Chief Stipe

Same in total as Jamie Richards, Te Akau for a first offence - although the total in Richards case included costs. However the difference is one was environmental contamination and the other was deliberate albeit misguided administration.

No they shouldn't. But then what the hell is Grierson doing? Shouldn't he be driving a change to how the systems is setup? How many decades has he been on the industry tit?

But that isn't how the rules are written is it? The vet gave wrong advice and Oulaghan didn't stick to the instructions. If he had he may have got away with it albeit by accident than design as he "missed days" then gave the horse some on the Thursday before the race as he had some left. At the end of the day under the rules the buck stops with the trainer.

Don't forget the owner who is of pocket to the tune of more than $30k! $27k in stakes plus expenses.

I've said it many times before and I'll say it once again the whole area therapeutic drug use needs to be addressed with consideration given to a wider assessment of approved drugs, withholding times and most importantly threshold levels. Was the level of Citrizine in the horses bloodstream performance enhancing or even therapeutic? These zero thresholds are a complete nonsense.

Well Mark didn't quite help himself by not following the instructions to the letter. He missed some days and then administered later. That said what the Chief Vet was quoted as saying isn't exactly reassuring either!

Well Galah that's the difference between you and an All Star's trainer. I've been privy to some of the detail on what preventative measures some trainers take and to be frank I'm impressed. Wear and tear is inevitable and preventing onset is important. It has been published widely that Chris Waller often gives Lasix to his horses prior to fast workouts. This is to minimise the inevitable EIPH which occurs in 90% of horses at high performance. Some trainers give their horses proton inhibitors to counter the high acidic nature of high energy feeds. They have no evidence of the horses having stomach ulcers but they know that 90% of the time they will develop. Compare it to you and your hypertension medication - the hypertension is a symptom of your lifestyle and maybe some genetic predisposition but the medication is taken to prevent major heart disease or stroke.

No you have left out probably the most likely reason and that is the injections are preventative rather than therapeutic. That's what top stables do. They know that the training regimes needed to keep a horse at the top will result in wear and tear so they take preventative measures to forestall the onset of wear and tear.

The question that should be asked is what are the Industry Assets - Addington and Riccarton worth? What would selling Riccarton make in capital that could have been spent on some shyte land and a purpose built horse racing asset built.

Perhaps they should test Punters too then we might get some rational posts from you Thomarse. BTW when was the last time you rode at 52kg's?

Essentially a stuff up with withholding times and poor vet advice.

NON RACEDAY INQUIRY RIU V M OULAGHAN - DECISION DATED 6 JUNE 2021 - CHAIR, MR N MCCUTCHEON Created on 31 December 2020 Before a Judicial Committee of the Judicial Control Authority under the Racing Act 2003 AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Thoroughbred Racing BETWEEN Mr S Irving of the Racing Integrity Unit (RIU) Informant AND MR M OULAGHAN Licenced Trainer Respondent Information No. A14112 Charge: Admitted Judicial Committee: Mr N McCutcheon, Chair - Mr B Mainwaring, Member Present: Mr M Oulaghan, Respondent Mr R Cunningham, Owner of SHADOWS CAST Mr N Bullock (RIU) Venue: Awapuni Racecourse, Palmerston North Date of Oral Decision: 3 June 2021 Date of Written Decision: 6 June 2021 ______________________________________________________________________________ DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE ______________________________________________________________________________ The Charge, Rules and Penalty Provisions On the 03 April 2021 at Awapuni Racecourse, being the Registered Trainer and person in charge of the horse, presented ‘Shadows Cast’ to the Manawatu Racing Club’s meeting for the purpose of engaging in and did engage in Race 8 – the Bramco Granite & Marble Flying Stakes and failed to present the said horse free of the prohibited substance ‘Citirizine’, in breach of the NZTR Rule 804(2) and therefore subject to penalty pursuant to Rules 804(7) and 804(8). Rule 804(2) When a horse which has been brought to a Racecourse or similar racing facility for the purpose of engaging in a Race or trial to which the Third Appendix hereto applies is found by a Tribunal conducting an inquiry to have had administered to it or have had present in its metabolism a Prohibited Substance, as defined in Part A of Prohibited Substance Regulations, the Trainer and any other person who in the opinion of such Tribunal conducting such inquiry was in charge of such horse at any relevant time commits a breach of these Rules. Rule 804(7) A person who commits a breach of sub-Rule (2) or (3) or (4) or (5) or (6) of this Rule shall be liable to: (a) be disqualified for a period not exceeding five years; and/or (b) be suspended from holding or obtaining a Licence for a period not exceeding 12 months. If a Licence is renewed during a term of suspension, then the suspension shall continue to apply to the renewed Licence; and/or (c) a fine not exceeding $25,000 Rule 804(8) Any horse connected with a breach of sub-Rule (2) or (3) or (4) or (5) or (6) of this Rule shall be, in addition to any other penalty which may be imposed, disqualified from any Race or trial to which the Third Appendix hereto applies and/or be liable to a period of disqualification not exceeding five years. A letter from Mr Godber, General Manager of the Racing Integrity Unit authorising the filing of the Information had been received by the Committee. Mr Oulaghan confirmed that he understood the Rules and that he admitted the breach. Summary of Facts Mr Irving presented the following Summary of Facts, which Mr Oulaghan acknowledged, were agreed by him. 1. The Respondent, Mark Kenneth Oulaghan, is 64 years old and is a Licensed Class A Trainer under the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing New Zealand (NZTR). 2. Mr Oulaghan trains the 8yo gelding ‘Shadows Cast’ which won Race 8 - the Bramco Granite & Marble Flying Stakes’ Open Handicap, at the Manawatu Racing Club’s meeting at Awapuni Racecourse on 03 April 2021. 3. ‘Shadows Cast’ earned his owner Mr R. Cunningham gross stakes money of $27,000. 4. The horse was post-race swabbed (#79856) and on 15 April the NZ Racing Laboratory Services issued an Analytical Report detailing the sample positive to Citirizine. 5. Citirizine is a second generation antihistamine used to treat and prevent allergies such as rhinitis (hay fever) and skin allergies such as hives. It works by blocking the chemical histamine in the body which is released during an allergic reaction. 6. Under the Prohibited Substance Regulations for the Rules of Racing, Cetirizine is a prohibited substance under 1.1.2 and 1.1.7, capable at any time of causing either directly or indirectly an action or effect, or both an action or effect within one or more of the mammalian body systems. 7. Antihistamines are also specifically listed under 1.2.19 as a prohibited substance for the purpose of a horse racing on a raceday or a trial to which the Third Appendix applies. 8. Cetirizine is not registered under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) for use in horses in New Zealand, however there are recorded uses in the literature. 9. According to the NZTR Chief Veterinarian advisor, using the accepted Toutain model the withholding period for Cetirizine would be 5.6 days. In the European Horserace Scientific Liaison Committee (EHSLC) advisory the Detection Time is listed as 4 days. 10. On 21 April Mr Oulaghan was interviewed at his stables at Awapuni and detailed that he had given ‘Shadows Cast’ a course of ‘Zista’ as prescribed by his vet for the treatment of “mild hyperemia (in the) upper airways” discovered when the horse was scoped on 09 February. 11. ‘Zista’ is a human antihistamine containing 10mg of Cetirizone Hydochloride and is available across the counter at pharmacies. 12. The clinical particulars of Cetirizine as listed, is the relief of symptoms associated with seasonal allergic rhinitis and perennial allergic rhinitis. Symptoms treated effectively include sneezing, rhinorrhea, post-nasal discharge, nasal pruritus, ocular pruritus and tearing. 13. Mr Oulaghan stated that, based on vet advice, in the weeks leading up to the race he gave ‘Shadows Cast’ 10 tablets of ‘Zista’ in the evening feeds, including on the Thursday afternoon before the Saturday race. 14. He also stated that when the vet prescribed the ‘Zista’, he was not advised of any withholding time for the product. 15. Inquiries with the vet confirmed that she prescribed a 14 day trial course of Zista (140 tablets) on 09 February and would reassess the horse after that time. 16. She stated that there is no recommended withhold time (RWT) for Citirizine based on the Equine Veterinarian Association guideline that she refers to and that Citirizine is not listed on that List. She therefore believed that it was not a Restricted Veterinarian Medicine (RVM) or a Prohibited Substance. She did advise Mr Oulaghan not administer Zista on raceday or the preceding day. 17. On 10 March the vet re-scoped ‘Shadows Cast’ and following some improvement she prescribed another 14 days of Zista. 18. If used every day this course would have run out on 23 March, however Mr Oulaghan stated that he missed some days and therefore had enough supply to give 10 tablets on the Thursday before the race. 19. Mr Oulaghan did not contest the swabbing process. 20. Mr Oulaghan has trained racehorses since 1984 and his NZTR record details he has had approximately 4330 starts for 491 winners. He has no previous charges for breaching the Prohibited Substance Rule or any other NRI charges. Penalty Submissions of the Informant Mr Irving presented the following Penalty Submissions 1. The Respondent, 64 year old Mark Kenneth Oulaghan is a Licensed Class ‘A’ Trainer under the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing New Zealand. 2. He first held a Trainer’s Licence in 1984 and is currently training from his stables at Awapuni. 3. The Respondent has admitted a breach of Rule 804(2). 4. The circumstances are detailed in the attached Summary of Facts which have been agreed. 5. The penalties which may be imposed are detailed in the attached Charge Rule and Penalty Provisions Document. 6. The RIU believes that an appropriate penalty for this breach is a $5,000 fine. 7. Chief Veterinarian advisor to the RIU states in his report: Under the Prohibited Substance Regulations for the Rules of Racing the antihistamine Cetirizine and its metabolites are a prohibited substances under 1.1.2 and 1.1.7 of those substances at any time of causing either directly or indirectly an action or effect, or both an action or effect within one or more of the mammalian body systems and secondly antihistamines are specifically listed under 1.2.19 of substances falling within the categories of substances. (Refer attached Report) 8. Citirizine is listed under the EHSLC (European Horserace Scientific Liaison Committee) as having a 96 hour ‘Detection Time’ and estimated by the Chief Veterinarian Advisor to have a withhold time of 5.6 days. (Refer attached EHSLC Guideline) 9. Citirizine is not listed in the NZEVA guidelines for Prohibited Substances as there are no ACVM (Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines) registered products for use in horses on the market in NZ. It is not a Restricted Veterinary Medicine; however it states on the guidelines under the heading ‘A Guide for All NZVA Members’ that …“The list is not a list of all prohibited substances nor all drugs that are tested by the New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services”… (Refer attached NZEVA Guideline) 10. Although there is no requirement to establish the cause of administration for a breach of the Prohibited Substance Rule, the RIU investigation concluded that the positive swab resulted from the treatment of ‘Zista’ as prescribed to Mr Oulaghan by his vet. 11. ‘Zista’ is a human antihistamine with each tablet containing 10mg of Cetirizine Hydrochloride, available from pharmacies ‘over the counter’. 12. It was prescribed in 2x14 day courses of 10 tablets in the daily feed. 13. It is undisputed that the vet failed to inform Mr Oulaghan that ‘Zista’ was a prohibited substance and had an associated withhold time. 14. ‘Shadows Cast’ swabbed clear in his next race on 24 April at Riccarton, with the treatment of ‘Zista’ having been stopped three weeks earlier. 15. Mr Oulaghan did not bet on ‘Shadows Cast’. An analysis of TAB betting records revealed no unusual bets associated with the horse or the race. 16. As per the JCA Penalty Guidelines effective from the 01st May 2015 the starting point for a Thoroughbred or Harness Racing first ‘Presentation’ offence is $8000. 17. Under Rule 804(8) ‘Shadow’s Cast’ is required to be disqualified from the race. PREVIOUS CASES 18. RIU v B Towers (2015) – HR trainer, 2x positives for same horse to the decongestant and bronchodilator Clenbuterol. Penalty: $4,000 fine. In this case the Trainer had been using a non-prohibited substance (Bromo Tmps) to treat his horse and when this finished, he requested more from his vet, however the vet gave him a similar product (Airway Tmps) which was prohibited. The Trainer disputed the vet had informed him that it was a different product which was prohibited and had a withholding period. “In aggravation, the Committee considered that Mr Towers has had experience in the racing industry over a number of years and must understand that there is an onus of responsibility upon him to ensure he presents a horse for racing without a prohibited substance in its system. While it is clear that the evidence does not fully support the proposition that his vet Mr Robbins definitely advised him of a withholding period for the product Airways Tmps, Mr Towers accepts that the ultimate responsibility rests with him as the Licensed Trainer. It is also clear that he did not make adequate enquiry into the use of the Airways Tmps product…” 19. RIU v A Neal & L Neal (2015) – HR Trainers, positive to the anti-inflammatory Flunixin. Second breach. Penalty: $5,500. In this case the Trainer was treating the horse for a cold and was advised by the vet that it had a 4.2 day withhold. They gave it six days to be safe but still returned a positive. “In assessing an appropriate Penalty, the Committee felt it necessary to have the views of the parties relative to the issue of negligence made known. We stated that there is no evidence of this matter involving an ‘illicit’ deliberate or intentional administration of Flunixin. In these types of hearings, where negligence may be an issue, there are 3 levels of such negligence: (a) deliberate (b) gross (c) a failure to take proper care.” It is submitted that in the case of ‘Shadows Cast’ it has been the vet who has been negligent in not identifying ‘Zista’ as being a Prohibited Substance and having a detection time and therefore Mr Oulaghan can only be guilty of low-level carelessness, acting on vet’s advice in good faith, albeit from a relatively ‘junior’ and not his usual vet. MITIGATING FACTORS 20. Mr Oulaghan has been fully cooperative throughout the investigation and admitted the breach at the first opportunity. 21. Mr Oulaghan was acting on advice from his vet who failed to advise him that the product prescribed was prohibited and also failed to advise him that the product had a withhold / detection time. 22. Mr Oulaghan has been involved in Thoroughbred Industry all his life and has an exemplary record throughout his 37 years of training. 23. The Respondent has had in excess of 4330 starts for 491 winners and has no previous breaches of the Prohibited Substance Rule. AGGRAVATING FACTORS 24. Mr Oulaghan, although acting in good faith on the advice of a vet, still has the ultimate responsibility to take proper and reasonable care for what is administered to his horses. 25. The race was a Listed race with a $50,000 total stake. 26. The RIU are seeking no costs. CONCLUSION 27. Given the recommended starting point of $8,000, the aggravating and mitigating factors as listed and the overall circumstances considered in this case, it is submitted that a $5,000 fine is an appropriate penalty. Penalty Submissions by the Respondent Mr Oulaghan asked that the Committee take into account his excellent record over many years and that his Veterinary Surgeon had failed to advise him that the product prescribed was prohibited and also failed to advise him that the product had a withholding/detection time. Mr Oulaghan added that he fully understood that it was his responsibility to present his horses drug free, but on this occasion, he felt that he had been let down by his vet. Mr Cunningham, the Owner of 'Shadows Cast’ and in support of Mr Oulaghan said that the horse had been swabbed and blood-tested many times and on those occasions the results were always clear. He said that the reason the horse was treated on this occasion was because it was suffering from pollen or something of that nature. He added that Mr Oulaghan should have been advised of the withholding time by his Veterinary Surgeon whom you rely on for professional advice. Reasons for Penalty In giving due consideration to penalty, the following matters were taken into account: - Mr Oulaghan’s exemplary record in racing since 1984 - The breach was admitted without undue delay - Other penalties imposed for a breach of Rule 804(2) - The Race was a Listed event with total prize money of $50,000 - A significant mitigating factor was that the Veterinary Surgeon failed to advise Mr Oulaghan that the product prescribed was prohibited and also failed to advise of the withholding/detection time. This was due to her believing that there was no recommended withholding time for the drug Citirizine based on the Equine Veterinarian Assn Guideline that she refers to and that Citirizine is not listed on that list. She therefore believed that it was not a restricted veterinarian medicine or a prohibited substance. The JCA Penalty Guide starting point for a breach of Rule 804(2) is a fine of $8,000, however taking into account the aforementioned Reasons for Penalty the Committee determined that a fine of $4,000 was appropriate. Penalty Mr Oulaghan was fined $4,000. Disqualification Pursuant to Rule 804(8) ‘Shadows Cast’ was disqualified from the said event. Costs There was no order as to costs. N McCutcheon Chair

God help the NZ Racing Industry if she listens to an idiot such as yourself - doubly so if she acts on it!

Here's a tip dick head - in your case a picogram is about the size of it! _________________________ Baffert Sues New York Racing Officials Over ‘Impulsive’ Ban The trainer was barred from the state’s racetracks and missed the Belmont Stakes after the Kentucky Derby winner Medina Spirit failed two post-race drug tests. By Joe Drape June 14, 2021 Bob Baffert, the trainer of the Kentucky Derby winner Medina Spirit, sued the New York Racing Association on Monday for banning him from competing at the three tracks it operates, saying in an affidavit it “will effectively put me out of business in the State of New York.” The association barred Baffert from entering horses or stabling them at the Belmont, Saratoga and Aqueduct racetracks after Medina Spirit’s post-Derby drug test was positive for betamethasone, a corticosteroid that is injected into joints to reduce pain and swelling. In a complaint filed in federal court in Brooklyn, Baffert said the suspension was unconstitutional and that he wanted it lifted so horses in his high-powered barn could race in lucrative and prestigious races in Saratoga this summer and at Belmont in the fall. “NYRA’s impulsive decision to deprive Baffert of his professional livelihood within the State of New York is one that it had no legal authority to make,” the complaint said. Neither Baffert nor his lawyer, W. Craig Robertson III, returned calls seeking comment. Medina Spirit, Baffert’s colt, faces disqualification from the Derby — and the horse’s owner faces the loss of a more than $1.8 million first-place check — after two tests following his victory were positive for the anti-inflammatory drug. After floating various theories — including contamination, a conspiracy targeting him and “cancel culture” — Baffert acknowledged that he was responsible: He said he treated Medina Spirit with the antifungal ointment Otomax without knowing it contained betamethasone. N.Y.R.A. barred Baffert from its tracks on May 17. After Medina Spirit’s second test came back positive on June 2, Churchill Downs suspended him for two years, including the Derby in 2022 and 2023. “NYRA took this action to protect the integrity of the sport for our fans, the betting public and racing participants,” Pat McKenna, a spokesman for the association, said Monday. “In making the determination to temporarily suspend Mr. Baffert, NYRA took into account the fact that other horses trained by Mr. Baffert have failed drug tests in the recent past, resulting in the assessment of penalties against him by thoroughbred racing regulators in Kentucky, California, and Arkansas.” At least five of Baffert’s horses have failed drug tests in a little over one year, and he has had 30 failed tests in his career. Still, a possible disqualification is months away and destined to be tied up in the courts for years. First, racing officials will conduct a hearing and issue a ruling. If they disqualify Medina Spirit and either suspend or fine Baffert, he could appeal to the full commission. If the unfavorable ruling is still not overturned, he could pursue a remedy in civil court. In 1968, the Derby victory of Dancer’s Image was taken away after a drug test showed the presence of a banned anti-inflammatory. It took four years before Dancer’s Image was irrevocably disqualified. The fallout from the failed test and legal squabbling appears to be hindering Baffert’s business. One of his more loyal owners, Spendthrift Farm, moved six of its horses from Baffert’s barn. Last year, he trained its colt Authentic to a 2020 Derby victory. Three other horses formerly trained by Baffert were left in Kentucky in the care of Rodolphe Brisset by their owners.

Rule Number(s): 638(3)(b)(ii)Following the running of Race 2, Information A14560 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It was alleged by the Informant that Ms Farr used her whip excessively on her mount CAPELLANI prior to the 100m. Ms Farr said that she understood the Rule, Charge and confirmed that she admitted the breach. Mr ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 870(3)& Breaking Horses RegulationFollowing the running of Race 6, Faulks Investment (Junior Drivers) Mobile Trot, an Information instigating a protest was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr P Williams, against YURI (KT Newman), placed 5th by the judge, on the ground that it “broke in excess of 50 metres in the final 200 metres of the ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)Following the running of Race 8 an Information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr J Oatham, against Apprentice Jockey Miss M Gestain in that she “allowed her mount OUR BOY RITCHIE to shift inwards passing the 2100 metres crowding and checking ANYTHINGCOULDHAPPEN and TAKE THE DEEL.” Rule 638(1)(d) ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 869(2)& Whip and Rein RegulationsFollowing the running of Race 3, Nevele R Stud “Young at Heart” Mobile Pace, an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr P Williams, against Licensed Graduation Driver, Mr WD O’Connell, alleging that, as the driver of ALEXY in the race, he “used his whip free of the rein throughout the home straight”. ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 869(3)(b)Mr Munro alleged that Mr Morrison permitted his drive GLASSY WEBB in Race 7 to shift ground at the 700 metres contacting the legs of ZIRCON LASS (T Dewe). Mr Morrison stated he was an experienced Junior Driver and did not require the assistance of an Open Driver. Miss Haley identified the relevant horses ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Former Police Deputy Commissioner To Lead New Racing Integrity Board Friday, 11 June 2021, 9:03 am Press Release: Racing Integrity Board Mike Clement has been appointed Chief Executive of the new independent Racing Integrity Board which will oversee the racing industry from 1 July 2021. “The Board is delighted to have been able to secure a leader of Mike’s standing, experience and impeccable integrity,” says Sir Bruce Robertson, Chair of the Racing Integrity Board. The Racing Integrity Board takes over the functions of the Racing Integrity Unit and the Judicial Control Authority for Racing, both of which will be disestablished as of 30 June 2021 with all employees transferring to the new Board. “Importantly, the new Racing Integrity Board - announced by Minister for Racing Hon Grant Robertson on 8 June - is independent and separate from the thoroughbred, harness and greyhound racing codes. Its establishment was a key part of the racing industry reforms in the Racing Industry Act 2020,” said Sir Bruce. Mike took retirement from the New Zealand Police last year after 42 years of service. He was Deputy Commissioner National Operations at Police Headquarters from 2014 and prior to that he was District Commander Auckland City. “I think it is universally acknowledged that a strong, effective and credible integrity system is critical to the public’s confidence in the conduct of racing. My challenge is to ensure the very high public and industry expectations as to the conduct, standards and integrity of racing are met,” says Mike Clement. Mike will be based in Auckland and will take up the role on 1 July 2021. Additional information The Racing Integrity Board’s core functions are: • Compliance and Enforcement – through its integrity officials (including Stipendiary Stewards and racing investigators), to exercise the functions, duties and powers assigned to them in the rules of thoroughbred, harness and greyhound Racing; • Prohibited Substances – to provide and manage prohibited substances testing systems and services which support the code’s racing rules; • Animal Welfare – to ensure the provision of veterinary services for the conduct of racing and to support and monitor the operation and effectiveness of each racing codes’ animal welfare policies and initiatives; • Adjudicative Services – to establish and maintain adjudicative systems, processes, and services to determine matters in accordance with the codes’ racing rules; • Regulation – to monitor and review the operation and effectiveness of the racing integrity system and recommend measures which will not only retain its currency but also enhance and strengthen it. © Scoop Media

Former Police Deputy Commissioner To Lead New Racing Integrity Board Friday, 11 June 2021, 9:03 am Press Release: Racing Integrity Board Mike Clement has been appointed Chief Executive of the new independent Racing Integrity Board which will oversee the racing industry from 1 July 2021. “The Board is delighted to have been able to secure a leader of Mike’s standing, experience and impeccable integrity,” says Sir Bruce Robertson, Chair of the Racing Integrity Board. The Racing Integrity Board takes over the functions of the Racing Integrity Unit and the Judicial Control Authority for Racing, both of which will be disestablished as of 30 June 2021 with all employees transferring to the new Board. “Importantly, the new Racing Integrity Board - announced by Minister for Racing Hon Grant Robertson on 8 June - is independent and separate from the thoroughbred, harness and greyhound racing codes. Its establishment was a key part of the racing industry reforms in the Racing Industry Act 2020,” said Sir Bruce. Mike took retirement from the New Zealand Police last year after 42 years of service. He was Deputy Commissioner National Operations at Police Headquarters from 2014 and prior to that he was District Commander Auckland City. “I think it is universally acknowledged that a strong, effective and credible integrity system is critical to the public’s confidence in the conduct of racing. My challenge is to ensure the very high public and industry expectations as to the conduct, standards and integrity of racing are met,” says Mike Clement. Mike will be based in Auckland and will take up the role on 1 July 2021. Additional information The Racing Integrity Board’s core functions are: • Compliance and Enforcement – through its integrity officials (including Stipendiary Stewards and racing investigators), to exercise the functions, duties and powers assigned to them in the rules of thoroughbred, harness and greyhound Racing; • Prohibited Substances – to provide and manage prohibited substances testing systems and services which support the code’s racing rules; • Animal Welfare – to ensure the provision of veterinary services for the conduct of racing and to support and monitor the operation and effectiveness of each racing codes’ animal welfare policies and initiatives; • Adjudicative Services – to establish and maintain adjudicative systems, processes, and services to determine matters in accordance with the codes’ racing rules; • Regulation – to monitor and review the operation and effectiveness of the racing integrity system and recommend measures which will not only retain its currency but also enhance and strengthen it. © Scoop Media

Rule Number(s): 638(3)(b)(ii)RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION Informant: Mr J Oatham – Chief Stipendiary Steward Respondent: Ms E Leighton – Class B Jockey Information No: A14047 ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 869(3)(b)Mr Ydgren alleged that Mr Hope permitted his drive MUSCLE MOUNTAIN in Race 8 to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear of KIWITRIX which broke near the 1400 metres. (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

That's my opinion as well. A horse that can gallop well on a heavy track shows grit and strength. They generally carry that through to better surfaces unless they have a conformation problem or feel the jar in a track. One long time trainer I spoke to was adamant all horses prefer to and gallop better on firmer surfaces. Other than an uneven G2 or faster at Riccarton. They also hate uneven surfaces although a stronger horse will cope better because they can pick themselves up when they lose momentum. The AWT's don't play to what have been our strengths in the industry - big strong healthy grass grown horses. Easy for a horse to skip over the AWT firm carpet but the money courses both here and in OZ aren't like that. I had a horse that won its first race on a soft-heavy Wanganui track winning by quite a few lengths - $180k offer the next day from offshore and that was 10 years ago!

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)Mr Williamson alleged a breach of r 638(1)(d) in that Mr Weatherley in Race 1 allowed his mount QUEEN OF SOUL to shift in when not sufficiently clear of ILLUMINATION which was checked, having to shift outwards to avoid heels forcing KING KHAN and SIDE EYE wider near the 1350 metres. (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article