Day At The Track
Search Results
17 to 32 of 2384

RWWA Stewards yesterday concluded an inquiry into comments that had been posted on a Facebook page concerning a Senior RWWA Racing Official. Harness Owner Mr A. Kirke pleaded guilty to a charge relating to the publication of offensive comments about the Stewards and was issued with a fine of $1,200. A portion on that fine ($600) is suspended for a period of 12 months on the condition that no further breaches to this or similar rules occur (Rule 248 RWWA Rules of Harness Racing). In considering the penalty Stewards took into account: Previous penalties issued in Western Australia and South Australia in regards to comments made within the same Facebook page. That the inquiry was able to be completed by way of written submissions from Mr Kirke who acknowledged culpability for the breach of the rules and thus expedited the process. The obvious remorse and that a written apology was made for the comments. The need to send a clear message to Mr Kirke and the wider racing industry that Stewards performing their duties are entitled to be protected from offensive comments. Media Contact: Russell Quinn Manager Corporate Communications Ph: 9445 5418 E: russell.quinn@rwwa.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

HARNESS Racing New South Wales (HRNSW) Stewards conducted an inquiry today into licensed driver Mr Douglas Hewitt recording an alcohol concentration in excess of 0.02% on a breath analyser at the time he presented to drive LADY SWISS in Race 2, the SPORTSWRITER NSW BREEDERS CHALLENGE TWO-YEAR-OLD FILLIES FINAL (Group 1) at Tabcorp Park Menangle on Sunday 1 July 2018. Mr Hewitt pleaded guilty to a charge pursuant to Australian Harness Racing Rule (AHRR) 250(1)(a) as follows: AHHR 250.(1) A driver commits an offence if:- (a) A sample taken from him is found upon analysis to contain a substance banned by Rule 251,  AHHR 251. The following substances and/or their metabolites, artifacts, and isomers are declared as banned substances in drivers when present in a urine sample (unless otherwise stated) at a concentration above the applicable cut-off level:- (c) All diuretics (0μg/L): Probenecid: (0μg/L): Alcohol (at a concentration in excess of 0.02% on a breath analyser): Mr Hewitt’s drivers licence was wholly suspended for a period of 3 months to commence from 1 July 2018, the date upon which he was stood down. Mr Hewitt was informed that an application would be considered by HRNSW Stewards for him to return to trackwork after a period of 10 weeks from 1 July 2018. In considering penalty Stewards were mindful of the following: Mr Hewitt’s first offence for such matter; Seriousness of the offence; The concentration of alcohol recorded being 0.026%; The status of the harness meeting and Group 1 status of the race; Mr Hewitt’s guilty plea, licence history, personal and financial subjective facts.   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 a 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 New South Wales (HRNSW) Stewards conducted an inquiry today into licensed driver Mr Mitchell Reese recording an alcohol concentration in excess of 0.02% on a breath analyser at the time he presented to drive at the Penrith trials on Wednesday 27 June 2018. Mr Reese pleaded guilty to a charge pursuant to Australian Harness Racing Rule (AHRR) 250(1)(a) as follows: AHHR 250. (1) A driver commits an offence if:- (a) A sample taken from him is found upon analysis to contain a substance banned by Rule 251, AHHR 251. The following substances and/or their metabolites, artifacts, and isomers are declared as banned substances in drivers when present in a urine sample (unless otherwise stated) at a concentration above the applicable cut-off level:- (c) All diuretics (0μg/L): Probenecid: (0μg/L): Alcohol (at a concentration in excess of 0.02% on a breath analyser): Mr Reese’s drivers licence was wholly suspended for a period of 10 weeks to commence from 27 June 2018, the date upon which he was stood down. Mr Reese was informed that an application would be considered by HRNSW Stewards for him to return to trackwork after a period of 8 weeks from 27 June 2018. In considering penalty Stewards were mindful of the following: Mr Reese’s first offence for such matter; Seriousness of the offence; The concentration of alcohol recorded being 0.036%; Mr Reese’s guilty plea, licence history, personal and financial subjective facts. 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 a 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 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

On 18 June 2018, the Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) Racing Appeals and Disciplinary (RAD) Board considered a charge issued by HRV Stewards under Australian Harness Racing Rule (AHRR) 267(1) against Mr Kieran O’Keeffe. AHRR 267(1) reads as follows: Subject to sub-rule (2) the Stewards may for such period and on such conditions as they think fit, disqualify a person who is found guilty of a crime or an offence in any State or Territory of Australia or in any country. The matter was heard by the HRV RAD Board upon the referral by the Controlling Body, following a recommendation by the HRV Stewards. The charge relates to Mr O’Keeffe being convicted on appeal in the County Court at Geelong on 10 April 2018, of two charges which related to Mr O’Keeffe’s driving of a motor car in October 2017. Mr O’Keeffe pleaded guilty to the charge prior to the HRV RAD Board hearing submissions on penalty from HRV Stewards and Mr O’Keeffe. When assessing penalty the HRV RAD Board took into account Mr O’Keeffe’s guilty plea, his cooperation, his remorse, his age and the circumstances of the offence. Mr O’Keeffe was disqualified for a period of 10 days with the HRV RAD Board ordering that the period of disqualification be back dated to 27 November 2017.  HRV RAD Board Panel: John Doherty (Chair), John Kearney, John Denahy   Harnesslink Media  

On 12 June 2018 Racing and Wagering WA (RWWA) Stewards concluded an inquiry into comments that had been posted on a Facebook page concerning a senior RWWA Racing official. In conclusion to this inquiry, harness owner Mr R Hughes pleaded guilty to a charge relating to the publication of offensive comments about a Steward and was issued with a fine of $2,000 with $1,000 of that fine being suspended for a period of 12 months on the condition that no further breaches to this or similar rules occur (Rule 248 RWWA Rules of Harness Racing). In considering the penalty Stewards took into account:  Previous penalties issued in Western Australia and South Australia in regards to comments made within the same Facebook page.  That the inquiry was able to be completed by way of written submissions from Mr Hughes who acknowledged culpability for the breach of the rules and thus expedited the process.  The obvious remorse and that a written apology was made for the comments.  The need to send a clear message to Mr Hughes and the wider racing industry that Stewards performing their duties were entitled to be protected from offensive comments. Media Contact: Russell Quinn – Manager Corporate Communications Ph: 9445 5418    Racing and Wagering WA

RWWA Stewards finalised an inquiry into the betting activities of licenced trainer/driver Mr Colin March. Evidence was taken from Mr March and an analysis of Mr March’s betting account was undertaken. Mr March pleaded guilty to two (2) charges pursuant to Australian Harness Racing Rule 173(1) in that on 30 January 2018 and 6 February 2018 he placed bets on a horse that he drove in a race. In determining penalty stewards took into account: His guilty plea, co-operation throughout the inquiry and personal circumstances The small value of the bets His previous record over a long period which showed no prior offences under this rule The seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence both general and specific. Mr March had his licence to drive in races suspended for two months on each charge.  Stewards ordered these penalties be served concurrently.   Media Contact: Barbara Scott – Chief Steward, Harness Ph: 9445 5176 Barbara.scott@rwwa.com.au   RWWA Harness

Just as Delaware Governor John Carney on Tuesday made the first legal single game sports wager in the country outside of Nevada, the US Postal Service was bringing harness racing horsemen and women in the First State letters that has created quite a stir. The Delaware Harness Racing Commission has sent registered letters to owners and trainers asking for very specific horse records to be sent to them. Horse people who reside outside of Delaware have also received the letter if they raced a horse in the state. The letter starts off “The Delaware Harness Racing Commission (DHRC) is conducting an in-depth review of the ownership and management of horses raced at Delaware tracks over the past few years. What they are asking for includes showing the purchasing and selling prices on all horse; record of payments from racetracks; documentation of payments to all owners; training bill to all owners, bank statement, tax returns, 1099’s and W-2’s and the list goes on and on, more than 20 items are being asked for. Harnesslink talked with noted attorney and prominent harness racing owner, Howard Taylor, who also received a letter today. “I got one,” Taylor started off saying. “What they are asking for is worse than an IRS audit. “I am going to comply to the best of my ability within reason,” Taylor explained. “They say in the letter that they are looking for is hidden ownership. I am not going to give them a lot of items including my tax returns. I don’t keep 1099’s and I don’t know what my accountant does with them. “They ask for, which is unbelievable,” Taylor added. “Is for mine and my spouse’s financial incomes. They want access to my personal business records. I don’t think so.” Taylor said his has talked to numerous horse people Wednesday. “My phone has been exploding all day,” Taylor exaggerated. “One client I talked to said he has already talked with his accountant and was told it could cost up to $10,000 to comply. I also had another call from an owner who said he might just get out of the business. “I talked with another attorney,” Taylor said. “and he said if everyone were to comply the files would fill a warehouse. This could take nine agents up to a year to go through everything. “I also got a letter with the names of my horses that they want full records on,” Taylor said. “And one of the horses on the list I don’t ever remember owning. I had five horses on my list. Another owner I talked with said he has 80 horses on his list.” What is next for the horsemen and women to do? “I really don’t have a lot of answers right now,” Taylor said. “I have yet to even talk with the horsemen’s association in Delaware. Taylor said legal proceedings are being developed. If people do not comply with what the Delaware Harness Racing Commission is requesting, the letter states that…”failure to supply the requested information may result in horses being placed on the Steward’s list. In addition, other penalties may apply including fines and suspension or revocation of your license.” By Steve Wolf, for Harnesslink  

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

Chief harness racing steward Barbara Scott will give written notice of possible action against trainers and reinsmen who have made derogatory comments about her on social media. Stewards said yesterday they had fined stablehand Jason Huston $1000 after inquiring into improper social media comments he made in February. “There will be more in this situation,” Scott said. “I’ll be sending letters to licensed people who have breached rules through social media comments. Trainers and reinsmen will be among those who receive letters.” Racing and Wagering WA chief executive Richard Burt defended Scott from a social media campaign early this year. In a media statement on March 1, Burt said there had been inaccurate commentary on social media. “Ms Scott is not leaving her position as chief steward of harness racing,” he said. “Despite some recent inaccurate commentary on social media, she is not the subject of any investigation or inquiry. “RWWA is delighted with Ms Scott’s performance and dedication. She has our full support and confidence. Action will be taken by RWWA when licensed persons’ conduct detrimentally affects the welfare and integrity of racing.” Scott was appointed chief steward at Gloucester Park early last year. Huston, who pleaded guilty to having made improper comments about Scott on February 24, had $500 of his fine suspended on the provision he did not breach RWWA’s social media rules in the next 12 months. Reinsman Gary Hall has been fined $800 after pleading guilty to using an unacceptable whip action when driving Liberty Rose in the Group 1 WA Oaks (2536m) a fortnight ago. By Ernie Manning Reprinted with permission of The West Australian

Harness racing trainer Gavin Smith has been fined $750.00 for striking his own horse. Nothing wrong with that you say! Except the horse he hit with his whip was racing next to him and being driven by another driver. At the North Canterbury trials on the 9th May Gavin Smith was driving Bronx Village (a horse he trains) who was leading as the field turned for home with Reverse Phsychology, Smith’s other runner in the race who was being driven by Siv Diamant, in the trail. Reverse Phsychology improved to Smith’s outside and shortly afterwards he drew his whip and struck that horse on one occasion. Smith admitted he had acted in moment of stupidity and said that he had told Siv that she would have to be tough on the horse, as he was a bludger. He said that he could see he was going well when he raced up beside him but straight away “knocked off”. Siv was only giving the horse little flicks, he said, and he had yelled to her to “get up him”. Smith said Siv continued on with the little flicks and without thinking he reached around and struck the horse. He did not even think about it being a trials day and that it was a spur of the moment, a stupid thing to do. The JCA submitted that a $500 fine and a 3-day suspension be considered as penalty, but after taking all factors into account determined that a $750.00 fine was a more appropriate penalty in this case.   Full details below:   BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing IN THE MATTER of Information No. A10183 BETWEEN SHANE RENAULT Stipendiary Steward for the Racing Integrity Unit Informant AND GAVIN SMITH of Kaiapoi, Licensed Open Horseman Respondent Date of Hearing: 13 May 2018 Venue: Phar Lap Racecourse, Timaru Judicial Committee: S Ching (Chair) D Anderson (Committee Member) Present: S Renault, the Informant G Smith, the Respondent Date of Decision: 13 May 2018 PENALTY DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE The Charge [1] Information No.A10183 alleges that: G Smith as the driver of BRONX VILLAGE used his whip to strike another runner namely REVERSE PSYCHLOGY, near the 200 metres. The Rules [2] Rule 869(2) reads as follows; 869 (2) No horseman shall during any race use a whip in a manner in contravention of the Use of the Whip Regulations made by the Board. Use of the Whip Regulation (g) reads as follows; (g) No horseman shall use their whip in such a way that it baulks, inconveniences, impedes or strikes another horse or horseman. The Plea [3] Mr Smith had signed the Information that the breach was admitted. Mr Smith confirmed this at the hearing. He also confirmed he understood the rule he was being charged with. Summary of Facts [4] On 9 May 2018 at the North Canterbury TOA trials meeting at Rangiora Racecourse, Open Horseman, Mr G Smith was the trainer and driver of BRONX VILLAGE in Race 12, a Non-winners Pace trial and was placed 3rd in the event. Mr Smith was also the trainer of REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY, who was driven by Ms S Diamant, and was placed 2nd in the same event. [5] During the running and near the 200m, Mr Smith was observed to strike another runner, being REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY. [6] This incident was observed by the officiating Stipendiary Steward, Mr S Renault and recorded by the oncourse cameras. [7] Mr Renault made application pursuant to Rule 1103(4)(c) from the General Manager of the RIU, Mr M Godber, to lodge an information against Mr Smith for a breach of Rule 869(2)(g). This application was granted on 11 May 2018 and a letter was produced for the Judicial Committee. [8] Mr Smith was subsequently charged with a breach of Rule 869(2) in that he used his whip to strike another runner near the 200m. Informant’s Submissions [9] Mr Renault showed side on video footage of the incident to the Committee which showed Mr Smith driving BRONX VILLAGE leading as the field turned for home with REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY, Mr Smith’s other runner in the race and driven by Ms S Diamant, in the trail. He said that REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY improved to Mr Smith’s outside and shortly afterwards Mr Smith drew his whip and struck REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY on one occasion. [10] Mr Renault stated that this was a deliberate action by Mr Smith who looked to his outside, saw his other horse there, drew the whip and struck the horse. Mr Smith, on the day, stated to Mr Renault, that he didn’t think his driver was hitting the horse or urging it on enough over the concluding stages. Mr Renault submitted that this was a safety issue as Mr Smith could not know what reaction the horse would take after being struck on the inside. He also stated that the Stewards take a dim view of Mr Smith’s actions and believe they are totally unacceptable. Mr Renault in answer to a question from the Committee, stated that Ms Diamant had informed him that the whip had struck the horse on the backside. Mr Renault said that even though it was only one strike, the perception to the betting public, was poor. Submissions of Respondent [11] Mr Smith stated that it was a “moment of stupidity”. He said that he owned REVERSE PYSCHOLOGY, that he was a “bludger” and hadn’t been anywhere in the past year. Mr Smith said that as he owns REVERSE PYSCHOLOGY and as he had a paying clients horse in the race, he had decided to drive BRONX VILLAGE. [12] Mr Smith said that he had told Ms Diamant that she would have to be tough on the horse, as he was a bludger. He said that he could see he was going well when he raced up beside him but straight away “knocked off”. Ms Diamant was only giving the horse little flicks, he said, and he had yelled to her to “get up him”. Mr Smith said Ms Diamant continued on with the little flicks and without thinking he reached around and struck the horse. He did not even think about it being a trials day and that it was a spur of the moment, a stupid thing to do. He also said that as soon as he had done it, could not believe how stupid he had been. He also said it was a bad look, a dumb thing to do, and still doesn’t know why he let it happen. Submissions of Informant on Penalty [13] Mr Renault for the RIU stated that Mr Smith had a clear record in relation to this part of the rule. He said that a breach of this particular rule where another horse is struck, was very uncommon and as such here were no precedents to assist with penalty. Mr Renault stated that the JCA Penalty Guide does not provide a starting point and only refers to penalty being “case by case on merits”. [14] Mr Renault submitted that an appropriate penalty in this case is a combined suspension and fine. He stated that this was a deliberate act which should not be accepted, and an appropriate penalty should be one that will send a clear message to all industry participants that this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated. Mr Renault submitted that a fine of $500 as well as a 3-day suspension be considered as penalty. Respondent’s Submissions [15] Mr Smith stated that a suspension as well as a fine was incredibly harsh for one strike at a trials meeting. He said that he was already suspended, for careless driving, from after the Addington meeting on Friday 18 May up to and including 27 May 2018. He said a suspension would be excessive especially as the first day of suspension would be the Harness Jewels day on 2 June. Reasons for Penalty [16] In determining penalty, we carefully considered all factors in regard to this breach. In mitigation, Mr Smith’s frank admission of the breach, his genuine remorse and his clear record in relation to this part of the rule, are factors to be taken into account. [17] Mr Smith admitted to an act of stupidity and also conceded that it was not a good look for the industry. We agree with both points and determined that these were aggravating factors. We also agreed with Mr Renault who stated that there is a need to send a clear message to all industry participants that this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated. [18] Mr Renault submitted that a $500 fine and a 3-day suspension be considered as penalty in this case. The JCA Penalty Guide does not provide a starting point for a breach of this rule but states that any penalty be on a “case by case on merits”. Charges under this section of the Whip Regulations with similar circumstances are so uncommon there are no historical precedents of penalty to assist us. After careful consideration this Committee determined that a combined penalty of a fine of $500 and a 3-day suspension would be disproportionate to the level of offending, especially in Mr Smith’s case where the first day of any suspension imposed would be the country’s premier meeting of the year, being the Harness Jewels meeting at Cambridge. [19] Taking all factors into account we determined that a fine was an appropriate penalty in this case. The level of this fine we set at $750. [20] Mr Smith is fined the sum of $750. S Ching CHAIR http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/non-raceday-inquiry-riu-v-g-smith-decision-dated-13-may-2018-chair-mr-s-ching   Harnesslink Media

Harness racing trainer Don Burrows has been fined $9,000 for producing a horse to race when not free of a prohibited substance (Kavain). The horse in question was Lightworkofit who won at Addington on the 2nd and 23rd of February 2018 but has since been disqualified from both races. Burrows accepted that he has committed a breach of the Prohibited Substance Rule and that it was a serious matter. He was shocked when informed that Lightworkofit had tested positive to Kavain (Kava). He had not heard of it and it was not a substance he would feed to his horses. Kavain is the main kavalactone found mostly in the roots of the kava plant. The roots of the plant are used to produce a drink with sedative, anesthetic, euphoriant, and entheogenic properties. The Committee was satisfied that a fine of $9,000 is an appropriate penalty in this case. They believed that such a penalty will satisfy the principal requirements of sentencing – that is to say, to punish the offender, to deter the offender and others in the industry and the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in harness racing. Full details below: BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of  Harness Racing IN THE MATTER of Informations Nos. A7222 & A7223 BETWEEN K R WILLIAMS, Racing Investigator for the Racing Integrity Unit Informant AND DONALD GORDON BURROWS of Balcairn, Public Trainer Respondent Judicial Committee: R G McKenzie (Chair) D M Jackson (Committee Member) Venue: Addington Raceway, Christchurch Present: Mrs K R Williams, the Informant Mr D G Burrows, the Respondent Mrs P M A Burrows, Lay Advocate for the Respondent Mr S P Renault, Stipendiary Steward (Registrar) Date of Hearing: 4 May 2018 Date of Decision: 15 May 2018 RESERVED PENALTY DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE The Charges [1] Information No. A7222 alleges that “on the 2nd day of February 2018, the Respondent being the registered trainer of the Standardbred LIGHTWORKOFIT, presented the horse to race in Race 8, the Macca Lodge- Tuapeka Lodge-Denario Breeding Mobile Trot, at the New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club’s meeting with a prohibited substance, namely Kavain (Kava) in its system in breach of the Prohibited Substance Rule, Rule 1004 (1A), (3) and (4)”. [2] Information No. A7223 alleges that “on the 23rd day of February 2018, the Respondent being the registered trainer of the Standardbred LIGHTWORKOFIT, presented the horse to race in Race 10, the IRT Mobile Trot, at the New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club’s meeting with a prohibited substance, namely Kavain (Kava) in its system in breach of the Prohibited Substance Rule, Rule 1004 (1A), (3) and (4)”. The Rules [3] Rule 1004 of the Rules of Harness Racing provides as follows: (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. (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. [4] The penalty Rule is Rule 1004 (7) which provides as follows: (1) Every person who commits a breach of sub-rule (2) or (3) shall be liable to: (a) a fine not exceeding $20,000.00; and/or (b) be disqualified or suspended from holding or obtaining a licence, for any specific period not exceeding five years. [5] Mrs Williams presented a letter dated 13 April 2018 signed by Mr M R Godber, General Manager of the Racing Integrity Unit, pursuant to Rule 1108 (2) authorising the filing of the information. The Plea [6] Mr Burrows had signed the Statement by the Respondent on each of the information forms indicating that he admitted the breaches. He was present at the hearing of the information. The charges and relevant Rules were read to him, after which he confirmed that he admitted the breaches. [7] The charges were found proved. Summary of Facts [8] Mrs Williams presented the following written submissions to the hearing: 1. LIGHTWORKOFIT is a 12-year-old bay gelding and is trained by Mr Donald Gordon BURROWS. LIGHTWORKOFIT is owned by Mrs P M Burrows, D G Burrows, S C Bavin and M N Bavin. LIGHTWORKOFIT has raced 45 times for 5 wins and lifetime stakes of $34,721 as at 23 April 2018. 2. LIGHTWORKOFIT was correctly entered and presented to race by trainer Mr Donald Burrows at the NZMTC meeting on 2 February 2018. LIGHTWORKOFIT was driven in Race 8, the MACCA LODGE-TUAPEKA LODGE-DENARIO BREEDING MOBILE TROT, by Mr D J Dunn, winning the race and a stake of $5,300. This stake has not been paid out. 3. Following the race, the Stipendiary Stewards ordered that LIGHTWORKOFIT be post-race swabbed. LIGHTWORKOFIT entered the swab box at 9.20pm and Swabbing Steward, Mr M P McCann, obtained a urine sample from the gelding at 9.25pm. The race was programmed to start at 8.56pm. The urine sample was taken in the presence of the Mr Burrows. The urine samples were recorded with the Sample number 139961. Mr Burrows does not contest the taking of the sample. 4. LIGHTWORKOFIT was correctly entered and presented to race by trainer Mr Donald Burrows at the NZMTC meeting on 23 February 2018. LIGHTWORKOFIT was driven in Race 10, the IRT MOBILE TROT, by Mr G D Smith, winning the race and a stake of $5,300. This stake has not been paid out. 5. Following the race, the Stipendiary Stewards ordered that LIGHTWORKOFIT be post-race swabbed. LIGHTWORKOFIT entered the swab box at 9.46pm and Swabbing Steward Mr G Johnston obtained a urine sample from the gelding at 9.50pm. The race was programmed to start at 9.30pm. The urine sample was taken in the presence of Mr Burrows. The urine samples were recorded with the Sample number 81616. Mr Burrows does not contest the taking of the sample. 6. On the 21st March 2018 the New Zealand Racing Laboratory reported Karvain (Kava) was detected in Sample Numbers 139961 and 81636. The Control Samples were clear. 7. On the 22nd March 2018, RIU members Mrs Kylie Williams and Mr Nick Ydgren went to the training establishment of Mr Burrows, 91 Smiths Road, Amberley, and advised him of the positive swabs returned by LIGHTWORKOFIT. 8. Mr Burrows was given copies of the Certificates of Analysis, the Swab Cards, RIU Swabbing Record Book and Race Results. 9. Mr Burrows could not offer an explanation for the presence of Kavain (Kava) in the urine samples taken from LIGHTWORKOFIT at the two race meetings. 10. Mr Burrows confirmed that he was not aware that Kava is a prohibited substance under the rules and does not check with a Veterinarian when using new supplements/products. 11. There are at least two products that are readily available in New Zealand that contain Kava. Mr Burrows had heard of one of the products as his daughter had used it on one of her horses in the past. Both products on their website advise that they contain Kava and that Kava is swabbable under FEI (Federation Equestrian International) rules. Mr Burrows advised that he has not used either product on his horse and none were found on his property. 12. Mr Burrows confirmed that LIGHTWORKOFIT was stood down from racing after breaking at the start in each of the four raceday starts from 17 December 2017 to 7 January 2018. After this Mr Burrows went to a local Rural Supply Company seeking a product to calm his horse. Mr Burrows purchased a product and this was one of the samples tested by the Laboratory and did not contain Kava. 13. The horse then finished 4th, 1st, 10th and 1st in its next four starts. The two wins are the subject of these positive swabs. 14. Mr Burrows does not keep a diary of treatments and keeps the horse feeds and additives in a locked shed. 15. Samples of several products were taken and forwarded to the NZ Racing Laboratory for testing with the Laboratory advising on 10 April 2018 that none of the products contained Kava. 16. Mr Burrows has been training since 1978/79. Mr Burrows has trained 38 winners. 17. Mr Burrows has not previously been charged with a breach of the prohibited substance rule. [9] Mrs Burrows confirmed to the Committee that the Summary of Facts was accepted by Mr Burrows. Informant’s Penalty Submissions [10] Mrs Williams presented the following written penalty submissions: 1. Mr Burrows has pleaded guilty to two breaches of Rule 1004(1A), (3) & (4) after presenting LIGHTWORKOFIT at the races with a prohibited substance in its system, namely Kavain (Kava), at the New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club meetings on the 2nd February and 23rd February 2018. 2. The penalty provisions that apply in this case are outlined in Rule 1104(7). 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. 3. The rules also require the mandatory disqualification of the horse: Rule 1004(8) states: 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. 1004D Any horse which has been taken to a racecourse for the purpose of engaging in a race which is found to have administered to it or ingested by it any prohibited substance shall be disqualified from that race. 4. Sentencing Principles - The four principles of sentencing can be summarised briefly ● Penalties are designed to punish the offender for his / her wrongdoing. They are not retributive in the sense that 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 like offences. ● A penalty should also reflect the disapproval of the J.C.A for the type of behaviour in question. ● The need to rehabilitate the offender should be taken into account. The first three principles are particularly important here. Relevant Precedents – In addition to the sentencing principles the Judicial Committee should have regard to relevant precedents. There are no previous positive swabs for Kava however the following have points of relevance as to the need to impose a penalty. R.I.U. v J M Whittaker – 17 August 2015 Subject: Caffeine positive with a horse – fined $1,000, costs $1,800. Extract from Whittaker decision: “RIU v L J Justice (2011) where that Committee stated ….. penalties will be imposed for breaches of the rule which will recognise, reinforce and give effect to the pivotal significance of the rule in maintaining the integrity of racing, whether or not culpable conduct is involved. Naturally where culpable conduct is involved, penalties imposed will normally be greater than in cases where such conduct is absent but we think it is wrong and contrary to the intent and purpose of the rule to assume the absence of culpable conduct should attract no, or only a token penalty.” R.I.U. v P M Williamson – 10 December 2012 Subject: Procaine positive with a horse – fined $3,500, costs $350 to JCA. The source of the positive swab was not identified. “Against those factors is the ever-present need to maintain the integrity of and public confidence in harness racing by adequately punishing the breach and deterring Mr Williamson and others from offending in a similar manner in the future.” 5. Aggravating Features – Mr Burrows cannot advise how the Kava came to be in the horse’s system on the two racedays but specifically sought out a product to give a calming effect on the horse without seeking Veterinary advice. The horse then went on to win twice and be placed fourth in its next four starts. The two wins are subject to these positive swabs. Kava is inherently used to produce a drink with sedative, anaesthetic, euphoriant and entheogenic properties. Kava is used for its sedating effects. We are dealing with two positives swabs. The first positive swab was not declared when the second positive swab occurred. 6. Mitigating Factors – Mr Burrows admits full liability as the trainer and admitted the breach at the first opportunity and has cooperated fully throughout the investigation. Mr Burrows has a clear record not having breached this rule. Mr Burrows has been training for over 40 years and has trained 38 winners. Conclusion – The Racing Integrity Unit seeks a monetary penalty of a fine of $10,000. The reason for this figure is that the JCA guidelines, 1st May 2015, have a starting point of $8,000 for a first offence of presenting a horse with a drug in its system. In setting penalty for two breaches this committee can take reference from RIU v A L J Lynch, 16 October 2015. Extract: “In RIU v B Towers (15 May 2015), which related to 2 charges where the Defendant Towers failed to present his horse free of the prohibited substance namely Clenbuterol, the Committee in its written decision considered options for determining penalty for multiple charges. The Committee in Towers referred to RIU v McInerney noting that it was submitted to support the submission that when setting a quantum, the Committee could look to set the financial penalty for the second breach at a level which was half that of the original breach. An approach in line with that adopted in McInerney supports the view that to impose a quantum for each breach, albeit resulting from the same on-going action. As with the Beck decision the circumstances of Towers are slightly different to the present case, albeit the discussion on rationale for decision making offers something for this Committee to consider in determining penalty quantum for all 3 charges.” Mr Burrows has to be given credit for the manner in which he has conducted himself during this inquiry and admitting the breach at the first opportunity. However, the onus is on trainers at all times to ensure that a horse in their care and control is completely drug free when presented at the races. We also seek the disqualification of LIGHTWORKOFIT under Rule 1004(8). 7. The R.I.U. are not seeking to recover any costs in this matter. Respondent’s Submissions [11] Mrs Burrows presented a lengthy written Submission on behalf of the Respondent which is now summarised: 1. Mr Burrows was granted a professional horseman’s licence in 1976. He holds a Public Trainer and a Graduation Driver licences. He has trained a small team of horses for the past 42 years. He is a fully-qualified Farrier, specialising in corrective shoeing. 2. He turned 65 in 2016 and is now semi-retired. He and his wife own a small farm of 15 acres in North Canterbury where he trains horses that they have bred. He is well-respected in harness racing circles and is described by those who know him well as a quiet, reliable professional person who always acts with integrity. He has never come to the attention of the Racing Integrity Unit nor has he ever had a positive swab before. 3. Mr Burrows accepts that he has committed a breach of the Prohibited Substance Rule and that it is a serious matter. He was shocked when informed that LIGHTWORKOFIT had tested positive to Kavain. He had not heard of it. It is not a substance he would feed to his horses. 4. None of the samples of feed and supplements collected from the property registered the presence of Kavain and Mr Burrows has no knowledge of how LIGHTWORKOFIT tested positive to that substance and he certainly did not administer any banned substance. 5. He does not cover his training costs with the small number of horses that he trains. He trains, not for financial gain but for the love of the sport. Neither does he bet on his or any other horses. 6. It was impossible for any notification of the first positive to occur prior to LIGHTWORKOFIT racing again on 23 February, on which date the horse won again, otherwise the horse would not have raced. 7. Mr Burrows pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, was cooperative and assisted willingly in the investigation. He is deeply regretful and he and his wife have suffered much stress. He has no money to pay a fine and a fine will effectively end his 42-year career. 8. Mrs Burrows presented a “Personal Statement” which we do not reproduce here but which we have taken into account in arriving at penalty. 9. Character references were available from a number of named “Harness Racing Stakeholders”. [12] Mrs Burrows then made further oral submissions to the hearing. [13] It would be “catastrophic”, she said for Mr Burrows to have to pay a fine of the amount submitted by Mrs Williams ($10,000). She urged the Committee to take into account the mitigating circumstances that had been put forward. Herself and Mr Burrows had no income at present and the training operation had not made a profit in a decade because of the “depressed” state of the industry. It was accepted that Mr Burrows would have to pay a fine. [14] LIGHTWORKOFIT was a relatively old horse when he began racing and has been a hard horse to manage. He has always been drug-free. Mr Burrows has not had a positive swab in over 40 years in the industry. The Committee needs to signal to the industry that there can be “clemency”. [15] A public apology has been made on social media because she and Mr Burrows were so upset at what had happened. [16] Mrs Burrows stressed that there would not have been a “second penalty” because the horse would not have been racing had they been aware of the first positive. The horse has since won again at Addington on 26 April. [17] Mrs Burrows submitted that a fine of between $3,000 and $5,000 would be an appropriate penalty in the circumstances. Reasons for Penalty [18] The relevant penalty Rule for a breach of the Prohibited Substance Rule is Rule 1004 (7) which provides: Every person who commits a breach of sub-rule (2) or (3) shall be liable to: (a) a fine not exceeding $20,000.00; and/or (b) be disqualified or suspended from holding or obtaining a licence for any specific period not exceeding five years. [19] The starting point for penalty for a breach of the Prohibited Substance Rule is provided in the Penalty Guide for Judicial Committees (effective 1 May 2015). For a first presentation offence, the Penalty Guide starting point is a fine of $8,000. The Penalty Guide provides that “the starting point is just that: movement both above and below may (and usually will) occur”. The Committee believes that the starting point of $8,000 for the first breach is the appropriate starting point in this case. [20] The Committee must, of course, have regard to the fact that Mr Burrows has been charged with two breaches of the Prohibited Substance Rule. Of course, the starting point in the Penalty Guide relates to a single breach. The Judicial Committee in the case of RIU v C D & A D Edmonds (2016), a case which involved one horse and two charges arising from positive swabs two weeks apart, adopted the view that a totality approach was appropriate and took a starting point of $12,000 on the basis of $8,000 for the first breach and $4,000 for the second breach. A similar approach has been taken in other cases involving multiple breaches and, in adopting that totality approach, the Committee is satisfied that $12,000 should be the starting point in this case. [21] The Committee, having established that starting point, is required to take into account aggravating and mitigating factors in the particular case. [22] In the present case, as is the case in many or most other cases of presentation, the source of the prohibited substance, in this case Kavain (Kava), cannot be determined. Mr Burrows denied treating LIGHTWORKOFIT with any product containing that substance and no such product was found on his property. Neither the Informant nor Mr Burrows has been able to point to a likely source of the prohibited substance. The Committee has to deal with penalty on that basis. [23] We cannot find any particular aggravating factors in this case. Mrs Williams in her penalty submissions highlighted an aggravating factor in that Mr Burrows had “specifically sought out a product to give a calming effect on the horse without seeking veterinary advice”. This statement was not challenged by Mrs Burrows, which we take as an acknowledgement that Mr Burrows had treated the horse with a product intended to calm it. However, with no product containing Kavain having been found on the property and in the absence of any other proof, we are reluctant to draw the conclusion that such treatment was the source of the Kavain in the horse’s system. [24] Mitigating factors to which we have had regard are Mr Burrows’ frank admission of the breach, his cooperation with the Racing Integrity Unit during the inquiry and his previous unblemished record over 40-plus years in the harness racing industry. These are significant. [25] We have noted Mrs Burrows’ submissions on behalf of her husband concerning their present financial position and the effect that a fine would have on them. The ability of a Respondent to pay a fine is one factor to which a Judicial Committee would normally have regard in fixing a fine in a particular case. [26] The Committee notes that Mr Burrows accepts that a fine will be payable. However, he is concerned about the quantum of that fine and his ability to meet it. While impecuniosity may be a mitigating factor personal to a respondent, the Committee does not believe that to be the case here. Mr & Mrs Burrows admitted to ownership of a 15-acre farm in North Canterbury and, further, stated that they would accept a fine of $5,000. Those factors suggest that they are not impecunious to the extent that a fine would have a crushing effect on them. For those reasons, and because we have had no detailed financial statement presented in support of those submissions, we choose not to give any weight to financial position in this case [27] From the starting point reached as above [paragraph 19], it is appropriate that Mr Burrows should receive a discount for the mitigating factors referred to in paragraph [23]. Mrs Burrows told us that character references were available. However, she saw fit not to actually produce any to the Committee so, unfortunately, in their absence, we can give no weight to these. [28] After consideration, the Committee fixes the appropriate discount at 25 per cent. [29] In arriving at a penalty of a fine of $9,000, the Committee received considerable guidance from the Edmonds case referred to in paragraph [24] above. A fine of $9,000 is consistent with the fine in that case, in which the facts were very similar. [30] The Committee is satisfied that a fine of $9,000 will suffice to satisfy the general purposes of sentencing which are well-established – to hold the offender accountable for his actions, to promote in the offender a sense of responsibility, to denounce the conduct of the offender and to deter the offender or other persons from committing the same or a similar offence. The Committee has also had regard, as always, to the important consideration of the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in Harness Racing. Disqualification of Horse [31] It is ordered that, effective from 7 May 2018, LIGHTWORKOFIT is disqualified from Race 8, Macca Lodge-Tuapeka Lodge-Denario Breeding Mobile Trot held at the meeting of New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club at Addington Raceway on 2 February 2018. Consequent upon the disqualification, the amended result for the race is as follows: 1st Speedy Command 2nd The Bloss 3rd Tijuana Taxi 4th Star Pride 5th Castleton Tui [35] It is further ordered that, effective from 7 May 2018, LIGHTWORKOFIT is disqualified from Race 10, IRT Mobile Trot held at the meeting of New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club at Addington Raceway on 23 February 2018. Consequent upon the disqualification, the amended result for the race is as follows: 1st Mystical Star 2nd Westar Maggie 3rd Rachmaninov 4th Tijuana Taxi 5th Chivasion [33] In the case of each of the above races, the Committee orders that stakes be paid in accordance with the amended result. Costs [34] Mrs Williams did not seek any costs in favour of the Racing Integrity Unit and, accordingly, no order is made. [35] The hearing took place on a raceday and, in the circumstances, no order for costs is made in favour of the Judicial Control Authority. R G McKenzie CHAIR http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-hearings/non-raceday-inquiry-riu-v-d-g-burrows-reserved-penalty-decision-dated-15-may-2018-chair-mr-r-g-mckenzie     Harnesslink Media

RACE 5 – ALBANY HARNESS RACING MEETING 16 FEBRUARY 2018 Stewards recently finalised a number of inquiries that had been adjourned from Race 5 at Albany on 16 February 2018. Background Race 5 at Albany on 16 February 2018 was a standing start race.  After the start, MELTON EXPRESS (W. Andrews) was fractious and as a result made contact with CRIMSON FLOYD (T. Stone) which had begun from 30 metres.   This resulted in W. Andrews being dislodged from the sulky but remaining on his feet and T. Stone being dislodged and returning to his feet immediately.  Both drivers continued to retain hold of the reins with no horses falling to the track and therefore both horses and drivers were cleared from the track quickly with the track being cleared to continue racing after approximately 20 seconds. The remaining horses and drivers continued in the race however in the back straight on the first occasion, J. Justins (CHUCK NORRIS), M. Young (ESTOCADA) , L. Inwood (ACROSS THE WAY) and T. Wheeler (FOUR NEEDED) all began to restrain their horses to varying degrees, with CHUCK NORRIS and ACROSS THE WAY being pulled up to a walk, ESTOCADA being restrained and losing ground and FOUR NEEDED being impeded and losing ground when caught behind ACROSS THE WAY which was under restraint.  DREDLOCK ROCKSTAR (A. Markham) continued on in the race and improved around the horses that were being restrained and worked to the lead.  DREDLOCK ROCKSTAR won the race. After being caught behind ACROSS THE WAY, T. Wheeler was able to gain clear running with FOUR NEEDED and although initially cautious, then obtained a trail on DREDLOCK ROCKSTAR and continued on and completed the race, being placed second, beaten 8 metres. After restraining ESTOCADA and losing ground, M. Young continued on and completed the race, being placed third, beaten 42 metres. After restraining ACROSS THE WAY to a walk, L. Inwood continued on and completed the race, being placed fourth, beaten 380 metres. After restraining  CHUCK NORRIS to a walk, J. Justins continued on and completed the race, being placed fifth, beaten 732 metres. The all clear was delayed to allow Stewards to review the race and interview all drivers.  In determining it was a race, Stewards took into account that no horse suffered interference in the race, all horses were afforded a fair start, there was no obstruction on the track and it was solely the action and decisions of drivers that affected the outcome of the race. Inquiries into the tactics adopted by drivers was adjourned. Inquiries Finalised At the resumption of the inquiry, further evidence was taken from L. Inwood, T. Wheeler, M. Young and J. Justins.  Assistance was provided to M. Young and J. Justins throughout the inquiry from RWWA Driving Master Mr Trevor Warwick. Stewards issued a charge under Rule 149(2) to L. Inwood, M. Young and J. Justins 149(2) A driver shall not drive in a manner which in the opinion of the stewards is unacceptable. The particulars being that in the opinion of stewards it was unacceptable for drivers to restrain their horses and lose ground when the track was clear for racing and no sirens had been sounded.  In determining penalty stewards took into account: It is a drivers primary obligation to give their horse every opportunity to win or obtain the best possible placing The action of drivers resulted in their horses losing ground which affects their finishing position The action of drivers resulted in punters, owners and trainers being financially disadvantaged It is not acceptable for drivers to take matters into their own hands Drivers that intentionally restrain their horse in a race, some to a degree that the horse came to a walk is an integrity issue and will lead Stewards to question the motives of drivers This type of action by drivers is detrimental to the harness racing industry in that  horses that are not allowed to run on their merits will result in a loss of confidence from punters. That any penalty must be a general deterrent The guilty pleas of the drivers Their offence history and previous penalties under this Rule. The following penalties were issued: L. Inwood  (ACROSS THE WAY) – Suspension of licence for 6 weeks J. Justins  (CHUCK NORRIS) – Suspension of licence for 4 weeks M. Young  (ESTOCADA) – Suspension of licence for 4 weeks Stewards took no action against A. Markham (DREDLOCK ROCKSTAR) or T. Wheeler (FOUR NEEDED).   Barbara Scott, Chief Steward Harness Ph: 9445 5176 Barbara.scott@rwwa.com.au  

17 to 32 of 2384