Day At The Track
Search Results
1 to 16 of 780
1 2 3 4 5 Next »

ON Friday 6 July 2018, Harness Racing New South Wales (HRNSW) Stewards, acting under the provisions of Australian Harness Racing Rule 183, suspended the Trainer and Driver licences of Mr Gary Litzow after receiving advice from the Australian Racing Forensic Laboratory (ARFL) that Total Carbon Dioxide (TCO2) above the prescribed threshold was detected in a pre-race blood sample taken from HEEZ PERFECT prior to race 8, THE PETER JACKSON BOOKMAKER MEMBERSHIP DRAW PACE (1980 metres) conducted at Tamworth on Sunday 17 June 2018. The “B” sample was analysed by the Racing Science Centre (QRIC) in Queensland and was reported below the prescribed threshold. HRNSW Stewards considered available information, including submissions on behalf of Mr Litzow, prior to the imposition of Australian Harness Racing Rule (AHRR) 183. Mr Litzow was informed of his right to appeal this decision. Acting under the provisions of Rule 183A, it has also been determined that HEEZ PERFECT, the horse subject of the ARFL certificate, shall not be nominated or compete in any race until the outcome of an inquiry or investigation. This had immediate effect from 28 June 2018. A date for the Inquiry has not been scheduled at this time.   Harness Racing NSW (HRNSW) is the controlling body for harness racing in New South Wales with responsibility for commercial and regulatory management of the industry including 33 racing clubs across the State.  HRNSW is headed by an industry-appointed Board of Directors and is independent of Government. To arrange an interview or for further information please contact: 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 Gary Quinlan 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 Quinlan presented ‘Most Happy Cullen’ to race at Cranbourne on 19 April 2018 when not free of arsenic, a prohibited substance when evidenced at a concentration above the allowable threshold. The charge will be heard by the HRV Racing Appeals and Disciplinary (RAD) Board on a date to be fixed.   Harness Racing Victoria

On Thursday June 28, 2018 RWWA Stewards conducted the Stewards inquiry in relation to the report received from the ChemCentre in Perth, that the pre-race blood sample taken from TRISON prior to it competing in Race 1 at Gloucester Park on June 15 2018, has been found to have a level of total carbon dioxide content (TCO2) in excess of 36.0 millimoles per litre in plasma. Evidence was heard from RWWA Investigator Ms. F. Bennett, RWWA Industry Veterinarian Dr. J. Medd, Chem Centre Analyst Ms. M. Raghvani and trainer Mr. C. Suvaljko. Mr. Suvaljko pleaded guilty to the following charges: Charge under HRR190 (1),(2) Presentation free of prohibited substances,  with the particulars of the charge being that “Mr. Suvaljko as the trainer, presented TRISON to race in Race 1 at Gloucester Park on June 15, 2018 not free of the prohibited substance alkalinising agents, as evidenced by a concentration of TCO2 in excess of 36.0mm/L in plasma.” Charge under HRR 196C Administering Substance, with the particulars of the charge being that “Mr. Suvaljko did administer the alkalinising agent NEUTRADEX to TRISON, which was engaged to race in Race 1 at Gloucester Park on June 15, 2018, on Thursday June 14, 2018 which was within one clear day of the commencement of the race contrary to the provisions of Rule 196C.” Stewards, having reserved their decision with respect to penalty, advised Mr. Suvaljko yesterday that a disqualification of 12 months was being imposed with respect to the offence under HR190 and a fine of $2,000 for the offence under 196C. TRISON which finished 8th in the event was also disqualified. In determining the penalty Stewards took into account, amongst other things: The length and depth of Mr. Suvaljko’s involvement in harness racing and prior record which included three previous offences in relation to prohibited substances rules. The high level of TCO2 reported by both the Chem Centre (>39.0mm/L) and RASL (38.8mm/L) The serious nature of these offences and the need for deterrence both general and specific     Media Contact: Russell Quinn Manager Corporate Communications Ph: 9445 5418 E: russell.quinn@rwwa.com.au   RWWA

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

1 to 16 of 780
1 2 3 4 5 Next »