type Race. In researching precedent in New Zealand involving positives for prohibited substances in Group Races, the RIB notes the following cases: RIU v O’Sullivan and Scott (03/2016) [41] In February 2015, SOUND PROPOSITION trained by Class A Trainers – Mr O’Sullivan and Mr Scott placed 3rd in the New Zealand Derby, winning stake money of $65,000 ‘Sound Proposition’ tested positive to the prohibited substance, Cobalt. At an elevated level (640), which is a Prohibited Substance of the type set out in Part A of Prohibited Substance Regulations, being a substance capable of acting directly or indirectly on the blood system. [42] At the hearing in March 2016, the Respondents admitted breaches of 804(2) as detailed in six Informations across six different races between February and March 2016. The outcome in this case was a fine of $17,250 per charge, or total fine of $51,750 across the six breaches. [43] Enquiries undertaken in Australia via both the Victoria Racing Tribunal and Racing New South Wales, has identified the following comparable – Group 1 Race – resulting in the winning horse being disqualified and Trainer fined for positive test for a banned substance: – Racing NSW v J Cummings (03/2022) [44] In March 2021, horse – SAVATIANO trained by James Cummings won the Group 1 – Heineken Canterbury Stakes at Randwick winning stake money of $306,762 AUD. SAVATIANO was post raced swabbed, which tested positive for banned substances Trendione, Trenbolone and Epitrebolone. [45] It is noted in the Decision – “That while there is no specific cause having been pinpointed as to the reasons for the positive tests, stewards were satisfied that there had been no illegal administration of the substances, which are all found in the drug Altrenogest and used on mares. Stewards heard evidence that SAVATIANO was being orally administered Ovumate (containing Altrenogest) but were satisfied she had not been treated within two clear days of her racing, as per the rules.” [46] The outcome in this case was that the horse was subsequently disqualified from the race with the Tribunal hearing the case noting – “Having regard to the mitigating factors detailed and guilty plea, it is determined that the appropriate penalty is $10,000 AUD”. [47] The RIB also highlights the following two cases involving Meloxicam, albeit that both occurred post-trial heats and not on a race day, with likely cause being a degree of carelessness: RIU v Lucock and Gillespie (07/2018) [48] In May 2015, Mr Lucock and Ms Gillespie, holders of a Class A Trainer Licence, admitted a breach of Rule 804(2). This was in relation to their horse, MISS CAMPBELL which tested positive to the prohibited substance, Meloxicam following a post-race swab after starting in Heat 1 of the Avondale Jockey Club Trials. Mr Lucock told the Committee they regularly used Meloxicam, as opposed to other substances which tend to be harsher on their horses. [49] In considering this case, the Adjudicative Committee advised the following: – “The stable diary notes do not record the fact the substance was applied on the Saturday concerned, but other entries do corroborate regular use of Meloxicam on MISS CAMPBELL. The Respondents advise this was an oversight and perhaps a symptom of their current situation. Accordingly, we accept that this breach is the result of nothing more than an honest mistake”. [50] The outcome in this case was a fine of $2,800 to be shared equally between each of the two Respondents. RIU v Pertab (05/2019) [51] In March 2019, Mr Pertab, a Class B Trainer, admitted a breach of Rule 804(2). This was in relation to his horse, a “2g Rock ‘n’ Pop (AUS) – Nicole Amy” which tested positive to the prohibited substance, Meloxicam following a post-race swab after starting in Heat 6 of the Matamata Racing Club Trials. Mr Pertab could offer no explanation for the positive result, other than possible cross contamination from another horse he was training, that was prescribed Meloxicam by his vet. [52] In considering this case, the Adjudicative Committee advised the following: – “We have regard that this is not a situation where the Prohibited substance, Meloxicam was given to enhance performance, but rather the likely cause was cross contamination.” [53] The outcome in this case was a fine of $3000. RIU v Clotworthy (11/2019) [54] In RIU v Clotworthy, the drug in question – Clenbuterol was found at the Trainers’ premises but there was conjecture the contamination may have occurred at the Racecourse. Shaun and Emma Clotworthy are Licensed Class A Trainers under the New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Rules (NZTR). On 20 July 2019 at New Plymouth, they presented the horse ZABDI in Race 2. The horse won the race and when subsequently tested, was found to have in its metabolism the Prohibited Substance Clenbuterol. This in breach of the NZTR Racing Rule 804(2). [55] In considering this case, the Adjudicative Committee emphasised “There is no suggestion that Mr and Mrs Clotworthy acted deliberately in breach of the Rules or that any of their conduct was directed towards somehow cheating the system. Inadvertent contamination of thoroughbreds can occur in a wide variety of circumstances and in many of those circumstances, there is no fault on the part of the Trainer or Trainers”. [56] The outcome in this case was a fine of $2500. Mitigating Factors [57] The RIB submits the following mitigating factors: 57.1 The Respondent has cooperated fully with Investigators and admitted the charge at the earliest opportunity. 57.2 The Respondent has extensive history and involvement in the Thoroughbred Racing Industry both here in New Zealand and abroad. 57.3 Te Akau Racing maintains high standards around medical record keeping, storage and administration of equine products. 57.4 Te Akau Racing has both external and internal CCTV Security Cameras at their Colt Barn, with disclosed footage assisting the investigation phase. 57.5 It is accepted that there were no sinister intentions in relation to the positive result and has occurred as a result of carelessness through human error. Aggravating Factors [58] The RIB submits the following aggravating factors: 58.1 That legal precedent provides that Trainers have an absolute liability for presenting their horses free of Prohibited Substances. 58.2 That the Respondent and/or his delegates/employees should have taken extreme care when treating a horse with Meloxicam so as not to orally administer to the incorrect horse amounting to carelessness. 58.3 That carelessness in their actions is not an excuse. Conclusion [59] When determining penalty, the RIB submits that the Adjudicative Committee has regard to the purpose of the proceedings, which include: to ensure the Rules are complied with; to uphold and maintain the high standards expected of Trainers; and to protect the integrity of Thoroughbred Racing. [60] In establishing an appropriate penalty, the Adjudicative Committee acknowledges the RIB Thoroughbred Racing Penalty Guide that came into effective on 1st February 2023, which identifies a starting point penalty for Prohibited Substances – Presenting Offences for a first offence – $8,000 fine and a second offence – two-year disqualification and fine of up to $10,000. [61] Given the mitigating factors as listed and the overall circumstances considered in this case, including the profile of the race being the – Group 1 Sistema Stakes, an important race with a high level of stake money and considerable public and media interest, the RIB adopts a starting penalty of $10,000 as appropriate for any adjustment at the Adjudicative Committee’s discretion, regarding mitigating factors and aggravating circumstances. [62] The RIB seeks costs of $2,447.61 for analyst of the ‘B’ Sample. Penalty Submissions (Respondent) The Respondent provided the following response to the Applicant’s (RIB) submissions: [63] The Respondent confirmed that he admitted the breach and accepts that he is ultimately responsible. [64] He also confirmed that he is the Head Trainer at Te Akau Racing Stables and that he has held a Class A Trainers Licence for over 25 years in two racing jurisdictions (Singapore and New Zealand) and has won 9 premierships with one pending. He submitted that he has trained in excess of 1750 winners across three countries and has no previous judicial history involving Prohibited Substances and his record in this area is therefore unblemished. [65] He submitted that the administration of the Prohibited Substance has been clearly identified by the RIB as human error by a Senior Stable Foreperson and that the RIB accepts there was no improper intent by that person. [66] The Respondent drew the Adjudicative Committee’s attention to the manner in which Te Akau Racing conducts itself with regards to integrity. He pointed out that the Stable operates to the highest standards; and that it takes pride in its level of professional processes in all areas of its operation. He added that the Stable is committed to its security having installed CCTV throughout the barns and it was as a result of analysis of the data, that the circumstances of the breach was identified. This information was shared with the RIB and assisted with the investigation. [67] The Respondent reinforced that he and his Team cooperated fully with the investigation and that he admitted the charge at the first available opportunity. He accepts that he and his delegated staff should, and do, take extreme care when treating a horse. He submitted that no matter how robust and professional systems and protocols are, humans are humans and genuine human error can occur, and can have unfortunate results. [68] The Respondent highlighted the reputational damage this matter has created for him personally and for Te Akau Racing, and he submitted that this alone, has been hugely punitive. He said that he has been impacted in terms of his perceived integrity, as well as that of the Stable and his people. He added that this issue has already had a significant impact on him, in terms of public credibility. [69] He said that the RIB submitted that the profile of the race is considered important, a Group 1 Race with its high level of stake money and considerable public interest. He said that is correct, but this factor has actually intensified that professional reputational damage. But the status of the race has nothing whatever to do with the facts of the mistaken administration. [70] The Respondent also highlighted the fact that this issue has greatly affected the morale and mental health of his Team. In particular, not only the Foreperson responsible, but it has had an impact on other Senior Forepersons who have been asked “was it you” and “are upset” about aspersions being cast over their individual competency and integrity. He submitted that both he and the Team are already dealing with the negatives of this case, which is greatly impacting on his people and the whole operation, and of course, the Owners. [71] The Respondent said that he fully accepts that part of the Penalty Decision is to ensure Rules are adhered to, and to uphold and maintain high standards expected on Trainers. However, he submitted that his record and that of Te Akau, show that this responsibility is taken very seriously, and that everything in his power is done to operate at the highest levels in terms of integrity. [72] He referred to the Penalty Guide which provides for an $8000 fine starting point, and that there are number of mitigating factors in his favour, namely: First offence for a Prohibited Substance related charge. The high standards in medical record keeping; storage and administration of equine products. Full cooperation with the RIB, including the provision of the security camera footage. Supportive work environment. A mistake on this occasion which could not have been prevented. [73] The Respondent submitted that he does not accept all of the aggravating factors that were highlighted by the RIB. He provided the Adjudicative Committee with a letter from his legal advisor, Mr Alan Galbraith KC, who is highly regarded and experienced in matters of this nature (refer paragraph [77]). [74] He confirmed that he has forfeited the $18,400 Trainer’s percentage as a result of the disqualification and pointed out the Owners’ significant loss of stake money ($156,400) as well as, potentially, the status of champion 2-year-old. He therefore submits that the penalty incurred so far is already significant. [75] The Respondent submitted that he requested the analysis of the B Sample in the interests of the Owners. [76] In conclusion, the Respondent submits that the facts of the truly accidental nature of the breach and his and Te Akau’s integrity; and cooperation should be reflected in the penalty – i.e., a penalty less than the Guidelines. He submitted that this approach would provide some objective recognition to counter unjustified speculation which has circulated. [77] As mentioned, Mr Galbraith KC provided helpful legal commentary in relation to sentencing principles, precedent cases, mitigating and aggravating factors and the Penalty Guidelines. These have all been considered and taken into account by the Adjudicative Committee. In particular, the Adjudicative Committee fully accepts that the O’Sullivan and Scott case is not relevant, given that the facts in that case are quite dissimilar to this matter. The Adjudicative Committee also accepts that a discount should be applied to the starting point in relation to the Respondent’s early admission and cooperation. The Hearing [78] In addition to the RIB’s written penalty submissions which were provided to the Adjudicative Committee in advance of the hearing, the Applicant Mr Carr, by way of further oral submissions reinforced the following points: 78.1 Public and Industry confidence and reputation is important. 78.2 This is a strict liability offence. 78.3 The RIB acknowledges Mr Walker’s good character, his cooperation and genuine remorse. 78.4 The RIB acknowledges the reputational damage that the charge has had on Mr Walker. [79] In response to questions from the Adjudicative Committee as to why the RIB sought a starting point penalty of $10,000, being $2000 above the Penalty Guide recommended starting point, Mr Carr referred to the RIB’s written submission and reinforced their position that a higher starting point is required due to the status and stakes of the race, as well as media and public interest; and comparisons with other like cases. [80] In addition to his written penalty submissions which were provided to the Adjudicative Committee, also in advance of the hearing, Mr Walker made further oral submissions highlighting the following matters: 80.1 He manages a number of barns and employs a number of Forepersons and staff. In the Part 1 Decision, the Foreperson was not named and as a result, there has been a lot of speculation around who was responsible for the mistake and on that basis, he asked if the Adjudicative Committee intended to name the Foreperson. 80.2 He does not believe that his previous record is of any relevance to this matter, as it did not relate to a Prohibited Substance charge. 80.3 He emphasised that Te Akau Racing has excellent procedures for administering substances in place, and this breach occurred as a result of those systems not being followed on this occasion. [81] In response to a question from the Adjudicative Committee, the Respondent said that the connections of TOKYO TYCOON remain very supportive. Decision and Reasons Decision [82] After evaluating the facts and the submissions, the Adjudicative Committee determined a fine of $7000 to be appropriate in the circumstances of this case. Reasons [83] In reaching its decision, the Adjudicative Committee gave careful consideration to (a) the Penalty Guide starting point of a $8000 fine and the particular nature of the breach; (b) the Respondent’s level of culpability; (c) relevant precedent cases and penalties to ensure consistency; (d) adjustments for mitigating and aggravating factors. [84] In addition, due consideration was given to the applicable sentencing principles highlighted by the RIB in their penalty submission, as well as the well-known and often-quoted paragraphs in the Appeals Tribunal Ruling in RIU v L and in the case of Z v Dental Complaints Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1. [85] In RIU v L, the Appeals Tribunal at [25] commented: Proceedings under the Rules of Harness Racing, as is the position in all cases involving professional disciplines, are designed not simply to punish the transgressor, but crucially are to protect the profession/public/industry/and those who are to deal with the profession. Disciplinary sanctions are designed for some important different purposes, and although guidance can be gained from the criminal jurisdiction, there are broader considerations. [86] In Z v Dental Complaints Committee, it was said that: It is well established that professional disciplinary proceedings are neither civil nor criminal in nature …. because the purpose of disciplinary proceedings within various occupations is not to punish the practitioner for misbehaviour, although it may have that effect, but to ensure appropriate standards of conduct are maintained in the occupation…. The facts and Penalty Guide starting point [87] The facts surrounding the breach have been thoroughly canvassed in the previously published Part 1 Disqualification Decision, as well as at paragraphs [8] to [35] within this Decision. There is no need for the facts to be repeated. [88] The Respondent is liable to any sanction available within the penalty provisions, set at paragraph [6], but importantly, the penalty itself, must be evaluated on a fact dependent basis. The Penalty Guide provides for a penalty starting point of an $8000 fine, with provision for adjustments with regards to mitigating and aggravating factors. The Respondent’s level of culpability [89] Although the breach occurred due to a mistake by one of the Respondent’s employees, by virtue of his position, he is vicariously liable and has accepted responsibility. [90] The position of Head Trainer for Te Akau, carries with it a huge responsibility. Particularly so, given the large number of horses that are under the Respondent’s care and whilst the Respondent is vicariously liable, he, by necessity is heavily reliant on delegating roles and responsibilities to his Barn Managers and staff to ensure that the day-to-day operations can function seamlessly. [91] Clearly there is no evidence that the Respondent played any physical part in the breach, nor did he have any knowledge that the mistake was about to be made or had occurred prior to the result of the post-race swab being brought to his attention. [92] Further, other than having the CCTV cameras constantly monitored within each barn, which is impractical, there are limited things the Respondent, on a personal level, could have done to prevent the mistake (in real time). On that basis, although he is accountable, the Respondent’s level of culpability is assessed as being at the lower end of the continuum. With this in mind, the Adjudicative Committee is comfortable that the penalty it has imposed, is proportionate in terms of the role he played. [93] Although the Adjudicative Committee is assured that Te Akau Racing applies high standards of care, a submission that the Adjudicative Committee accepts, this incident should serve as a timely reminder, not only to Te Akau, but also other Stables, that quality assurance systems need to be in place to prevent a mistake being made when treating horses with substances that may otherwise be permitted within withholding times or guidelines. Prevention and mitigation measures should always be at the forefront of thinking and planning. There also needs to be follow-up checks and balances during, and after, substances are administered. [94] It is hoped any lessons that have been learnt from this case are communicated to, and adopted by, others in charge of training establishments, to protect the wider interests of the Racing Industry so that public trust and confidence in the integrity of Racing is preserved. But in that regard, the Adjudicative Committee emphasises that the integrity of the Respondent or Te Akau Racing, is not in question. Precedent cases [95] The Adjudicative Committee has noted and considered, the precedent cases submitted by the RIB. As mentioned in paragraph 77, the O’Sullivan and Scott case is of no assistance, as it involved six breaches relating to Cobalt, and the circumstances of the offending were quite different. [96] Lucock and Gillespie, and Pertab are relevant because they both involved the use of the Prohibited Substance Meloxicam. Both of these breaches occurred in Trial Heats, and they received fines of $2800 and $3000 respectively. [97] A common thread in each of the cases submitted, is that there was no intent to deceive involved, in the use of the Prohibited Substances. Similarly, intent to deceive is not a factor in this case. [98] The RIB also referred to the NSW Racing case involving the highly successful Trainer J Cummings. Although the Prohibited Substances involved in that case were different to this matter, it is relevant to the extent that it involved the horse SAVATIANO who won a Group 1 Race with the winner’s share of the stake money being $306,762. A fine of $10,000 was imposed. [99] The Adjudicative Committee has identified another NSW Racing case, NSW Racing v C Waller (2016), which relates to a Methamphetamine positive on 5 October 2016, after Mr Waller’s horse BETCHA THINKING, finished second in a race at Canterbury Park. It was found that the positive swab resulted from contamination via a Stablehand. Mr Waller was fined $30,000 following a Steward’s Inquiry. [100] Mr Waller appealed against the severity of the fine imposed. In its Decision of 10 February 2017, the Racing NSW Appeals Panel issued a Written Decision in which they set aside the original $30,000 fine and in lieu of that penalty, a monetary penalty of $5,000 was imposed (by majority). In their Written Decision, the Appeals Panel made the following comments which this Adjudicative Committee finds helpful in evaluating the penalty in this case: Mr Waller is entitled when being sentenced to be given credit for the additional steps he has put in place since the incident. We also consider he was already running a professional stable to high standards. The Panel has considered Mr Waller’s relevant record. It is not a bad record in the sense that it does not reveal any incidents of a deliberate breach of the rules concerning drugs. The Panel has considered the fundamentals of sentencing and has considered what is sought to be achieved by a $30,000 in the circumstances of this case with this offender. The objective seriousness of the offence must be taken into account. The integrity and image of racing must be considered. Deterrence must also be considered. Specific deterrence seems largely irrelevant here. Mr Waller’s offence involved no intent, and the standards of his stable were already high, and he has sought to make them higher. General deterrence – in the sense of emphasising to participants in racing that the higher standards are required where prohibited substances – is relevant. Considering all these matters, our reaction to the penalty is that it is too severe. That reaction is underscored upon consideration of what the Panel sees is the most relevant precedent here, the appeal of McNair. The Appellant in McNair had a considerably worse record than Mr Waller… It is important that differently constituted appeal panels attempt to reach consistent decisions to similar breaches or the rules where similar circumstances exist. Further, this Panel should have particular regard to the decisions of the Tribunal, which is a higher authority. Mr McNair was penalised by way of a $10,000 fine. The offending here, which involves an objectively serious breach of the rules, is unfortunate. Mr Waller runs a stable of high standards generally. The breach here involved no intent. It also involved no apparent carelessness. Some message of general deterrence must be factored into the penalty, however, as must Mr Waller’s prior record of breaches of AR 178. In the Panel’s majority view, the appropriate penalty is a fine of $5,000. [101] The key points to be taken from the Waller Appeal, of relevance to the Adjudicative Committee’s Decision are that: The detection of the Prohibited Substance Methamphetamine is far more serious than Meloxicam. There is an entitlement for a discount to be applied for steps taken since the detection of the breach. Previous breaches of the Prohibited Substances Rule, intent, and carelessness are relevant. It is important that differently constituted Appeal Panels attempt to reach consistent decisions to similar breaches or the Rules where similar circumstances exist. [102] The Adjudicative Committee has previously mentioned, that for reasons of consistency and fairness, it is important that the Adjudicative Committee gives due consideration and weight to relevant precedent Decisions involving similar offending. This was recently reinforced in the Appeals Tribunal Decision M Anderson v RIB, published 18 May 2023. In that Decision, it was said by the Tribunal (at paragraph 29) …References and comparisons to other penalties which are imposed within the racing jurisdiction are common in order to achieve consistency in sentences which may be imposed. Sentencing Principles [103] The Adjudicative Committee endorses and has taken cognisance of the sentencing principles submitted by the RIB at paragraph [39] and also the points made by Mr Galbraith KC. [104] In addition, the Adjudicative Committee also factored into its decision making, the sentencing principles that were outlined in the RIU v L (May 2019), in which it was said by the Adjudicative Committee, that it must endeavour to reach a proportionate balance between the public interest; the interests of the offender; the interests of the professional body as a whole; the seriousness of the offending; and any aggravating and mitigating factors. The Adjudicative Committee believes that it has achieved such a balance in the penalty it has imposed. Aggravating and mitigating factors [105] At paragraphs [57] and [58], the RIB outlined aggravating and mitigating factors for the consideration of the Adjudicative Committee. Similarly, the Respondent at paragraph [72], has also highlighted mitigating factors. These have been noted and considered. In addition, the Adjudicative Committee emphasises the following factors: By virtue of the Rule of vicarious liability, the Respondent is accountable for the careless actions of his employee, and he has accepted the necessary responsibility by admitting the charge at the first available opportunity. The Respondent and his staff have fully cooperated with the investigation. Notwithstanding that as a Senior Class A Trainer with vast experience, his cooperation is expected in circumstances such as this. The Respondent has enjoyed a successful career and has topped the NZ and Singapore Trainers Premiership standings on a number of occasions and, but for a serious breach in 2000, has otherwise maintained a good judicial record. He is currently leading NZ Trainer for the current 2022/23 racing season. The Respondent in 2000, admitted breaches referred to above and he received a suspension and fine for his wrongdoing. Although the RIB has not raised his previous offending as an aggravating factor, the Adjudicative Committee deems it important to outline its position on this, as previous history can, and often will, impact on penalty. Therefore, the previous year 2000 breaches is a factor that the Adjudicative Committee has considered, and after careful thought, this Adjudicative Committee attaches limited weight to them. Thus, the Adjudicative Committee has treated them as a neutral factor. This is due to (i) the passage of time – they occurred 23 years ago and on that basis, the Respondent should not be further or unduly penalised for time served in relation to those breaches (ii) the historical breaches do not relate to Prohibited Substance offences; (iii) importantly, there has been no repeat offending of a serious nature, and (iv) in the interim, as alluded to above, the Respondent has been highly successful as a Trainer and has made a valuable contribution to the Industry. This is not a situation where the Prohibited Substance, Meloxicam, was applied with intent to enhance the performance of TOKYO TYCOON. Rather, this is a case where there has been a catastrophic error due to a lack of attention to detail, amounting to carelessness by one of the Respondent’s staff. Carelessness can arise from a mistake or an error. Although careless in their actions, the Adjudicative Committee understands that the person responsible for administering the substance, has demonstrated genuine remorse. The Respondent has also expressed remorse during the course of the hearing. It is accepted that this breach has taken a toll on the Respondent and his staff. In his oral submission, the Respondent asked if the Adjudicative Committee intended to, or would name the Foreperson responsible (refer paragraph 80.1). This request was seriously considered by the Adjudicative Committee. It is accepted that speculation and suspicion may have been directed at ‘other’ members of the Respondent’s team. Also, the Adjudicative Committee accepts that some members of the public would be interested in knowing the name of that person, but the Adjudicative Committee believes that it is not in the wider public interest for the person to be named. Furthermore, the RIB has not supported this. No mention of the Foreperson by name has been raised by them in any of the prosecution documentation. Further, it has been stressed that this matter has taken its toll on individuals involved; publicly naming the Foreperson in the Adjudicative Committee’s view, would exacerbate the situation. The Adjudicative Committee has not specifically ordered name suppression, so it remains an employment matter for the Respondent and Te Akau Racing to resolve, should they wish to advance this any further. The Stable had systems and processes in place, including CCTV camera coverage in the barns, but even so, they were overridden by human error, as a result of the controls that were in place not being followed. It was the Stable who searched their CCTV camera footage and identified how the breach occurred, and they immediately brought this to the attention of the RIB Investigators. The Adjudicative Committee understands that these systems were reviewed and are satisfied that they remain sufficiently robust, and are of the highest standard. At paragraph 74, the Respondent submitted that he has forfeited his share of the Trainer’s percentage, but the Adjudicative Committee must point out, that is not a penalty and is simply a consequence of the disqualification. At paragraph 69 of his submission, it was said by the Respondent that The Respondent submitted that “the status of the race has nothing whatever to do with the facts of the mistaken administration”. That is partly correct, but by virtue of Rule 920(2), the status of the race is a factor that can be taken into account when assessing penalty. Rule 920(2) provide that: (2) On finding a breach proved the Adjudicative Committee…in imposing a penalty provided in these Rules the Adjudicative Committee may have regard to such matters as it considers appropriate including: (a) the status of the Race; (b) the stake payable in respect of the Race; (c) any consequential effects upon any person or horse as a result of the breach of the Rule; and/or (d) the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in racing. [106] Therefore, with regards to Rule 920(2), the Group 1 status of the race, the stakes payable and the consequences of the breach, are all highly relevant. Also of importance, is the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in racing – but as previously mentioned in this Decision, there is no suggestion whatsoever, that the substance was administered with any intent to deceive or to improve the horse’s raceday performance. So, there are no grounds for public confidence to have been unduly impinged given the facts of this case. On that basis, the issue this Adjudicative Committee needed to assess with regards to Rule 920 when fixing penalty, was whether any weighting should be applied to the $8000 fine starting point. Ultimately, this issue was determined as an aggravating factor. [107] In relation to fixing a starting point, along with the other precedent cases that the Adjudicative Committee has highlighted, the Adjudicative Committee takes some guidance from the Decision of the Appeals Tribunal, R DUNN and J DUNN v RIU, dated 1 June 2018 (albeit a Harness related matter). This was an Appeal against the quantum of fine imposed. It should be pointed out that there are various points of difference between that case and this one, but some of the principles outlined by the Appeals Tribunal are helpful in calibrating the penalty in this matter. In DUNN and DUNN, from a Harness Penalty Guide starting point of $8000 (the same as Thoroughbred), the Appeals Tribunal adopted a $6000 starting point and applied a third discount. Furthermore, the Tribunal in its Decision determined that “In considering an appropriate allowance for mitigation the Tribunal considers that there might properly have been greater recognition of the position arrived at by the RIU and the Dunns’ advisors, Dr Molloy, and Mr Dale. The extent to which the Appellants cooperated with RIU and the extent to which the RIU endeavoured to follow up the Appellants’ concerns is a situation for which both parties should receive recognition. That level of cooperation is seen all too infrequently within harness racing and the other two codes over which the JCA has authority. An appropriate figure to measure mitigation in the circumstances outlined would have been 40 per cent”. [108] The RIB submitted that a starting point penalty of $10,000, primarily because of profile of the race the – Group 1 Sistema Stakes, an important race with a high level of stake money and considerable public and media interest. This starting point is $2000 above the Penalty Guide, and the Adjudicative Committee doesn’t believe the starting point should depart from the Penalty Guide, particularly in light of the much lesser penalties imposed in Lucock and Gillespie and Pertab, which were submitted by the RIB as precedent cases. In the Adjudicative Committee’s view, any adjustments can be adequately made in consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors. [109] The Respondent submitted that the facts of the truly accidental nature of the breach, and his and Te Akau’s integrity and cooperation, should be reflected in the penalty by way of a penalty less that the $8000 set out in the Penalty Guide. [110] In this case, the Adjudicative Committee believes there is no basis for departure from the Penalty Guide starting point. But the discretion vested in the Adjudicative Committee does allow for adjustments, upwards and downwards, from that starting point to be made. The starting point is therefore fixed at $8000. [111] In consideration of the aggravating factors, the Adjudicative Committee applies a $2000 uplift to the starting point. This takes into account that the consequences of the breach (i.e., the disqualification), did not arise following a Trial Heat or a low-key race, but the disqualification after winning a Group 1. It also takes into account, the consequences to all those involved, as per Rule 920(2), particularly so with regards to the impact this breach has had on the connections of TOKYO TYCOON i.e., the disqualification and loss of stakemoney. [112] In the Adjudicative Committee’s view, there are more mitigating factors than there are aggravating, and in recognition of this, the Adjudicative Committee applies a reduction of $3000. [113] Accordingly, after allowances for aggravating factors ($2000) and mitigating factors ($3000), the Adjudicative Committee imposes a fine of $7000. The Adjudicative Committee acknowledges this is less than the fine sought by the RIB, but in its view, after reflecting on the various factors, precedent penalties and ensuring that these matters are kept in perspective, the Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that the fine it has imposed, is reasonable and proportionate. Conclusion [114] In the final result, Class A Trainer Mark Walker, is fined $7000 and ordered to pay costs as set out below. Costs [115] The Respondent is ordered to pay costs of $2,447.61 for analysis of the ‘B Sample’. [116] There is no order for costs in favour of the RIB or Adjudicative Committee, as this matter was heard on a raceday, thus reducing the hearing costs for all parties concerned.

What's the alternative? Woodlands have empty mares and their stallions have no progeny on the track? That doesn't make sense does it? Not to mention no product for punters to wager on.

It also can help promote a Studs Stallions. All the Studs do it i.e. have their own band of broodmares. The top Thoroughbred Studs do it. Gets a Stallions progeny on the track quicker rather than relying on fickle breeders. The Stud then hopes that they get winners which attracts breeders to their product. At the end of the day it is another form of marketing and is equally tax deductible.

But practically they'll never be anywhere near it. The costs will snowball endlessly.

Anyway back to the topic - how long before the horse racing codes struggle to find homes for retired horses?

You'll be pleased. Who will you harass next?

Who's that?

But that isn't the track.

Not the last three that were caught. But I guess Greyhounds are lucky they don't have to drug test their riders or drivers.

Most of those cases if not all of them were environmental contamination. Sharrock (Thoroughbred Trainer) returned a similar positive to Meth but didn't lose his license. It will be Harness targeted next.

@Archie Butterfly isn't the source - or should I say sources?

I was looking through the Greyhound Review - Supplementary Report written by the Racing Integrity Board (RIB) for the Minister of Racing and noticed one issue that will sooner or later bite the horse codes. That said you'd have to wonder who the RIB works for. I daresay they got special funding to do the report and if Greyhound Racing is ended then the RIB may be closer to making budget. Adoption 2.12 The waitlist for entry into the Great Mates rehoming programme is growing, moving from 134 in July 2022 to 242 in January 2023, an 81% increase in six months. 2.13 The total greyhounds in the adoption pipeline (both awaiting entry into Great Mates and already in the programme) has grown from 452 in July 2022 to 608 in January 2023, a 34% increase in six months. 2.14 Adoption levels are dropping below GRNZ’s Key Performance Indicator (KPI) of 150 per quarter. Refer graph 1. 2.15 An adoption marketing campaign, launched in late 2022 appears to have had minimal impact on adoption demand. 2.16 The graph below shows the steady climb in the greyhounds awaiting adoption, The number of adoptions is declining, while the inflow is increasing. Greyhound-Review-Supplementary-Report-16-March-2023.pdf

Looking at the detail in the original case and in this appeal, it is clearly evident that if it wasn't for The Bunker and the repeated viewing of the High Definition video it would have been very hard for any Steward to have seen if Cox had connected or not. Damn near impossible for any public viewer watching on TV.

Jonny Cox lost his appeal. Appeal – Decision dated 6 June 2023 – Jonny Cox ID: RIB22742 Respondent(s): Racing Integrity Board Applicant: Jonny Cox - Driver Appeal Committee Member(s): Mr A Harper (Chair), Mr M McKechnie Persons Present: Mr Cox, Mr S Renault and Mr Sole - Stipendiary Stewards (on behalf of Respondent) Information Number: A20976 Decision Type: Appeal Charge: Improper Driving Rule(s): 869(3)(f) - Riding/driving infringement Stewards Report Results Animal Name: JUST MICHAEL Code: Harness Race Date: 07/05/2023 Race Club: Rangiora Harness Racing Club Race Location: Rangiora Racecourse - 312 Lehmans Road, Fernside, Rangiora, 7440 Race Number: R10 Hearing Date: 06/06/2023 Hearing Location: Addington Raceway, Christchurch Outcome: Appeal Dismissed Penalty: Driver Jonny Cox' suspension of 7 days stands Background 1. On 7 May 2023 the Rangiora Harness Racing Club held a meeting at the Rangiora Raceway. 2. Race 10 on the programme was the Tyre General Handicap Pace. The Appellant drove “JUST MICHAEL”. Also in the event was “KIWI HERO”, driven by Mr R Holmes. 3. Following the event, the Appellant was charged with Improper Driving under Rule 869(3)(f) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing. 4. The Rule provides: “No driver in any race shall drive: (f) improperly.” 5. The charge arose from an incident when passing the 1500 metre mark in the race, where the Appellant struck the trailing horse KIWI HERO, on four (4) occasions with his closed fist. 6. Following a defended hearing held on 12 May 2023, the Adjudicative Committee found the charge proved and the Appellant’s Open Driver Licence was suspended for a period of seven (7) days. 7. The Appellant now appeals the Decision as to the finding of the Adjudicative Committee and also the penalty which they imposed. Appellant’s Submissions 8. The Appellant submitted KIWI HERO had been trailing JUST MICHAEL too closely to the point, there could have been a dangerous situation arising. 9. He says his actions arose from concerns as to safety for both himself and also other participants in the race. He had already endeavoured to have KIWI HERO move back by moving his head around, but that was to no avail. 10. The Appellant maintains he called to the Driver of KIWI HERO to pull back, but again that was to no avail. 11. In the Appellant’s submission, there was nothing more he could have done to prevent a potentially dangerous situation arising and his actions were solely out of safety concerns. 12. The Appellant also asked for three (3) race films to be shown. These race films were events from 26 February 2018 at Waikouaiti, 6 April 2018 at Addington Raceway and 24 December 2018 at Manawatu. 13. On all three (3) occasions, Drivers had reacted to a trailing horse following too closely. On none of these occasions was the Driver charged, although the actions had come to the attention of Stipendiary Stewards and a warning had been issued on at least one of those occasions. Respondent’s Submissions 14. Mr Renault on behalf of the Respondent, relied on the video films, maintaining it was improper for the Appellant to strike KIWI HERO with his closed fist on three (3) occasions to the head, and on one (1) occasion to the chest. 15. The Respondent accepts KIWI HERO was racing keenly and on more than one occasion, had moved its head to the inside of the Appellant’s helmet during the running. 16. However, Stewards did not see anything out of the ordinary from these events until the 1500 metre mark, where the Appellant moved to the side and struck KIWI HERO. It was only when the Appellant carried out this action, that any risk arose from a safety perspective of KIWI HERO potentially over racing and striking the wheel of JUST MICHAEL. 17. It is the Respondent’s view, it is improper to strike a horse in the head area, particularly given Industry concerns as to matters of animal welfare and the Appellant’s actions were clearly visible on Trackside television to a wide audience. 18. It is the submission of the Respondent, that the actions of the Appellant on this occasion, amounted to a terrible look for Harness Racing. Discussion 19. The Appeal has been conducted by way of a re-hearing. The Appeals Tribunal procedure is set out in Rule 126 of the New Zealand Harness Racing Rules. The Fifth Schedule to the Rules sets out the actual procedure to follow. Paragraph 44 confirms the Appeal is to be by way of a re-hearing and the Appeals Tribunal has adopted that procedure. 20. In considering this Appeal, the Appeals Tribunal is required to form its own opinion as to matters of law and fact. However, it should give due weight to findings made by the Adjudicative Committee. 21. The Appeals Tribunal has carefully read the Adjudicative Committee’s Decision, and also the submissions which had been made before it. 22. The facts are relatively clear and not disputed. 23. JUST MICHAEL was travelling in the 1-1 position during the running. Immediately following him was KIWI HERO. The trailing horse was “pulling” and on more than one occasion, struck the helmet of the Appellant. At the 1500 metre mark, the Appellant lent to the side and struck KIWI HERO with his fist on four (4) occasions. On three (3) of those occasions the strike was to the head, and on the other occasion it was to the chest. 24. The Appellant’s justification for taking this course of action, was a concern he had for the safety of all participants in the event, due to KIWI HERO trailing too closely and potentially striking a wheel, which could cause safety issues. 25. The Appeals Tribunal looked at the three (3) previous examples which were submitted by the Appellant as being similar circumstances to these facts, but where Stipendiary Steward action was either not taken, or dealt with by way of warning. 26. The Appeals Tribunal is of the view the actions by the Drivers on each of those three (3) occasions, was far less than what the Appellant resorted to. Not only that, but attitudes towards animal welfare have stiffened considerably over the last five years. 27. It is critical for the Industry to take, and be seen to take, stern measures where any issues of animal welfare arise, in order to maintain its current social licence to operate. To do otherwise, will create a high level of risk to the ongoing operation of the Industry. This has been reinforced on a number of recent Decisions, both at Adjudicative Committee level and Appeals Tribunal level. 28. For those reasons, the Appeals Tribunal placed little weight on the films of races which took place some five (5) years ago. 29. The Appeals Tribunal did not see any safety issues which could in any way, justify the actions which the Appellant took. Perception is reality and it was a poor look for the Industry. 30. In the Appeals Tribunal’s view, it is never acceptable to strike a horse in the head region, whether in a race or not. The actions of the Appellant, in the Appeals Tribunal’s view, fall very much within what would be considered as Improper Driving. A definition of Improper Driving was submitted to the Adjudicative Committee as being: “Improper driving can mean unseemly, unwarranted or not in accordance with the normal rules of conduct expected of a licence holder or driver competing in a race. Improper driving is something improperly done, connected with the act of driving. Improper driving involves something being done which ought not to be done, or something is omitted to have been done which ought to have been done and which is judged to be wrong, but not necessarily within the description of careless, dangerous or reckless”. 31. There was no justification for the Appellant to take the actions which he did, and in the Appeals Tribunal’s view therefore, the Adjudicative Committee was correct to make the finding they did. 32. It is for this reason, the Appeals Tribunal dismisses the Appeal as to finding. 33. The Appellant also appealed the penalty which was imposed. 34. However, at the hearing the Appellant indicated he did not wish to pursue the Appeal as to penalty and accepted a suspension of seven (7) days to be appropriate if the Appeals Tribunal dismissed his Appeal as to the finding. Decision 35. The Appeal as to both finding and penalty is dismissed. 36. The Appellant has been driving under a stay since the filing of the Appeal. The seven (7) day suspension should therefore now be imposed. Accordingly, the Appellant’s Open Driver Licence is suspended up to, and including, 30 June 2023. Costs 37. The Appellant has not been successful in his Appeal. The Respondent does not seek costs. 38. The Appellant should, however, make some contribution to the costs of establishing the Tribunal for the hearing of this Appeal. The Appellant is therefore ordered to pay $500 costs. The Tribunal notes this costs award is for an amount significantly less than the actual costs which have been incurred in hearing this Appeal. Decision Date: 06/06/2023 Publish Date: 08/06/2023

The rumour is that the new CEO of Albion Park Harness Racing Club in Brisbane is moving from Cambridge Raceway. A related question is was The Race by Grins a one off?

I watched Empire Rose win the NZ Cup from the top of that stand.

@Michael I realise you are reeling from the loss of 500 pokie machines from the industry but I thought you would have some comment about Cambridge Raceway?