John McInerney

[BitofaLegend]

SUMMARY

69. Charges

a. On the Methamphetamine Charge, the Respondent is disqualified for twelve months, commencing on 20 November 2023.

b. On the Animal Welfare Charge, the Respondent is disqualified for a period of six months commencing on 20 November 2023.

70. The periods of disqualification are concurrent.

71. The Respondent is ordered to pay costs to the Informant of $6,026.54.

72. The Respondent is ordered to pay costs of the Adjudicative Committee of $2,500.

 

What an absolute joke. Multiple animal welfare problems over the past 5 yrs and multiple positive swabs and all he gets is a one year ban, a fine and allowed to put all of his dogs under his other sons name. How is this punishment? Please explain. Especially after the Schofield case where they stopped anyone else or any connections from training on their property.  

Edited November 3, 2023 by BitofaLegend

[Overit]

Wow I are disgusted in this pently absolutely wrong.  When will this industry clean itself up. 

[Yankiwi]

Consistency there isn't.

[Chief Stipe]

Oh.....so the decision has been published.  How did others know before hand?

 

[Chief Stipe]

24 minutes ago, Yankiwi said:

Consistency there isn't.

Where is the inconsistency?

[Yankiwi]

9 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Where is the inconsistency?

 

4 hours ago, BitofaLegend said:

Especially after the Schofield case where they stopped anyone else or any connections from training on their property.

 

On 1/11/2023 at 8:01 AM, Yankiwi said:

This case very closely mirrors the Schofield case.

• 2nd positive to meth.
• Both training from a remote location.
• Both committed under the supervision of the son of the trainer.

Schofield got 2 years (which I believe may have been increased after the appeal).

 

[Overit]

Be interesting to see if the RIB appeal as they did in Waretini case.  

[Chief Stipe]

The Schofield P case is different to McInerney's.  The McInerney dog returned a positive test out of completion.  The Schofield dog won a race I believe and returned a positive from the post race swab.

[Yankiwi]

12 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

The Schofield P case is different to McInerney's.  The McInerney dog returned a positive test out of completion.  The Schofield dog won a race I believe and returned a positive from the post race swab.

Yes, they are different.

Schofield wasn't charged with or proven guilty of a breach of an animal welfare charge.

McInerney was (even though the two totally separate indiscretions were 6 months apart) & the outcome when compared received a 50% discount in overall penalty for it.

McInerney's training operation headquarters was not disturbed other than changing the name registered on it, while Schofield operation was wiped off the face of the earth.

So other than paperwork, no realized penalty was imposed on McInerney & Schofield was shut down and driven out of the industry for the sole Meth offence which mirror each other.

 

[Chief Stipe]

15 minutes ago, Yankiwi said:

Yes, they are different.

Schofield wasn't charged with or proven guilty of a breach of an animal welfare charge.

McInerney was (even though the two totally separate indiscretions were 6 months apart) & the outcome when compared received a 50% discount in overall penalty for it.

McInerney's training operation headquarters was not disturbed other than changing the name registered on it, while Schofield operation was wiped off the face of the earth.

So other than paperwork, no realized penalty was imposed on McInerney & Schofield was shut down and driven out of the industry for the sole Meth offence which mirror each other.

 

But the circumstances around the P charge are quite different hence the difference in penalty and other conditions.

But Chazza you just keep on keeping on attacking the industry so apparently have a some concern for.  

[Chief Stipe]

16 minutes ago, Yankiwi said:

Schofield was shut down and driven out of the industry for the sole Meth offence which mirror each other.

They don't mirror each other at all based on the facts.  But then facts have never been your strong point.

[Yankiwi]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

But the circumstances around the P charge are quite different hence the difference in penalty and other conditions.

But Chazza you just keep on keeping on attacking the industry so apparently have a some concern for.  

So a permanently banned substance have a different meanings/penalties depending on how/when the swab was called for?

Got it.

 

[Yankiwi]

How about a McInerney/Gowan comparison?

 

Gowan - Otherwise completely clean record - out of competition test - found inside the transport vehicle - tested negative personally - disqualified for 18 months - kennel no longer trains/races dogs due to the +swab.

 

McInerney - Long history of + swabs - long history of animal welfare breaches - out of competition test - found inside the transport vehicle - son tested positive personally - disqualified for 12 months - welfare charge absorbed by the meth charge - kennel hasn't missed a beat since the dog with cancer raced- kennel still operating business as usual under a different registered name.

 

From Gowan's penalty decision.

 

So McInerney received the shortest sentence to serve to date for a meth charge. The welfare charge was just a formality with no actual penalty to serve.

[Chief Stipe]

8 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

So a permanently banned substance have a different meanings/penalties depending on how/when the swab was called for?

Got it.

 

About time you got it.

If a dog is presented to the races and wins and them returns a positive swab for obvious reasons it has much more gravitas than an out of competition swab positive probably due to environmental comtamination.

[Chief Stipe]

4 hours ago, Yankiwi said:

McInerney - Long history

He has had a long history in the industry fullstop.

 

[BitofaLegend]

11 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

About time you got it.

If a dog is presented to the races and wins and them returns a positive swab for obvious reasons it has much more gravitas than an out of competition swab positive probably due to environmental comtamination.

There hasnt been a case that wasnt environmental contamination though?

[Yankiwi]

Interesting.

https://racingintegrityboard.org.nz/decisions/non-raceday-inquiry-decision-as-to-media-application-dated-3-november-2023-john-mcinerney/

[Chief Stipe]

12 hours ago, BitofaLegend said:

There hasnt been a case that wasnt environmental contamination though?

There has hasn't there?

Not that we would know because they don't publish the test results in detail.

[BitofaLegend]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

There has hasn't there?

Not that we would know because they don't publish the test results in detail.

No there hasnt. Media made some speculation in the past on the Turnwald one down south at Addington but it did genuinely sound like it was a contamination from the owner.

[Chief Stipe]

12 hours ago, BitofaLegend said:

No there hasnt. Media made some speculation in the past on the Turnwald one down south at Addington but it did genuinely sound like it was a contamination from the owner.

Yes but on the Turnwald case weren't the levels detected very high?

The only way to stop environmental contamination is to continually test ALL staff and restrict access to EVERYONE.

I've said it on the BOAY Thoroughbred and Harness forums that environmental contamination is the big elephant in the room given how widespread recreational drug use is.  Especially with zero tolerances and the sophistication of drug testing.  The RIB and the respective code adminstrations really have their heads in the sand.  

Gone are the days where you could have a piss on the sawdust at the back of the stable box.

[BitofaLegend]

7 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Yes but on the Turnwald case weren't the levels detected very high?

The only way to stop environmental contamination is to continually test ALL staff and restrict access to EVERYONE.

I've said it on the BOAY Thoroughbred and Harness forums that environmental contamination is the big elephant in the room given how widespread recreational drug use is.  Especially with zero tolerances and the sophistication of drug testing.  The RIB and the respective code adminstrations really have their heads in the sand.  

Gone are the days where you could have a piss on the sawdust at the back of the stable box.

I dont recall if they were high or not but atleast in NZ greyhounds, there is no threshold so any small trace is a positive.

[Chief Stipe]

8 minutes ago, BitofaLegend said:

I dont recall if they were high or not but atleast in NZ greyhounds, there is no threshold so any small trace is a positive.

But a small trace can mean nothing.  Under that standard you could return a positive for any number of things after a night at a pub.

BTW you can't recall because the RIB doesn't publish the levels.  So rest easy your memory is still OK.

[BitofaLegend]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

But a small trace can mean nothing.  Under that standard you could return a positive for any number of things after a night at a pub.

BTW you can't recall because the RIB doesn't publish the levels.  So rest easy your memory is still OK.

I believe this case did have the levels published as shown here:

"[21] The estimated combined level of Amphetamine type substance (Methamphetamine and Amphetamine) detected in the urine sample was 1,630 ng/mL.  (Statements of Robert Howitt and Dr Adam Cawley).  The scientists stated that the estimated concentrations should be considered as qualitative and should not be interpreted for quantitative purposes. In comparison, the positive drug test cut off concentration applied in human urine drug testing under the international standard AS/NZS4308:2008 is 300 ng/mL (150 ng/mL Amphetamine and 150ng/mL Methamphetamine)."

https://racingintegrityboard.org.nz/decisions/appeal-reserved-decision-dated-9-july-2021-angela-turnwald/

[Chief Stipe]

13 minutes ago, BitofaLegend said:

I believe this case did have the levels published as shown here:

"[21] The estimated combined level of Amphetamine type substance (Methamphetamine and Amphetamine) detected in the urine sample was 1,630 ng/mL.  (Statements of Robert Howitt and Dr Adam Cawley).  The scientists stated that the estimated concentrations should be considered as qualitative and should not be interpreted for quantitative purposes. In comparison, the positive drug test cut off concentration applied in human urine drug testing under the international standard AS/NZS4308:2008 is 300 ng/mL (150 ng/mL Amphetamine and 150ng/mL Methamphetamine)."

https://racingintegrityboard.org.nz/decisions/appeal-reserved-decision-dated-9-july-2021-angela-turnwald/

What was McInerney's level?

[BitofaLegend]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

What was McInerney's level?

They usually dont publish them. They published the Turnwald one for some reason