Chief Stipe

Less than 2?

Are you saying more than two?

You feeling the pressure Pitty? What was it 17 runners and one winner? Why don't you just come out and say Te Akau? But don't forget the Matamata crowd supported keeping the Guineas south. Let's see..... Ashburton - 1 win Riccarton - 2 wins Ruakaka - 2 wins Cambridge - 3 wins Matamata - 1 win Hunterville - 1 win Looks like a fair distribution of the spoils to me but the real money is not up for grabs yet.

It was as bad as Randwick in terms of kick back. It went off real quick.

Well Aquaman you got the money. I think the track held up really well considering the rain - a true Soft 7 IMHO.

Three European bred Stallions in the first three! Four European breds in the first four! Ouch.... When you look at Sir Dragonet's last second to Magical in the Tat's Gold Cup....well....Amory 3rd! All looks ominous for a downunder win in the Melbourne Cup!

Russian Camelot, Buckhurst and Mugatoo. Can't leave Probabeel out..... Pretty even field really. Changed my mind again. Kolding.

Times today are all significantly faster than the same meeting two years ago run on a D4.

I realise the link works but just couldn't find it navigating through the website. As for code of conduct you are probably right.

Pass - for all I know the REAL Stipes haven't even asked the question. So whether the jockey's agree or not could be a moot point. However both Te Rapa and Riccarton started at a D4 for the day - similar weather conditions. Te Rapa has been upgraded. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to assume that Riccarton has improved during the day as well. From a time perspective it is hard to work out. The G3 was just won by a maiden in 1:36 so comparing times with Te Rapa where there is a higher class of horse racing is not a good indicator. The maiden's won the first in 1:23 which would suggest that it was better than D4 plus it has been a warm day since. In any event it isn't a criticism just an observation.

Couldn't find that....is it in an area for license holders?

Woops sorry TAB you ARE offering Fixed Odds at Penn. Is this where the trainee bookies practice?

Bit of a dilemma really - Race 9 at Penn is timed to start at the same time as Race 3 from Moonee Valley.

Can anyone explain why the TAB broadcasts gallops from Penn National on a premier day of racing? I realise it is only on Trackside 2 but 5 mins to go and there is $55 in the Win pool and $18 in the Place pool! $20 in the Quinella and only $3 in the Trifecta pool! I'm surprised they're not offering Fixed Odds betting!

I'd say the track is an improvement on 3 October but I'd say it is more a G3 than a D4.

Doesn't look 16m. Mind you it's hard to tell the distance between the inside rail and the outside rail at Riccarton today.

R2 1200m 1:08.88. Tracks improving!

Well don't listen to Track Manager's! Eternal optimists! Now a Soft 7.

Tick over 1:23 for the 1400m Race 1. Seems to be better than 3 October. Could they have the rail out any further?

Um one fact you got wrong in that outburst was it's about $9m not $20m in Pokie funding. I won't comment on your opinions.

Further the "Integrity Panel" used to be the "Integrity Committee" didn't it? Certainly can't find anything on the NZTR Loveracing website about the "Integrity Panel." A quick scan of the Rules of Racing, NZTR Policy's and Directives and I can't work out how they actually suspended Chris indefinitely for the reason they did. Let alone find any appeal process. I imagine a legal eagle would have had a field day engaging with the "NZTR Integrity Panel"!!! Ironically the most comprehensive policy relating to licensee's is the one concerning abuse of officials and gagging of comments on social media!

Well who is on the NZTR "Integrity Panel"? Who breath tested CWJ in the first place, fined and suspended him? Are you saying the RIU have had NO ongoing involvement?

Uh? A really robust process - NOT! Under cross-examination, Mr Goodwin explained that the process he used was a standard procedure that was based on him taking charge of the swabs until they were dispatched, and that he had always taken them to the Airport personally. Whilst he did not believe there was a process or any regulations or rules around the process of specifically storing the samples whilst in his custody, he had been an RIU official since 1989 and believed that the process he had used over many years was satisfactory.

NON RACEDAY INQUIRY RIU V P MCKENZIE - PENALTY AND COSTS DECISION DATED 12 OCTOBER 2020 - CHAIR, MR T UTIKERE Created on 12 October 2020 BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003 IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Rules of Racing BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU) Informant AND MR P McKENZIE Respondent Judicial Committee: Mr T Utikere (Chairman) Mrs N Moffatt (Member) Informations: A7190/A7191 PENALTY AND COSTS DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DATED 12 OCTOBER 2020 SUBMISSIONS [1] In the Committee’s Reserved Written Decision of 16 September 2020, the Respondent was found guilty of two breaches of Rule 804(2) of the New Zealand Rules of Thoroughbred Racing. Submissions on Penalty and Costs were sought from both parties, which the Committee has now received. [2] The RIU has made Penalty Submissions (from Para 6 onwards) in a Memorandum dated 24 August 2020. They rely on four previous cases (Scott v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (No 2) [2018], RIU v O'Sullivan and Scott [2016], RIU v A Bambry [2017] and RIU v D Caskey [2018]) relating to Cobalt use, and while they have identified the nuances of each case in their submissions, we consider it appropriate to briefly cover the circumstances of each below. [3] Ms Scott (Scott v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (No 2) [2018]) was a Harness trainer in Queensland who presented a horse for a race with Cobalt at a level that was in breach of the relevant Australian rule. She was responsible for the decision relating to her horse’s feeding regime, and the horse was given an intravenous dose of a substance that contained Cobalt two days prior to racing. In that decision, the Tribunal noted that irrespective of scientific proof regarding the enhancement of the animal’s performance, the judicial body was entitled to take into account general deterrence considerations. [4] Messrs O’Sullivan and Scott (RIU v O'Sullivan and Scott [2016]) were a training partnership which presented horses to race with Cobalt at levels ranging from 309 to 640 ug/L on three occasions over a five week period. Whilst there was a possibility that the Cobalt could have been a result of shared trough arrangements, this was a highly negligent approach on their part as they should have been aware of such a risk. The starting point adopted was $23,000 on each charge and after considering mitigation considerations and levels of culpability, the partnership was ordered to pay a total fine of $50,000. [5] Mr Bambry (RIU v A Bambry [2017]) accepted a breach where he presented a horse to race with a Cobalt level of 173 ug/L. Mr Bambry demonstrated poor judgement in giving the horse additional sachets of a supplement he knew to contain Cobalt. He was also negligent in leaving food that he knew contained such a supplement in the horse’s feed bowl on raceday. After adopting a starting point of $15,000, the Committee applied mitigation with an end result of an $11,000 fine being imposed after taking into account his early admission and clear record. It is also worth noting, as the Respondent has in his submissions during the Hearing, that this Committee is directly familiar with the circumstances of the Bambry case. [6] Mr Caskey’s (RIU v D Caskey [2018]) breach was considered above mid-range, where he presented a horse to race with a Cobalt level of 375ug/L. This was a result of giving the horse a tonic that he knew contained Cobalt on a raceday morning. Relevant to the Committee’s assessment was that he had been involved in the industry over some time and that as a result he should have been more aware of his responsibility to understand what he was giving his horse. A $10,000 starting point was considered appropriate and after considering his admission, co-operation and record, an $8,000 fine followed. [7] When considering the applicability of those cases to that of Mr McKenzie’s, the RIU submit that Scott (Scott v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (No 2) [2018]) confirms that there is a moral blameworthiness on Mr McKenzie’s part. This is because he was solely responsible for the administration of Hemoplex less than one clear day prior to racing. [8] The RIU submit that Mr McKenzie had presented HAPPY STAR on two separate occasions, with higher than permissible levels of Cobalt; and as such his breaches are more serious than the single breaches of Caskey and Bambry, but less than the O’Sullivan and Scott breaches which involved races over a five week period. They also note that the McKenzie Cobalt levels were at a similar level to that of O’Sullivan and Scott. [9] The Informant cites that Mr McKenzie’s continued assertions that these charges are not worth pursuing because of the questionable performance-enhancing nature of Cobalt demonstrate a total lack of remorse and indicate a need for specific deterrence. They also note that whilst the Respondent has no previous sanctions for prohibited substance offending, there was a previous misconduct breach in 2013. [10] The RIU seek a starting point, and end fine, in the range of $12,000 to $15,000. They refer to the JCA Penalty Guidelines which identify a starting point of $8,000 for a first presentation offence, and a fine of up to $10,000 together with a two-year disqualification for a second offence. [11] In relation to the question of costs, the RIU submitted that it had incurred legal, miscellaneous and other costs which totalled $24,870.89. They submitted that costs should be awarded and that the Committee may properly consider that Mr McKenzie ought to pay an increased proportion of the usual costs award that may follow. [12] The reason they provide is that the charges were not seriously able to have been defended and that the RIU and JCA were required to expend significant time and resources on material that was irrelevant to the proceedings. The RIU also anticipates that the Respondent would be ordered to make a contribution towards the costs incurred by the JCA. The RIU’s position was that HAPPY STAR should also be disqualified from the relevant races with effect from the date of the Committee’s decision. [13] Mr McKenzie’s Penalty Submissions seek to relitigate the Written Decision issued by this Committee on 16 September. We obviously will not entertain that as there is a separate process available for either party to pursue in such a situation. Mr McKenzie’s relevant submission relates to the Costs sought by the RIU. He was critical of the lack of detail provided and sought a detailed breakdown of the invoices cited by Ms Smith. [14] In response, the Committee directed (Minute No. 15 of Judicial Committee Dated 28 September 2020) Ms Smith to provide, for the Committee’s consideration only, more detailed invoices to support the RIU’s position on costs. She has complied with that direction. REASONS FOR PENALTY [15] When approaching the issue of penalty, we are cognisant of the previous cases that have been cited. None bear a direct parallel to the current offending, which whilst concerning one horse, occurred on two separate occasions. [16] Mr McKenzie continues to protest the performance enhancing nature of Cobalt when given the opportunity to make submissions on penalty. Continuing to advocate for that position at this stage of approaching the question of penalty is largely a moot point. He has been found guilty of two separate charges after he injected HAPPY STAR on two separate occasions with Cobalt-containing Hemoplex which resulted from the same feeding regime. [17] Whilst it appears to have been the same activity or action taken over a seven day period, the consequences were nonetheless different; different sets of connections were disadvantaged from the horse racing with Cobalt in its system at Trentham, then at Awapuni. [18] We are satisfied that the appropriate penalty is that of a fine. In our view, there are no mitigating factors that justify any significant discount; but we have considered that the Respondent has been a licence holder over many years. We have taken into account the need for general and specific deterrence considerations and whilst these are two separate breaches, when we consider the totality principle and the impact of two separate penalties, we consider it appropriate to impose a $6,000 fine on each charge. This total fine of $12,000 also balances the cumulative effect of the breaches. In fixing penalty, we bear in mind the impact that such a sanction will have upon the Respondent. However, we also bear in mind that such a sanction arises out of Mr McKenzie’s own actions. PENALTY [19] Mr McKenzie is fined $6,000 on each charge. Each fine to be cumulative, resulting in a total fine of $12,000. REASONS FOR COSTS [20] In determining the appropriateness of making any costs award, the Committee must be satisfied, on the information placed before it, that the costs incurred by a party are reasonable in the circumstances. [21] The Committee has received and reviewed the detailed invoices. These clearly indicate that the actual cost incurred by the RIU in these proceedings is just shy of $35,000. Our review of the details provided indicates that those are entirely reasonable charges in this circumstance. This indicates that the $24,870.89 costs originally identified by the RIU in their Memorandum of 24 August 2020, is significantly less than what was actually incurred. [22] The Committee notes that the normal approach to costs would be to order a 60% costs award; but we have determined that an award closer to 50% is more appropriate. Whilst a higher threshold would be justified on this occasion, we are also aware of the cumulative financial effect of the two charges on the Respondent. [23] Accordingly, we fix the costs award in favour of the RIU at $12,500, bearing in mind this is an amelioration of the standard approach of setting the costs award at that of 60%. [24] Significant costs have also been borne by the JCA. Those costs total in excess of $20,000. Adopting a similar approach to that outlined in the preceding paragraph, the Respondent will be ordered to pay costs in favour of the JCA; that figure is set at $10,000. In our assessment, this is totally justified given the 15 months of prolonged engagements at the request of Mr McKenzie himself. [25] While the end financial result is a substantial cost to Mr McKenzie, we are aware that these costs are not indemnity figures and have also moderated the end quantum to reflect this. COSTS [26] Mr McKenzie will pay $12,500 costs in favour of the RIU and $10,000 costs in favour of the JCA. DISQUALIFICATION ORDER(S) [27] HAPPY STAR is disqualified from Race 6 of the Wellington Racing Club’s Meeting on 8 June 2019 and from Race 7 of the Manawatu Racing Club’s Meeting on 15 June 2019. Both disqualification orders are to have effect from the date of the Committee’s Written Decision; that is 16 September 2020. [28] Stake monies are to be repaid and redistributed in accordance with the amended placings that will now follow as a result of the disqualifications ordered in para [27] above. Signed at Palmerston North this 12th day of October 2020. Mr Tangi Utikere Chairman

Go figure! It isn't even on the RIU website not that it is very easy to find any damn thing on that site! What's more why hasn't the NZTR Jockey status been updated to say Chris Johnson is available to ride at Ashvegas on Thursday!!!!?