Day At The Track
Search Results
17 to 32 of 793

Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) Stewards have concluded an inquiry into a report received from Racing Analytical Services Laboratory (RASL) that Graceful Art returned an elevated plasma total carbon dioxide (TC02) reading in a pre-race blood sample taken from the gelding prior to it competing in Race 7 at the Mildura meeting conducted on 14 March 2018. Peter O’Brien, trainer of Graceful Art, was interviewed by HRV Stewards on 26 March 2018 concerning the husbandry practices adopted leading into the gelding’s engagement at Mildura on 14 March 2018.   Mr O’Brien provided further evidence to the inquiry in relation to the husbandry practices he adopted and a report from HRV Senior Veterinarian Dr Julia Aspinall concerning the product ‘Neutrolene Plus’ was considered. After consideration of all the evidence Mr O’Brien was found guilty of a charge under Australian Harness Racing Rule (AHRR) 196C(1)(b) which states: 196C.  (1)   A person must not administer an alkalinising agent in any manner to a horse which is engaged to run in a race: (b)  at any time within one (1) clear day of the commencement of the race. The particulars of the charge being: On 13 March 2018 when the trainer of Graceful Art he administered ‘Neutrolene Plus’, a product containing alkalinising agents, to that horse within one clear day of Graceful Art competing in Race 7 at the Mildura meeting conducted on 14 March 2018. In assessing penalty Stewards took into account: Mr O’Brien’s not guilty plea and prior offence record; Any penalty imposed must demonstrate the importance of only administering substances within the permitted timeframe determined by the AHRR; Mr O’Brien’s personal and financial circumstances; The administration occurred within one clear day of the race as opposed to raceday. Stewards accordingly imposed a fine of $3,000. After hearing submissions from Mr O’Brien and Ms Cassandra O’Brien, managing owner of Graceful Art, Stewards ordered under the provisions of AHRR 258(1) that Graceful Art be disqualified from its 5th placing in Race 7 at Mildura on 14 March 2018 and the placings were amended accordingly.   Harness Racing Victoria (HRV)  

The Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) Racing Appeals and Disciplinary (RAD) Board today (28th June) considered a charge issued by HRV Stewards under Australian Harness Racing Rule (AHRR) 190(1) against licensed trainer-driver Craig Turnbull. AHRR 190(1) reads as follows: A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances. The charge under AHRR 190(1) issued by HRV Stewards against Mr Turnbull related to a urine sample taken from the horse ‘The Russian’ at the Kyabram trial meeting on 24 September 2017. The definition of a ‘race’ within the AHRR includes an official trial. Racing Analytical Services Limited (RASL) reported that the analysis of the urine sample revealed it to contain the prohibited substance frusemide. The Australian Racing Forensic Laboratory (ARFL) in NSW confirmed these findings in the reserve portion of the relevant sample. Mr Turnbull pleaded guilty to the charge before submissions on penalty were presented. In deciding an appropriate penalty, the HRV RAD Board highlighted Mr Turnbull’s cooperation throughout the investigation and guilty plea at the earliest opportunity, along with his good record over a long period in the industry. The HRV RAD Board also highlighted the purpose of the rules in relation to prohibited substances and the dangers associated with horses competing with these substances in their system. Mr Turnbull was subsequently fined $3000, of which $1500 was suspended for a period of 12 months. HRV RAD Board Panel: Alanna Duffy (Chair), John Kearney

DESTREOS NZ INQUIRY –07 JUNE 2018 – KEN RATTRAY On Thursday 7 June 2018 stewards inquired into the results of analysis of samples taken from DESTREOS NZ prior to its competing in Race 3 at the Carrick Park Pacing Club on 31st December 2017. Evidence was heard from representatives of Racing Analytical Services Limited and the Racing Science Centre. Evidence was tendered by Mr Rattray in relation to his feeding regime and husbandry practices. Mr Rattray was issued with a charge in writing on 27th March 2018 pursuant to AHRR 190(1),(2) and (4) for failing to present DESTREOS NZ free of the prohibited substance Cobalt. Mr Rattray reserved his plea to the charge and after giving due consideration to the evidence tendered throughout the Inquiry Stewards sustained the charge. In determining penalty Stewards took into consideration Mr Rattrays reserved plea, his licence history, including that he had five prior disqualifications for prohibited substance matters, his personal subjective circumstances and the need that any penalty reflect the serious nature of prohibited substance offences and provide both a specific and general deterrent. Mr Rattray was disqualified for five years, commencing immediately and expiring at midnight on 6 June 2023. Acting under the provisions of AHRR 195 Stewards ordered that DESTREOS NZ be disqualified from the subject race and the placings will be amended accordingly. Mr Rattray has appealed against the conviction and penalty. Adrian Crowther CHAIRMAN OF STEWARDS – Harness (03) 6777 1900   Harnesslink Media

Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) Stewards have issued a charge against licensed trainer-driver Anthony Adams under Australian Harness Racing Rule (AHRR) 190(1) which states: A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances. It is alleged that Mr Adams presented ‘Lifeplusten’ to race at Mildura on 28 December 2017 when not free of arsenic, a prohibited substance when evidenced at a concentration above the allowable threshold. HRV Stewards also issued a further charge under AHRR 119C in relation to the stabling location of ‘Lifeplusten’ and ‘Mister Magic Man’ during the relevant time. The charges will be heard by the HRV Racing Appeals and Disciplinary (RAD) Board on a date to be fixed.   Harness Racing Victoria

Harness racing trainer Robert Dunn and his son John have successfully appealed their $14,000 fine given to them for presenting horses to race with a prohibited substance in their system. On the 4th July 2017 the New Zealand Racing Laboratory issued Analytical Reports indicating the presence of caffeine in four swabs taken from horses racing at Nelson on the 9th and 11th of June 2017. This started a lengthy investigation into why and how this stimulant (caffeine) came to be in the system of the winning horses and ended with a $7000 fine for both Robert and John handed down by the JCA in March 2018. The appeal which was held last Friday resulted in reducing the fine from $7,000 each down to $3,900 for both Robert and John Dunn.   Full details below:   BEFORE AN APPEALS TRIBUNAL OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003 IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing ROBERT JOHN DUNN, Public Trainer & JOHN ROBERT DUNN, Open Horseman APPELLANTS RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU) RESPONDENT Appeals Tribunal: Mr Murray McKechnie, Chairman & Professor Geoff Hall Present : Mr Paul Dale, Counsel for Messrs Dunn Mr Robert Dunn Mr Chris Lange, Counsel for RIU Mr Neil Grimstone, Manager Integrity RIU Dr Leo Molloy DECISION OF APPEALS TRIBUNAL OF JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY DATED THIS 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2018 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Tribunal has heard an appeal from a decision of a Non-raceday Judicial Committee dated 28 March 2018. 1.2 Mr Robert John Dunn is a licensed public trainer and Mr John Robert Dunn is a licensed open horseman. Each faced four informations alleging breaches of the Prohibited Substance Rule 1004(1), (1A), (3), (3A) and (4) of the New Zealand Harness Rules of Racing. Those Rules are as follows: “Rule 1004(1) For the purpose of this rule a horse is presented for a race during the period commencing at 8.00 am on the day of the race for which the horse is nominated and ending at the time it leaves the racecourse after the running of that race. (1A) A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances. … (3) When a horse is presented to race in contravention of sub-rule (1A) or (2) the trainer of the horse commits a breach of these Rules. (3A) When a horse is presented to race in contravention of sub-rule (1A) or (2) the trainer of the horse commits a breach of these Rules. (3A) When a person is left in charge of a horse and the horse is presented to race in contravention of sub-rule (1A) or (2) the trainer of the horse and the person left in charge both commit a breach of these Rules. (4) A breach of sub-rule (1A), (2) or (3A) is committed regardless of the circumstances in which the .. prohibited substance came to be present in or on the horse. 1.3 The relevant Penalty Rule provides as follows: “Rule 1004(7) Every person who commits a breach of sub-rule (2) or (3) shall be liable to: (a) a fine not exceeding $20,000; and/or (b) be disqualified or suspended from holding or obtaining a licence for any specific period not exceeding five years.” 1.4 The informations faced by Messrs Dunn result from the Nelson Harness Racing Club’s meeting on 9 and 11 June 2017. On 9 June a horse trained by Mr Robert Dunn and in the charge of Mr John Dunn (Mr Robert Dunn not being present on course) named Rishi tested positive for caffeine following Race 2. The horse Hayden’s Meddle tested positive for caffeine following Race 7. The horse Billy Badger took part in Race 10 and following testing also tested positive for caffeine. Caffeine is a nominated prohibited substance. Each of the three horses, Rishi, Hayden’s Meddle and Billy Badger, had won their races and were subject to a mandatory disqualification under Rule 1004D or Rule 1004(8). On the second day of the meeting at Nelson, on 11 June, Billy Badger took part in Race 8 and won that race. He again tested positive for the prohibited substance caffeine. 2. HEARING BEFORE NON-RACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE 2.1 The RIU submitted an agreed Summary of Facts. That is set out in paragraph 7 of the decision under appeal. 2.2 The Non-raceday Judicial Committee (the Committee) recorded the submissions made for the RIU by Mr Grimstone and for Messrs Dunn by their lay advocate, Dr Leo Molloy. 3. THE APPROACH ON APPEAL 3.1 This appeal is by way of rehearing. 3.2 The Tribunal is guided by what was said in the Supreme Court judgment Kacen v Bashir (2010) NZSC112 at paragraphs 31 and 32 which are to the following effect: [31] The Court of Appeal discussed the application of the decision of this Court in Austin Nichols & Co Inc v Stichting Lodestar to the present kind of appeal. The Court correctly observed that on a general appeal of the present kind the appellate court has the responsibility of considering the merits of the case afresh. The weight it gives to the reasoning of the court or courts below is a matter for the appellate court’s assessment. We should add here that if the appellate court admits further evidence, that evidence will necessarily require de novo assessment and consideration of how it affects the correctness of the decision under appeal. The Court of Appeal was right to say that Courtney J had rather overstated the effect of Austin, Nichols when she indicated she should approach the appeal to the High Court “uninfluenced” by the reasoning of the Family Court. The High Court was required to reach its own conclusion, but this did not imply that it should disregard the Family Court’s decision. What, if any, influence the Family Court’s reasoning should have was for the High Court’s assessment. [32] But, for present purposes, the important point arising from Austin, Nichols is that those exercising general rights of appeal are entitled to judgment in accordance with the opinion of the appellate court, even where that opinion involves an assessment of fact and degree and entails a value judgment. In this context a general appeal is to be distinguished from an appeal against a decision made in the exercise of a discretion. In that kind of case the criteria for a successful appeal are stricter: (1) error of law or principle; (2) taking account of irrelevant considerations; (3) failing to take account of relevant consideration; or (4) the decision is plainly wrong. The distinction between a general appeal and an appeal from a discretion is not altogether easy to describe in the abstract. But the fact that the case involves factual evaluation and a value judgment does not of itself mean the decision is discretionary. 4. THE CASE FOR THE APPELLANTS 4.1 Mr Dale submitted that there were three key facts which required consideration and which were not adequately addressed by the Committee. These facts are said to be: i There was evidence that the Appellants may not have been responsible for the administration of the prohibited substance caffeine and that this may have been done by some person bearing ill-will towards the Dunn stable or towards owners with horses in the stable. ii That the RIU acknowledged that neither of the Appellants had intentionally administered caffeine to the horses in order to gain any advantage. iii That the RIU had proposed that the offences be treated as a single breach when assessing penalty. 4.2 It was submitted that the factual background was very important and somewhat unique. There was evidence of a telephone discussion between two persons, one a former employee of the Dunn stable, which conversation was said to have involved discussion of the horses being drugged and that this discussion took place before any laboratory tests had become known. As a result of this telephone conversation it was argued that the Dunns may have been “framed”. Mr Dale, in correspondence with the RIU, proposed that charges not be laid or alternatively that there be no penalty other than disqualification of the horses. That course was followed in McInerney v Templeton 10 November 1999 Pankhurst J. The letter from Mr Dale to the RIU was followed up with a letter to the New Zealand Police and Mr Dale subsequently had discussions with a Christchurch based detective. Thereafter advice was given to Vodafone that Messrs Dunn would seek the telephone records in relation to the conversation said to have occurred in relation to the horses being drugged. An application was prepared for filing in the High Court seeking discovery against Vodafone. The Tribunal was advised that the Vodafone response to the request for information was that it no longer had the records as these were not kept beyond six months. Mr Dale emphasised that the commitment of resources and necessarily the expenditure of significant funds in an attempt to obtain non-party discovery was consistent with the Appellants’ belief that evidence favourable to their position might be available. 4.3 The legal submissions for the Appellants are discussed in paragraph 6 below. 5. THE HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE 5.1 At the hearing before the Committee the Appellants were represented by the lay advocate, Dr Leo Molloy. Before the matter came before the Committee there had been extended discussions between Dr Molloy and Mr Grimstone, representing the RIU. The parties had essentially reached an agreed position. That position was as follows: i The RIU had endeavoured to identify any third party who may have been involved but could not do so. ii There was no evidence that either Mr Robert Dunn or Mr John Dunn had been responsible for administering the prohibited substance. iii The RIU would treat the multiple positive tests as a single event and would seek one penalty. It was the RIU submission that that penalty should start at around $4,000. iv The RIU would acknowledge the Appellants’ good records. The Tribunal observes that the RIU did not draw to the attention of the Committee the decision in the case of the RIU v Robert Dunn, John Dunn and Craig Smith dated 16 January 2017. That decision of a Non-raceday Judicial Committee arose out of events which occurred at Forbury Park Raceway in Dunedin on 23 June 2016. In response to the position taken by the RIU the stance taken by the Appellants before the Committee was as follows: i They would accept the presenting charges. ii They would deny any responsibility for the presence of the prohibited substance in the four horses. iii That the decision of the Non-raceday Judicial Committee in the case of RIU v Larsen 16 January 2017 should be the benchmark for setting the level of penalty. In that case the fine imposed was $200. Further reference will be made to the decision of the Non-raceday Judicial Committee and RIU v Larsen later in this decision. 5.2 The Committee delivered a comprehensive decision. The conclusion reached by the Committee was that there should be a total fine of $14,000, and it was appropriate that Mr Robert Dunn and Mr John Dunn each be fined $7,000. In summary, the most significant findings of the Committee are now set out: i That there was no evidence to confirm that there had been conduct by third parties involved in framing the Appellants or as it is sometimes known nobbling of the horses. ii The decisions in Burrows and McGrath which were put forward by Dr Molloy were not accepted as valid comparisons. iii Dr Molloy invited the Committee to dismiss the charges against Mr John Dunn. This the Committee rejected and pointed out that Mr Dunn had accepted his responsibility by way of his guilty pleas. The Committee drew attention to the fact that Mr John Dunn was the person “left in charge of a horse” and further that the horses were “presented to race in contravention of Rule 1(A)”. iv The Committee accepted that the offences were what is known as presentation offences rather than the more serious administration offences. The Committee did not accept the RIU submission that the nature of the prohibited substance and the surrounding circumstances should lead to a conclusion that there had been one breach for the purposes of setting penalty. v The Committee was not prepared to accept that the loss of stake money as a result of the horses’ disqualification, said to be at considerable cost to Messrs Dunn, was a significant matter in mitigation. vi The Committee accepted that culpability for breach of the prohibited substance rule can vary greatly but the Committee’s assessment (paragraph 47) was that there were multiple failings and that this put the level of offending at above mid-range. vii The Committee rejected the submission by Dr Molloy that the Dunn brand had been damaged beyond repair. The Committee recognised that the Dunns are longstanding industry participants but pointed out that the circumstances of how these horses came to be presented with a prohibited substance would not lead to damage of the licence holder’s reputation to the extent submitted by Dr Molloy. viii In paragraph 54 the Committee made reference to the RIU submission seeking a total fine of $4,000. The Committee made clear that this was considered far too lenient when the specific circumstances of the offending were taken into consideration. The Committee expressed the view that a fine at that level for eight breaches of the Prohibited Substance Rule would fail to have regard to the well-recognised sentencing principles and which principles were put forward by the RIU. ix The Committee gave consideration to the recent decisions in RIU v KD Townley, RIU v BR Negus, RIU v Edmonds and RIU v Brosnan. x The position of the Committee is succinctly set out in paragraph 59 of the decision which is as follows: We maintain the view that the position of the RIU still fails to have regard to the multiple nature of these breaches. While the RIU indicate that they could not rule out third party involvement, we make the observation that that is often a consideration in presentation breaches where the source of the prohibited substance is not known. In this particular case, while a possibility, we are not prepared to make such a definitive finding. xi The Committee took the view that it was appropriate to apply the $8,000 JCA Penalty Guideline figure in respect of each of the breaches on 9 June 2017. In relation to the second breach for Billy Badger on 11 June 2017 the Committee applied a figure of $4,000. This led to a starting point of $28,000. The Committee then applied what it described as “an appropriate adjustment to reflect the circumstances surrounding the breaches in accordance with the totality principle” and reduced the figure from $28,000 by just over one third to $18,600. xii In considering mitigation the Committee applied a discount of approximately 25 per cent. This was referenced to the previous record of the Appellants. As earlier noted the decision of the Non-Raceday Judicial Committee in RIU v Robert John Dunn and Craig Smith of 16 January 2017 was not drawn to the attention of the Committee. xiii The decision of the Non-Raceday Judicial Committee in RIU v Larsen 16 January 2017, which decision figured prominently in Mr Dale’s submissions, was not drawn to the attention of the Committee. 6. LEGAL SUBMISSIONS FOR APPELLANTS 6.1 It was said for the Appellants that it was difficult to follow the reasoning of the Committee in rejecting the RIU position that the charges should be viewed as one breach for the purposes of fixing penalty. 6.2 It was submitted that there was inadequate recognition by the Committee of the curious circumstances which suggested that other persons may have been involved. In the Tribunal’s view the Committee was right to emphasise that no conclusive evidence had been obtained to support the involvement of other parties. It was submitted that the circumstances around the possible involvement of other parties should have led to a comparison with the decision in RIU v Larsen. In the first place the Larsen decision was not drawn to the attention of the Committee. Secondly, the factual position in Larsen was significantly different. In that case the Non-Raceday Judicial Committee had before it evidence from which it was able to draw a compelling inferential conclusion that Mr Larsen had nothing whatever to do with the administration of the prohibited substance Ketoprofen. 6.3 Particular emphasis was placed upon the cooperation from the Appellants and the attempts made on their behalf to establish whether there was involvement of others. That cooperation was expressly acknowledged in the RIU submissions and it was contended for the Appellants that there was not adequate recognition of this in the decision under appeal. 6.4 The early pleas by the Appellants were emphasised by Mr Dale. 6.5 Attention was drawn to the fact that the penalty sought by the RIU was a fine of $4,000 whereas the penalty ultimately imposed was more than three times the sum sought by the prosecuting authority. This Tribunal recognises that a judicial or quasi judicial body is not bound to accept the penalty proposed by the prosecuting authority, however it is unusual but not unique for the penalty that is imposed to be significantly greater than that sought by the prosecutor. 6.6 In answer to a question from the Tribunal, Mr Dale advised that if the level of fine imposed had been as submitted by the RIU no appeal would have been lodged. 6.7 Mr Dale was reluctant to put forward an appropriate figure but made it plain to the Tribunal that a figure close to that put forward by the RIU was appropriate and that necessarily that would involve a significant reduction from the figure arrived at by the Committee. 7. THE POSITION OF THE RIU 7.1 The submissions filed by Mr Lange drew attention to a number of decisions which emphasised the significant obligation of licensed persons to ensure that racing was drug free. The most recent New Zealand authority is Justice 2012 a decision of the Appeals Tribunal. This was a high profile case following a positive test for a prohibited substance by the horse Smokin Up, the winner of the Interdominion Grand Final at Alexandra Park. 7.2 The RIU submissions correctly pointed out that the Prohibited Substance Rule does not require the investigation to establish how the substance came to be in the horse’s system. That is expressly recognised by Rule 1004(4) and by a number of judicial decisions. Further, the Rule requires licensed persons to take steps to ensure, so far as they are able, that there is no inadvertent administration or that the horses are not nobbled by some third party. 7.3 The RIU submissions acknowledge that the Committee imposed a penalty significantly higher than that submitted by the RIU. The submissions go on to point out that the Committee was not bound by the RIU submission and that it was for the Committee to make its own determination of the appropriate level of fine. 7.4 In relation to the appropriate approach that is to be taken in setting a penalty under the Rules of Harness Racing, the submissions make extensive reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Z v Complaints Assessment Committee [2009] 1NZLR1. In essence, that judgment emphasises that punishment is not the primary purpose of disciplinary proceedings, rather those proceedings are to protect the public who may have contact with the profession or industry where the breach of standards is said to have occurred. The RIU submissions drew attention to the fact that the principles that are set out in the Supreme Court judgment in Z v Complaints Assessment Committee are now expressly included in the Rules of Procedure for Judicial Committees and Appeals Tribunals under the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing by reference to clause 5 which came into effect on 27 August 2015. 7.5 The RIU submissions referred to a number of decisions which bear some comparison. These included RIU v Edmonds 31 March 2016, RIU v Negus 20 March 2018, RIU v Brosnan 13 February 2018 and RIU v Larsen 16 January 2017. The submissions rightly point out that the facts of Larsen were unique and bear little or no meaningful comparison with the events under consideration here. 7.6 Reference is made in the RIU submissions to the decision in RIU v Robert Dunn, John Dunn and Craig Smith of 16 January 2017, which decision, as earlier observed, had not been drawn to the attention of the Committee. On that occasion Mr Robert Dunn was fined $4,000 and Mr John Dunn $2,000. It was said for the RIU that it would be open to the Tribunal to infer that those fines had not brought home to the Appellants the high standards expected of them in harness racing. 7.7 The RIU submissions conclude by observing that the Rules place the obligation on the trainer and the person in charge to ensure that a horse is free of prohibited substances and that given the number of breaches that occurred and by reference to relevant authorities, the penalty which the Committee set was within the range available to it. 7.8 The RIU submissions do not meaningfully address the reasoning behind the submission which the RIU put to the Committee that an appropriate fine – being a single fine in respect of both Appellants – was the figure of $4,000. 8. DISCUSSION 8.1 The Tribunal has concern that with reference to the three horses, Rishi, Hayden’s Meddle and Billy Badger, that tested positive following racing on 9 June 2017, the Committee adopted the $8,000 JCA Penalty Guidelines figure in each case thus reaching a figure of $24,000. The Tribunal considers that the breaches were at the lower end of mid-range. In those circumstances the Tribunal believes that it would have been more appropriate given that all the breaches took place on the same day at the same racecourse to have adopted a figure of $6,000 in respect of the three horses, Rishi, Hayden’s Meddle and Billy Badger. The figure for Billy Badger on 11 June might appropriately been $2,000. These figures just spoken of would lead to an initial starting point of $20,000. In paragraph 60 of the Committee’s decision there is an adjustment. There is reference to what is described as “an appropriate adjustment to reflect the circumstances surrounding these breaches in accordance with the totality principle…” The figure which the Committee adopted was just over one third. The Tribunal considers that the adjustment was appropriate. Adopting the same approach here, a discount of just a little over one third of, say, $7,000 would reduce the figure earlier spoken of being $20,000 to $13,000. 8.2 With reference to mitigation, the Committee applied a discount of approximately 25 per cent. In paragraph 61 of its decision the Committee expressly recognised the early admission of the offending by the Appellants, their cooperation and their previous records, albeit through no fault of the Committee there was no reference to the decision of 16 January 2017 spoken of earlier involving both Appellants and a member of their staff, Craig Smith. 8.3 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. That results in the figure of $13,000 arrived at in paragraph 8.1 above being reduced to $7,800. As did the Committee, the Tribunal considers that the fines should be shared equally between Messrs Robert Dunn and John Dunn. Each will be fined the sum of $3,900. 9. COSTS 9.1 At the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal in Auckland on Monday, 28 May 2018 the Tribunal indicated that it would invite submissions from both parties on the question of costs. That the Tribunal now does. An entirely preliminary view is that given the circumstances of this case and the outcome each of the parties might reasonably be required to meet their own costs and each make an equal contribution towards some costs in favour of the JCA. As both experienced counsel will know, the figure that is set for JCA costs is not commonly an indemnity figure but simply a contribution towards the costs of setting up and conducting the hearing. 9.2 Submissions on the issue of costs are sought from both parties within seven (7) working days of receipt of this decision: such submissions not to exceed three pages. DATED this 1st day of June 2018 Murray McKechnie Chairman (signed pursuant to the Fifth Schedule to the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing)     Harnesslink Media

The Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) Racing Appeals and Disciplinary (RAD) Board today considered a charge issued by HRV Stewards under Australian Harness Racing Rule (AHRR) 190(1) against licensed trainer Anthony Spiteri. AHRR 190(1) reads as follows: A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances. The charge relates to a post-race urine sample collected from the horse ‘Blissfull Stride’ after it finished in first place in Race 6, the ‘Len Fulton Memorial Pace’, at Ballarat on 16 June 2017. Racing Analytical Services Limited (RASL) reported that analysis of the urine sample revealed it to contain capsaicin, a prohibited substance under the AHRR. The Australian Racing Forensic Laboratory (ARFL) in NSW confirmed the reserve sample contained capsaicin. Mr Spiteri pleaded guilty to the charge before submissions on penalty were heard from the HRV Stewards and Mr Spiteri. It was acknowledged by the Stewards that the use of a preparation called “Keep Tail” where “Blissfull Stride” was stabled was a possible explanation for the presence of capsaicin in the horse’s urine sample. In deciding an appropriate penalty, the HRV RAD Board considered the circumstances of the offence Mr Spiteri’s cooperation throughout the investigation and guilty plea at the earliest opportunity, his history in the industry and his personal circumstances. The HRV RAD Board also emphasised the purpose of the rules in relation to prohibited substances and the need for specific and general deterrence. Mr Spiteri was subsequently fined $3000, of which $1000 was suspended for a period of 12 months. The HRV RAD Board also ordered that, under AHRR 195, ‘Blissfull Stride’ be disqualified from Race 6 at Ballarat on 16 June 2017 and that the placings be amended accordingly.   HRV RAD Board Panel: Alanna Duffy (Chair), John Kearney, Kevin Carson.

Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) Stewards have issued two charges against licensed trainer Graeme Mengler under Australian Harness Racing Rule (AHRR) 190(1) which states:     A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances It is alleged that the horse ‘Heza Reddy’ was presented to race at Mildura on 28 November 2017 by Mr Mengler not free of cobalt, a prohibited substance when evidenced at a concentration above the allowable threshold. It is further alleged that the horse ‘Heza Reddy’ was presented to race at Mildura on 28 December 2017 by Mr Mengler not free of cobalt, a prohibited substance when evidenced at a concentration above the allowable threshold. HRV Stewards have also issued a charge under AHRR 190B, alleging that Mr Mengler failed to keep and maintain a log book. The charge will be heard by the HRV Racing Appeals and Disciplinary (RAD) Board on a date to be fixed.   Harness Racing Victoria

Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) Stewards have issued a charge against licensed trainer-driver Craig Turnbull under Australian Harness Racing Rule (AHRR) 190(1) which states:     A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances The AHRR defines "Race" as a race or official trial or official time trial or event in which harness racing horses race or participate. It is alleged that Mr Turnbull presented ‘The Russian’ to race at the Kyabram trial meeting on 24 September 2017 when not free of the prohibited substance frusemide. The charge will be heard by the HRV Racing Appeals and Disciplinary (RAD) Board on a date to be fixed.   Harness Racing Victoria

Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) Stewards have issued a charge against licensed trainer Heather Morrissey under Australian Harness Racing Rule (AHRR) 190(1) which states: A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances. It is alleged that the horse ‘Tryncatchme’ was presented to race at St Arnaud on 31 December 2017 by Mrs Morrissey when not free of the prohibited substance dexamethasone. HRV Stewards also issued a further charge under AHRR 190B which requires trainers to keep and maintain a logbook listing all therapeutic substances in their possession and recording all treatments administered to horses in their care. The charge will be heard by the HRV Racing Appeals and Disciplinary (RAD) Board on a date to be fixed. Harness Racing Victoria

The Association of Racing Commissioners International's Board of Directors has approved the latest revisions to its Model Rules of Racing, including protocol for when riders sustain concussions, best practices when lightning is in the area and raising the scale of weights in Quarter Horse racing. The model rules provide the template for racing regulatory entities and the framework under which the sport has made significant gains toward uniform regulations among jurisdictions. The updated model rules can be viewed at and downloaded by using the button at the bottom of this message. The ARCI Model Rules Committee recommended the updates, which then went to the full board for approval at ARCI's 84th Conference on Equine Welfare and Racing Integrity in Hot Springs, Ark. The committee is chaired by the South Dakota Commission on Gaming's Larry Eliason. "The Model Rules are a living document that we amend as needed to provide our regulatory members the most up-to-date blueprint for best practices in all areas of conducting pari-mutuel racing," said ARCI President Ed Martin. "Concussions are at the forefront of all sports, and these additions to the Model Rules make sure racing participants get proper evaluation when the possibility of a concussion occurs and do not return to racing prematurely. At the heart of all these changes is the well-being and safety of our human and equine athletes." The changes: ARCI-007-020 (A)(5)(b) and (A)(10) -- The concussion protocol for jockeys was amended to mandate that at least one of the previously-required medical professionals on site (physician, nurse practitioner or paramedic) must be adequately trained in diagnosing and assessing concussions. The updated rule requires racing associations to adopt, post and implement protocol approved by the regulatory authority for the diagnosis and management of concussions sustained by jockeys. Such protocol is to include an assessment with a minimum of a SCAT-5 exam by an individual trained in concussions, which could be the track physician, paramedic, nurse practitioner or athletic trainer. Additionally, a return-to-ride guideline must be established in order to clear a jockey who has been concussed, or is believed to have been concussed, once he or she is declared fit to ride. ARCI-007-020 (M) and 014-025 -- Tracks are required to develop an approved hazardous weather and lightning protocol, including access to a commercial, real-time lightning detection service with strike distance/radius notifications. When lightning is detected within eight miles radius of the track, racing or training will be suspended and participants alerted to seek shelter. Racing or training can resume only after a minimum of 30 minutes has passed since the last strike is observed within an eight-mile radius. ARCI-010-020 (D)(3) -- The scale of weights jockeys carry in Quarter Horses, Appaloosas and Paints was increased four pounds in each age class, with the minimum weight to be carried now 124 pounds for 2-year-olds, 126 for 3-year-olds and 128 for older horses.   DOWNLOAD THE MODEL RULES OF RACING   Ed Martin 1510 Newtown Pike Lexington, KY 40511   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  

Stewards have today concluded deliberations, after hearing submissions on the question of penalty on 1 May 2018, following the determination to find Mr Kim Prentice guilty to a charge under Rule 190 with the particulars being that as the harness racing trainer he presented EXTRADITE NZ to race in Race 5 at Northam on 25 November 2017 where it raced and finished first, not free of the prohibited substance cobalt, evidenced by a concentration of cobalt in excess of 100 micrograms per litre in urine. After consideration Stewards determined the appropriate penalty to be a disqualification of twelve (12) months, however in view of the time that has elapsed since Mr Prentice was suspended in part and full pending outcome of this inquiry, the period of disqualification was reduced to expire as of midnight 7 January 2019. Pursuant to Rule 195 of the RWWA Harness Rules of Racing, EXTRADITE NZ was disqualified from the race in question and the placings amended accordingly with the commensurate implications to all stake money and payments to apply.  In determining penalty Stewards took into account: Mr Prentice’s long and unblemished record within the industry and co-operation at all stages of this matter The level of 150ug/L reported by the Chem Centre The nature of the substance and the seriousness of the offence in all of the circumstances That the Stewards were not satisfied that the use of VAM, as reported by Mr Prentice and as supported to some degree by his treatment records, fully accounted for the reported level in EXTRADITE NZ. Accordingly the inquiry had not determined to the requisite standard the reason why EXTRADITE NZ had exceeded the threshold level. Notwithstanding the above, that Mr Prentice had only recently introduced the use of VAM into his training without seeking professional veterinary opinion, despite industry notices which discouraged use of these products close to racing, advising trainers amongst other things;  • That a normal racing diet is more than sufficient to meet a horse’s nutritional requirements for cobalt and vitamin B12.  • That registered injectable cobalt supplements offer no nutritional advantages because incorporation of cobalt into the vitamin B12 molecule occurs within the horse’s gut.  • To consult with their veterinarians to ensure that their oral supplementation regimen provides only the amount of cobalt necessary to meet the scientifically established nutritional requirements of the horse for cobalt. “Whilst the threshold has been set at a level to allow for normal levels of cobalt supplementation through routine nutritional sources, trainers are advised that the administration of certain registered vitamin supplements, particularly by injection, close to racing may result in a level of cobalt in a subsequent sample that exceeds this threshold. Trainers are therefore advised to avoid the use of these supplements close to racing.  Examples of injectable vitamin supplements that contain cobalt and/or vitamin B12 include, but are not limited, to V.A.M. injection, Hemo-15 and Hemoplex.” •  Penalties issued in WA and other jurisdiction in relation to this prohibited substance •  The need for deterrence both general and specific Denis Borovica – General Manager Racing Integrity Ph: 9445 5427 denis.borovica@rwwa.com.au  

The Australian Racing Forensic Laboratory (ARFL) has advised Harness Racing New South Wales that meloxicam has been detected in the blood sample taken from CORRINYAH CONMAN following its win in race 5, the HUTCHEON & PEARCE PACE (2000m) at Temora on Friday 9 March 2018. The “B” sample has been confirmed by Racing Analytical Services LTD (RASL) in Victoria. Trainer Mr S. Hillier has been advised that HRNSW will continue its investigation into this sample and an inquiry will be conducted in due course. Acting under the provisions of AHRR 183A, it has been determined that CORRINYAH CONMAN, the horse subject of the certificate, shall not be nominated or compete in any race until the outcome of an Inquiry or investigation.    Florist – positive sample THE Australian Racing Forensic Laboratory (ARFL) has advised Harness Racing New South Wales that synephrine has been detected in the urine sample taken from FLORIST following its win in race 5, the DONGES SUPA IGA PACE (1720 metres) conducted at Young on Tuesday 27 February 2018. The “B” sample has been confirmed by Racing Analytical Services LTD (RASL) in Victoria. Trainer Mr M. Johnstone has been advised that HRNSW will continue its investigation into this sample and an inquiry will be conducted in due course. Acting under the provisions of AHRR 183A, it has been determined that FLORIST, the horse subject of the certificate, shall not be nominated or compete in any race until the outcome of an inquiry or investigation.    MICHAEL PRENTICE | INTEGRITY MANAGER (02) 9722 6600 •  mprentice@hrnsw.com.au GRANT ADAMS | CHAIRMAN OF STEWARDS (02) 9722 6600 •  gadams@hrnsw.com.au

Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) Stewards have issued a charge against licensed trainer Jason McNaulty under Australian Harness Racing Rule (AHRR) 190(1) which states:      A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances It is alleged that Mr McNaulty presented the horse ‘Fratellino NZ’ to race at Maryborough on 2 February 2018 when not free of the prohibited substance heptaminol. Mr McNaulty has been issued with a further charge for failing to keep and maintain a log book in accordance with the AHRR. The charge will be heard by the HRV Racing Appeals and Disciplinary (RAD) Board on a date to be fixed. Harness Racing Victoria

Harness Racing South Australia Stewards today conducted a hearing into an adverse test result returned by PRINCESS CLEOPATRA following its win in Race 4 at Port Pirie on Friday 12th January 2018. The particulars being that a post-race sample taken from PRINCESS CLEOPATRA was shown to contain Cobalt at a mass concentration greater than the permissible tolerance.  Mr Sims admitted a resultant breach of Rule (AHHR) 190(1) which states “A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances”  After considering submissions on penalty and after having regard to the following relevant factors: The nature of the substance detected and the seriousness of the offence in all of the circumstances. The level reported by the Racing Analytical Services Ltd, which was toward the lower end. Mr Sims’s personal circumstances, including his length of involvement in harness racing industry Mr Sim’s submissions with respect to the medications employed in the treatments of his horses, which the Stewards were satisfied was the primary cause for irregularity reported. • Penalties imposed in South Australia and other jurisdictions in relation to this prohibited substance. Mr Sim’s co-operation during the currency of the investigation The need for both specific and general deterrence The Stewards determined that Mr Sims be disqualified for a period of eight months with such disqualification to commence at midnight on Tuesday 15th May 2018.  Acting under the provisions of AHRR 195, PRINCESS CLEOPATRA was disqualified from first placing in Race 4 at Port Pirie 12th January 2018 and Stewards directed that the placing’s be amended accordingly. All enquiries to Ross Neal /Chairman of Stewards rneal@saharness.org.au

Harness racing trainer Gareth Dixon has been fined $6500 for producing a horse to race when not free of a prohibited substance. The horse in question was Gimmegold who won a race at Alexandra Park on the 16th December 2017. During the night he won, Gimmegold underwent a random Post Race urine swab and on the 9th January 2018 the Official Racing Analyst reported in writing that the samples from “Gimmegold” had tested positive to Cobalt. The horse returned a Cobalt level of 293 ug/L (micrograms per litre). Cobalt at a concentration above 100 micrograms per litre in urine is a Prohibited Substance within the meaning of the Rules and its presence in a race day sample is, prima facie, a breach of the Rules. The horse Gimmegold has since been disqualified from winning the race on 16th December 2017. Full details below:   BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003 IN THE MATTER of the Rules of Harness Racing BETWEEN THE RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU) Informant AND Mr GR Dixon Licenced Public Harness Trainer Respondent Information No: A8465 Date of hearing: 8 April 2018 Venue: Counties Racecourse Appearing: Mr O Westerlund- Investigator, Racing Integrity Unit Mr G Dixon – Licenced Harness Trainer Mr R Lawson – Lay Advocate representing Mr Dixon Judicial Committee: Mr A Dooley, Chairman - Mr A Smith, Committee Member Charge The Informant Mr O Westerlund, Racing Investigator alleged that on Saturday the 16th December 2017, Gareth Ryan DIXON was the licenced Trainer of the Standardbred Harness Racehorse “Gimmegold” which was presented for and raced in Race 8, the New Year’s Eve Auckland Cup Twilight Races Mobile Pace 2200m, at a race meeting conducted by the Auckland Trotting Club at Auckland, when the said Standardbred was found to be presented to race with a Prohibited Substance in its system, namely Cobalt, being an offence under the provisions of Rules 1004(1A) and 1004(3) and punishable pursuant to Rule 1004(7) and (8) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing. The relevant Rules are as follows: Rule 1004(1A) A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances. Rule 1004(3) When a horse is presented to race in contravention of sub rule (1A) or (2) the trainer of the horse commits a breach of these Rules Rule 1008 In the absence of any express provision to the contrary in any proceeding for a breach of these Rules: (a) it shall not be necessary for the informant to prove that the defendant or any person intended to commit that or any breach of the Rule; and (b) any breach of a Rule shall be considered as an offence of strict liability. Penalty Provisions Rule 1004(7) Every person who commits a breach of sub-rule (2) or (3) shall be liable to: (a) a fine not exceeding $20,000; and/or (b) be disqualified or suspended from holding or obtaining a licence for any specific period not exceeding 5 years. Rule 1004(8) Any horse connected with a breach of sub-rule (1), (2) or (3) shall be disqualified from any race entered and/or liable to a period of disqualification not exceeding five years Mr Dixon acknowledged that he understood the Rules and he confirmed that he admitted the breach. Mr R Lawson, Lay Advocate, represented Mr Dixon at the hearing. Mr Dixon acknowledged that all the relevant documents from the RIU had been disclosed to him. Mr Dixon confirmed that the Summary of Facts were not disputed. Mr Westerlund produced a letter from Mr M Godber, General Manager for the Racing Integrity Unit, authorising the filing of the Information pursuant to Rule 1108(2). Agreed Summary of Facts by the Informant The respondent Gareth Ryan DIXON is a licensed Public Trainer and Trials Driver under the Rules of New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing. On Saturday the 16th December 2017 “Gimmegold” was correctly entered and presented to race by Mr DIXON in Race 8: 9.15pm – New Year’s Eve Auckland Cup Twilight Races Mobile Pace 2200m at the Auckland Trotting Club meeting at Alexandra Park, Auckland. “Gimmegold” is a 6 year-old bay gelding (Changeover – Charbella Gold) owned by Mr AM Roberts and Mrs CD Roberts and is trained by the Respondent, Mr DIXON. “Gimmegold” finished first of the nine horse field and won a stake of $7758. “Gimmegold” underwent a random Post Race urine swab. Mr DIXON does not contest the swabbing process. All swab samples from the meeting were couriered to the New Zealand Racing Laboratory and were analysed for the presence of substances prohibited under the Rules of New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing. On the 9th January 2018 the Official Racing Analyst reported in writing that the samples from “Gimmegold” had tested positive to Cobalt. The horse returned a Cobalt level of 293 ug/L (micrograms per litre). Cobalt at a concentration above 100 micrograms per litre in urine is a Prohibited Substance within the meaning of the Rules and its presence in a race day sample is, prima facie, a breach of the Rules. Cobalt is an essential trace element required for life through the actions of Vitamin B12 of which Cobalt makes up about 5% of its weight. Cobalt is absorbed from the gut either as elemental or incorporated in Vitamin B12. Mr Dixon was spoken to on Monday the 15th January 2018 at his Stable in Pukekohe. He could offer no explanation for the positive test result on the horse. In the Stable Block several items were located which contain Cobalt. Located ‘Blud-Boost-Equine Athlete’ a 1kg packet that was already opened - a supplement containing B12. When the ‘Blud-Boost’ was tested it was found to contain Cobalt at the level of 1.4 mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram). Also located ‘Ironcyclen’ 1 litre container. The label indicates that this product is an iron supplement with copper and cobalt for horses and dogs. Mr Dixon admitted giving the horse 10-15mls the day before it raced. When the ‘Ironcyclen was tested it was found to contain Cobalt at the level of 5.2 mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram). Also located was a 100 ml bottle of ‘Hemoplex’. The label indicates a supplement source of vitamins, minerals, and amino acids for horses, cattle, dogs and cats, for use during periods of stress and convalescence. Mr Dixon admitted giving the horse 10mls two days before the horse raced. When the ‘Hemoplex was tested’ it was found to contain Cobalt at the level of 81 mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram). A Certificate of analysis provided by the Assure Quality laboratory confirmed there were no anomalies in any of the products tested. Mr DIXON has been involved in the Harness Racing Industry for 35 years. He holds a Public Trainer and Trials Driver Licence and trains eight race horses. He has been training for 15 years. He is aged 45 years and has not previously appeared. An order is sought for the horse “Gimmegold” to be disqualified from the race and the stakes money to be repaid. In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Westerlund said that the RIU analysis of TAB betting records revealed that there was nothing out of the ordinary associated with the betting patterns on GIMMEGOLD. Submissions by the Respondent Mr Lawson made the following points: 1) The Positive Test result of the swab was notified to the RIU on the 9th Of January 2018. 2) Gimmegold (the horse concerned) raced again on January 13th (4 days later) 3) Mr Dixon was not notified until January 15th. 4) Gimmegold was swabbed on January 13th after finishing in sixth position. Mr Dixon felt this extremely unusual at the time. (although obviously on the following Monday he found out why) 5) Gimmegold was tested for Cobalt and returned a reading of 11 for the January 13th run. 6) Gimmegold was given the exact same proprietary items as his race winning (and positive swab for December 16th.) 7) Mr Dixon is at a complete and utter loss as to explain why the horse tested high on December 16th. 8) Cobalt is a natural substance and horses will have natural levels and each may also excrete excess Cobalt differently. 9) Many Horse feeds including hay have Cobalt in them and so do water supplies. 10) Trainers are not in a position to test their own horses for Cobalt levels so at any time are totally unaware of the levels in their horses. 11) Despite the proprietary items having low levels of Cobalt in them – on one occasion the horse tests high and then on the next occasion it tests low. 12) Cobalt in racehorses is a very inexact science. 13) There is no definitive scientific evidence that proves it is detrimental to a horse’s welfare and there is also no scientific evidence to prove that it improves equine performance. 14) However it is conceded that – it does not have to have either of the above to be determined that it is at a certain level – a prohibited substance. 15) The point we are making here is that despite a large amount of publicity surrounding Cobalt there is very little if any definitive evidence of how and why a horse can test high for it. 16) Mr Dixon has been and is extremely concerned and upset that he has received this positive result. He prides himself on his integrity and this is an unfortunate chapter in his training career. 17) Mr Dixon has compensated the owner of this horse for loss in winning stakes due to this positive test. 18) In an effort to keep costs to an absolute minimum the “B” sample was not requested to be tested. 19) It is accepted that the horse will be disqualified from the race in question. 20) Mr Dixon now takes extreme care and is fastidious in trying to ensure his horses are not exposed to potential Cobalt that could cause a high reading. Mr Dixon provided the Committee with two written character references and advised that he was also a commercial breeder and seller. He said that his reputation is everything and he wouldn’t knowingly put himself in this position. He added that his Trainers percentage for winning the race was $700. Decision As Mr Dixon admitted the breach the Committee found the charged proved. Submissions on Penalty by Informant 1. INTRODUCTION: 1.1 The respondent Gareth Ryan DIXON is a licensed Public Trainer and Trials Driver under the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing. 1.2 He has been involved in the racing industry for 35 years and a trainer for 15 years. 1.3 Mr DIXON is 45 years of age. 1.4 It is submitted that a fine of $8000 is sought. 2. OFFENDING: 2.1 Mr DIXON has admitted the breach of the Rules in relation to the standard bred race horse “Gimmegold”. 2.2 “Gimmegold” raced at the Auckland Trotting Club meeting held at Alexandra Park on Saturday the 16th December 2017. 2.3 The details of Mr DIXON’s offending are contained in the Summary of Facts which is agreed. 2.4 The prohibited substance concerned is Cobalt. Noted: That the level for Cobalt under New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing was reduced on the 1st August 2017 from 200 ug/L to 100 ug/L (micrograms per litre). 3. PENALTY PROVISIONS: 3.1 The penalties which may be imposed are fully detailed in the Charge Rule Penalty Provisions document. 4. SENTENCING PRINCIPLES: 4.1 The four principles of sentencing can be summarised briefly: - Penalties are designed to punish the offender for his/her wrong doing. They are not meant to be retributive in the sense the punishment is disproportionate to the offence but the offender must be met with a punishment. - In a racing context it is extremely important that a penalty has the effect of deterring others from committing similar offences. - A penalty should also reflect the disapproval of the JCA for the type of offending in question. - The need to rehabilitate the offender should be taken into account. 4.2 The first three principals have relevance in this case. 5. PRECEDENTS: 5.1 In support of this penalty I will refer to four previous decisions by the J.C.A which may be of some assistance. 5.1.1 RIU v BROSNAN (13.02.18) – 3 x Cobalt positives. Total fine imposed of $19,200. 5.1.2 RIU v DALGETY (16.05.2017) – 5x Cobalt positives. Total fine imposed of $32,000. 5.1.3 R.I.U v BAMBRY (4.12.17) - 1 x Cobalt positive. A fine imposed of $11,000. 5.1.4 RIU v O’SULLIVAN & SCOTT (22.03.2016) – 3x Cobalt positives. Total fine imposed of $50,000. 6. MITIGATING FACTORS: 6.1 That he has admitted the breach at the first opportunity. 6.2 That he has been fully co-operative throughout the process. 6.3 That he has had no previous charges before the Committee. 7. AGGRAVATING FEATURES: 7.1 No aggravating features. 8. CONCLUSION: 8.1 The RIU believe that the breach can be dealt with by way of a monetary penalty. To that end the RIU seek a fine of $8000. 8.2 Under Rule 1004(8) 8.2.1 “Gimmegold” is required to be disqualified from the respective race on the 16th December 2017 8.2.2 Any stake money paid out is required to be repaid. 8.3 The RIU are seeking no costs. Submissions of Penalty by Respondent Mr Lawson made the following points: 1. The JCA Penalty Guide shows a Starting Point as an $8000 fine for a Breach of The Prohibited Substance Rules. This is for a first offence and a single positive. 2. We are dealing with a first offence and a single positive in this case. 3. From the Starting Point we must add or detract based on the aggravating or mitigating circumstances of the case. 4. In this case we agree that there are no aggravating features. 5. There are a number of mitigating circumstances – they are as follows:- - The Guilty Plea and admission at first opportunity - Mr Dixon has been fully co-operative throughout the enquiry - Mr Dixon has no previous charges before the committee and in fact has an exemplary record. - The References as to the excellent character of Mr Dixon - His dismay at this charge and the effect on his reputation. 6. Mr Dixon is a family man with a new baby and two other young dependents. 7. He is able to pay a fine although would appreciate a modest one. In Summary given all of the above we submit that a fine based on the starting point of $8000 with a 20-25% discount for the mitigating factors would be appropriate. This would be in line with principles on previous cases (in particular the R Brosnan case) The RIU are generously not seeking any costs – that is appreciated and as the case is being heard on a raceday it would also be appreciated if there were no JCA costs – in line with a number of other similar cases heard on raceday. Reasons for Penalty The Committee have carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. The JCA Penalty Guidelines have a starting point of $8,000 fine for a first offence of presenting a horse to race with a prohibited substance in its system. That figure was adopted in this case. The Committee was conversant with the four precedent decisions referred to by the RIU. The Committee notes that the level of Cobalt detected (293 ug/L) in GIMMEGOLD’s system was in the mid-range compared to other cases involving this Prohibited Substance. There has been much publicity and discussion about Cobalt in both the Harness Racing Code and the Thoroughbred Code in New Zealand in recent years. This should have put all Licenced Holders on notice. The purpose of Rule 1004 is to maintain the integrity of Harness Racing and to impose an obligation on all Trainers to ensure horses are presented to race free of Prohibited Substances. It is a long established principle of racing that there is a high obligation on the part of Licence Holders who transport a horse to a race meeting to ensure compliance with the Rules. It is therefore paramount that racing is conducted on a level playing field. There were no aggravating factors that warranted an uplift in penalty. The mitigating factors for which we afforded Mr Dixon a reduction in penalty were: • Mr Dixon’s admission of the breach. • Mr Dixon was fully cooperative with the RIU during their investigations. • Mr Dixon has an unblemished record under this Rule after 15 years of training approximately 2,200 Standardbred horses. We had regard for the two written character references where both referees had known Mr Dixon for many years and both emphasised his honesty and integrity. After having regard for the particular circumstances of this case we consider that a fair and reasonable reduction from the starting point was $1,500. After taking into account all of the above factors the Committee considered that an appropriate penalty was a $6,500 fine. Penalty Accordingly, Mr Dixon was fined the sum of $6,500. Disqualification of the Horse Pursuant to Rule 1004(8) the Committee orders the disqualification of GIMMEGOLD from, the New Year’s Eve Auckland Cup Twilight Races Mobile Pace 2200 metres. Disqualification effective from Monday, 16 April 2018. The amended placings are: 1st No.1 IDEAL LASS 2nd No. 3 WILL TAKE CHARGE 3rd No. 9 LYNTON CREEK 4th No. 2 STAND SURE The Committee was informed that the stake money for this race has not been paid out. Therefore the Committee authorised the payment of stakes in accordance with the amended placings. Costs The RIU has sought no costs. As this charge was heard on a raceday, there was no order for JCA costs. Dated this 10th day of April 2018 Adrian Dooley Chair   Harnesslink media

The Australian Racing Forensic Laboratory (ARFL) has advised Harness Racing New South Wales that Oxazepam has been detected in the urine sample taken from WHISKIESONTHEBEACH following its win in race 6, the FRITSCH BROS PACE (2000m) at Temora on Friday 9 February 2018. The “B” sample has been confirmed by Racing Analytical Services LTD (RASL) in Victoria. Trainer Mr B Harpley has been advised that HRNSW will continue its investigation into this sample irregularity and an inquiry will be held in due course. HRNSW Stewards have conducted a stable inspection of Mr Harpley’s registered training establishment and obtained soil and grass samples for further analysis. Following the consideration of all available information, including the provision of submissions and associated documents by Mr Harpley, HRNSW Stewards have determined that Australian Harness Racing Rule (AHRR) 183 would not be invoked at this time. Acting under the provisions of AHRR 183A, it has been determined that WHISKIESONTHEBEACH, the horse subject of the certificate, shall not be nominated or compete in any race until the outcome of an inquiry or investigation.    MICHAEL PRENTICE | INTEGRITY MANAGER (02) 9722 6600 •  mprentice@hrnsw.com.au GRANT ADAMS | CHAIRMAN OF STEWARDS (02) 9722 6600 •  gadams@hrnsw.com.au

17 to 32 of 793