Chief Stipe

You still haven't answered the simple YES/NO question. Did Woodham secure more funding for HRNZ over and above what they were due on the pro-rata of revenue? I'm happy to be pointed in the right direction by your esteemed self to analyse the data but I'm not sure where it is. Can you assist? Just remember @JJ Flash the increased stakes are a budgeted promise - TAB NZ doesn't have all the money sitting in the bank for the coming year it needs to earn it first and then pay as they earn!!!!!

As I said there have been NO comprehensive figures published in the last 3 years. Not sure why you are banging on about stakes increases when I was talking about published figures in relation to @AndrewFitzgerald's comment on Fixed Odds yields.

So you believe there is NO symbiotic relationship between TAB NZ and NZTR? Are you deliberately naive?

Blinded by sycophancy! Who decides what races to import?

You get those green shoots if you don't keep the shit off the AWT. They are called weeds!

What was the handler supposed to do to "correct" the dog? Imagine if he had done what many good dog owners do with their pets and had forced the dog to the ground on its side and lay on it.

Good thing people have kept copies and backups!!!

What annoys me is that just because it was televised on Trackside it was a "bigger crime"!

Vet who owns horse recommends an ointment for a puffy eye, ointment contains prohibited substance, horse returns positive. Trainer Andrew Campbell fined $2,500. Horse disqualified from trial after dropping rider and having been already declared a non-finisher. Vet walks free!

Non Raceday Inquiry – Decision dated 9 August 2021 – Andrew Campbell ID: RIB4054 Respondent(s): Andrew Campbell - Trainer Applicant: Mr O Westerlund - Investigator, RIB Adjudicators: Prof G Hall - Chairman, Mrs N Moffatt (Member) Information Number: A8494 Decision Type: Adjudicative Decision Charge: Horse presented to trials with prohibited substance in its metabolism - Dexamethasone Rule(s): 804(2) Plea: Admitted Outcome: Proved Penalty: Trainer Andrew Campbell is fined $2,500 DECISION OF THE ADJUDICATIVE COMMITTEE [1] Information A8494 alleges “On Tuesday the 18th of May 2021, at Cambridge, the Respondent, Mr Campbell being the Registered Trainer for the time being in charge of the horse “2c Flying Artie – Dynastic Lady”, which was brought to the Cambridge Jockey Club Trials held at the Cambridge Racecourse for the purpose of engaging in, and did engage in Heat 11, when the said horse was found to have in its metabolism a Prohibited Substance, namely Dexamethasone which is in breach of NZTR Rules of Racing, r 804(2) and is therefore subject to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed pursuant to rr 804(6) and 804(7)”. [2] Rule 804(2) provides: “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.” [3] The penalty provision is r 804(7) which states: “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.” [4] Mr Westerlund produced authorisation to lay the Information. [5] Mr Campbell signed the Information admitting the charge. [6] The parties agreed to the matter being dealt with on the papers. Summary of facts [7] Mr Campbell is the holder of a Class A Trainer’s Licence issued by NZTR. [8] On Tuesday 18 May 2021 the horse “2c Flying Artie – Dynastic Lady” was correctly entered and started in Heat 11 of the Cambridge Jockey Club Trials at the Cambridge Racecourse. [9] The two-year old colt “Flying Artie-Dynastic Lady” dropped its Rider at the gates and was declared a non-finisher in the seven-horse field. [10] The horse “2c Flying Artie-Dynastic Lady” was randomly selected for a pre-race swab. The horse was accompanied by Brendan Harrison. A blood sample was obtained at 11.52am approximately 38 minutes before the trial commenced at 12.30pm. [11] Both Mr Harrison and the RIU Veterinarian, Dr Emily Kearney, reported that there were no difficulties or irregularities with the collection of the blood from the two-year old colt. [12] At the conclusion of the Trials the samples were checked by a Racecourse Investigator and then placed in a tamper proof security bag with other samples taken that day and forwarded to the New Zealand Racing Laboratory in Auckland. [13] On 8 June 2021, a Certificate of Analysis signed by Mr Rob Howitt, the Official Racing Analyst at the New Zealand Racing Laboratory advised that the sample taken from the horse “2c Flying Artie-Dynastic Lady” had been analysed and contained the prohibited substance Dexamethasone. [14] Dr Andrew Grierson the Chief Veterinarian for NZTR states that Dexamethasone, a corticosteroid, is commonly used in veterinary medicine and administered either orally, or as an injection into the vein or muscle, a topical cream or ointment to the skin or a topical ophthalmic ointment or solution. Dexamethasone has anti-inflammatory properties used to treat arthritic conditions, allergies, asthma, chronic obstructive lung disease, brain swelling, skin and eye irritation, and a series of other conditions. [15] Dexamethasone and metabolites thereof are prohibited substances in the Prohibited Substances Regulations for the Rules of Racing when detected in a urine and/or blood sample taken from a horse at the races or trials. Dexamethasone has a withholding period of 4.2 days. [16] On Thursday 10 June 2021 Mr Campbell was interviewed at his property in Cambridge. He was informed that the drug Dexamethasone was present in the blood sample taken from his horse. [17] He stated that the horse had a slight puffy eye, and he was given an ointment by his vet to treat it. He applied a fingertip amount to the eye on the afternoon before the horse trialled the next day. He was not aware that Dexamethasone was a prohibited substance. [18] Mr Campbell produced the ointment that was used to treat the horse. The product is called Maxitrol Eye Ointment and is a sterile ointment that contains the active ingredients Dexamethasone, Neomycin and Polymyxin B. [19] Mr Campbell has been involved in the Thoroughbred Racing Industry all his adult life and has been a Class A Trainer for 25 years. [20] He has no previous breaches of the Prohibited Substance Rule. Decision as to breach [21] As Mr Campbell has admitted the breach of r 804(2), is it found to be proved. Informant’s penalty submissions [22] Mr Westerlund stated that the four principles of sentencing could be summarised briefly: Penalties are designed to punish the offender for his/her wrong-doing. 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 Adjudicative Committee for the type of offending in question. The need to rehabilitate the offender should be taken into account. [23] Only the first three principles had relevance in this matter. [24] The RIB referred to four previous decisions by the (then) JCA which Mr Westerlund believed were of assistance: RIU v Pertab (06.05.19) – positive test to Meloxicam at the Matamata Racing Club Trials on 19 March 2019. The penalty imposed was a fine of $3,000 and the horse disqualified. RIU v Lucock & Gillespie (22.07.18) – positive test to Meloxicam at the Avondale Jockey Club Trials on 15 May 2018. The penalty imposed was a fine of $2,800 and the horse disqualified. RIU v Hall (19.08.17) – positive test to Meloxicam at the Waipa Racing Club Trials on 30 May 2017. The penalty imposed was a fine of $3,000 and the horse disqualified. RIU v Brick (15.09.16) – positive test to Phenylbutazone and Oxyphenbutazone at the Whakatane Trials on 2 August 2016. The penalty imposed was a fine of $3,000 and the horse disqualified. [25] The Informant identified the mitigating factors to be: • the Respondent has admitted the breach at the first opportunity; • the Respondent has been fully co-operative throughout the process; • the Respondent has been involved in the Racing Industry all his adult life; • there is no evidence to suggest that the offence was deliberate and designed to obtain a favourable financial advantage other than the treatment for the ailment and to care for the animal’s wellbeing; • the Respondent has a blemish free record of offending against or breaching of the Rules of Racing. [26] The Informant noted that legal precedent provides that Trainers have an absolute liability for presenting their horses free of prohibited substances. The RIB submitted that the Respondent should have been aware of the 4.2 days withholding period when treating a horse with Dexamethasone before taking the horse to the Trials. Lack of knowledge that his actions were a breach of the Rules is not an excuse. (We add that the Respondent’s admission of the breach and his submission as to penalty acknowledges this fact.) [27] The Prohibited Substance Rule imposes an absolute obligation on Trainers, and where applicable, the person in charge of the horse, to ensure horses are presented to race free of prohibited substances regardless of how the prohibited substance came to be present. This standard is reflected in the following decisions: [28] In Coulson (1993) it was stated: The problems about drug-free racing have been emphasised from time to time, and this Authority has repeatedly pointed out there is a heavy obligation on the part of those who bring their horses to a Harness Racing meeting to ensure that the Rules in all relevant respects have been complied with, and we are satisfied that in this particular case the Appellant failed to take adequate steps to ensure that the horse was in fact drug free. [29] In Nicholson (1994) the Authority stated: We say again what we have said before, and that is that those who are responsible for the training of horses or other animals in any racing code are subject to a very onerous obligation to ensure that the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing, Harness Racing or Greyhound Racing, in relation to drug-related matters are firmly adhered to…. There is an obligation to ensure drug-free racing…. There are two other things which I think need to be said. In a sense, this is repetitious, but it is essential that all concerned in the racing industry, in whatever code the person participates, understands that this Authority will not tolerate in any respect the use of substances which breach the Rules…. The Rules now are fairly clearly definitive of what the obligations of persons in the industry are, and this Authority sees it as part of its statutory responsibility to ensure that the Rules in this and other respects are adhered to…. There is nothing more likely to bring down the integrity of the racing industry generally than the fact that horses perform at meetings when they have been administered, whether innocently or for some ulterior motive, a prohibited substance. [30] In Lamb (1998) it was said: The duties on trainers are high and appropriately so. All reasonable steps must be taken to avoid the administration of drugs to horses being presented for racing. Proper care and vigilance are required at all times at the stables and at the track. Where there is a breach of the drug negligence Rule Trainers must expect substantial penalties. [31] In Bentley (1998) the Appeals Tribunal stated: 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 that may be obtained through the involvement of drugs as defined by the Rules of Racing and this in turn requires a high degree of vigilance by Licensed Trainers. It is the duty of Trainers to take all available steps to ensure there is no breach in this regard. A breach as a result of negligence must be viewed seriously by both Judicial Committees and by this Tribunal. [32] In Justice (2012) the Appeals Tribunal said: Once a breach is established, general deterrence and denunciation are appropriate in imposing penalty. There is a need to bring home to trainers/owners the heavy responsibility of presenting horses free of prohibited substances. Previous penalties have failed to do this, as illustrated in decisions such as Bentley. [33] In Scaife (2012) the Appeals Tribunal stated: The parties agree it is imperative for the future of the industry that racing be perceived to be, and indeed is, drug free. To this end, in imposing penalty we believe the relevant considerations were correctly identified by the Appeals Tribunal in Justice (2012) when it stated: “Once a breach is established, general deterrence and denunciation are appropriate in imposing penalty. There is a need to bring home to trainers/owners the heavy responsibility of presenting horses free of prohibited substances.” [34] In RIU v Lawson (2019) the Appeals Tribunal commented: Proceedings under the Rules of Harness Racing, as is the position in all cases involving professional disciplines, are designed not simply to punish the transgressor, but crucially are to protect the profession/public/industry/and those who are to deal with the profession. Disciplinary sanctions are designed for some important different purposes, and although guidance can be gained from the criminal jurisdiction, there are broader considerations. 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 professions (whether law, accountancy, medicine, teaching, real estate, and the like) are subject to sanctions for breaches of standards of conduct or Rules designed to protect members of the profession as well as the public. Such sanctions can 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. [35] This decision was said by the Informant to mark a clear shift in the approach to imposing sanctions for a breach of Racing Rules and to correctly bring a disciplinary approach. [36] The RIB did not consider the Respondent to be a habitual offender and he was not a person of low moral character that would bring the Thoroughbred Racing code into “disrepute” should he remain in this profession. [37] The RIB believed however that breaches of the Rules should be penalised, and that the penalty should reflect the Industry’s clean racing image and remind participants of their obligations under the Rules and precedents set. [38] The RIB believed that this breach could be dealt with by way of a fine. It submitted that a fine of $3,000 should be imposed. [39] The RIB did not seek costs. [40] An order for the disqualification of the horse “2c Flying Artie-Dynastic Lady” from the trial was sought pursuant to r 804(8). Respondent’s penalty submissions [41] Mr Campbell provided written penalty submissions on 20 July. [42] Mr Campbell stated he trained “2 c Flying Artie-Dynastic Lady” (RIVER PLATE) which had returned a positive swab to Dexamethasone at the Cambridge trials on 18 May. [43] Mr Campbell said the fine that the Informant had submitted was appropriate in this case was “outrageous”. He did not deny that he gave the horse one treatment of eye ointment the night before the trial as it had a slightly swollen eye. However, he was not aware the ointment, which the veterinarian, Mr Ian McKay (who is part owner of the horse) had left for it, was swabable. If it was just a jump out, he would not have rubbed the ointment on its eye, as he would not have bothered. But because it was a public trial, it would not have been a good look sending a horse around with a partly swollen eye for all the public to see. He emphasised that he had always had pride in the way his horses were turned out. [44] The ointment was just to rub around the horse’s eye for swelling. It was not injected nor orally given. It had only the one treatment. He agreed he should have known, but perhaps the vet should have advised him too. He noted he very rarely used vets except in emergencies or for things that he could not do myself. He emphasised that he had given the tube straight away to the Investigator, Mr Cruickshank, who saw and noted that very little was used from the tube. [45] The vet (Mr McKay) said the amount of Dexamethasone would have been so minute, he was very surprised it was even detected in the blood test. [46] The horse was scratched at the barrier after dropping its rider. The horse trialled at Te Rapa the following week and won well. They had received offers of good money for the horse, but the owners were not sellers. This emphasised the point that there was never any intention to use a performance enhancing drug. [47] Mr Campbell said he had been a Public Trainer for 25 years plus and had never had a fine or a charge against him, including racing horses in the strictest places in Australia. He believed the recommended fine of $3,000 was very high in comparison to another case recently where a horse actually won a race then returned a positive. He commented, “Not only did the owners lose, so did the punters. The only one losing in my case is myself and my pride.” [48] We add here that Mr Campbell is referring to the VAMOS BEBE case (2021) where the horse returned a positive to Morphine. The Racecourse Investigators were advised that the sample from VAMOS BEBE was consistent with the possible consumption of poppy seeds and was not consistent with the administration of any pharmaceutical grade morphine. The Trainer, Mr Richards, was fined the sum of $1,500 and ordered to pay laboratory costs. [49] Mr Campbell also referred to an incident at the Auckland races where Track staff were tapping back when a two-year-old race was being run. The owner of the second horse was adamant it had cost his horse the race. Not only was this incident very dangerous to the staff on the track, it had also cost Owners, Punters, Breeders and could have quite possibly been tragic not only for the Jockeys but for the horses as well. No one was charged or fined. He believed his case was insignificant to what had occurred there. [50] Mr Campbell said the breach had had a huge impact on his life personally and his career. His owner, Tommy Heptinstall, has decided to wind down racing horses in New Zealand. He was astonished that the RIB had charged the Respondent. He believed Mr Campbell should only have been issued with a warning. [51] Mr Campbell concluded his submission by stating “the racing game has been a massive part of my life and has taken me to some fantastic places. I have met people you could only dream about meeting and made plenty of great friends.” He was now re-evaluating whether he would remain in the industry. He reiterated the effect the charge had had on himself and his family. [52] Mr Westerlund did not respond to the Respondent’s submissions. Decision as to penalty [53] The Informant is correct when he states that the obligation upon a Trainer is an onerous one. Liability is absolute (Justice v HRNZ [2012] NZHC 3484) and a trainer has to be appraised of the Rules and be hyper-vigilant. Unfortunately on this occasion Mr Campbell, despite his many years of experience and his unblemished record, was not. We can only speculate that this may have been because the ointment was given to him by an experienced vet, whom Mr Campbell might understandably have expected to have informed him that it was a prohibited substance with a withholding time. Perhaps the fact it was only a little dab to the eye may have misled him as well. But the onus is on Mr Campbell, of course, to present the horse to race, drug free, whatever the circumstances, as his admission of the breach rightly recognises. [54] We were not informed why attendance at this particular trial was important to the horse. The horse had a puffy eye; it may have been a wiser decision not to race the horse, rather than to treat it close to the day on which it was intended to race, and then to race it, especially when Mr Campbell was concerned as to how the horse would look on the day when presented in his colours. [55] Credit must be given for the Respondent’s excellent record, in particular that this is his first drug-related breach in a lengthy career. We also have regard to his clear remorse, and his admission of the breach, although this could be viewed as inevitable given the wording of the Rule and its interpretation in the High Court in Justice, and the personal toll the breach has had upon Mr Campbell and his family. We also note his immediate and full co-operation with the RIB investigation. [56] The Committee does not view the decision in Lawson (2019) as being as ground-breaking as the Informant suggests. The need to uphold the Integrity of Racing, in all three Codes, has long been at the forefront of disciplinary decision-making. It is wrong to suggest otherwise. We thus take guidance not only from Lawson but from prior decisions, and, in particular, those cited to this Committee by the Informant. [57] The need for racing to be drug-free is self-evident. The integrity of the Industry demands nothing less. We note that Lawson refers to “dishonest or immoral conduct”. We state clearly, as does the Informant, that this is not an accurate description of the Respondent’s conduct in this case, which we would view as momentary lapse of judgement, an act without thought to the consequences, by a Licence-Holder of otherwise excellent standing in the Industry. [58] We note the breach was not on raceday. It was a trial. There is no evidence of any financial gain (eg by way of the sale of the horse) and, as there was no TAB betting, there is no suggestion members of the public were disadvantaged. [59] Mr Campbell has asked that we consider the penalty in the VAMOS BEBE case. Mr Richards was fined $1,500, which is only half of the fine that the Informant has submitted is appropriate in the present case. We note the drug (morphine), and the circumstances of the breach (probable ingestion by way of poppy seeds) are very different to the case before us, and we take little guidance from that case. [60] The penalties for a breach of this Rule in the cases cited to us by the Informant have consistently been between $2,800 and $3,000. The drugs are different: Meloxicam in three of the cases and Phenylbutazone (Bute) in the other. In each case the drug was given orally by way of a syringe. The drug in this case, Dexamethasone, was applied as an ointment by way of a dab to the eye. There is no level before us, as with it being a prohibited drug, the breach is established by mere presence. [61] A search of the JCA website reveals only one previous case involving Dexamethasone. This is Brownlee (2009). Application there was by way of an injection within 48 hours of racing in circumstances that were described as involving “serious negligence”. The penalty was again a fine of $3,000. That breach occurred on raceday, and the Respondent had a previous drug-related breach of the Rules. That case is clearly a more serious breach of the Rule than is that by Mr Campbell. [62] Mr Campbell’s degree of negligence is somewhat less than that in each of the cases we have considered. We view the manual application by way of a dab of ointment to the eye as not being as culpable as application by injection or by mouth. Treatment was for the animal’s well-being, although as we have noted, not starting the horse in the trial, always remained an option for Mr Campbell. [63] Taking this factor into consideration, and the many personal mitigating factors, we believe a fine at a level slightly below that in Brownlee and that in the cases cited to us by the Informant, and on which their submission of a $3,000 fine is based, is appropriate. [64] The penalty is a fine of $2,500. Disqualification [65] We order pursuant to r 804(8) the disqualification of the horse “2c Flying Artie-Dynastic Lady” (RIVER PLATE) from Heat 11 of the Cambridge Jockey Club Trials at the Cambridge Racecourse on 18 May 2021. Costs [66] The matter has been heard on the papers. There is no award of costs in favour of the RIB. Dated at Dunedin this 9th day of August 2021. Geoff Hall, Chairman Decision Date: 09/08/2021 Publish Date: 10/08/2021

Non Raceday Inquiry – Decision dated 12 August 2021 – Francis McPhee ID: RIB4076 Respondent(s): Francis McPhee - Handler Applicant: Mr M Austin - Senior Stipendiary Steward Adjudicators: Prof G Hall Information Number: A16152 Decision Type: Adjudicative Decision Charge: Misconduct Rule(s): 62.1(o) Plea: Admitted Stewards Report Results Code: Greyhound Race Date: 11/07/2021 Race Club: Auckland Greyhound Racing Club Race Location: Manukau Greyhound Standium - Te Irirangi Drive, Manukau, Auckland, 2023 Race Number: R1 Outcome: Proved Penalty: Licensed Handler Francis McPhee is fined $350 DECISION OF THE ADJUDICATIVE COMMITTEE [1] Information A16152 alleges that on 11 July 2021 at a race meeting conducted by the Auckland Greyhound Racing Club at Manukau, Licensed Handler, Francis McPhee, “following Race 1 had trouble controlling his Greyhound VEGAS CHOPS while attempting to walk back to the dais resulting in him raising his hand and striking the Greyhound across the hindquarters.” [2] This is an alleged breach of r 62.1(o) of the GRNZ Rules of Racing. [3] Mr McPhee has admitted the breach and the matter has been heard on the papers. [4] Rule 62.1 provides: “Any person (including an Official) commits an offence if he/she: (o) has, in relation to a Greyhound or Greyhound racing, done a thing, or omitted to do a thing which is negligent, dishonest, corrupt, fraudulent or improper, or constitutes misconduct”. [5] Rule 63.1 provides: “Any Person found guilty of an Offence under these Rules shall be liable to: (a) a fine not exceeding $10,000 … ; and/or (b) Suspension; and/or (c) Disqualification; and/or (d) Warning Off.” [6] The agreed Summary of Facts states that Mr McPhee is a Licensed Handler under the Rules of GRNZ. He has held a Handler’s Licence since 2008. [7] On 11 July 2021 Mr McPhee was the Handler of the Greyhound VEGAS CHOPS in Race 1 at the Auckland Greyhound Racing Club’s meeting at Manukau. [8] VEGAS CHOPS was placed first in the race and upon attempting to walk back to the winner’s dais the Greyhound displayed poor manners, and this resulted in Mr McPhee raising his hand and striking the Greyhound across the hindquarters. This footage was broadcast across Trackside TV. [9] The Stewards interviewed Mr McPhee regarding his actions out on the track. [10] Mr McPhee admitted that he did strike the dog but that it was on the spur of the moment, and it was just to get the dog’s attention. Informant’s penalty submissions [11] The Informant summarised the four principles of sentencing as: 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 Adjudicative Committee for the type of offending in question. The need to rehabilitate the offender should be considered. [12] There have been two similar breaches of this nature when looking at previous cases within Greyhound Racing in NZ: RIU v Flipp 2 September 2014 — $300 RIU v Taylor 15 Jan 2015 — $250 [13] Mitigating factors are that the Respondent has admitted the breach at the first opportunity, has been fully co-operative throughout the process, and was very remorseful when admitting to the incident. [14] This is the first charge under this Rule against Mr McPhee. [15] An aggravating feature was that the incident was televised on Trackside television, widening the audience. [16] Welfare of Greyhounds was submitted to be a priority for the Greyhound Racing Code and in January 2014 its Governing Body issued a Code of Welfare issued under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. The Code applies to all persons licensed by the NZGRA and applies to all Greyhounds kept by such persons. The purpose of the Code is expressed in these words: Owners and persons in charge of racing greyhounds have a responsibility to understand and meet the welfare needs of their greyhounds. The purpose of this Code is to encourage all those responsible for racing greyhounds to adopt the highest standards of husbandry, care, and handling. [17] This Code has clearly been breached in this circumstance. [18] Numerous decisions of Judicial Committees and the Appeals Tribunal have confirmed that penalties imposed for breaches of Rules of Racing must give proper emphasis to accountability and denunciation which in turn operates as a deterrent to others from breaching rules in a similar way. [19] This type of incident cannot be tolerated and places the Greyhound Industry under more pressure surrounding the welfare of Greyhounds. Incidents of this nature do not endear the general public to see the Industry in a professional and positive light. Any form of physical abuse of a Greyhound is likely to damage the integrity of Greyhound Racing and there is a need to have regard to this in arriving at an appropriate penalty. [20] The RIB believe that this breach can be dealt with by way of a fine that reflects the seriousness of the incident. In coming to this conclusion, the RIB believes a fine on this occasion will serve to deter Mr McPhee from similar behaviour in the future as well as deter others from physically abusing their animals. [21] The RIB, taking into account all mitigating and aggravating factors presented with this incident, believe a starting point of $800 is appropriate in this circumstance. We submit this can be mitigated down to $500 with Mr McPhee’s clean record and his showing of genuine remorse. Respondent’s submissions [22] Mr McPhee said that his recorded statement to Mike Austin “says most everything I wish to say.” He believed an open hand slap was necessary to distract VEGAS CHOPS from attacking BIGTIME FENDI. VEGAS CHOPS had been trying to attack BIGTIME FENDI as soon as the lure stopped, and he said, “it got worse as we started to walk away from the lure towards the dais.” [23] Mr McPhee said he realised this was “not a very good choice of behaviour from me or VEGAS CHOPS.” He apologised and said it would never happen again. [24] Mr McPhee commented that others that had been charged under the same Rule and had received fines of $300 for kicking their Greyhound, and $250 for punching their Greyhound. [25] As he had admitted to his behaviour and wished to say sorry to all concerned, he believed a $100 fine was appropriate. Penalty [26] Mr McPhee has given an open hand slap to VEGAS CHOPS in order to control the dog when it was misbehaving after winning the race in which it had just competed and was being led to the dais. [27] Animal welfare is clearly an issue. In addition, the incident was clear to those viewing the meeting on Trackside. Both these matters point to the need for the penalty to address the issue of the integrity of Greyhound Racing, at a time when the Industry is under the spotlight. [28] Mr Austin does not indicate in his submission why an $800 starting point is appropriate, nor why a fine considerably above those in the two cases cited should be imposed in this case. There is no starting point in either of these cases and the penalty in each is within the range the RIU submitted was appropriate. The Committee can make the assumption it is because of the integrity issue, just addressed, but equally there is a need for consistency in the imposition of penalties for like breaches. [29] The cases to which the parties refer have fines at the level of $250 and $300. One involves the kicking of a dog that would not enter the starting boxes at an unofficial trial, and the other a strike to the head when walking the dog to the start as it was reacting to having a bitch that was in season close to it. Both these decisions make reference to the Code of Welfare (2014) issued under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. [30] Any physical mistreatment of a Greyhound is clearly in breach of the Code of Welfare and, in the present case the open hand slap across the dog’s hindquarters is also a breach of the Rules. While the Respondent’s actions are not as egregious as the kick or the blow to the head, animal welfare considerations receive significantly greater emphasis today both by way of policy implementation and penalty where there is a breach of the Rules. The recent Rule changes and increased penalties for whip breaches in both horse racing Codes is evidence of this, were it needed. [31] Mr McPhee has allowed his frustration to get the better of him when VEGAS CHOPS would not do his bidding. This was immediately after the race and was in full view of the Trackside cameras. He has no previous breach, is clearly remorseful, and has apologised for his actions. He has assured the Committee there will not be a repeat. [32] Any form of physical abuse of a Greyhound in any degree is likely to damage the public’s perception of Greyhound Racing. Thus, the penalty needs to hold the Respondent accountable, denounce his actions, uphold the integrity of the Industry, and reflect the interests of animal welfare. A fine at the level submitted by the Respondent would not satisfy these principles. Equally, the Informant’s submission is excessive for the same reasons. [33] The penalty is a fine of $350. Costs [34] The matter has been heard on the papers. There is no award of costs in favour of the RIU or the JCA. Dated at Dunedin this 12th day of August 2021. Geoff Hall, Chairman Decision Date: 12/08/2021 Publish Date: 13/08/2021

Wouldn't it be irresponsible of NZTR and Awapuni to go ahead with adding more cost to the industry? Unless of course the revenue figures from Cambridge are outstanding. As for the Foxton Beach water walker fantastic that the water is completely renewed twice a day powered by lunar power.

He's trying to cleanse his history with the compliance of the comic dog. Wasting his time as not only have many many individuals kept good records, backups but most of it is on public record on mass media.

But we haven't had any comprehensive figures published to the public in the last three years.

Where did you get those figures from?

So the NZ RIU drug testing protocols are crap?

Save Marsden Point Petition. Marsden Point Oil Refinery to close down. We've started a petition, which in three days has gained over 4,000 signatures and I'm aiming for thousands more. While we need to transition away from reliance on fossil fuels, the decision to shut down the refining operation at Marsden Point has been made by the shareholders purely in the interests of generating larger profits from imported refined product and not in the interests of New Zealand's strategic fuel needs. This decision means we will still be burning the same amount of fuel, but become even more reliant on imported products from overseas owned conglomerates. The majority shareholders in the refining company are the oil companies who own refineries across Asia and who want to ensure those refineries run at full capacity to maximise their profits. In the event of a natural disaster or a geopolitical conflict situation the shipping routes to New Zealand could be cut off and the supply of fuel to major sectors of the New Zealand economy severely compromised. We're calling on the government to declare the Marsden Point Oil Refinery a nationally strategic asset and to compulsorily purchase all the shares from the private owners (using money created by the country's central bank) and turn it back into a state owned enterprise which continues to refine crude oil into the fuels needed to keep the New Zealand economy operating. PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION HERE And share this email and the link with as many people as you can. There are times when the government needs to act to put the interests of New Zealanders ahead of everything else. This is one of them. More Detail - Major sectors of the New Zealand economy could be severely compromised if the supply of overseas refined fuel is interrupted. This list is not exhaustive but includes:- - Air transport into and out of and around New Zealand including all our air freight exports - Helicopter rescue services - Coastal shipping, inter-island ferries and shipping to the Pacific Islands - New Zealand's Army, Navy and Air Force including rescue and disaster relief operations - All fishing boats and pleasure boats including short distance ferries - The country's trucking fleet that moves goods around New Zealand - Heavy construction machinery and infrastructure and road building equipment - Agricultural machinery including forestry, farming and horticultural equipment - Goods and passenger rail operations If crude oil is not able to be shipped to New Zealand for whatever reason if the refinery was still in operation it could be modified to use New Zealand's own oil supplies and at the very least keep all major essential transport, freight, air and defence operations going. Approximately 600 jobs will be lost if the refining operation shuts down. With an economic loss of about 8% to the Northland economy many small businesses will close with further catastrophic job losses. The Reserve Bank has already created around $60 billion in the last 18 months and the $260 million needed to purchase the refinery shares would be a drop in the bucket.

Why bother when you can race in the Grp3 Winter Cup for $100,000 and the average rating is 78! Paying $1,500 in stakes for running 10th!!!! But it's all good! @JJ Flash reckons Mackenzie, Saundry and Co are doing great!

There is a huge flaw in this argument which in my mind borders on being an outright conspiracy theory. The flaw is that supposedly modern testing technology cannot detect artificial anomalies in blood or urine testing. Navarro's crimes are related to being a party to the adultering and mislabeling of approved medications i.e. what they say they were giving their horses in their records wasn't actually what they were giving them. That's fraud but it isn't proof of the use of performance enhancing drugs during racing (none detected) nor evidence of a mysterious new undetectable substance. What it may point to is that therapeutic drugs like Clenbuterol have been used without record to enable more intensive training. The interesting therapeutic substance referred to repeatedly is SGF-1000. Now this substance which is a combination of amines/cells derived from ovine placenta can't be anything but purely therapeutic. The theory is that those extracts when injected into those joints and muscles that suffer the most wear and tear in training assist with their repair i.e. they aid the recovery from the adverse effects of training. Of course there is an ethical question around their use if indeed they do do what they are claimed to do. Interestingly I was doing business deals in China about 15 years ago selling sheep placenta and extracts to them. They had for a long time been developing injectables from placenta for humans wanting to defer ageing processes or related wear and tear. Interesting how we all tend to turn a blind eye to the major stables attrition rates both here and in OZ. How many horses go into the Murray Baker or Gai Waterhouse or the Chris Waller stables each year and make it to the races?

That's a crime against grass roots racing. Perfectly good RACE track to be mothballed so an artificial surface that no one really wants to race on let alone wager on can be built floating on a swamp. Brilliant strategy!

So by @JJ Flash's standard of comprehension you and I are at the same level!

Trainer Jorge Navarro Anne M. Eberhardt Navarro Pleads Guilty in Horse Doping Scheme By Bob Kieckhefer Today, 11:18 AM Sponsored By Trainer Jorge Navarro Aug. 11 changed a plea from not guilty to guilty on charges involving the use of performance-enhancing drugs in racehorses and faces up to five years in prison and substantial penalties. As part of a plea agreement on a felony count, the federal government agreed to drop other charges at the time of sentencing. Other defendants among roughly two dozen other individuals charged by prosecutors in the long-running racehorse doping scheme either have pled guilty or have indicated plans to do so. Navarro and trainer Jason Servis are among the most prominent of the defendants in the case. Servis has not altered his initial plea of not guilty. Servis and Navarro were overheard on federal wiretaps discussing the drugs conspiracy, according to the indictment. The scheme, conducted over several years, included distribution and administration of mislabeled substances not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. "Count 1 of the indictment charges the defendant with participation in a conspiracy to commit drug adulteration and misbranding of drugs in violation of (federal law)," U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil said Wednesday. "In particular, the government alleges that Mr. Navarro administered and directed others, including others working at his direction, to administer non-FDA-approved, misbranded, and adulterated drugs, including drugs intended to increase the performance of Thoroughbred racehorses under his custody and care. "The government alleged that, in doing so, Mr. Navarro took action to avoid detection of his actions, including by using drugs that he believed would be undetectable by racing officials and by working with others to hide that conspiracy." She led Navarro and his attorney through the details of the charges, asking Navarro if, in fact, he was guilty. Throughout the litany, Navarro repeatedly replied, "Yes, your honor." After more than an hour of legal detail-shuffling, Vyskocil accepted the plea and said sentencing guidelines call for a prison term of up to five years with a requirement that at least 85% of the eventual sentence be served, followed by up to three years of probation. Navarro also admitted a "loss to victims" resulting from his action of more than $25 million in purse money and agreed to make restitution. Navarro's defense agreed to provide a restitution schedule toward affected parties at the time of sentencing, but there was no discussion of the likelihood of actual recovery. In speaking with Vyskocil, Navarro acknowledged he was guilty of illegal actions. "Mr. Navarro, you have agreed that from in or about 2016 through on or about March 9, 2020, you administered and directed others, including veterinarians working at your direction, to administer non-FDA-approved, misbranded, and adulterated drugs, including drugs intended to increase the performance of Thoroughbred racehorses under your direction and care. Is that accurate and true?" Vyskocil asked. "Yes, your honor," he replied. Navarro also confirmed that drugs he used on his horses included blood-building substances, vasodilators, "bleeder" pills, and other substances. "All right, Mr. Navarro," Vyskocil continued. "You've also agreed that among the horses to which you administered such drugs were the horses X Y Jet , War Story , Shancelot , Sharp Azteca , and Nanoosh . Is that, in fact, true and accurate, Mr. Navarro?" Navarro: "Yes, your honor." Later, following another question, Navarro confirmed that he and one of the owners of Nanoosh, who was left unidentified, agreed to continue administering such drugs to that horse in order to improve Nanoosh's racing performance. Nanoosh made the final three starts of his racing career for Navarro in 2019 for owners Rockingham Ranch, Zayat Stables, and David Bernsen. Twice the horse was unplaced, and once he ran third. Navarro admitted at the hearing that the scheme included administration of various adulterated and misbranded performance-enhancing drugs to the sprinter X Y Jet, including a substance he referred to as "monkey," to "enhance his performance" in a Feb. 13, 2019, race at Gulfstream Park and in the Dubai Golden Shaheen Sponsored by Gulf News (G1) in March 2019 at Meydan. The indictment charged the trainer personally administered the drugs while in Dubai. X Y Jet was campaigned by Gelfenstein Farm throughout his 26-race career and Rockingham Ranch took part ownership of the horse in 2016. Bernsen assumed a 10% interest of X Y Jet in early December 2019 as part of a partial restructuring and dispersal of horses he owned in partnership with Rockingham Ranch. Navarro reported in January 2020 that X Y Jet had died of a heart attack. Photo: Coglianese Photos/Lauren King X Y Jet after his 2018 Smile Sprint Stakes win at Gulfstream Park Navarro also implicated Servis by responding affirmatively when Vyskocil asked him if he had "provided and imported misbranded bronchodilator drugs" to Servis, among others. Navarro is a citizen of Panama and the judge said his plea "may have adverse effects on your immigration status, including deportation," after he serves his time. Navarro's guilty plea follows one from veterinarian Kristian Rhein earlier this month in the doping scheme. MITCHELL: Rhein Enters Guilty Plea on Federal Doping Charges "Kristian Rhein and Jorge Navarro represent the supply side and the customer side of the market in performance-enhancing substances that have corrupted much of the horse racing industry," Manhattan U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said in a press release issued after the guilty plea. "As he admitted today, Navarro, a licensed trainer and the purported 'winner' of major races across the world was, in fact, a reckless fraudster whose veneer of success relied on the systematic abuse of the animals under his control. "Rhein previously admitted that he flouted his oath as a veterinarian to protect the animals under his care, choosing instead to pursue money through the sale and administration of unregulated substances used by trainers engaged in fraud and animal abuse. These latest convictions demonstrate the continued commitment of this office and our partners at the FBI to the investigation and prosecution of corruption, fraud, and endangerment at every level of the horse racing industry." According to prosecutors, Navarro operated his doping scheme covertly, importing misbranded clenbuterol that he both used and distributed to others. They noted he avoided explicit discussion of PEDs during telephone calls and worked with others to coordinate the administration of PEDs at times that racing officials would not detect such cheating. The plea from Navarro represents a stunning fall from grace of one of racing's top-level trainers. Before the indictment and subsequent bans by regulators, Navarro won seven straight training titles at Monmouth Park and led the 2018-19 Championship Meet at Gulfstream Park. The judge set a Dec. 17 sentencing date with in-person representation. Vyskocil said the decision to hold the change of plea hearing remotely, with audio and video participation, was due to concerns about the pandemic, case backlogs, and the fact that long delays "impose stress on the defendant and his family."