Chief Stipe

Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Decision dated 16 February 2022 – Trudy Keegan ID: RIB7439 Respondent(s): Trudy Keegan - Trainer Applicant: Ms Georgina Murrow, Investigator, RIB Adjudicators: Hon J W Gendall QC - Chair, Mr L N McCutcheon - Member Persons Present: Ms G Murrow, Mr D Dow - Counsel for Informant, Mr T Wano - Counsel for Ms Keegan, Mr V Keegan, Ms T Keegan (by telephone connection) Information Number: A16851 Decision Type: Adjudicative Decision Charge: Failed to comply with a NZTR directive Rule(s): 802(1)(a) Plea: Admitted Stewards Report Results Code: Thoroughbred Race Date: 13/01/2022 Race Club: Otaki-Maori Racing Club Race Location: Otaki Racecourse - Te Roto Road, Otaki, 5512 Hearing Date: 11/02/2022 Hearing Location: Awapuni Outcome: Proved Penalty: Trainer Trudy Keegan is suspended for 4 months and fined $3,000 1. Ms Keegan is a Licensed Class A Trainer residing and operating at Stratford and presently has 22 horses under her care. 2. She was charged with a breach of Rule 802(1)(a) of the Rules of Racing in that: (a) On 13 January 2022 she attended the NZTR race meeting at Otaki as a Licensed Trainer and failed to comply with a NZTR Directive (in line with the government “COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020”) and was therefore in breach of Rule 802(1)(a). (b) That Directive was provided to all Licencees and persons entering a racecourse that they must have a “My Vaccine Pass” scanned or sighted to prove double vaccination. (c) Ms Keegan did not have such a pass and produced a fake or fraudulent pass that she had earlier obtained. 3. Rule 802(1)(a) provides that: a person commits a breach who acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any provisions of the Rules ….. or any policy, notice, direction, instructions, …… restrictions, requirement or condition given, made or imposed under the Rules. 4. Following upon Ms Keegan’s guilty plea we received extensive submissions in writing, as well as oral representations, from Counsel on behalf of the Informant and Ms Keegan. After deliberating following the conclusion of the hearing the Adjudicative Committee imposed the penalties recorded hereafter in paragraph 33 – we now record the reasons for that decision. Essential Facts 5. Ms Keegan was the Trainer of two horses entered to compete at the Otaki-Maori Racing Club meeting held at Otaki Racecourse on 13 January 2022. That meeting was subject to the policy and Directions issued on 26 November 2021 to Licensed Trainers, which followed upon restrictions required by the NZ Government agency aimed to protect persons who were engaged at raceday meetings (and otherwise). They were to enable race meetings to take place, and protect people from possible consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. 6. The Directive issued by the NZTR Board on 26 November 2021 provided: “This Directive outlines the following: 2.1(f) All persons admitted to a racecourse for a Meeting must: (i) Allow their “My Vaccine Pass” to be scanned or sighted as proof that they are double vaccinated. Any attempt to falsify proof of a person’s vaccination status (“My Vaccine Pass” or in another form) will be reported to the NZ Police and will also be treated as a Serious Racing Offence. A false statement regarding vaccination status to the NZTR, the RIB or a racing club will also be regarded as a Serious Racing Offence. 7. For completeness we record that the Directive also recorded the Government announcement that “workers” in a business where vaccine mandates applied had a short term exemption until 17 January 2022 but to qualify they had to: “have their first vaccination [by] 13 December 2021” and have documentary proof of having such first dose and evidence of a second vaccination booking. Ms Keegan had neither. 8. Ms Keegan chose, for personal reasons, not to have any vaccination so did not qualify for any exemption – assuming she was a “worker”. As at the day of the Otaki Races she was totally unvaccinated. That was her entitlement. But it did not entitle her to enter that racecourse – as her guilty plea acknowledges. Consequently, she did not have a “My Vaccine Pass” or any other documentation to authorise her entry. She knew this and had obtained a fake or fraudulent forged pass – which was entered on her cellphone. In answer to a question put to her by the Adjudicative Committee she said that she obtained the fake document from another person about 7 days before the Otaki meeting. Unquestionably her intention was to use it if necessary, of proof of vaccination when none had taken place. 9. After travelling from Stratford on 13 January 2022 with two staff members and two horses, Ms Keegan entered the racecourse at the gate as her “passport” was not sighted there. However, whilst on the racecourse she was approached by the RIB Investigator and asked to show her COVID-19 Vaccination Passport. The Investigator endeavoured to scan the passport using the Ministry of Health pass verifier, but was unable to do so as a “failed” response arose because the passport was invalid. Ms Keegan had earlier endeavoured to deflect the Investigator’s questions by stating that she had earlier that day been able to scan the passport at a takeaway restaurant. But then the enquiries revealed that the “passport” was not able to be scanned. 10. Ms Keegan was then confronted by the Investigator as to this. She then admitted that the passport was false. The Investigator understood from what Ms Keegan said, that she was “opposed to vaccination requirements”, and subsequent NZTR Directives and that she had had pressure placed upon her by others (owners) to attend at racecourses so as to continue to be able to train for them. She then became tearful and apologetic. We record that Ms Keegan now says that she did not assert that she was “opposed to vaccinations” but rather that her decision not to be vaccinated arose because of personal concerns about possible alleged health side effects that might impact on her, so she would not submit to such procedure. 11. The presentation of the fake passport was a “Serious Racing Offence”. 12. Ms Keegan has had a long involvement with thoroughbred racing with no previous breaches of the Rules of Racing. She has held a Trainer’s Licence for 14 years. Submissions as to Penalty The Informant’s Submissions 13. Counsel contended that this offending was serious involving planned and deliberate dishonest actions to flout the NZTR Mandatory Directive. It was more than trying to enter a racecourse without having the passport, but actively obtaining and using a fake in order to deceive Racing Club Officials, authorities and the RIB. She obtained and used it and intended to later use if she had not been caught, a document to which she was not entitled. 14. Counsel acknowledged that there is no jurisdiction of the NZTR and RIB to “police” non racing matters outside the NZTR Rules (which of course is correct) but contended that the properly issued Directive was to enable race meetings to take place and to promote the safety and welfare of all who go onto racecourses to participate in the racing profession (jockeys, trainers, owners, strappers, staff). 15. Counsel referred to some other cases within this framework in Australia and Ireland where very substantial fines and/or suspensions have been handed down. He referred to two other cases in New Zealand where penalties were imposed for what was said to be “breaches of COVID-19 “protocols”, and offences against Rule 802(1)(a). These attracted fines of $2,400 (RIB v Hewetson) and $2,700 (RIB v Harvey). They involved somewhat different circumstances to the present, being only the unauthorised crossing of domestic territorial boundary restrictions then temporarily in place. Counsel contended that they did not fall into a different category. 16. Counsel for the RIB referred us to two cases where forged documents were obtained, and used, to seek an advantage by thwarting Stipendiary Stewards in their enquiries into wrongdoing. They were RIU v Cameron (18.12.07) and RIU v Scott (22.2.05). In both cases orders for disqualification (4 and 6 months) and not just suspension, followed. There a jockey and a trainer presented altered (forged) documents in order to deceive. In Mr Cameron’s case, the Committee said: “the production of a document…. for the purpose of obtaining some pecuniary advantage or avoiding some penalty that might otherwise be imposed, could lead to the charge of forgery …. or fraudulently using a document for the purposes of obtaining an advantage”. 17. That is, such behaviour is the offence of “uttering” (using) a forged document under the Crimes Act 1961. 18. Counsel for the RIB submitted that because it was a Serious Racing Offence, the Adjudicative Committee “ought to give serious consideration to a period of suspension or disqualification”. He contended that if that did not follow a substantial fine from a starting point of $6,000, with a discount for Ms Keegan’s good record, to a fine of something between $4,800 and $5,400. Submissions of Counsel for Ms Keegan 19. We received comprehensive and able submissions from Mr Wano. They can be distilled, or summarised as follows. The decisions – or outcomes – in the Hewetson and Harvey cases, were analogue to the present offence, and resulted only in fines, so that – at most only a modest fine was necessary in this case. She genuinely believed she had health reasons for not being vaccinated. Ms Keegan made an error of judgment arising out of stress, mental or emotional pressures. She is remorseful and regrets her error of judgment. She has an unblemished history with a successful business and strong support of her owners and others in the profession. She has suffered from adverse publicity attracting blame upon her. Any restriction of her ability to act as a Licensed Trainer will impact adversely upon her owners, staff and business. She thought that she had until 17 January 2022 to produce a double vaccination passport. Outcome 20. We first deal with the last assertion as to her claimed belief. We reject it is a later manufactured or created that belief could not have existed at the time nor did it exist. She knew of the terms of the Directive and must have known that she could not fall into any transitory exemption. Indeed that required at least to have vaccination by 13 December 2021 was something she did not meet. She was determined not to do so. Any such (now) claimed belief cannot stand with the action of securing and using the fake passport. The Investigator was not told of that claim, because it could not have existed. And she pleaded guilty to what she did – that is go onto the racecourse and present the fake passport as alleged. Her claim now defies commonsense when viewed against the clear facts. 21. Where a crucial document has been falsified and presented (used or “uttered”) to achieve an advantage and intended to breach the Rules of Racing and to deceive those charged with administering the Rules, such behaviour clearly falls into the category of serious misconduct. 22. Ms Keegan, as with all Trainers, enjoys the privilege of a Trainer’s Licence. With that privilege goes the duty to comply with the Rules of the profession. Those who wish to participate in the profession/code are required to adhere to and comply with the Rules. If they do not wish to do so that is their choice but they cannot expect to have the privilege of participating in the profession. Ms Keegan has always adhered to the Rules until now which is to her credit. But as a licence holder she chose to deliberately, not mistakenly, breach a Rule so as to commit a “serious racing offence”. Whatever reason may exist for her personal belief or concern – and she is quite entitled to hold any beliefs she has – that belief cannot justify her deliberate and conscious actions. She did not have any exemption, medical or otherwise. 23. Counsel for the Informant has referred to remarks of the Appeal Tribunal in RIU v Lawson – which are well known for this Adjudicative Committee – as to some criteria to consider, where appropriate, in the “sentencing” process. These include: The need to punish a deliberate transgression of the Rules of Racing and to mark Tribunal’s condemnation of such behaviour. The need to protect the profession and the public, and to promote confidence in the integrity of the profession. To deter not only the offender, but others in the profession who might be tempted to breach the Rule. 24. To these we add that there is a vital consideration in this case, that is that Racing only has been able to take place, in some form, if Government conditions are met and honoured by participants. Any betrayal of the NZTR requirements which is manifestly damaging the whole industry is especially egregious 25. There were some aggravating features accompanying Ms Keegan’s breach of this Rule. They include: Her obtaining of the fake passport intending to use it so as to deceive others in the code. The actual fraudulent use of it on 13 January 2022 to secure for her a fraudulent advantage. Her initial attempts to deflect the inquiries of the Investigator, where it was not a mistake or error of judgment. She admitted to the Adjudicative Committee’s question that she had attended the race meeting at Awapuni and New Plymouth on 26 and 27 December 2021 (when the Directive was in force) and although she did not then have the fake passport, those actions also breached the Rule, but naturally she was not charge with this. 26. There is balanced against those features, strong mitigating factors for which credit is to be extended to Ms Keegan. These include: Her unblemished record of compliance with the Rules. Her lengthy involvement in the profession/sport. Her reputation as to past honesty. Impressive character references from many in the profession (we received five of these). Her personal circumstances. The opprobrium (public criticism) from media comment – although this will inevitably usually follow where any defendant is before a Court or disciplinary Tribunals. 27. A guilty plea and expression of remorse is not always to be regarded as requiring a discount in sentencing, as it will all depend on many circumstances. There was no prospect of defending the charge and, as commented on by the Supreme Court in Hessell v R (SC (02)/2009), “Remorse is not necessarily shown by simply pleading guilty. Sentencing Judges are very much aware that remorse may well be no more than self pity of an accused for his or her predicament and will properly be skeptical about unsubstantial claims that an offender is genuinely remorseful. But a proper and robust evaluation of the circumstances may demonstrate a defendant’s remorse.” 28. In this case any attempt to defend would have been futile. Ms Keegan’s tearful response to the Investigator when eventually confronted, may have been genuine contrition or sorrow, but may well have been anguish that her fraud had been unveiled. Having made that observation, the Adjudicative Committee still incorporates into the discounting mitigating percentage, some consideration of her now expressed remorse. Conclusion 29. We gave anxious consideration as to whether, as Mr Wano argued, this offence could be dealt with by a modest monetary penalty. But in the end we had to conclude that a Serious Racing Offence such as this requires a stern sanction. We do not think disqualification is necessary in this case. But the interests of the profession of Racing and its continued protection, together with the need to deter other Licencees from ignoring NZTR Directives and policy, and employing a fraudulent practice, requires an order for suspension. The community and all who are licensed to participate in Racing should know that such behaviour cannot be minimised nor will it be tolerated. A period of suspension plus a fine is necessary. 30. In fixing a suspension we take as a starting point a term of 5 months suspension. We allow a concession of 20% (1 month) to reflect mitigating features. A fine is considered necessary but moderated from the $6,000 sought by Counsel for the RIB, because of the suspension order, and adopt a starting point at $4,000 with a concession allowance of 25% so as to fix the fine as $3,000. 31. The RIB do not seek an order for contribution to its costs. The Adjudicative Committee of the RIB has incurred significant expense in dealing with the Information. It is proper that Ms Keegan be ordered to pay some contribution to these costs. 32. We defer the commencement of the suspension for 2 weeks to enable Ms Keegan, if she chooses, to make any arrangement for another with a Trainer’s Licence to take over training her horses. We have also referred her and Counsel to Rule 1106(1)(a) of the Rules of Racing. 33. Accordingly, we order that: (a) Ms Keegan’s Trainer’s Licence is suspended for 4 months commencing at 5pm on 25 February 2022 and to conclude at 5pm on 25 June 2022. (b) Ms Keegan is fined $3,000. (c) Ms Keegan is to pay $750 costs to the RIB Adjudicative Committee as a contribution to expenses incurred. Hon J W Gendall QC (Chair) Decision Date: 16/02/2022 Publish Date: 16/02/2022

Is it on a warning? This field isn't even a Grp 3.

But 10 horse fields or less are not optimal for turnover.

Quite a few Kiwis going around.

A Slow 9 on raceday. The fields have been trashed by scratchings. 46 scratchings in total.

The Avondale Guineas will be a good guide to La Crique's path to a Grp 1.

Top weight 60kg.....11 horses out of 14 carrying 52kg! The average Rating for the Cup is 75. I thought the Taranaki Grp 3 field was week but this for a Grp 2?

The rider of the horse needs some education in my opinion. I think Todd was as frustrated with her as much as the horse. You can hear and see that she doesn't follow Todd's instructions immediately and she doesn't give her horse much reward when it does OK nor give it much confidence or drive it towards the water. I gather from reading the other Facebook posts that it was a long day and this episode was at the end of it. I looked up the original post of the clipped video from the rider. The Eventing crowd generally tore her a new one! That lead to the posting of more video's from the day. The following is a longer video of the water jump lesson posted by someone else that was there. The training session was in Scotland, happened some years ago and Todd will not be subject to any RSPCA action due to statute of limitations. If the motivation of the rider was genuinely about horse welfare then she should have made a complaint at the time or at least within 6 months. I doubt it will be an issue for the BHA either. Also under the rules it certainly isn't a Knighthood removal offence.

If you ban the whip and you continue with the current rules regarding the limits to using the reins to drive your horse out - how will you drive your horse out? Harness isn't like the Gallops where you can give the horses a good dig in the ribs with your heels in the absence of a whip. Won't eliminating whips and limiting what you can do with the reins further diminish Harness racing as a wagering option?

So your only reason for banning the whip is the activity of the anti-racing minority? As for the "outrage driven by social media" - as I predicted it has lasted not much more than 48 hours.

Have you heard of making records available to see online? They do it with motor vehicles. As for delaying the payment of the change of ownership fee that seems a false economy given the protection it would give you.

Well you haven't seen the entire video then. The horse jumped three times and also went in the opposite direction twice. The horse is a 7 yr old eventing horse that has known issues. Todd was paid by the owner (the rider) for lessons to remedy some of the issues. In the video it is clearly evident that a large part of the problem and probably the cause of the habit developing was the rider. My interpretation was that the rider wasn't listening to Todd's instructions either. The owner posted the clipped version and distributed it quite some time after the actual event. There are a number of other horses and riders in the video.

Under siege horse trainer fighting back from the brink Kate Goodrich with Left Hand Drive. By Bruce Clark 02:29pm • 15 February 2022 1 The irony is probably not lost on race horse trainer Kate Goodrich that her last winner (that’s March 2020 at Wodonga) is called Too Hard To Handle. It’s been the only horse she has had run in the last two years; it ran last week too (finishing sixth at Ararat). Before that there was Too Dark To See, before that Turf Wars, before that Isa Realist and The Poison Tree. No, this isn’t a conspiracy theory, but as Racing Victoria strives to bring long running cobalt cases to heed, it settles in for another expensive Supreme Court stoush with the girl who won’t go away in Kate Goodrich. So Goodrich will have her day in court, well she has already had plenty of them, from failed mediations, to the Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board Tribunal (so long ago it’s now disbanded) to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) to the Supreme Court, to the Court of Appeal and now following a ruling last week – back to the Supreme Court for discovery, mediation with a directions hearing listed for May 27. And you can throw in trips to Victoria’s racing Independent Integrity commissioner Sal Perna (past) and Sean Carroll (present). But this is not a story about the legal positions on the young trainer who was found by an independent commission (FBIS) to have been bullied and threatened and a decision to dismiss her from training at Kilmore back in 2013 as flawed and unjustified. There have been show cause notices and refusal of nominations along that journey since. The Supreme Court is well placed to serve the justice that Goodrich desires. This is a story about the young girl who dreamt of horses and becoming a trainer and ended up on the verge of ending it all. You can call Goodrich tough, you can call her a dogged litigant. But neither fully explains Kate Goodrich. Why should you even be reading about a person in a sport that craves success and stories of the big stars, while nodding to diversity, welfare and inclusiveness. She has trained four winners in five years, only 45 in her career. She’d rather have you not reading about it either, but that she has got this far is a story in itself. Kate Goodrich in competition “All I wanted to do was be with horses, but I don’t know how many times through all this that I thought I was done,” she said. “Yes, I have had suicidal thoughts, many times that I felt I couldn’t keep going. The medication has probably kept me alive, it’s kept me putting on weight that’s one thing, but it shouldn’t be about that. “There have been days I just couldn’t get out of bed, sure there might be people who don’t like me but they don’t know me, this is all just bullshit what I have been through and no one should go through that. But then I have had messages of support from people from all over the world. “When I read things, it’s like a knife twisting in your heart, it’s just re-hurting you. Sometimes I just don’t know, I have been so f..ked, mentally f..ked, I have been so spent, you don’t know what they are capable of and the smallest things trigger thoughts and I am back to where I started, the lowest points. “Sometimes life has been too hard and it’s impossible to deal with the pain, you dread every day, no one will ever know what it’s like, you feel dead, and you wonder how you get passed that and reprogram the brain. “I don’t know if I ever will be the person I was. But riding horses again has been so good for me, I’m trying to be better and they have made me better. I know I just could never keep going without them, or having to end it for them either.” For Goodrich it is simply about accountability. Mediation came with financial offers to go away but with strings attached to shut up. This is the female version of David v Goliath. But Kate keeps on going, even with her Dennis Denuto like team (and that’s no disrespect to her brilliant lawyer Ragu Appudurai, just a scene setter for you) as she takes on an army of industry supported QC’s like Paul Holdensen, who represented the likes of Novak Djokovic recently. But more so it is about the horses she misses. The girl who as a toddler would ask her parents to pull the car over if they ever drove past a horse in a paddock. She just wanted to pat it. The girl who saved up her Christmas and birthday money to buy a pony and then needed to get mum and dad to buy a property that wasn’t the old suburban plot, but land that could keep the horses. They did. A young Kate with her pony “Red” “They weren’t horse people, my grandad was an SP bookie, he’d punt like a mad man (I thought that’s what his clients did), and he’d take me to the races, mostly jumps races, I just love them.” So there was a Welsh mountain pony – “it was as mad as a hatter” – when she was five, it was barred from riding school when he climbed a tennis court fence at school and needed to be retrained. It lived, loved, until 30. “I loved competing, I was competing from as young as I can remember, all sorts of horses, I was a pretty good rider back in my day. She was rehoming horses before rehoming was an industry focus when just 13. She learned from two-time Olympic champion Gillian Rolton and proudly has ridden Gillian’s Olympic champion Peppermint Grove, remember the horse she won gold on with a broken collarbone. But Kate goes back to her early favourites like Lwana – her first off the tracker – it was three, Goodrich was 13 and they ended up open eyed at the Hurstbridge Pony Club finding out what came next. Or the grey Cassie, who gave Goodrich a broken back, not Cassie’s fault she says, or another problem horse like Presto, who even her father, a builder by trade, would learn to ride on. Kate Goodrich in full flight on Lwana Being involved as an equestrian required a lot of money, the Goodrich family didn’t have that. But the horses led her to experience with local trainer Lee Hope before the proudest day in her life – telling her parents she was a licensed racehorse trainer. That was 2002, the first winner took some time, 2007 Strikin’ Rich at Kilmore but for Goodrich it has always been about the horses. On the track, and they are all family favourites who stay in the family, the best will be “Socksie”, Signor Socks who won eight races and over $220,000, sure, hardly an icon of the racing turf, but everything is relative. Or its older half-sister Isa Halo is a better story perhaps, and punters love these stories. It’s a Friday night at The Valley in 2008, Isa Halo is first-up. “We had no money, but she was flying, we had a $50 quaddie,” she said. Their Kilmore mate and clerk of the course Bobby Challis had Doosra Diamond in the first leg. A 3000m race, one out, fell in by an inch. Load up the second leg with seven and Anyways in a 1500m slog for Shane Nichols wins at $15, beating a $100 shot she didn’t have. Still alive! Only two in the third leg, and yes Crabs wins for Craig Williams at $4 in another tight finish. Isa Halo is $41 one out in the last, Dean Yendall up, lasts by an inch and happy days. “It paid $11862 (still remembers that) and we had it seven times for our $50 bet (that was when it was a 50 cent divvie). We got around $20,000 in cash and the rest as a cheque.” “It was scary. It wasn’t even the money, we needed it, it was that we pulled it off for $50.” Part of that $50 bank was her long-term partner, former AFL footballer Jon Hassall, a 50-game player with Collingwood and 44 with Hawthorn. “I was working as a waitress in a restaurant in Kangaroo Ground in my late 20s when I met Jon. I never wanted to get married, I never wanted to have kids, I never thought I’d be good at that, I had my horses and Jon.” And she still has her horses and Jon, and her dreams of better days ahead. And a day in court that gives her those better days.

Well that to me is a worrying sign in itself. Is it an indication of a general resignation amongst licensees that it is better to plead guilty than risk a worse penalty and costs?

I haven't extolled his virtues at any point. However I believe in giving a young person a chance after they have erred. I'm also aware of and not naive to the fact that the drugs he supplied to other licensed horsemen are abundant in our society. I'm also cognisant of the fact that the assault charge occurred after he was put under extreme pressure by the ex-cops from the RIU. That isn't an excuse for his behaviour but it does highlight one of the issues I have with the current culture within the RIB. I would as he is a class driver and potentially a very good trainer. He wasn't always on the wrong side. https://www.facebook.com/124364354264770/posts/1339548156079711/ I guess if you are consistent you won't be punting on anything Natalie Rasmussen drives either. After all she was the buyer/user of Anderson's supply. Not exactly a young person is she?

He got 3 months community detention and 12 months intensive supervision. He has completed those sentences. Why should he be punished any more? Many young people get caught up in the party drug scene and make mistakes. Indeed in other sports there has been similar cases where the offender has received less punishment. That doesn't excuse Anderson's behaviour however to continue to punish him is unjust in my opinion. How hard is it to register every owners share in a horse and count that it doesn't add up to more than 100%? Likewise with the insurance - make it a condition to register any pecuniary interest in a horse with HRNZ. That would help resolve bad debt issues as well. Simple. Should have been put in place years ago. Protects all the newbies into the industry as well.

I can still read a race Ravioli and Deploy was spent.

Well you are wrong again Galah. My criticism is that contrary to your opinion the fact is they aren't doing their job and what they are doing they aren't doing very well!! Explain to me how the Anderson case is a good example of the RIU (RIB) doing their job well? You seem to want a bob each way Galah. On the one hand you say the RIB is doing a great job yet on the other you adhere to and promote the conspiracy that PED use is rife in the industry. If the latter is the case then surely it follows that the RIB are incompetent and their testing regime is flawed!!

Then you are getting the wrong gist. I don't see where anyone has said Racing would be better off without the RIB (RIU). Where posters differ is that they disagree with you that they are doing a great job. In my opinion they aren't and could do a lot better. No one has said that the people you list are "great guys". Let's look at those four people: Alford - done for administering a prohibited substance on raceday. The RIU were tipped off and caught Alford in the act. He was seen to and admitted administering formalin by injection and an alkalising substance by gastric tubing. Fair cop. All the embellishment aside it is arguable that formalin is a PED - it does have some medicinal properties that prevent and stop EIPH (lung bleeding). Disqualified for 7 years. McGrath - again done for administering a prohibited substance on raceday. Again the RIU were tipped off and went into covert surveillance mode. The evidence was circumstantial that he used a gastric tube to administer a prohibited substance. McGrath aggravated the situation by not co-operating with the investigators. Although no tests were done or rather were able to be done the JCA concluded that he was attempting to use an alkalising substance. He got an 8 year disqualification. A fair cop. As with the Alford case it raises questions about the efficacy of the RIB swabbing regime. Anderson - he was done for supplying fellow horsemen the party drug MDMA - namely Ecstacy. A very common party drug. This was collateral damage from operation INCA i.e. wasn't the initial intent of that Police investigation nor the RIU. Anderson was discharge without conviction in Court and subsequently was done by the vague but all encompassing Harness Rule 1001. Nothing to do Harness Racing per se. Effectively the RIU/JCA (now combined into the RIB) punished him more than the Police/Court system did. Arguably the pressure put on him by the usual ex-cop RIU staff contributed to his subsequent criminal charge. In my opinion this action diminished the standing of the RIU. 6 month disqualification for the Party Drug supply conviction and hasn't to this date been licensed again. Now that is a HRNZ issue not the RIB. Kerr - done for over selling shares and insurance in a horse(s). The RIB charged him under Rule 1001 - that he committed dishonest or fraudulent acts connected with harness racing. Disqualified for life. In my opinion this is a weakness in the Harness Racing NZ systems. No excuse for Kerr to commit fraud but it isn't the first time this has happened and unless the ownership recording systems are updated it will happen again. So looking at the evidence of the RIB doing a "great job" - in all four cases they were late to the party. One case wasn't even their cop - they just handed down a harsh penalty when a higher court didn't. The last case was a criminal case yet in this instance they either didn't refer it to or wait for the higher jurisdiction - I guess they wanted to get the kill on their rap sheet!! Meanwhile social media are openly attacking leading stables for allegedly doping their horses and the RIB remains silent. Apparently the use of EPO is rife yet the RIB and their testing systems can't find anything. That's incompetence on a number of levels. What's more they haven't done anything publicly to dispel the rumours yet their new CEO has publicly stated in the media in response to the Sir Mark Todd beat up that whips should be banned from racing!!! FFS since when did the CEO of the RIB make or comment on racing rules? He is there to enforce the rules NOT create them!!! Not only enforce the rules but enforce them consistently. The RIB fails miserably in both easy tasks. Further have we seen any positive personnel changes at the RIB since it was created? We've seen the hiring of new Stipendiary Stewards who have no racing background at all and who in less than 18 months Chair or Head the race day inquiry system!!! Nor have we seen any positive action on resolving the issue of drug positives from environmental contamination nor the promised re-evaluation of medications that are good for horse welfare vs their mis-classification as PED's!!!

However I do believe Harness and Thoroughbred horse breakers, early educators and pre-trainers should be licensed. Primarily to protect owners and for horse welfare purposes. There are a lot of Trainers at Cambridge that only train horses for the last 2-4 weeks of a horse preparation before it goes to the trials or the races.

As far as I know if you insure your bloodstock there is no requirement that they are kept on licensed premises in the care of licensed people.

You don't need to be licensed to farm sheep, cattle or even breed horses. Being licensed doesn't guarantee that you are safe or even good at what you are licensed to do.