Day At The Track
Search Results
1 to 16 of 725
1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) Stewards have issued a charge against licensed trainer/driver Matthew Craven under Australian Harness Racing Rule (AHRR) 190(1) which states: A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances The AHRR defines "Race" as a race or official trial or official time trial or event in which harness racing horses race or participate. It is alleged that Mr Craven presented ‘Ruthie Yamaguchi’ to race at the Terang trial meeting on 18 June 2017 when not free of the prohibited substances Triamcinolone Acetonide and Meloxicam. The charge will be heard by the HRV Racing Appeals and Disciplinary (RAD) Board on a date to be fixed. Harness Racing Victoria

The Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) Racing Appeals and Disciplinary (RAD) Board today considered a charge issued by HRV Stewards under Australian Harness Racing Rules (AHRR) 190(1) against licensed trainer John McCullagh. 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 ‘Mear Princess’ after it finished first in Race 4, the ‘Yeomans Slate & Stone 3Y) Pace’, at Tabcorp Park Melton harness racing meeting on 14 June 2017. Racing Analytical Services Limited (RASL) reported that analysis of that urine sample revealed the sample to contain arsenic in excess of the allowable threshold.  Mr McCullagh pleaded guilty to the charge before submissions on penalty were heard from HRV Stewards and Mr McCullagh. In deciding an appropriate penalty, the HRV RAD Board considered Mr McCullagh’s guilty plea and cooperation throughout the investigation; Mr McCullagh’s good record over a long period in the industry; both general and specific deterrence; consistency of penalty and other similar matters. Mr McCullagh was subsequently fined $3000, of which $2000 was suspended for a period of 12 months. The HRV RAD Board also ordered that, under AHRR 195, ‘Mear Princess’ be disqualified from Race 4 at Tabcorp Park Melton on 14 June 2017 and that the placings be amended accordingly. HRV RAD Board Panel: Alanna Duffy (Chair), Hugh Millar, Kerry Willcock Racing Appeals & Disciplinary Board ............................................................. HRV RAD Board Hearing – Robert Arundell The Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) Racing Appeals and Disciplinary (RAD) Board today considered charges issued by HRV Stewards under Australian Harness Racing Rules (AHRR) 190(1) and 190B against licensed trainer-driver Robert Arundell. 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 ‘Sammy Fitz’ after it finished second in Trial 1 at the Terang trial meeting on 18 June 2017. Racing Analytical Services Limited (RASL) reported that analysis of that urine sample revealed the sample to contain arsenic in excess of the allowable threshold. Mr Arundell was also charged with a breach of AHRR 190B (1) being that he failed to properly keep and maintain a log book in accordance with this rule. Mr Arundell pleaded guilty to both charges before submissions on penalty were heard from HRV Stewards and Mr Arundell. In deciding an appropriate penalty, the HRV RAD Board considered Mr Arundell’s guilty plea and cooperation throughout the investigation; Mr Arundell’s good record over many years of involvement in the industry; both general and specific deterrence; and consistency of penalty with other similar matters. Mr Arundell was subsequently fined $2000, of which $1000 was suspended for a period of 12 months. In relation to the log book charge, Mr Arundell was fined the sum of $250. The HRV RAD Board also ordered that, under AHRR 195, ‘Sammy Fitz’ be disqualified from Trial 1 at Terang on 18 June 2017. HRV RAD Board Panel: Alanna Duffy (Chair), Hugh Millar, Kerry Willcock Racing Appeals & Disciplinary Board

Harness racing trainer Henriette Westrum has been fined $8000 for presenting Elite Excuse to race with the prohibited substance Phenylbutazone in its system. The horse won at Addington on 26 May 2017 paying in excess of $60.00, but has since been disqualified. Ms Westrum said "She did not give Bute to ELITE EXCUSE or any other horse on any occasion". "She would have absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by giving such a drug to a horse close to race day".   Full details of the hearing.   BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003 AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU) Informant AND MS HENRIETTE WESTRUM Licensed Public Trainer Respondent Information: A6644 Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman Mr A Smith, Committee Member Appearing: Mr C Allison, for the Informant The Respondent in person DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE [1] The informant, the RIU, has laid information A6644 with respect to the respondent, Ms Westrum. [2] This information states: “On 26 May 2017, Henriette Westrum, being the registered trainer of the Standardbred ELITE EXCUSE presented the horse to race in Race 2, the PI AND GJ KENNARD BLOODSTOCK MOBILE PACE, at the New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club’s meeting with a prohibited substance, namely Phenylbutazone, in its system in excess of 100 micrograms per litre of urine. This is a breach of the prohibited substance rule, r 1004(1A), (3) and (4) and you are therefore liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed in accordance with r 1004(7)(a) and (b) and to the horse penalties in r 1004(8) and 1004(D).” [3] The informant produced written authority in accordance with r 1108(2), dated 24 August 2017, from Mr M Godber, the General Manager of the RIU, to file a non-race day information for a breach of r 1004(1A). [4] A teleconference was held with the parties on 14 September last, at which Ms Westrum stated that she admitted the breach. [5] We thus find the breach of r 1004(3) proved. [6] The relevant rules provide: 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) … the trainer of the horse commits a breach of these Rules. (4) A breach of sub-rule (1A), … (3) … is committed regardless of the circumstances in which the TCO2 level or prohibited substance came to be present in or on the horse. [7] The penalty provisions which apply in this case are rr 1004(7) and (8) and 1004D: 1004(7) Every person who commits a breach of sub-rule … (3) shall be liable to: (a) a fine not exceeding $20,000; and/or (b) be disqualified or suspended from holding or obtaining a licence for any specific period not exceeding five years. (8) Any horse connected with a breach of sub-rule … (3) shall be disqualified from any race entered and/or liable to a period of disqualification not exceeding five years. 1004D Any horse which has been taken to a racecourse for the purpose of engaging in a race which is found to have administered to it or ingested by it any prohibited substance shall be disqualified from that race. [8] The Committee determined that the matter be heard on the papers. We received written submissions from the parties and held a further teleconference on 5 October at which both parties made oral submissions. The facts [9] The respondent in this matter, Ms Westrum, has been licensed with HRNZ since 2011. First as a Stablehand, and then a year later, with a Licence to Train. She currently holds a Public Trainer’s Licence. [10] Ms Westrum entered and started the registered Standardbred ELITE EXCUSE in Race 2, the PI AND GJ KENNARD BLOODSTOCK MOBILE PACE, at the New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club meeting held on Friday 26 May 2017. Total stake money for the race was $9,950. The breakdown of stake money was 1st $5740, 2nd $1120, 3rd $560, 4th $360, 5th $280, and others $210. [11] ELITE EXCUSE was driven by Mr D Keast and won the race, which was run over 1950 metres, by a head in a time of 2.22.6. ELITE EXCUSE was 14/14 in the betting and was the rank outsider of the field. She paid $62.90 to win and $11.50 for a place. [12] On the night of the races ELITE EXCUSE was a four-year-old bay mare and she had started 13 times for one win, one 2nd, and one 3rd, for total stake money of $9,445. As at 12 September 2017, she had had three subsequent races for two unplaced runs and one 3rd placing. ELITE EXCUSE is owned by Ms H Westrum, P J Cusdin, C P Keast and B J Sangster. [13] Following the race, the Chairman of Stewards, Mr Tidmarsh, requested that ELITE EXCUSE be swabbed. A urine sample numbered 133194 was obtained from ELITE EXCUSE at 6.10 pm in the presence of stable representative, Mr D Keast. This sample was subsequently sent to the New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services for analysis. [14] On 4 July 2017, this Laboratory formally advised the sample numbered 133194 contained the prohibited substance Phenylbutazone (commonly referred to as Bute). The concentration of Phenylbutazone exceeded 200 micrograms per litre of urine, which was the upper limit of the calibration range of the method used. The regulatory limit is 100 micrograms of Phenylbutazone per litre of urine. The control sample was clear. Mr Howitt the General Manager of the Laboratory later advised the reading was extremely high. [15] Dr Grierson, the Chief Veterinarian for HRNZ, forwarded a formal report, which confirmed Phenylbutazone was a prohibited substance under the Rules of HRNZ. [16] On Wednesday 5 July 2017 Racing Investigators visited Ms Westrum at her stable at Yaldhurst on the outskirts of Christchurch. Ms Westrum is assisted in the daily training and preparation of her horses by her partner, Mr J Keast, who is licensed as an open horseman. Ms Westrum and Mr Keast had previously been licensed together, up until this season. Three other trainers use the stable complex, with two main barns shared by the trainers. [17] When advised of the positive test, Ms Westrum was surprised and advised the Racing Investigators she had never used Phenylbutazone on ELITE EXCUSE. She was at a total loss to explain how the sample contained Phenylbutazone. Ms Westrum was co-operative throughout the investigation and openly made her stable available for inspection immediately she was advised of the positive result. [18] The RIU stated that Ms Westrum’s medicine cupboard was insecure and, when searched, no Phenylbutazone was located. However, insecure DMSO, which is required to be prescribed by a veterinarian, was located. The RIU described the security of medicines at the stable complex as “poor”, with prescribed medication being kept by other trainers in insecure and unlocked areas. Feed rooms were also insecure. The main bulk feed of barley and bailage was shared by all the trainers at the stable. [19] The inspection located Phenylbutazone in an unlocked cupboard in the main smoko room. This had been prescribed to another trainer at the stable and had been used on a broodmare, which had spent time in the stable complex. [20] The broodmare, which was being treated for laminitis, was being administered Phenylbutazone in a box in the stable area directly across from where ELITE EXCUSE was boxed. [21] Ms Westrum and the trainer using the Phenylbutazone, Mr Kennedy, advised there was no possibility that they had mixed the horses up as the mare being treated was particularly lame and had a poultice on her infected leg. [22] Ms Westrum initially advised she did not use Phenylbutazone at her stable but, when later spoken to, she acknowledged she had used it around 18 months previously. Enquiries revealed Mr Keast had purchased a 500ml container of Phenylbutazone in November 2015. This had been used on the horse JEANIE POPS, which had suffered a fractured pastern. She also acknowledged she had been prescribed Phenylbutazone for the horse ARCHIMEDES but this was after ELITE EXCUSE had raced and tested positive. Mr Allison’s inquiries confirmed this was the case. [23] The stable has a security fence, which is closed later in the afternoon, however it can be opened with the push of a button without a security code being required. [24] Ms Westrum did not keep records of any medications she had used, as she only has a small racing team. Inquiries with Ms Westrum’s veterinarian, Dr Senior, confirmed Ms Westrum had never purchased any product containing Phenylbutazone from him for ELITE EXCUSE. That horse was not suffering from any injuries or issues that required the use of Phenylbutazone or any other pain killer or anti-inflammatory. [25] Ms Westrum accepted the swabbing process was conducted correctly and declined the opportunity to have the “B” sample tested. [26] ELITE EXCUSE was swabbed on 7 July 2017 at the New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club meeting where she finished in 10th placing. The swab returned no irregularities. [27] The two horses Ms Westrum raced on the evening at issue were both transported to the races in a double float by Mr Keast. During the evening of the races Ms Westrum left ELITE EXCUSE unattended while watching another horse race earlier in the evening. The stables at Addington Raceway are well policed and the horses were stabled in full view of other licence holders. [28] Inquiries with the RIU Betting Analyst failed to detect any irregular betting patterns. [29] The cause of the positive test is unknown. Informant’s submissions [30] Ms Westrum holds a Public Trainer’s licence on her own account, however she had previously been licensed as a Public Trainer in partnership with Mr J Keast for the 2013 and 2014 season. [31] Rule 1004(1A), (3) covers the conduct of licence holders in relation to the presenting of a horse free of a prohibited substance at any race meeting. [32] The four principles of sentencing could be summarised as: Penalties are designed to punish the offender for his/her wrongdoing. They are not meant to be 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 similar 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. [33] The RIU believed all four principles were applicable in this case. [34] The Rules of HRNZ include the principles for Judicial Committees. These are reflected in cl 5.1 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure for the Judicial Committee and Appeals Tribunal which states: The purpose of proceedings before a Judicial Committee or Appeals Tribunal include: to ensure that racing is conducted in accordance with the code rules; to uphold and maintain the high standards expected of those participating in the sport of racing and the racing industry; to uphold and maintain the integrity of the sport of racing and the racing industry; and to protect the participants in the sport of racing, the racing industry, and the public. [35] The RIU identified a number of decisions, which might be of assistance to the Judicial Committee. [36] In RIU v Dalgety 20 February 2013, Mr Dalgety presented a horse to race with the presence of Phenylbutazone. Phenylbutazone was located at the stable, however Mr Dalgety could not explain how the horse tested positive. The breach was admitted. Mr Dalgety had a previous breach of the prohibited substance rule. Mr Dalgety admitted the breach and was fined $6,000 plus $350 in JCA costs. [37] In RIU v A & L Neal 7 May 2015, Mr and Mrs Neal presented a horse to race with Flunixin, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, analgesic (pain relief) and antipyretic (reduce fever). The Neals advised they had been treating the horse within the withholding period guidelines for the medication. The Neals had a previous breach of the prohibited substance rule. The breach was admitted and the penalty was a $5,500 fine. [38] The final case was NZTR v Howe 12 November 2015. Mr Howe presented a horse with Dextrorphan, which is found in cough medicines and suppressants. Mr Howe was unable to offer an explanation as to how the positive swab occurred. The breach was admitted and Mr Howe, who had not previously breached the prohibited substance rule, was fined $5,000. [39] The RIU identified the aggravating features of the case as being: a. The security of prescribed medications at the stable was poor with medications not being locked away securely. b. Other trainers at the stables also had medications insecure including Phenylbutazone. c. The stables were shared by four trainers at the time of the positive swab occurring, with none of the trainers present securely locking their respective medicines. d. Ms Westrum had left the horse ELITE EXCUSE unattended for a short period of time when watching another stable runner race. e. This was the third breach of the prohibited substance rule within a four-year period for Ms Westrum. f. Ms Westrum’s two previous breaches of this rule were while training in partnership with her partner Mr J Keast. Both these breaches involved high TCO2 readings. Ms Westrum was fined $2,500 plus $700 JCA costs for the first breach in July 2013. For the second breach in November 2013, Ms Westrum was suspended for a six-month period and fined $2,000 plus costs of $600 to the RIU. The decision stated the breaches had occurred a short time after the initial decision was released, which was an aggravating feature. Mr Keast did not have his horseman’s licence suspended and was permitted to continue driving. g. The level of Phenylbutazone in ELITE EXCUSE was very high. [40] Mitigating circumstances were: a. When spoken to by RIU Racing Investigators, Ms Westrum was co-operative and made her stables openly available for inspection. b. Ms Westrum’s stable was clean and presented in a tidy condition. c. The stable entrance has a homestead in the driveway that has to be passed prior to gaining access to the stabling area. d. Ms Westrum admitted the breach of the Rules at the first available opportunity. e. Ms Westrum’s conduct throughout the investigation had been totally professional and she had been co-operative at all times. [41] The RIU sought the disqualification of ELITE EXCUSE pursuant to r 1004D. [42] The JCA guidelines dated 1 May 2015 provide a starting point of $8,000 for a breach of r 1004(1A). The RIU submitted a fine of $10,000 was appropriate after taking into consideration the aggravating factors, which they believed outweighed the mitigating factors. [43] The RIU made no application for costs. Respondent’s submissions [44] Ms Westrum commenced her written submissions by stating ELITE EXCUSE had surprised her connections by winning the race in question. Leading up to the race, the horse and stablemate HANDLEBAR HANK had been working together during the week. HANDLEBAR HANK had improved in his work and “had the mare covered every step of the way”. She had advised her owners that this week it would be his “time to shine”. [45] The respondent stated that betting records would show the stable connections put their money on HANDLEBAR HANK. Nobody touched ELITE EXCUSE because the stable did not think she could win from her poor draw. [46] HANDLEBAR HANK had raced well but did not win. Ms Westrum explained she was not watching ELITE EXCUSE’s race, as she was “on the Lindauer Lawn wrangling her 2-year-old as he had had enough of the races at this stage. Towards the end of the race the other guys caught my attention as they screamed louder than anyone else. I looked up and couldn’t believe my eyes when I spotted ELITE EXCUSE in front and charging for home with several lengths on the others. She won the race.” [47] Ms Westrum said she was very surprised ELITE EXCUSE had returned a positive, as the stable did not use Bute on their racehorses. The only time the stable would use Bute would be if there was an injury and the vet advised that the horse be put on that medication. In those circumstances, the horse would not be racing. [48] The level of Bute in ELITE EXCUSE at the time of swabbing was extremely high, and the respondent said this had not happened by contamination or carelessness. Someone had administered one or more excessive doses of Bute close to the mare's race day. She said: “It sure wasn’t me, and I am surprised and disappointed that the RIU is holding the extremely high level of Bute in the swab against me as an aggravating factor. If anything, it indicates that whoever gave the horse Bute wanted to be sure it was to be over the threshold.” She said she would never know who did it but she was adamant that someone had purposely done this to harm her and Mr Keast. She described how his stock saddle had been taken to with a knife recently and rugs and bits of gear (overchecks and leads) had gone missing. [49] Ms Westrum explained that she had now shifted into a different stable on the property, and she was taking precautions to stop anyone from getting to her horses. The gear room, in which there was a cabinet for medications, was padlocked every afternoon. They had also installed cameras and several warning signs to notify of the surveillance. [50] Ms Westrum reiterated that she did not give Bute to ELITE EXCUSE or any other horse on any occasion. She would have absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by giving such a drug to a horse close to race day. She stated: You will never win a race on Bute and escape a positive swab. So, you don’t get the stake, you have the embarrassment of telling the owners they are not going to get the several thousand dollars payout they were expecting, and as the trainer I risk losing my licence as well as being fined heavily. You could argue that I could have collected off the big dividend of $62 that the mare paid to win. Only I didn’t, because I didn’t bet on the horse at all, and I am positive that investigations into the betting records on the horse on the night showed no one had a decent punt on it. Why on earth would I put myself through this trouble with absolutely nothing to gain? I do not feel that I have been negligent in caring for our horses, and I think that if somebody targets you and deliberately trips you up by giving something to your horse(s) there is little you can do about it when you don’t see it coming. [51] Ms Westrum said she understood the point of sending a message out that a trainer could not give a horse a prohibited substance close to the races and get away with little consequence. However, she added, “The rigid rule of needing to punish anyone who has a positive swab unless they have solid proof of no wrongdoing sets it up for someone who wants to get one over an opponent.” [52] The respondent said her and her partner’s financial situation was not great. They have a young child, and also provide for his elderly mother who lives with them, as she is recovering from a stroke. [53] The past year she and her partner had finally managed to get some nice horses around them, and Mr Kotzikas, whose property they were training from, had given them a great opportunity to break in all his young stock that were coming through. This had also resulted in some quality horses for her to train for him. [54] Ms Westrum asked that the Committee take her circumstances into consideration and take the race off her only. It would be “terribly unfair that [she] should be punished harshly by a large fine or worse for something that not only did [she] not do, but whoever gave the horse Bute did so to achieve exactly that harsh punishment for [her].” [55] When questioned by the Committee at the telephone conference on 5 October, Ms Westrum stated she had informed the RIU about the vandalised gear (overchecks, leads, etc) but not the police. She said this had been in the old gear room in the barn that they used to share. She believed there had been a burn up in a drum on the property and that was possibly where the gear had ended up. Mr Allison confirmed that she had spoken to him about the gear. He had seen the damaged saddle, and he had advised her to improve security and to go to the police. [56] Ms Westrum explained that she and Mr Keast had not gone to the police at the time as the owner of the place, Mr Kotzikas, was overseas and, by the time he had returned, they thought it was then too late to go the police. She stated this was after the positive test. [57] Ms Westrum said the stable feeding practice was that the first person in the barn in the morning would feed the horses. The horses were not in named boxes but each horse had its own box that it occupied on a regular basis. There was an automatic water trough that was fixed in the horse’s box. Prior to the positive test, the only concern was with her horses not eating. Since they had changed barns, this was no longer a worry. [58] Mr Allison stated that the RIU had investigated Ms Westrum’s claims. The persons, to whom they had spoken, had all vehemently denied any involvement. There had been a claim from these persons that ELITE EXCUSE had received a bonus winning maiden payment but the RIU had concluded there was nothing to this claim. Ms Westrum said there was a possibility this claim was made because other trainers were jealous she and Mr Keast were breaking in horses for Mr Kotzikas and, as a consequence, they were receiving some good horses to train. [59] Ms Westrum said the horse with laminitis that was being treated with Bute had been in and out of the stable. It was only there sometimes. She understood the Bute was being administered by way of a paste. [60] Mr Allison confirmed that there were a number of trainers sharing the barn that ELITE EXCUSE was stabled in at the time. Medications were not held securely. This included the Bute, which belonged to another trainer, and the respondent’s own medications, which were in unlocked drawers. Ms Westrum stated that now they had moved barns, all her medications were locked away in a secure area. Decision [61] The maximum fine under r 1004(7)(a) was increased by HRNZ from $10,000 to $20,000 in 2011, reflecting the desire of that body to provide a greater deterrent. Therefore, in the Committee’s view, penalties imposed for breaches of the rule prior to March 2011 need to be viewed in that light, and we refrain from referring to these. [62] The JCA Penalty Guidelines provide a starting point of $8,000 for a breach of r 1004(1A). We adopt this figure. [63] The RIU submit a fine of $10,000 is the appropriate final penalty. This figure seems high when regard is had to the JCA starting point, and to Dalgety ($6,000 — similar fact scenario to the case before us and there had been a previous breach of the prohibited substance rule) and Williamson (December 2012 — $3,500 — procaine — no previous breaches of rule). We note that both these cases predate the JCA Penalty Guide, which applies from 1 May 2015. We also refer to Neal (horse treated with drug within withholding periods — previous breach of rule — $5,500 — RIU submitted a $6,000 fine was appropriate — no reference to JCA Penalty Guide). [64] The parties agree it is imperative for the future of the industry that racing be perceived to be, and indeed is, drug free. To this end, in imposing penalty we believe the relevant considerations were correctly identified by the Appeals Tribunal in Justice (14 March 2012) when it stated at [81]: “Once a breach is established, general deterrence and denunciation are appropriate in imposing penalty. There is a need to bring home to trainers/owners the heavy responsibility of presenting horses free of prohibited substances.” [65] We agree that the duties on trainers with respect to prohibited substances are high and appropriately so. As stated by the Appeals Tribunal in L 27 April 1998, which considered the predecessor to the prohibited substance rule, the drug negligence rule, proper care and vigilance is required at all times at the stables and the track. [66] The RIU have submitted the aggravating features outweigh the mitigating ones. Hence, the submission that a fine of $10,000 is the appropriate final penalty. We now examine whether this is so. [67] The circumstances of the breach can be described as “unusual”. The level is very high, the horse, which won the race, was racing poorly at the time, as evidenced by the fact that the horse was the outsider in the field, and the betting patterns evidenced no irregularities. [68] The charge, of course, is one of presenting, not one of administration. As is common with cases of presenting a horse to race with a prohibited substance, there is no explanation as to how the horse came to return a positive test. The onus under r 1004(1A), however, is on the trainer to present a horse free of any prohibited substance. [69] This breach of the Rules is one of absolute liability: see Justice 2011 — confirmed both by an Appeals Tribunal and by the High Court in Justice v HRNZ [2012] NZHC 3484. Hence, the respondent’s admission of the breach. We acknowledge that this admission has been made in circumstances where Ms Westrum cannot see an obvious fault of her doing. Her suspicions are that unknown “unscrupulous persons” who have a vendetta against her have “got at” the horse. If this is so, and we draw no conclusion on this point, as there is simply no evidence before us, other than to note Ms Westrum has expressed concern to the RIU as to unauthorised activities (damage to gear, etc) at the property, including her stabling area. [70] The parties’ submissions as to penalty are disparate. The RIU has submitted a final penalty $2000 above the starting point in the JCA Penalty Guide is appropriate due to the respondent’s previous breaches and poor security. Ms Westrum has requested that there be no penalty, due to the fact, as we have noted, she believes she has not been at fault and has only admitted the breach because she is aware it attracts absolute liability. She has submitted that a suspension is not appropriate and, if we impose a penalty, that it should be only a modest fine. [71] We believe this breach of the Rules is not of such gravity that we need to place Ms Westrum’s livelihood in jeopardy by way of the imposition of a penalty of disqualification or suspension. Nevertheless, the penalty that is imposed upon the respondent has to be at a level that protects the public by ensuring appropriate standards of professional behaviour. This is a key consideration. [72] As Mr Allison acknowledges in his penalty submission, the RIU investigation has been unable to determine the cause of the positive test. Ms Westrum is adamant that neither she nor Mr Keast had been responsible for the positive. [73] That someone unknown has been able to give Bute to the horse, or there was a mix up in the feeding, or the Bute was given not to the horse housed opposite ELITE EXCUSE but to ELITE EXCUSE, raises the issue of stable security. And this is where the emphasis has to be when we determine penalty. [74] Mr Allison described the security at the stable as “poor” or “lax”. The RIU inspection of the respondent’s stable evidenced that the gate to the property could be opened without a code and cabinets containing medications were insecure. We are reluctant on the evidence before us to draw any inference adverse to the respondent from the fact that other trainers at the stables shared by Ms Westrum had insecure medications. We thus do not accept points, b. and c. (see [39]) in the informant’s submissions, as constituting aggravating factors. Ms Westrum is only responsible for her cabinet and its medications but we would have thought previous breaches of the prohibited substance rule would have alerted Ms Westrum to the need to ensure prohibited substances were securely housed and that her team of horses were kept at an appropriate distance from horses being treated with such substances. This clearly was not the case. [75] We note that Ms Westrum left ELITE EXCUSE unattended whilst watching another horse in her team race. This, of course, is not an unusual practice where trainers have a number of horses racing on the card. The Club provides security at the stables. We observe the Committee in Dalgety stated: “It has been held, in many previous cases, that it is negligent to leave a horse or horses unattended at the racecourse for any length of time. In saying this, the Committee accepts that to do otherwise can often involve very real logistical problems for trainers.” Thus, in assessing Ms Westrum’s degree of culpability, we do not attach any significant weight to the fact she left ELITE EXCUSE unattended for a short period of time. [76] A further factor when assessing Ms Westrum’s degree of culpability and the seriousness of the breach is how much weight to give to the fact that the level of Phenylbutazone was very high. The issue of the effect upon the horse of Bute at the level disclosed in the test has not been addressed in the submissions before us. However, the informant’s submissions appear to ask us to draw the inference that this is a factor that influenced the performance of the horse. The fact the horse’s performance was out of character when regard is had to her recent starts would support this, but the respondent also has a valid point when she submits that had a person “got at the horse”, then the higher the level, the greater the chance the horse would perform well and that the horse would be drug tested after the race. In the circumstances of this case, we are reluctant to place undue weight on the level of Phenylbutazone. It is a factor that goes into the mix and is considered in the round. [77] The respondent’s previous breaches were different in nature to the one before us, involving, as they did, elevated TCO2s. They occurred at a time when Ms Westrum was not training in her own right but was co-training with Mr J Keast. Nonetheless, this a third breach of the prohibited substance rule in four years. [78] There has to be an increase in the $8,000 starting point for the previous breaches but the fact they were TCO2s rather than Bute is, in our view, a relevant consideration. In addition, we recognise the need to have regard to proportionality with both our starting point and the penalty imposed on the earlier occasions when assessing the size of this uplift. [79] Taking into account also the comparable cases that we have identified (where there had been only one previous breach), and the security measures then in place at the respondent’s stable, we believe an uplift in the starting point to $10,000 is appropriate. [80] The most significant mitigating factors are the admission of the breach and Ms Westrum’s immediate co-operation with the RIU investigation. With the breach of the prohibited substance rule being one of absolute liability, we believe a 10% reduction is appropriate for the admission. Factoring in a further 10% discount for co-operation, remorse and personal circumstances, the total discount is 20%. [81] Ms Westrum is fined the sum of $8,000. Disqualification of horse [82] Pursuant to rr 1004(8) and 1004D, we order that ELITE EXCUSE be disqualified from race 2, the PI AND GJ KENNARD BLOODSTOCK MOBILE PACE, at the New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club’s meeting on 26 May 2017. Stakes are to be paid accordingly. Costs [83] The RIU do not seek costs. The matter has been heard “on the papers”. There is no award in favour of the JCA. Dated at Dunedin this 18th day of October 2017. Geoff Hall, Chairman   Harnesslink Media

Harness Racing New South Wales (HRNSW) Stewards commenced an Inquiry today into a report received from the Australian Racing Forensic Laboratory that Xylometazoline was detected in the blood sample taken from WAKE UP QUINN following its win in race 8, the PARKES FURNITURE ONE PACE (2040 metres) conducted at Parkes on Sunday 6 August 2017. The “B” sample was confirmed by Racing Analytical Services Limited (RASL) in Victoria. Ms Amanda Coffee appeared at the Inquiry and was represented by solicitor Mr Glenn Walters. Ms Coffee provided evidence regarding her training establishment and husbandry practices. Evidence was also presented to the Inquiry by Ms Sharon Coffee and HRNSW Regulatory Veterinarian Dr Martin Wainscott. Certificates of Analysis were also presented in evidence. Ms A. Coffee pleaded guilty to a charge issued pursuant to Australian Harness Racing Rules (AHRR) 190 (1), (2) & (4) as stated: 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…. (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. Following an application made on behalf of Ms A. Coffee, the Inquiry was adjourned with respect to the matter of penalty until a date to be fixed. Acting under the provisions of Rule 195, WAKE UP QUINN was disqualified from the abovementioned race. Michael Prentice - Integrity Manager   (02) 9722 6600 - mprentice@hrnsw.com.au Grant Adams - Chairman of Stewards (02) 9722 6628 - gadams@hrnsw.com.au

On Wednesday 11 October 2017, Harness Racing New South Wales (HRNSW) Stewards concluded an Inquiry that commenced on Wednesday 27 September 2017 into a report received from the Australian Racing Forensic Laboratory that 3-methoxytyramine (including both free 3-methoxytyramine and 3-methoxytyramine liberated from its conjugates) above the threshold of 4.0 milligrams per litre in urine had been detected in the urine sample taken from; HOT SHOT WOMAN following its run in race 3, the ROCK N ROLL HEAVEN ALABAR NSW BREEDERS CHALLENGE FOUR-YEAR-OLD MARES FINAL (GROUP 1)(1609 metres) conducted at Tabcorp Park Menangle on Sunday 25 June 2017. The “B” sample was confirmed by Racing Analytical Services Limited (RASL) in Victoria. Michael Langdon appeared at the Inquiry and provided evidence regarding his training establishment and his husbandry practices. Evidence was presented to the Inquiry by HRNSW Regulatory Veterinarian Dr Martin Wainscott and the Certificates of Analysis were also presented in evidence. Mr Langdon pleaded guilty to a charge issued pursuant to Australian Harness Racing Rules (AHRR) 190 (1), (2) & (4) as stated: 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…. (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 Langdon was disqualified for a period of 2 years to commence from 4 August 2017, the date upon which he was stood down pursuant to AHRR 183. In determining penalty Stewards acknowledged the following; Mr Langdon’s guilty plea;Mr Langdon’s involvement in the harness racing industry;Classification of the Prohibited Substance;A previous Prohibited Substance matter in 1995 andMr Langdon’s licence history and other personal subjective facts. Acting under the provisions of Rule 195, HOT SHOT WOMAN was disqualified from the abovementioned race. Mr Langdon was advised of his right to appeal these decisions. Harness Racing NSW (HRNSW) is the controlling body for harness racing in New South Wales with responsibility for commercial and regulatory management of the industry including 33 racing clubs across the State. HRNSW is headed by an industry-appointed Board of Directors and is independent of Government. To arrange an interview or for further information please contact: Michael Prentice - Integrity Manager   (02) 9722 6600 - mprentice@hrnsw.com.au Graham Loch - Chairman of Stewards (02) 9722 6628 - gloch@hrnsw.com.au

Office of Racing Integrity Stewards today inquired into a report from the analyst that d amphetamine and d Methamphetamine had been detected in a urine sample provided by licenced harness racing driver James Austin at the Tasmanian Pacing Club race meeting on 21 July 2017. Evidence was tendered today from Mr James Austin who explained the circumstances leading up to the positive finding. Evidence was also taken from Mr Paul Zahra (Racing Analytical Services Ltd), who explained the method and results of analysis. After consideration, Stewards charged Mr Austin pursuant to AHRR 250(1)(a) which states; ‘A driver commits an offence if a sample taken from him is found upon analysis to contain a substance banned by AHRR 251’. Mr Austin pleaded not guilty to the charge, however, after consideration of all the available evidence, Stewards found Mr Austin guilty of the charge. In assessing the matter of penalty, Stewards took into account Mr Austin’s current circumstances, both personal and financial, the nature of the substances detected, the fact this was Mr Austin’s second offence for this substance within a short timeframe. Stewards were also mindful of the importance for participants to be free of prohibited substances to ensure the safety and welfare of drivers and horses and the need for any penalty to act as an appropriate deterrent both specific and general. Mr Austin was disqualified for a period of 12 months backdated to commence from 3 August 2017, the day on which he was stood down from driving. Mr Austin was advised of his rights to appeal. Adrian Crowther CHAIRMAN OF STEWARDS

Office of Racing Integrity Stewards today inquired into a report from the analyst that, Altrenogest had been detected in a urine sample taken from BOBBY JOE prior to it competing in trial 3 at the Tasmanian Pacing Club on 26 June 2017. Stewards considered evidence tendered by trainer Mr Kevin Denny, Paul Zahra (Racing Analytical Services Ltd), Mr Adam Cawley (Australian Racing Forensic Laboratory) and Veterinarian Dr Peter Horridge. Mr Kevin Denny subsequently pleaded guilty to a charge pursuant to Australian Harness Racing Rule (AHHR) 190(1) which states: ‘A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances’. The particulars of the charge were that Mr Kevin Denny did present BOBBY JOE for racing at the Tasmanian Pacing Club trials on 26 June 2017 when a post-race urine sample taken from that gelding was found to contain the prohibited substance Altrenogest. Mr Denny was further charged under the provisions of 190(B)(1)(b) for failing to adequately maintain a log book of treatments to which he pleaded guilty. Stewards imposed a fine of $2000 for the breach of AHHR 190(1) in these circumstances and a fine of $200 was imposed for the breach of rule 190(B)(1)(b). Acting under the provisions of AHRR 195, BOBBY JOE was disqualified from its performance in trial 3 at the Tasmanian Pacing Club 2017 and Stewards directed that the placings be amended accordingly. Adrian Crowther CHAIRMAN OF STEWARDS   

ON Friday September 8, 2017, Harness Racing New South Wales (HRNSW) Stewards suspended the licence of trainer, Ms Amanda Coffee, pursuant to Australian Harness Racing Rule 183. HRNSW has taken these measures after receiving a report from the Australian Racing Forensic Laboratory (ARFL) that xylometazoline had been detected in the blood sample taken from WAKE UP QUINN following its win in race 8, the PARKES FURNITURE ONE PACE (2040m) at Parkes on Sunday August 6, 2017. The “B” sample has been sent to Racing Analytical Services Limited (RASL) in Victoria for confirmatory testing. HRNSW Stewards considered all available evidence at that time and determined that Rule 183 should be invoked based on the following factors: The existence of a prima facie case against you based on the certificate from ARFL; The nature of the substance; The absolute nature of AHRR 190 offences; The likely penalty of a significant period of disqualification if a prohibited substance offence is proven; The high unlikelihood that AHRR 256 will have any application if a prohibited substance offence is proven; The fact that this is not a finding of guilt and that this will militate against any perceived reputational damage as a result of a suspension; The fact that an offence against AHRR 190 does not involve any aspect of intent and that this must further militate against any perceived reputational damage as a result of a suspension.  (h) HRNSW’s protective objectives in the course of its core function to control, supervise and regulate harness racing in this State Ms Coffee has not been charged with any breach of the Rules and has been advised of her right of appeal against the imposition of Rule 183. HRNSW Stewards have commenced an investigation into this sample result and an Inquiry will be scheduled in due course. MICHAEL PRENTICE | INTEGRITY MANAGER (02) 9722 6600 •  mprentice@hrnsw.com.au GRAHAM LOCH | CHAIRMAN OF STEWARDS (02) 9722 6600 •  gloch@hrnsw.com.au

The Victorian Labor Government has made a $1.6 million investment in a world-class drug testing laboratory to fight against performance enhancing drugs in racing. The Racing Analytical Services Limited (RASL) laboratory at Flemington, which carries out more than 50,000 tests per year from race horses and greyhounds, will receive the funding boost to invest in sophisticated new machinery and equipment to remain at the cutting edge of drug screening in Australia and internationally. RASL takes blood, hair and urine samples to test for different banned substances, including peptides, proteins and cobalt. The laboratory is one of only five in the world that meets strict drug testing expertise standards recommended by the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities. Victoria’s racing industry, across thoroughbred, harness and greyhounds racing, has increased its testing by more than 50 percent over the past three years. A total of 14,140 samples were taken during the 2016/17 thoroughbred racing season and analysed for prohibited substances, with 3.468 blood and urine samples analysed during the 2016 Spring Racing Carnival. This includes an average of 50 percent of starters across metropolitan race meetings being tested during the 2016 Spring Racing Carnival. The Victorian racing industry sustains 26,500 full-time jobs and generates more than $2.8 billion to the state economy each year. Martin Pakula, Victoria’s Minister for Racing, believes that the investment in RASL is crucial for the integrity of racing. “The integrity of racing is paramount – the industry employs tens of thousands of people and generates billions of dollars for the Victorian economy,” Pakula said. “RASL is a global leader when it comes to research and drug testing in racing. This funding will help to ensure the laboratory can keep up with emerging trends in international doping.” The latest investment builds on the Labor Government’s $1.5 million contribution throughout 2015 and 2016 to support research and upgrade equipment at the laboratory. Since 2014, the Labor Government has delivered more than $3.1 million through the Victorian Racing Industry Fund. The Racing Analytical Services laboratory is matching the Government’s contribution dollar for dollar. Dr John McCaffrey, RASL Chairman, believes that the latest investment from the Government will help the laboratory maintain its world-class reputation.  “We are delighted the Victorian Government is continuing its partnership with RASL, to help enable us to meet the ongoing challenge of staying at the forefront of drug testing in racing and maintain our world-class reputation,” Dr McCaffrey said. By Shane Anderson Reprinted with permission of racing .com

The Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) Racing Appeals and Disciplinary (RAD) Board today considered charges issued by HRV Stewards under Australian Harness Racing Rules (AHRR) 190(1) and 190B(1) against licensed trainer Mr Aaron Brown. 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 ‘Misschanel’ after it finished first in Race 1, the ‘Swan Hill Ford Vicbred Platinum Country Series N Final’ at the Swan Hill harness racing meeting on 9 May 2017. Racing Analytical Services Limited (RASL) reported that analysis of that urine sample revealed the sample to contain arsenic in excess of the allowable threshold. Mr Brown was also charged with a breach of AHRR 190B(1) being that he failed to properly keep and maintain a log book in accordance with this rule.  Mr Brown pleaded guilty to both charges before submissions on penalty were heard from HRV Stewards and Mr Brown. In deciding an appropriate penalty, the HRV RAD Board considered Mr Brown’s guilty plea and cooperation throughout the investigation; Mr Brown’s clear record in regard to prohibited substance matters over a long involvement in the industry; both general and specific deterrence; consistency of penalty and other similar matters. Mr Brown was subsequently fined $3000, of which $1500 was suspended for a period of 12 months.  In relation to the log book charge, Mr Brown was fined the sum of $250.  The HRV RAD Board also ordered that, under AHRR 195, ‘Misschanel’ be disqualified from Race 1 at Swan Hill on 9 May 2017 and that the placings be amended accordingly. 8 September 2017  HRV RAD Board Hearing – Aaron Brown    Racing Appeals & Disciplinary Board 

Harness Racing New South Wales (HRNSW) Stewards have concluded their inquiries into the circumstances in which the prohibited substance, Clenbutorol, was detected in urine and blood samples taken from the registered horse DEN HELDER NZ at Cowra race meeting on Sunday, May 14, 2017. At Cowra racecourse on that day HRNSW Stewards and Investigators searched the vehicle and float of trainer N Carroll and subsequently the horses GUTS and DEN HELDER NZ were withdrawn from their respective races by order of Stewards.  Stewards also ordered swab samples to be taken from both horses. Evidence was heard from trainer M Carroll and HRNSW Regulatory Veterinarian Dr M Wainscott.  Further evidence from the Australian Racing Forensic Laboratory and Racing Analytical Service certifying the substance Clenbutorol had been detected in blood and urines samples taken from DEN HELDER NZ on that day was considered. HRNSW Stewards issued the following charge against M Carroll pursuant to Australian Harness Racing Rule (AHRR) 190 (1), (2) and (4) as follows: (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…. (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. 5)  A horse is presented for a race during the period commencing at 8.00 a.m. on the day of the race for which the horse is nominated and ending at the time it is removed from the racecourse after the running of that race. M Carroll pleaded guilty to having presented DEN HELDER NZ to the races following which a prohibited substance, Clenbutorol, was detected by two laboratories approved by HRNSW and was disqualified for a period of 14 months to commence from June 22 2017, the date upon which he was initially stood down. Stewards acknowledge that at the time of presentation DEN HELDER NZ had been in the care and under the control of trainer N Carroll.  At a future date N Carroll will be required to attend a further inquiry in this matter. In considering penalty Stewards were mindful of the following: The serious nature of this offence; M Carroll’s guilty plea; A previous prohibited substance offence; M Carroll’s licence history in excess of 34 years; The particular circumstances surrounding the offence; Other personal subjective facts. M Carroll was advised of his right to appeal this decision. MICHAEL PRENTICE | INTEGRITY MANAGER (02) 9722 6600 •  mprentice@hrnsw.com.au GRAHAM LOCH | CHAIRMAN OF STEWARDS (02) 9722 6600 •  gloch@hrnsw.com.au

At its August 21 meeting at Del Mar Turf Club in Del Mar, California, the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium board approved the immediate funding of two grant projects focused on inhibiting the use of illicit substances. One will study the detection of compounds called Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators (SARM) LGD-4033, which have the potential to mimic anabolic steroid effects on tissues – increasing muscle mass but lacking the androgenic effects that cause male characteristics. The goal of the second project is to improve the screening of and confirmation sensitivity for EPO-stimulating agents (ESAs) administered in very small amounts (called micro-dosing) to obtain a blood-doping effect while avoiding detection. The RMTC board heard plans for the creation of a four-year grant program beginning in 2018 to encourage tactical research into the detection and identification of illicit substances. The RMTC will pursue contributions from other industry groups and individuals to match funds provided by the RMTC. The funding level has not been finalized but is expected to be at least $500,000. “We want this program to provide researchers a consistent funding source for these types of tactical research projects,” said RMTC Executive Director Dr. Dionne Benson. “This initiative will enable us to make significant advances in targeting emerging threats and developing new techniques to test for them – both of which are essential to effectively regulating our sport.” RMTC Executive Director Dr. Dionne Benson also updated the board on the adoption status of the National Uniform Medication Program (NUMP). According to Benson, the Controlled Therapeutic Substances list has now been adopted in 22 of the 34 harness and flat racing pari-mutuel states, third-party veterinarian administration of furosemide has been adopted in 20, and the Multiple Medication Violations penalty system has been adopted in 15 states. In addition, she informed the board that the University of Florida laboratory’s application has been reviewed and the process of accreditation is underway. With the addition of the Florida laboratory, RMTC-accredited laboratories and those in the process of accreditation are now responsible for the testing of samples for 31 jurisdictions. “While we are encouraged to see University of Florida’s laboratory working to meet the RMTC Laboratory Accreditation standards, we urge the Delaware harness, South Dakota, Louisiana and Iowa commissions to utilize an RMTC-accredited laboratory,” said RMTC Chair Alex Waldrop. “Every laboratory across the U.S. must be RMTC-accredited so that the testing of horse racing samples can consistently and reliably detect a wide variety of substances at low concentrations.” In other business, several Model Rule recommendations were approved by the RMTC board for forwarding to the Association of Racing Commissioners International including: A model rule stating a claim shall be voided if that horse satisfies the regulatory authority’s definition of a claimed horse and dies or is euthanized, or is placed on the Official Veterinarians’ List prior to physical transfer to the claimant   The claimant can override the voiding of a claim for a Vet-Listed horse by so indicating on the official claim form at the time the claim is submitted   A model rule requiring every veterinarian treating a racehorse at a facility under the jurisdiction of the Racing Authority submit a Veterinarian’s Medication Report Form to the official veterinarian or other Regulatory Authority designee in a manner specified by the Regulatory Authority and in an approved format   A model rule requiring trainers or their designee maintain complete records for at least the last 30 days of all corticosteroid and intra-articular injections for all horses in his or her control including the date of the injection, name of the veterinarian performing the injection, articular space(s) or structure(s) injected, medications or biologicals used to inject each articular space, and dose in milligrams of each corticosteroid used   If a horse is successfully claimed by a new owner, the trainer of record at time of race must provide that horse’s complete corticosteroid and intra-articular injection record(s) for the last 30 days   30-day Records: ·         May be provided in paper or electronic form but must be provided in a format approved by the Regulatory Authority ·         Must be provided to the new trainer within 48 hours of the transfer of the horse – the trainer or his/her designee shall notify the regulatory veterinarian when the records have been provided ·         Submission may be delegated to the treating veterinarian, who shall provide the report to the new trainer within 48 hours of the transfer of the horse ·         Failure of the trainer to provide the 30-day Record shall result in disciplinary action The RMTC board decided to seek comments from constituents over the next 30 days on a Trainer’s Treatment Records model rule, which will be presented to them again at a later date. The RMTC consists of 23 racing industry stakeholders and organizations that represent Thoroughbred, Standardbred, American Quarter Horse and Arabian racing. The organization works to develop and promote uniform rules, policies and testing standards at the national level; coordinate research and educational programs that seek to ensure the integrity of racing and the health and welfare of racehorses and participants; and protect the interests of the racing public.   Racetrack Medication & Testing Consortium (RMTC)

The Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) Racing Appeals and Disciplinary (RAD) Board today considered charges issued by HRV Stewards under Australian Harness Racing Rules (AHRR) 190(1) and 190B(1) against licensed trainer-driver David Drury.  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 Mr Drury related to a post-race urine sample taken from the horse ‘Hes Just Fine’ after it won Race 3, the ‘Tabcorp Park Melton Choice Hotels Pace’, at Horsham on 21 April 2017. Racing Analytical Services Limited (RASL) reported that analysis of the urine sample revealed it to contain the prohibited substance caffeine along with its associated metabolites. The Australian Racing Forensic Laboratory (ARFL) in NSW confirmed these findings in the reserve portion of the relevant urine sample. Mr Drury was also charged with a breach of AHRR 190B(1) being that he failed to properly keep and maintain a log book in accordance with this rule.  Mr Drury pleaded guilty to both charges before submissions on penalty were heard from HRV Stewards and Mr Drury.  In deciding an appropriate penalty, the HRV RAD Board considered Mr Drury’s guilty plea and cooperation throughout the investigation; Mr Drury’s clear record in regard to prohibited substance matters over a long involvement in the industry; both general and specific deterrence; consistency of penalty and other similar matters. Mr Drury was subsequently fined $6000, of which $1000 was suspended for a period of 12 months. In relation to the log book charge, Mr Drury was fined the sum of $250. The HRV RAD Board also ordered that, under ARHR 195, ‘Hes Just Fine’ be disqualified from Race 3 at Horsham on 21 April 2017 and that the placings be amended accordingly. Racing Appeals & Disciplinary Board 

On 26 August 2016 Mr Mark Reed was requested to provide a urine sample to enable testing for banned substances. The initial sample provided at that time did not meet the required criteria’s and accordingly Mr Reed was directed to provide a second sample. Mr Reed refused to provide such second sample. Following this refusal Mr Reed was stood down under Rule 183(d). Stewards yesterday conducted an inquiry into Mark Reed refusing a reasonable direction from Senior Investigator Paul Criddle to provide a second urine sample at Gloucester Park on 26 August 2016. Evidence was taken from Paul Criddle and Mark Reed. Mr Reed was charged under Rule 238 which states: 238. A person shall not fail to comply with any order, direction or requirement of the Controlling Body or the Stewards relating to harness racing or to the harness racing industry. In determining penalty stewards took into account: His guilty plea His personal circumstances His time away from the industry The serious nature of the offence. Stewards were of the opinion that any refusal of a direction impacts on the ability of the stewards to regulate the industry and enforce the rules. Mr Reed was disqualified for 6 months effective immediately. Barbara Scott - Chief Steward Harness Ph: 9445 5176 barbara.scott@rwwa.com.au  

The Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) Racing Appeals and Disciplinary (RAD) Board today considered charges issued against licensed trainer-driver Paul Grech under Australian Harness Racing Rules (AHRR) 190(1) and 190B(1). Charge 1 – AHRR 190(1) reads as follows: A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances    This charge related to a post-race urine sample collected from the horse ‘Mister Oz’ after it placed 2nd in Race 1, the ‘Hargreaves Hill Trotters Handicap’, at Yarra Valley on 17 February 2016. Racing Analytical Services Limited (RASL) reported that analysis of the urine sample revealed the sample to contain a prohibited substance, namely cobalt, at a level of 237 micrograms per litre (µg/L), which is above the allowable threshold (at the time) of 200 µg/L in urine.    Charge 2 - AHRR 190B(1) reads as follows:    A trainer shall at all times keep and maintain a log book   The particulars of this charge related to the stable inspection conducted on 18 March 2016 by HRV Stewards, when Mr Grech was found not to keep and maintain a logbook as required.    Mr Grech pleaded guilty to both charges    The HRV RAD board heard evidence from Investigative Steward Stephen Svanosio, RASL Scientific Manager Paul Zahra and Veterinary Pharmacologist Professor Paul Mills. Each of those witnesses was cross-examined.   The HRV RAD Board also heard submissions from Ms Wood (for the HRV Stewards), Mr Grech and Mr Grech’s representative, Brian Lyngcoln.    In determining penalty, the HRV RAD Board considered Mr Grech’s 35-year involvement in the industry, his record which had two prior prohibited substance offences, the impact of any penalty on Mr Grech both specific and general deterrence and consistency of penalties in relation to cobalt cases. Taking all of these matters into account the HRV RAD Board imposed a 15-month suspension of Mr Grech’s trainers and drivers licences. The HRV RAD Board ordered the suspension to commence at midnight on Saturday 19 August 2017. On the second charge (relating to the log book) the HRV RAD Board imposed a $250 fine.   The HRV RAD Board also ordered that ‘Mister Oz’ be disqualified from Race 1 at Yarra Valley on 17 February 2016 and that the placings be amended accordingly   Racing Appeals & Disciplinary Board    Harness Racing Victoria  

The Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) Racing Appeals and Disciplinary (RAD) Board today considered a charge issued against licensed trainer-driver Ross Graham under Australian Harness Racing Rule (AHRR) 190(1), that states:  A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances The charge related to a post-race urine sample collected from the horse ‘Sonetto’ after it won Race 2, the ‘Elite Horse Transport Trot’, at Shepparton on 27 July 2016. Racing Analytical Services Limited (RASL) reported that analysis of the urine sample revealed the sample to contain a prohibited substance, namely cobalt, at a level of 298 micrograms per litre (µg/L), which is above the allowable threshold (at the time) of 200 µg/L in urine. Mr Graham pleaded not guilty to the charge.  The HRV RAD board considered statements from Investigative Steward Neal Conder, RASL Scientific Manager Paul Zahra and Veterinary Pharmacologist Professor Paul Mills, along with evidence from Veterinarians Dr Jim Vasey, Dr Richard Cust, Dr Greg Hargreaves and Swabbing Assistant Gordon Warner. After considering all the evidence tendered at the hearing and submissions from both parties, Mr Graham was found guilty of the charge.  The HRV RAD Board considered further penalty submissions from the HRV Stewards that included the seriousness of the charge; that the integrity of racing is protected; and comparable prohibited substance cases. Ross Graham’s penalty submissions were also considered, including his personal circumstances and a 25-year involvement in the industry with an excellent record. In considering all of these circumstances, in addition to both specific and general deterrence and consistency of penalty, the HRV RAD Board imposed a 15-month suspension of Mr Graham’s trainers licence. The HRV RAD Board ordered the suspension to commence at midnight on Sunday 13 August 2017. The HRV RAD Board also ordered that ‘Sonetto’ be disqualified from Race 2 at Shepparton on 27 July 2016 and that the placings be amended accordingly. Harness Racing Appeals & Disciplinary Board 

1 to 16 of 725
1 2 3 4 5 Next »