Chief Stipe

What would this lot know about handicapping or fixing the issues? Bruce Sherwin (chair), Neil Jennings, Tyler Tane, Tim Aldridge, Andrew Castles, Craig Baker, Tim Mills, and Darin Balcombe Handicapping-changes_April-2022_FINAL.pdf

James MacDonald and Katelyn Mallyon announce engagement.

Stop the ambiguity - What Debt exactly? How much of that was inflationary QE? Which they didn't manage very well at all. What did they actually fund with printing money (QE) - i.e. artificially increasing money supply while suppressing supply. Essentially creating an inflationary powder keg. Not directly. The majority of the funding went towards wage subsidies. Of course that meant some rather large businesses that met the criteria for those subsidies incurred lower costs and sustained lower revenue but not as greater drop as the costs. Therefore profit margins were maintained or improved on lower turnover. Everyone was FORCED to become socialists due to the authoritarian regime that had no idea about economic management. Those that had their hands out had so only for what they were entitled to. Fraud was comparatively low. However there was some dubious spending e.g. the 500m to Maori Health Authorities and the special deals for the chosen few in Tourism. But that is just two examples. Of course spending on the white elephant AWT's continued as did the 350m gift to upgrade Maori Marae. Why should they? They played by the rules and only received what they were entitled to. I explained the reason for the profit above. That said companies like Harvey Norman are now experiencing serious supply chain problems as well as substantial inflation in costs. They'll need every bit of their false profit to weather the head winds. I guess the biggest positive of this Labour Government is that they have showed every New Zealander the futility of a centrally controlled command economy fuelled by social credit (QE) and socialist ideals. It is an abject failure!!!

You're a Left Wing (probably CCP card carrier) moron. You said: Whatever this ambiguous statement of yours means it is wrong. There was NO explosion of debt of any kind and the figure you quote isn't in any definition of debt for 2017. You aren't really that good at this are you?

On this trial run if you didn't know her history you'd have to back her in her next start! Won under a big hold. She can definitely run a bit.

Mmmmm must be the Easter and ANZAC delay.....the past month results are normally posted by now.

Too late for NZTR, Trackside and now the RIB - they have all moved to Parnell. Isn't the building they are in owned by a major Horse Stud? I may not be correct about the RIB but I've heard rumours that they are investing in new premises so I assumed it was joining the clan at Parnell.

Just because it is made up in your brain doesn't make it a verifiable fact. Although it hasn't been verified that you actually have a brain.

Uneconomical in what way? Our Group flat races don't actually pay their way. As for being detrimental is it anymore detrimental than racing horses on shyte unsafe tracks? Anymore detrimental than the coming majority of racing being on artificial surfaces?

Waste of time debating with someone who doesn't use actual facts in his arguments.

Fake news. Disinformation. Fake news. However what is your point? False.

Won the first comeback trial. NON-WINNERS MOBILE PACE Distance: 2000m Weather: Fine Track: Good Participants for Race 4: NON-WINNERS MOBILE PACE Pl Bk Horse Time Driver 1 4 Lizzie Richter 2-30.8 T S Chmiel 2 5 Hail Lucius R W Todd 3 2 Seabreeze Solitaire J C Morrison 4 7 Bettor Behave C J DeFilippi 5 1 Elite Styx T M Williams 6 3 Shell Shock S J Ottley 7 6 Sweet Joy B N Orange Margins neck, 2 lengths, 1 1/4 lengths Times Mile Rate: 2-01.3 Last 800m: 58.5 Last 400m: 28.5

Gets some tomorrow at the Rangiora Trials. Participants for Race 4: NON-WINNERS MOBILE PACE Book Name Draw HCP Rating Trainer 1 Elite Styx 1 Front MR50 Grant Payne 2 Seabreeze Solitaire 2 Front MR50 Malcolm Shinn 3 Shell Shock 3 Front MR50 Ken Barron 4 Lizzie Richter 4 Front MR40 Terry Chmiel 5 Hail Lucius 5 Front MR48 Regan Todd 6 Sweet Joy 6 Front MR48 Ken Barron 7 Bettor Behave 7 Front MR49 Colin & Julie DeFilippi

That's an interesting admission by you @holy ravioli that Labour are piss poor economic managers. I suppose you have the solutions. Xi Jinping? How are Cindy's conversations going with Kelvin? Isn't he the third talent on Labour's Bench?

The Bromance recontinues....

In Stormont's race didn't the other Unruly horse also start in the wrong position?

They bang on about how it isn't a good look for the industry and the horse's welfare but nowhere do they state what the detected level was. They just leave it open to speculation that the horse was deliberately administered 'P' when in fact if the levels are very low then it is likely to be environmental contamination. What is the harm in publishing the detected levels? They did it for the sample taken from the roof of the truck.

You never pushed out in your life @Gammalite? Doesn't look too bad head on.

So what do you propose? The horse gets sacked completely with no chance of rehabilitation?

Would you really expect anything else when it is Grimstone aka Mr INCA leading the charge? Note once again they do not state the detected levels in the horse sample. Obviously as with previous cases it is a case of cross contamination rather than deliberate administration to the the horse. Therefore one could assume that the levels detected in the horse were not performance enhancing.

It galloped in its last 3 starts. Had to trial after the second. Then all clear. I think. At the end of the day don't back it. Treat it as if it is a maiden trotter. They lose gait if a fly farts.

They weren't "3 horse trials". One had 7 starters the other had 6.

Then how do you test that? "Trial to the Stewards satisfaction"?! If that's the case then its two recent trials would have been satisfactory. Has it been treated any more leniently than Benson's Mate?

Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Decision dated 19 April 2022 – Rochelle Lockett ID: RIB8626 Respondent(s): Rochelle Lockett - Trainer Applicant: Ms Georgina Murrow, Racing Investigator Adjudicators: Geoff Hall; Noel McCutcheon Persons Present: Mr Neil Grimstone, Manager Integrity Assurance; Mr Kevin Myers assisting the Respondent Information Number: A15753, A15755, A14510 Decision Type: Adjudicative Decision Charge: Presenting horse that returned a positive result to the controlled drug Methamphetamine; providing sample containing the controlled drug Methamphetamine Rule(s): 804(6); 656(3) Plea: Admitted Stewards Report Results Animal Name: BE FLEXI Code: Thoroughbred Race Date: 05/01/2022 Race Club: Otaki-Maori Racing Club Race Location: Otaki Racecourse - Te Roto Road, Otaki, 5512 Race Number: R4 Hearing Date: 07/04/2022 Hearing Location: Wanganui Racecourse Outcome: Proved Penalty: Trainer Rochelle Lockett - 3 years' disqualification, suspended after 18 months if conditions satisfied [1] The Informant, the Racing Integrity Board, laid three Informations with respect to Ms Lockett. One Information (A14510) was withdrawn at a teleconference held with the parties on 18 March and it will not be further addressed in this decision. [2] Information A15753 alleges on 5 January 2022, Ms Lockett brought the horse BE FLEXI to the Otaki-Māori racecourse. She won Race 4, the NZB Insurance Pearl Series Race maiden F&M 1200 metres. BE FLEXI is a 4yo mare trained by Ms Lockett. BE FLEXI was post-race swabbed and on 24 January 2022, New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services issued a Certificate of Analysis detailing the sample positive to the controlled drugs Methamphetamine and Amphetamine. These are Prohibited Substances, as defined in Part B of the Prohibited Substance Regulations. Ms Lockett was responsible for the horse at this time and is therefore in breach of r 804(6) and liable to the penalty imposed pursuant to r 804(7) of the Rules.” [3] Rule 804(6) states: “A Trainer of a horse commits a breach of these rules if the Tribunal conducting an inquiry finds that the horse has had administered to it or has present in its metabolism a Prohibited Substance as defined in Part B of Prohibited Substance Regulations.” [4] Rule 804(7) states: “A person who commits a breach of sub-Rule … (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 …; and/or (c) a fine not exceeding $25,000.” [5] Information A15755 alleges that “on 28 January 2022, Ms Lockett was at Wanganui. She was required by a Racing Investigator to supply a sample of urine in accordance with r 656(3) of the NZTR Rules of Racing. She provided urine which upon analysis was found to contain the controlled drug Methamphetamine as defined in the Misuse of Drugs Act. Ms Lockett is thereby liable to the penalty imposed pursuant to r 803(3) of the Rules.” [6] Rule 656(3) states: “A Rider, or any other Licence holder who has carried out, is carrying out, or is likely to carry out, a Safety Sensitive Activity at a Racecourse, Training Facility or Trainer’s Premises, who, having been required by a Stipendiary Steward or Investigator to supply a sample in accordance with this Rule must not have a sample which is found upon analysis to contain any controlled drug as defined in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 or other illicit substance or diuretic and/or its metabolites, artefacts or isomers.” [7] Rule 803(3) states: “Subject to Rule 803(2)(b), where any Licence holder who has carried out, is carrying out, or is likely to carry out, a Safety Sensitive Activity at a Racecourse, Training Facility or Trainer’s Premises commits or is deemed to have committed a breach of these Rules related to drugs or alcohol and a penalty is not provided elsewhere in these Rules for that breach, that Licence holder committing the breach may: be disqualified for a period not exceeding 5 years; and/or be suspended from holding or obtaining a Licence for a period not exceeding 12 months; and/or be fined a sum not exceeding $50,000.” [8] The Respondent has admitted the breaches of rr 804(6) and 656(3) (Informations A15753 and A15755). We find these charges to be proved. [9] We have received written penalty submissions from the Informant. These submissions have been supplemented by oral submissions and we have received oral submissions from the Respondent and her support person, Mr Kevin Myers. Summary of facts 1. The Respondent, Rochelle Lockett, is the holder of a Class ‘A’ Trainers Licence issued by NZTR. 2. On 5 January 2022, the horse BE FLEXI won Race 4 – NZB Insurance Pearl Series Race Maiden F&M 1200 metres – at the Otaki-Māori Racing Club meeting at Otaki. 3. BE FLEXI is a 4yo mare trained by Ms Lockett and owned by G Lambert (Racing Manager), T Shaw and S Trow. BE FLEXI won the race earning a stake of $6,720. 4. BE FLEXI was post-race swabbed and on 24 January 2022, New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services issued a Certificate of Analysis detailing the sample positive to the controlled drugs Methamphetamine and Amphetamine. 5. Methamphetamine is a Class A controlled drug as defined in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. It is a Prohibited Substance within the meaning of the Rules and its presence in a race-day sample is, prima facie, a breach of the Rules. 6. On the morning of 5 January 2022 Ms Lockett transported BE FLEXI and two other racehorses she trained from Wanganui to Otaki. She transported these horses in her horse truck. 7. She had sole responsibility for these horses during this race meeting. 8. She was responsible for BE FLEXI during the swabbing process and signed the swab card accordingly. 9. Following the positive result RIB Investigators visited Ms Lockett’s racing stables, located at the Wanganui racecourse, on 28 January 2022. 10. Samples of sawdust were collected from BE FLEXI’s box on 28 January. These were sent for analysis and returned a negative result. 11. A swab was taken from the ceiling above the driver’s seat of the horse truck belonging to and driven by Ms Lockett. This horse truck was used to transport BE FLEXI to the racecourse on 5 January. This returned a positive result for Methamphetamine of 0.04 µg / 100cm2. 12. BE FLEXI’s stable was swabbed, as were those of four other horses belonging to Ms Lockett, all returning a negative result for the presence of Methamphetamine. 13. Three of Ms Lockett’s staff members undertook drug tests, as did the RIB Swabbing Official who obtained the urine sample from BE FLEXI. All returned a negative result. 14. Ms Lockett also provided a urine sample for analysis which returned a positive result for Methamphetamine and Amphetamine. 15. Ms Lockett also provided a hair sample for analysis. This also returned a positive result showing the use of Methamphetamine over approximately the last three months. 16. When initially interviewed by Investigators, Ms Lockett could offer no explanation for the positive result detected in BE FLEXI but admitted taking Methamphetamine in November 2021. 17. Upon the result of Ms Lockett’s drug tests she was spoken to again, admitting she had used Methamphetamine on her birthday two days prior to the test. 18. Ms Lockett is 50 years old and has been involved in the Thoroughbred Racing Industry all her life. She has been a Licensed Trainer since 2005. Her NZTR record details she has had 223 starters and 25 winners. She has no previous breaches of the Prohibited Substance rule or any other NZTR Rules. Informant’s penalty submissions [10] The Informant identified relevant sentencing purposes and considerations were helpfully stated in the Appeals Tribunal decision in RIU v Lawson (2019): 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. [11] The principles of sentencing relevant to the presenting charge were summarised: 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 Committee for the type of offending in question. The need to rehabilitate the offender should be considered. [12] The importance of animal welfare was also to be considered. This had been emphasised by the Judicial committee in RIU v Alford (10 May 2021): If animal welfare standards are not upheld in the industry and when necessary, with condign sanctions by the Judicial control Authority, the industry cannot maintain a social licence in order to continue to operate. Methamphetamine is a potent central nervous system stimulant which poses significant animal health and welfare issues, it is an illegal Class A drug. [13] Offending of this nature was said to carry with it the significant risk of adversely affecting the interests of the professional racing body. The dangers of Methamphetamine were highlighted in RIU v Donoghue (2019). The Judicial Committee noted that even if a race winner returned a positive swab where no blame could be apportioned it would still have unreasonable consequences for public trust and confidence in the Industry. [14] In RIU v Turnwald (2021) it was noted any penalty imposed must act to denounce this type of breach. The nature of the drug involved, namely Methamphetamine, is a particularly aggravating factor and the need for general deterrence requires a more severe penalty. [15] Incidents such as this, were said to place the integrity and viability of the Industry at risk. In R v Toomer (2020), it was noted: There is a need to maintain the confidence and integrity of greyhound racing at every level, including betting public who wager on the outcome of races. [16] The Informant submitted that the penalty for the breach of r 804(6) should be a substantial period of disqualification. [17] The Informant relied on RIU v Newton (2014). Ms Newton, a class A licensed trainer was charged with a breach of r 804(2) of the Rules of Racing. The horse, I’M NOT TICKLISH was taken to the Egmont Racing Club where it engaged in race two. The horse was found to have had present in its metabolism a prohibited substance, namely Methamphetamine. During the investigation, Ms Newton admitted to being a casual Methamphetamine user. The penalty imposed was a period of disqualification of three years and costs of $2,221.75 to the RIU and $700 to the JCA. [18] The Judicial Committee in Newton observed the following: The penalty that we are imposing is to denounce the breach of the Rule and to also act as a deterrent to others contemplating the use of such a prohibited substance (or any prohibited substance for that matter) in horse racing. It is intended to promote a sense of responsibility in the respondent and others, in terms of security around racehorses. It is not known how the drug was administered but the plain and simple fact of the matter is the rule is one of strict liability and Ms Newton must carry the responsibility for the breach. [19] Reference was also made to R v Schofield (2018). Schofield was the licensed trainer of the greyhound ZIPPER ANDRE. The dog raced on 29 December 2017 and subsequently tested positive to Methamphetamine. In this case the JCA began with a starting point of four years’ disqualification, this was mitigated due to the respondent’s cooperation, admission of the breach and the financial impact upon his family. The JCA stated: We believe these factors entitle the respondent to a 50 percent reduction in our starting point. This leaves us with a penalty of two years’ disqualification. When we look at the comparator cases, this period of disqualification is significantly less than that in Newton, which we regard as a higher end example as the respondent was a methamphetamine user…. [20] Schofield was considered by the Appeals Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed, and the disqualification of two years was upheld. The Tribunal considered the four-year starting point was appropriate and the 50 per cent deduction to be a generous recognition of Mr Schofield’s circumstances and contribution to Greyhound Racing. [21] A further relevant authority was R v Turnwald (2021). Ms Turnwald admitted an offence against r 61 of the NZ Rules of Greyhound Racing, in that as the trainer of the dog ZIPPING SARAH she failed to present the dog for a race on 12 November 2020 free of prohibited substances. A post-race swab tested positive for Methamphetamine and Amphetamine. Her initial penalty was appealed by the RIB in May 2021. In considering the appeal the Tribunal stated: Animal welfare in the industry is a paramount consideration and any breach must not be tolerated as it strikes at the very heart of the integrity and reputation of the Industry. It is incumbent on Owners and Trainers to protect their animals from exposure to Methamphetamine. The penalty imposed must act to denounce this offence. The nature of the drug involved namely Methamphetamine is a particularly aggravating factor and the need for general deterrence requires a more severe penalty. [22] The outcome was a disqualification of 18 months, $3000 costs to the RIU and $500 to the JCA. [23] The Informant submitted that the penalty with respect to the breach of r 656 should also be a period of disqualification. [24] The RIB stated that NZTR has been drug testing Industry participants since 1995 and since that time there has been a growing awareness that there is an absolute obligation on those riding horses to present themselves free of the influences of any drugs. [25] All riders are aware of the policy and the consequences should they not comply. The testing is conducted for two reasons, the need to maintain a healthy and safe workplace and secondly to maintain the integrity of the industry. [26] R v Donoghue (2019) was cited in this regard. Donoghue a trackwork rider provided a urine sample which tested positive to Methamphetamine. In considering the penalty the JCA made the following points: Methamphetamine is a Class A controlled drug. The issues associated with its use are well documented and it is said to be at the heart of many health, social and economic problems within communities across the whole of New Zealand. The racing industry is a community in its own right and is not immune from the effects and consequences of this drug. Thankfully, the detection of methamphetamine is a relatively rare occurrence within racing. But a concern is the emerging risk of cross contamination. An increasing number of positives have emerged. Trace level identifications of methamphetamine have been detected in tie up stalls on course and in other places that have traditionally been thought of as being environmentally sterile. Accordingly, Industry participants should not become complacent, and vigilance is called for as there remains a highly probable risk of an unwary winner of an iconic race returning a positive. And even if this were to occur and the connections are found to be blameless, it could still have immeasurable consequences for public trust and confidence in the industry. A further consideration is the potential for the risk of a serious workplace accident to occur to horse(s) or rider(s) should any trackwork be undertaken by any rider who is operating under the influence of any prohibited substance, such as the Class A Drug Methamphetamine. [27] Donoghue received a 12-month disqualification and costs of $187.50 to the RIU. [28] Two further cases were RIU v Thorby (2017) where a trackwork rider provided a urine sample which upon analysis was found to contain Methamphetamine and was disqualified for a period of 10 months and fined $2000, and RIU v Burton (2017) where Burton was disqualified for 10 months and ordered to pay $187.50 costs. [29] The RIB acknowledged mitigating factors were that Ms Lockett had pleaded guilty shortly after the Informations were laid and had not incurred additional costs for the adjudicative or the investigative arms of the RIB. Ms Lockett had been involved in racing all her adult life and had an otherwise clean record. [30] With respect to the appropriate final penalty, the Informant submitted that the offending in this case was significantly more serious than any of the cases cited above. It involved the use of a class A, illicit drug, and subsequent contamination of a horse. Ms Lockett further denied recent or ongoing use of Methamphetamine, adding an element of dishonesty to the offending. This dishonesty was said to elevate this case above that of Ms Newton, who admitted recent recreational Methamphetamine use to Investigators. Ms Lockett’s hair and urine samples showed a recent and sustained use of the drug. [31] The RIB believed a “cumulative starting point of four years disqualification” was appropriate for these charges. The offending was observed to be serious in nature; it not only undermined the integrity of the racing industry but posed a serious animal welfare and safety issue. Any penalty had not only to demonstrate a denunciation of this type of offending but also to function as a deterrent to others. The reputation of the industry relied on members following the Rules, and breaches such as these undermined public trust and confidence and brought the Industry into disrepute. [32] Mr Grimstone supplemented these written submissions with a brief oral submission. He emphasised the parallels between the present case and that of Newton. He believed an aggravating factor in this case, not present in Newton as she had admitted her Methamphetamine use, was that Ms Lockett had initially misled the RIB Investigator as to the extent of her drug use. The Respondent had admitted only use on a very casual basis, whereas the hair sample she provided showed a history of Methamphetamine abuse over the previous months. The sample taken from above the driver’s seat in the transporter also showed traces of Methamphetamine. He asked the Committee to conclude that the Respondent was a habitual user. [33] Mr Grimstone also emphasised with respect to the r 656 charge, the seriousness of the Respondent carrying out safety sensitive activity while using Methamphetamine. [34] Mr Grimstone reiterated that the RIB believed a cumulative four-year starting point was appropriate. A substantial penalty near this level was necessary in the interests of animal welfare and to protect the integrity of the Industry. A denunciatory penalty that was a deterrent to others who might be like minded would uphold public trust and confidence. [35] When questioned by the Committee regarding the Respondent’s rehabilitation, Mr Grimstone acknowledged that the Respondent had been engaging with the Salvation Army. He accepted that the involvement of the Racing Counsellor, Ms Young, was appropriate in this case. [36] Mr Grimstone concluded his submission by stating a significant period of disqualification should be imposed. Respondent’s penalty submissions [37] Mr Myers questioned whether the Racing Investigators were consistent in their application of the Rules. He believed that the Respondent was “not in the same bracket” as Ms Newton and that the Committee should not take guidance from this case. [38] It was established that Ms Lockett had been stood down on 28 January and no longer had any horses, nor was she riding trackwork. [39] Mr Myers stated that the Respondent had worked for him intermittently in the years 1994 to 2011. He she said she was a reliable, valued, and trusted employee who always turned up for work. He said Ms Lockett had ridden in the USA, Japan, and Australia. She was a successful jockey. Ms Lockett said she had stopped riding in 2011. In the years, 2015-2017 she had ridden trackwork in Singapore. [40] When questioned by Mr Myers, Mr Grimstone confirmed there was nothing of note betting wise in the race. [41] Mr Myers said Thoroughbred Racing was short of good people like Ms Lockett, with the age profile of trainers getting older and older. He said he was “dead against drugs, but it was hard for people to stay away from meth when it was so prevalent in areas like Wanganui.” [42] Mr Myers concluded his submission by reiterating that Ms Lockett was a loyal and hardworking person. She had made a mistake, admitted it, and deserved to be given a chance to put things right. If she was out for years, a very good person would be lost to the Industry. He asked us “to give her a chance”. [43] Ms Lockett produced a letter to the Committee, dated 5 April, from Ms Dianna Young, Registered Practitioner / Supervisor / Senior Caseworker / AOD Clinician to the Racing Industry. [44] Ms Young stated that she had spoken to Ms Lockett many times and that Ms Lockett was now at the point of wishing to seek treatment for herself and her drug use. The process would be to complete a comprehensive assessment with a view to referring her to the MASH Drug and Alcohol Programme in Palmerston North. [45] Ms Young indicated that she would continue to be available to support Ms Lockett prior, during, and post, her treatment. [46] Ms Lockett said she initially had difficulty in establishing contact with Ms Young. She commented that she was behind Ms Young’s MASH proposal “100 per cent”. [47] Ms Lockett confirmed to the Committee that she had paid back her trainer’s percentage of the stake. [48] Ms Lockett assured the Committee she never wanted to hurt an animal. She loved horses and had worked with them her whole life. She was harder on herself than anyone. Getting into such trouble had been “heartbreaking”. She knew she had let everyone in her whole life down and said she would do whatever she could to “make it right”. Decision [49] The Respondent is a well-respected figure in the Thoroughbred Racing Industry who has admitted a charge of presenting a horse with Methamphetamine in its metabolism and another of providing urine which upon analysis has been found to contain the controlled drug, Methamphetamine. [50] The charges both arise out of the fact that Ms Lockett had consumed Methamphetamine sometime prior to the race meeting at Otaki on 5 January 2022. Thus, we believe concurrent penalties are appropriate. We will take the breach of r 656(3) as the lead charge but only because the monetary penalty for that breach is higher than that for a breach of r 804(6). However, we view each as being a grave breach of the Rules and see no need to differentiate in the penalty that we apply to each breach. [51] Relevant sentencing considerations were detailed in the Appeals Tribunal decision in Lawson: Proceedings under the Rules 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…. The Harness and Thoroughbred Racing Industry is a profession where key participants are required to be licensed in order to practice in various ways within that sphere. Comprehensive rules of practice, behaviour, procedure and the like are set down in extensive detail in the Rules which govern the codes and behaviour. As with most professions a careful internal disciplinary and regulatory process is set up. Those who practice within the professions … are subject to sanctions for breaches of standards of conduct or rules designed to protect members of profession as well as the public. Such sanctions can be at the highest end, include removal from a profession for serious breaches of professional rules and standards involving dishonest or immoral conduct. Such behaviour if unchecked may greatly harm the reputation of the profession and bring it into disrepute – that is the public loses confidence in it. [52] There are serious animal welfare issues arising from the presentation of a horse to race with Methamphetamine in its metabolism. This has a significant impact on the Racing Industry’s reputation for high standards of animal welfare. The Industry cannot maintain its social licence in order to continue to operate without maintaining a high standard of animal welfare. Ms Lockett’s actions have brought the Industry into disrepute and they challenge the integrity of the sport which could potentially have a devastating effect from a resulting lack of confidence from the wagering public. [53] In this regard we refer to Donoghue, and the Appeals Tribunal decision in RIU v Habraken (2019) where it was stated: “The lifeblood of racing depends upon millions of dollars wagered in New Zealand. Loss of confidence with punters and the community and the integrity of the sport/industry, inevitably carries grave risk to its wellbeing.” [54] The most helpful comparator cases are Newton and Schofield. [55] The starting point in Schofield, a Greyhound Racing case, where a dog returned a positive result to Methamphetamine, was four years. We note the 50 per cent deduction in Schofield for an elderly licence-holder with an “exemplary record” and a lengthy active participation in the administration of the code, was viewed by the Appeals Tribunal as being “generous”. [56] Newton was a defended case of presenting a horse, which was found to have Methamphetamine present in its metabolism. The starting point was three years’ disqualification. The Respondent admitted to using Methamphetamine and, with no personal mitigating factors being identified, this was the penalty imposed. It was a first breach. This is an obvious mitigating factor that the Committee in that case would not have overlooked, and we can only assume that this was factored into the starting point that was adopted. [57] We do not accept Mr Myers’ submission that this and the Respondent’s case are completely different. To the contrary, both Newton and the Respondent admitted to consuming Methamphetamine prior to presenting a horse to race. Each horse subsequently returned a positive result to that drug. [58] Ms Newton’s frankness when confronted with and questioned by Investigators with respect to the positive result is, as Mr Grimstone submits, a distinguishing feature. Ms Lockett did not immediately acknowledge her Methamphetamine use and, in so doing, implicated others. When she eventually was forthcoming, she did not admit to anything other than casual use on her birthday some two days before the meeting. The summary of facts which the Respondent has accepted, states that a hair sample submitted for analysis, returned a positive result showing the use of Methamphetamine over “approximately the last three months”. [59] We believe this aggravating feature of the case before us is balanced by the Respondent’s lengthy unchequered career in the Industry. Ms Newton was similarly a first offender, but she did not have the same lengthy riding and training history as Ms Lockett, who has been involved in the Industry for 27 years, has ridden overseas, and held a responsible position in Mr Myers’ stable for a lengthy time before commencing training in her own right. [60] Ms Newton was not charged under r 656(3). She could have been. The Respondent was charged under this Rule. In setting the starting point the Adjudicative Committee does not discount the seriousness of and the inherent danger in the Respondent carrying out safety sensitive activity while regularly using Methamphetamine. [61] We believe a global four-year starting point is appropriate in this case. Ms Lockett’s admission of the two breaches, her remorse, her previous excellent record and good character and consequential reputational loss, merit a 25 per cent reduction in the starting point. [62] The penalty is three years’ disqualification for each breach (Informations A15753 & A15755) imposed pursuant to rr 803(3) and 804(7), to be served concurrently. A penalty of this length satisfies the interests of denunciation and deterrence, as emphasised by the Appeals Tribunal in Turnwald (above). [63] However, there remains the issue of the Respondent’s rehabilitation. The Informant has acknowledged that this is a further relevant consideration when imposing penalty upon the Respondent. [64] We refer to r 812 which is a relatively recent insertion into the Rules of Racing. This provision states: “The Adjudicative Committee may: (a) in addition to or in substitution of any penalty imposed under Rules 801, 803 and/or 804, require the person committing the breach to complete a counselling or rehabilitation course of the type specified by the Adjudicative Committee; and/or (b) stay, in whole or in part, and for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it thinks fit, the operation of any penalty imposed for a breach of the Rules, provided that, in the event of any failure to comply with any of the terms and conditions of the stay, the Adjudicative Committee may order that the penalty or the remaining part of the penalty take effect.” [65] Clearly, the purpose of r 812 is to enable the re-entry into the Industry of a licence-holder at a time when that person can demonstrate that they are drug free and are not a danger to themselves, other participants, and animals. [66] We have given anxious consideration to the period of time that Ms Lockett should be disqualified before being able to reapply for her Trainer’s licence. As we have previously noted, she has an unblemished record and has made a positive contribution to Thoroughbred Racing over a number of years in a number of roles. A drug free Ms Lockett would again be an asset to the Industry. Against that background, we believe 18 months before re-application is a sufficient period to denounce the Respondent’s actions and to uphold Industry standards and animal welfare and to address safety concerns. If Ms Lockett cannot prove she is controlled drug free, then the simple fact is, she does not come back. [67] The three-year disqualification period commences on 28 January 2022, the day that Ms Lockett was stood down. In the interests of Ms Lockett’s rehabilitation and having regard to her determination to be free of the drug, Methamphetamine, and to resume her otherwise very successful participation in the Industry, we order pursuant to r 812(a) that Ms Lockett attend and complete a counselling and/or rehabilitation programme mutually agreed upon by herself and the AOD Clinician to the Racing Industry. [68] We further order pursuant to r 812(b) that upon Ms Lockett providing evidence that she is controlled drug free and has successfully participated in a drug and alcohol programme, after she has served 18 months of her disqualification (ie on 28 July 2023), that the final 18 months of this disqualification period be suspended. [69] We order, in addition, that after a further period of three months she provide a further negative sample to verify the fact that she has remained controlled drug free. We make this further requirement having regard to the safety of all participants in the Industry, and in the interests of animal welfare. [70] All participation in programmes, counselling and testing is to be at the Respondent’s expense. The means by which Ms Lockett is to be tested is to be determined by the RIB after consultation with the AOD Clinician to the Racing Industry. Disqualification of the horse [71] A ruling as to the disqualification of BE FLEXI was made on 22 February 2022 and need not be further addressed in this decision. Costs [72] The Informant does not seek costs. The Adjudicative Committee believes a small contribution from the Respondent to hearing costs is appropriate. These must be just and reasonable. We make an order for costs to the RIB in the sum of $400.

Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Decision dated 16 April 2022 – Scott Dickson ID: RIB8623 Respondent(s): Scott Dickson - Trainer Applicant: Mrs G Murrow - Investigator - RIB Adjudicators: N McCutcheon (Chair), N Moffatt Persons Present: Nil - on the papers Information Number: A16854 Decision Type: Adjudicative Decision Charge: Presenting a horse to race with an elevated total carbon dioxide level in excess of the level set by HRNZ Rule(s): 1004(A)(3) Plea: Admitted Animal Name: EL DORADO Race Number: R4 Hearing Date: 16/04/2022 Hearing Location: On the papers Outcome: Proved Penalty: Trainer Scott Dickson was fined $14,000 FACTS 1. The Informant, the Racing Integrity Board, has laid one Information with respect to Mr Dickson. 2. Information A16854 alleges on 23 February 2022, Scott Dickson, the Registered Trainer of the standardbred EL DORADO attended the HRNZ Race Meeting at Hawera. 3. EL DORADO competed in Race 4, the Revital Fertiliser Taranaki Cup Mobile Pace, where he finished last after galloping. 4. EL DORADO was selected as one of eight horses to be pre-race Tc02 blood tested. 5. His result returned an elevated total carbon dioxide level of 37.7mmo/l. This is in excess of the level of 36.0mmo/l set by HRNZ. 6. This result shows the horse was not presented free of a prohibited substance, namely bicarbonate or another alkali substance. 7. Mr Dickson is therefore in breach of the Prohibitive Substance Rule and is subject to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed pursuant to Rule 1004D(1) of the said Rules. 8. Rules 1004A(3) A horse shall be presented for a race with a total carbon dioxide (Tc02) level at or below the level of 36.0 millimol per litre in plasma. (6) a breach of sub-rule (2)(3)(4) or (5) is committed regardless of the circumstances in which the Tc02 level or prohibited substance came to be present in or on the horse. 1004D(1) A person who commits breach of rule in Rules 1004A shall be liable to: (a) a fine not exceeding $20,000 and (b) be disqualified or suspended from holding or obtaining a licence for any specific period not exceeding five years. 9. A teleconference was held on Monday 28 March 2022. 10. Following questions in relation to the charge, where it was established that it was a matter of presentation only, Mr Dickson admitted the breach of the said Rule/s. 11. Mrs Murrow agreed to have the RIB penalty submissions with the RIB Acting Registrar, no later than 4.00pm on Wednesday 30 March 2022. 12. On 4 April 2022 Mr Dickson stated that he was happy for the matter of penalty to be decided on the papers. 13. RIB PENALTY SUBMISSIONS 1. Introduction: 1.1 The Respondent, Scott George Dickson is a Licensed Public Trainer under the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing. 1.2 He has held a HRNZ drivers’ licence since 1996 and a trainer’s licence since 2002 and currently trains from his property near Marton. 1.3 Mr Dickson faces one information alleging he has committed an offense contrary to Rule 1004A (3) of New Zealand Harness Racing incorporated Rules of Racing (HRNZ). 1.4 Mr Dickson has entered a guilty plea to this charge. 2. Offending: 2.1 The summary of facts is attached. Salient points are highlighted below. 2.2 On the 23rd of February 2022, Mr Dickson presented his horse ‘El Dorado’ to the Hawera races. El Dorado competed in race 4, the Revital Fertiliser Taranaki Cup Mobile Pace. El Dorado was selected as one of eight horses to be pre-race TCO2 blood tested. 2.3 On the 28th of February 2022, the New Zealand Racing Laboratory reported that the blood sample Reference Identification Number: 58027 returned an elevated total Carbon Dioxide level with a recorded result of 37.7mmol/L. This exceeds the accepted level of 36.0 mmol/L set by Harness Racing New Zealand. 3. Penalty: Purpose and principals 3.1 The penalties which may be imposed are fully detailed in the Charge Rule Penalty Provisions document. 3.2 The relevant purposes and considerations are helpfully stated in the Appeals Tribunal decision in RIU v Lawson (13th May 2019): 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 regularity 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. 3.3 The principles of sentencing relevant to this charge 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 Committee for the type of offending in question. -The need to rehabilitate the offender should be considered. Public Interest 3.4 The importance of racing being a clean sport must be taken into consideration. This was demonstrated in Bentley 1998: – “Because of the financial investing interests of the public in horse racing the integrity of the sport requires that the Rules of racing have to be complied with to ensure fair competition. Fair competition requires that horses that are competing are free from any potential advantage”. Interests of the professional body 3.5 Offending of this nature carries with it the significant risk of adversely affecting the interests of the professional racing body. In Keast and Westrum 2014 in was noted, “the penalty imposed needs to be one that provides a general deterrence to other trainers that might be like minded to act”. 3.6 In Scaife 2012 it was noted: “It is imperative for the future of the industry that racing be perceived to be, and indeed is drug free””. 4. RIB’s position as to penalty 4.1 1004D (1) A person who commits a breach of a rule in rules 1004A, shall be liable to: (a) a fine not exceeding $20,000.00; and (b) be disqualified or suspended from holding or obtaining a licence for any specific period not exceeding five years. 4.2 The RIB believes that an appropriate penalty for this breach is a significant fine, however a period of disqualification will need to be considered by the committee. It is acknowledged that the JCA Penalty Guidelines from 2015 detail a starting point for HRNZ breach of the TCO2 Rule ‘second offence’ is a two-year disqualification and a fine of up to $10,000. It is the RIB submission that the penalty guidelines and the rule do not correlate. These guidelines are currently being reviewed and offer little assistance to the committee. 4.3 The prescribed threshold for TCO2 was increased from 35.0 to 36.0 mmol/L on 09 October 2014. At the time of the increase the HRNZ Board made it clear that there was a “firm expectation” that it expects a “stiffer regime of penalties” for subsequent breaches of the new threshold and that in their opinion the current penalties were insufficient. 4.4 It is submitted that a period of disqualification may be difficult to manage and enforce in Mr Dickson’s case as his partner is also a licensed thoroughbred trainer. They both train exclusively from their own training track and facilities. Rule 1303(1)(b) details that a disqualified person may not train, assist, or be involved in any capacity with breaking or gaiting a horse; and Rule 1303(1)(f) – may not, without written consent of the Board, enter upon the stable area of any licensed person. Comparable Cases There are limited comparable cases prior to the increase in the threshold level and the establishment of the JCA Penalty Guidelines in May 2015. RIU V Keast and Westrum – 2014 4.5 The respondents were charged with a breach for rule 1004 1 (A), of The New Zealand Harness Rules of Racing. This was a second offence. There have been no other comparable second offences. 4.6 The horse “Westburn Creed” was taken to the Kaikoura Trotting Club for the purpose of engaging in race 4, the Speights Mobile Pace. They failed to present the horse free of the prohibited substance, namely bicarbonate or other alkali substance as evidence by a blood TCO2 level of 36.2 mmol/L. 4.7 The tribunal; observed the following: – “this was a second breach of the prohibited substance rule where the respondents had failed to put in place appropriate standards of control and security over the horse an appropriate starting point was 6 months disqualification”. We do not accept Ms Thomas’s submission that because there is no evidence (nor we add charge) of intentional administration that general or specific deterrence are not legitimate purposes for imposing penalty in this case. We believe the imposition of solely a financial penalty would not be a sufficient deterrent where the repeated breach is so close in time to the earlier breach. We believe an appropriate penalty or starting point before a discount for the admission of the breach is an eight-month suspension and a fine of $3000. The courts give a discount of 25 per cent for an early guilty plea. A discount of this magnitude is appropriate in this case. We impose a six-month suspension and a fine (rounded down) of $2000. This suspension applies only to the respondents’ public trainers’ licence”. RIU V Dickson – 2018 4.8 This case was Mr. Dickson’s first offence. On the 1st of May 2018, Mr. Dickson the trainer of Magical Moe raced in Race 5 at the Wairarapa Harness Racing Club. He failed to present his horse free of prohibited substances, namely bicarbonate or other alkali substance as evidence by a blood TCO2 level of 39.2 mmol/L. 4.9 The level of 39.2 mmol/L was observed by the committee to be at the higher end of the scale. This was supported by the reading being the highest TCO2 level in 17 years. 4.10 Mr. Dickson was initially fined $12000 this was reduced to $9200 on appeal. The committee advised: – We are satisfied that the Judicial Committee was in error in adopting a starting point at this high a level, as this would only be appropriate were the breach to be within the most serious or worst example of its type. While the TCO2 level is very high, we are not of the view that the breach falls within the description of the worst example of its type. 4.11 In this case the RIU submitted that a period of suspension or disqualification was practically unenforceable due to the unique training environment of Mr. Dickson and his partner Ms. Pickford a NZTR registered trainer as mentioned in paragraph 4.4. They train their own horses from their home address. To be suspended or disqualified Mr. Dickson would need written consent of the board to enter his own property, that of a licenced person Ms Pickford. RIU V Edge and Burrows – 2019 4.12 On the 19th of September 2019, the Respondent, Mr Edge, was the trainer of the standardbred ROYAL JESTER which had been taken to the New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club for the purpose of engaging in Race 1, Horse Solutions & Glenwillow Feeds Mobile Pace. Mr Edge failed to present the horse free of prohibited substances, namely bicarbonate or other alkali substance, as evidenced by a blood TCO2 level of 37.4 mmol/L, in breach of Rule 1004A (1), (2) & (3). 4.13 This elevated level resulted from lack of communication between the trainer and his staff member, the consequence being that the horse had received doses of potassium citrate in the days leading up to the race, and on race day. 4.14 In deciding the penalty for this case the committee stated the following: – Most of the penalties in previous TCO2 cases are historic and predate the Penalty Guide provisions. The Informant has submitted that a fine is the appropriate penalty provided the Respondents have provided information to us that they have “modified their practices” to prevent any recurrence of what happened or anything similar. We are satisfied that they have done so. The Committee notes that penalties for recent TCO2 breaches (since 2012) have ranged from $1,200 to $4,500, other than for a couple of cases in which the circumstances were exceptional and the penalties handed down were more severe. We are guided by the penalties of between $1,200 and $4,500 but have also had regard to the increase in penalty in the Penalty Guide since those penalties and the new approach to penalties by racing Judicial Tribunals on a disciplinary basis”. 4.15 Mr Edge admitted the breach and was fined $4000. RIB V Boyle – August 2021 4.16 Boyle relates to a TCO2 breach under the NZTR rules. “On the 29th of June 2018, Michael Francis Boyle, being the registered Trainer of the Thoroughbred LORD BEAVER presented the horse to race in Race 3, the Otago Farm Machinery Rating 75 Benchmark, at the Otago Racing Club’s meeting at Wingatui with a prohibited substance, namely total carbon dioxide (TCO2), in its system in excess of 36.0 mmol/L of plasma of 38.9 mmol/L. 4.17 The committee stated: – “The fact there had been no elevated TCO2 since 29 June 2018 was viewed as supporting the inference that steps had been taken to ensure the breach had not been repeated. The Informant produced a comprehensive list of penalties imposed for a breach of the Rules relating to TCO2. These penalties ranged from a fine of $500 to one of $9,200. The RIB submitted the facts in the present proceedings were not dissimilar to Dickson where the fine was $9,200. The level in the present case and in Dickson was said to be high, and in both proceedings the Respondent had no prior breach of the rules. Dickson was a Harness Racing case. Although the NZTR rules have a higher maximum fine ($25,000) than in Harness Racing ($20,000), culpability was submitted to be broadly comparable. The RIB submitted a fine of $8,000 was appropriate. The JCA Penalty Guide (1 August 2018) has a starting point of $8000 for a first presentation breach. The high-level in this case merits a 30% increase to $10,400. This is less than the 40% in Dickson, which the Informant has identified as a comparable case. The reduction for personal mitigating factors in Dickson was one third, which was approved by the Appeals Tribunal. A similar discount is appropriate in this case. That leaves a penalty rounded down to $6,850”. 5. Mitigating Factors 5.1 Mr Dickson is adamant that he did not administer any alkalinising agent to El Dorado and has no idea how the positive could have occurred. 5.2 Mr Dickson’s partner Lydia Pickford, a licensed thoroughbred trainer, is responsible for feeding all horses on their property. Several feed supplements were taken for analysis, all returned results negative to alkalising agents. 5.3 A blood sample was also taken from El Dorado on the 2nd of March 2022, by Veterinarian John O’Brian and sent to New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services. This returned a reading of 34 mmol/L. 5.4 Five of Mr. Dickson’s horses have been race day tested subsequently. The results range from 29.7 to 33.2 mmol/L. 5.5 Mr. Dickson did not wager on El Dorado and there were no unusual bets associated with the horse or the race. 5.6 Mr Dickson has been fully cooperative throughout the investigation. 6. Conclusion 6.1 The offending differs from those cited above in that it is the first case of a second breach of TCO2 since the level changed in 2015. 6.2 Mr Dickson received a Fine of $9200.00 for his first breach on appeal and any subsequent penalty must be significantly higher than this. 6.3 Mr Dickson has maintained there has been no deliberate breach and has been cooperative, nevertheless the charge is one of strict liability. 6.4 It is the RIB position that the Committee adopts a starting point of $15,000 with due consideration given to a period of Suspension or Disqualification. 14.0 RESPONDENT MR DICKSON’S PENALTY SUBMISSIONS I, Scott Dickson, accept El Dorado was presented to race at Hawera with an elevated TCO2 reading. I am at a loss to explain what has caused the increased level. The horse was definitely not administered anything of any sort on the particular Raceday and to my knowledge only ingested his usual morning feed. I can only assume he was affected by dehydration in which we had been battling with most of our horses due to the hot humid weather during the summer months. It also became apparent following the race El Dorado was showing signs of a possible virus. The horse unusually seemed ‘nervous’ on arrival to Hawera also indicating he was not right. We did not get El Dorado vetted, instead opting to spell him and not waste more money. Notably he recorded a reading of 34 when tested a week later when turned out. I consider this to be very high for a horse who is turned out/spelling?? So clearly something must have been amiss with the horse… I fully accept a penalty is necessary. And I realise this is a 2nd offence but believe I was extremely harshly penalised for a first offence compared with others similar cases at the time. Namely the ‘Boyle’ case in which fined $6850 and the ‘Edge’ case fined $4000. This particular case is in line (with a very similar level) to the Alan Edge case. Due the fact this is a 2nd offence of the rule, I expect the penalty will be higher but should be guided more off the Edge fine, rather than my own 1st time fine. A suspension/disqualification would severely impact the management of my farming business. 15.0 REASONS FOR PENALTY 15.1 The Adjudicative Committee took the following matters into account when considering penalty. 15.2 The penalty submissions of the Applicant and Respondent. 15.3 The fact that the breach was the second time the Respondent had presented a horse for racing with a prohibited substance in its system. The first occasion being on or about 1 May 2018. At a subsequent hearing Mr Dickson was fined $12,000. This amount was reduced to $9200 on appeal. 15.4 That it was a charge of presentation only as per Rule 1004A (3). Rule 10044A(6)(6) makes it clear that it is a case of strict liability regardless of the circumstances. 15.5 The admitted breach. 15.6 Other penalties imposed for breaches of the Rule. 15.7 The deterrent factor. 15.8 The need to protect the profession and the public and to promote confidence in the integrity of the profession. 15.9 It is imperative that all participants with horses, present those horses for racing free of any prohibited substance to ensure that all compete on a level playing field. 15.10 The sentencing principles. 15.11 The aggravating and mitigating features. 16.0 The Adjudicative Committee did consider disqualification or suspension as a penalty. However due to the partner of Mr Dickson being a Licensed Thoroughbred Horse Trainer, and that they both run a farm and train their horses on a private track, a term of disqualification would prove difficult to enforce. It is the Adjudicative Committee’s opinion that any form of suspension, would only prevent the Respondent from racing horses in his name as the Trainer, but he would be able to carry out all other aspects of the business, and as such, a suspension was deemed an unsuitable penalty. Under all of the circumstances encompassing the charge, it was determined that the matter could be adequately dealt with by way of a monetary penalty. After taking into consideration all matters alluded to, a starting point of $15,000 was adopted. As it would have proved nigh on impossible to successfully defend the charge, a minor discount of $1000 was afforded for the breach being admitted. 17.0 PENALTY Mr Scott Dickson was fined $14,000. 18.0 COSTS As the admitted breach was considered on the papers there was no order for costs.