Journalists Wandering Eyes Posted April 14 Journalists Posted April 14 It has been confirmed that the Penalty Decision for the following proven charge is due to be released. The decision date proving the charge was dated 30 January 2026 and the penalty has taken 10 weeks to be derived. The act itself was committed 24 July 2025 some 6 months earlier. Information Number: A17990 Decision Type: Non-race Related Charge Charge: Failed to perform an act ordered by an Investigator in that he failed to provide for a drug test Rule(s): 801(1)(k) - Misconduct The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the charge is proven and that Mr Cole acted unreasonably, deliberately and intentionally, not by accident or inadvertence, in failing to comply with the directive to undergo drug testing on 24 July 2025 at Matamata. This matter now needs to progress to a hearing as to penalty. The RIB is to file written submissions within 14 days of the date of this Decision and the Respondent is to file a response within 14 days thereafter. The Adjudicative Committee intends to deal with the penalty issue on the papers unless either Counsel raises an objection. Full decision:https://bitofayarn.com https://racingintegrityboard.org.nz/decisions/non-raceday-inquiry-written-reserved-decision-dated-30-january-2026-cody-cole Has Cody Cole been treated differently than any other offender? The fact is he hasn't contrary to protestations of the uninformed. Was due process followed?https://bitofayarn.com Yes. Although it has taken quite some time to reach a penalty there is no question that due process was followed and no favouritism was given. Why did it take so long to arrive at the penalty? Mr Cole denied the charge therefore precipitating a full hearing. Mr Cole obtained the services of Mr James Cairney from Bankside Chambers a specialist Criminal Litigator of some repute. The RIB hearing ajudicator was JH Lovell-Smith an ex-District Court Judge. The initial delays were no doubt caused by the usual process and procedural delays initiated by submission from Counsel for Mr Cole. This isn't untoward as it happens every day in all court jurisdictions. Mr Cole's charge was found to be proven on 30 January 2026 and the matter then needed to progress to a hearing as to penalty. The RIB was to file written submissions within 14 days of the date of this Decision and the Respondent is to file a response within 14 days thereafter. The Adjudicative Committee intended to deal with the penalty issue on the papers unless either Counsel raised an objection. https://bitofayarn.com Again this process took longer than expected which would have been concluded mid-March 2026 if not for further delays no doubt caused by Counsel and Adjudicator availability AND the usual passing of papers between the respondent (Cole), the applicant (RIB) and the Adjudicator. Such delays are common in legal matters where the respondent engages a litigator. https://bitofayarn.com Of course Mr Cole may have benefited from process delays which allowed him to sort out arrangements for his stable (livelihood) to be transferred to an existing or new employee. But that is one of the advantages of engaging a lawyer. The penalty: Based on RIB precendents where similar cases (Balle, Meredith, McCaffrey and Kennett) which resulted in penalties of 4.5 to 10 months, depending on circumstances, Cole's penalty is likely to be in the range of 6 to 10 months plus costs. Mitigating factors are the negative test returned one week after failing to present. Quote
Chief Stipe Posted April 14 Posted April 14 14 minutes ago, Murray Fish said: sigh.. Do you know anyone who legged up a Jockey under the influence? Quote
curious Posted April 14 Posted April 14 4 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: Do you know anyone who legged up a Jockey under the influence? Sure do. A while back though. He fell off the other side initially but they hoisted him back on and he won anyway! Quote
Chief Stipe Posted April 14 Posted April 14 16 minutes ago, curious said: Sure do. A while back though. He fell off the other side initially but they hoisted him back on and he won anyway! Has he got a bad ankle? 1 Quote
Murray Fish Posted April 14 Posted April 14 3 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: Do you know anyone who legged up a Jockey under the influence? I could start a list, say G1 races that I 'know' of that sort of thing! Of course, as worse, serious over wasting... Quote
curious Posted April 14 Posted April 14 10 hours ago, Wandering Eyes said: Mitigating factors are the negative test returned one week after failing to present. What the hell does that mitigate? Quote
Chief Stipe Posted April 14 Posted April 14 8 hours ago, curious said: What the hell does that mitigate? I guess it depends on what type of test was taken. A hair test would show nearly all drugs taken in the last 3 months. If it was a Urine test and the person was a heavy user then some drugs would be detected still. Of course alcohol wouldn't show. If this case was in a District Court the guilty party would be treated as if they had returned a positive. First offence 6 months loss of license and a $600 fine. No doubt the RIB will set a precedent and we will see the usual provocative exaggerated headline on Stuff. I do think some of the online abuse has been way over the top and off the mark. Quote
curious Posted April 15 Posted April 15 Seems fair to me. https://racingintegrityboard.org.nz/decisions/non-raceday-inquiry-written-penalty-decision-dated-15-april-2026-cody-cole Quote
Murray Fish Posted April 15 Posted April 15 30 minutes ago, curious said: Seems fair to me. wow.. so, if it was factual that a horse was seriously playing up... boarding on Tragic! Quote
Chief Stipe Posted April 15 Posted April 15 Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Penalty Decision dated 15 April 2026 – Cody Cole ID: RIB63980 Respondent(s): Cody William Cole - Trainer Applicant: Mr R Carr - RIB Investigator Adjudicators: JH Lovell-Smith (Chair), LJ Ryan Persons Present: Mr R Carr - RIB Investigator, Mr D Dow - Counsel for the Informant, Mr C Cole - Respondent, Mr J Cairney - Counsel for the Respondent, Mrs Cole - Respondent's mother Information Number: A17990 Decision Type: Non-race Related Charge Charge: Failed to perform an act ordered by an Investigator in that he failed to provide for a drug test Rule(s): 801(1)(k) - Misconduct Plea: Not Admitted Code: Thoroughbred Hearing Date: 13/04/2026 Hearing Location: Ellerslie Racecourse Outcome: Proved Penalty: Trainer Cody Cole is disqualified for 12 months 1. The Adjudicative Committee after a defended hearing on 17 December 2025, found proved one charge against Mr Cole for failing to provide a urine sample when required to do so by a Racing Investigator in breach of Rule 801(1)(k) of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Rules of Racing (Rules). The Decision of the Adjudicative Committee was delivered to the parties on 30 January 2026. 2. The maximum penalty is: (1.1) Disqualification for a specific period of time or for life; (1.2) Suspension for up to 12 months and/or (1.3) A fine not exceeding $50,000. 3. The relevant evidence and proven facts are set out in detail in the Adjudicative Committee’s decision of 30 January 2026. The RIB’s Submissions Counsel, Mr Dow, set out the facts in brief: • Mr Cole, a holder of a Class A Trainer’s Licence, was performing a safety sensitive activity at Matamata Racecourse on 24 July 2025. • Racing Investigator Richard Carr (Mr Carr) served a Drug Testing Notification form on Mr Cole at 7.39am that morning and explained to Mr Cole that he was required to present to the testing van for testing between 7.30am and 10.30am. • At approximately 8.25am, Mr Cole informed Mr Carr that he was leaving the Matamata Racecourse to drop some horses back at his training premises in Tirau. Mr Carr permitted Mr Cole to leave for this purpose, but advised him that failing to return to provide a sample would likely result in a charge under the Rules. Mr Cole acknowledged this. • At 10.19am, Mr Carr received a text message from Mr Cole containing a video file of Mr Cole holding the lead rope of a horse. In the video, Mr Cole stated that the time was 9.45am, he was dealing with a horse that had gone into a fence and would talk to Mr Carr later to sort out the drug test. • Mr Carr called Mr Cole at 10.30am and 10.32am, but Mr Cole did not answer. Mr Carr sent a text message to Mr Cole at 12.04pm, but Mr Cole did not respond. Mr Carr did not hear from Mr Cole again that day, or in the days that followed. • Mr Cole did not engage with Mr Carr at all until 31 July 2025, a week later when Mr Carr made contact with Mr Cole by telephone. Following that conversation, Mr Carr served a directive on Mr Cole preventing him from entering onto a racecourse until he had provided a negative urine sample. Mr Cole attended at the premises of the Drug Detection Agency on 1 August 2025 (8 days later) and provided a sample, which was negative. 4. Mr Cole defended the charges on the basis that he had a reasonable excuse for not providing a sample as he was dealing with an injured horse. The Committee rejected this defence, finding Mr Cole did not have a reasonable excuse. In terms of penalty, the Informant submits: • A starting point of 12 months disqualification; • A discount for prior good character might be available, although the need for general deterrence must temper any discount; • An order for 60 per cent of the Informant’s costs should be made. Mr Dow referred to the relevant purposes and considerations for breaches of the Rules stated in the Appeals Tribunal’s Decision of RIU v L (13 May 2019) at [25] and [28]. “Proceedings under the Rules of Harness Racing, as is the position of all cases involving professional disciplines are designed not simply to punish the transgressor, but crucially are confined to in cases involving a serious misconduct is for the regulatory tribunal generally to focus on the interest and reputation of the profession as being more important than the fortunes of the individual offending member. The Tribunal must endeavour to reach a proportional balance between: • The public interest • The interests of the offending member • The interests of the professional body as a whole • The seriousness of the offending • Any aggravating and mitigating factors” 5. The relevant purposes relating to drug testing were stated as follows in RIU v Taylor (8 January 2021), in which the Committee adopted the following extract from RIU v Waddell (2025): “The drug testing regime in Racing is an important protection that has been in place for industry participants since 1995. The testing regime is to ensure the safety and welfare of all Licence Holders and horses. A refusal under the Rules to submit to a drug test is a serious breach of the Rules. When a Licenced Holder refuses to provide a sample, the RIB is denied the ability to find out why what, if any prohibited substance is in the Licence Holder’s system. A refusal means the drug test has not been completed and leaves it open as to what the test may have revealed in respect of any illicit drugs. A fair presumption to make for the purposes of determining penalty is to presume that there would have been a positive test for a Class A Controlled Drug. This presumption is important for the purposes of general deterrence and maintaining the integrity of the industry. The consequences of failing to provide a sample must be at least as serious as providing a sample that is positive to a Class A Drug, otherwise those required to test who believe they may test positive for a Class A Drug are incentivised to refuse to provide a sample, thereby avoiding the consequences of providing a positive sample.” 6. In the present case, it is therefore necessary and appropriate for the Committee to consider the penalty that would have been imposed if Mr Cole had returned a positive test for a Class A Drug such as Methamphetamine or Cocaine. A similar presumption applies in relation to drink driving under the Criminal Law in New Zealand. Section 60 of the Land Transport Act (LTA) establishes an offence of failing or refusing to permit a blood sample to be taken when required. The maximum penalty for an offence against S60 of the Land Transport Act is the same as the maximum penalty under S56 for contravention of the breach or blood limit indicating Parliament’s view that failing or refusing to provide a sample is at least as serious as returning a positive test. 7. The Thoroughbred Racing Penalty Guide does not provide any guidance on penalty for a charge of failing to provide a sample. The Harness Racing Penalty Guide suggests a starting point of six months suspension, but has provided limited assistance in the present case, due to the divergence in penalties for this type of breach between the Thoroughbred and Harness codes as discussed in the cases involving refusing to provide a sample. 8. The Committee was referred to the following cases which provide support for a starting point of 12 months disqualification in Mr Cole’s case. Racing Integrity Board v Adrian Bosson Thompson (1 November 2022), Racing Integrity Board v Nicole Thompson (1 November 2022). 9. In Racing Industry Board v Brendon Harrison (3 October 2022), the Committee did not identify a starting point, but imposed a penalty of 7-month disqualification taking into account Mr Harrison’s co-operation, frankness about his Cannabis use and the support from others he was receiving. Given these unquantified discounts, Harrison supports a starting point at the higher end of this range of 12 months disqualification for Mr Cole. 10. The case of the Racing Integrity Unit v Aaron Taylor (8 January 2021) is particularly relevant, as it is the only case identified by the Informant involving a holder of a Trainer’s Licence (as opposed to a Rider’s Licence) who has failed or refused to provide a sample. Mr Taylor, the holder of a Class B Trainers Licence, admitted the charge of failing to provide a urine sample when required to do so by a Racing Investigator under Rule 801(1)(k) of the Rules. The RIU had been conducting routine drug testing at Riccarton Racecourse and served Mr Taylor with a Drug Testing Notification Form as he was carrying out a Safety Sensitive Activity in his capacity as a Class B Trainer. Mr Taylor became agitated when served with the notice and refused to provide a sample due to his belief he was being victimised. Mr Taylor was given an opportunity to speak to his Lawyer, which he did, he refused to provide a sample. Mr Taylor explained to the Committee that there was relevant context to his refusal to provide a sample when he had been tested in 2018 with an initial result of “non negative” subsequent test results confirmed the test was negative. However, Mr Taylor explained that the testing nurse had initially announced that the test was “positive” within earshot of several other members of the Canterbury Racing community, causing word to travel around the country that he had tested positive to a drug test. Mr Taylor said this resulted in severe reputational impacts, including his friends refusing to associate with him and his relationship breaking down. Mr Taylor explained that this distress he endured, was the reason for his refusal on this occasion. A starting point was not identified by the Committee, who imposed a penalty of 12-months disqualification. The Committee noted that the penalty took into account Mr Taylor’s good record in the racing industry and his admission of the breach, indicating the starting point would have been higher than the 12 months. The Committee did not treat as mitigating, Mr Taylor’s subsequent clear test, as it was taken outside the window of detectability of Class A and Class B Drugs, which the Committee noticed is generally reconfirmed as being between 3 and 6 days. 11. It was submitted by the Informant that the same reasons applied to Mr Cole’s negative test taken 8 days later and the case provided support for a starting point of 12 months. Had Mr Cole tested positive for a Class A substance, he would have received a starting point of 12 months disqualification. The penalty for failing or refusing to produce a sample would not be less than that, as to do so, would create a perverse incentive for Licence Holders who expect to provide a positive sample, to simply refuse to do so. 12. A starting point of 12-months disqualification has been adopted in Methamphetamine cases RIB v McDonald & Scott (10 October 2021), RIB v Champion (13 August 2024) and RIB v Moki (16 February 2023). 13. A starting point of 12 months disqualification has also been adopted for Licence Holders who have tested positive for Cocaine including RIB v Mudhoo (22 January 2026) and RIB v Cameron (14 March 2024). These penalties were reduced for mitigating factors. In Mudhoo, 8 months disqualification was imposed as he admitted the charge, his remorse and youth (21 years) and rehabilitation prospects. 14. In Counsel’s submission, these cases all illustrate that Mr Cole would have received a 12-month starting point if he had tested positive for a Class A substance. 15. The Committee agrees that the penalty for failing or refusing to provide a sample, should not be less than that for the reasons explained. 16. Counsel for Mr Cole, Mr Cairney, submits that this case is far from the most serious of cases and that it was a unique case “when the full facts are taken into account” and that “as always context is key”: • Mr Cole accepted large tracts of evidence, responsibly agreed a detailed factual narrative, and accepted key aspects of the allegation. • Mr Cole accepted an RIB Investigator ordered him to present to a van by 10.30am and provide a sample, and accepted that he did not do so. • Mr Cole ensured the issue was narrow. It came down to reasonable excuse and wilfulness, in the context of unchallenged evidence about an extremely volatile injured horse, and Mr Cole’s concern for his workers. While the Adjudicative Committee did not agree with Mr Cole, it was not an unfair position which in Counsel’s submissions, was respectfully and reasonably advanced. • Mr Cole also apologised to the RIB Investigator for not calling him back. • With the benefit of hindsight, Mr Cole expressed his regret that he did not comply with the drug testing requirement. • The Adjudicative Committee acknowledged Mr Cole’s regret at not complying. • In evidence, Mr Cole also apologised for not giving the testing regime more priority. Balancing priorities was in my submission at the very heart of the issue in this case. • Counsel for the RIB submitted that the Committee might find that Mr Cole’s claim of reasonable excuse was mitigatory, being the issues with the volatile and injured horse. If not exculpatory, then those factors are mitigatory. • Further, Mr Cole has been drug tested many times and has never failed a test. • He has also never been before the Adjudicative Committee and, in over 16 years in the industry, has no prior serious racing offences. • Not only does Mr Cole come before the Committee with an unblemished record, but he comes before the Committee with an outstanding record. • The business he created, the training business, employs 17 workers. Of those 17 workers, collectively they have 13 children. In other words, the business Mr Cole created can be said to provide for 30 people. • He has 95 horses under his care. • He is patently a talented, hard-working, and successful young Trainer who has built a thriving training business that the industry ought to be proud of. 17. Counsel for Mr Cole submits that “this case is unique and no other case compares, not in terms of the factual narrative, nor in terms of the individual involved and the likely implications. It is an important hearing unlike any other case that has come before the Committee for penalty.” The consequences, if the RIB submissions are accepted “would be staggering”. 18. It is submitted that the Adjudicative Committee, despite the mitigating context of this case, is being asked by the RIB to disqualify Mr Cole, which on the terms of disqualification as urged by the RIB will end Mr Cole’s business and career, destroying all that he has created over nearly two decades. It will have significant implications for his employees, as well as his family. It is also unclear what would happen to the 95 horses under Mr Cole’s care, should he be disqualified. Disqualification will end his business, destroy his business’s ongoing revenue and result in him being forced to sell his business’s properties (which include his family home) and release his employees. That would be a crushing, disproportionate, unfair, and utterly inappropriate outcome, for an honest and hardworking young man. It is further submitted that the penalty must be determined on the specific facts, then adjusted for the specific circumstances of the person being penalised. The outcome must be just, in all of the circumstances, “a principle which is as old as time”. The disqualification sought by the Informant “would be a crushing, disproportionate, unfair and utterly inappropriate outcome, for an honest and hardworking young man.” 19. Despite what seems to be implied by RIB’s submissions, disqualification is not mandatory. The Rules state the maximum penalty includes disqualification; and/or suspension; and/or a fine. That allows for a fine only, or a suspension only, or a combination of sanctions, for this type of conduct. 20. Mr Cairney submits a penalty of suspension is a serious sanction. When combined with a fine, it is collectively a tough penalty. The fine itself, of $20,000, is a hefty sanction and a considerable deterrent – both specific and general. A combination of a fine and a suspension, along with costs, while a serious penalty in the round, is short of the destruction of Mr Cole’s business, and “thus proportionate to the found non-compliance on that morning on 24 July last year”. 21. Suspension would remove Mr Cole’s ability to train horses. But importantly, the Rules provide that “a trainer whose licence has been suspended, must continue to provide the basic needs of all horses under their care”. It thus removes him from his involvement in training – an appropriate sanction given the relevant findings (and akin to others without horses in their care) – but it does not destroy his business, nor does it have the disproportionate implications of disqualification. It also provides for the continued care of the horses and the continues employment of his workers. 22. Finally, he submits, sentencing in the criminal law is to some extent analogous. A principle of sentencing is that the court must impose the lease restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances. While not binding, the principle is relevant here. All of the circumstances are important, and the final penalty – or suite of penalties – must be proportionate to the matter before the Tribunal. Discussion 23. The Adjudicative Committee refers the relevant purposes relating to any offending as in RIB v Taylor and RIU v Waddell. In particular, the testing regime is to ensure the safety and welfare of all Licence Holders and horses and a refusal under the Rules to submit to a drug test by producing a urine sample when requested, is a serious breach of the Rules. 24. A refusal means the drug test has not been completed and it leaves it open as to what the test may have revealed in respect of any illicit drugs. Mr Cole had almost three hours in which he could provide a sample, including 45 minutes before leaving the racetrack. He chose not to do so and left the racetrack. He admitted in his evidence he could have done so. 25. Mr Cole made no efforts to complete a drug test and did not respond to Mr Carr’s calls. It is not disputed that a veterinary surgeon was needed to address what she described as superficial injuries to a young, very difficult horse in his care at the property. Mr Cole maintained that he was the only person on his property that could handle the horse. He had sent a photo to Mr Carr showing him holding a lead rope. The Committee did not accept this excuse claimed by Mr Cole as a defence to the charge. Importantly, there is no issue Mr Cole did not contact Mr Carr later that day, or the next day to ask if there was a way to remedy the situation. Mr Cole did not contact Mr Carr in the days that followed nor did he attend a drug testing facility and provide a clean drug test, within the generally accepted detection window. 26. Mr Cole took no action whatsoever, until Mr Carr contacted him a week later and issued a directive prohibiting him from entering a racecourse until Mr Cole undertook a drug test. 27. The Adjudicative Committee refers to RIU v Morgenrood (9 June 2020). The Committee in that case, when considering serious racing offences under the Rules, referred to the Decision in RIU v L, and noted that it calls for the focus to be on the interest and the reputation of the industry, rather than the personal circumstances of industry participants, such as Mr Cole. 28. The Adjudicative Committee has taken into account Mr Cole’s clear record, as he has no previous breaches of the Rules. He defended the charge, which he was entitled to do. Mr Cole claimed he had got his priorities wrong on the day and expressed his regret. The Committee does not regard Mr Cole’s expression of remorse as genuine, given his offending. 29. There have been delays in concluding these disciplinary proceedings. The delay in holding the Non Raceday Inquiry in December 2025, was due to the unavoidable Court commitments of Mr Cole’s Counsel. The subsequent delay in holding the penalty hearing, was due to the information provided to the Committee by Mr Cole’s Counsel, on the day of the hearing, concerning Mr Cole’s health issues. A hearing date had been agreed and fixed for 9 March 2026, to be held at Ellerslie Racecourse. The hearing was due to commence at 1pm. Both Counsel and the Adjudicative Committee were present. Mr Cole’s Counsel then informed the Committee that Mr Cole was unable to attend the hearing, due to very serious health issues that had arisen that morning, and he sought an adjournment, which was not opposed. The penalty hearing was therefore adjourned until 13 April 2026 for these reasons and the Adjudicative Committee requested medical evidence from Mr Cole. 30. Subsequently, Mr Cole’s Counsel informed the Adjudicative Committee that Mr Cole’s instructions were not to provide the Committee with any form of medical or psychological report, as Mr Cole “does not trust the RIB”. This refusal to provide any report in the Committee’s view, means the reasons advanced for the earlier adjournment request remain unsubstantiated and a blatant manipulation of these disciplinary proceedings in order to achieve further delay in concluding this penalty hearing. OUTCOME 31. The appropriate starting point in this case is a period of disqualification for 12 months. This was a serious breach of the Rules. The testing regime is to ensure the safety and welfare of all Licence Holders and horses. The purposes of the penalty are for the general deterrence and the integrity of the industry. 32. His Counsel submissions that Mr Cole’s circumstances are unique, “in particular the volatile injured horse” are rejected by the Adjudicative Committee. Mr Cole declined to provide a sample and the presumption is to assume there would have been a positive test for a Class A Controlled Drug, such as Methamphetamine or Cocaine. 33. The authorities referred to, all support a starting point of 12 months disqualification. In Mr Cole’s case, none of the factors submitted by his Counsel in mitigation, are accepted by the Adjudicative Committee. Whilst Mr Cole is entitled to recognition for his clear record, the imperative of deterrence and the integrity of the Racing Industry are significant factors in undertaking the balancing exercise required in this particular case. ORDERS 34. The Adjudicative Committee makes the following orders: (a) Mr Cole is disqualified for a period of 12 months, to commence at 5pm on 15 April 2026, on the conditions which have been agreed upon by the Racing Integrity Board and Mr Cole, which are set out in a separate Memorandum between the parties dated 14 April 2026, a copy of which is attached to this Decision and forms part of the order for disqualification. (b) Mr Cole is ordered to pay 70% of the costs incurred by the Racing Integrity Board in respect of these proceedings, that amount being $13,843. (c) The Adjudicative Committee costs will be fixed by the Adjudicative Committee. APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTIONS 35. In the event of a disqualification, Mr Cole seeks an exemption from the application of Rules 1104(1)(f) and (j). Specifically, he wishes to engage in “early education of young horses” or “pre-training”, and additionally he seeks the ability to earn an income through his business, Arion Equine Ltd. The reasons advanced by Mr Cole, in support of his application for exemptions, are essentially those advanced to this Committee, as grounds for not imposing a disqualification. He says disqualification would significantly harm his business and likely lead to unemployment for his staff. The result, it is submitted, would be manifestly unfair, and would be an excessive punishment, which will destroy his business entirely. 36. The effect of a disqualification on Mr Cole is spelt out in Rule 1104(1) of the NZTR Rules, which is set out below. The grant of a Licence to train, as is the case in many professions and other endeavours that apply Rules and regulations to their members, is a privilege not an entitlement. 1104(1) A person who is disqualified in accordance with this Part XI, or whose name appears in the list of disqualifications of Another Racing Authority shall not during the period of that disqualification: (a) enter or run any horse for any Race, either in his own name or in that of any other person and subject to Rule 525(7), every entry theretofore made by him or of a horse in which he has any interest for a Race to be run shall be void as from the date of disqualification; (b) train any horse or ride any horse in a Race or be employed in any capacity in connection with the training or racing of horses; and/or (c) enter or go upon any Racecourse or any Training Facility or other place owned or controlled by any Club or by any consortium or other entity of which a Club is a member or in which it is a participant; and/or (d) have an interest in any horse as Owner or Lessee or act as Racing Manager of a horse. (e) be employed by, or otherwise be engaged to provide any service in any capacity to, a Trainer; (f) participate in any way in the preparation of any horse for racing or training; (g) conduct, participate or assist in any way with thoroughbred breeding; (h) attend or participate in thoroughbred horse sales or related events; (i) permit, engage or authorise any other person to conduct any activity associated with thoroughbred racing, training, breeding, thoroughbred horse sales, or the preparation of any horse for racing or training, for or on behalf of the disqualified person; (j) receive any direct or indirect financial or other benefit derived from thoroughbred racing or breeding; (k) transact a bet or have a bet transacted on their behalf, have any interest in or share in any bet, or receive a benefit from any bet placed with a licensed wagering operator in connection with any thoroughbred Race Meeting. An Adjudicative Committee has the power to grant exemptions in respect of some of the prohibitions specified in the above rule. Rule 1104(4) provides: An Adjudicative Committee imposing a disqualification may, in its sole discretion, exempt a person on whom a disqualification is imposed from any of sub-Rules 1104(1)(f), (g), (h) or (j) of this Rule 1104. An application for an exemption from the relevant sub-Rule(s), giving reasons for requesting the exemption, must be made, in writing, to the Adjudicative Committee that imposed the disqualification or such other Adjudicative Committee as the RIB may determine. 37. The Adjudicative Committee agrees with the RIB’s submission highlighting the significance of the recent amendments to Rule 1104 in March 2025. It is instructive to consider the purpose and intent of NZTR’s amendments, namely, “that it be made clearer that a disqualification is a very severe penalty for very serious offences. The proposed amendments to the disqualification Rules make it clearer that a person who is disqualified may not be part of, or derive any income from, the racing industry during the period of disqualification. The proposed amendments to the Disqualification Rules also provide that an Adjudicative Committee may permit a disqualified person to undertake certain limited activities despite their disqualification.” 38. The Committee is assisted by the contents of the letter from NZTR to the RIB dated 4 March 2026 and in particular, the statement that the power to grant an exemption was added into Rule 1104 to allow relief against the full strictures of disqualification in appropriate cases, particularly where an individual is addressing substance or alcohol-related issues and can demonstrate a genuine commitment to rehabilitation. NZTR explains that the exemption was not intended to operate as a general mechanism to reduce or avoid the consequences of disqualification. 39. This Committee gains some assistance from the decision of RIB v Walker (22 November 2023) at [54]-[57]: “Sanctions are imposed upon Licensees (Trainers, Jockeys and others bound by the Rules of Racing) when those Licensees breach the Rules. No special treatment should be afforded to Owners, Syndicators (large and small) whose Licensed Trainer or Jockey (for example) require to be disqualified or suspended. Naturally where a Trainer is disqualified, there will always be an impact on his/her Owner(s) but that will inevitably be the case whether the Trainer has a few or many Owners. That removal or suspension of a Licence to train or ride may have an impact (and it occurs in every case where such an outcome arises). But it is because of the breach of the Licensee’s obligations under the Rules. Owners, prominent or otherwise, large in Syndicate numbers, or “small time”, may be hurt to lose their preferred Licensee, but that will always be the case where any professional – in racing or otherwise – has his/her Licence privilege removed”. 40. The Adjudicative Committee refuses the application for exemptions sought by Mr Cole for these reasons: • The exemption would not be consistent with the rehabilitative purpose of the Rule, as explained by NZTR in its letter. • Mr Cole did not admit the charge nor did he express genuine remorse. Whilst he was entitled to defend the charge, that differs from cases where an application is made following an early admission of a breach and steps having been taken to engage in rehabilitation. • The exemption would not be limited to an administrative role, as it would involve a hands-on role with horses at a training facility. This would create a perception within the industry that Mr Cole had been given different treatment from other disqualified persons who would not be permitted to engage in such activities, undermining the general deterrent effect of a disciplinary penalty. • Mr Cole should not be perceived to have received preferential treatment solely because he operates a large business, or because there is a lot at stake. • The power to grant exemptions, is not intended to operate as a general mechanism to reduce or avoid the consequences of a disqualification. Mr Cole has failed to demonstrate circumstances consistent with the rehabilitative purpose of the Rule. The Committee is satisfied that the granting of an exemption in these circumstances, would undermine the integrity or effect of the disqualification imposed. JOINT MEMORANDUM REGARDING APPLICATION FOR STAY OF DISQUALIFICATION MAY IT PLEASE THE COMMITEE Introduction 1. The Committee has issued a decision disqualifying Mr Cole for a period of 12 months, commencing 5.00pm on Wednesday 15 April 2026. 2. Following the release of the Committee’s decision, Mr Cole applied for a stay of disqualification for a period of four weeks to enable him to organise his affairs in order to comply with this disqualification. 3. The Informant indicated that it would oppose a full stay of disqualification for four weeks but would not oppose a partial stay with conditions for a period of up to two weeks. 4. The Committee indicated some reservations about the need for a stay of disqualification on the terms proposed and directed that the parties file a joint memorandum setting out the basis for the application and the parties’ respective positions, following which the Committee will make a decision. 5. This memorandum outlines: 5.1 the relevant principles in the NZ Thoroughbred Rules of Racing (Rules); 5.2 the proposed terms of conditions of a stay that would enable Mr Cole to take those remaining steps to manage his affairs; and 5.3 an explanation of why those parts of the disqualification can be stayed for two weeks. 6. The Informant is not opposed to an order on the strict terms proposed in this memorandum for a period of up to two weeks. Relevant rules 7. The relevant rules are: 7.1 Rule 1101(1), which provides “each disqualification imposed under these Rules will take effect immediately, unless the Tribunal imposing the disqualification specifies a later date on which the disqualification will take effect”. 7.2 Rule 812(b), which provides that the Adjudicative Committee may: stay, in whole or in part, and for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it thinks fit, the operation of any penalty imposed for a breach of the Rules, provided that, in the event of any failure to comply with any of the terms and conditions of the stay, the Adjudicative Committee may order that the penalty or the remaining part of the penalty take effect. Proposed terms and conditions 8. Mr Cole seeks a stay of disqualification for a period of two weeks subject to the following terms and conditions. 9. Mr Cole will be disqualified from 5.00pm on Wednesday 15 April 2026 for a period of 12 months. From that time, he will not be permitted to: 9.1 enter or run any horse in any race (per rule 1104(1)(a)); 9.2 train any horse or ride any horse in a Race or be employed in any capacity in connection with the training or racing of horses (per rule 1104(1)(b)); 9.3 enter or go upon any Racecourse or Training Facility (per rule 1104(1)(c)); 9.4 be employed by, or otherwise be engaged to provide any services in any capacity to, a trainer (per rule 1104(1)(e)); 9.5 participate in thoroughbred breeding (per rule 1104(1)(g)) or thoroughbred horse sales (per rule 1104(1)(h)); 9.6 transact a bet (per rule 1104(1)(k)). 10. The commencement of application of rule 1104(1)(d), (f), (i) and (j) will be stayed until 5.00pm on Monday 27 April 2026 and from that date in addition to the restrictions outlined above Mr Cole will not be permitted to: 10.1 have an interest in any horse as Owner or lessee or act as Racing Manager of a horse (per rule 1104(1)(d)); 10.2 participate in any way in the preparation of any horse for racing or training (per rule 1104(1)(f)); 10.3 permit, engage or authorise any other person to conduct any activity associated with thoroughbred racing, training, breeding, thoroughbred horse sales, or the preparation of any horse for racing or training, for or on behalf of the disqualified person (per 1104(1)(i)); and 10.4 receive any direct or indirect financial or other benefit derived from thoroughbred racing or breeding (per 1104(1)(j)). Reasons the effect of those four prohibitions can be delayed 11. The parties say that: 11.1 The reasons the effect of those four prohibitions can be delayed include that the disqualification will, from Wednesday 15 April, prohibit Mr Cole from participating in training or racing, or attending any racing or training facility. That is the primary thrust of disqualification. It will be met and it will remove any risk of perception that he is not yet subject to the strictures of disqualification. 11.2 The delayed effect of the four provisions will also enable Mr Cole to ensure that the welfare needs of the horses currently under his care are met. 12. While the parties acknowledge that two days would ordinarily be sufficient, the sheer volume of horses (93 in total) and the logistical arrangements that will be required to make both administrative and physical arrangements for them do, in the parties’ respectful submission, justify a longer period. For example, horses owned by a syndicate will require the Racing Manager of the syndicate to engage with all syndicate members to determine their preference as to what is to happen with the horse, and if there is disagreement amongst the syndicate that will need to be resolved before the horse can be moved, which may take some time that is out of Mr Cole’s control. 13. Mr Cole seeks the delayed effect of those provisions to allow some time to: 13.1 [REDACTED] 13.2 [REDACTED] 13.3 [REDACTED] 13.4 [REDACTED] 14. These all relate to his various business responsibilities, and include legal, commercial, and employment matters that need to be dealt and with and will not be able to be dealt with by Wednesday 15 April. 15. The Informant takes no issue with these parts of the disqualification taking effect at 5.00pm on Monday 27 April 2026. Decision Date: 13/04/2026 Publish Date: 15/04/2026 Quote
Trojan Posted April 15 Posted April 15 Seems excessive compared to other cases. Why would you bother training in NZ? 1 Quote
curious Posted April 15 Posted April 15 1 hour ago, Trojan said: Seems excessive compared to other cases. Why would you bother training in NZ? I don't see how you could possibly arrive at that conclusion given the referred to cases and the multiple aggravating factors. Quote
Murray Fish Posted April 15 Posted April 15 8 hours ago, curious said: I don't see how you could possibly arrive at that conclusion what would have the punishment be if he had been tested and failed? gee, what will the actual cost be to him in the end? Quote
curious Posted April 15 Posted April 15 1 hour ago, Murray Fish said: what would have the punishment be if he had been tested and failed? Same probably. 1 hour ago, Murray Fish said: gee, what will the actual cost be to him in the end? More now if he appeals the penalty as reported. Quote
Huey Posted April 16 Posted April 16 On 15/04/2026 at 9:19 PM, Trojan said: Seems excessive compared to other cases. Why would you bother training in NZ? Should have just taken the test then. 2 Quote
Huey Posted April 16 Posted April 16 On 15/04/2026 at 8:25 PM, Murray Fish said: wow.. so, if it was factual that a horse was seriously playing up... boarding on Tragic! What were the other staff doing ? One is going to take over as trainer ,surely he could manage the situation. Quote
curious Posted April 16 Posted April 16 37 minutes ago, Huey said: What were the other staff doing ? One is going to take over as trainer ,surely he could manage the situation. Exactly. Quote
Murray Fish Posted April 17 Posted April 17 Total speculating here now,... to the question: "I need to get a better understand on the laws around Class A Drugs in NZ, especially in the work place. what are the lowest starting point punishments for the likes of using and percessing, and for say failing a drugs test at work" In New Zealand, the laws around Class A drugs in the workplace are a two-part issue. On one hand, you have criminal penalties for possession and use; on the other, employment law consequences for failing a workplace drug test. It's important to understand that these are separate legal realms with different standards and outcomes. ### ⚖️ Criminal Penalties: Possession & Use The **Misuse of Drugs Act 1975** is the primary legislation governing drug offences in New Zealand. It classifies drugs based on their perceived risk of harm, with Class A (e.g., methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, LSD) posing the highest risk. The lowest starting point penalties for **simple possession or use** of a Class A controlled drug are set out in Section 7(2)(a) of the Act. Upon conviction, the maximum penalty is: * **Imprisonment** for a term not exceeding **6 months**. * A **fine** not exceeding **$1,000**. * Both imprisonment and a fine. It's crucial to distinguish these from penalties for other drug offences. For more serious crimes like supply, manufacture, or trafficking of Class A drugs, the law provides for far harsher sentences, including life imprisonment. ### 💼 Workplace Consequences: Failing a Drug Test The consequences of a positive workplace drug test are not criminal but relate to employment and contract law. New Zealand has no single law governing workplace drug testing; instead, it is managed through a balance of the employer's duty to provide a safe workplace and the employee's right to privacy. The specific outcomes depend on the employer's documented drug and alcohol policy, the industry, and the employment agreement. * **For Prospective Employees (Pre-Employment)**: If a job offer is conditional on passing a drug test, a non-negative result is likely to lead to the offer being withdrawn. * **For Current Employees**: The procedure will be defined in the employer's policy, which must be reasonable and consistently applied. Potential consequences include: * **Suspension or Termination**: A first positive test may be treated as potential serious misconduct, which can lead to disciplinary procedures, suspension, or instant dismissal. * **Rehabilitation Support**: A fair policy will often include provisions for support, education, or rehabilitation as a first step. The law requires the employer to balance safety concerns with an employee's right to privacy and fair treatment. This means drug testing must generally be clearly provided for in employment agreements or workplace policies. ### ✅ Key Protections for Employees Employees have important rights in this process: * **Consent is Required**: You cannot be forced to undergo a drug test. However, refusing to consent to a lawful test, as outlined in a workplace policy, can itself lead to disciplinary action. * **Confidentiality**: Your drug test results are confidential under the **Privacy Act 2020**. Your employer can only use them for the intended workplace safety purpose, not to disclose to the police or others. * **Legal Recourse for Unfair Dismissal**: Dismissals that are not procedurally fair (e.g., due to a poorly handled testing process) can be challenged in the Employment Relations Authority, which may award compensation for lost wages and hurt feelings. ### 💡 Practical Advice If you are subject to a workplace drug test: * Review your employment agreement and company policy to understand your rights and the procedure. * You have the right to discuss any positive result with your employer, especially if it is due to prescribed medication. * As drug and alcohol testing is a complex area of employment law, both employers and employees may wish to seek legal advice to ensure their actions are lawful and their rights are protected. I hope this information clarifies the legal landscape for you. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Quote
Stagman Posted April 17 Posted April 17 Hi Trojan. In reply to your post where you say Mr. Coles penalty seems excessive that's your thoughts and no issues from me on that. However, if you read through his case, it's easy to see he considered in my view that maybe due to the influential people he trains for he could just flout the rules and be given preferential treatment, just my personal thoughts. He caused his own demise in this situation and after reading other posters regarding loss of employment for 15 -17 people I do feel for them -but Mr. Coles actions caused this situation to escalate not the RIB- NZTR or his staff just him. Had the RIB been more proactive in the first couple of days after Mr. Cole was given the paper to front up for the test this loss of employment may possibly have been avoided. Quote
Trojan Posted April 17 Posted April 17 On 16/04/2026 at 9:15 AM, curious said: More now if he appeals the penalty as reported. On what do you base that statement? Quote
Trojan Posted April 17 Posted April 17 46 minutes ago, Stagman said: Hi Trojan. In reply to your post where you say Mr. Coles penalty seems excessive that's your thoughts and no issues from me on that. However, if you read through his case, it's easy to see he considered in my view that maybe due to the influential people he trains for he could just flout the rules and be given preferential treatment, just my personal thoughts. He caused his own demise in this situation and after reading other posters regarding loss of employment for 15 -17 people I do feel for them -but Mr. Coles actions caused this situation to escalate not the RIB- NZTR or his staff just him. Had the RIB been more proactive in the first couple of days after Mr. Cole was given the paper to front up for the test this loss of employment may possibly have been avoided. The RIB Investigaters dug a hole and Cole fell into it. The Chief Adjudicator didn't help either with allowing the Silks to piss around. Lovell-Smith wasn't renowned for being a shining example of a District Court Judge even if she did have friends in the highest places of the judiciary. She is still on the Parole Board and has other soft appointments so I imagine she didn't have much time to force this process along. Cole's silk probably played that. Quote
curious Posted April 17 Posted April 17 11 minutes ago, Trojan said: On what do you base that statement? Isn't their a fair chance the RIB will be awarded costs if the appeal is dismissed? Especially, if they regard the appeal as frivolous which from what I've seen it appears to be. Quote
Trojan Posted April 17 Posted April 17 10 minutes ago, curious said: if they regard the appeal as frivolous which from what I've seen it appears to be. Where is the detail on the appeal that you have seen to make a judgment that it is frivolous? Quote
Chief Stipe Posted April 18 Posted April 18 I see Racing's incessant gossip columnist is still spending time reading here. No doubt looking for something to copy and or snipe at. That said I realise literacy is not the Gossip Columnist's strong point but... @Comic Dog Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.