Chief Stipe Posted June 9, 2023 Share Posted June 9, 2023 Non Raceday Inquiry (Part 2) – Written Decision dated 2 June 2023 – Mark Walker racingintegrityboard.org.nz Introduction [1] The Racing Integrity Board (RIB) filed Information A17973 which relates to a Prohibited Substance charge against Licensed Class A Trainer, Mr Mark Walker (the “Respondent”). This charge arises from TOKYO TYCOON’S first placing on the 11th of March 2023 in Race 5, the Group 1 Sistema Stakes at the Auckland Thoroughbred Racing Club meeting at Pukekohe Park. The Respondent is the Trainer of TOKYO TYCOON. [2] Prior to this hearing, TOKYO TYCOON was disqualified from it first placing pursuant to Rule 903(b), and in its Written Decision (Part 1), which was published on 17 May 2023, the Adjudicative Committee directed that the official placing in the Sistema Stakes be amended in accordance with the Part 1 Decision. [3] During a teleconference between the parties on 16 May 2023, the Respondent admitted the charge. This Written Decision, (Part 2), relates to the Penalty Hearing which took place at the Cambridge JC on 31 May 2023. Following the hearing and in consideration of the evidence and submissions, the Adjudicative Committee imposed a fine of $7000 and ordered the Respondent to pay the costs of $2,447.61 for analysis of the ‘B Sample’. The Charge [4] Mr M Clement, The Chief Executive RIB authorised the filing of charge. The charging document, via Information No. A17973 provides that: On 11 March 2023, TOKYO TYCOON won Race 5 being the Group 1 Sistema Stakes at the Auckland Thoroughbred Racing Club meeting at Pukekohe Park. ‘TOKYO TYCOON’ is a 2-year-old Bay Gelding trained by Mark Walker. TOKYO TYCOON was post-race swabbed at 15:35 hours. On 24 March 2023, New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services (NZRLS) issued a Certificate of Analysis detailing the sample positive to the Prohibited Substance – Meloxicam. Meloxicam is defined as a Prohibited Substance under the Prohibited Substance Regulations, Part A – (1.2.21) within the meaning of the Rules. The Relevant Rules [5] Rules 804(1) and 804(2) provides that: (1) A horse which has been brought to a Racecourse or similar racing facility and which is found by a Tribunal conducting an inquiry to have had administered to it or have had present in its metabolism a Prohibited Substance shall be, in addition to any other penalty which may be imposed, disqualified for any race or trial to which the Third Appendix hereto applies in which it has started on that day. (2) When a horse which has been brought to a Racecourse or similar racing facility for the purpose of engaging in a Race or trial to which the Third Appendix hereto applies is found by a Tribunal conducting an inquiry to have had administered to it or have had present in its metabolism a Prohibited Substance, as defined in Part A of Prohibited Substance Regulations, the Trainer and any other person who in the opinion of such Tribunal conducting such inquiry was in charge of such horse at any relevant time commits a breach of these Rules. Penalty Provisions [6] Rule 804(7) provides that: A person who commits a breach of sub-Rule (2) or (3) or (4) or (5) or (5A) 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. The Facts The key salient facts are summarised as follows: [7] The Respondent in this matter, Mr Mark Walker, is the Chief Trainer at Te Akau Racing Stables in Matamata. Te Akau Racing currently have one hundred and eighty-one thoroughbreds registered as ‘in training’ with NZTR. Circumstances [8] On 11 March 2023, TOKYO TYCOON won Race 5, the Group 1 Sistema Stakes at the Auckland Thoroughbred Racing Club meeting at Pukekohe Park. The gross stake money for 1st place was $184,000. [9] TOKYO TYCOON is a 2-year-old gelding trained by Mark Walker out of Te Akau Racing. He is owned in partnership by the Meadowbank Masters Racing and Te Akau Satono Samurai Racing Partnerships. [10] TOKYO TYCOON was post-race swabbed on 11 March 2023 at 15:35 hours. [11] On 24 March 2023, New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services (NZRLS) issued a Certificate of Analysis detailing that the sample obtained from TOKYO TYCOON was positive to the Prohibited Substance Meloxicam. [12] Meloxicam is defined as a Prohibited Substance under the Prohibited Substance Regulations of the NZTR Rules of Racing falling under clause 1.1.6 and in the category of substance – Part A (1.2.21) anti-inflammatory agents within the meaning of the Rules. [13] Meloxicam is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug for the alleviation of inflammation and relief of pain in both acute and chronic musculoskeletal conditions in horses. Meloxicam is permitted in race day samples as a therapeutic substance to a regulatory limit of mass concentration of 10 micrograms per litre in urine. The NZRLS has reported that the level in this sample is reported as exceeding 20 micrograms per litre (upper level of calibration used). Its presence therefore above the regulatory limit of 10 micrograms in a race-day sample is, prima facie, a breach of the Rules. [14] Meloxicam is listed on the NZEVA Period of Detection List with a listed possible withholding time of 4.2 days and a detection time of 3 days. [15] On 27 March 2023, Investigators from the RIB undertook enquiries at Te Akau Racing Stables and the subsequent interview of the Respondent along with five other Te Akau Racing employees and their independent veterinary. [16] These enquiries established that in the week prior to the G1 Sistema Stakes on 11 March 2023, TOKYO TYCOON was boxed in Box 3 of the Colt Barn. [17] Copies of both the medication record book and whiteboard outlining individualised horse treatments for the horses boxed in the Colt Barn were obtained. TOKYO TYCOON is referred to in these records by his stable name – Katsu. [18] A review of these records notes that Katsu was due to be administered Meloxicam on the 4th, 6th, and 7th March prior to the raceday on 11 March 2023. [19] Records identify that RARE COMPANY; stable name Powell was boxed in Box 2 being directly next to Box 3 where Katsu was boxed. [20] The medication record book highlights that Powell was due to be scoped and administered ‘melox’ (Meloxicam abbreviated) on the 10 March 2023. [21] Both Colt Barn Forepersons were interviewed and confirmed during interview that they are the only two Te Akau employees apart from the independent vet who would be responsible for administering Meloxicam to Katsu. [22] Meloxicam administered dosage between the two Forepersons appears to differ slightly with one stating they administer 10ml and the other – “A syringe full so they’re 13/14ml.” Administration is undertaken by way of oral paste syringe to the back of the horse’s tongue. [23] Te Akau Racing has both external and internal CCTV Security Cameras operating in the Colt Barn, which is recorded to a hard drive. RIB subsequently requested disclosure of the footage for the week leading up to race day on 11 March 2023. [24] On 28 March 2023 the Respondent advised the RIB that he had reviewed the internal CCTV footage. He advised that the footage identifies one of the Colt Barn Forepersons entering ‘Katsu’s’ box 3 on 10 March 2023 at 08:42 hours and appears to administer a syringe, which he believes to contain Meloxicam. [25] On 29 March 2023 the RIB attended Te Akau Racing and reviewed the said CCTV footage and obtained an electronic disclosed copy. This footage highlights that both Forepersons are doing their rounds and checking on boxed horses in close proximity to where ‘Katsu’ was boxed. [26] At 08:39 hours a Foreperson is sighted entering Katsu’s box 3. The footage highlights that a syringe had been left on the ground directly adjacent to box 3 prior to 08:35 hours when the disclosed footage commenced. [27] The footage shows that at 08:42 hours a Foreperson uplifted this syringe from the ground in front of box 3 and administered orally to Katsu. [28] In consultation with Te Akau Racing Managers, they believe that the syringe identified in the footage is identical to the veterinary supplied Meloxicam Syringes. [29] A secondary interview was subsequently undertaken of the Foreperson in question and the CCTV footage was played to them for the purpose of seeking their response and explanation in relation to their actions in the footage. In response to questions, one of the Forepersons stated – “Maybe its FILTA BAC. That’s in the same tube as Meloxicam, it looks the same, but I know he’s got white socks and we were treating his mud fever”. On completion of viewing the oral administration via the horse’s tongue the Foreperson became visibly upset and stated – “I’m really sorry”. The foreperson further admitted to “giving him half a Pro-Dosa and the Meloxicam”. [30] This ½ Pro-Dosa and Meloxicam being recorded in the medication record book to be administered to Powell on 10th March 2023. When questioned further to how this has occurred, the Foreperson stated – “I’ve obviously put it down because I’d gone to see whatever was happening and then I’ve gone back and just assumed and I didn’t look properly.” [31] It is the RIB’s position that administration has occurred through human error around the mistaken identity of the two horses – Katsu and ‘Powell’ that were boxed next to each other. The RIB therefore does not believe that there was any nefarious intent on behalf of the Foreperson or Te Akau Racing to the oral administration of Meloxicam. [32] Enquiries were undertaken with NZTR Chief Veterinarian Dr Andrew Grierson regarding Meloxicam and its absorption rates. These revealed that Meloxicam is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) patented by Boehringer Ingelheim in 1997. Meloxicam blocks the COX-2 more than it blocks the COX-1 inflammatory response to an injury. Dr Grierson further reiterates that the detection time listed on the NZVA WHT list has Meloxicam as a detection time of 72 hours (3 days). Stating however that 72 hours is definitely not the withholding from racing. The NZVA withholding time for Meloxicam is clearly listed as 1.4 times 72 hours being 100.8 hours or 4.2 days. [33] The B Sample was independently tested by the Hong Kong Jockey Club (HKJC) Racing Laboratory and on analysis, the presence of Meloxicam was detected. [34] Throughout this investigation, the RIB has found Mr Walker and his Te Akau employees to have been extremely cooperative. [35] The Respondent has no previous judicial history involving prohibited substances. However, the RIB drew the Adjudicative Committee’s attention to an historic offence in August 2000 brought by the RIU against Mr Walker for falsifying a document (jumping certificate) resulting in a 4-month suspension and $5,000 fine. This historic information has only come to light post filing of Summary of Facts. Penalty Submissions (Applicant) Introduction [36] The Respondent faces one Information, alleging he has committed an offence under Rule 804(2). He has admitted the breach and on admission of breach – ‘TOKYO TYCOON’ was subsequently disqualified as per Adjudicative Committee Written Decision dated 17 May 2023. Offending [37] The details of the Respondent’s offending are contained in the Racing Integrity Board Summary of Facts, which have been referred to earlier in this decision. Penalty Provisions [38] The penalties which may be imposed are detailed in the Charge Rule and Penalty Provisions document and are set out in paragraph 6 of this Decision. Sentencing Principles [39] The four principles of sentencing can be summarised briefly: 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 RIB for the type of behaviour in question. The need to rehabilitate the offender should be considered. The RIB submits that the first three principles apply in this matter. Precedent Cases [40] There are no directly comparable cases in New Zealand or Australia that we have identified involving the commodity – Meloxicam in a Group 1 or Black Type Race. In researching precedent in New Zealand involving positives for prohibited substances in Group Races, the RIB notes the following cases: RIU v O’Sullivan and Scott (03/2016) [41] In February 2015, SOUND PROPOSITION trained by Class A Trainers – Mr O’Sullivan and Mr Scott placed 3rd in the New Zealand Derby, winning stake money of $65,000 ‘Sound Proposition’ tested positive to the prohibited substance, Cobalt. At an elevated level (640), which is a Prohibited Substance of the type set out in Part A of Prohibited Substance Regulations, being a substance capable of acting directly or indirectly on the blood system. [42] At the hearing in March 2016, the Respondents admitted breaches of 804(2) as detailed in six Informations across six different races between February and March 2016. The outcome in this case was a fine of $17,250 per charge, or total fine of $51,750 across the six breaches. [43] Enquiries undertaken in Australia via both the Victoria Racing Tribunal and Racing New South Wales, has identified the following comparable – Group 1 Race – resulting in the winning horse being disqualified and Trainer fined for positive test for a banned substance: – Racing NSW v J Cummings (03/2022) [44] In March 2021, horse – SAVATIANO trained by James Cummings won the Group 1 – Heineken Canterbury Stakes at Randwick winning stake money of $306,762 AUD. SAVATIANO was post raced swabbed, which tested positive for banned substances Trendione, Trenbolone and Epitrebolone. [45] It is noted in the Decision – “That while there is no specific cause having been pinpointed as to the reasons for the positive tests, stewards were satisfied that there had been no illegal administration of the substances, which are all found in the drug Altrenogest and used on mares. Stewards heard evidence that SAVATIANO was being orally administered Ovumate (containing Altrenogest) but were satisfied she had not been treated within two clear days of her racing, as per the rules.” [46] The outcome in this case was that the horse was subsequently disqualified from the race with the Tribunal hearing the case noting – “Having regard to the mitigating factors detailed and guilty plea, it is determined that the appropriate penalty is $10,000 AUD”. [47] The RIB also highlights the following two cases involving Meloxicam, albeit that both occurred post-trial heats and not on a race day, with likely cause being a degree of carelessness: RIU v Lucock and Gillespie (07/2018) [48] In May 2015, Mr Lucock and Ms Gillespie, holders of a Class A Trainer Licence, admitted a breach of Rule 804(2). This was in relation to their horse, MISS CAMPBELL which tested positive to the prohibited substance, Meloxicam following a post-race swab after starting in Heat 1 of the Avondale Jockey Club Trials. Mr Lucock told the Committee they regularly used Meloxicam, as opposed to other substances which tend to be harsher on their horses. [49] In considering this case, the Adjudicative Committee advised the following: – “The stable diary notes do not record the fact the substance was applied on the Saturday concerned, but other entries do corroborate regular use of Meloxicam on MISS CAMPBELL. The Respondents advise this was an oversight and perhaps a symptom of their current situation. Accordingly, we accept that this breach is the result of nothing more than an honest mistake”. [50] The outcome in this case was a fine of $2,800 to be shared equally between each of the two Respondents. RIU v Pertab (05/2019) [51] In March 2019, Mr Pertab, a Class B Trainer, admitted a breach of Rule 804(2). This was in relation to his horse, a “2g Rock ‘n’ Pop (AUS) – Nicole Amy” which tested positive to the prohibited substance, Meloxicam following a post-race swab after starting in Heat 6 of the Matamata Racing Club Trials. Mr Pertab could offer no explanation for the positive result, other than possible cross contamination from another horse he was training, that was prescribed Meloxicam by his vet. [52] In considering this case, the Adjudicative Committee advised the following: – “We have regard that this is not a situation where the Prohibited substance, Meloxicam was given to enhance performance, but rather the likely cause was cross contamination.” [53] The outcome in this case was a fine of $3000. RIU v Clotworthy (11/2019) [54] In RIU v Clotworthy, the drug in question – Clenbuterol was found at the Trainers’ premises but there was conjecture the contamination may have occurred at the Racecourse. Shaun and Emma Clotworthy are Licensed Class A Trainers under the New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Rules (NZTR). On 20 July 2019 at New Plymouth, they presented the horse ZABDI in Race 2. The horse won the race and when subsequently tested, was found to have in its metabolism the Prohibited Substance Clenbuterol. This in breach of the NZTR Racing Rule 804(2). [55] In considering this case, the Adjudicative Committee emphasised “There is no suggestion that Mr and Mrs Clotworthy acted deliberately in breach of the Rules or that any of their conduct was directed towards somehow cheating the system. Inadvertent contamination of thoroughbreds can occur in a wide variety of circumstances and in many of those circumstances, there is no fault on the part of the Trainer or Trainers”. [56] The outcome in this case was a fine of $2500. Mitigating Factors [57] The RIB submits the following mitigating factors: 57.1 The Respondent has cooperated fully with Investigators and admitted the charge at the earliest opportunity. 57.2 The Respondent has extensive history and involvement in the Thoroughbred Racing Industry both here in New Zealand and abroad. 57.3 Te Akau Racing maintains high standards around medical record keeping, storage and administration of equine products. 57.4 Te Akau Racing has both external and internal CCTV Security Cameras at their Colt Barn, with disclosed footage assisting the investigation phase. 57.5 It is accepted that there were no sinister intentions in relation to the positive result and has occurred as a result of carelessness through human error. Aggravating Factors [58] The RIB submits the following aggravating factors: 58.1 That legal precedent provides that Trainers have an absolute liability for presenting their horses free of Prohibited Substances. 58.2 That the Respondent and/or his delegates/employees should have taken extreme care when treating a horse with Meloxicam so as not to orally administer to the incorrect horse amounting to carelessness. 58.3 That carelessness in their actions is not an excuse. Conclusion [59] When determining penalty, the RIB submits that the Adjudicative Committee has regard to the purpose of the proceedings, which include: to ensure the Rules are complied with; to uphold and maintain the high standards expected of Trainers; and to protect the integrity of Thoroughbred Racing. [60] In establishing an appropriate penalty, the Adjudicative Committee acknowledges the RIB Thoroughbred Racing Penalty Guide that came into effective on 1st February 2023, which identifies a starting point penalty for Prohibited Substances – Presenting Offences for a first offence – $8,000 fine and a second offence – two-year disqualification and fine of up to $10,000. [61] Given the mitigating factors as listed and the overall circumstances considered in this case, including the profile of the race being the – Group 1 Sistema Stakes, an important race with a high level of stake money and considerable public and media interest, the RIB adopts a starting penalty of $10,000 as appropriate for any adjustment at the Adjudicative Committee’s discretion, regarding mitigating factors and aggravating circumstances. [62] The RIB seeks costs of $2,447.61 for analyst of the ‘B’ Sample. Penalty Submissions (Respondent) The Respondent provided the following response to the Applicant’s (RIB) submissions: [63] The Respondent confirmed that he admitted the breach and accepts that he is ultimately responsible. [64] He also confirmed that he is the Head Trainer at Te Akau Racing Stables and that he has held a Class A Trainers Licence for over 25 years in two racing jurisdictions (Singapore and New Zealand) and has won 9 premierships with one pending. He submitted that he has trained in excess of 1750 winners across three countries and has no previous judicial history involving Prohibited Substances and his record in this area is therefore unblemished. [65] He submitted that the administration of the Prohibited Substance has been clearly identified by the RIB as human error by a Senior Stable Foreperson and that the RIB accepts there was no improper intent by that person. [66] The Respondent drew the Adjudicative Committee’s attention to the manner in which Te Akau Racing conducts itself with regards to integrity. He pointed out that the Stable operates to the highest standards; and that it takes pride in its level of professional processes in all areas of its operation. He added that the Stable is committed to its security having installed CCTV throughout the barns and it was as a result of analysis of the data, that the circumstances of the breach was identified. This information was shared with the RIB and assisted with the investigation. [67] The Respondent reinforced that he and his Team cooperated fully with the investigation and that he admitted the charge at the first available opportunity. He accepts that he and his delegated staff should, and do, take extreme care when treating a horse. He submitted that no matter how robust and professional systems and protocols are, humans are humans and genuine human error can occur, and can have unfortunate results. [68] The Respondent highlighted the reputational damage this matter has created for him personally and for Te Akau Racing, and he submitted that this alone, has been hugely punitive. He said that he has been impacted in terms of his perceived integrity, as well as that of the Stable and his people. He added that this issue has already had a significant impact on him, in terms of public credibility. [69] He said that the RIB submitted that the profile of the race is considered important, a Group 1 Race with its high level of stake money and considerable public interest. He said that is correct, but this factor has actually intensified that professional reputational damage. But the status of the race has nothing whatever to do with the facts of the mistaken administration. [70] The Respondent also highlighted the fact that this issue has greatly affected the morale and mental health of his Team. In particular, not only the Foreperson responsible, but it has had an impact on other Senior Forepersons who have been asked “was it you” and “are upset” about aspersions being cast over their individual competency and integrity. He submitted that both he and the Team are already dealing with the negatives of this case, which is greatly impacting on his people and the whole operation, and of course, the Owners. [71] The Respondent said that he fully accepts that part of the Penalty Decision is to ensure Rules are adhered to, and to uphold and maintain high standards expected on Trainers. However, he submitted that his record and that of Te Akau, show that this responsibility is taken very seriously, and that everything in his power is done to operate at the highest levels in terms of integrity. [72] He referred to the Penalty Guide which provides for an $8000 fine starting point, and that there are number of mitigating factors in his favour, namely: First offence for a Prohibited Substance related charge. The high standards in medical record keeping; storage and administration of equine products. Full cooperation with the RIB, including the provision of the security camera footage. Supportive work environment. A mistake on this occasion which could not have been prevented. [73] The Respondent submitted that he does not accept all of the aggravating factors that were highlighted by the RIB. He provided the Adjudicative Committee with a letter from his legal advisor, Mr Alan Galbraith KC, who is highly regarded and experienced in matters of this nature (refer paragraph [77]). [74] He confirmed that he has forfeited the $18,400 Trainer’s percentage as a result of the disqualification and pointed out the Owners’ significant loss of stake money ($156,400) as well as, potentially, the status of champion 2-year-old. He therefore submits that the penalty incurred so far is already significant. [75] The Respondent submitted that he requested the analysis of the B Sample in the interests of the Owners. [76] In conclusion, the Respondent submits that the facts of the truly accidental nature of the breach and his and Te Akau’s integrity; and cooperation should be reflected in the penalty – i.e., a penalty less than the Guidelines. He submitted that this approach would provide some objective recognition to counter unjustified speculation which has circulated. [77] As mentioned, Mr Galbraith KC provided helpful legal commentary in relation to sentencing principles, precedent cases, mitigating and aggravating factors and the Penalty Guidelines. These have all been considered and taken into account by the Adjudicative Committee. In particular, the Adjudicative Committee fully accepts that the O’Sullivan and Scott case is not relevant, given that the facts in that case are quite dissimilar to this matter. The Adjudicative Committee also accepts that a discount should be applied to the starting point in relation to the Respondent’s early admission and cooperation. The Hearing [78] In addition to the RIB’s written penalty submissions which were provided to the Adjudicative Committee in advance of the hearing, the Applicant Mr Carr, by way of further oral submissions reinforced the following points: 78.1 Public and Industry confidence and reputation is important. 78.2 This is a strict liability offence. 78.3 The RIB acknowledges Mr Walker’s good character, his cooperation and genuine remorse. 78.4 The RIB acknowledges the reputational damage that the charge has had on Mr Walker. [79] In response to questions from the Adjudicative Committee as to why the RIB sought a starting point penalty of $10,000, being $2000 above the Penalty Guide recommended starting point, Mr Carr referred to the RIB’s written submission and reinforced their position that a higher starting point is required due to the status and stakes of the race, as well as media and public interest; and comparisons with other like cases. [80] In addition to his written penalty submissions which were provided to the Adjudicative Committee, also in advance of the hearing, Mr Walker made further oral submissions highlighting the following matters: 80.1 He manages a number of barns and employs a number of Forepersons and staff. In the Part 1 Decision, the Foreperson was not named and as a result, there has been a lot of speculation around who was responsible for the mistake and on that basis, he asked if the Adjudicative Committee intended to name the Foreperson. 80.2 He does not believe that his previous record is of any relevance to this matter, as it did not relate to a Prohibited Substance charge. 80.3 He emphasised that Te Akau Racing has excellent procedures for administering substances in place, and this breach occurred as a result of those systems not being followed on this occasion. [81] In response to a question from the Adjudicative Committee, the Respondent said that the connections of TOKYO TYCOON remain very supportive. Decision and Reasons Decision [82] After evaluating the facts and the submissions, the Adjudicative Committee determined a fine of $7000 to be appropriate in the circumstances of this case. Reasons [83] In reaching its decision, the Adjudicative Committee gave careful consideration to (a) the Penalty Guide starting point of a $8000 fine and the particular nature of the breach; (b) the Respondent’s level of culpability; (c) relevant precedent cases and penalties to ensure consistency; (d) adjustments for mitigating and aggravating factors. [84] In addition, due consideration was given to the applicable sentencing principles highlighted by the RIB in their penalty submission, as well as the well-known and often-quoted paragraphs in the Appeals Tribunal Ruling in RIU v L and in the case of Z v Dental Complaints Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1. [85] In RIU v L, the Appeals Tribunal at [25] 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. [86] In Z v Dental Complaints Committee, it was said that: It is well established that professional disciplinary proceedings are neither civil nor criminal in nature …. because the purpose of disciplinary proceedings within various occupations is not to punish the practitioner for misbehaviour, although it may have that effect, but to ensure appropriate standards of conduct are maintained in the occupation…. The facts and Penalty Guide starting point [87] The facts surrounding the breach have been thoroughly canvassed in the previously published Part 1 Disqualification Decision, as well as at paragraphs [8] to [35] within this Decision. There is no need for the facts to be repeated. [88] The Respondent is liable to any sanction available within the penalty provisions, set at paragraph [6], but importantly, the penalty itself, must be evaluated on a fact dependent basis. The Penalty Guide provides for a penalty starting point of an $8000 fine, with provision for adjustments with regards to mitigating and aggravating factors. The Respondent’s level of culpability [89] Although the breach occurred due to a mistake by one of the Respondent’s employees, by virtue of his position, he is vicariously liable and has accepted responsibility. [90] The position of Head Trainer for Te Akau, carries with it a huge responsibility. Particularly so, given the large number of horses that are under the Respondent’s care and whilst the Respondent is vicariously liable, he, by necessity is heavily reliant on delegating roles and responsibilities to his Barn Managers and staff to ensure that the day-to-day operations can function seamlessly. [91] Clearly there is no evidence that the Respondent played any physical part in the breach, nor did he have any knowledge that the mistake was about to be made or had occurred prior to the result of the post-race swab being brought to his attention. [92] Further, other than having the CCTV cameras constantly monitored within each barn, which is impractical, there are limited things the Respondent, on a personal level, could have done to prevent the mistake (in real time). On that basis, although he is accountable, the Respondent’s level of culpability is assessed as being at the lower end of the continuum. With this in mind, the Adjudicative Committee is comfortable that the penalty it has imposed, is proportionate in terms of the role he played. [93] Although the Adjudicative Committee is assured that Te Akau Racing applies high standards of care, a submission that the Adjudicative Committee accepts, this incident should serve as a timely reminder, not only to Te Akau, but also other Stables, that quality assurance systems need to be in place to prevent a mistake being made when treating horses with substances that may otherwise be permitted within withholding times or guidelines. Prevention and mitigation measures should always be at the forefront of thinking and planning. There also needs to be follow-up checks and balances during, and after, substances are administered. [94] It is hoped any lessons that have been learnt from this case are communicated to, and adopted by, others in charge of training establishments, to protect the wider interests of the Racing Industry so that public trust and confidence in the integrity of Racing is preserved. But in that regard, the Adjudicative Committee emphasises that the integrity of the Respondent or Te Akau Racing, is not in question. Precedent cases [95] The Adjudicative Committee has noted and considered, the precedent cases submitted by the RIB. As mentioned in paragraph 77, the O’Sullivan and Scott case is of no assistance, as it involved six breaches relating to Cobalt, and the circumstances of the offending were quite different. [96] Lucock and Gillespie, and Pertab are relevant because they both involved the use of the Prohibited Substance Meloxicam. Both of these breaches occurred in Trial Heats, and they received fines of $2800 and $3000 respectively. [97] A common thread in each of the cases submitted, is that there was no intent to deceive involved, in the use of the Prohibited Substances. Similarly, intent to deceive is not a factor in this case. [98] The RIB also referred to the NSW Racing case involving the highly successful Trainer J Cummings. Although the Prohibited Substances involved in that case were different to this matter, it is relevant to the extent that it involved the horse SAVATIANO who won a Group 1 Race with the winner’s share of the stake money being $306,762. A fine of $10,000 was imposed. [99] The Adjudicative Committee has identified another NSW Racing case, NSW Racing v C Waller (2016), which relates to a Methamphetamine positive on 5 October 2016, after Mr Waller’s horse BETCHA THINKING, finished second in a race at Canterbury Park. It was found that the positive swab resulted from contamination via a Stablehand. Mr Waller was fined $30,000 following a Steward’s Inquiry. [100] Mr Waller appealed against the severity of the fine imposed. In its Decision of 10 February 2017, the Racing NSW Appeals Panel issued a Written Decision in which they set aside the original $30,000 fine and in lieu of that penalty, a monetary penalty of $5,000 was imposed (by majority). In their Written Decision, the Appeals Panel made the following comments which this Adjudicative Committee finds helpful in evaluating the penalty in this case: Mr Waller is entitled when being sentenced to be given credit for the additional steps he has put in place since the incident. We also consider he was already running a professional stable to high standards. The Panel has considered Mr Waller’s relevant record. It is not a bad record in the sense that it does not reveal any incidents of a deliberate breach of the rules concerning drugs. The Panel has considered the fundamentals of sentencing and has considered what is sought to be achieved by a $30,000 in the circumstances of this case with this offender. The objective seriousness of the offence must be taken into account. The integrity and image of racing must be considered. Deterrence must also be considered. Specific deterrence seems largely irrelevant here. Mr Waller’s offence involved no intent, and the standards of his stable were already high, and he has sought to make them higher. General deterrence – in the sense of emphasising to participants in racing that the higher standards are required where prohibited substances – is relevant. Considering all these matters, our reaction to the penalty is that it is too severe. That reaction is underscored upon consideration of what the Panel sees is the most relevant precedent here, the appeal of McNair. The Appellant in McNair had a considerably worse record than Mr Waller… It is important that differently constituted appeal panels attempt to reach consistent decisions to similar breaches or the rules where similar circumstances exist. Further, this Panel should have particular regard to the decisions of the Tribunal, which is a higher authority. Mr McNair was penalised by way of a $10,000 fine. The offending here, which involves an objectively serious breach of the rules, is unfortunate. Mr Waller runs a stable of high standards generally. The breach here involved no intent. It also involved no apparent carelessness. Some message of general deterrence must be factored into the penalty, however, as must Mr Waller’s prior record of breaches of AR 178. In the Panel’s majority view, the appropriate penalty is a fine of $5,000. [101] The key points to be taken from the Waller Appeal, of relevance to the Adjudicative Committee’s Decision are that: The detection of the Prohibited Substance Methamphetamine is far more serious than Meloxicam. There is an entitlement for a discount to be applied for steps taken since the detection of the breach. Previous breaches of the Prohibited Substances Rule, intent, and carelessness are relevant. It is important that differently constituted Appeal Panels attempt to reach consistent decisions to similar breaches or the Rules where similar circumstances exist. [102] The Adjudicative Committee has previously mentioned, that for reasons of consistency and fairness, it is important that the Adjudicative Committee gives due consideration and weight to relevant precedent Decisions involving similar offending. This was recently reinforced in the Appeals Tribunal Decision M Anderson v RIB, published 18 May 2023. In that Decision, it was said by the Tribunal (at paragraph 29) …References and comparisons to other penalties which are imposed within the racing jurisdiction are common in order to achieve consistency in sentences which may be imposed. Sentencing Principles [103] The Adjudicative Committee endorses and has taken cognisance of the sentencing principles submitted by the RIB at paragraph [39] and also the points made by Mr Galbraith KC. [104] In addition, the Adjudicative Committee also factored into its decision making, the sentencing principles that were outlined in the RIU v L (May 2019), in which it was said by the Adjudicative Committee, that it must endeavour to reach a proportionate balance between the public interest; the interests of the offender; the interests of the professional body as a whole; the seriousness of the offending; and any aggravating and mitigating factors. The Adjudicative Committee believes that it has achieved such a balance in the penalty it has imposed. Aggravating and mitigating factors [105] At paragraphs [57] and [58], the RIB outlined aggravating and mitigating factors for the consideration of the Adjudicative Committee. Similarly, the Respondent at paragraph [72], has also highlighted mitigating factors. These have been noted and considered. In addition, the Adjudicative Committee emphasises the following factors: By virtue of the Rule of vicarious liability, the Respondent is accountable for the careless actions of his employee, and he has accepted the necessary responsibility by admitting the charge at the first available opportunity. The Respondent and his staff have fully cooperated with the investigation. Notwithstanding that as a Senior Class A Trainer with vast experience, his cooperation is expected in circumstances such as this. The Respondent has enjoyed a successful career and has topped the NZ and Singapore Trainers Premiership standings on a number of occasions and, but for a serious breach in 2000, has otherwise maintained a good judicial record. He is currently leading NZ Trainer for the current 2022/23 racing season. The Respondent in 2000, admitted breaches referred to above and he received a suspension and fine for his wrongdoing. Although the RIB has not raised his previous offending as an aggravating factor, the Adjudicative Committee deems it important to outline its position on this, as previous history can, and often will, impact on penalty. Therefore, the previous year 2000 breaches is a factor that the Adjudicative Committee has considered, and after careful thought, this Adjudicative Committee attaches limited weight to them. Thus, the Adjudicative Committee has treated them as a neutral factor. This is due to (i) the passage of time – they occurred 23 years ago and on that basis, the Respondent should not be further or unduly penalised for time served in relation to those breaches (ii) the historical breaches do not relate to Prohibited Substance offences; (iii) importantly, there has been no repeat offending of a serious nature, and (iv) in the interim, as alluded to above, the Respondent has been highly successful as a Trainer and has made a valuable contribution to the Industry. This is not a situation where the Prohibited Substance, Meloxicam, was applied with intent to enhance the performance of TOKYO TYCOON. Rather, this is a case where there has been a catastrophic error due to a lack of attention to detail, amounting to carelessness by one of the Respondent’s staff. Carelessness can arise from a mistake or an error. Although careless in their actions, the Adjudicative Committee understands that the person responsible for administering the substance, has demonstrated genuine remorse. The Respondent has also expressed remorse during the course of the hearing. It is accepted that this breach has taken a toll on the Respondent and his staff. In his oral submission, the Respondent asked if the Adjudicative Committee intended to, or would name the Foreperson responsible (refer paragraph 80.1). This request was seriously considered by the Adjudicative Committee. It is accepted that speculation and suspicion may have been directed at ‘other’ members of the Respondent’s team. Also, the Adjudicative Committee accepts that some members of the public would be interested in knowing the name of that person, but the Adjudicative Committee believes that it is not in the wider public interest for the person to be named. Furthermore, the RIB has not supported this. No mention of the Foreperson by name has been raised by them in any of the prosecution documentation. Further, it has been stressed that this matter has taken its toll on individuals involved; publicly naming the Foreperson in the Adjudicative Committee’s view, would exacerbate the situation. The Adjudicative Committee has not specifically ordered name suppression, so it remains an employment matter for the Respondent and Te Akau Racing to resolve, should they wish to advance this any further. The Stable had systems and processes in place, including CCTV camera coverage in the barns, but even so, they were overridden by human error, as a result of the controls that were in place not being followed. It was the Stable who searched their CCTV camera footage and identified how the breach occurred, and they immediately brought this to the attention of the RIB Investigators. The Adjudicative Committee understands that these systems were reviewed and are satisfied that they remain sufficiently robust, and are of the highest standard. At paragraph 74, the Respondent submitted that he has forfeited his share of the Trainer’s percentage, but the Adjudicative Committee must point out, that is not a penalty and is simply a consequence of the disqualification. At paragraph 69 of his submission, it was said by the Respondent that The Respondent submitted that “the status of the race has nothing whatever to do with the facts of the mistaken administration”. That is partly correct, but by virtue of Rule 920(2), the status of the race is a factor that can be taken into account when assessing penalty. Rule 920(2) provide that: (2) On finding a breach proved the Adjudicative Committee…in imposing a penalty provided in these Rules the Adjudicative Committee may have regard to such matters as it considers appropriate including: (a) the status of the Race; (b) the stake payable in respect of the Race; (c) any consequential effects upon any person or horse as a result of the breach of the Rule; and/or (d) the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in racing. [106] Therefore, with regards to Rule 920(2), the Group 1 status of the race, the stakes payable and the consequences of the breach, are all highly relevant. Also of importance, is the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in racing – but as previously mentioned in this Decision, there is no suggestion whatsoever, that the substance was administered with any intent to deceive or to improve the horse’s raceday performance. So, there are no grounds for public confidence to have been unduly impinged given the facts of this case. On that basis, the issue this Adjudicative Committee needed to assess with regards to Rule 920 when fixing penalty, was whether any weighting should be applied to the $8000 fine starting point. Ultimately, this issue was determined as an aggravating factor. [107] In relation to fixing a starting point, along with the other precedent cases that the Adjudicative Committee has highlighted, the Adjudicative Committee takes some guidance from the Decision of the Appeals Tribunal, R DUNN and J DUNN v RIU, dated 1 June 2018 (albeit a Harness related matter). This was an Appeal against the quantum of fine imposed. It should be pointed out that there are various points of difference between that case and this one, but some of the principles outlined by the Appeals Tribunal are helpful in calibrating the penalty in this matter. In DUNN and DUNN, from a Harness Penalty Guide starting point of $8000 (the same as Thoroughbred), the Appeals Tribunal adopted a $6000 starting point and applied a third discount. Furthermore, the Tribunal in its Decision determined that “In considering an appropriate allowance for mitigation the Tribunal considers that there might properly have been greater recognition of the position arrived at by the RIU and the Dunns’ advisors, Dr Molloy, and Mr Dale. The extent to which the Appellants cooperated with RIU and the extent to which the RIU endeavoured to follow up the Appellants’ concerns is a situation for which both parties should receive recognition. That level of cooperation is seen all too infrequently within harness racing and the other two codes over which the JCA has authority. An appropriate figure to measure mitigation in the circumstances outlined would have been 40 per cent”. [108] The RIB submitted that a starting point penalty of $10,000, primarily because of profile of the race the – Group 1 Sistema Stakes, an important race with a high level of stake money and considerable public and media interest. This starting point is $2000 above the Penalty Guide, and the Adjudicative Committee doesn’t believe the starting point should depart from the Penalty Guide, particularly in light of the much lesser penalties imposed in Lucock and Gillespie and Pertab, which were submitted by the RIB as precedent cases. In the Adjudicative Committee’s view, any adjustments can be adequately made in consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors. [109] The Respondent submitted that the facts of the truly accidental nature of the breach, and his and Te Akau’s integrity and cooperation, should be reflected in the penalty by way of a penalty less that the $8000 set out in the Penalty Guide. [110] In this case, the Adjudicative Committee believes there is no basis for departure from the Penalty Guide starting point. But the discretion vested in the Adjudicative Committee does allow for adjustments, upwards and downwards, from that starting point to be made. The starting point is therefore fixed at $8000. [111] In consideration of the aggravating factors, the Adjudicative Committee applies a $2000 uplift to the starting point. This takes into account that the consequences of the breach (i.e., the disqualification), did not arise following a Trial Heat or a low-key race, but the disqualification after winning a Group 1. It also takes into account, the consequences to all those involved, as per Rule 920(2), particularly so with regards to the impact this breach has had on the connections of TOKYO TYCOON i.e., the disqualification and loss of stakemoney. [112] In the Adjudicative Committee’s view, there are more mitigating factors than there are aggravating, and in recognition of this, the Adjudicative Committee applies a reduction of $3000. [113] Accordingly, after allowances for aggravating factors ($2000) and mitigating factors ($3000), the Adjudicative Committee imposes a fine of $7000. The Adjudicative Committee acknowledges this is less than the fine sought by the RIB, but in its view, after reflecting on the various factors, precedent penalties and ensuring that these matters are kept in perspective, the Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that the fine it has imposed, is reasonable and proportionate. Conclusion [114] In the final result, Class A Trainer Mark Walker, is fined $7000 and ordered to pay costs as set out below. Costs [115] The Respondent is ordered to pay costs of $2,447.61 for analysis of the ‘B Sample’. [116] There is no order for costs in favour of the RIB or Adjudicative Committee, as this matter was heard on a raceday, thus reducing the hearing costs for all parties concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted June 9, 2023 Author Share Posted June 9, 2023 Geez no wonder RIB costs are sky rocketing! This would have to be one of the longest judgements ever. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special Agent Posted June 9, 2023 Share Posted June 9, 2023 1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said: Geez no wonder RIB costs are sky rocketing! This would have to be one of the longest judgements ever. 116 points seems excessive. One thing that jumps off the page is the disparity of penalty compared with others, no comparable Group or Listed cases for Meloxicam cited. Mark Walker's $7,000 fine plus costs vs O'Sullivan/Scott's $17,250 per case, Cummings $10,000AUD, Lucock/Gillespie's $2,800 at the trials, and Pertab $3,000 at the trials. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark D Posted June 11, 2023 Share Posted June 11, 2023 Got off light 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nod Posted June 11, 2023 Share Posted June 11, 2023 I Wonder what the concentration was in the B sample 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted June 11, 2023 Author Share Posted June 11, 2023 4 hours ago, Mark D said: Got off light On what do you base that? 2 hours ago, nod said: I Wonder what the concentration was in the B sample Why? A bit cryptic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huey Posted June 11, 2023 Share Posted June 11, 2023 $7k fine & hey carry on ... No such thing as the mythical cartel . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted June 11, 2023 Author Share Posted June 11, 2023 16 minutes ago, Huey said: $7k fine & hey carry on ... No such thing as the mythical cartel . You are inferring that they have had special favours in the penalty. Where is the evidence of that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nod Posted June 11, 2023 Share Posted June 11, 2023 9 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: On what do you base that? Why? A bit cryptic. Nothing cryptic -the point of two samples is to compare them, validate the result Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted June 11, 2023 Author Share Posted June 11, 2023 31 minutes ago, nod said: Nothing cryptic -the point of two samples is to compare them, validate the result No it's not. Once Te Akau knew there'd been a stuff up and had identified what had happened and how they accepted culpability. It is up to the Respondent (Te Akau) to ask for the 'B' sample to be tested. There was no point in doing so. The costs of testing the 'B' sample would have be incurred by Te Akau and invariably the RIB loads up the penalty as well. No brainer and nothing nefarious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KickintheKods Posted June 11, 2023 Share Posted June 11, 2023 Speaking of nefarious....... A drunk is approached by the police at 3 in the morning:The cop asks:-Where are you going in that state, at this time?The drunk answers:-I am going to a lecture about alcohol abuse and its lethal effects on the organism, the bad example, the nefarious consequences to the family, as well as the problem it causes in the family economy, and the absolute irresponsibility. The cop looks at him with disbelief, and says: -Oh really? And who will give a lecture at this time of the day? - My wife ........... As soon as I get home. Goodnight officer. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nod Posted June 11, 2023 Share Posted June 11, 2023 1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said: No it's not. Once Te Akau knew there'd been a stuff up and had identified what had happened and how they accepted culpability. It is up to the Respondent (Te Akau) to ask for the 'B' sample to be tested. There was no point in doing so. The costs of testing the 'B' sample would have be incurred by Te Akau and invariably the RIB loads up the penalty as well. No brainer and nothing nefarious. The respondent -Walker -asked for the B sample to be tested -cost around $2500 "TE Akau" were not the respondent and not directly involved so comments re them seem unwarranted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted June 11, 2023 Author Share Posted June 11, 2023 25 minutes ago, nod said: The respondent -Walker -asked for the B sample to be tested -cost around $2500 "TE Akau" were not the respondent and not directly involved so comments re them seem unwarranted. Regardless of the nuances of the proceedings. What is your point regarding the 'B' sample? Excuse me for mixing up the Respondents but it seems when it comes to any matters involving Te Akua the lines become blurred. I'd be interested to understand your point regarding the 'B' sample. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doomed Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 The whole thing seems fairly straightforward. Someone made a cock-up, almost certainly accidental. The horse lost a group 1 win and any chance of being 2yo of the year. The connections lost the stake money, the breeder lost some residual value. The trainer admitted responsibility, got fined $7,000. Surely nothing to get too excited about. One might question how much the judgement cost the RIB. Typists hours alone probably massive. I suppose it helps to justify their existence. You could question why a gelding was in the colts barn in the first place and the wisdom of calling horses by quite different names to their racing names, but I imagine that happens all the time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted June 12, 2023 Author Share Posted June 12, 2023 1 hour ago, Doomed said: You could question why a gelding was in the colts barn in the first place and the wisdom of calling horses by quite different names to their racing names, but I imagine that happens all the time. A well balanced post. As to race names vs stable names a good point. Wouldn't take much to make bigger signs and have both. Horses do respond to their stable name. Also why not a flag on the stall that shows horse racing this week. As for mixing colts and geldings. Well you can't put fillies in the mix. Colts will make mates with Geldings and I've seen more issues when you isolate a colt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KickintheKods Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 The mixing of real names and household names is a problem and not just in a stable environment. When I am paying the bills and providing gifts and flowers etc, I am referred to as "sweetheart", "you big stallion" and "my handsome man". The moment I lose a couple of hundred on the punt or arrive home under the influence and smelling of perfume, I am suddenly an "arsehole". The RIU would have a field day at my place. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nod Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said: A As to race names vs stable names a good point. Wouldn't take much to make bigger signs and have both. Horses do respond to their stable name. Go back 40 years to Ellerslie and a large stable decided to take a little stables tie up while their horse was racing -things got worse......................far worse Upshot was Ellerslie had these beautiful signs made and every horse had their named tie up and every bugger unscrewed the signs and took them home 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huey Posted November 23, 2023 Share Posted November 23, 2023 These TA misdemeanors pass by barely without a comment these days. https://racingintegrityboard.org.nz/decisions/non-raceday-inquiry-mark-walker/?fbclid=IwAR3Le7-1EQhwpto66DTlvvjNhFgnfpZJTAw0MxMF7cILfyl_mFWUnclJtUM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted November 23, 2023 Share Posted November 23, 2023 misdemeanors? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclops Posted November 23, 2023 Share Posted November 23, 2023 HUEY in an earlier post today identified a link….by following that link there is a message ‘page not found ‘ ….can someone explain what that is all about , please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted November 23, 2023 Share Posted November 23, 2023 18 minutes ago, cyclops said: HUEY in an earlier post today identified a link….by following that link there is a message ‘page not found ‘ ….can someone explain what that is all about , please Maybe meant to refer to this? https://racingintegrityboard.org.nz/decisions/non-raceday-inquiry-mark-walker/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted November 23, 2023 Author Share Posted November 23, 2023 Big deal. The "One Clear Day" rule is open to misrepresentation and needs to change. The horse that was disqualified received an antibiotic and vitamin C 24 hours before it raced. Probably didn't need it as it must have been on the way to recovery already from a cold. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted November 23, 2023 Author Share Posted November 23, 2023 Shouldn't the rule be - 24 hours from start time? Or even 36 hours from start time? How the hell do you define "clear" and "day" in a legal context other than on case law? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted November 24, 2023 Share Posted November 24, 2023 9 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: Shouldn't the rule be - 24 hours from start time? Or even 36 hours from start time? How the hell do you define "clear" and "day" in a legal context other than on case law? What? I doubt any other trainer would not understand what "one clear day" means. One Clear Day (in force from 7 September 2020) The amendments now prohibit anybody from giving a horse anything other than food and water anytime during the day before the day of a race. A substance may only be given to a horse on the day before a race with the written consent of a Stipendiary Steward or an Investigator and only if the horse needed it solely for welfare reasons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted November 24, 2023 Share Posted November 24, 2023 And it's bs that it is different in Oz. Racing Victoria (RV) reminds trainers and permitted veterinarians of their obligations under the provisions of AR 254 which prohibits the use of injections of any type to a thoroughbred racehorse within one clear day of a race. By way of example, if a horse is racing on Saturday, the last time that the horse may be injected is midnight on the Thursday prior to the race. The horse must not be injected on the Friday or at any time on the Saturday prior to running in the race. Participants are again reminded that for the purpose of this rule injection includes but is not limited to the insertion of a needle into a horse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.