Chief Stipe

Would be purely political if they did either. No science to support it. I know many who have had the virus and they are all either getting off the vaccination treadmill or seriously questioning the point of it. The level of compliance is falling rapidly and it will take more than a $50 grocery voucher to entice people to get 4 or more jabs.

Thank you for reinforcing my point. As far as I know no registered race horse in New Zealand cannot have an owner. The simple step that HRNZ can take is to make the ownership status open and transparent. They do this up to a point where anyone can look up who owns a horse so all that is required is to extend this for syndicates (I.e. list all members) and make available to all owners in a particular horse who owns what percentage. The next step is to have a central registry where any pecuniary interest against a horse must be registered I.e. an insurance policy. So if an owner signs papers to buy a share in any registered horse they can then view who else owns how much of it and who has a pecuniary interest. Someone like Kerr wouldn't be able to do what he did. Surely that is an important function of HRNZ - put systems in place to ensure the integrity of horse ownership.

You've asked the TAB? What you are implying is the TAB sees YOUR $20 bet as a market indicator of risk. Really? You must be restricted more than @Brodie. But no one else in the market knows if the $20 is mine or yours except perhaps the TAB bookies and or the system odds setter. That said aren't most winning punters looking for value rather than following the leader?

Assuming that you are talking about the odds available to everyone and not restricted punter odds. The only way your $20 on its own could have that effect on odds was if the pools were very small or the odds were "market enticement". I'm not suggesting you are clairvoyant but you are assuming that you are the only person participating in the market (which you aren't) and that no one else has the same strategy as you.

No way will I get the jab. According to a RAT test I've had the much feared disease. So my immunity is as good as anyone on the jab treadmill and the $50 grocery voucher bribe regime. My infection was nothing more than a head cold and surprisingly better than many of my vaccinated friends.

That's crap. I haven't denied anything. The difference is I believe the industry has a culture problem much of which is perpetuated by the administrators of the sport largely by their inaction. I've also offered solutions e.g. ways to prevent the Mitchell Kerr crime being committed and protecting owners. All others are intent on doing is to completely rub out anyone who errs and to raise unfounded allegations about those that are succeeding (surviving?) in the sport. If you are happy with the RIB and HRNZ's management of the sport then I would say you are in denial not I. Meanwhile the rank and file are struggling to make a living and the administrators get fatter without any risk. Many are satisfied if they see some road kill from time to time but don't give a damn about fixing the fundamental systemic problems.

Wrong. The figures are rates per 100,000 NOT rates per 90,000 or 10,000. The figures are a comparison between the RATES of infection.

I've never "proclaimed" that at all. I've only ever said when asked that my first degree was a science degree. Anyone who has done such a degree is trained in the scientific method. Much of the "science" we have seen in the last three years has been very very poor.

Happy to challenge these supposed "own goals". However your statement regarding the Pzifer vaccine "test" is incorrect. What's more it doesn't align with the FDAs original policy for giving a vaccine an EUA. That policy may have changed but what is clear the data submitted by Pzifer was not up to standard and clearly showed that the vaccine had very low efficacy be it as a true vaccine or as a therapeutic.

Will the moves by Ozzie State Governments to increase Point Of Consumption taxes impact race import/export revenue?

There is also severe pressure on the RIB source of funds from Pokies. So it wouldn't be unexpected for the codes to have to dip into their distributions from the TAB to fund it. Also some tasks have been shifted off the TAB balance sheet and onto the codes e.g. code promotion and marketing. More pressure on Stakes.

Not good. Tracking below budget and don't forget they are budgeted to distribute less than last year and 2019. So what did Mr MacKenzie really do?

TAB NZ Trading Performance Update - May 2022 1 July 2022 TAB New Zealand (TAB NZ) provides the tenth monthly trading update for the 2021/2022 financial year, with the results and highlights for May 2022. The TAB continued to operate successfully through its online and retail channels throughout May. The impact of the current Omicron outbreak eased slightly compared to April, with New Zealand at the Orange setting in the Covid-19 Protection Framework. This led to an uplift in foot traffic in the retail and hospitality sector through May, although not to the same levels of 12 months ago. Turnover dipped against budget in May, with the gross betting margin also slightly below budget, while softening economic conditions also played a factor as customers adjusted to the rising cost of living. The TAB NZ Board has been able to maintain betting profit distributions at budgeted levels through the year to date. With funding from Betting Information Use Charges and the Betting Levy tracking above budget, this has meant that total distributions have been above budgeted expectations. The Board will continue to factor in potential developments in New Zealand’s response to Covid-19 and the current global financial climate, as to how trading conditions are affected and how this may or may not affect profit distributions. Wagering Performance Summary In May, the key performance results for TAB NZ were in line with the overall positive trends of the 2021/22 financial year. Turnover of $202.7m was 3.6% ($7.5m) below budget and gross betting revenue (GBR) of $32.0m was down on budget by 4.4% ($1.5m). The gross betting margin (GBM) of 15.8% was 0.1% below budget. Racing Average NZ thoroughbred starters per race was 10.7, slightly above the Year To Date (YTD) average of 10.6, while the peak turnover for a domestic meeting was $1.9m on 14 May for the Campbell’s Infrastructure Cup Day at Arawa Park. Harness average starters per race was 9.8, below the YTD average of 10.2, while the peak meeting turnover of $1.1m was on 5 May at Addington. For greyhound racing, the average starters per race was 7.5, slightly below the YTD average of 7.6, while the peak turnover for a domestic meeting was $453k on 13 May at Addington. Sport The top sporting event by turnover for April was the Warriors vs Sharks NRL match on the 8th May at $0.58m. Tennis was the leading in-play sporting code accounting for 25% of in-play turnover while Rugby League was the top pre-match sporting code accounting for 24% of pre-match turnover. May Operational Performance Reported Profit for the month was $10.8m, which was $2.4m below Budget. Operating Expenses were $10.6m for the month, which was $0.4 above Budget. Year To Date (1 Aug 2021 to 31 May 2022) Reported Profit was $135.2m, which was $1.6m below Budget and $12.0m below last year. Year To Date (1 Aug 2021 to 31 May 2022) Operating Expenses were $97.0m, which was $3.3m below Budget and $2.3m above last year. May Distributions Racing Codes were paid $13.8m in distributions and other payments for May, versus $13.6m budgeted. This consisted of TAB NZ Betting Profit (listed as Fixed Distribution in the table below), offshore bookmaker commission fees, which are based on actual turnover (termed Betting Information Use Charges (BIUC) in the table below), and Betting Duty/Levy repeal. Top 10 Racing events by turnover Date Venue Race No. Race description Turnover 28-May Eagle Farm R9 TAB Kingsford-Smith Cup (G1) $328K 28-May Eagle Farm R8 Moet & Chandon Queensland Derby (G1) $324K 14-May Arawa Park R6 Campbell Infrastructure Rotorua Cup (G3) $320K 21-May Te Rapa R5 Dunstan Horsefeeds 1300 $317K 21-May Trentham R8 James Bull Holdings Rangitikei Gold Cup $307K 21-May Te Rapa R8 The Animal Feed Barn Mile $290K 14-May Arawa Park R8 Rydges Rotorua Stakes (G3)

Some opinion backed by science and data.

BY WILL JONES 30 JUNE 2022 7:12 PM As the push to vaccinate ever-younger children against COVID-19 continues, with the U.S. now even vaccinating infants as young as six months, new studies show why this is both unnecessary and risky, and why children and young people have very little to fear from Covid. The large majority of children have now been infected with the virus. In the U.K., 82% of U.K. primary school children aged four to 11, almost none of whom are vaccinated, have detectable antibodies from a previous Covid infection, according to the ONS. The ONS data do not directly tell us the proportion of children aged 12-18 who have antibodies from infection, as they do not distinguish between antibodies from infection and vaccination, and 65% of the age group are vaccinated. However, since 99.3% of secondary school children have detectable antibodies, there is no reason to suppose it will be less than 82%. ONS With almost all children now having been infected and so protected via natural immunity, there is little purpose to a vaccination or booster campaign. But does protection from natural immunity last for children? According to a new study from Israel, it lasts very well. The pre-print study (not yet peer-reviewed) from the Delta period in Israel (July 1st to December 13th 2021) finds that children and adolescents previously infected “acquired durable protection against reinfection (symptomatic or not) with SARS-CoV-2 for at least 18 months”. Protection of individuals aged five to 18 against symptomatic Covid was 93.6% in the first six months, declining gently to around 70% after 18 months (see below). While the study doesn’t cover Omicron, which has greater immune evasion than earlier variants, a recent study from Qatar found that natural immunity in a young population persisted at over 50% for at least a year, whereas vaccine protection declined to zero or below (i.e., the vaccine made a person more likely to be infected) within six months. With or without natural immunity, Covid is an extremely low risk to children. Notably, none of the 458,959 five to 18 year-olds in the Israeli study died with Covid, whether they had been previously infected or not. A recent U.K. Government study by the UKHSA looked at all under-20s who had died with Covid up to the end of 2021. It found 185 deaths within 100 days of a positive PCR test, of which fewer than half – 81, 43.8% – were actually due to COVID-19 as the underlying cause of death. Of those, more than three quarters – 61, 75.3% – had an underlying condition, including 27 with severe neurodisability and 12 with compromised immunity. This left just 20 deaths in healthy under-20 year-olds in the first two years of the pandemic, comprising just 0.3% of all the 6,790 deaths in the age group. The authors estimated the Covid infection fatality rate in under-20s to be 0.0007% – but this includes those with underlying conditions. For healthy under-20s it would be a quarter of that, or less than 0.0002%, which is two in a million. By contrast, a recent study in France found that as many as 170 per million young people were hospitalised with severe heart inflammation following Covid vaccination. That rate is around two orders of magnitude (i.e., 100 times) higher than the IFR of COVID-19. It means that for every life the Covid vaccines save (assuming they prevent 100% of Covid deaths, which they don’t), up to 100 young people are hospitalised with severe myocarditis, the long-term prognosis of which is unknown. And that’s just one side-effect. How can such a risk-benefit profile be worth it for children and young people? What about Long Covid – do vaccines protect children and young people from having debilitating, ongoing Covid symptoms, as is sometimes claimed? A number of studies have found that compared to a control group, and when Covid is identified by the presence of antibodies, there is little evidence that those who suffer from COVID-19 go on to suffer more long-term effects. But even if they do, there is also no evidence that vaccines prevent Long Covid, with one recent large U.S. study finding “no significant difference in the risk of… any long-Covid feature”. There is also, of course, no evidence the vaccines prevent infection for very long at all. Thus however you look at it, it’s hard to see how there can be any justification for vaccinating children and young people against COVID-19, which is unnecessary and risky, and brings no clear benefit whatsoever.

My theory is the TAB bookies or the computer sysyems spreads the risk by off loading on the tote. It happens towards start time and often the tote prices don't adjust until post race time. As for a $20 bet affecting prices as dramatically as you suggest it would only happen if liquidity was very low I.e. very small pools. There is no way that you can connect one small bet with price movements.

The malcontents and rumour mongers may not be directly affecting any race but they are affecting the future of ALL races. HRNZ and RIB need to proactively manage a positive narrative and do so on a regular basis. For example why aren't the number of tests taken and results published publicly on a regular basis? We only hear about the positive drug results. With the 59 stables inspected in 2 days in Canterbury what were the outcomes? For example did 50 get an A+ rating? Are some required to do remedial work? If so what work is required? Don't need to name or shame stables that weren't up to scratch. What was the inspection protocol? What do we get? A few fluffy paragraphs on the RIB website.

Stipes Report: POROTENE DUNDEE (L Allpress) - Began awkwardly losing ground. Improved forward to lead near the 1200 metres. HEADS UP (K Mudhoo) - Got its head up in the early stages when racing keenly and being steadied away from heels. Stewards questioned rider K Mudhoo regarding the tactics he adopted near the 250 metres when electing to shift ground outwards as opposed to taking a run between SWEET VIRGINIA and GOING STEADY. Mr Mudhoo advised the mare had raced greenly and been reluctant to take the run between those runners despite his urgings therefore he elected to shift outwards to find clear racing room. Stewards noted Mr Mudhoo’s comments. VITAL PERFECTION (M Taylor) - Over-raced through the middle stages due to the lack of tempo. Lost contact with the body of the field when the pace of the race increased passing the 1200 metres. When questioned regarding the performance rider advised the mare was left flat footed when the pace increased and was not suited to the changing tempo throughout the race. A post-race veterinary examination revealed no obvious abnormalities. PACKING TAVI (T Jonker) - Raced three-wide without cover from near the 1000 metres. Held up in the run home until shifting ground inwards near the 150 metres to find clear racing room. GOING STEADY (K Williams) - When questioned regarding the improved performance trainer Mr. S Woodsford advised the mare had benefitted from the step up in distance of today’s race.

What passive aggressive insults? Pot kettle perhaps? You quite happily regurgitate the Government narrative on the Pzifer vaccine without presenting any evidence. The moment someone pushes back with a cogent argument instead of rebutting it you throw the towel in. It isn't a pointless debate (which I might add you started) it is a very important one that needs be had otherwise the same mistakes will be made again and again. You'd be pleased to know the from the MOH's own figures that the fully boosted rate of infection is 4 times that of the unvaccinated. I'm sure you will enjoy pitching up for your 5th, 6th and 7th vaccination.

Then cut out the waffle and post real evidence to support your narrative. That's incorrect. If it were in fact the case then it is even more reasons to never have used the Pzifer vaccine. The fact is the Pzifer trial data shows zero efficacy relative to risk. "Show me how you measure me and I'll show you how I behave." Science has largely been hijacked by political ideology. Academics are measured on how much air time they get not the veracity of their research. Hence we have a physicist advising the government on epidemic models and a biologist whose speciality is bioluminescent bacteria advising on masks and vaccines. Health bureaucrats have long lost their ability to make the correct health decisions. They have forgotten the principle of do no harm even if it means doing nothing. The decision to force the vaccination of our population was not based on a credible assessment of the data and risk versus reward. Hopefully one day both the Academics and the bureaucrats will be held to account. Wrong again. There has never been a vaccine that requires 4 shots or more within 12 months. The fact is the Pzifer vaccine is ineffective and is no more than a poor therapeutic. But worse is that evidence is emerging that vaccinated people who get Covid (seems like everyone!) are more prone to reinfection than the unvaccinated. That is a serious consequence of administering an ineffective vaccine. What's even worse is the announcement yesterday by the health bureaucrats of the reduction in reinfection times from 90 days to 29 days. Can we expect vaccine boosters every month now? It will cripple business and further disrupt the schooling of our children. The latter having suffered already a horrendous burden totally unnecessarily. As for my background. My first degree was a four year science degree. So I was trained in the scientific method at a time when the quality of research was measured on its accuracy not how many headlines it attracts in the media. I also doubt that you have read and analysed as many research papers as I have over the last two years. Numbers in the thousands.

None.

Really? Lack of pace in NZ races is becoming endemic. Aren't you contradicting yourself? On the one hand you say the North Island Jocekys did nothing then they showed initiative. At least going forward gave the horse a chance - it had no chance sitting at the back reefing and falling over the heels of the horse in front. The race was a farce. Certainly not encouraging for the punter.

Question: when are the Harness Racing Bureaucracy and the RIB going to call to account the likes of @Enteebee and @Archie Butterfly?

Non Raceday Inquiry – Reserved Written Decision dated 27 June 2022 – Cameron Jones ID: RIB9705 Respondent(s): Cameron Jones - Trainer Applicant: Mr Simon Irving, Senior Racing Investigator Adjudicators: Geoff Hall; Warwick Gendall Information Number: A15813 Decision Type: Adjudicative Decision Charge: Administration breach of One Clear Day Rule Rule(s): 1004C(1)(b) - One Clear Day Rule Plea: Admitted Stewards Report Results Animal Name: JOHNNY NEVITS Code: Harness Race Date: 10/12/2021 Race Club: NZ Metropolitan Trotting Club Inc Race Location: Addington Raceway - 75 Jack Hinton Drive, Addington, Christchurch, 8024 Race Number: R2 Hearing Date: 21/06/2022 Hearing Location: Christchurch Outcome: Proved Penalty: Trainer Cameron Jones - 21 months' disqualification [1] The Informant, the RIB, has laid Information A15813 with respect to the Respondent, Mr Cameron Jones, alleging a breach of r 1004C(1)(b) of the Rules of Harness Racing. [2] This Information alleges: “On 10 December 2021 at 123 Woodend Beach Road, Woodend Beach, the Respondent did administer to JOHNNY NEVITS, which was entered in Race 2 at the New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club meeting at Addington Raceway that evening, a substance by way of injection, in breach of r 1004C(1)(b) and subject to the penalties pursuant to r 1004D.” [3] Rule 1004C(1) states: “No person shall administer to a horse entered in a race in the period one clear day before racing (except under the direction or supervision of club veterinarian, Racing Investigator, or Stipendiary Steward) any substance by: (b) injection, hypodermic needle, or oral syringe. [4] Subsection (2) provides: “A breach of sub-rule (1) is committed regardless of the nature of the substance administered.” [5] Rule 1004D(1) states: “A person who commits a breach of r 1004C shall be liable to: (a) a fine not exceeding $20,000; and/or (b) be disqualified or suspended from holding or obtaining a licence for any specific period not exceeding five years [6] The matter was heard at Christchurch on 21 June last. The Respondent admitted the breach and accepted the Summary of Facts. Summary of Facts Background 1 The Respondent, Cameron Thomas Jones, is licensed under the Rules of Harness Racing New Zealand. He currently holds a Public Trainers Licence and a Junior Drivers Licence. Breach of Rules 2 Information A15813 relates to a breach of r 1004C(1) – Administration in breach of the One Clear Day Rule. 3 On Friday 10 December RIB Investigators conducted an inspection at the stables of Cameron Jones at Woodend Beach. This being the afternoon of a race meeting held at Addington Raceway by the NZMTC. 4 Mr Jones had one runner engaged that evening: JOHNNY NEVITS; Race 2, 5.42pm. 5 Investigators observed Mr Jones collect his horse from a yard, tether it in his tie-ups and prepare it for transportation to the races. Also present was HRNZ Licensed Trainer Andrew Fitzgerald who did the same with his horse EYECON entered in Race 4. 6 At approximately 3.05pm Investigators observed Mr Jones lead his horse onto a horse float while Mr Fitzgerald waited on the ramp to load his horse. Seconds later Mr Fitzgerald observed Mr Jones holding an empty hypodermic syringe next to JOHNNY NEVITS. This was approximately two and a half hours before the horse was due to race. 7 Mr Fitzgerald loaded his horse, secured the float, and then drove his vehicle towards the gate which Mr Jones had walked to and opened. Mr Jones was observed by both Investigators and Mr Fitzgerald to open the lid of a green wheelie bin next to the gate and place something in it. Both Mr Fitzgerald and Mr Jones then left the property and drove the float to Addington Raceway. 8 Minutes later Investigators inspected the wheelie bin and located a used 20ml hypodermic syringe on the top of other rubbish. The syringe was taken as an exhibit for analysis. 9 Upon the float arriving at Addington, Investigators immediately interviewed both Mr Jones and Mr Fitzgerald independently. 10 Mr Jones denied injecting JOHNNY NEVITS or having possession of a syringe. He stated that he had placed a small vaping cannister in the wheelie bin. 11 Mr Fitzgerald stated that he saw Mr Jones with the empty syringe next to his horse but did not see him inject it and stated that he observed Mr Jones put something in the wheelie bin after he opened the gate. 12 JOHNNY NEVITS was inspected by the oncourse RIB vet at Addington who observed a 10mm soft swelling on the left jugular vein with a focal puncture in its centre, consistent with an intravenous injection site. 13 Based on the evidence presented, JOHNNY NEVITS was scratched from its race by Stewards pursuant to r 213(1)(c). 14 Urine and blood samples were obtained from both JOHNNY NEVITS and EYECON which were analysed and found to contain no prohibited substances. 15 Analysis of the syringe by NZRLS failed to identify any prohibited substances. 16 The evidence does not support Mr Jones’ version of events and no vaping cannister was located in the wheelie bin. Circumstances relating to Mr Jones 17 Mr Jones has been involved in the Harness Industry for several years and has held a Trainers Licence for one year. He does not have any previous breaches of the “One Clear Day” Rule. Informant’s Penalty Submissions [7] The Informant made both written and oral penalty submissions, which we summarise. [8] The Informant submitted that the relevant purposes and considerations were helpfully stated in the Appeals Tribunal’s decision in RIU v L (2019) at [25] and [28]: 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… A common thread in cases involving serious misconduct is for the regulatory tribunal generally to focus on the interests and reputation of the profession as being more important than the fortunes of the individual offending member…The Tribunal must endeavour to reach a proportionate balance between: • the public interest • the interests of the offending member • the interests of the professional body as a whole • the seriousness of the offending • any aggravating and mitigating factors. [9] More recently, in RIU v Kerr (2021), the JCA observed: [T]he need to deter others who might choose to deceive owners or others in the misguided view that they are entitled to operate in similar ways is crucial. The confidence of owners and others in the absolute integrity of Trainers in whom total trust is vested, is vital. The Sport cannot endure if owners cannot trust Trainers…. If there should be any Trainers or others who might breach these Rules, the general deterrence following from this sanction may prevent similar abuse and deceit of, helpless owners. It is the general deterrence principle to which we give special weight in the sentencing balancing exercise so that any Trainer who might tend to forget to whom their duty lies, are aware of possible sanctions they might face if they transgress in similar ways to their owners’ detriment. [10] The Informant submitted that these comments from Kerr should guide this Adjudicative Committee’s approach to determining penalty in this case. It was a serious administration offence, the only purpose of which must have been to obtain an advantage in the upcoming race. [11] The Penalty Guide suggests a starting point of 18 months’ disqualification for a first administration offence, then three years’ and five years’ disqualification for second and third offences, respectively. This was a guide only, and more recent decisions indicated that in particularly serious cases, significantly higher penalties might be adopted. [12] In this regard, the Informant referred to RIB v Wigg (2022), RIU v McGrath (2020) and RIU v Alford (2021) as being comparable cases. [13] In contending for a penalty of not less than two years’ disqualification, the Informant argued the Respondent’s conduct was more serious than that in Wigg where a starting point of 18 months’ disqualification was adopted for a first administration offence. This case involved the administration of a substance using an oral drench at the prompting of another person. The prompting to administer the substance did not in any way excuse the conduct and, as the Adjudicative Committee in Wigg observed, her actions fell woefully short of the behaviour required of a Licensed Trainer. However, offending which occurs entirely of the offender’s own volition, as in the present case, was comparatively more serious. [14] The Informant also submitted that injection by hypodermic needle was more serious than administration by oral drench. Injecting was noted to permit the substance to be transferred directly into the bloodstream rather than requiring gradual absorption through the stomach lining, increasing the risk of animal welfare concerns. With respect to an oral drench, the horse has some control as to whether to accept it. For example, in Wigg the horse had resisted the drench and there was a lot of the paste on the ground around the horse. A horse could not resist a substance which was being given by way of a hypodermic needle. [15] Notwithstanding the absence of a detected prohibited substance, the Adjudicative Committee was invited to consider that Mr Jones’ offending sat closer to the penalties in McGrath and Alford where prohibited substances were administered on raceday. [16] The Informant acknowledged that the Respondent’s offending was less serious than that in McGrath and Alford, given the absence of a prohibited substance being detected and the absence of evidence of serious animal welfare concerns. However, the principles underpinning penalty in respect of administering offending were said to remain the same. [17] Analysis had been unable to determine the nature of the substance injected into JOHNNY NEVITS as there was only a residual, miniscule amount available for analysis. However, the Informant contended that the only viable reason for administering a substance to a horse by hypodermic syringe, on raceday and shortly before a race, was to obtain some form of benefit. [18] The fact that the substance administered was not determined to be a prohibited substance was reflected in the Information, which involves administration in breach of the One Clear Day Rule rather than administration of a prohibited substance. However, in administering the substance Mr Jones’ intention must have been for the substance to be performance enhancing. No other explanation had been proffered. This also made Mr Jones’ case more serious than Wigg, as in that case the Adjudicative Committee accepted the possibility that Ms Wigg did not believe the mixture involved was performance enhancing, finding however, that it was clearly her intention to provide some benefit to the horses for animal health. A similar explanation had not been advanced by Mr Jones in the present case. [19] The Informant considered that the Respondent’s offending was further aggravated by the deceptive conduct he engaged in once his actions had been detected. This showed that he was clearly aware that his conduct was in breach of the Rules of Harness Racing. In his initial interview with an RIB Investigator, he maintained that he had not injected JOHNNY NEVITS, and challenged the RIB to prove that he had. When confronted with the fact that he had been seen throwing something in the bin and a syringe had been found sitting at the top of the bin, Mr Jones claimed that he had thrown a vape pod into the bin. After Mr Jones’ associate was interviewed and stated that he saw Mr Jones holding a hypodermic syringe, Mr Jones asserted that this associate was either lying, mistaken or had been pressured into making an allegation by the RIB. This was false as Mr Jones had injected JOHNNY NEVITS with the hypodermic syringe. [20] The Informant emphasised that Mr Jones’ admission of the charge did not come at the earliest opportunity, although it was acknowledged that this was delayed in part while Counsel awaited the decision of the Appeals Tribunal in Wigg, a delay which should not be held against him. Mr Jones’ denials when first interviewed about this matter were said to be also a factor when considering the appropriate discount for the admission of the charge. [21] The Informant concluded their written penalty submission by stating that in assessing the appropriate starting point for Mr Jones, the Adjudicative Committee should consider the effects of his offending on both the owners of the horses concerned and the wider racing community as a whole, and thus the need for both specific and general deterrence in regard to this type of offending. [22] At the request of the Adjudicative Committee, the Informant produced the record of JOHNNY NEVITS which showed two starts for a second and a third. The horse did not race after the day in question and Mr Jones explained this was due to a tendon injury. JOHNNY NEVITS was owned by the Respondent’s partner, a family friend, and another Licensed Trainer, and had now been rehomed. Respondent’s Penalty Submissions [23] Mr Jones made oral submissions. He commenced by apologising to the Adjudicative Committee. He said he wanted “to come clean”. He had lied when interviewed by the Investigators and acknowledged it had taken some time for the truth to come out. He said he had panicked as he knew he was going to lose his licence. That was another mistake he had made. [24] The Respondent said the injection was intramuscular rather than intravenous. The substance was Flexidine, (now called Depodine) which he described as iodised peanut oil. It was an organic substance. He referenced the substance on his cell-phone. (We note it is described on the website as a “long-acting injection for treatment and prevention of primary and induced iodine deficiency in sheep and cattle”.) [25] Mr Jones stated the injection was due to be given on the preceding Monday, but he had not been spending time at the stable due to his partner giving birth to their first child. He only discovered when he returned from the hospital on the Friday that the injection had not been given and it was then that he injected the horse. He said the substance was not performance enhancing but was intended to put the horse in a good head space so it could run up to its ability. He explained JOHNNY NEVITS was a nervous horse and would be a ball of sweat before a race and was always pulling in trackwork. [26] Mr Jones said the substance was used to treat an iodine deficiency and had no withholding period. JOHNNY NEVITS had been on it for two months and was receiving it once a week. The substance seemed to work. He acknowledged he had not told Mr Irving the nature of the substance. This hearing was the first time he had identified it. Flexidine was in a 500 ml bottle and was used with respect to other horses in the stable as well. He had not asked the vet for advice with respect to JOHNNY NEVITS, but the substance was in the stable on vet’s advice and, by trial and error, he had worked out that it was suitable for the horse. [27] Mr Jones said he was aware of the One-day Rule and had no excuse other than it was a poor decision due to his family commitments and he accepted he was “about to pay the price”. He emphasised he was “not trying to get an edge”. [28] When questioned concerning his stable, he said he had been winding down the past month and only had one horse in his care, which he would sell for the owners. He said that while he lived on David Butt’s property, he had a separate entrance and disqualification would not cause an issue in this regard. (Mr Irving confirmed this.) [29] Mr Jones presented glowing character references from two well-respected Licensed Trainers and stated a third reference was available. He said he had driven for four years in Australia and for a similar period in New Zealand. He had had his Trainer’s licence for about 18 months and had not driven in a race for the past two seasons. He explained he had worked as stable foreman for Bob Butt in the mornings for the past four or five years and would work his own horses in the afternoon. He trained out of David Butt’s property and usually had about six to eight horses in his stable. [30] Mr Jones said he had pleaded guilty once he had taken legal advice. He asked that the Adjudicative Committee consider a 12-month disqualification. He had worked in the Harness Industry all his adult life and was the sole earner for his young family. No other employment was available to him at the present time. In a further brief written communication he added that he would like, if possible, to be able to shoe horses. [31] When questioned by the Adjudicative Committee, he acknowledged he knew why Mr Alford had been disqualified and that the same horse was involved on this occasion. He had taken over JOHNNY NEVITS after Mr Alford’s disqualification. He agreed he knew he was taking a great risk and was doing wrong. Discussion [32] We first analyse the three administration cases to which the Informant has made reference. [33] In Wigg, Ms Wigg admitted three charges of administration in breach of the One Clear Day Rule. Ms Wigg had administered a substance comprised of turmeric (curcumin) and black pepper (piperine) to three horses by way of oral drench on the afternoon of raceday. The horses were all swabbed and no prohibited substances were detected. Ms Wigg’s explanation was that the substance was provided to the horses to improve gut health. [34] The Adjudicative Committee adopted a starting point of 18 months’ disqualification for the initial administration offence and uplifted this by five months to account for the other two breaches. This was reduced by four months for Ms Wigg’s late admission of the charges and her personal circumstances, resulting in 19 months’ disqualification. Ms Wigg’s appealed this penalty. The Appeals Tribunal dismissed her appeal, upholding the penalty imposed. [35] Mr McGrath admitted three charges: attempting to administer a prohibited substance; refusing to make a statement; and obstructing a Racing Investigator. Mr McGrath attempted to administer a horse with a prohibited substance by way of nasal gastric tube. He then refused to answer a Racing Investigator when questioned regarding tubing equipment in his possession, and ultimately obstructed the Investigator from seizing the equipment. The Committee concluded “the most likely substance which was to be administered via a nasal gastric tube was an alkalising agent”. The starting point in McGrath was 10 years’ disqualification, which included a small uplift for his previous breaches of the Rules. After a discount for personal mitigating factors, penalty was eight years’ disqualification. [36] Mr Alford admitted two charges of administering a prohibited substance and one charge of attempting to administer a prohibited substance. This offending involved the raceday administration of Formalin to two horses via injection from a syringe. The third horse was not injected as RIU Investigators intervened before that could occur. The Tribunal viewed the case as broadly similar in respect of the seriousness to McGrath and adopted a global starting point of nine years’ disqualification. The penalty in Alford was seven years’ disqualification after admission of guilt, remorse and absence of previous breaches were taken into account. [37] Mr Jones has administered a substance by way of a hypodermic needle two and a half hours before the horse JOHNNY NEVITS was due to race. An insufficient quantity of the substance was present on the syringe for analysis. Mr Jones’ explanation is that JOHNNY NEVITS is a nervy horse, and the substance was Flexidine, which he regularly administered to the horse intramuscularly but had omitted to do so due to his being absent from the stable earlier in the week because of his personal circumstances. This explanation was proffered for the first time to this Adjudicative Committee. Mr Jones had never mentioned this fact when interviewed by the Investigators, which could be seen to raise doubt as to its authenticity. There is no obvious reason not to identify the substance once Mr Jones became aware that he had been witnessed administering something to the horse. Rather, his response was to lie and to state a vaping cannister had been deposited in the bin rather than a syringe. [38] Whatever the nature of the substance, it was not prohibited, unlike the substance in both McGrath and Alford. For this reason, we obtain greater guidance from Wigg. It is evident that Mr Jones’ intention, like that of Ms Wigg, was to administer a substance that would be of benefit to the horse, and in this instance, to enable the horse to settle during its race, and give of its best. Unlike Mr Jones, Ms Wigg confessed her actions when confronted by the Racing Investigators on the day. We add also that the Informant has stated there is no evidence of any betting anomalies with respect to JOHNNY NEVITS. [39] Certainly, no discount is available for co-operation with the Racing Investigators. Mr Jones lied. And this does make Mr Jones’ expression of remorse at the penalty hearing sound a little hollow. [40] Mr Jones has been involved in the Harness Industry for several years and has held a Trainer’s Licence since 2021. He does not have any previous breaches of the “One Clear Day” Rule. He has tabled excellent character references. [41] The Administration Rules are fundamental to the integrity of the Racing Industry. They are intended to prevent Trainers from obtaining an unfair advantage over other horses through the administration of substances that may in some way improve their horse’s performance, whether prohibited or not. Animal welfare concerns are raised whatever the substance, especially when administration is by syringe. The distinction drawn by the Informant between oral administration and administration by injection is not without foundation. The impact of the Respondent’s actions upon both the connections of the horse and the integrity of the Harness Industry itself, points to the need for deterrence, both general and specific. Absent participant confidence, the Industry will not thrive. [42] The gravity of the breach necessitates that Mr Jones be removed from any involvement in the Harness Industry for a period of time. A mere suspension of his Public Trainer’s licence is not an adequate penalty, nor is a fine. The starting point is that for a first breach, as stated in the Penalty Guide, of 18 months’ disqualification. [43] Taking into account the circumstances of the breach — that the substance was administered by syringe; this was only two and half hours before the horse was due to race; and the clear warning that the Respondent had received with respect to the penalty imposed upon Mr Alford for a breach of the very same Rule with respect to the very same horse — we believe an increase to the starting point to two years’ disqualification is appropriate. Mr Jones’ intention was plainly to flout the Rules of which he was well aware. His good record (although we note this is inherent in the starting point) and character, difficult financial circumstances, belated remorse, and his admission of the breach at a teleconference on 29 April 2022 upon his eventual obtaining of legal advice and in the context of there being clear evidence of his actions, warrant a three-month deduction. We also take into account that the hearing of this matter was deferred until the Appeal decision in Wigg was delivered. This delay is not attributable to Mr Jones. [44] Mr Jones is disqualified for 21 months, commencing Thursday 30 June 2022 up to and including 29 March 2024. Costs [45] The Informant’s costs were $3380, which comprised legal fees, including file review and advice, communication with Defence Counsel, attendance at teleconferences and preparation of penalty submissions. [46] Costs must be just and reasonable and do not seek to indemnify the successful party. We order costs of $2000 in favour of the Informant and, as there have been hearing costs, $1000 by way of Adjudicative costs to the RIB. Decision Date: 27/06/2022

@JJ Flash I'm not "hard up for posters" because I don't care. If people want to post well and good. If not I don't care. So much for democracy and having an opinion.