Day At The Track
Search Results
33 to 48 of 2382

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

Intense exercise is a hazard to racehorses in Ontario and has been linked to hundreds of deaths within the industry, according to a new study from the University of Guelph. Peter Physick-Sheard, an emeritus professor of population medicine, examined 1,709 deaths in Ontario's horse racing industry between 2003 and 2015. "Training and racing at top speed within a short amount of time and space is a health risk for horses," said Physick-Sheard of his study that was released this week in Equine Veterinary Journal. Damage during exercise to the horses' musculoskeletal system, such as fractures, dislocations and tendon ruptures, is the most common underlying problem in the deaths, the study says. The study notes that the immediate cause of death for 97 per cent of those injured horses is euthanasia that occurs shortly after. Dying suddenly ranks second and is closely affiliated with exercise, with those horses either dying on the track, or very shortly after a workout. Since 2003, Ontario has maintained a registry of racehorse deaths that occur within 60 days of a race or trial entry, which provides insight into mortality rates, the study notes. Physick-Sheard studied thoroughbreds, standardbreds and quarter-horses and looked at the differences in mortality both between the breeds and within them. He and his team examined data from about three million race starts — each time a horse starts a race — and official recorded work events along with necropsy reports, the bulk of which were done at the university after a racehorse dies. Thoroughbreds have the highest mortality, the study says, and notes that exercise represents "a far greater hazard for thoroughbreds than standardbreds" with a risk of dying up to eight times higher for thoroughbreds. "The best example is the very high mortality for very young horses, especially stallions, on the thoroughbred side and is associated with exercise, which is an area we should focus on," he said. On the standardbred side, Physick-Sheard said "it's the high mortality that tends to occur off the track. That's really interesting and suggests something procedural and cultural." The study says the rate of deaths off the track for standardbreds is still about half that of thoroughbreds off track. He said his study highlighted important structural factors within the industry that need to be examined more closely, especially those within the thoroughbred world. An oft-stated euphemism within horse racing goes as: standardbreds race to win and thoroughbreds race to breed. That has real world implications on the horses, Physick-Sheard said. Standardbred horses, those used in harness racing, are focused on winning over a long period of time, he said, noting that most begin racing at three years old and can race until they are about 14 years old. "Their type of work and training is much more progressive, much more gradual," he suggested as a possible reason for the lower death rates of standardbred horses. Those horses will often run upwards of 1,000 kilometres before they enter their first race. Standardbred horses have a high mortality that tends to occur off the track, pointing to another area that should be examined, Physick-Sheard said. "That's really interesting and suggests something procedural and cultural," he said. Thoroughbreds are different. "Thoroughbred racing is more intense and progressive, but shorter in duration," Physick-Sheard said. There is more money to be made in thoroughbreds through breeding, rather than from wining races, he said, and making money is more intense for thoroughbreds younger than five years of age. Thoroughbreds generally train with relatively short distances to minimize damage that is punctuated by short, intense bursts on the racetrack. The management of young thoroughbreds, especially those aged two years old, is another area the racing industry should examine further, he said. Physick-Sheard said the study is the "first of its kind" to compare mortality in three racing breeds. The death registry is held by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, a Crown agency that regulates the horse racing industry. The AGCO granted the professor access to the data. The AGCO said it has just begun to examine the study. "There is an initiative to review the rules of racing and we're looking at what can be improved and what can help," said Mike Wilson, the manager of racing operations with the AGCO. "The findings (of the study) will be useful in the AGCO's current review." The AGCO said an official investigates every time a horse dies or is injured or there is an incident. "Any time a horse goes down, it's one horse too many," Wilson said. By Liam Casey Reprinted with permission of The Canadian Press

Harness racing trainer Kevin Townley has been fined $11,000 for producing a horse to race when not free of a prohibited substance (Ketoprofen). The horse in question was Geen's Girl who won at Addington on the 2nd March 2018 but has since been disqualified. Mr Townley cannot categorically confirm how the Ketoprofen came to be in the horse’s system on race day but believes that a bottle of E-SE may have been contaminated after giving a horse both Ketoprofen and E-SE that was drawn up into the same syringe. Mr Townley believes that after drawing up the Ketoprofen and then drawing up the E-SE some of the Ketoprofen has been forced into the bottle of E-SE. This is the second breach of the same rule this season for Townley who was also fined $7000 back in March this year when another of his horses Well Defined tested positive to Ketoprofen after winning at Geraldine. The Committee was satisfied that a fine of $11,000 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 IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing IN THE MATTER of Information No. A7221 BETWEEN KYLIE ROCHELLE WILLIAMS, Racing Investigator for the Racing Integrity Unit Informant AND KEVIN DAVID TOWNLEY of Christchurch, Licensed Public Trainer and Open Driver Respondent Date of Hearing: 28 April 2018 Venue: Ashburton Racecourse, Ashburton Judicial Committee: Mr SC Ching (Chairman) Mr GJ Clapp (Committee Member) Present: Mrs KR Williams, the Informant Mr KD Townley, the Respondent Mr R Quirk, Stipendiary Steward (Registrar) Date of Decision: 30 April 2018 RESERVED DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE The Charge [1] Information No. A7221 alleges that: On the 2nd March 2018, Kevin David TOWNLEY, being the registered trainer of the standardbred GEENA’S GIRL presented the horse to race in Race 8, the PAM & IVAN LAWSON HANDICAP TROT, at the New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club’s meeting with a prohibited substance, namely Ketoprofen, in its system. This is in breach of the Prohibited Substance Rule, Rule 1004(1A) (3)(4). The Rules [2] Rule 1004 of the Rules of Harness Racing provides as follows: (1) A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances. (2) Where a horse is taken, or is to be taken, to a racecourse for the purpose of engaging in a race otherwise that in accordance with sub-rule (1) the trainer of the horse commits a breach of these Rules. (4) A breach of these Rules under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3) is committed regardless of the circumstances in which the prohibited substance came to be present in or on the horse. [3] Mrs Williams presented a letter signed by Mr MR Godber, General Manager of the RIU, pursuant to Rule 1108(2) authorising the filing of the information. The Plea [4] Mr Townley had signed the Statement by the Respondent at the foot of the information form indicating that he admitted the breach of the Rule. He confirmed this at the hearing. Summary of Facts [5] (1) GEENA'S GIRL is a 4-year-old Brown mare and is trained by Mr Kevin David TOWNLEY. GEENA'S GIRL is owned by Mr Townley’s wife, Mrs M E Townley, Mrs K J Thomas, R N Campbell and G C Rugg. GEENA'S GIRL has raced 20 times for 2 wins and lifetime stakes of $17,237 as at 20 April 2018. (2) GEENA'S GIRL was correctly entered and presented to race by trainer Mr Kevin Townley at the New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club meeting on 2 March 2018. GEENA'S GIRL was driven in Race 8, the IVAN LAWSON HANDICAP TROT by Ms S Ottley, 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 GEENA'S GIRL be post-race swabbed. GEENA'S GIRL entered the swab box at 9.19pm and Swabbing Steward Mr G Johnston obtained a urine sample from the mare at 9.22pm. The race was programmed to start at 9.00pm. The urine sample was taken in the presence of stable representative Mr K Stevens. The urine samples were recorded with the Sample number 133764. Mr Stevens and Mr Townley do not contest the taking of the sample. (4) On the 14th March 2018 the New Zealand Racing Laboratory reported Ketoprofen was detected in Sample Number 133764. The Control Sample was clear. (5) On the 16th of March 2018 Racecourse Investigators Mrs K R Williams and Mr PR Lamb went to the training establishment of Mr Townley, 59 Russley Road, Christchurch, and advised him of the positive swab returned by GEENA'S GIRL. (6) Mr Townley was given a copy of the Certificate of Analysis, Copy of the Swab Card, RIU Swabbing Record Book and Race Results. (7) Mr Townley advised that he took GEENA'S GIRL to the races in his own float and that the mare was one of two horses he had racing that night. (8) Mr Townley could not initially offer an explanation for the presence of Ketoprofen in the urine sample taken from GEENA'S GIRL and could not advise when the mare was last treated with Ketoprofen. (9) Mr Townley keeps a diary in which he enters treatments. There were no treatments recorded for Ketaprofen or E-SE for GEENA’S GIRL, but she was treated with Alamycin on 28 February 2018. Mr Townley does not record all treatments of E-SE as this does not have a withholding time. (10) Mr Townley now keeps his medication in a safe since his previous positive swab with WELL DEFINED on 3 February 2018. One bottle of Key Injection and two bottles of E-SE were in the safe. (11) The bottle of “Key Injection” which contains Ketoprofen was in the safe which noted a 4 day withhold on the box and this was also written on the bottle by the administering Veterinarian. It was written by the Veterinarian on the bottle to use 10ml I/V (intravenously). On the box it states 10ml per 450kg bw (body weight). The bottle was one of two supplied on 26 July 2017. (12) Mr Townley advised that he sometimes treats the horses one/two days out from racing with E-SE. (13) Mr Townley advised that he has previously given horses a mixture of Ketoprofen and E-SE at least 4.2 days out from racing with the products being drawn up into the same syringe. Mr Townley advised that he generally draws up the E-SE first and then the Ketoprofen but he believes that he may have drawn them up the other way around thus contaminating the bottle of E-SE. (14) The bottle of Key Injection and the two bottles of E-SE Injection were sent to the New Zealand Racing Laboratory for testing. (15) Mr Townley advised that GEENA'S GIRL had never had any lameness issues, but he makes a point of going over his horses once they have worked and checks for any muscle soreness or any signs of tying up for which Mr Townley then administers Ketoprofen if needed outside the withholding time. (16) Mr Townley is well aware of the 4.2 day withholding time for Ketoprofen and is particular to adhere to any withholding time of any drug. (17) Mr Townley when administering Ketoprofen always administers 10ml as directed by the Veterinarian. (18) The New Zealand Racing Laboratory advised on 3 April 2018 the results of the three bottles taken from Mr Townley’s safe. The Key Injection bottle contained Ketoprofen with the concentration as stated on the label. One of the E-SE Injection bottles had broken in transportation so could not be tested. Ketoprofen was not detected in the second bottle of E-SE. (19) Mr Townley has had five horses swabbed since the first positive swab with WELL DEFINED on 3 February 2018. Swabs: - WELL DEFINED - 3 February 2018 - positive - RUNNING FREE - 23 February 2018 - clear - GEENA’S GIRL - 2 March 2018 - positive - NURBURGRING - 9 March 2018 - clear - ETHEREAL - 16 March 2018 - clear (pre-race) - RUNNING FREE - 16 March 2018 - clear (pre-race) Mr Townley advised that those that have returned positive swabs were given E-SE while those that were clear were not given E-SE. The 16th of March was the day that Mr Townley was advised of the positive swab returned by GEENA’S GIRL. (20) Mr Townley has been training since 1986/87 initially in partnership with D J Townley and then on his own from 1994/95. Mr Townley has trained over 460 winners. (21) Mr Townley was charged with a breach of the prohibited substance rule in Australia in 2003 for Clenbuterol and was fined $2,000 with a three-month suspension, suspended for 12 months. (22) Mr Townley admitted a breach of presenting WELL DEFINED with Ketoprofen in its system on 3 February 2018 and was fined $7,000. Submissions of Informant on Penalty [6] (1) Mr Townley has pleaded guilty to a breach of Rules 1004(1A) (3)(4) after presenting GEENA'S GIRL at the races with a prohibited substance in its system, namely Ketoprofen, at the New Zealand Metropolitan TC meeting on the 2nd March 2018. (2) The penalty provisions that apply in this case are outlined in Rule 1004(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. (5) Relevant Precedents – In addition to the sentencing principles the Judicial Committee should have regard to relevant precedence. R.I.U. v C & A Edmonds – 31 March 2016 Subject: Ketoprofen positive with two horses – fined $9,000. Extract from Edmonds’decision: “The Committee finds that it was negligent on the part of the Respondents to leave their medication cabinet unlocked and this is an aggravating factor.” NZTR v A Scott – 22 November 2010 Subject: Ketoprofen positive with a thoroughbred – fined $6,000, costs $750 NZTR, $600 JCA. NZTR v K & L Rae – 28 May 2009 Subject: Ketoprofen positive with a thoroughbred – fined $4,000, costs $3,000 NZTR, $500 JCA. NZTR v AW Pike & M Donoghue – 22 August 2008 Subject: Ketoprofen positive with a thoroughbred – fined $6,000. R.I.U v KD Townley - 12 March 2018 Subject: Ketoprofen positive with a standardbred - fined $7,000. R.I.U. v JM 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 PM 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.” The EVA withholding time of 4.2 days is only a guideline. Veterinary Council of New Zealand v Dr P Casey - 8 July 2013 “In October 2011, a revised list entitled “NZEVA Prohibited Substance Recommended Withholding Times” was issued. Amongst other cautionary statements, it stated: “The information in this list is predominantly derived from NZ practitioner experience and not necessarily from scientific studies with adequate numbers of animals. This guideline includes a buffer time to allow for individual variation between horses’ drug excretion times. The list does not however, account absolutely for the possibility that an individual horse may have a delayed elimination period for a substance because of the slow metabolism of that animal, delayed hepatic conjugational renal clearance, the interaction of more than one treatment use concurrently, the “stepping” of multiply (sic) treatments over days accumulating to high body levels, or the normal statistical variations seen in individuals…. adherence by veterinarians to the administration guidelines in the NZEVA Prohibited Substance Recommended Withholding List will ensure that their obligations under the NZEVA Professional Code of Conduct are being met.” Aggravating Features [7] Mr Townley cannot categorically confirm how the Ketoprofen came to be in the horse’s system on race day but believes that a bottle of E-SE may have been contaminated after giving a horse both Ketoprofen and E-SE that was drawn up into the same syringe. Mr Townley believes that after drawing up the Ketoprofen and then drawing up the E-SE some of the Ketoprofen has been forced into the bottle of E-SE. The amount forced into the bottle would need to be significant to cause a future positive, especially for it to be over the regulatory limit of 100 micrograms per litre. This is unlikely as a half amount of Ketoprofen (5ml) would need to be administered for it still to be in its system on race day two days later or 2.5ml if given one day out. Any ketoprofen would also be diluted by the E-SE that was still in the bottle. The Racing Laboratory reported no presence of Ketoprofen in the bottle of E-SE that was tested with the other bottle being unable to be tested. The same bottle that was previously found on the property after Mr Townley’s positive with GEENA’s GIRL was still present and Mr Townley continued to treat horses without seeking Veterinary advice. This bottle was not purchased for a specific horse but was to be used on any horse in the stable that showed signs of muscle soreness or tie up. Again, at Mr Townley’s discretion. Trainers run the risk of errors and must bear the consequence if they elect to mix and/or self-administer drugs without the continued guidance of a Veterinarian. The bottles of Key Injection were purchased in July 2017, several months earlier. Mr Townley cannot confirm what day he may have treated or when GEENA'S GIRL was last treated with Ketoprofen or E-SE as there is no note in his diary. Mr Townley keeps a diary but admits that he does not always record treatments. Mr Townley previously admitted a breach of the rule only a month earlier with the same drug and the only change he has implemented since then was to put the drugs in a safe. Mr Townley has not improved his recording of any administration as there is no record of GEENA’S GIRL being treated with Ketoprofen or E-SE. Mr Townley was charged with a breach in 2003 for Clenbuterol in Australia. Mitigating Factors [8] Mr Townley admits full liability as the trainer and admitted the breach at the first opportunity and has cooperated fully throughout the investigation. Mr Townley has been training for over 30 years and has trained over 460 winners. Conclusion [9] The Racing Integrity Unit seeks a monetary penalty of a fine of $12,000. 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. This is Mr Townley’s second offence within a month. Mr Townley has to be given credit for the manner in which he has conducted himself during this enquiry 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 GEENA'S GIRL under Rule 1004(8). The RIU are not seeking to recover any costs in this matter. Respondent’s Submissions Mr Townley presented the following written submissions; [10] This is a devastating turn of events and to explain it I must return to my previous case in February as the two are intertwined. In the case of Well Defined I was shocked and bewildered as I had no memory of giving him Ketaprofen. I also consulted my diary and there was also no record of it. I “could not offer an explanation for the presence of Ketaprofen in the urine sample taken from Well Defined and could not advise when the gelding was last treated with Ketaprofen”. Shock and circumstances at the time forced me to say, “I must have given it to Well Defined, but I am very sure I did not administer it to him inside the guidelines as I am extremely aware and careful when I have horses racing”. I said this as there appeared to be no other explanation. 10 days after receiving this news I lined up Geena’s Girl and ended up here again. I did not treat Geena’s Girl with Ketaprofen and had no entry in my diary. Who in their right mind would do this after what had just happened and of course knowing we would be swabbed if winning. There is not a shadow of doubt in my mind now as to what has happened. I did not knowingly give Well Defined or Geena’s Girl Ketaprofen at all and my diary was correct in both cases. The cause can only be this: I quite often give my horse injectable vitamin E + selenium known as E-SE. On odd occasions I may get a horse show signs of muscle tie-up and if NOT RACING I will mix ESE and Ketaprofen in one syringe and treat them. I have done this for decades with no problems, but I must always be careful to take the E-SE first, then the Ketaprofen, so as not to contaminate the E-SE. Doing this the reverse way has to be the cause of these two positive swabs with Well Defined getting E-SE about 28hrs before racing and Geena’s Girl I believe about 36hrs. I am guilty of making ONE mistake, genuine human error, causing BOTH of these cases. As we did not realise at the time that this was the cause of Well Defined being positive, I have innocently done the same thing again. During this time, I had several negative swabs with horses I did not give E-SE. I was gutted when a bottle taken by the RIU for testing was broken and my proof gone. I use very little Ketaprofen. Mrs Williams has established that I bought 2 bottles in July 2017 and in 9 months since I have used about 1.5 bottles. 15 doses, which equates to 1 dose per horse in my team over 9 months. I have never given it to a horse less than 4.2 day from a race. It is normally only used on horses not racing. I have been licensed and training for 52 years to reach this low point and sincerely hope you can see this as the result of 1 mistake I have made and have already paid a hefty price for. Respondents submissions on Penalty [11] Mr Townley said he took issue with the aggravating features stated in the Penalty submissions as presented by Mrs Williams, which stated that Mr Townley could “not categorically confirm how the Ketaprofen came to be in the horse’s system on race day”. Mr Townley stated that he now has no doubt at all how the Ketaprofen came to be in the horse’s system. He said there were two things that could prove his point, firstly, the used bottle of E-SE that went away to be tested, as his luck would go, was broken and there was no way to know whether the used bottle of E-SE was contaminated with Ketaprofen as he submitted. The only other way he could get proof was to ask his vet if he could do a blind test on a horse, to which the vets reply was that the RIU would not let him use the lab for testing. Mr Townley stated that the two things that could have proved his explanation were taken away. He said the only way that GEENA’S GIRL had Ketaprofen in her system on race-day was the cross contamination of the 2 bottles where he mistakenly drew the Ketaprofen first, then whilst drawing the E-SE, Ketaprofen contaminated the bottle of E-SE. He said he would normally draw the ESE first and top off the syringe with the Ketaprofen but was certain he had mistakenly reversed this procedure leading to the contamination of the E-SE bottle. He said both WELL DEFINED and GEENA’S GIRL were treated the day before the races with ESE out of the same bottle which he said was contaminated and caused both positive swabs. Mr Townley also took issue with the statement in the Summary of Facts where the RIU stated that such a small amount of Ketaprofen from a contamination would not return a positive reading of 157micrograms per litre, 100 micrograms per litre being the regulatory threshold limit. He submitted a drop could cause a positive. In answer to a question from Mr Townley, Mrs Williams stated that in order for enough Ketaprofen to show above the threshold of 100 micrograms per litre, the amount forced into the bottle by cross contamination would have to be significant. She reiterated, as stated in Penalty submissions, that with a 4.2 day withholding time for Ketaprofen, with a standard dose, submitted that at least 1ml would need to be administered the day before the races to show as above 100 micrograms per millilitre. This she said, in her opinion, made contamination of the E-SE bottle unlikely. Mr Townley refuted this and said he knew a lot about Ketaprofen. He submitted that a tiny drop of Ketaprofen would be detectable and cause a positive swab. He also stated that not a lot of testing had been done and there was no science to prove what level of Ketaprofen would show as over the threshold the next day. He said that there was also no science or proof that what he said did not happen. Mr Townley said there was no intent to administer and submitted that both the WELL DEFINED and GEENA’S GIRL cases should be treated as the same case with the same mistake happening with both horses, that being the contaminated bottle of E-SE. He said he made one mistake and got two horses with positives. Mr Townley also stated that he had raced other horses in between the positive swabs which were clear swabs and he had not treated any of those with E-SE. This, he said, supported the cross-contamination explanation he had submitted. He submitted that both positives were from the same contaminated bottle of E-SE. Disqualification of the horse [12] (1) Mrs Williams referred to Rule 1004D of the Rules of Harness Racing which provides: 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 any prohibited substance shall be disqualified from the race. (2) Mrs Williams said that the winning stake has not been paid out. Mrs Williams sought disqualification of GEENA’S GIRL. (3) The Committee ordered that GEENA’S GIRL be disqualified from Race 5, Pam and Ivan Lawson Handicap Trot, at the meeting of NZMTC held at Addington on 2 March 2018, effective Monday 30 April 2018. As a consequence of the disqualification, the amended result for the Race is as follows: 1st Tehoro Dazzle 2nd Rachmaninov 3rd Chivision 4th Motu Great Sensation 5th Beyond The Horizon 6th Natives Lasting Love The Committee ordered that stakes for the Race be paid in accordance with that amended result. Reasons for Penalty [13] The relevant penalty Rule is Rule 1004 (7) which provides: (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. (2) The Committee notes that the maximum fine under Rule 1004 (7) (a) was increased by Harness Racing New Zealand from $10,000 to $20,000 in 2011, reflecting the desire of that body to provide a greater deterrent. In the Committee’s view, penalties imposed for breaches of the Rule prior to March 2011 need to be looked at in the light of that. (3) The principal mitigating factors, to which the Committee has had regard in determining penalty, are Mr Townley’s early admission of the breach and the way in which he has conducted himself throughout the enquiry. (4) 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 Townley and others from offending in a similar manner in the future. (5) The previous breach by Mr Townley in February 2018, a month prior to this breach, is an obvious significant aggravating factor. Mr Townley was then fined the sum of $7,000. (6) Mr Townley’s lengthy submissions on what he believed happened to cause GEENA’S GIRL to have Ketaprofen in her system were taken into consideration. Mr Townley put to the Committee an explanation for the positive for GEENA’S GIRL which he also submitted was the reason for the WELL DEFINED positive to Ketaprofen, being the contamination of the bottle of E-SE. This Committee has doubt and attaches little or no weight with this explanation as the amount of Ketaprofen detected in both horses was above the regulatory threshold of 100 micrograms per litre. We, however, agree with the submissions of the RIU and determined that on the balance of probabilities, it would be highly unlikely that a contamination of the bottle of E-SE, as described by Mr Townley, would produce positive readings of Ketaprofen at the levels detected. It is therefore difficult to know what actually happened to GEENA’S GIRL to have Ketaprofen in her system on 2 March 2018. What is obvious to this Committee is that Ketaprofen has been administered to the mare inside the 4.2 day withholding period to produce a reading of 157 milligrams per litre and that Mr Townley is ultimately responsible for that, however it got into the horse’s system. (7) The Informant has not alleged that Mr Townley had deliberately administered the prohibited substance to GEENA’S GIRL and the Committee has no basis for any finding that he did so. (8) Nevertheless, the Committee finds that Mr Townley was negligent in a number of respects, as submitted by Mrs Williams. Mr Townley had 10 days between the notification of the WELL DEFINED positive and the race in question for GEENA’S GIRL, but only elected to make 1 change to his procedures and routines by way of a medication safe. WELL DEFINED’s positive should have been a “red flag” to Mr Townley to investigate what had led to this. We believe that after a positive is detected in a stable, a prudent trainer would immediately stop all current practices and procedures and engage in a thorough review of these until it could be established what had caused the wrongful administration. We also believe that a prudent trainer should also seek the professional assistance and guidance of a veterinary surgeon and not continue on self-administering drugs until it could be again, established what process had caused the positive. Mr Townley, however, continued on with his established procedures and practices and has found himself with this breach, a second within a month. (9) The JCA Penalty Guide provides a starting point for a 2nd breach of this rule with a 2-year disqualification and a $10,000 fine. The RIU are not seeking disqualification and we, also, are not considering disqualification with this case. Mr Townley was fined the sum of $7,000 for his breach in February 2018, only 1 month prior to this breach for the same drug, Ketaprofen. Having regard to this being the second breach of this Rule by Mr Townley, we adopted the $10,000 starting point and determined that the aggravating factors in this case warranted an uplift in penalty. This we set at $3,000. The mitigating factors are also worthy of consideration, being Mr Townley’s early admission of the breach and his full cooperation throughout the investigation. For these factors, Mr Townley is deserved of a discount which we set at $2,000. (10) Having regard to all of the matters referred to above, the Committee is satisfied that a fine of $11,000 is an appropriate penalty in this case. We believe 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. Penalty [14] Mr Townley is fined the sum of $11,000.00. Costs [15] Mrs Williams did not seek any award of costs in favour of the Racing Integrity Unit and, accordingly, no order is made. [16] As this hearing was heard at a race meeting there was no order for costs to the JCA. S C Ching Chairman   Harnesslink Media

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

On 25 January 2018, licensed trainer/driver Mr Larry Eastman was convicted in the Bendigo Magistrates Court of five criminal charges that included using corrupt conduct information for betting purposes and engaging in conduct that corrupts or would corrupt a betting outcome of an event. Subsequently, Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) Stewards have issued a charge against Mr Larry Eastman under Australian Harness Racing Rule (AHRR) 267 which states: 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. As a result of Mr Eastman’s conviction and through further investigations by HRV Stewards, charges have also been issued against the following licensed persons;  Mr Scott Dyer (8 charges), Ms Lynette Eastman (3 Charges) and Mr Danny O’Bree (2 Charges). All charges will be heard by the HRV Racing Appeals and Disciplinary (RAD) Board on a date to be fixed.     Harness Racing Victoria

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

Millstone Township, NJ - April 25, 2018 -  The last three of the 21 trotters and pacers in the kill pens the Standardbred Retirement Foundation (SRF) is trying to keep from slaughter, have a reprieve, but do not have homes, Valid Moment, Native Avenue, and DeMartini. They do have donations to care for them until SRF can hopefully find them homes. Secret Impression who has a home is now sick and injured. A veterinarian has been called. Her home is now pending.   SRF expresses its heartfelt gratitude for the support received for these horses. It's been a stressful six days trying to pull it all together, very sad to have had to do this at all, but a few sweet things have come from this effort. Four horses had their past owners take them home, and help came from a horse that was considered rescued himself, St. Elmo Hero, who went on to earn nearly $800,000 for his owner John Barnard.   Josh Green, one of 21 owners of Skedaddle Hanover, during his racing career, owning him for just 6 months,stated, "I don't understand how people can be in racing and not fall in love with and appreciate how hard these horses try for us." Eric Goodell and Josh Green took Mr. Mystic N, one from this group, home on the same day they heard he was in trouble.    We were surprised that the United States Trotting Association, (USTA) chose not to pick up SRF's press releases, as their readers are people more closely associated with these animals than anyone, especially past breeders, owners, trainers, and fans. These are the people who should have this information. The USTA states that they do not have a policy on slaughter. It is well known that some of the directors oppose it and some are pro slaughter. We suggest that when members vote their new directors in that they pose that question before casting a vote.    Homes are still needed.       To offer a home, make a tax-deductible gift to help any of the other 390 horses inSRF's program, or to sponsor one, contact SRF 732-446-4422 or email SRF.Horseandkids@Adoptahorse.org. To see some of the other 390, to sponsor one, adopt one, or make a gift click here AdoptaHorse.org/Donate.    Standardbred Retirement Foundation | AdoptaHorse.org | Judith Bokman

Harness Racing participants Dayl March and Leonard Cain have had their licences reinstated after charges of race fixing against them were dropped last week.  The Brisbane Magistrates' Court dismissed the charges, citing a lack of evidence in both cases.  It is believed the Magistrate indicated in March’s case that there was insufficient evidence to proceed and the charges were subsequently withdrawn, The Courier Mail reported last week.  In the case of Cain, it is understood the prosecution asked for more time to produce witnesses, but the submission was rejected and the case dismissed. QRIC Commissioner Ross Barnett said both March and Cain had applied to have their racing licences reinstated.  “Mr Cain’s suspension has been lifted effective immediately and he is able to resume under his licence which remains current," Commissioner Barnett said.  “The licence of Mr March expired through the suspension period and he will be issued a renewal application directly. The suspension has been lifted however no current licence is in place at this stage. “QRIC stewards have yet to examine the circumstances of each case to determine whether any further action should be taken.” While March and Cain challenged their charges, former driver Barton Cockburn was fined $5,000 in October last year after pleading guilty to three charges relating to race fixing.  Cockburn was warned off all race tracks for life following his conviction. By Nick Hluchaniuk Reprinted with permission of The Punters

Race-fixing cases against harness racing participants Dayl March and Leonard Cain were dismissed in Brisbane Magistrates’ Court this week, leaving the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission and the Racing Crime Squad red-faced. Both decisions cited a lack of evidence as the reason for the dismissals. The cases of March and Cain were the first match-fixing charges to be contested in court relating to QRIC’s harness racing investigations, which were conducted by the Racing Crime Squad. Last October, Barton Cockburn pleaded guilty to three charges of match fixing, pertaining to races in November 2016 and was fined $5000. Soon after, Michael Grant also pleaded guilty to different charges relating to the same inquiry. At the time, Integrity Commissioner Ross Barnett said Cockburn’s conviction “should put an end to industry speculation about whether the Commission would be able to gather sufficient evidence to obtain convictions”. “I hope the fact that two of the three people we’ve charged so far have now pleaded guilty will be a reflection of the evidence that was gathered in these matters,” Barnett said at the time. However, Cain and March chose to defend the charges and their cases were thrown out of court on Wednesday and Thursday. It is understood in the case of trainer-driver March, the Magistrate indicated there was insufficient evidence to proceed and the charges were subsequently withdrawn. Harness driver Leonard Cain had his race-fixing case dismissed in the Brisbane Magistrates’ Court.  In the case of Cain, a harness driver, it is understood the prosecution asked for more time to produce witnesses, but the submission was rejected and the case dismissed. Both QRIC and the Queensland Police Service declined to comment on the March and Cain dismissals on Friday. March has been sidelined and unable to compete since having his license suspended in April last year. Initially he did not seek a stay of proceedings because he had hoped the matter would be resolved quickly. Later, when it became apparent the case would drag on, he was denied the stay. Originally published as Race-fixing cases thrown out of court   By Nathan Exelby   Reprinted with permission of news.com.au    

An Australian gambler was able to parlay A$1,600 (US$1,245) into an incredible A$56,000 (US$43,000) after pulling off an upset win during a horserace in February 2013. While he basked in his winnings and the attention he received after the long-shot victory, some began quietly questioning how it was possible. The truth has finally come out, with the gambler among 78 looking at charges of fraud. Edward Ridgway was the prophet who foresaw Alma’s Fury winning the race that day. The track was wet, which always resulted in a poor performance by the horse. Always, except for one race. That win unleashed an investigation that uncovered a history of fraudulent bets. All of the bets were perpetrated by the same individual, Stephen Charles Fletcher, who was already in hot water for receiving insider information in various gambling activities, according to The Sydney Morning Herald report. Fletcher was first introduced to authorities in 2006 after he and his betting partner, Eddie Hayson, had won millions wagering on a rugby match. Authorities accused the pair of learning prior to the match that a key player wouldn’t be on the field due to an injury, and used the information to enter their bets. Both Fletcher and Hayson denied the allegations, and there wasn’t enough proof for a conviction. However, Fletcher was subsequently banned from gambling. From September 2012 to March 2013, Fletcher used the identities of 77 individuals, including police officers, to continue his betting activities, according to the report. He has been shown to have been behind bets placed at a number of horserace tracks around Australia, and also in Hong Kong and Singapore. In one instance, he used Ridgway’s account in a horserace in Hong Kong, turning US$233 into US$13,774. In February 2013, Fletcher made 28 bets under the names of others in racing events ranging from greyhounds in Western Australia to harness racing in Penrith. Former police officers Senior Constable Marc Smith and Senior Constable Tony Williams were also caught up in the investigation. The duo face charges for soliciting fellow officers to join in on the fraud. It has been determined that Williams met Fletcher through the latter’s friend, Crown Prosecutor Margaret Cunneen, who is also under investigation. Fletcher has now been charged with 78 counts of “dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception.” Each charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in an Aussie prison. Knowing his propensity for using others’ identities, authorities will probably want to make sure it’s really him before sending him away. By Erik Gibbs Reprinted with permission of Calvinayre.com site

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

HOT SPRINGS, Ark. — Bisphosphonates — a class of drugs that prevent the bone-density loss —might have some therapeutic value for older racehorses but speakers at the Conference on Equine Welfare and Racing Integrity warned of the potential harm caused by such treatments for young horses such yearlings and 2-year-olds.  That was among the takeaways from Wednesday’s Animal Welfare Forum of the Association of Racing Commissioners International’s 84th annual conference, being held through Friday at the Hotel Hot Springs. The related discussion included how pari-mutuel racing’s regulators might address abuse of bisphosphonates and at what stage should horses come under the jurisdiction of a racing regulatory authority. ARCI members are the only independent entities recognized by law to license, make and enforce rules and adjudicate matters pertaining to racing. Dr. Jeff Blea, a Southern California veterinarian who is the past chair of the American Association of Equine Practitioners and heads its racing committee, called bisphosphonates “a nuclear button right now, not only in the racing industry but in the breeding industry.”  Dr. Lynn Hovda, the Minnesota Racing Commission’s equine medical director, said bisphosphonates don’t just impact what could be a sore bone or joint, but they go throughout the skeletal system.  Dr. Sue Stover, a professor at the University of California Davis School of Veterinary Medicine, said the rational for giving young horses bisphosphonates is to ward off stress fractures, joint problems and some abnormalities. “Ultimately it was just the silver bullet of preventing all these problems,” she said. However, Stover said that bisphosphonates in young horses actually interfere with the development and growth of bone, reduce bone’s ability to heal and makes bone more susceptible to cracks. One study of Israel military recruits showed bisphosphonates did not prevent stress fractures when given before training, she said. One of her major concerns is that bisphosphonates, as analgesics, have the potential to mask pain. Conference attendee Carrie Brogden — a breeder and consigner whose Machmer Hall Farm in Paris, Ky., bred champion Tepin — said she and husband Craig do not treat horses with bisphosphonates but that the panel opened her eyes about what could be an industry problem. “You’re talking about horses who may have been treated as yearlings coming down the race pipeline,” she said. “I guess it’s a small sample right now. But this is being kind of pushed in Lexington as like the safe cure, not as something to be avoided.” Blea said taking a page from the British Horseracing Authority’s ban on bisphosphonates in race horses under 3 1/2 years old and requiring a 30-day “stand down” from racing “would be a good place to start.” He said the AAEP recently assembled a committee to discuss bisphosphonates and mentioned a talk on the subject that he gave two years ago to several hundred veterinarians. “I asked, ‘How many people are using bisphosphonates in their practice?’” Blea said. “There might have been five or six people raise their hands. After the talk, 25 people came up to me asked me, ‘Is there a test for it?’ “The reality is that we don’t know enough about it. I’ve spoken to practitioners who have told me it is rampant in the thoroughbred yearling industry, rampant in the 2-year-old training sales. I know it’s being used on the racetrack, though I don’t believe it’s being used as much on the racetrack as people think. I think it’s one of those things that have come and gone.” But John Campbell, the legendary harness-racing driver who last year retired to become president and CEO of the Hambletonian Society, said the standardbred industry has had “great luck” using bisphosphonates to treat young horses with distal cannon-bone disease with “no adverse affects that I can see.” He noted that thoroughbreds are much more at risk of catastrophic injuries than the gaited standardbreds. ARCI president Ed Martin urged racing regulators to start working on a model rule as to when jurisdiction over a horse begins, which could allow them to address  the concern over bisphosphonates. One of ARCI’s missions is to create model rules that provide the member regulatory groups a blueprint for their own laws or legislation dealing with all aspects of horse racing. “I think it would behoove all of us to work on a model regulatory policy so we have uniformity in terms of when the horse should come under the jurisdiction of the racing commission,” Martin said. “When we talk about out-of-competition testing or questioning the use of certain medications, the first thing somebody is going to say is, ‘You don’t have jurisdiction over this horse, and you don’t regulate the practice of veterinary medicine.’” Matt Iuliano, The Jockey Club’s executive vice president, said that about 75 percent of thoroughbreds will make a start by age 4, leaving a 25-percent “leakage rate.” He suggested a more cost-effective and logical place to put horses under regulatory control is once they have a timed workout, indicating an intent to race. “You’ve probably taken that 75 percent to 90 percent,” he said. Eric Hamelback, CEO of the National Horsemen’s Benevolent & Protective Association, agreed with starting regularity control with a horse’s first published work. He expressed hope for a common-sense rule that would be fair to everyone, while cautioning of bisphosphonates, “There is a lack of facts and research being done. We don’t want to go after writing rules just to write rules. Finding out exactly, if there is a concern — and what that concern is — to me is the most important first stage. And then where we’re going to attack and fix the problem.” Identifying risk — and protective — factors in horses  Dr. Scott Palmer, the equine medical director for the New York Gaming Association, discussed identifying risk factors in racing, including those at “boutique” meets such as Saratoga, Del Mar and Keeneland, with the inherent demands to get owners’ horses to those races because of their exceptional purse money and prestige. Palmer cited some risk factors as being on the “vets” list for an infirmity, not racing at 2, trainer change, switching to a different track’s surface and dropping in class. He said protective factors also must be identified. Palmer said changes that have established themselves as diminishing risks would not all be popular and could require a change in mindset, such as writing fewer cheap claiming races, limiting the claiming purse to twice the value of the horse, consolidating race meets, biosecurity and limiting the number of stalls given the large outfits. He said racetrack safety accreditation by the National Thoroughbred Racing Association is important. Also mentioned: continuing education for veterinarians, trainers and assistant trainers, along with increased scrutiny of horses seeking removal from the vets list after a long layoff. “We’re not going to get rid of fixed risk factors, but we can mitigate them,” Palmer said. Dr. Rick Arthur advises the California Horse Racing Board on equine medication and drug testing, veterinary medicine and the health and safety of horses under CHRB’s jurisdiction. After a rash of fatalities in 2016, Del Mar’s actions included allowing only horses having timed workouts to be on the track for the first 10 minutes following a renovation break and giving up a week of racing to allow additional time to get the track in shape for the meet after the property was used for the San Diego County Fair Arthur cited a study that determined horses scratched by a regulatory veterinarian did not race back for 110 days on average, while the average horse ran back in about 40 days. “The bottom line is we’re actually identifying the right horse,” he said of vet scratches. “The real issue is: are we identifying all the horses we should?” Sports betting: “Amazing potential” Horse racing, professional sports leagues and casinos are awaiting a U.S. Supreme Court decision this spring on New Jersey’s challenge to the constitutionality of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which for the last quarter-century effectively has made sports betting illegal except in Nevada and a few other states. The consensus of a conference panel was that sports betting could be on us extremely quickly and that racetracks and states, as well as racing regulators who in some states might oversee betting on sports, must be prepared.  Jessica Feil, a gaming law associate with Ifrah Law in Washington, D.C., said she thinks racing and sports betting will fit well together and could open up new kinds of wagers on horses, including parlays that span sporting events and races. “I envision amazing potential,” she said. Alex Waldrop, CEO of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, said one advantage for horse racing is that the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978 allows bets to be made across state lines, which paved the way for simulcasting into commingled pools. “We have some leverage,” he said. "If sports waging goes forward, you won’t be able to bet across state lines” without passage of enabling federal legislation. Attached photos: Dr. Sue Stover, a professor at the University of California Davis School of Veterinary Medicine, discusses bisphosphonates on a panel that included moderator Dr. Corrine Sweeney (far left) of the Pennsylvania Racing Commission and Dr. Lynn Hovda, equine director for the Minnesota Racing Commission, with the ARCI's Kerry Holloway on the computer launching a visual presentation. A panel Wednesday discussing at what point horses should come under the jurisdiction of a racing regulatory authority (left to right): National HBPA CEO Eric Hamelback; Tom DiPasquale, executive director of the Minnesota Racing Commission, and Matt Iuliano, executive vice president of The Jockey Club. The Association of Racing Commissioners International

Harness racing trainer Robert Dunn and his son John Dunn have each been fined $7000 for producing horses to race when not free of a prohibited substance. The horses in question were Billy Badger, Rishi and Hayden's Meddle and all have been disqualified from their race wins at the Nelson two day meeting in June last year, with Billy Badger disqualified in both wins he had at the meeting. 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. Full details below:   BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003 IN THE MATTER of the Rules of Harness Racing BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT Informant AND RJ DUNN Respondent AND JR DUNN Respondent Judicial Committee: Mr Tangi Utikere (Chairman) Mr Russell McKenzie (Committee Member) Parties: Mr Neil Grimstone (for the RIU) Dr Leo Molloy (Lay Advocate for the Respondents) Informations: A6412, A6413, A6414, A6415, A6416, A6417, A6418 and A6419 WRITTEN DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DATED 28 MARCH 2018 FACTS [1] The Respondents, Mr RJ Dunn (Licensed Public Trainer) and Mr JR Dunn (Licensed Open Horseman) each face four charges under the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing. [2] The charges are detailed in Informations A6412, A6413, A6414, A6415, A6416, A6417, A6418 and A6419. They collectively allege breaches of the Prohibited Substance Rule: Rules 1004(1), (1A), (3), (3A) and (4) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing. [3] The relevant 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 a.m. 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 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.” [4] The relevant Penalty Provision 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 $20,000.00; and/or (b) be disqualified or suspended from holding or obtaining a licence for any specific period not exceeding five years.” [5] The specific Informations alleged: Information No A6412 THAT, on 9 June 2017 Robert John DUNN (together with John Robert DUNN) being the trainer or person left in charge of the standardbred RISHI presented the horse to race in Race 2, the CAVALIER TROTTING PRODUCTS/THE POINT OF SALE CO. MOBILE PACE, at the Nelson Harness Racing Club’s meeting with a prohibited substance, namely caffeine, in its system in breach of the Prohibited Substance Rule: rules 1004(1), (1A), (3), (3A) and (4). And you are therefore liable to the penalties which may be imposed under rule 1004(7). The horse, RISHI, is subject to a mandatory disqualification from the race under rule 1004D or rule 1004(8) and is liable to disqualification up to 5 years under rule 1004(8). Information No A6413 THAT, on 9 June 2017 Robert John DUNN (together with John Robert DUNN) being the trainer of the standardbred HAYDEN’S MEDDLE, presented the horse to race in Race 7, the HARDY'S BAR & TAB MOBILE PACE, at the Nelson Harness Racing Club’s meeting with a prohibited substance, namely caffeine, in its system in breach of the Prohibited Substance Rule: rules 1004(1), (1A), (3), (3A) and (4). And you are therefore liable to the penalties which may be imposed under rule 1004(7). The horse, HAYDEN’S MEDDLE, is subject to a mandatory disqualification from the race under rule 1004D or rule 1004(8) and is liable to disqualification up to 5 years under rule 1004(8). Information No A6414 THAT, on 9 June 2017 Robert John DUNN (together with John Robert DUNN) being the trainer of the Standardbred BILLY BADGER presented the horse to race in Race 10, the SPEEDY SIGNS MOBILE PACE, at the Nelson Harness Racing Club’s meeting with a prohibited substance, namely caffeine, in its system in breach of the Prohibited Substance Rule: rules 1004(1), (1A), (3), (3A) and (4). And you are therefore liable to the penalties which may be imposed under rule 1004(7). The horse, BILLY BADGER, is subject to a mandatory disqualification from the race under rule 1004D or rule 1004(8) and is liable to disqualification up to 5 years under rule 1004(8). Information No A6415 THAT, on 11 June 2017 Robert John DUNN (together with John Robert DUNN), being the trainer of the standardbred BILLY BADGER presented the horse to race in Race 8, the NELSON PINE INDUSTRIES NELSON WINTER CUP, at the Nelson Harness Racing Club’s meeting with a prohibited substance, namely caffeine, in its system in breach of the Prohibited Substance Rule: rules 1004(1), (1A), (3), (3A) and (4). And you are therefore liable to the penalties which may be imposed under rule 1004(7). The horse, BILLY BADGER, is subject to a mandatory disqualification from the race under rule 1004D or rule 1004(8) and is liable to disqualification up to 5 years under rule 1004(8). Information No A6416 THAT, on 9 June 2017 John Robert DUNN (together with Robert John DUNN) being the person left in charge of the standardbred RISHI presented the horse to race in Race 2, the CAVALIER TROTTING PRODUCTS/THE POINT OF SALE CO. MOBILE PACE, at the Nelson Harness Racing Club’s meeting with a prohibited substance, namely caffeine, in its system in breach of the Prohibited Substance Rule: rules 1004(1), (1A), (3), (3A) and (4). And you are therefore liable to the penalties which may be imposed under rule 1004(7). The horse, RISHI, is subject to a mandatory disqualification from the race under rule 1004D or rule 1004(8) and is liable to disqualification up to 5 years under rule 1004(8). Information No A6417 THAT, on 9 June 2017 John Robert DUNN (together with Robert John DUNN) being the person left in charge of the standardbred HAYDEN’S MEDDLE presented the horse to race in Race 7, the HARDY'S BAR & TAB MOBILE PACE, at the Nelson Harness Racing Club’s meeting with a prohibited substance, namely caffeine, in its system in breach of the Prohibited Substance Rule: rules 1004(1), (1A), (3), (3A) and (4). And you are therefore liable to the penalties which may be imposed under Rule 1004(7). The horse, HAYDEN’S MEDDLE, is subject to a mandatory disqualification from the race under rule 1004D or rule 1004(8) and is liable to disqualification up to 5 years under rule 1004(8). Information No A6418 THAT, on 9 June 2017 John Robert DUNN (together with Robert John DUNN) being the person left in charge of the standardbred BILLY BADGER presented the horse to race in Race 10, the SPEEDY SIGNS MOBILE PACE, at the Nelson Harness Racing Club’s meeting with a prohibited substance, namely caffeine, in its system in breach of the Prohibited Substance Rule: rules 1004(1), (1A), (3), (3A) and (4). And you are therefore liable to the penalties which may be imposed under rule 1004(7). The horse, BILLY BADGER, is subject to a mandatory disqualification from the race under Rule 1004D or rule 1004(8) and is liable to disqualification up to 5 years under rule 1004(8). Information No A6419 THAT, on 11 June 2017 John Robert DUNN (together with Robert John DUNN) being the person left in charge of the standardbred BILLY BADGER, presented the horse to race in Race 8, the NELSON PINE INDUSTRIES NELSON WINTER CUP, at the Nelson Harness Racing Club’s meeting with a prohibited substance, namely caffeine, in its system in breach of the Prohibited Substance Rule: rules 1004(1), (1A), (3), (3A) and (4). And you are therefore liable to the penalties which may be imposed under rule 1004(7). The horse, BILLY BADGER, is subject to a mandatory disqualification from the race under rule 1004D or rule 1004(8) and is liable to disqualification up to 5 years under rule 1004(8). PRELIMINARY MATTERS [6] In a Minute (dated 24 February 2018), the Committee noted that it was in receipt of the Notices of Appointment, copies of the Informations, the Charge Rules and Penalty Provisions and an Authority to Charge Letter from the General Manager of the Racing Integrity Unit, Mr M Godber. It also detailed that following a teleconference on 23 February, guilty pleas were entered to all charges on behalf of the respondents. A timeframe for the provision of written Penalty Submissions from both parties was set, and they have now been complied with. As such, we are now in a position to issue a full decision. SUBMISSIONS [7] The RIU have submitted the following agreed Summary of Facts: Mr Robert John DUNN is a Public Trainer with Harness Racing New Zealand and runs two stables. Mr Robert DUNN primarily runs the North Island stable in Pukekohe while son John Robert DUNN is the stable foreman at the Woodend Beach stable. John DUNN was the person in charge of the horses that raced out of the Woodend Beach stable at the Nelson HRC meeting on 9th and 11th June 2017. Informations A6412, A6416. RISHI is a 4 year old Bay gelding and is trained by Public Trainers C D Edmonds and Miss A D Edmonds. RISHI went to the Woodend Beach stable of R J Dunn on 5 April 2017. C D & Miss A D Edmonds entered a horse movement notification for RISHI to trainer R J Dunn from 17 May 2017 to 30 May 2017 and 6 June 2017 to 11 June 2017. RISHI was owned by Miss M F Nunan. RISHI has raced 5 times for 4 wins and stakes of $19,450 as at 1 September 2017. RISHI was correctly entered and presented to race at the Nelson Harness Racing Club meeting at Richmond Park Raceway on 9 June 2017. RISHI was driven in Race 2, the CAVALIER TROTTING PRODUCTS/THE POINT OF SALE CO. MOBILE PACE by Mr J Dunn, winning the race and a stake of $5,000. Following the race the Stipendiary Stewards ordered that RISHI be post-race swabbed. The race was programmed to start at 11.38am with the gelding entering the swab box at 11.58am. Swabbing Steward Ms A Daly obtained a urine sample from the gelding at 12.00pm. The urine sample was taken in the presence of stable representative M Johnson. The urine sample was recorded with the Sample number 133342. Mr John Dunn does not contest the taking of the sample. Informations A6413, A6417. HAYDEN’S MEDDLE is a 4 year old Bay gelding and is trained at the Woodend Beach stable of Public Trainer Mr Robert John DUNN. HAYDEN’S MEDDLE is owned by W S Sparks and Mrs U I Sparks. HAYDEN’S MEDDLE has raced 22 times for 3 wins and 10 placings and stakes of $25,625 as at 1 September 2017. HAYDEN’S MEDDLE was correctly entered and presented to race by trainer Mr Dunn at the Nelson Harness Racing Club meeting at Richmond Park Raceway on 9 June 2017. HAYDEN’S MEDDLE was driven in Race 7, the HARDY’S BAR & TAB MOBILE PACE by Mr J Dunn, winning the race and a stake of $4,125. Following the race the Stipendiary Stewards ordered that HAYDEN’S MEDDLE be post-race swabbed. The race was programmed to start at 2.22pm with the gelding entering the swab box at 2.40pm. Swabbing Steward Ms A Daly obtained a urine sample from the gelding at 3.00pm. The urine sample was taken in the presence of stable representative Mr G Lane. The urine sample was recorded with the Sample number 133351. Mr John Dunn does not contest the taking of the sample. Informations A6414, A6418. BILLY BADGER is a 4 year old Bay stallion and is trained at the Woodend Beach stable of Public Trainer Mr Robert John DUNN. BILLY BADGER is owned by R K Gordon and Mrs A L Gordon. BILLY BADGER has raced 32 times for 6 wins and 8 placings and stakes of $74,328 as at 1 September 2017. BILLY BADGER was correctly entered and presented to race by trainer Mr Dunn at the Nelson Harness Racing Club meeting at Richmond Park Raceway on 9 June 2017. BILLY BADGER was driven in Race 10, the SPEEDY SIGNS MOBILE PACE by Mr J Dunn, winning the race and a stake of $4,400. Following the race the Stipendiary Stewards ordered that BILLY BADGER be post-race swabbed. The race was programmed to start at 4.04pm with the gelding entering the swab box at 4.25pm. Swabbing Steward Ms A Daly obtained a urine sample from the gelding at 4.30pm. The urine sample was taken in the presence of stable representative Mr G Lane. The urine sample was recorded with the Sample number 133345. Mr John Dunn does not contest the taking of the sample. Informations A6415, A6419. BILLY BADGER was correctly entered and presented to race by trainer Mr Dunn at the Nelson Harness Racing Club meeting at Richmond Park Raceway on 11 June 2017. BILLY BADGER was driven in Race 8, the NELSON PINE INDUSTRIES NELSON WINTER CUP by Mr J Dunn, winning the race and a stake of $6,875. Following the race the Stipendiary Stewards ordered that BILLY BADGER be post-race swabbed. The race was programmed to start at 2.59pm with the gelding entering the swab box at 3.21pm. Swabbing Steward Ms A Daly obtained a urine sample from the gelding at 3.25pm. The urine sample was taken in the presence of stable representative Mr W Sparks. The urine sample was recorded with the Sample number 133363. Mr John Dunn does not contest the taking of the sample. On the 4th July 2017 the New Zealand Racing Laboratory issued Analytical Reports indicating the presence of Caffeine in four swabs, 133342, 133345, 133351 and 133363 from the Nelson HRC meeting on 9th June and 11th June 2017. On 5th July 2017 Racing Integrity Unit Staff went to the Woodend Beach stable of Mr R Dunn, 39 Woodend Beach Road, R D 1, Kaiapoi, and advised stable foreman Mr John Dunn of the four irregular swab results returned from RISHI, HAYDEN’S MEDDLE and BILLY BADGER from the first day of the Nelson HRC meeting on 9th June 2017 and BILLY BADGER on the second day of the meeting on 11 June 2017. Mr J Dunn could not offer an explanation for the presence of Caffeine in the four swabs. Mr Dunn advised that they do not use any products that contain Caffeine. Mr Dunn and the staff were interviewed and numerous samples were taken and forwarded to the Racing Laboratory for analysis for the presence of Caffeine. Mr Dunn confirmed they had not changed any of the feed products or pre raceday treatments prior to the Nelson meeting. The horses were given boost on arriving at the course and all feed was taken to the meeting and prepared by Mr J Dunn. Precautions were taken to clean the feed bins on course prior to use. Mr Dunn provided the diary that is used to note all treatments given to the horses. None of the horses had been treated in the month prior to the race meeting. This was confirmed by the stable veterinarians from the Rangiora Vet Centre. On the 6th July 2017 the New Zealand Racing Laboratory issued Certificates of Analysis confirming the presence of Caffeine in the four swabs 133342, 133345, 133351 and 133363 from the Nelson HRC meeting on 9th June and 11th June 2017. Enquiries were made at the Richmond track and samples were taken for analysis. On 23rd August 2017 the New Zealand Racing Laboratory confirmed that none of the samples taken from the Richmond track contained Caffeine. On 24th August 2017 the New Zealand Racing Laboratory confirmed that none of the samples taken from the stable contained Caffeine. Since the notifications were received from the NZRL and to this point extensive and exhaustive investigations have been conducted by the RIU and the Respondents into the possibility of a third party being involved in the “knobbling” (the Committee assumes that the RIU refer to "nobbling"; we hereby refer to as such through the remainder of the Decision) of these horses. There was no evidence found to support this position. How the Caffeine came to be in the horses has not been established. This investigation unfortunately became public knowledge prior to the RIU visit to the Dunn stable at Woodend Beach. This “leak” was also investigated and found to have come from an overheard telephone conversation between two RIU staff members which was inadvertently overheard due to the “Bluetooth” capability of his vehicle whilst parked at the Rangiora Raceway. This has been dealt with internally. Mr R J Dunn has held a Public Trainer’s licence since 1977 and has trained over 1200 winners for stakes in excess of $13,000,000. Mr R J Dunn has had a previous breach of Rule 1004 for presenting WAIT AND SEE at the Westport TC on 28th December 2004 with an elevated TCO2 level and was fined $500. Mr J R Dunn has not held a trainers licence and was first licensed as a Junior Driver in 2000/01 and an Open Driver in 2007/08. Mr J R Dunn does not have a previous breach of Rule 1004. DECISION [8] As indicated in the Minute of the Judicial Committee dated 24 February 2018, as all charges have been admitted, we deem the charges to be proved. PENALTY SUBMISSIONS The RIU [9] For the RIU, Mr Grimstone filed written Penalty Submissions, which referred to the Sentencing Principles that are outlined in NZTR v Dyke (2008) at [2.2]; NZTR v Daly (2008). While these principles pre-date the passage of the Sentencing Act 2002, he also refers to the purposes and principles outlined in ss 7 and 8 of that Act. [10] Mr Grimstone identified that the investigation had been lengthy and detailed, due to the unusual circumstances of the positive swabs, which raised a possibility that the four horses in question had been ‘nobbled’. The RIU’s investigation had been unable to ascertain the source of the positive swabs or how the Caffeine came to be in the horses’ systems. He notes that while ‘nobbling’ cannot be ruled out, there is no evidence to support that proposition. They rely on the fact that the ‘nobbling’ aspect of the RIU investigation had been reviewed by a senior member of the Christchurch Criminal Investigation Branch, which found the RIU’s investigation to be “detailed, thorough and robust” (Para 3.4 of RIU Written Penalty Submissions dated 7 March 2018). [11] The RIU do acknowledge that neither of the respondents intentionally administered Caffeine to the horses in order to gain any competitive advantage. They found no animal remedies, or over the counter products containing Caffeine, nor evidence of any such items ever being purchased, upon inspection of the Dunn stables. [12] The RIU adopt the position, that although there are four breaches and two respondents, due to the nature of the substance and the surrounding circumstances, they should be viewed as one breach for the purpose of penalty. They also rely on the ‘totality principle’ as referred to in RIU v Finn (Para 55 of RIU v B Finn, 18 August 2015) to support this position. [13] The RIU has not specified any particular aggravating features, apart from the suggestion that the circumstances under which the four positive swabs returned a positive to Caffeine cannot be explained, despite extensive investigation. [14] In mitigation they identify that the respondents admitted the charges at the first opportunity, along with Mr J Dunn’s clear record under the rule and the fact that Mr R Dunn’s previous breach of the rule occurred in 2004. [15] The RIU have identified the cases of RIU v Whittaker (17 August 2015), RIU v Finn (18 August 2015) and RIU v Blackburn (18 August 2015)  as comparatives to the current offending. These cases span the harness and greyhound codes, but relate to instances where the prohibited substance involved was that of Caffeine. [16] In conclusion, the RIU submissions state that the culpability for a breach of the Prohibited Substance Rule can vary greatly. At one end of the spectrum there are cases where the respondent will be without fault, for example, where the trainer makes full and proper inquiries including with their vet, but received erroneous advice. The degree of culpability will be higher where there is a failure to make any enquiries and at the other end of the spectrum is where the trainer has been grossly negligent. [17] They contend that the circumstances surrounding the current charges are unique. As such, the RIU submit that due to the origin of the Caffeine remaining unknown, that this matter should sit at the mid to lower level regarding penalty. [18] Adopting the ‘totality principle’, they submit that the starting point should be a $6,000 fine, with reductions for early pleas and no previous similar breaches. They submit a total fine of $4,000 as appropriate, and do not seek any costs in this matter. The Respondents’ Penalty Submissions [19] Dr Molloy has filed written Penalty Submissions in his capacity as Lay Advocate for the respondents. [20] In those submissions, he identifies that the entire situation has been unfortunate and that the Dunns’ wish to focus on moving forward in a manner that minimises the impact that these charges have had on the Dunn stable and the wider reputation of the industry. [21] He identifies Caffeine as a ‘ubiquitous’ substance and provided documentation to support the suggestion that some equine bodies had argued that Caffeine was no longer considered as a performance enhancer. Dr Molloy goes on to suggest that Caffeine is everywhere and that the RIU could find no evidence to suggest that the Dunns’ administered or were involved in the administration of that substance. [22] In mitigation the submissions cite the early entering of guilty pleas simultaneously as the charges were laid and the fact that the Dunns had co-operated with the investigative process, assisting the RIU by providing statements and other associated documentation. Their good record was also cited, noting that the Dunns had led the harness premiership in recent times. [23] The Lay Advocate identified that as a family brand, the Dunns had been ‘shining lights’ across the standardbred code for 40 years and that both had excelled in the driving ranks, with Robert Dunn also having been an outstanding trainer of many champions. [24] Dr Molloy submitted that the RIU had found no evidence that the respondents were involved in this matter, other than that they had inadvertently presented the horses in question. No animal remedies or prescription medication containing Caffeine had been found at the Dunn stable. The Dunns had also sought to have this matter determined on the papers to minimise costs and inconvenience to all parties. [25] The respondents rely on two similar cases as comparators: RIU v Burrows (22 December 2013) and RIU v McGrath (22 December 2013) and have helpfully supplied copies of both decisions for the Committee. In both those cases, the prohibited substance in question was that of Caffeine. The only difference suggested by Dr Molloy was that the source of the Caffeine was identified in Burrows and McGrath. In both of those instances, the RIU did not pursue charges, but rather sought a ruling from the JCA for the disqualification of those runners. He submits that the same course of action should have applied in relation to the current charges. [26] Dr Molloy identifies that Mr R Dunn is the trainer of the horses in question and that Mr J Dunn ‘merely works for his father’. He also submits that the training operation is fully compliant with the New Zealand Harness Rules of Racing and specifically refers to Rule 823(2). In doing so, he suggests that the RIU “claim incorrectly that Robert trains the Auckland based team whilst John trains those based in Christchurch (sic)”. (Written Penalty Submissions of Dr Leo Molloy on behalf of the Respondents). [27] He goes on to submit that all charges against Mr J Dunn should be dismissed as there is no basis for the charges against him, and that he had no role in this matter. Further, it is suggested that a failure to do so would be “totally inappropriate, out of proportion, and grossly unfair.” (Written Penalty Submissions of Dr Leo Molloy on behalf of the Respondents). [28] In relation to penalty, Dr Molloy identifies that the Dunn brand has been “damaged beyond repair” (lbid). He also asks us to consider the fact that there is a considerable cost to the Dunns as a result of the loss of stake monies following the disqualification of the four runners. [29] We are also told that the Dunns have had to invest in surveillance systems and associated hardware at their Woodend stable as a result of these investigations. They have also incurred significant legal costs associated with advice that they had sought. Dr Molloy also questions why the RIU did not exercise rights available to them under Rules 505D, 211(2)(a), 224, 226(2)(b)(c) and 303(2) to follow up alternative avenues of investigation. [30] In summary, Dr Molloy’s written submissions sought a minimal penalty along with the dismissal of charges against Mr J Dunn “...simply because he’s not the trainer of these horses, never has been, and thus he should never have been charged with these offenses (sic). The RIU can give no rational or reasonable explanation as to why John has been charged.”  (lbid) [31] He also concurs with the RIU that if a financial penalty is to be imposed, then there should only be one penalty. The Lay Advocate described the RIU submission of a $4,000 fine as “risible” and referred specifically to the Australian Kavanagh and O’Brien cases. In those cases, multiple presentation offences involving cobalt attracted $4,000 and $8,000 penalties. REASONS FOR PENALTY [32] The Committee has considered all of the submissions placed before it and is grateful to both parties for the provision of written penalty submissions along with relevant decisions that they have referred to in those submissions. We have also been referred to an extensive number of previous cases, which we have reviewed, alongside other cases of relevance. [33] These charges relate to the Nelson Harness Racing Club’s Meetings in June 2017. While there has been some passage of time since this event, the relevant documentation was lodged with the JCA in late February. This lengthy time frame prior to lodgement indicates that attempts have obviously been made to fully explore matters during the investigation process. [34] It is clear that Messrs R Dunn and J Dunn have been involved in the harness racing industry over many years. They have entered guilty pleas to all charges, and the Committee proceeds to consider what is an appropriate penalty on that basis. [35] While the agreed Summary of Facts provides the context surrounding the charges, the Penalty Submissions of both parties have required a detailed level of analysis by this Committee. We also note that we are also very familiar with the Sentencing Principles that have been identified in the RIU’s submissions. [36] It is clear that the source of the Caffeine has been unable to be determined or explained, despite what appears to have been a vigorous and robust level of investigation. An inability to identify the source is not unusual in Prohibited Substance cases and is not peculiar to this case. In light of this, there obviously remains the possibility that the Dunns’ cannot be excluded as being responsible. The suggestion that the horses in question had been ‘nobbled’ has been reviewed by a member of the Police’s Criminal Investigations Branch and we are told that as a result, there appears to be no evidence to confirm that position. [37] The comparable cases that the RIU have submitted have one thing in common: the prohibited substance in each was that of Caffeine. While those cases are of some interest, they differ in that the source of the Caffeine was able to be identified in each of those cases. That is quite different to the circumstances surrounding the current breaches. The Committee has also referred to the decision of RIU v CD & AD Edmonds, 2016. In that case, the source of the prohibited substance, namely Ketoprofen, could not be determined, so has been of interest to us. [38] Dr Molloy has suggested that the cases of Burrows and McGrath are suitable comparisons. We reject that submission. Both of those cases relate to a ‘Request for a Ruling’ from the JCA, not a charge alleging a breach of the Rules. The prosecutorial discretion lies with the RIU as the Prosecuting Agency as to whether or not charges are laid. As indicated in the Letter authorising the charges, the RIU General Manager Mr Godber had indicated that: “After considering all the circumstances put forward…” (Authority to Charge Letter circulated to all parties, dated 20 February 2018), in relation to these charges, he authorised the lodging of the charges against Mr R Dunn and Mr J Dunn. Consequently, the Respondents have entered guilty pleas to all charges. [39] At para 11 of Burrows, it indicates that: “Syncrofen is an additive that is sold in feed merchants and on line in New Zealand. It is manufactured by SYNCROFLEX, a Blenheim based company that makes supplements to “support the human body as well as the canine & equine friend/ athlete during hard and demanding work and or simply to maintain and compliment a balanced diet to support optimum health and perform to full potential.” The product was advertised as “the natural and safe alternative, 100% free of banned substances, safe for competitions”. The content of para 11 of the Burrows decision was also evident in the McGrath decision (para 15). [40] Further, at para 13 of Burrows, it identifies that "Mr Burrows advised that he had asked his Vet, Mr Mike Brown, about “Syncrofen” and whether it would be safe to use on his horses. Mr Brown advised that it appeared safe to use.” The same advice was tendered by the trainer’s vet in McGrath (para 17). [41] It is clear that the source of the Caffeine (Syncrofen) was known in both of those cases, a point of difference with the current case, and the trainers were not regarded as being at fault. [42] While we have looked at the specific rules that Dr Molloy has referred to in paragraph [29] of this decision, we do not need to consider the inability of the RIU to exercise its regulatory discretion to follow up any of the alternative avenues of investigation that he suggests, as that is irrelevant for the purposes of determining penalty. [43] In a similar vein, Dr Molloy invites us to dismiss the charges that Mr J Dunn is facing, submitting that he has no responsibility for these offences. We find it curious that this request has been promulgated at this stage of proceedings as Mr J Dunn has accepted his responsibility via his guilty pleas. To indicate otherwise could be seen as a lack of remorse; however, we do not intend to delve further into that line of thought. It seems appropriate for us to again refer to Rule 1004(3A) which states: “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  (emphasis added) the person left in charge both commit a breach of these Rules.” [44] In this context it is not an ‘either or’ situation, as both the trainer and the person left in charge bear responsibility. It is accepted that Mr J Dunn was the person “left in charge of a horse” and that the horses were “presented to race in contravention of sub-rule (1A)” at the Nelson HRC Meetings on 9 and 11 June 2017. Accordingly we decline the request to dismiss the charges against Mr J Dunn at this late stage of proceedings. [45] It is accepted that these are ‘presentation’ offences, rather than the more serious ‘administration’ offences. The RIU submit that due to the nature of the substance and the surrounding circumstances, this should be viewed as one breach for the purposes of penalty. We disagree. Effectively, three horses have been affected over four races, and all four races were won by the horses in question. All of the affected horses are owned by different connections, who have had to refund any stake monies they had received, as a result of the requirement to disqualify their horses from the Nelson HRC Meetings in June 2017. [46] We are not persuaded that the loss of stake monies as a result of the horses’ disqualifications, allegedly coming at a considerable cost to the Dunns, is to be considered as a significant factor in mitigation. As articulated in RIU v Bambry  (at para [37] of RIU v A Bambry, December 2017) we place little weight on this submission as any financial benefits gained were as a result of not racing in accordance with the Rules; by being presented to race with the Prohibited Substance Caffeine in the horses’ systems. This is part of the proper process as a result of the requirement to disqualify the horses from the races. [47] While it appears that the source of the Caffeine is unable to be identified, despite intensive investigation, the fact remains that RISHI, HAYDEN’S MEDDLE and BILLY BADGER have been presented to race in four races with a prohibited substance in their system. The strict liability lies with Mr R Dunn as the trainer and Mr J Dunn as the person left in charge to ensure that the horses were presented to race free of Caffeine. They have not discharged that responsibility and have pleaded guilty to all eight charges. We accept that the culpability for a breach of the Prohibited Substance Rule can vary greatly, but in our assessment, given the multiple nature of this failure, we place the level of offending at above the mid-range. [48] We also reject any suggestion that “the Dunn brand has been damaged beyond repair” (Respondents' Written Penalty Submissions). It is clear that the Dunns are long-standing industry participants; Context is important to any judicial matter, and it is evident that the RIU have accepted that they are unable to determine with certainty how the Caffeine came to be present in the horses’ systems. In our view, this does not lead to damage to a licence holder’s reputation to the extent put to us by Dr Molloy. [49] While we agree that the ‘totality principle’ is an appropriate consideration; we take the view that in the circumstances specific to this case, that principle can best be engaged when considering penalty, rather than when considering whether it would be more appropriate to treat the four positives as one breach. While the nature of the substance is relevant, and Dr Molloy points out that Caffeine is ubiquitous, we also note that it remains a prohibited substance under the Rules (New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing). [50] Previous cases, have identified that there are a number of approaches when arriving at an appropriate penalty for multiple breaches. In RIU v Lynch (RIU v A L J Lynch, 16 October 2015), when referring to another case, the RIU identified that: “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.”  (Emphasis added). [51] We have also reviewed and considered the Edmonds case, in which the respondents remained unaware of how the prohibited substance (Ketoprofen) came to be in the horse’s system. That case centred around one horse returning a positive on two occasions; 15 and 29 January 2016. In Edmonds, the RIU identified the JCA Penalty Guidelines starting point of an $8,000 fine for a first ‘presentation’ offence, and that was the final quantum they sought. The Committee in that case was unable to, on the facts, reach any conclusion as to how the prohibited substance came to be present in the samples taken (at para 28 of RIU v CD & AD Edmonds, 2016). [52] Further approaches regarding the application of the starting point for each breach in a multiple-breach situation have been articulated in RIU v Dalgety, 16  May 2017 and the recent case of RIU v Brosnan, 13 February 2018. In the Brosnan decision, the Committee stated: “As already noted the penalty guide proposes a fine of $8,000 for a so-called first presentation. If that were applied in respect of each of the three (3) breaches the fine would be $24,000.” The Committee then went on to apply a discount for mitigating factors, arriving at a fine of $19,000. [53] The JCA Penalty Guidelines identify a starting point of a $8,000 fine for a first ‘presentation’ offence. Given the eight charges relate to three horses over four races, we consider it appropriate to adopt a hybrid approach when determining an appropriate starting point. [54] The RIU have sought a total fine of $4,000 for this offending. In our view, that submission is far too lenient when the specific circumstances of this offending is taken into consideration. In our assessment, a total fine at this level for eight charges would fail to have regard to the very sentencing principles that the RIU have placed before us. [55] We have considered the two very recent cases of RIU v KD Townley, 12 March 2018 and RIU v BR Negus, 20 March 2018  where the prohibited substance was that of Ketoprofen. Each of those decisions involved only one horse in a singular race, for which the RIU in each case sought a monetary penalty of a $6,000 fine. The end result in Townley was a $7,000 fine and in Negus a $5,500 fine. [56] When these and other penalties, such as those applied in Edmonds and Brosnan, are considered alongside the $4,000 penalty being sought by the RIU, we consider the RIU submission to be significantly disproportionate to penalties applied for similar prohibited substance offending. [57] In a Minute (dated 26 March 2018) we provided the RIU with the opportunity to elucidate and/or expand on the rationale and reasoning that informed the position they had adopted in submitting a total fine of $4,000 as appropriate. [58] Their response (dated 27 March 2018), also made available to Dr Molloy, identified the following: “The J.C.A penalty guide provides for a starting point of an $8000 fine for first presentation in Harness and Thoroughbred Racing Codes. In this case the R.I.U took a reduction of 25% on the J.C.A penalty guide reflecting the R.I.U’s view that the positive result was a contamination but the R.I.U could not rule out third party involvement.”  (Para 3 of Informant's Further Penalty Submissions, 27 March 2018). “From that starting point the R.I.U considered a $4000 fine was reasonable, taking into account the trainers good record as previously mentioned, and that they pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity.”  (Para 4 of Informant's Further Penalty Submissions, 27 March 2018). [59] After considering those further Penalty Submissions, 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. [60] In our view, we consider it appropriate to apply the $8,000 JCA Penalty Guidelines figure in respect of each of the breaches for RISHI, HAYDEN’S MEDDLE and BILLY BADGER on 9 June 2017. In relation to the second breach for BILLY BADGER on 11 June 2017, we apply a $4,000 figure; which is half of the starting point for BILLY BADGER’s first breach. This results in an initial starting point of a $28,000 fine. When we apply an appropriate adjustment to reflect the circumstances surrounding these breaches in accordance with the ‘totality principle’, we reduce that figure by just over one-third to $18,600. This becomes our amended starting point. [61] In mitigation, we have considered the early admissions of the breaches, the co-operation of the Dunns with the RIU investigation process, along with the previous records of both respondents, as confirmed by the RIU. While Mr R Dunn has a previous breach of the Prohibited Substance Rule (specifically Rule 1004), this dates back to 2004 and given the number of horses he has trained since then, we attach little weight to it for the purposes of this penalty. For these combined factors, we apply a discount of approximately 25 percent to the $18,600 starting point, resulting in a total fine of $14,000. This total is to be apportioned equally across both respondents. Having regard to the specific circumstances of these breaches, we consider this penalty to be fair, reasonable and proportionate to the offending. PENALTY [62] The end result is a total fine of $14,000, which is to be equally apportioned across both respondents. As such, Mr RJ Dunn is fined the sum of $7,000. Mr JR Dunn is also fined the sum of $7,000. COSTS [63] The RIU have indicated they are not seeking any costs, which is a generous position to adopt. While these charges have been dealt with on the papers, there has been a cost to the JCA. Each Respondent is ordered to make a partial contribution to JCA costs, that sum is set at $500 each. ORDERS [64] The disqualification of the four horses in question (RISHI, HAYDEN’S MEDDLE, BILLY BADGER and BILLY BADGER) has already been made under the provision of Rule 1004D, which was directed in an Order of the Judicial Committee dated 24 February 2018. Signed at Palmerston North this 28th day of March 2018. Mr Tangi Utikere Chairman   HARNESSLINK MEDIA

The Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) Racing Appeals and Disciplinary (RAD) Board today heard a matter in regards to charges issued by HRV Stewards against licensed trainer-driver Brett Cox. Mr Cox was issued with two charges under Australian Harness Racing Rule (AHRR) 241, which reads as follows: A person shall not in connection with any part of the harness racing industry do anything which is fraudulent or corrupt. The particulars of these charges were that Mr Cox acted fraudulently in relation to receiving payment for the training of the standardbred horses ‘Lis Mara Shadow’ and ‘Life Sign Shadow’ between February and April 2017, when these horses were spelling and not being prepared for racing at the relevant time. Mr Cox also acted fraudulently in advising the owners in August 2017 that these horses were present at his registered training establishment when they had been removed. In addition to the above charges, Mr Cox was also issued with a charge under AHRR 243, which reads as follows:  A person employed, engaged or participating in the harness racing industry shall not behave in a way which is prejudicial or detrimental to the industry The particulars of this charge were that Mr Cox provided false information to licensed trainer-driver Kate Attard which lead to ‘Lis Mara Shadow’ and ‘Life Sign Shadow’ being given away in July 2017 without the consent of the owners and the horses ultimately being destroyed. Mr Cox was also issued with two charges under AHRR 187(2), which reads as follows: A person shall not refuse to answer questions or to produce a horse, document, substance or piece of equipment, or give false or misleading evidence or information at an inquiry of investigation. The particulars of these charges were that Mr Cox, in an interview with HRV Stewards on 22 November 2017, gave false and misleading information in relation to an investigation being conducted by HRV Stewards into this matter. Mr Cox was also issued two charges under AHRR 96A(3), which reads as follows: Where a registered horse has been retired from racing or a decision has been made to not race the horse, the owner or trainer of the horse at the time of its retirement must, within one month of the horse’s retirement, notify the Registrar by lodging the relevant form prescribed by the Registrar. The particulars of these charges were that Mr Cox failed to notify HRV that ‘Lis Mara Shadow’ and ‘Life Sign Shadow’ had been retired from racing and did not lodge the relevant form with the HRV Registrar.   Mr Cox pleaded guilty to all charges. In respect of the charges pursuant to AHRR 241 and 243, Mr Cox was disqualified for a period of 3 years, which is effective immediately. In respect of the charges pursuant to AHRR 187(2) and 96A(3), Mr Cox was issued a fine of $750 for each breach, resulting in a penalty of $3000 in total. In determining penalty, the HRV RAD Board considered the serious consequences which resulted from the conduct of Mr Cox, the importance of animal welfare and the need for specific and general deterrence to protect the harness racing industry.  In addition, the HRV RAD Board took into account Mr Cox’s guilty plea and his regret in relation to the matter. HRV RAD Board Panel: Alanna Duffy (Chair), Hugh Millar, Nicholas Rolfe. Harness Racing Appeals & Disciplinary Board       

The Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) Racing Appeals and Disciplinary (RAD) Board today heard a matter in regards to a charge issued by HRV Stewards under Australian Harness Racing Rule (AHRR) 243 against licensed trainer-driver Kate Attard. AHRR 243 reads as follows: A person employed, engaged or participating in the harness racing industry shall not behave in a way which is prejudicial or detrimental to the industry. The particulars of the charge were that Ms Attard permitted the standardbred horses ‘Lis Mara Shadow’ and ‘Life Sign Shadow’ to be given away for rehoming in July 2017, without notifying the owners and without their consent, which led to the horses ultimately being destroyed. Ms Attard pleaded guilty to the charge. The HRV RAD Board fined Ms Attard $5000, of which $2500 was suspended for a period of 2 years. In determining penalty, the HRV RAD Board considered the serious consequences which resulted from the conduct of Ms Attard, the importance of animal welfare and the need for specific and general deterrence to protect the harness racing industry. In addition, the HRV RAD Board took into account Ms Attard’s guilty plea and the mitigating circumstances in relation to her involvement in the matter. The HRV RAD Board was also mindful of Ms Attard’s cooperation throughout the investigation, her good record and her positive standing in the harness racing industry. HRV RAD Board Panel: Alanna Duffy (Chair), Hugh Millar, Nicholas Rolfe. Harness Racing Appeals & Disciplinary Board     

Public representatives have called for a full clampdown on sulky harness racing and the introduction of new bylaws after an exhausted horse collapsed and died in a residential neighbourhood. The horse, which appears to have collapsed from exhaustion, was attached to a sulky cart when it began to become fatigued in the Hawthorn Mews housing estate in Dublin Hill. According to witnesses, the drivers took the harness off the horse and left it to die, leaving with their equipment. Sinn Féin councillor for the area Thomas Gould said people already had major concerns about the care of horses during the cold spell and this latest incident needed a full investigation. “Last year there was a major round up and something similar needs to be done.” A dead horse covered in a blanket at Dublin Hill yesterday   “Every day there is sulky racing taking place in Cork. Up in Ballyhooley Road, Kilmore Road, Mahon, and the Straight Road,” he said. Fianna Fáil councillor Ken O’Flynn described it as “revolting behaviour by anybody’s standards”. “I believe at this stage that we need a full assault on the individuals that are causing the problem. People putting up their hands and saying they don’t know anything about it and it’s not their animal is not acceptable. “Cork City Council needs to penalise those who are treating animals in an appalling condition and we need to introduce sulky bylaws, the same as Kilkenny, to ban it from our streets and take those animals into care.” County Councillor Ger Keohane also described the incident as “barbaric and beyond cruel”. “That animal must have suffered and gone through stress, hurt and torture right up until its last breath. For someone to just unhook it and leave it there and discard it on the side of the road, as if it is nothing, is disgraceful.” Workers’ Party Councillor Ted Tynan said it was an appalling incident. “It was not a natural death. It was a young female horse. It is appalling treatment of an animal,” he said. Mr Tynan said it reminded him of an issue he had battled with previously of horses left on the outskirts of Rathcooney to starve to death. He called on the Department of Agriculture to step up and tackle the issue of animal mistreatment. “I thought the legislation brought in in 2009 would help to curb this kind of behaviour and make people more accountable, but obviously it hasn’t worked. “I am calling on the Department of Agriculture to get to work and deal with this issue.”   The horse being removed from an estate at Dublin Hill. Pic: Damian Coleman. ISPCA inspector Lisa O’Donovan said she has noticed a trend of young people carrying out these acts of cruelty and described it as a scary phenomenon. “It is not acceptable that you have young kids going out there driving a horse into the ground and then just walking away,” she said. “A few people said to me that they were laughing as they went which I think is even more horrifying. There is no remorse, guilt. The horse is of no more value to them than anything else. “What way are these kids being brought up? What moral values, what ethical values are being instilled in these children from their parents? because it begins at home. This behaviour begins at home,” added Ms O’Donovan. She has called on the public to report incidents of animal cruelty and to hand over any information they may have on the incident in Hawthorn Mews estate to the authorities. “We need the public to be vigilant and we need the public to stand up and say: ‘look this isn’t on, this isn’t going to be accepted’. “Someone out there who saw this knows who these people are. “People have mobile phones — there could be video footage of it. There could be someone who had photographs of the people involved and we ask them to either report it, either go to the gardaí or contact us, send the information to us. “It’s all confidential,” said Inspector O’Donovan. Local resident Noreen Murphy said she and other residents were in shock at the severe cruelty that was displayed by the sulky drivers. Ms Murphy said there are often horses being driven at speed around the area and it is a regular occurrence to have horses flogged and raced in the area. “They seem to be training them for sulky races, driving them around at speed.” Ms Murphy said more needs to be done to protect the horses. “There needs to be more inspections and more control over animals. If you can’t look after animals, you shouldn’t have them. All it requires is a basic level of respect, not to be cruel.” To contact the ISPCA helpline call 1890-515515 or email: helpline@ispca.ie; there is a web form available online at: www.ispca.ie/contact_us. Mayfield Garda station can be contacted on 021-4558510. By Roison Burke Reprinted with permission of The Evening Echo

33 to 48 of 2382