Day At The Track
Search Results
33 to 48 of 827

The 2018 Anti-Doping and Drug Testing Program conducted by US racing regulatory bodies found continued substantial compliance with racing’s medication and anti-doping rules and little support for claims that the use of drugs to mask pain when horses race is rampant. As it does each year the Association of Racing Commissioners International (ARCI) released a summary of the collective results of the individual state programs conducted in 2018. In 2018 horses competing in 95,618 individual races were tested, 43,574 flat races (quarter horse and thoroughbred combined) and 52,044 standardbred races. This represents a reduction from the previous year when horses from 98,883 races were tested. On average 3.2 horses were tested in each flat race and 2.26 horses tested in each standardbred contest. In 2018, there were 1,561 violations of the medication rules out of 258,920 samples tested, meaning that 99.4% of all tests found the horse to be compliant with the rules. It also means that the facts do not support claims that a substantial number of horses are racing under the influence of pain masking medications as all testing labs routinely screen for the presence of such drugs. Such instances do occasionally occur and are reflected in the violations that are found and prosecuted. The ARCI has described violations involving Class 1 or Class 2 substances as instances of “doping”. Violations involving substances of a lesser class often involve overages of medications deemed therapeutic or authorized by US federal law for veterinary use. There was a dramatic drop in doping instances from 2017 to 2018. In 2017, 11% of all violations found were for Class 1 or 2 substances. In 2018, that number dropped to 6.8% of all violations. In 2018, there were 107 findings out of 258,920 samples tested for these substances deemed to have the greatest effect on performance, or 0.04% of all samples tested. In 2017, there were 169 findings out of 293,704 samples, or 0.06% of those tested. Violations involving Class 3 substances were 26.2% of all adverse analytical findings in 2018, a slight increase over the 24.5% detected in 2017. There were 409 Class 3 AAF’s in 2018 - 0.16% of all tested - compared to 376 in 2017 - 0.13% tested. Violations involving substances deemed least likely to affect performance - Class 4 and 5 substances - accounted for 66.9% of the adverse analytical findings in 2018, slightly up from the 64.5% of AAF’s in 2017. Clear Rate: In 2018, 99.4% of all samples tested were determined to be clear of any substance that would trigger an adverse analytical finding (AAF). In 2017, the clear rate for all US horse racing was 99.5%. For Thoroughbred and Quarter Horse races, the clear rate in 2018 was 99.13% and the rate for Standardbred races that year was 99.71%. By comparison, the 2017 Annual Report of the US Anti Doping Agency indicates that their clear rate for human sport was 99.12% for Olympic, Paralympic and Global Service Testing. The 2019 World Anti-Doping Agency’s Testing Report shows that their “clear rate” is 98.57%. “Horse racing and human sport share the same challenges in combatting those who cheat. While the overall clear rate is comparable, I do not believe anyone is under the illusion in either human sport or horse racing that we are catching everyone who will attempt to cheat,” said Ed Martin, President of the Association of Racing Commissioners International. “Industry investments in anti-doping research and a greater emphasis on expanded investigatory staff at the regulatory agencies and racetracks is essential if we are to effectively combat this threat,” he said. Rebecca Shoemaker Assistant to the President & CEO Association of Racing Commissioners International

Exercise-induced Pulmonary Hemorrage (EIPH) has been a recognized condition in horses since the early 18 century. While the amount of bleeding in horses varies, it is universally recognized that the vast majority of horses in training and racing do indeed bleed. The advent of the flexible endoscope confirmed in studies that in thoroughbreds the stress put upon them, proved that up to 75 per cent of them bleed in training and more so in racing. Other studies done on standardbred and thoroughbreds, after running three races, showed that 100 per cent of these horses bled at least once, evidenced by blood in the trachea. The cause of the bleeding is the amount of pressure experienced that racing puts on the pulmonary veins, four times the normal pressure. The pressure causes fibrosis and in turn Pulmonary fibrosis scars and thickens the tissue around and between the air sacs (alveoli) in the lungs, which decreases the lungs ability to function and decreases the racing life of the horse. I have attended multiple-day seminars with experts from all over the globe on the topic of the race day administration of Lasix. In North America, Lasix is the most popular medication for treating EIPH because studies have shown that it is the most effective treatment in decreasing the amount of bleeding and therefore the scarring and thickening of the tissue around the lungs. In many of the English speaking countries around the world conducting racing, where race day use of Lasix is prohibited, it is nonetheless permitted up to race day because it is acknowledged to have the desired therapeutic effects in controlling EIPH. One has to ask if it is recognized as necessary in training because of its control of this problem, when the stress is not as severe as when a horse competes in a race, then what is the rationale for withholding it on race day, where four times the normal pressure in the racing environment exists? It has been said that when our horses, mainly thoroughbreds, go overseas they compete quite well without Lasix. That is indeed true, perhaps because they have a least had the benefit of controlling pulmonary hemorrhage long enough to achieve success over their foreign competitors. Overseas competition is against horses that are using something far less efficacious than Lasix, or worse nothing at all, to address the long term effects occasioned by the increased stress in racing. Those who want to join the community of Lasix-free racing point to the alleged masking of other substances, but the controlled administration of the substance; the hourly limitation on its use pre-race( 4-4 1/2 hours); the testing for threshold overages of the substance, has put that argument to bed. Now the newest mantra for the elimination of race-day Lasix, is the horrible, horrible loss of life at Santa Anita Racetrack. The false claim being, that while the rest of North America continues to help the horse racing on Lasix, without nay correlation to catastrophes, Lasix is being inexplicably blamed as the proximate cause of those catastrophes. The problem, is the potential for the elimination of a recognized effective tool in controlling and minimizing, EIPH that helps the horse cope with the effects of stress. Santa Anita should be shut down immediately until the true causes of these catastrophes can be accurately determined and corrected. The factors point initially to the track’s surface and under-footing, but the more precise answer must be determined by analyzing all of the multiple possible factors, Lasix, being clearly not the culprit. Without closing down Santa Anita immediately, the industry, thoroughbred and standardbred alike, comes under tremendous pressure from all those looking to eliminate the industry anyway. Santa Anita is providing fuel to a fire that threatens the game, by racing more in the face of its undetermined cause of these catastrophic breakdowns. Allowing continued suffering at Santa Anita is intolerable and unacceptable and should not continue. Enough is enough and if one is looking to blame Lasix, it is suggested that one look elsewhere. Every industry organization needs to be heard on any and every false narrative out there. No benefit can be achieved by being silent on issues that threaten our existence. Joe Faraldo

HARNESS Racing New South Wales (HRNSW) Stewards conducted an inquiry on Monday February 4, 2019, in relation to a report from the Australian Racing Forensic Laboratory (ARFL) that cocaine was detected in the urine sample taken from MY WHISKEY LULLABY NZ following its win in Race 5, the NAVAL ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA PACE (2125m) at Penrith on Thursday October 18, 2018. The ‘B’ sample was confirmed by Racing Analytical Services Limited (RASL) in Victoria. Licensed trainer Mr Richard Baverstock and stablehand Mr Adam Baverstock appeared at the inquiry. Evidence including the Reports of Analysis were presented and HRNSW Regulatory Veterinarian Dr Martin Wainscott also presented evidence to the inquiry. HRNSW Stewards issued the following charge against Mr Richard Baverstock pursuant to Australian Harness Racing Rule (AHRR) 190 (1), (2), (3) & (4) as follows: AHRR 190.  (1)  A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances. (2)  If a horse is presented for a race otherwise than in accordance with sub rule (1) the trainer of the horse is guilty of an offence. (3)  If a person is left in charge of a horse and the horse is presented for a race otherwise than in accordance with sub rule (1), the trainer of the horse and the person left in charge is each guilty of an offence. (4)  An offence under sub rule (2) or sub rule (3) is committed regardless of the circumstances in which the prohibited substance came to be present in or on the horse. Mr Richard Baverstock was found guilty and disqualified for a period of two years and six months commencing from December 21, 2018, the date upon which he was stood down. In considering penalty Stewards were mindful of the following: Mr Richard Baverstock’s involvement in the harness racing industry, his licence history and offence record; Class 1 Prohibited Substance; The seriousness of the offence; No previous prohibited substance matters; Mr Richard Baverstock’s personal subjective facts; Mr Richard Baverstock’s not guilty plea. Acting under the provisions of AHRR 195, MY WHISKEY LULLABY NZ was disqualified from the abovementioned race. Mr Richard Baverstock was advised of his right to appeal. HRNSW Stewards issued a charge against Mr Adam Baverstock pursuant to AHRR 190(1), (3) & (4) in relation to the results of the urine sample obtained from MY WHISKEY LULLABY NZ. Mr Adam Baverstock was found guilty and disqualified for three years nine months to commence from January 22, 2019, the date upon which he was stood down. In considering that penalty, Stewards were mindful of the following: Mr Adam Baverstock’s involvement in the harness racing industry, his licence history and offence record; Class 1 Prohibited Substance; The seriousness of the offence; No previous prohibited substance matters; Mr Adam Baverstock’s personal subjective facts; Mr Adam Baverstock’s not guilty plea. In addition, HRNSW Stewards issued a charge against Mr Adam Baverstock pursuant to Australian Harness Racing Rule 250A(1)(a) as follows: 250A.  (1)  A person carrying on or purporting to carry on an activity regulated by licence at any time or carrying on official duties at a meeting commits an offence if: (a)  a sample taken from him or her is found upon analysis to contain a substance banned by Rule 251A. That charge related to a urine sample taken from Mr Adam Baverstock on Monday December 17, 2018. A report from Racing Analytical Services Limited (RASL) certified the presence of the cocaine metabolites Ecgonine Methylester and Benzoylecgonine. The ‘B’ sample was confirmed by the ChemCentre in Western Australia. In relation to that charge, Mr Adam Baverstock was suspended for a period of six months to commence from January 22, 2019, the date upon which he was stood down. In considering that penalty, Stewards were mindful of the following: Mr Adam Baverstock’s involvement in the harness racing industry, his licence history and offence record; The seriousness of the offence; The prohibited substances involved; No previous prohibited substance matters; Mr Adam Baverstock’s personal subjective facts; Mr Adam Baverstock’s not guilty plea. The Stewards ordered that the penalties imposed upon Mr Adam Baverstock are to be served concurrently. Mr Adam Baverstock was advised of his right to appeal.     Harness Racing NSW (HRNSW) is the controlling body for harness racing in New South Wales with responsibility for commercial and regulatory management of the industry including 33 racing clubs across the State.  HRNSW is headed by a Board of Directors and is independent of Government. HRNSW INTEGRITY CONTACTS: MICHAEL PRENTICE | INTEGRITY MANAGER (02) 9722 6600 • GRANT ADAMS | CHAIRMAN OF STEWARDS (02) 9722 6600 •

Betting anomalies have been identified and police say more arrests are possible as the probe into alleged corruption in New Zealand harness racing widens to the Auckland region. Thirteen harness racing figures have so far appeared in court after being caught up in the 18-month Operation Inca race-fixing investigation by the National Organised Crime Group. Many of the racing identities cannot be named for legal reasons and have denied match-fixing and other charges. They are awaiting a High Court hearing in February for name suppression to be argued. The charges came after raids on multiple stables and properties in Canterbury, Invercargill and Manawatu in September. Today, police revealed investigators from the Racing Integrity Unit (RIU) and detectives from the National Organised Crime Group have this week conducted further enquiries in the Auckland region. "A number of people have been interviewed as part of this week's enquiries, and betting anomalies have been identified in at least one race in May 2018," a police statement said. "The RIU is considering charges relating to the breach of rules around driver betting in relation to these anomalies. "Further arrests and charges by police are also possible." Christchurch District Court heard on Wednesday that a male driver in his 50s has been charged with conspiring with another person to manipulate a race result earlier this year by "administering a substance" to a horse before the race "in order to gain a pecuniary advantage, namely the winning stakes". Defence lawyer Phil Shamy said the man denied the charge and would elect trial by jury. Judge Raoul Neave granted him interim name suppression which will be reviewed when he comes back to court – along with others charged over Operation Inca – on March 25 next year. North Canterbury trainer Andrew Douglas Stuart, 42, who has previously entered not guilty pleas to three race-fixing allegations, faces a fourth fixing charge. It's alleged that with another man he "manipulated the overall result" of a race earlier this year by deception and without claim of right. A 40-year-old Canterbury man who denies three race-fixing charges and who is yet to enter pleas on two unrelated drugs charges had another drugs charge laid this week. Graham Henry Beirne, a 71-year-old Christchurch man, previously denied two race fixing charges, and faces a third charge. Defence counsel Richard Raymond QC asked for no plea to be entered on the new charge, and Judge Neave remanded him until March 25. Three other men – aged 50, 35 and 26 – deny race-fixing allegations, as does Palmerston North man Brent Stephen Wall, 47, and 44-year-old Rolleston-based horse trainer Nigel Raymond McGrath. Others face drugs charges that their lawyers say is unconnected to the horse racing investigation, including Elie Sawma, a 42-year-old Christchurch hairdresser charged with supplying the Class B controlled drug MDMA, possession of MDMA, and offering to supply the Class A drug cocaine. Another accused, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, is yet to enter pleas. Some of the accused were remanded by Judge Raoul Neave to a Crown case review hearing on March 25 next year, while others will be back in court on January 29. By: Kurt Bayer NZ Herald reporter based in Christchurch   Reprinted with permission of The New Zealand Herald

The Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) Racing Appeals and Disciplinary (RAD) Board today considered a charge issued by HRV Stewards under Australian Harness Racing Rule (AHRR) 190(1) against licensed trainer Kylie Hughes. ARHR 190(1) reads as follows: A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances. The charge under AHRR 190(1) issued by HRV Stewards against Ms Hughes related to a post-race urine sample collected from the horse ‘Nevada Rocket’ after it won Race 2, the ‘Mildura Holden Pace’, at Mildura on 22 February 2017. Racing Analytical Services Limited (RASL) reported that analysis of the urine sample revealed the sample to contain a prohibited substance, namely cobalt, at a concentration greater than 200 µg/L. This result was confirmed by the Racing Science Centre in Brisbane. The HRV RAD Board considered the statements of Investigative Steward Neal Conder, RASL Scientific Manager Paul Zahra and veterinary consultant Professor Paul Mills. Ms Hughes pleaded guilty to the charge, before the HRV RAD Board heard submissions on penalty from both parties. In deciding an appropriate penalty, the HRV RAD Board considered Ms Hughes’ 25- year involvement in the industry, her good record over this period of time, and her guilty plea. Also considered were the circumstances of a partially concurrent Harness Racing New South Wales matter that led to this inquiry being adjourned on 28 September 2017, and resulted in Ms Hughes being disqualified between 20 April 2017 and 3 September 2019. The Racing Appeals & Disciplinary Board (RADB) is established under section 50B of the Racing Act (1958). The RADB is an independent Board established to hear and determine appeals in relation to decisions made under the rules to impose penalties on persons and to hear and determine charges made against persons for serious offences. In handing down its penalty, the HRV RAD Board highlighted the significance of the rules in relation to prohibited substances in harness racing, the importance of conducting races fairly and with integrity, along with the protection of horses and the participants involved in the industry. In considering all of these matters, the HRV RAD Board imposed a 12-month disqualification. It was ordered that the disqualification be backdated to commence on 28 September 2017, the date of the original hearing, and be served concurrently with the HRNSW penalty. The HRV RAD Board also ordered that ‘Nevada Rocket’ be disqualified from Race 2 at Mildura on 22 February 2017 and that the placings be amended accordingly. HRV RAD Board Panel: Judge Graeme Hicks and Rod Osborne.   Harness Racing Victoria  

Twelve new charges alleging race fixing – including the drugging of a horse – have been laid in the police's investigation into the harness racing scene. A North Canterbury man in his 50s, a driver, appeared at the Christchurch District Court on Wednesday for the first time as part of the expanding investigation, dubbed Operation Inca.  He faced one race fixing charge, alleging that a substance was administered to a horse to gain an advantageat a race meeting earlier this year. He is charged with conspiring with one of the other defendants to fix the race. His court appearance at a review session before Judge Raoul Neave brings the total number of people caught up in the investigation to 13. Read the full story at Stuff.   David Clarkson for Stuff 

Columbus, OH - In May 2018, through the U.S. Trotting Association Board of Directors Medication Subcommittee, the USTA established the Harness Racing Medication Collaborative to develop reliable, consistent medication regulations for application specifically to harness racing. On Wednesday (Nov. 28), the HRMC distributed usage recommendations supported with position papers for thresholds and withdrawal times on two therapeutic medications, clenbuterol and betamethasone, to 16 state regulatory agencies. "The HRMC will close a gap in the science and policy underlying Standardbred medication regulation," said USTA President Russell Williams in making the announcement last May. "Our primary goal is to improve the quality of medication information available to our regulators." HRMC brings together a distinguished panel of academic, practicing, and regulatory veterinarians who are conversant with pharmacological and pharmacokinetic scientific studies, veterinary practice norms, and relevant regulatory issues. The USTA plans to provide the HRMC's reports and supporting data to regulators in the various racing commissions as well as the Association of Racing Commissioners International for their consideration in establishing medication rules. The state agencies that have been sent HRMC recommendations on the two therapeutic medications are: California Horse Racing Board, Delaware Harness Racing Commission, Indiana Horse Racing Commission, Maine State Racing Commission, Maryland Racing Commission, Massachusetts Gaming Commission, Michigan Gaming Control Board, Minnesota Racing Commission, New Jersey Racing Commission, New York State Gaming Commission, Ohio State Racing Commission, Pennsylvania Bureau of Standardbred Horse Racing, Florida Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Illinois Racing Board, Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, and Virginia Racing Commission. At their regular monthly meeting last week on Wednesday (Nov. 28), the Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission indicated that they will consider the HRMC recommendations at their next public meeting on Tuesday (Dec. 18). Some regulators have been referring to the Controlled Therapeutic Substances (CTS) list maintained by the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium, and applying CTS guidelines on withdrawal times, route of administration, dosage, and threshold levels to harness racing. But the CTS list was developed for application to Thoroughbred racing, and harness racing's vastly different racing and training models require certain differences in the CTS list specifications. In addition, the CTS list has met criticism in some scientific circles for referencing confidential, unpublished data, inaccurate thresholds (resulting in undeserved infractions), disregard of clinical practice realities (such as intra-articular dosages allowing for treatment of only one knee or hock), and inappropriate statistical application (such as the 95:95 threshold, which puts as many as 1 in 20 appropriately-treated horses at risk of a threshold violation). Despite the USTA's years of effort, these concerns have not been adequately addressed. The Harness Racing Medication Collaborative consists of the following veterinarians who have expertise in the Standardbred racehorse: Dr. Marty Allen, Dr. Richard Balmer, Dr. Clara Fenger, Dr. Peter Kanter, Dr. Brian MacNamara, Dr. George Maylin, Dr. Kenneth McKeever, Dr. Andy Roberts, Dr. James Robertson, and Dr. Thomas Tobin. The members of the USTA Medication Subcommittee are: Joe Faraldo (Chairperson); Sam Beegle, Robert Boni, John Brennan, Mark Davis, Joe Frasure, Mark Loewe, Steve O'Toole, Brett Revington, Andrew M. Roberts DVM, and USTA President Russell Williams. Where appropriate and necessary, HRMC will also conduct or help support new research pertinent to harness racing. from the USTA Communications Department

A quintet of Ohio-based, practicing racetrack veterinarians provided the Ohio State Racing Commission members with their thoughts on out of competition testing at the OSRC's monthly meeting, Nov. 29, in Columbus. The veterinarians-who between them have over 150 years of experience-included: Dr. John Piehowicz, Cincinnati (Thoroughbreds/Standardbreds); Dr. John Reichert, Grove City (Standardbreds); Dr. Barry Carter, Lancaster, (Standardbreds); Dr. Dan Wilson, Cleveland, (Standardbreds); and Dr. Scott Shell, Cleveland (Thoroughbreds). All five veterinarians agreed that clients in their respective practices were in favor of out of competition in the Buckeye State. "We need to establish a simple process, whereas a public training center or private farm would be able to be easily licensed by the OSRC," Dr. Barry Carter stated. "By being licensed, it would allow the OSRC to walk onto a property at any time and test and/or examine any racehorse. "The race secretaries would only accept horses from licensed facilities," Dr. Carter added. "And the licensing fees should be nominal, so everyone would be encouraged to get licensed." "My major concern is, what will we test for?" said Dr. Dan Wilson. "The RCI protocol is currently burdensome and we need to narrow the focus of testing and test for street designer drugs such as neuro-toxins, blood doping agents and venoms. "Also, we'll have to deal with horses coming in from neighboring states such as Michigan and New York. At Northfield we have a ton of horses coming from these areas every night and have anywhere from 640 to 740 horses stabled on the grounds." "Out of competition testing will eliminate the 'shooting star' trainers, as well as the gossip and innuendoes that are a backstretch constant," Dr. John Piehowicz acknowledged. "Out of competition testing also serves as a strong deterrent to those few bad apples we have in the racing industry. "Racing is a privilege, just like driving, and protocol will need to be set well in advance," Dr. Piehowicz continued. "We're going to need to establish who does the testing? What criteria is that person going to have to be authorized to test horses? What about out of state competitors? How do we handle them? We're going to have to work closely in cooperation with surrounding states. "The penalties need to be stiff too-ten or 15-year suspensions or a life ban for medications that are injurious to the welfare of the horse," Dr. Piehowicz stressed. "This year at Belterra Park we had 900 horses on the grounds and 30 to 40% of those on race day are ship-ins, so a slap on the wrist for a drug that has no business being in a horse's system isn't appropriate." "I'm firmly in favor of out of competition testing but the RCI model as it currently stands is just way too large," said Dr. Scott Shell. "There are drugs out there right now that have no business being in a horse: venoms, toxics and blood-doping agents like synthetic EPO. However, there are a lot of drugs on the RCI list that we use as healing agents and we need to narrow the scope to those harmful agents. "Out of competition testing will also help to eliminate excess testing expenses," Dr. Shell continued. "In order for me to keep my veterinarian license, I'm required to be accountable for every drop of medication that goes into every horse and when and where I performed that service. Therefore, a trainer needs to be able to produce a vet record of his or her horses so that regulators have a clear idea of what is therapeutic and what isn't. "For instance, anabolic steroids are a controlled substance that we, as veterinarians, use therapeutically, and we need to establish the difference between when medications are used therapeutically and when they are not." "Out of competition testing has become a necessity," Dr. John Reichert admitted. "The majority of trainers are operating within the rules, but because of the few bad apples we need out of competition testing and we need to establish accurate testing. I'm talking about agents that have long term effects on a horse's system: blood doping, venoms, etc. We need an effective narrow scope of testing, and the accuracy of testing is paramount to establishing severe penalties for the cheaters. "We also need to think about legal concerns," Dr. Reichert continued. "For instance, do we do random testing, or do we pick the obvious cheaters? There's not many trainers who operate on a 400 to 600-win average. But we're also going to have to think about horses that throw in bad races for reasons such as flipped-palates and tying up, and then dramatically improve when in the hands of a new trainer who can help alleviate those issues. "I also think that logistically we'll have to figure out how we're going to cooperate amongst the other states who already have out of competition testing in place," Dr. Reichert noted. "For instance, different states have different testing procedures. Are we going to test the horses in the state they're currently in or do we bring them to a central location? The manpower to do the testing has to be credentialed and capable as well." "In my opinion, out of competition testing is the biggest deterrent to illicit drug use in this industry," Dr. Barry Carter concluded. "Obviously, out of competition is a multi-faceted issue which needs to be discussed further," stated Robert Schmitz, OSRC Chairman. "At our January 2019 meeting I'm asking the Ohio Department of Agriculture's testing lab to be on hand to lend their insight into this issue." by Kimberly Rinker, OSDF Administrator 

On 6 September 2018, the Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) Racing Appeals and Disciplinary (RAD) Board considered a charge issued by HRV Stewards under Australian Harness Racing Rule (AHRR) 190(1) against licensed trainer-driver Courtney Slater. AHRR 190(1) reads as follows: A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances. The charge under AHRR 190(1) related to a urine sample collected from the horse ‘Luvyacookie’ after it finished first in Race 3, the ‘Hillcroft Stables 3YO Pace’, at the Stawell harness racing meeting on 3 December 2018. Racing Analytical Services Limited (RASL) reported the analysis of that urine sample revealed arsenic in excess of the allowable threshold. Ms Slater was also charged with a breach of AHRR 190B(1) being that she failed to keep and maintain a log book as required. Ms Slater pleaded guilty to both charges before submissions on penalty were heard from the HRV Stewards and Ms Slater. In deciding an appropriate penalty, the HRV RAD Board considered Ms Slater’s guilty plea and cooperation throughout the investigation; Ms Slater’s excellent record in regard to prohibited substances; and the steps taken to prevent recurrence. Ms Slater was subsequently fined $3000, of which $2000 was suspended for a period of 12 months. The HRV RAD Board also ordered, under AHRR 195, that ‘Luvyacookie’ be disqualified from Race 3 at Stawell on 3 December 2017 and that the placings be amended accordingly. HRV RAD Board Panel: Alanna Duffy (Chair), Kerry Willcock   Harness Racing Victoria

Three more Canterbury racing figures have been charged as part of police investigations into harness racing's race-fixing scandal - both with supplying drugs, and one of the suspects with possession of a stun gun. That brings to 10 the number of horsepeople, all from Canterbury and working in the harness racing industry, who have been charged today for either supplying Class B drugs or race-fixing. All have come to police attention through Operation Inca, which started as a race-fixing investigation 18 months ago after information passed on by the Racing Integrity Unit. Today's arrests are the result of a further six search warrants conducted in Christchurch this morning, taking the total number of search warrants to 17. Phone surveillance has resulted in five horsepeople from Canterbury and a non-licence holder who works inside the racing industry in Manawatu being charged over being involved in or profitting from race fixing, which is listed in court documents as match fixing. But the recreational drug use or supply cases appear to have come about from information gathered in the course of the race-fixing investigation. Only one person, a 26-year-old male who appeared in a Christchurch court yesterday and was granted name suppression, has been charged with both race-fixing and drug supply offences. The story has rocked the racing industry to its core and looks set to get bigger as at least one other leading horseperson is named in court documents relating to the drug charges. Earlier today the Racing Integrity Unit banned all six trainers or drivers charged from attending race meetings, which now looks certain to happen to the two latest trainers charged. That will mean at least eight horsepeople who could have had horses racing at Addington this Friday night will not be able to attend and the RIU will then rule on whether that can participate in racing activities before their cases are heard. Harness racing bosses are dismayed by the rapidly-growing number of cases but have vowed their flagship national awards, for which some of those charged were in the running for honours, will still go ahead at Alexandra Park on September 29. With that night not seeing Alexandra Park hosting a race meeting, any industry member who has been charged would still be able to attend. Early today a race held at Nelson on June 8 was named in court as being part of the race-fixing investigation while the Herald understands a relatively minor race at Manawatu earlier in the year, is also under investigation. One of the industry's glamour events, the $200,000 New Zealand Derby at Addington in April, was investigated by police but seems unlikely to be at the centre of any race-fixing allegations. Michael Guerin

HARNESS Racing New South Wales (HRNSW) Stewards conducted an inquiry yesterday into reports received from the Australian Racing Forensic Laboratory (ARFL) that synephrine had been detected in post-race urine samples obtained from the following horses: FUTURE STRIDE- following its win in Race 5 at Penrith on Thursday 29 March 2018; BACKINTHEGAME- following its win in Race 4 at Penrith on Thursday 3 May 2018. The ‘B’ samples were confirmed by Racing Analytical Services Limited (RASL) in Victoria. Ms Wilkins appeared at the inquiry and provided evidence of her husbandry practices. Evidence including the Reports of Analysis were presented, as well as analytical reports in relation to teff grass hay obtained from Ms Wilkins’ stable and plant samples from the Menangle Park Training Centre. HRNSW Regulatory veterinarian, Dr Martin Wainscott also provided evidence to the inquiry. Ms Wilkins pleaded guilty to two (2) charges issued pursuant to Rule 190 (1), (2) & (4) for presenting FUTURE STRIDE and BACKINTHEGAME to race not free of a prohibited substance, being synephrine. In respect of those charges, Stewards recorded a conviction, however, did not impose a penalty on Ms Wilkins as they were satisfied that the detection of synephrine had resulted from environmental contamination.  In considering penalty Stewards were mindful of the following: Ms Wilkins’ first Prohibited Substance offences; Analytical reports; Environmental contamination; Ms Wilkins’ licence history and other personal subjective facts. Acting under the provisions of Rule 195, FUTURE STRIDE and BACKINTHEGAME were disqualified from the abovementioned races. Ms Wilkins was advised of her right to appeal this decision.   Harness Racing NSW (HRNSW) is the controlling body for harness racing in New South Wales with responsibility for commercial and regulatory management of the industry including 33 racing clubs across the State.  HRNSW is headed by a Board of Directors and is independent of Government. To arrange an interview or for further information please contact: MICHAEL PRENTICE | INTEGRITY MANAGER (02) 9722 6600 • GRANT ADAMS | CHAIRMAN OF STEWARDS (02) 9722 6600 •

HARNESS Racing New South Wales (HRNSW) Stewards conducted an inquiry yesterday into a report received from the Australian Racing Forensic Laboratory (ARFL) that synephrine had been detected in post-race urine sample obtained from IDEAL LIFESTYLE following its win in Race 5 at Tabcorp Park Menangle on Tuesday 29 May, 2018. The ‘B’ sample was confirmed by Racing Analytical Services Limited (RASL) in Victoria. Mr Grimson appeared at the inquiry and provided evidence of his registered training establishment and husbandry practices. Evidence including the Reports of Analysis were presented, as well as analytical reports in relation to teff grass hay obtained from Mr Grimson’s stable and plant samples from the Menangle Park Training Centre. HRNSW Regulatory veterinarian, Dr Martin Wainscott also provided evidence to the inquiry. Mr Grimson pleaded guilty to a charge issued pursuant to Rule 190 (1), (2) & (4) for presenting IDEAL LIFESTYLE to race not free of a prohibited substance, being synephrine. In respect of that charge, Stewards recorded a conviction, however, did not impose a penalty on Mr Grimson as they were satisfied that the detection of synephrine had resulted from environmental contamination.  In considering penalty Stewards were mindful of the following: Mr Grimson’s first Prohibited Substance offence; Analytical reports; Environmental contamination; Mr Grimson’s licence history and other personal subjective facts. Acting under the provisions of Rule 195, IDEAL LIFESTYLE was disqualified from the abovementioned race. Mr Grimson was advised of his right to appeal this decision.     Harness Racing NSW (HRNSW) is the controlling body for harness racing in New South Wales with responsibility for commercial and regulatory management of the industry including 33 racing clubs across the State.  HRNSW is headed by a Board of Directors and is independent of Government. To arrange an interview or for further information please contact: MICHAEL PRENTICE | INTEGRITY MANAGER (02) 9722 6600 • GRANT ADAMS | CHAIRMAN OF STEWARDS (02) 9722 6600 •

Harness racing trainer Scott Dickson has been fined $12,000 for racing a horse with TC02 in its system above the recommended levels. The horse in question is Magicol Moe who finished ninth at the Manawatu meeting on the 01 May 2018 and earned $140 for its effort. The horse has since been disqualified. Dickson advised the RIU during the investigation he had the ability to ‘tube’ a horse and that he did have tubing equipment on the property, however he had not done so for over a year when he had used it to administer electrolytes to other horses. He also advised that Magicol Moe was prone to ‘tying up’ and that it may get a handful of bicarbonate of soda in its feed and that his partner Lydia makes up the feeds. The tubing equipment was located in his gear room and examination revealed it had not been used for considerable time. Dickson has trained 822 starters during his career with 81 winners.   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 SG DICKSON Respondent Judicial Committee: Mr T Utikere (Chairman), Mrs N Moffatt (Member) Parties: Mr S Irving (for the RIU), Mr S Dickson (Respondent) RESERVED DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DATED 24 JULY 2018 FACTS [1] The Respondent, Mr SG Dickson (Licensed Public Trainer) faces a charge under the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing. [2] The charge is detailed in Information A7159 and alleges a breach of the Prohibited Substance Rule: Rules 1004(1A), (2) and (3) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing. [3] The relevant Rules are as follows: “Rule 1004  (1A) A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances. (2) A horse shall be presented for a race with a total carbon dioxide (TCO2) level at or below the level of 36.0 millimoles per litre in plasma. (3) When a horse is presented to race in contravention of sub-rule (1A) or (2) the trainer of the horse commits a breach of these Rules.” [4] 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 Information alleged: Information No A7159 THAT, on the 01st May 2018, Scott George DICKSON, the trainer of the horse MAGICAL MOE which had been taken to the Wairarapa Harness Racing Club for the purpose of engaging in a Race 5 - the Masterton Racing Club Mobile Pace - failed to present the said horse free of prohibited substances namely Bicarbonate or other alkali substance as evidenced by a blood TCO2 level of 39.2mmol/L. This is in breach of the Prohibited Substance Rule, 1004 (1A) (2) & (3). PRELIMINARY MATTERS  [6] In a Minute (dated 8 July 2018), the Committee noted that it was in receipt of the Notice of Appointment, 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 hearing at Awapuni on 7 July, a guilty plea was entered by the respondent. There were some matters relating to Penalty that arose during the course of the Hearing and both parties were invited to provide further Penalty Submissions on matters identified in the Minute. We are in receipt of that further information, and as such, we are now in a position to issue a full decision. SUBMISSIONS [7] The RIU submitted the following agreed Summary of Facts: The Respondent Scott George DICKSON is a licensed trainer under the Rules of New Zealand Harness Racing (HRNZ). He is 39 years old and has been a harness trainer and driver since 1998. MAGICAL MOE is a four year old gelding, trained by Dickson and owned by Dickson and his partner, Licensed Thoroughbred trainer Lydia Pickford. MAGICAL MOE has now had 8 starts for 1 win and 0 placings earning stakes of $6,465. Dickson has trained the horse since 29 March 2018, having had three starts for him. MAGICAL MOE was correctly entered for and presented to race at the Wairarapa Harness Racing Club meeting at Manawatu Raceway on 01 May 2018. The horse was driven by Zach Butcher and finished 9th of 10 runners in Race 5 (4.26pm), the Masterton Racing Club Mobile Pace, winning a stake of $140. RIU veterinarian Ms Ellie Grieves took two TCO2 blood samples from MAGICAL MOE at 3.42pm (44 minutes prior to his race) in the presence of Racecourse Investigator Simon Irving and trainer’s representative Ms Pickford. The blood samples were recorded with the Sample ID number 47291. Ms Pickford does not contest the taking of the samples. This was the first time MAGICAL MOE had been TCO2 tested. On 04 May the New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services (NZRLS) issued a certificate detailing the sample had returned a TCO2 result of 39.2 mmol/L, exceeding the accepted level of 36.0 set by Harness Racing New Zealand. Dickson was interviewed at his property on 09 May. He stated that he and Pickford transported MAGICAL MOE with three of their other horses to the races in their own truck, arriving approximately 1.30pm, one hour prior to the first race. Neither he nor Pickford could provide any reason for MAGICAL MOE’S elevated level and stated that they have never knowingly administered to the horse any alkalizing agent by ‘tubing’ or any other method. Dickson advised he has the ability to ‘tube’ a horse and that he did have tubing equipment on the property, however he had not done so for over a year when he had used it to administer electrolytes to other horses. He also advised that MAGICAL MOE was prone to ‘tying up’ and that it may get a handful of bicarbonate of soda in its feed and that Lydia makes up the feeds. The tubing equipment was located in his gear room and examination revealed it had not been used for considerable time. Pickford advised that she may have given a small quantity of baking soda and ‘Neutra Syrup’ in MAGICAL MOE’S daily feed for ‘tying up’ but had since run out of the baking soda. Three feed supplement samples (including ‘Neutra Syrup’) were taken from the property, in addition to TCO2 samples from two other harness horses in work and forwarded to NZRLS for testing. None of the supplements contained alkalinising agents and the horse’s TCO2 samples returned ‘normal’ levels of 30.9 and 30.4. Dickson had ‘sacked’ MAGICAL MOE due to its poor performances and the horse had been transferred to Licensed Trainer Allen Pyers two days after the race. A TCO2 sample was taken from MAGICAL MOE at Pyers’ property where he was ‘spelling’ the following day. The result of this sample was 28.4. Dickson trained horses have previously been TCO2 tested on 17 occasions resulting in TCO2 levels in the ‘normal’ range between 29.0 and 32.6. Dickson has no previous charges for presenting a horse with an elevated TCO2 level or breaching the prohibited substance rule. [8] In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Irving confirmed that he was accompanied by fellow Investigator Mr Andy Cruickshank, and that it was Mr Cruickshank who observed the tubing equipment to be dusty and located at the rear of a shipping container. It was because of the state that the tubing equipment was in, and its location, that led Investigators to the view that it had not been used for some time. [9] He also confirmed that Ms Pickford was involved with feeding on the property and detailed the feed regime for all the standardbred horses. Upon inspection of those supplements, Investigators thought that some may contain alkalising agents so were sent for laboratory testing where they were found to not contain any alkalising agents. [10] While Ms Pickford had confirmed that she was charged with feeding both the standardbreds and thoroughbreds, the horses did not receive the same supplements, as their feeds were slightly different. Mr Dickson confirmed that this was due to the different preparation regimes required for each of the horses. [11] Mr Dickson confirmed that he accepted the agreed Summary and that he admitted the breach. He identified that he had purchased MAGICAL MOE from the South Island and that it had won a maiden race by 14 lengths. He believed that its recent performance indicated an underlying problem in the background, and that if he had known, he would have had some bloods taken to confirm this. He said that MAGICAL MOE used to get a handful of Baking Soda in his daily feed due to tying up issues, and that was standard practice with many trainers. He was adamant that the horse had not been administered it in any other form. His possible explanation was that the horse had returned such a high TCO2 level due to the fact that he had a major virus which caused excessive swelling in his legs in the days following the race and that the stresses of racing had “brought it all out”. [12] Mr Dickson also supplied the Committee with two written documents to support his contention that it was possible MAGICAL MOE was not well at the time. [13] The first was a letter from local trainer Mr Allen Pyers. He confirmed that after picking MAGICAL MOE up from Manawatu Raceway on 3 April, he had noticed some swelling in all four legs from the knee down to the hoof. Mr Pyers believed there was no obvious explanation for this, but assumed he had a virus. After consulting fellow trainer Doug Gale, Mr Pyers was satisfied that was the case. As the season was close to the end, he decided not to race MAGICAL MOE and start fresh next season. After one week Mr Pyers had noticed the swelling had gone down and the gelding had brightened up considerably. [14] The second document was from Mr Gale, which confirmed the nature of the exchange with Mr Pyers and concluded with “...the symptoms he described in my long experience as a public trainer were indicative of a serious illness” (Written Reference from Mr Doug Gale, 5 July 2018).  Mr Gale had also explained that if the horse had a virus, it would have led the horse to hold back fluids and result in the increased TCO2 levels. [15] Mr Dickson also believed MAGICAL MOE to be a bleeder and that due to his race performances this was highly likely; however, it was unfortunate that he had never had the horse scoped by a vet to confirm that was the case. [16] These were the only factors that he could identify to explain the high level as all his other horses had been tested and had been within the acceptable TCO2 range. [17] In response to questions from the Committee, he confirmed that his observations were not of any illness, but of a puffy leg from the stress of racing. He had decided not to get a vet to look at the horse as racing at Manawatu was three weeks apart, which meant the horse could be freshened up. He also confirmed that his stable gave baking soda to other runners that suffer from ‘tie up’, and that it was not standard practice to put baking soda in all feeds. [18] He did not have any formalised recording of the feed regime as Ms Pickford did most of the feeding, but that it also depended on what else what happening on the day. He advised that he along with another stable helper may at times feed the horses. He could not understand why the levels were so high when only a small amount of baking soda had been put into its feed. [19] Mr Dickson stated that there was no intent behind this breach for the purpose of racing performance as MAGICAL MOE had run an ‘awful’ race on 1 May. DECISION [20] As indicated in the Minute of the Judicial Committee dated 8 July 2018, as the charge has been admitted, we deem the charge to be proved. PENALTY SUBMISSIONS The RIU [21] For the RIU, Mr Irving filed the following written Penalty Submissions: The Respondent, 39 year old Scott George Dickson is a Licensed Public Trainer under the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing. He has held a HRNZ drivers licence since 1996 and a trainer’s licence since 2002 (16 years) and currently trains from his property near Marton. HRNZ records detail that Mr Dickson has trained 822 starters during his career with 81 winners. Mr Dickson has admitted a breach of Rule 1004(1A) (3) & (4) for presenting his horse ‘Magical Moe’ to the races on 01.05.2018 with a TCO2 level of 39.2 mmol/L above the threshold of 36.0 mmol/L. The circumstances are detailed in the attached Summary of Facts which have been agreed. The penalties which may be imposed are detailed in the attached Charge Rule and Penalty Provisions Document. Penalty Submissions The RIU believes that an appropriate penalty for this breach is a $10,000 fine. It is acknowledged that the JCA Penalty Guidelines from 01 May 2015 detail a starting point for HRNZ breach of the TCO2 Rule ‘first offence’ is a one year disqualification and a fine of up to $10,000. In the Prohibited Substances Regulations of the Rules of Harness Racing TCO2 is a prohibited substance when detected in venous blood over the threshold of 36.0 mmol/L. A guard band of 0.9 mmol/L is in place giving an action level of greater than 37.0 mmol/L. The prescribed threshold was increased from 35.0 to 36.0 mmol/L on 09 October 2014. At the time of the increase the HRNZ Board made it clear that there was a “firm expectation” that it expects a “stiffer regime of penalties” for subsequent breaches of the new threshold and that in their opinion the current penalties were insufficient. In RIU v MP Jones (2015) counsel for the Informant Chris Lange advised “that with the increase in the TCO2 threshold, in future cases it will be seeking a significant increase in penalty imposed for a breach of the Prohibited Substance Rule. For a first breach of the Rule a short period of disqualification will be sought, coupled with a fine. For repeated breaches of the Rule, the RIU will be submitting lengthy periods of disqualification should be imposed.” In the same decision the Committee noted “The Informant submits that, with that increase in the TCO2 threshold, the RIU will be seeking “a significant increase” in penalties for breaches of the Rule. Mr Lange has asked this Committee to record in this decision the intended approach for future cases. The Committee is not prepared to do this. Rather, we must deal with the matter of penalty on the basis of the Rule as it existed at the date of the offence and on the basis of previous penalties under that Rule. It would not be appropriate for us to pre-empt the approach to be taken by future Judicial Committees dealing with the new Rule 1004 and penalties under it.” It is submitted that a period of disqualification in this case would be largely unmanageable and unenforceable given Mr Dickson’s partner is also a licensed trainer and they both train exclusively from their own training track and facilities. Rule 1303(1)(b) details that a disqualified person may not train, assist or be involved in any capacity with breaking or gaiting a horse; and Rule 1303(1)(f) – may not, without written consent of the Board, enter upon the stable area of any licensed person. Mr Dickson and Ms Pickford also own a dairy operation and manage a dry stock farm on their property with the stables adjacent to the dwelling, implement barns and milking shed. It is the RIU’s position that it would be impossible to enforce a disqualification under these circumstances and therefore submit that an appropriate penalty is therefore the maximum fine, in lieu of a disqualification. There have been no other results above the threshold since the increased level. The administration to a horse of alkalising agents such as sodium bicarbonate raises the TCO2 levels in blood. In a report from the HRNZ Chief Veterinarian Andrew Grierson (dated 04 June 2018) he states: To date the number of race day samples tested for TCO2 is over 30,000 with a mean of around 30.70 mmol/L TCO2 and a standard deviation of 1.7 mmol/L. Profuse sweating, high body temperatures, overtraining, normal feeds, confinement during transport, diurnal and seasonal variation, the age and sex, any metabolic alkalosis or respiratory acidosis have all been shown to elevate TCO2. However the action level of 37.0 mmol/L provides a wide safety margin of one in over two million for these variations. As the level of TCO2 increases past 37.0 mmol/L so does the chance of being an untreated event and 39.2 mmol/L being an untreated event is more than one in two billion. Elevated levels of TCO2 has the effect of inhibiting fatigue in a racehorse by delaying the onset of lactic acid and this is potentially performance enhancing although there is no peer reviewed scientific study to show it improves (or reduces at extreme levels) performance due to the fact there are too many variables. Mr Dickson stated that he is adamant that he did not administer any alkalinising agent to ‘Magical Moe’ and has no idea how the positive could have occurred. He did admit to being able to ‘tube’ a horse but had not done so for well over a year when he had administered electrolytes. Tubing equipment was located at the rear of his gear room however upon examination it had not been used for considerable time. Mr Dickson’s partner Lydia Pickford, a licensed thoroughbred trainer, is responsible for feeding all horses on their property. Ms Pickford stated she may have added a small quantity of Baking Soda to ‘Magical Moe’s’ feed to assist with him ‘tying up’ but had run out some time prior – confirmed by an empty 500gm container of Pams Baking Soda found in the feed room. Three other feed supplements fed to their horses were taken for analysis and all returned results negative to alkalinising agents. Nine days after the positive result (and a transfer of stable) ‘Magical Moe’ was tested while ‘spelling’ returning a TCO2 reading of 28.4mmol/L. Four other Dickson trained horses were subsequently tested returning levels of 30.9 and 30.4 (non raceday; the day Dickson was interviewed) and 31.1, 31.1, 30.2 (raceday). Mr Dickson does not bet anymore, does not have a TAB account and did not wager on his horse that day. ‘Magical Moe’ finished 9th of 10 runners and was 9/9 in the betting. An analysis of TAB betting records revealed no unusual bets associated with the horse or the race. ‘Magical Moe’ was placed 9th earning stakes of $140 and is required to be disqualified and placings amended. Previous Cases 16.01.2015 - RIU v MP Jones – 36.2mmol/L; second offence, $4500 fine 10.10.2014 - RIU v P & L Jones – 37.3mmol/L; $2500 fine 23.06.2014 – RIU v J Keast & H Westrum – 36.2mmol/L; second offence, six month suspension and $2000 fine 21.10.2013 – RIU v J Keast & H Westrum – 37.0mmol/L; $2500 fine All of these decisions were prior to the increase in the threshold level and the establishment of the JCA Penalty Guidelines in May 2015. Sentencing Principles The four principles of sentencing can be summarised briefly and the first three apply in this case: ● Penalties are designed to punish the offender for his / her wrongdoing. They are not retributive in the sense that the punishment is disproportionate to the offence but the offender must be met with a punishment. ● In a racing context it is extremely important that a penalty has the effect of deterring others from committing like offences. ● A penalty should also reflect the disapproval of the JCA for the type of behaviour in question. ● The need to rehabilitate the offender should be taken into account. Mitigating Factors Mr Dickson has been fully cooperative throughout the investigation and pleaded guilty to the breach at the first opportunity. Mr Dickson has been training now for 16 plus years and has not had a previous breach of this rule or any prohibited substance rule. Prior to this breach his horses had been TCO2 tested on 17 occasions with results ranging in the ‘normal’ bracket between 29.0 – 32.6 mmol/L. Aggravating Factors In Grierson’s report he comments “The statistics for a horse to record a natural untreated high TCO2 level of 39.2 mmol/L is more than one in two billion. In other words there is a two billionth chance that the trainer Mr Scott Dickson is being wrongly accused of using an alkalising agent… In conclusion I can find no reason to explain a racehorse being presented to the races with a TCO2 level of 39.2 mmol/L besides that of an administration of an alkalising agent.” In the 2012 Appeals decision RIU v S it was stated “Where the culpability falls on the spectrum of seriousness is best determined by reference to the extent to which the elevated level is in excess of the statutory limit.” It is submitted that the level of 39.2 mmol/L is at the higher end of the scale, the fourth highest of 52 samples at or over the old prosecution level of 36.1 since 2001 (the year that the three highest levels were recorded). Costs The RIU are seeking no costs. Conclusion Given the previous cases, the aggravating and mitigating factors as listed and the overall circumstances considered in this case, I believe a $10,000 fine is an appropriate penalty. [22] In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Irving could not elaborate on the reasons why a suspension was imposed as opposed to a disqualification in RIU v Keast & Westrum (2014). He was also able to identify that the direction to licence holders warning them that tougher penalties for TCO2 breaches would follow, was contained in the written decision of RIU v Jones (2015). [23] Mr Irving was asked to comment on his submission that a period of disqualification would be difficult to manage and enforce. In response he said that this would be due to the fact that the respondent and his partner were both trainers who shared the property and had their own training facility on site. They did not utilise a track off premise and therefore it would be very difficult to surveil Mr Dickson given the proximity of the rest of his working farm. [24] With regard to Rule 1303(1)(f), Mr Irving was unsure as to the intent of the rule. He was not aware if that specific rule had been engaged previously but suggested that it could possibility relate to a situation of allowing a person to associate with someone who was a disqualified person, rather than the reverse. He reiterated the RIU’s position that a disqualification might under some circumstances be manageable, but from an RIU point of view with Mr Dickson it would be very difficult to enforce. [25] Mr Irving also sought to put his fine only penalty into comparison with the what he believed was the only other specified prohibited substance threshold; which was Cobalt. When looking at the penalties for Cobalt in more recent times he identified that there had not been any period of disqualification and that the Starting Point was a $8,000 fine for both codes. He believed there were some similarities between TCO2 and Cobalt in that they were both elements of natural products, and therefore he was unaware as to why the disparity in starting points exists. Mr Irving also sought clarification from the Committee as to whether there was any flexibility in the JCA Penalty Guidelines. He also conceded that there was an error in his Penalty Submissions as the maximum fine should be identified as $20,000. [26] When considering aggravating factors, and with specific reference to the Appeal of RIU v S, Mr Irving accepted that when one applies the culpability test identified in the Appeal decision, Mr Dickson’s culpability sits at the high end. This was supported by the reading being the highest TCO2 reading in 17 years. [27] The RIU also confirmed that a disqualification would cover all racing codes and overseas racing jurisdictions as well. With respect to Mr Dickson, if he was a disqualified person under HRNZ, he would have the same limitations for any thoroughbred racing activities. Mr Dickson [28] In making submissions on Penalty, Mr Dickson accepted that the rule had been in place for a long time. Looking back over the previous six to seven years, he said that most breaches had been dealt with by way of a fine. Specifically, that first offences resulted in a fine in the range of$2,000-$2,500. [29] He had no expectation that MAGIC MOE would run well or any differently on 1 May, and that it had run the same as it had the week before. He had no intent to improve the horse’s performance as opposed to other charges lately where the horses had won, were then required to be disqualified and had upset the TAB and the public as a result. He believed that was relevant when considering the level of fine. [30] When the Committee indicated that the cases Mr Dickson was referring to, were prior to the current higher Starting Point for TCO2 breaches being in place, he accepted that the current Starting Point was a guide only; and that Mr P Scaife had a scenario with a similar positive at Palmerston North in 2012 and was fined $2,000. He believed the same charges were relevant 10 years ago, so they were still relevant now. [31] Mr Dickson believed that his breach was minor in comparison to the ‘multiple positives’ in the Dunn, Townley and Burrows cases, which resulted in minimal fines. He also identified other single TCO2-offences had attracted a fine of $2,000 and double offences up to a fine of $4,500. [32] When invited to submit on his living circumstances and what a $10,000 fine that was submitted by the RIU might mean, he confirmed that he and Ms Pickford owned and trained their own horses, and they had put a lot of effort in and had spent a lot of money on them. They were regular Harness Club supporters, having sponsored three race nights at Manawatu in addition to sponsoring the Club. He found this breach very disappointing and he and Ms Pickford were just trying to follow their passion. [33] He also submitted written References from Messrs W Stapleton (Public Trainer), J Doody (Racing Administrator) and J Pickford (Rangitikei Sharemilker) to attest to his character. [34] As indicated at para 6 the Committee received further Penalty Submissions from both parties. The further submissions from the RIU stated: RIU further penalty submissions 1. As per the Minute of Judicial Committee dated 8 July 2018 the Informant makes the following additional submissions: 2. In relation to paragraphs [6] and [7] it remains the RIU position that a period of disqualification is practically unenforceable and the same belief applies to a period of suspension. 3. Both penalties are designed to prevent the person from training or assisting in any capacity in the training of a horse. 4. Mr Dickson is in effect an ‘owner / trainer’ in that he does not train horses for other owners and he does not drive horses for other trainers, nor does he enter in or drive his horses at workouts or trials like the majority of harness trainers in metro areas. 5. Practically if suspended or disqualified Mr Dickson could effectively continue to train his horses on his property without sanction unless the RIU were to ‘catch him in the act’. 6. Practically if disqualified Mr Dickson could also continue to assist Ms Pickford with her business of training thoroughbreds again undetected unless the RIU were to observe him doing so. 7. If he were not granted written consent of the board to enter onto the property of a licensed person per 1303(1)(f) he (or Ms Pickford) would effectively have to leave their family home. 8. It is believed that this current situation is unique in New Zealand whereby a harness and thoroughbred trainer reside together with independent licenses. 9. In relation to paragraph [8] the RIU confirms that it did confuse the JCA Guideline ‘Starting Point’ of up to $10,000 as a “maximum”. 10. The RIU resubmits the rationale of balancing a fine in lieu of disqualification that an appropriate starting point is somewhere between $15,000 and the maximum $20,000. 11. Allowing for a discount for Mr Dickson’s early admission and clean record and the fact that the offending is at the higher end of the TCO2 scale the RIU therefore submits a penalty of a $15,000 fine is appropriate. [35] In response, the position of Mr Dickson was: After extensively looking through all recent PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES cases in which most are 210 offenses, there is in NO way this case can be deemed 'worse'. 28/4/18- Mr Kevin Townley was 'fined' $11,000 for a 2nd PROHIBITED SUBSTANCE offence. 15/5/18-Mr DG Burrows was 'fined' $9000 for a 2nd PROHIBITED SUBSTANCE offense 01/06/18-Mr RJ Dunn and Mr JR Dunn were each 'fined' $3900 for MULTIPLE PROHIBITED SUBSTANCE offences (Starting point penalty guidelines for 2nd offences is a lot higher than a 1st offence TCO2). All of these horses won their respective races. MAGICAL MOE only beat 1 runner and finished a long margin from the winner indicating the high level certainly did not enhance his performance. MAGICAL MOE was a bleeder and clearly unwell. Affectively, a fine in the vicinity of $15000 to $20000 (in which the RIU are submitting) for a 1st OFFENCE is totally impractical and unfair when comparing with the cases mentioned above. This will dramatically impact our ability to justify training racehorses. Making my case comparable with all other cases, a fine of around $7000 would be appropriate. REASONS FOR PENALTY [36] The Committee has considered all of the submissions placed before it, and thanks both parties for providing additional submissions to address some of the issues the Committee wanted some clarity around. The revised position of the RIU is for a fine of $15,000, while Mr Dickson’s revised position is for a fine of $7,000. [37] It is clear that MAGICAL MOE returned a TCO2 level in excess of the threshold whilst racing at Manawatu Raceway on 1 May 2018. Mr Dickson maintains that he is unaware as to how the gelding returned such a level as the only alkalising agent that it may have from time to time was a handful of baking soda and ‘Nutra Syrup’. [38] Mr Dickson is a trainer with many years experience under his belt. Of concern to the Committee is that it appears there is no formalised feed regime in place for the horses on his property. This would be an important aspect of any licensed holders’ responsibilities, and particularly important when standardbred and thoroughbred horses are being trained from the single premises. [39] We were told initially that Ms Pickford was the only person to feed the horses, yet Mr Dickson confirmed that he and another person may at times take care of feeding duties, depending on the nature of the day. It is apparent that there is a fairly relaxed approach to feeding and further highlights the need for a more formalised regime in place as it is apparent that Ms Pickford was in fact not solely responsible for administering the horse’s feed. It is entirely possible that three different persons could be involved in the feeding of the horses at the premises on any one day. This is a form of negligence that we would not expect from a licensed trainer with the level of experience that Mr Dickson has. [40] The Committee initially had some reluctance with the position of the RIU with regard to their submission which suggested removing the consideration of a period of suspension or disqualification. However, after considering Mr Irving’s additional submissions, we accept that there would be some difficulty with a period of disqualification or suspension. [41] While the enforceability of sanctions, should not be a prime driver for a Judicial Committee, we accept that Mr Dickson’s exceptional circumstances to be somewhat difficult. Specifically that it is a unique situation to have standardbred and thoroughbred horses trained by partners with independent code licences, along with his ability to undertake his employment as a dairy farmer from those same premises. [42] To impose such a restriction would have significant limitations on his ability to earn an income from the farming role and in our view would be a disproportionate penalty. However, in removing disqualification from the penalty options in this case, we emphasise that such action should only occur in rare circumstances, which we believe there are in the matter currently before us. [43] Although we accept the position of the RIU, industry participants should, as other decisions have made clear, expect that TCO2 breaches above the threshold should in the normal course of events attract a period of disqualification. We make this point as we accept that potential penalties for TCO2 breaches have been signalled by industry administrators and in previous decisions, and we may infer that is why this breach is the first since the threshold was raised in October 2014. [44] We reject the suggestion that a starting point similar to that identified for a Cobalt Prohibited Substance breach. While the two substances may have some similarities, the difference is there is a specified starting point for a TCO2 breach. To disregard that would be an inappropriate exercise for this committee to undertake. [45] The JCA Penalty Guide identifies the starting point for this offence as a one year period of disqualification and a $10,000 fine. The disqualification and fine within the starting point are cumulative upon each other rather than being distinctly separate. As we have accepted that a period of disqualification is not appropriate, our task is to identify what our starting point would be. Our view is that the starting point has two limbs, and that the one year disqualification limb should on balance equate to its other limb: a $10,000 fine. [46] We agree with the RIU that as the level of TCO2 is high, so must Mr Dickson’s culpability. This leads the Committee to adopt an initial starting point of a $20,000 fine; the maximum fine possible under the Rules. [47] When we consider this is a presentation rather than administration offence, we adjust the starting point to one of $18,000. [48] While we understand the position Mr Dickson has taken in reference to previous breaches, we believe it is appropriate for us to reject that position as those cases relate to prohibited substances which are not specifically stated as requiring a distinct starting point, and pre-dates the increase in the TCO2 threshold (October 2014) and the JCA Penalty Guide (May 2015). [49] Previous decisions have also consistently indicated that in such circumstances where penalties were imposed under a different penalty regime or different starting point, they must be viewed in that context. Therefore, in the context of this charge, the cases he cites, give us very little assistance. [50] When examining the written statements from Messrs Pyers and Gale their recollection of the dates do not seem to synchronise as Mr Pyers eludes to the conversation occurring in early April, whilst Mr Gale’s recollection is of it occurring in early May. In any event, the position of Mr Dickson remains clear: that an illness was the reason behind MAGICAL MOE’s elevated TCO2 levels. [51] Mr Dickson took no steps to engage a vet to confirm this, which we would expect a responsible trainer to do. As such there is no evidence before us to indicate that a MAGICAL MOE had a serious illness, which was the reason behind the increased TCO2 level. This leads us to reject the suggestion that it was due to illness as science suggests otherwise. We also reject any notion that the high levels were a natural occurrence as Mr Grierson indicates that such an occurrence has a one in two billion chance. [52] The respondent has also inferred that MAGICAL MOE’s poor placing should also be taken into account. We do not consider the horse’s ninth placing to be a mitigating factor. An increased stake or dividend-bearing position would be an aggravating factor as the consequential disruption and disadvantage to connections and the betting public demand it to be. [53] In mitigation we have considered Mr Dickson’s admission of the breach and his record under this rule. The RIU also cite his co-operation during the investigation process. In not imposing a period of disqualification, we are also giving Mr Dickson a significant discount. Disqualification was a primary consideration for the Committee and the stipulated Starting Point urges it. [54] On balance we consider a reduction from our $18,000 fine starting point is appropriate to recognise these mitigating factors. PENALTY [55] Mr Dickson is fined $12,000. [56] There is also a requirement for MAGICAL MOE to be disqualified. The Committee has already ordered the mandatory disqualification in its Minute dated 8 July 2018. COSTS [57] The RIU do not seek any costs, and as this was primarily held on a raceday, there will be no costs in favour of the JCA. Dated at Wellington this 24th day of July 2018. Mr Tangi Utikere Chairman   Harnesslink Media

Background At the Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) Racing Appeals and Disciplinary (RAD) Board hearing on 21 February 2018, Mr Tardio pleaded not guilty to a charge issued under Australian Harness Racing Rule (AHRR) 190(1) for presenting the horse ‘Kissed Flush’ to race at Mildura on 4 April 2017, when not free of cobalt, a prohibited substance when present at a concentration of greater than 100 micrograms per litre in urine. Mr Tardio was found guilty and issued with an 18 month disqualification. The full HRV RAD Board media release can be found here. VCAT Hearing On 19 June 2018, Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) Senior Member Gerard Butcher adjourned the hearing to a later date due to Mr Tardio failing to pay the hearing fee on that date. Additionally, Mr Tardio had failed to file and serve any expert witness statement. VCAT Decision On 23 July 2018, VCAT Senior Member Butcher revoked the stay of proceedings issued on 19 March 2018, and dismissed the application for review lodged by Mr Tardio in respect of the decision of the HRV RAD Board on 21 February 2018, due to a failure by Mr Tardio to comply with a number of previous VCAT orders. Mr Tardio’s 18 month disqualification recommenced with immediate effect. The full written VCAT decision can be viewed here. Harness Racing Victoria

Harness racing trainer Kevin Townley has avoided disqualification but has been fined a further $15,000 for producing another horse to race when not free of a prohibited substance (Ketoprofen). The horse in question was Well Defined who won at the Timaru Harness Racing Club’s meeting held at Addington Raceway on 26 April 2018. This was Townley’s third breach of the same rule in less than three months. Full details below:   BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing IN THE MATTER of Information No. A6425 BETWEEN Racing Integrity Unit KYLIE WILLIAMS Informant AND KEVIN DAVID TOWNLEY Public Trainer Respondent Judicial Committee: DM Jackson (Chair), RG McKenzie (Member) Rule Breach: 1004 (1A)(3)(4) RESERVED DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DATED 24 JULY 2018 1. Mr Townley admits a charge that he breached Rules 1004(1A)(3) & (4) by presenting WELL DEFINED at the Timaru Harness Racing Club’s meeting on 26 April 2018 with a prohibited substance in its system, namely Ketoprofen. Mr Townley admitted the breach at the first available opportunity and countersigned the information recording same and a penalty hearing in respect of this charge was scheduled for and heard by this Committee on 5 July 2018. 2. This is Mr Townley’s third breach of this rule in less than three months. The two previous breaches involved positive swabs for Ketoprofen taken from the same horse, WELL DEFINED, on 3 February 2018 and GEENA’S GIRL on 2 March 2018. Mr Townley was fined $7,000 by a Judicial Committee for the first breach and $11,000 by a different Judicial Committee for the second breach. That is a total of $18,000 in fines to date for ketoprofen breaches. 3. The rule provides: “1004 … (1A) A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances. … ... (3) When a horse is presented to race in contravention of sub-rule (1A) or (2) the trainer of the horse commits a breach of these Rules. … (4) A breach of sub-rule (1A), (2), (3) or (3A) is committed regardless of the circumstances in which the TCO2 level or prohibited substance came to be present in or on the horse.” 4. Clause 5 of the Prohibited Substance Regulations provides that the therapeutic substance, Ketoprofen, is not prohibited when present at or below the mass concentration of 100mcg per litre in urine. 5. The consequences of a breach of the Rule are outlined in 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.” 6. The Rule also requires the mandatory disqualification of the horse pursuant to Rule 1004(8) and 1004D. The facts 7. The Summary of Facts presented by Mrs Williams records that the horse WELL DEFINED is owned by Mr Townley’s wife, Mrs M E Townley and is trained by Mr Townley. The horse was entered and presented to race by Mr Townley at the Timaru Harness Racing Club (at Addington) Meeting on 26 April 2018. It won the race it was entered in but the stake has not been paid out. 8. Following the race, the Stipendiary Stewards ordered that WELL DEFINED be post-race swabbed, which occurred. On 10 May 2018 the New Zealand Racing Laboratory reported Ketoprofen was detected in the sample taken. 9. Upon confirmation of the positive swab, Mrs Williams and the Manager of Stewards, Mr Nigel McIntyre, visited Mr Townley’s property and spoke with him. He advised that he took WELL DEFINED to the races in his own float and that the horse was one of two horses that he had raced that day. He could not offer an explanation for the presence of Ketoprofen in the urine sample taken from WELL DEFINED and could not advise when the horse was last treated with Ketoprofen. 10. The last bottle of “key injection” containing ketoprofen on the property was taken for testing by the Racing Integrity Unit on 16 March 2018. 11. A urine sample was taken from WELL DEFINED on 11 May 2018 with the laboratory reporting that sample as negative to Ketaprofen. 12. In accordance with his rights, Mr Townley asked that the reserve sample taken during the initial testing on race day be tested, which occurred in Sydney and which test confirmed the presence of Ketoprofen in the reserve sample. 13. Mr Townley has had 14 horses swabbed since the first positive swab with WELL DEFINED on 3 February 2018. Aside from the two subsequent further breaches, all other tests have been clear. 14. Mr Townley keeps a diary in which he enters treatments that have a withholding time and all of his drugs are kept in a safe. The safe is an initiative implemented after the first positive swab. Mr Townley now primarily uses a vet for pre-race day treatments that have a withholding time, although it seems that was not the case before the return of the earlier positive swabs when he administered treatments himself. 15. The Summary of Facts records that the source of the Ketoprofen cannot be accurately determined despite considerable enquiries. 16. Mr Townley has been training since 1986-87 initially in partnership with his father Mr D J Townley and then on his own from 1994/95 on to the present day and has trained over 460 winners in that time. He has held a licence in one form or another for over 50 years. 17. The Summary of Facts was largely accepted by Mr Townley although he informed the Committee that he did give Investigators an explanation for the presence of Ketoprofen in the urine sample, which was that he could not account for it because there was no record of it in his diary, which diary he has always kept, and further, because there was no Ketoprofen on the property (having been taken away on 16 March 2018). Mr Townley confirmed to the Committee that he had not treated the horse with Ketoprofen prior to the race. 18. Mr Townley openly conceded that he had used Ketoprofen in the past and that he had had bottles of Ketoprofen in his stables during the period of his two earlier swabs. However, the third positive swab had caused him to engage a vet, at considerable expense, to not only administer pre-race treatments, but also to advise him on the keeping of his stables, the use of treatments and the possible sources of Ketoprofen contamination. 19. Mr Townley was at pains to explain to the Committee that he had removed all possible contaminants, be they ointments, be they food, anything which he thought the Ketoprofen may have come into contact with or which by some process, created or transformed into Ketoprofen. Mr Townley emphasised that since he had involved a vet and disposed of these items he has had 7 horses swabbed, all of which have tested negative. He emphasised that this was a brief and isolated incident in the history of his stable for which he could offer no real explanation. Penalty Submissions 20. Mrs Williams presented written penalty submissions for which the Committee is grateful. Mrs Williams submitted that Mr Townley should be disqualified for a period of one (1) year or fined $18-20,000.00 or otherwise be penalised by way of a period of disqualification and fine. 21. Mrs Williams identified that the JCA guidelines suggest a starting point of $8,000.00 for a first offence of this kind and for a second offence a starting point of 2 years disqualification and a fine of up to $10,000.00. 22. Mrs Williams identified by reference to Mr Townley’s earlier fines of $7,000.00 and $11,000.00 that a fine on this occasion ought to be at least a fine of $18,000.00 (being the total of those two earlier fines). 23. Mrs Williams submitted that an aggravating factor here was the third positive swab in a two-month period and further, Mr Townley’s earlier breach in 2003 for a prohibited substance in Australia. 24. Mrs Williams referred the Committee to four decisions concerning breaches of this rule namely RIU v TW Mitchell (12 July 2012), RIU v R Brosnan (13 February 2018), RIU v C and A Edmonds (31 March 2016) and RIU v B Negus (20 March 2018). The Committee will discuss those decisions below. 25. Mrs Williams said that Mr Townley was to be given credit for the manner in which he had conducted himself during the enquiry, his admitting the breach at the first opportunity and otherwise being cooperative but the end result was that he had breached the rules for the third occasion and that that was unacceptable. Mrs Williams also sought the disqualification of WELL DEFINED under rule 1004(8) and costs of $1,250.00 for the testing of the reserve sample. 26. Mr Townley relied upon his explanation which the Committee has recorded above, and also brought two character witnesses with him, namely Mr Dean Hunter and Mr Bruce Dawson. 27. Mr Townley’s primary submission was that he ought not to be disqualified because it would be devastating to him not only because of the consequences (being at this age, the end of his training career), but also the personal pride and reputational damage which he will suffer. Mr Townley reiterated to the Committee that he was flabbergasted as to how this had occurred and could offer no explanation for the presence of the Ketoprofen in the horse’s system on this third occasion. 28. Mr Townley explained that he had purchased two bottles of “Key Injection” containing Ketoprofen in July 2017 and that he had only half a bottle left by the time the second positive swab was returned, which meant of a total of 15 doses available, he had given more or less one dose per horse in his team for approximately 10 or so months. 29. He emphasised that after the second swab and the removal of the bottles by Racecourse Investigators there was no Ketoprofen on the property. The absence of Ketoprofen from the property post 16 March 2018 was not disputed before this Committee. 30. Both parties addressed the Committee on the relevant penalty principles with Mrs Williams emphasising the key principles of denunciation and deterrence, that the punishment ought not to be disproportionate to the breach, the need to rehabilitate the offender and the overall interests of racing in promoting the presentation of horses for racing which are free from prohibited substances. Mr Townley accepted that those were the relevant sentencing principles and understood that the Committee must mark its disapproval of any breach of this rule, let alone a third breach of this rule, but emphasised that there was no need to further deter him given the fines already imposed on him and the steps he has taken to address the problem after the second positive swab. 31. Mr Townley called two men to give character evidence for him. The first was a Mr Dean Hunter who was a member of the New Zealand Police for 21 years and thereafter involved in asset recovery and otherwise the holder of a licence to train for many years. He told the Committee that he had known Mr Townley for 45 years and that he found him to be honest and trustworthy, that he was a man of considerable training skill and prowess who was a great mentor to him and someone who had, in Mr Hunter’s experience, always been careful around supplements and additives and was something of a stickler for compliance with the rules and in particular, the prohibited substance rule. Like Mr Townley, Mr Hunter suggested that after the second positive swab and the removal of Ketoprofen from the stables by the Racecourse Investigators the only possible source for the third positive swab was contamination. 32. Mr Hunter was at pains to emphasise Mr Townley’s integrity. 33. The second man who gave character evidence to the Committee was a Mr Bruce Dawson. Mr Dawson was for many years a Justice of the Peace and sat in a judicial capacity in the District Courts of the Otago/Southland area. Mr Dawson had visited Mr Townley’s stable on a number of occasions and was impressed with how clean it was and how well it was run and commented that he found Mr Townley to be “very fussy”. He said that given his personal experiences of dealing with Mr Townley, he was extremely surprised that he suffered three positive swabs in quick succession and in circumstances where there was no real explanation for the third positive swab at all. Mr Dawson suggested that this third charge should be dealt with more leniently because Mr Townley had done all he could reasonably do after the second positive swab to ensure compliance with the Rules. Mr Dawson was concerned for Mr Townley’s financial position noting the level of fine proposed and emphasised that disqualification would be catastrophic to Mr Townley. 34. Mr Townley concluded his penalty submissions by commenting that only a fool would continue to use or otherwise present horses to race with a prohibited substance when under investigation or otherwise charged for presenting horses with the same prohibited substance. He noted that this period of two or so months during which three positive swabs were returned, had already cost him $18,000.00 in fines and that the Committee ought to deal with this third breach differently than the two earlier breaches where he was perhaps slow to react. Mr Townley was distressed at the prospect of disqualification. Fixing a starting point 35. The JCA penalty guide provides suggested tariffs for a first and second breach but does not go further and suggest penalties for further or multiple breaches. That the guide does not go further is reflected in the penalties imposed in the decisions referred to by Mrs Williams, which vary both as to type and quantum or length. No two cases are alike and the Committee must start the penalty exercise by determining the level of culpability in the instant case. 36. We believe Mr Townley’s culpability to be in the low to mid range on this occasion. The Committee accepts that Mr Townley made a number of changes to his stable operation following the earlier positive swabs, which have seen his horses pass a number of subsequent urine samples with clear results. Mr Townley has hired a vet to administer all pre-race treatments and otherwise to advise on the possible source of the ketoprofen in the third positive swab noting that it is not disputed by the parties that there was no ketoprofen on Mr Townley’s property after the bottle of “key injection” was removed from the stables by Investigators on or after 16 March 2018. 37. In fixing culpability and accepting Mr Townley’s submissions as to his reduced culpability on this third occasion, the Committee has had particular regard to the evidence of Messrs Hunter and Dawson as to Mr Townley’s character. They gave credible character evidence which enables the Committee to accept that Mr Townley is at a genuine loss as to how Ketoprofen entered the horse’s system and that this was neither a deliberate or negligent act on his part. Further, that he has done everything he could do since the two earlier positive swabs to root out the problem and remove it. That Mr Townley has succeeded is supported by the clear swabs since enjoyed by his team of horses. This is not a case of Mr Townley stumbling on blindly to the problem and taking no steps to address it after the second positive swab. 38. Accordingly, we fix the starting point fine for this breach in isolation but having regard to the JCA Penalty Guide at $12,000.00. Aggravating Factors 39. We find the sole aggravating factor to be the third breach of the Rule within a period of no more than three months. For that aggravating factor alone we increase the starting point fine by $8,000.00 to $20,000.00. We disregard the Australian breach as historic and no longer relevant. Mitigating Factors 40. We find the following as mitigating factors: Mr Townley’s frank and prompt admission, the changes he has made to the recording and storing of medications, the removal of a large number of old medications and treatments from his stable, his use of a vet and otherwise his good history and reputation. 41. For those factors combined we will deduct $5,000.00 from the fine for mitigation. 42. If we approach the penalty on the basis of a fine only therefore, we would get to a fine of $15,000.00. However, the circumstances of a third breach within a short timeframe and the nature of the two earlier breaches mean that we must consider whether a fine is the appropriate remedy or whether, as is submitted by Mrs Williams, Mr Townley ought to be disqualified. Analysis – whether to go further and disqualify? 43. It is important at this juncture to record the primary purpose of disciplinary proceedings under the Rules of Harness Racing. Punishment is not the primary purpose. Rather, the purposes of disciplinary proceedings are set out in Clause 5, Fifth Schedule, Rules of Harness Racing and include: a) to ensure that racing is conducted in accordance with the code rules; b) to uphold and maintain the high standards expected of those participating in the sport of racing and the racing industry; c) to uphold and maintain the integrity of the sport of racing and the racing industry; d) to protect the participants in the sport of racing, the racing industry, and the public. 44. These principles originate from the Supreme Court judgment in Z v Complaints Assessment Committee [2009] 1 NZLR 1 and have been expressly adopted by the Code in the Rules. They are binding on a Judicial Committee and must be observed. 45. As already noted the decisions referred to by Mrs Williams varied significantly as to penalty and highlight that disqualification is, in fact, rare even in cases of multiple breaches. Indeed the only case of disqualification presented to the Committee was that of Mitchell whose original disqualification for three charges of presenting horses with elevated TC02 results of 12 months disqualification was reduced on appeal to 9 months and a fine of $4,500.00 noting that Mr Mitchell had previously been charged with presenting a horse with an elevated TC02 and fined earlier such that on that occasion it was in effect Mr Mitchell’s second, third and fourth offence across a period of several months. This case is different in kind to Mitchell in terms of duration, substance and culpability. 46. That this is the third breach in a short period means that the Committee ought to also consider the overall effect of the penalty on Mr Townley across the three penalties imposed on him in total. The Committee has considered Mr Townley’s submission to this effect and has determined that the totality principle is relevant and applicable here. 47. At the heart of the totality principle is the need for the punishment to meet the crime and that when arriving at an appropriate penalty for several breaches, a Committee must not only assess each breach individually, but also assess the licensee’s overall culpability and determine what effective penalty is appropriate for the totality of the licensee’s conduct. 48. Again, this is an acknowledgement that the penalty analysis is driven by the need to match the penalty with the gravity of the overall conduct. Further, factors such as age are relevant considerations that should be taken into account when ensuring that the overall end penalty is not crushing or unfair. 49. The totality principle is not limited to assessing one penalty for multiple breaches and extends to assessing successive but proximate penalties for separate events. Here where there have been three breaches that have resulted in three penalty hearings before three different Committees, the proper approach is for this Committee to reflect on what the appropriate overall penalty would have been if Mr Townley had been sentenced on all matters at the same time, and to adjust the penalty imposed for the third breach accordingly. What is required is an assessment of the cumulative effect of the penalties in combination with earlier penalties, so that the end penalty for the overall offending is not wholly disproportionate. 50. We have done this. The Committee accepts that the effect of disqualification on Mr Townley would have a crushing effect, would see him forced into early retirement and ruin his reputation. It would be a tragic end to a notable training career. It would see his stable cease operation and horses transferred to other stables. We accept that that is too harsh a penalty and would be wholly disproportionate to Mr Townley’s overall culpability. 51. This third breach is different in kind to the two earlier breaches and, stepping back, the Committee determines that denunciation and deterrence are served by a further fine on this occasion. Mr Townley confirmed to the Committee that he could afford to pay another fine. 52. We have considered totality in terms of a fine too. Adopting the end point fine outlined above and then stepping back and viewing the three fines together ($7,000.00 plus $11,000.00 plus $15,000.00) means a total overall fine of $33,000.00. 53. A fine sum of $33,000.00 is not disproportionate to the gravity of his breaches overall, namely across the three breaches of the Rule to date. 54. That is a great deal of money. It will hurt Mr Townley but it will not break him and importantly, it will serve as a warning to all licensees of the importance of strict adherence to the prohibited substance rule. 55. Accordingly, while Mr Townley has avoided disqualification on this occasion, the fine will not be further reduced for totality purposes. 56. Mr Townley is fined $15,000.00 for this third breach of the Rules. 57. The Committee further orders that the horse WELL DEFINED is disqualified per Rule 1004(8) from Monday, 30 July 2018. 58. Mr Townley is ordered to pay the costs of the reserve sample in the amount of $1,250.00. There will be no other orders for costs either of the Informant or of the Committee. DM Jackson Chair ________________________________________________ Harnesslink Media

Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) Stewards have issued a charge against licensed trainer Trish McVeigh under Australian Harness Racing Rule (AHRR) 190(1) which states:      A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances It is alleged that Ms McVeigh presented the horse ‘Angus Bromac NZ’ to race at Maryborough on 30 April 2018 not free of arsenic, a prohibited substance when evidenced at a concentration above the allowable threshold. Ms McVeigh has also been issued with a charge for failing to keep and maintain a log book in accordance with the AHRR. The charges will be heard by the HRV Racing Appeals and Disciplinary (RAD) Board on a date to be fixed.   Harness Racing Victoria

33 to 48 of 827