Day At The Track
Search Results
49 to 64 of 2392

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

Columbus, OH --- Applications for harness racing driver's and trainer's licenses can now be completed and submitted online through a USTA Online Account. After logging into the My Account Services page and selecting the license, then Driver/Trainer options, all of the necessary tools to apply for a license online are available. In addition, My Account allows the applicant to see the status of the licensing process, including whether references have been completed and exam grades, at any time. Typically, through the paper application method, it takes between two and six months for applications to be processed and written and practical exams to be successfully completed. However, the online application process, by utilizing referencing through My Account, can potentially reduce the processing time by weeks, if not months. As in the paper application, an applicant is required to provide at least six references, of which four who must indicate a positive response when their reference form is submitted. References must have a current USTA Membership/License in good standing and for drivers must hold an "A" Full Driver License, for trainers, an "A" Full Driver License or a "G" General Trainer License. The online process begins with an acceptance of terms and instructions prior to completing an application questionnaire and the submission of references, who will each receive an email notification or a form that will need to be returned to the USTA. Once the referencing requirement is met, the applicant is contacted by the USTA with a list of test administrators for the written exam. Once a passing grade on the written test is achieved, the USTA will send the practical exam, which also must be passed, and any other requirements, i.e. a vision exam, necessary to obtain a license. Upon completion of all licensing requirements, My Account will indicate the newly issued license with immediate access to the USTA Online Entry system for those who have obtained a trainer's license. To watch an instructional video on the license application process, click here. Ken Weingartner Media Relations Manager

All four non-Indian casinos in state are missing their financial targets Little more than a year since their grand openings, two of New York’s four non-Indian casinos are asking the state for financial help. Rivers Casino & Resort in Schenectady and Del Lago Resort and Casino in Seneca County are both making their cases with state lawmakers as the negotiations for the 2018-2019 state budget wind down to the final hours in Albany. Details on their requests are elusive and, given the secretive nature of deal-making in the Capitol, quite possibly subject to change or outright rejection. But the casinos' financial data is readily available through an online state database. Both casinos’ performance (and that of the two other casinos) has fallen well short of initial projections offered when their backers were trying to sell their proposals to state regulators and New York voters were being asked to approve limited legalized casino gambling. Rivers projected tax payments of $69 million to $86 million during its first year of operation but paid $45.45 million to the state from March 2017 through February 2018. Del Lago projected $59 million to $76 million but paid $42.92 million. Meanwhile, Rivers’ first general manager departed in November and Del Lago’s general manager announced Tuesday he would be departing at the end of this week. Both had been with their respective operations since before they opened. Also Tuesday, the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle reported that a Del Lago official was in Albany, asking state lawmakers to provide relief. The official would not specify what exactly he was seeking. A Del Lago spokesman would say only that the casino is suffering from recently increased and grossly unfair competition from nearby Indian-run casino operations. Details were likewise hazy on the request by Rivers. A New Jersey public relations agency working for Rivers said there would be no comment on the matter.  A lobbyist reportedly working for the casinos did not return a call seeking comment.  The state Gaming Commission and state Department of Taxation and Finance said the casinos’ requests has not reached the stage where it would be in their hands.  The State Division of the Budget would say only that “budget negotiations are ongoing,” which is certainly very accurate: The state budget deadline is 11:59 p.m. Saturday. However, Assemblyman Phil Steck, D-Colonie, whose district contains Rivers Casino & Resort, said he has been given a rough idea of what Rivers is requesting, and said he endorses it. In summary, Rivers seeks: To take 10 percent of the tax money it pays to the state and spend it instead on marketing. The goal is to increase patronage, increase gambling and thereby increase its own revenue. (This ultimately would bring in more tax revenue, Steck said; in the meantime, there would be no reduction in host-community payments to the city, county, city school district or to surrounding counties.) An end to the requirement that it pay the state to run security checks on its prospective employees. (Steck said that the state hasn’t been collecting that and doesn’t require it of the nearest competing gambling facility, Saratoga Casino Hotel.) An end to payments Rivers is required to make to Saratoga Casino Hotel to make up for revenue shortfalls in Saratoga. (An official with Saratoga Casino Hotel said this is inaccurate, Rivers pays it nothing — it pays the horsemen’s association to compensate for reduced prize money at the Saratoga harness track.) “None of this is a huge change,” Steck said, adding that the requests seem reasonable and he supports them. Thirteen months into the casino era in Schenectady, he considers Rivers a positive force in the city, having fulfilled its promise of increased economic activity in surrounding areas and a new revenue stream for the local municipalities. “I’m not a fan of casinos generally,” Steck said, calling them effectively a tax on the poor and the middle class.  He said he would have sought other means of boosting state tax revenue had he been governor. But he’s not governor, and the man who is, Andrew Cuomo, didn't share his views. So New York has four non-Indian casinos, and he accepts that as reality. Aware of the pun, Steck added: “You have to play the hand you’re dealt.” James Featherstonhaugh, corporate secretary and part-owner of Saratoga Casino Hotel, said the situation is unfolding much as he expected it would when the state authorized construction of a full-service casino 20 miles south of Saratoga. That is: a 25-percent revenue reduction for the Saratoga Casino Hotel, where the gambling options are limited to video gaming machines and wagers on harness racing. Featherstonhaugh expects nothing good to come of the late-hour move by Rivers and Del Lago to gain relief through the state. “I think it’s clear that the gaming universe in New York could be thoughtfully and responsibly reviewed with the goal being to have both a healthy industry which will continue and grow education revenue in New York,” he said. “But that cannot be done in 48 hours or 72 hours.” Featherstonhaugh thinks it will be another 18 months or so before the financial picture stabilizes for the two Capital Region gambling facilities.  Steck said he hadn’t researched the financial impact of Rivers on Saratoga Casino Hotel, nor has he heard any complaints about it. Rivers opened Feb. 8, 2017. A New York State Gaming Commission database shows that $1.99 billion was gambled at Saratoga Casino Hotel from March 2017 through February 2018, an 18.1 percent decrease from $2.43 billion in the preceding 12 months. By John Cropley Reprinted with permission of The Daily Gazette

Harness Racing New South Wales (HRNSW) Stewards conducted an inquiry on Monday following an investigation that commenced on 19 December 2017 during an inspection of the registered training establishment of licensed trainer, Mr Joseph Pace. During that stable inspection, HRNSW Steward Mr Daniel Westwood, located a bottle labelled PENTOFLEX GOLD, an unregistered product. Evidence was presented to the inquiry by Mr Pace and HRNSW Regulatory Veterinarian, Dr Martin Wainscott. Mr Ian Mitchell also provided evidence to the inquiry by telephone. The results of scientific analysis conducted on the product were also presented to the inquiry. Mr. Pace pleaded guilty to a charge pursuant to Australian Harness Racing Rule 194 as follows: 194.        A person who procures or attempts to procure or has in his possession or on his premises or under his control any substance or preparation that is not registered or labelled in accordance with either State or Commonwealth Legislation is guilty of an offence. As a result, the training licence of Mr Pace was fully suspended for a period of nine (9) months to commence immediately. In determining penalty, Stewards gave consideration to the following matters: Mr Pace’s second offence for such matters having been licensed in the harness racing industry in New South Wales in excess of 40 years; His guilty plea; Mr Pace’s overall licence history and other personal subjective facts, including personal hardship. Mr Pace was advised of his right to appeal this decision. MICHAEL PRENTICE | INTEGRITY MANAGER (02) 9722 6600 •  mprentice@hrnsw.com.au GRANT ADAMS | CHAIRMAN OF STEWARDS (02) 9722 6600 •  gadams@hrnsw.com.au

North Island based harness racing driver Philip Butcher has been fined $600 for directing abusive and threatening language to junior driver, Jack MacKinnon during a race at Alexandra Park on the 23rd February this year. Butcher was interviewed on 2 March in relation to both his driving tactics and the alleged comments. Mr MacKinnon repeated what he recalled being said to him and this contained ‘profane’ language with repeated use of the ‘F’ word. Mr MacKinnon also made reference to Mr Butcher threatening to ‘drop him and put him in a chaff sack’. Mr Butcher clarified this by saying what he had actually said was ‘I should drop you and they would be picking you up in a chaff sack, but I have too much respect for the other drivers’. The race in question   Full details of the inquiry below: NON RACEDAY INQUIRY IN THE MATTER OF The New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT Mr Steve Mulcay, Senior Stipendiary Steward Informant And Mr PHILLIP BUTCHER, Licensed Open Horseman HRNZ Respondent Rule 303(2) Information No. A10554 Judicial Committee: Mr AJ Godsalve, Chair – Mr AJ Dooley- Committee Member Appearing: Mr PA Butcher, Respondent Venue: Cambridge Raceway Date of Hearing: 18 March 2018 Date of Decision: 21 March 2018 DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE BACKGROUND This matter has its background in race 9 at the Auckland Harness meeting on 23rd February 2018. As a result of concerns held by the raceday Stipendiary Stewards over the way two horses (MAX PHACTOR and WRANGLER) had been driven, an investigation was undertaken. This culminated in the Information, the subject of this hearing, being submitted. Information A10554 alleges that: “On the 23rd day of February, at Auckland, Mr PA Butcher. Driving MAX PHACTOR (in race 9) committed a breach of Rule 303(2), in that he misconducted himself by directing abusive and threatening language to Junior Driver, J MacKinnon (driving WRANGLER) during and following the running of this event”. RULE 303(2) provides: - No person or body who holds a permit or licence under these Rules and no owner, trainer, breeder, stablehand, unlicensed apprentice or racing manager shall misconduct himself or fail to comply with any request, direction or instruction of any Stipendiary Steward, Racecourse Inspector, or Starter. Penalty Rule 1003 (1) provides: - A person who commits a breach of any Rule shall be liable to the following penalties (a) A fine not exceeding $10,000 and/or (b) Suspension from holding or obtaining a licence for a period not exceeding 12 months and/or (c) Disqualification for a period not exceeding 12 months. Plea At the commencement of this hearing the relevant Rule was read to Mr Butcher by the Chairman. Mr Butcher acknowledged that he understood the Rule and confirmed that he admitted the breach. Summary of Facts Mr Mulcay submitted a written Summary of Facts, as follows: 1. Stewards had concerns with the respective driving tactics adopted by J MacKinnon (WRANGLER) and P Butcher (MAX PHACTOR) during the running of this race. (Race 9, Auckland Trotting Club 23rd February 2018). 2. Driver J MacKinnon was interviewed following the event with the assistance of trainer R Dunn, and during the course of the interview made reference to abusive and threatening comments made to him by Mr Butcher. 3. Driver P Butcher was interviewed on 2 March in relation to both his driving tactics and the alleged comments. Mr MacKinnon repeated what he recalled being said to him and this contained ‘profane’ language with repeated use of the ‘F’ word. Mr MacKinnon also made reference to Mr Butcher threatening to ‘drop him and put him in a chaff sack’. Mr Butcher clarified this by saying what he had actually said was ‘I should drop you and they would be picking you up in a chaff sack, but I have too much respect for the other drivers’. 4. Mr Butcher agreed with everything else that was stated by Mr MacKinnon. 5. Mr Butcher then apologised to Mr MacKinnon and Mr Dunn with the respective apologies being accepted (in the presence of the Stewards). 6. The matter was then adjourned to be given consideration. 7. Following consultation with the Chief Stipendiary Steward and General Manager of Stewards, and after receiving written permission from the Operations Manager, it was decided to issue Mr Butcher with a charge under Rule 303(2) and this information was given to him today by phone. Film - the films of the race in question were available and were narrated by Mr Mulcay. He identified the two horses concerned. WRANGLER was leading the race after drawing barrier 1. MAX PHACTOR had drawn 4. From about the 1500m mark to about the 1300m mark MAX PHACTOR challenged for the lead on the outside of WRANGLER. It was apparent that Mr MacKinnon had no intention of relinquishing the lead, in spite of Mr Butcher using some vigour to try to get MAX PHACTOR past WRANGLER. Mr Mulcay pointed out that from about the 1200m mark it was clear that Mr Butcher was directing ‘a lot’ of comment to Mr MacKinnon while still attempting to get past him. MAX PHACTOR eventually reached the lead when WRANGLER began to tire. Mr Mulcay noted that WRANGLER had finished last, some 20 lengths behind the field. MAX PHACTOR was beaten 4½ lengths. Mr Mulcay then confirmed that Stewards had interviewed Mr MacKinnon, and later Mr Butcher over their driving tactics and had been advised of the matters referred to earlier which resulted in this charge being laid against Mr Butcher. It transpired that the verbal attack by Mr Butcher on Mr MacKinnon had continued after the race when the horses were returning to the stabling area. The Committee asked Mr Mulcay to clarify Mr MacKinnon’s position when he was challenged by Mr Butcher, particularly any obligation he may have had to relinquish the lead. Mr Mulcay stated that Mr MacKinnon was not required to hand-up the lead to Mr Butcher. However, he referred to Rule 868(2), which relates to the obligation on drivers to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure their drive wins the race or obtains the best possible position. ‘Reasonable’ in this context could relate to drivers not engaging in ‘speed duels’ which may negate their chances at the finish. A discussion ensued where the Committee and Mr Mulcay confirmed that in their experience, drivers usually handed-up the lead when challenged in situations like this as it was often counter-productive to horses’ chances not to do so. Documents Mr Mulcay submitted in evidence a copy of a letter signed by the General Manager of the RIU dated 18 March 2018, in which authority is given for an Information to be lodged against Mr Butcher for breaching Rule 303(2). Mr Butcher Mr Butcher told the Committee that he apologised for the manner in which he had spoken to Mr MacKinnon. He said that he knew he shouldn’t have ‘done it’…that he was not in a ‘good space’ and that he was very disappointed with himself in that he was not a horrible person. Decision As Mr Butcher has admitted the breach we find that this charge is proved. Penalty Submissions Mr Mulcay submitted that Mr Butcher had never breached this Rule; that he had shown contrition; and that he had admitted this breach. He added that he considered that Mr Butcher’s behaviour bought the Industry into disrepute and added that the Stewards have a duty of care to ensure as much as possible that industry participants are provided a work place free from ‘bullying’. He added that he believed that an aggravating factor was that the behaviour complained of was prolonged and continued after the horses had pulled up at the end of the race. Mr Mulcay referred to an earlier prosecution (RIU v White) and stated that he considered a similar penalty was appropriate in this case. He said that if the Committee determined that a suspension was an appropriate penalty he believed it should be a 4 day suspension. He added that he believed Mr Butcher was likely to have 5 drives a day, and a 4 day suspension would result in him losing approximately 20 driving opportunities. Mr Mulcay said that in the case of a monetary penalty being imposed, Stewards submitted a fine of around $600 to be appropriate. Mr Butcher said again that he was ‘not in a good head space’ and would prefer a suspension as opposed to a fine. Penalty Discussion The JCA guidelines on penalty (2015) for Harness Racing do not list a starting point for the general charge of Misconduct. The starting point for general Misconduct under the Thoroughbred Racing guidelines is ‘fact dependant’. It can be therefore inferred that the starting point for general Misconduct for Harness Racing is also ‘fact dependant’. Previous matters which have been dealt with by various JCA Committees where language and/or threatening behaviour has been involved have in the main not been where a race was underway…mostly they have been where language has been directed at Officials, and/or other industry participants at times other than during competition. A serious charge in the Thoroughbred code (Jockey ‘W’) in 2015 involved threats and offensive language, including during a trial race, and ultimately led to a 12 month disqualification. We mention this to illustrate the seriousness of how this type of offending is viewed by racing Authorities, given the safety issues surrounding racing generally. Horseracing, either code, is at times dangerous and challenging, and participants should not be put at risk by threats from other drivers or riders. In 2009 another rider (Jockey ‘W’, not the person referred to above) was fined $2000 for using insulting and threatening language to another jockey in the weighing area after an inquiry. In 2017 driver ‘D’ was fined $850 after being charged with using offensive and insulting language to Officials while being interviewed about a raceday incident. Reasons for Penalty As stated above we approached this Penalty decision on the basis that there is no starting point, and penalties are ‘fact dependant’. We accept the fact that Mr Butcher has admitted the breach and has no prior history of any breaches under the general ‘Misconduct’ Rule. He has shown remorse. He made reference twice to the fact that he was ‘not in a good head space’ at present. That does not excuse his behaviour. Mr Butcher is a mature man and has been engaged in the Harness industry many years. We understand he also has employment outside the industry. Mr Mulcay has submitted that the Stewards’ preferred penalty involves a suspension of 4 days, which in his estimation could result in Mr Butcher not driving in around 20 races. The Committee finds difficulty in accepting that Mr Butcher would drive 5 times each raceday. Mr Butcher himself stated that he was not driving as often now as he has in the past. While he is a primary driver for one stable we are aware of, it is a fact that on some days he only drives once or twice. Judicial Committees are empowered to assess penalties on the basis that they are ‘meaningful’, i.e. that they will have a significant and appropriate impact on the offending party; and that they are seen to be meaningful to other industry participants, and the public at large. We therefore believe that to achieve a meaningful penalty we have to consider a fine. In assessing a penalty, we look at the mitigating and aggravating factors. Clearly the fact that Mr Butcher threatened physical harm to Mr MacKinnon is of real concern. It would be naive to think that drivers and jockeys don’t take issue with others during races when things ‘don’t go their way’. That is in the nature of competition. However, in this case Mr Butcher has gone past that and his threatening language to Mr MacKinnon cannot be condoned. It has to be said that Mr MacKinnon’s driving may have been a contributing factor, indeed the Stipendiary Stewards investigated the way in which both he and Mr Butcher drove their horses in that race. However, Mr Butcher is an experienced Open Horseman, while Mr MacKinnon is a Junior Driver and it is not unreasonable to expect a better standard of behaviour from Mr Butcher. The Committee therefore determined that this matter would be dealt with by way of a fine. We adopted a starting point of $800, and after taking into account Mr Butcher’s admission, his clear record, and his apparent contrition, arrived at a figure of a fine of $600. Penalty The Committee therefore imposed a fine of $600 on Mr Butcher. As this matter was heard on a raceday there was no order made in respect to costs either to the JCA or the RIU. Alan Godsalve   Harnesslink Media

Harness racing trainer Bruce Negus has been fined $5500 for producing a horse to race when not free of a prohibited substance. The horse in question was Living Legend who won at Addington on the 26 January 2018 but has since been disqualified. Full details of the hearing below: BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY Information No. A7154 IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT Simon Andrew Irving Racecourse Investigator Informant AND Bruce Robert Negus Trainer Respondent Judicial Committee: Ms N Moffatt (Chair), Mr T Castles (Committee Member) Venue: Manawatu Raceway Present: Mr Simon Irving, the Informant Mr B Negus, the Respondent Mrs C Negus, wife of the Respondent Date of Hearing: 15th March 2018 Date of Decision: 20th March 2018 RESERVED PENALTY DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE The Charge [1] Information No A7154 alleges that: On the 26th January 2018 at Addington, Bruce Robert NEGUS, registered trainer and person for the time being in charge of the horse, presented ‘Living Legend’ to the NZ Metropolitan Trotting Club’s meeting for the purpose of engaging in and did engage in Race 1, failing to present the said horse free of the prohibited substance namely Ketoprofen, in breach of the New Zealand Harness Racing Rule 1004(1A) & (3) and 1004(D) and subject to the penalties pursuant to Rules 1004(7) & (8). The Rules [2] Rule 1004 of the Rules of Harness Racing provides as follows: (1A) A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances. (3) When a horse is presented to race in contravention of sub-rule (1A) or (2) the trainer of the horse commits a breach of these Rules. (D) 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. [3] The penalty Rule is Rule 1004(7) which provides as follows: 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. 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. [4] Mr Irving presented a letter signed by Mr Mike Godber, General Manager of the Racing Integrity Unit, pursuant to Rule 1108(2) authorising the filing of the information. [5] The information was served on Mr Negus on 27th February 2018 and he signed the information form indicating he admitted the breach of the rule. [6] Mr Negus was present at the hearing on March 15th 2018 along with his wife Mrs Colleen Negus. The charge and relevant rules were read to him, after which he admitted the breach. Accordingly the charge was found proved. Summary of Facts [7] Mr Irving presented the following Summary of Facts: 1. The Respondent Bruce Robert NEGUS is a licensed public trainer under the Rules of New Zealand Harness Racing (HRNZ). He is 64 years old and has been a harness trainer and driver since 1983. 2. LIVING LEGEND is a 7-year-old gelding trained by Mr NEGUS and owned by MJ Stratford. The horse has raced 88 times for six wins and 17 placings earning stakes of $59,889. 3. LIVING LEGEND was correctly entered and presented to race by Mr NEGUS at the New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club’s meeting at Addington Raceway on 26 January 2018. The horse was driven in Race 1 - the Bishopdale & Bush Inns Tabs & Tavern Harewood Mobile Pace - by Ms Cheree WIGG, winning the race and a stake of $5,300. 4. LIVING LEGEND was post-race swabbed by swabbing official Mr G Johnson who obtained a urine sample from the gelding at 5.46pm. The urine sample (#134315) was taken in the presence of Ms Wigg who does not contest the swabbing process. 5. On the 7th February the New Zealand Racing Laboratory Service (NZRLS) reported Ketoprofen was detected in the sample. The control sample was clear. 6. Ketoprofen is a potent pain reliever, fever reducer and anti-inflammatory medication. It is often prescribed for soft tissue injury, bone and joint problems or laminitis. Ketoprofen is also prescribed to reduce or control fevers due to viral or bacterial infections. It has a recommended withholding time of 4.2 – 4.5 days. 7. On the 13th February Mr NEGUS was spoken to at his property in Burnham and informed of the positive swab. He could offer no explanation for the presence of Ketoprofen and stated that he had never treated the gelding with Ketoprofen. 8. Mr NEGUS also stated that his vet had prescribed a 100ml bottle of Kelaprofen (active ingredient Ketoprofen 100mg/mL) on the 22nd January for another horse ‘NUCLEAR WAY’ who was ill. The bottle was located in Mr NEGUS medicine cabinet in his stables and was approximately half full. 9. A feed supplement given to ‘LIVING LEGEND’ taken from the premises was analysed by NZRLS returning a negative result to Ketoprofen. 10. Mr NEGUS also had a second horse ‘HIGHLAND REIGN’ swabbed on the same evening as ‘LIVING LEGEND’ which returned a clear result. 11. Mr NEGUS has been a licensed person for approximately 35 years. He has no previous serious racing offence charges. [8] Mr Negus said that while he accepted the summary of facts, as presented by Mr Irving, he wanted to clarify one point. Whilst not concerned about the validity of the swabbing process he did want it made clear that Ms Cheree Wigg did not actually witness the sample bottles being put into the plastic bag. [9] Mr Negus explained that he has struggled to come up with an explanation as to why his horse LIVING LEGEND returned a positive reading. He told the Committee that he was treating another horse at the time but this horse was kept at a different property 15 minutes away. The Kelaprofen was drawn up into a syringe at a dose of 10mls, and the syringe was taken to the other horse while the bottle of Kelaprofen remained at the stable. Informant’s Penalty Submissions [10] Mr Irving presented the following penalty submissions: 1. The Respondent, 64 year old Bruce Robert Negus is a Licensed Public Trainer under the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing. 2. He has held a trainers licence since 1983 and currently trains from his property in Burnham near Christchurch. 3. HRNZ records detail that Mr Negus has trained (some in partnership) almost 6000 starters during his career with 444 winners. 4. Mr Negus has admitted a breach of Rule 1004(1A) (3) & (4) for presenting his horse ‘Living Legend’ to the races on 26.01.2018 with the prohibited substance Ketoprofen in its system. 5. The circumstances are detailed in the attached Summary of Facts which have been agreed. 6. The penalties which may be imposed are detailed in the attached Charge Rule and Penalty Provisions Document. PENALTY SUBMISSIONS 7. The RIU believes that an appropriate penalty for this breach is a $6,000 fine. 8. Mr Negus is adamant that he, nor any employee at his stable, did not administer Ketoprofen to ‘Living Legend’. He has no idea how the positive could have occurred. 9. Mr Negus had been supplied a 100ml bottle of Kelaprofen by a vet from the Canterbury Equine Clinic on the 22nd January (four days prior to the positive) for treatment of another horse ‘Nuclear Way’ who had a suspected liver issue. 10. The bottle was located in the Respondents unlocked medicine cabinet in his stables, approximately two thirds full. 11. Ketoprofen has a recommended withholding time of 4.2 days as per the EVA guideline. 12. The Respondent very seldom bets and did not wager on his horse that day. 13. An analysis of TAB betting records revealed no unusual bets associated with the horse or the race. ‘Living Legend’ won the race by a neck and was 3/3 in the betting, paying $6.80 and $2.30 on the tote. 14. The Respondent trains another mare ‘Highland Reign’ which was also swabbed at the same race meeting, returning a negative post-race swab. 15. As per the JCA Penalty Guidelines effective from the 01st May 2015 the starting point for a Thoroughbred or Harness Racing first ‘Presentation’ offence is $8000. PREVIOUS CASES RIU v C & A Edmonds – 31 March 2016 2x Harness Racing Ketoprofen positives – fined $9,000. RIU v J M Whittaker – 17 August 2015 Harness Racing Caffeine positive – fined $1,000, plus costs $1,800. RIU v P M Williamson – 10 December 2012 Harness Racing Procaine positive – fined $3,500, plus costs $350 to JCA. The source of the positive was not identified. 16. Under Rule 1004(D) ‘Living Legend’ is required to be disqualified from the race. Respondent’s Submissions [11] Mr Negus presented the following written submissions: I am charged with, and have pleaded guilty to presenting the horse LIVING LEGEND with ketoprofen in its system. I have no idea how it got there. I have never had a hint of trouble with prohibited substances until now. My late father instilled in his children the belief you are buried with your reputation. I'm asking for a suspension. I recognize the need for someone to be held accountable. I submit my record entitles my request for real consideration. [12] Mr Negus addressed the Committee personally, expanding further on his request for a suspension in lieu of a monetary penalty. Mr Negus was concerned about the perception that he had given one of his horses a drug, and the effect this would have on his elderly mother who was suffering from ill health. He also provided two (2) written character references; one from a former stable hand and the other from Mr Negus’ veterinarian, Dr D A Senior. Both referees have known Mr Negus for a long period of time and both emphasised his honesty and integrity. [13] Mr Negus called both Mr Michael House and Mr Jim Curtin as character referees. Mr House gave a heartfelt account of all that Mr Negus had achieved throughout his career and said he was shocked when he heard one of his horses had returned a positive drug test. He said Mr Negus was a great trainer who had contributed enormously to the Harness Racing Industry over the years and it was an honour to know him. [14] Mr Curtin said he had known Mr Negus for many years and he was always honest and reliable. [15] The Committee asked Mr Irving for the RIU’s position on Mr Negus’ submission for a suspension instead of a fine. He said that suspensions were normally applied to breaches by drivers and were not appropriate for trainers. This was because a trainer could transfer their horses to another licensed person’s name but still effectively train the horses themselves. Reasons for Decision [16] Mr Negus admitted the charge of presenting his horse LIVING LEGEND to race at the NZ Metropolitan Trotting Club’s meeting on 26th January 2018 not free of prohibited substances, namely Ketoprofen. [17] The summary of facts was not disputed by the Respondent. [18] The JCA guidelines have a starting point of $8000 for a first offence of presenting a horse with a drug in its system. We considered Mr Negus’ request for a suspension but were of the opinion that we would be setting a precedent as all recent penalties have resulted in fines being imposed. The Committee did not find any compelling reasons to impose a suspension in lieu of a monetary penalty. [19] Mr Negus said he does not know how the horse LIVING LEGEND came to return a positive to Ketoprofen, nor did the RIU present any possible explanation. The drug “Kelaprofen” was properly prescribed by a registered veterinarian and was kept in a medicine cabinet in Mr Negus’ stables. The fact that the medicine cabinet was unlocked was not considered an aggravating factor in this case. [20] Mr Negus has an unblemished record after 35 years of training horses having never had any of his horses return a positive drug test. Character references have all emphasised the integrity of the Respondent. [21] The Committee has also been guided by recent penalties, in particular that of RIU v C & A Edmonds. This case however was in relation to two positive tests to Ketoprofen whereas Mr Negus has only one. The Judicial Committee in RIU v C&A Edmonds uplifted the JCA penalty guide starting point to $12,000 and applied a 25% discount for mitigating factors, arriving at a $9000 fine. [22] We have taken into account Mr Negus’ admission of the breach, his full cooperation throughout the investigation, the outstanding character references (both written and delivered in person during the hearing) and his excellent record over many years. For these mitigating factors we have allowed a significant discount. Penalty [23] Accordingly Mr Negus is fined the sum of $5,500. Disqualification of the Horse [24] Under Rule 1004(D) we order the disqualification of LIVING LEGEND from Race 1, the Bishopdale & Bush Inns Tabs & Tavern Harewood Mobile Pace. Amended placings are: 1st 10 WESTAR SAM 2nd 6 AVEROSS BRACHOLE 3rd 9 ROMANITE 4th 8 EJA PATRON 5th 11 GOING TO CALIFORNIA Costs [25] The RIU did not seek any award of costs and accordingly, no order is made. [26] The Hearing took place on a race day therefore no order of costs is made in favour of the Judicial Control Authority. N Moffatt (Chair)   Harnesslink Media

The Robert Dunn Racing Stable has accepted the charges laid by the Racing Integrity Unit in relation to the return of positive swabs from the Nelson Winter Cup two-day meeting in June. The Judicial Control Authority for Racing confirmed yesterday that the Dunn stable accepted the charges. A judicial committee are currently looking over the case and a disciplinary decision is expected in the coming weeks. The Dunn stable is charged with presenting horses with a banned substance. They returned four positive swabs for caffeine at the Nelson meeting which took place from June 9 to 11. Three of the horses which tested positive were directly from the Dunn stable, while the fourth was from Craig and Aimee Edmonds’ stable. However, that horse was under the care of the Dunn stable, which took it to Nelson. Dunn has previously claimed the horses were nobbled – where the caffeine is administered by an outside party. His claim caused rifts within the Canterbury harness racing community. He also enlisted the help of a private investigator to undertake his own investigation. The Dunn stable is currently second in the harness racing trainer’s premiership with 55 wins – 17 behind Mark Purdon and Natalie Rasmussen. Robert Dunn has three previous convictions for breaches of the prohibited substance rule.   By  Gordon Findlater   Reprinted with permission of Star.Kiwi site  

49 to 64 of 2392