Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v SP Clark – Decision dated 25 August 2014
ID: JCA12750
Decision:
Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v Mr SP Clark
Rules: 87.1 & 87.3
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
HELD AT CAMBRIDGE RACEWAY
IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Greyhound Racing.
BETWEEN RIU (Mr N Grimstone – Manager Integrity Assurance appearing for the RIU)
Informant
AND Mr SP Clark– Licensed Trainer
Defendant
Information Nos: A7051and A7052
Venue: Cambridge Raceway
Judicial Committee: Mr A Dooley, Chairman – A Godsalve, Committee Member
Persons Present: Mr SP Clark – Licensed Trainer
Mr S Irving – Racing Investigator (Observing)
Mr A Cruickshank – Racing Investigator (Observing)
Mr N Grimstone – Manager Integrity Assurance
Registrar: Mr B Oliver
Plea: Admitted
Date of Hearing: 21 August 2014
Charges:
Information A7051: On the 29th day of June 2014, Stephen Paul Clark was the licensed trainer of the greyhound BLITZING MAYHEM which was presented for and raced in race eleven at a race meeting conducted by the Auckland Greyhound Racing Club at Manukau, when the said greyhound was found to have had administered to it a Prohibited Substance, namely Pheniramine, being an offence under the provisions of Rules 87.1 and 87.3 and punishable pursuant to Rule 89.1 and 87.4 of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association Rules.
Information A7052 : On the 13th day of July 2014, Stephen Paul Clark was the licensed trainer of the greyhound CORTEZ FLYER which was presented for and raced in race four at a race meeting conducted by the Auckland Greyhound Racing Club at Manukau, when the said greyhound was found to have had administered to it a Prohibited Substance, namely Pheniramine, being an offence under the provisions of Rules 87.1 and 87.3 and punishable pursuant to Rule 89.1 and 87.4 of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association Rules.
The Rules:
Rule 87 of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association provides as follows:
87.1 The Owner, Trainer or person in charge of a Greyhound Nominated to compete in an [sic] Race, shall produce the Greyhound for the Race free of any Prohibited Substances.
87.3 Without limiting the provisions of any of these Rules, the Owner and Trainer or person for the time being in charge of any Greyhound brought onto the Racecourse of any Club for the purposes of engaging in any Race which is found on testing, examination or analysis conducted pursuant to these Rules to have received a Prohibited Substance shall be severally guilty of an offence.
The Penalty Rule:
The penalty Rule is Rule 89.1 which provides:
Any person found guilty of an offence under these Rules shall be liable to:
a. A fine not exceeding $10,000.00 for any one offence; and/or
b. Suspension; and/or
c. Disqualification; and/or
d. Warning off.
The Rules also require the mandatory disqualification of the greyhound. Rule 87.4 provides:
Any greyhound which competes in a race and is found to be the recipient of a Prohibited Substance shall be disqualified from that race.
Mr Clark acknowledged that he understood the nature of the charge and the Rule.
Mr Clark confirmed that he admitted both breaches.
Mr Clark confirmed that relevant documents had been disclosed to him. He accepted the contents of the summary of facts and consented to them being admitted as evidence.
The proposed procedure for the conduct of the hearing was explained to the parties present.
Mr Grimstone produced written authorities from the General Manager of the RIU, Mr Godber, authorising the lodging of charges against Mr Clark.
Mr Grimstone presented to the hearing a Summary of Facts:
The respondent Mr S Clark is a licensed trainer under the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Association.
On the 29th June 2014 BLITZING MAYHEM was correctly entered and presented to race by Mr Clark in Race 11 at the Auckland Greyhound Club meeting at Manukau.
BLITZING MAYHEM finished first in the race winning a stake of $4,800 which was paid to Mr Clark. BLITZING MAYHEM is owned by the respondent, Messer’s B. Freemantle and P Dwyer.
Following the race the Greyhound was routinely swabbed. Mr Clark does not contest the swabbing process.
All samples from the meeting were couriered to the New Zealand Racing Laboratory and were analysed for the presence of substances prohibited under the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association.
On the 11th July 2014 the Official Racing analyst reported in writing that the sample from BLITZING MAYHEM had tested positive to Pheniramine.
Pheniramine is an anti – histamine commonly used for the treatment of allergic conditions, such as hay fever and conjunctivitis. It is available to purchase over the counter at most pharmacies.
Pheniramine is a prohibited substance within the meaning of the Rules and its presence in a race day sample is, prima facia, a breach of the Rules.
Mr Clark was interviewed at his property in Maramarua on Monday 21st of July 2014. He was very co–operative and when informed of the nature of the positive test, freely admitted that BLITZING MAYHEM had been administered with anti – histamine eye drops for an eye infection he believe was caused by pine needles from surrounding trees.
He further stated the drops had been purchased from a local pharmacy for human medication and presented investigators with the medication Naphcon–A, which lists on its label as containing Pheniramine. Subsequent analysis reveals that the bottle of Naphcon–A seized does in fact contain Pheniramine.
Mr Clark went on to state that BLITZING MAYHEM was not the only dog that had been treated in such a manner for similar conditions.
On the 24th of July 2014 investigators received a second Confirmation of Analysis in relation to the greyhound CORTEZ FLYER which stated that this greyhound also trained by Mr Clark had also tested positive to Pheniramine.
The details of this matter are that CORTEZ FLYER was correctly entered and presented to race by Mr Clark in race 4 of the Auckland Greyhound Racing Club meeting at Manukau on the 13th of July 2014.
CORTEZ FLYER finished in first in the race winning a stake of $720 which was paid to Mr Clark. CORTEZ FLYER is also owned by the same previously mentioned owners.
Following the race the greyhound was routinely swabbed and Mr Clark once again does not contest the swabbing process.
On the 25th of July 2014 Mr Clark was informed of the second positive for his greyhound CORTEZ FLYER. His explanation was the same as for BLITZING MAYHEM and cannot be advanced any further.
Once again Pheniramine is a prohibited substance within the meaning of the Rules and its presence in a race day sample is, prima facie, a breach of the Rules.
Mr Clark has been involved in the greyhound industry for in excess of 40 years. He has had no previous breaches in this time.
Evidence for the Defendant
Mr Clark told the Committee that he fully accepted that his Greyhounds were presented to race with a Prohibited Substance. Mr Clark said he took full responsibility for the results and was extremely disappointed as he was totally against any drug use in racing and added it was “a kick in the guts to be charged”. Mr Clark advised the Committee that he was not present when the product was administered to the Greyhounds suffering from eye infections.
Mr Clark produced a letter from his partner Ms K Wilson outlining the circumstances regarding the Greyhounds being administered this substance. In this letter Ms Wilson confirmed that she had administered the Prohibited Substance to the two Greyhounds because they suffered from allergic conjunctivitis. This caused blood shot eyes and a huge amount of green discharge to the animals. By her own admission all she ever intended to do was look after the dog’s welfare. She stated that Mr Clark has always been strict and instructed her on many occasions to be very careful of any treatment. She added at no stage did she ever intend to affect the dog’s performance through drug use.
Decision
As Mr Clark admitted the breaches we find the charges proved.
Submissions in relation to penalty by the Informant, Mr Grimstone:
The respondent Mr S Clark is a Licensed Owner/Trainer under the New Zealand Greyhound Rules of Racing. He has been involved in the industry the majority of his adult life, in excess of 40 years.
He has admitted to two separate Rule breaches in relation to two of his Greyhounds BLITZING MAYHEM 29 June 2014 at Manukau and CORTEZ FLYER 13th July 2014 also at Manukau.
The drug concerned, the details of its administering are all contained in the agreed summary of facts and these are not disputed.
The penalties which may be imposed are also fully alluded to in the attached Charge Rule and Penalty Provisions document.
Mr Grimstone believes that these two breaches can be dealt with by way of a monetary penalty. To that end he seeks a fine of $2,000 per breach.
In support of this penalty he referred us to previous decisions by the JCA which set the precedent and may be of some assistance.
RIU v G (26.6.11) penalty imposed $2,000 fine and Greyhound disqualified.
RIU v L (15.11.13) penalty imposed $1,450 and Greyhound disqualified.
RIU v R (2.11.12) penalty imposed $2,000 fine and Greyhound disqualified.
RIU v McA (3.10.11) penalty imposed $2,000 fine and Greyhound disqualified.
RIU v McI (4.11.13) penalty imposed $3,000 total charges with both Greyhounds disqualified.
This matter is not a situation where the drug in this case “Pheniramine” was administered to enhance performance.
The substance which was used was an over the counter anti – histamine purchased by Mr Clark’s partner to treat her on-going conjunctivitis. The animals also having eye infection were treated in the same fashion by her prior to race day.
It is not disputed that Mr Clark was doing what he believed was best for the welfare of both animals.
It is also acknowledged that Mr Clark has an on-going issue with his animals becoming infected in the future due to the location of his training facility, which is situated in the Maramarua Forest and the associated pollen storms which seasonally dump on his property.
It is also acknowledged that Mr Clark has been fully co–operative throughout the investigative process.
He has no other Rule breaches in his lengthy involvement in the industry.
Under Rule 87.4 both Greyhounds are required to be disqualified.
This then requires the issue of prize money paid to Mr Clark to be addressed. For BLITZING MAYHEM he received $4,800 and for CORTEZ FLYER he received $720. This being a total of $5,520.
The “B’ sample has not been tested and the RIU are seeking no costs.
In response to a questions from the Committee, Mr Grimstone assessed the culpability as mid to low range. He said the $2,000 proposed penalty was a starting point figure to consider and added the RIU did not believe there were any aggravating factors in this case.
Submissions in relation to penalty on behalf of the Defendant:
Mr Clark submitted he was in Christchurch when the Greyhounds were administered with the Prohibited Substance. He said there was no malice intended and the reason the dogs were treated was for their welfare. He said no vet, including NZGRA vet, can prescribe anything for this ongoing issue. He asked the Committee to consider the $5,500 in proposed loss of stake monies even though the product is not performance enhancing, rather a performance negative.
Mr Clark made reference to the other Prohibited Substances penalties noting they were all for performance enhancing products and in this case the product is supposed to cause drowsiness.
He submitted that he was totally outspoken against the use of any performance enhancing (or pulling up) drugs and believed there was no place for it in the industry.
In response to a question from the Committee regarding penalty, Mr Clark requested a reduction from the starting point of the RIU.
Reasons for Penalty
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented.
The mitigating factors are Mr Clark’s admission of the breaches, his excellent record over 40 years, and his co-operation with the Racing Investigators during the course of their enquiries.
This matter is an issue of strict liability and Greyhounds in the care of Mr Clark were administered with anti – histamine eye drops intended for human medication. However we are quite satisfied that an honest mistake was made and that there had been no intention to purposely administer a prohibited substance.
The Committee is mindful of the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in greyhound racing and the penalty must, therefore, be such that it leaves no doubt as to the very high responsibility placed on trainers to present their greyhounds to race free of any prohibited substance. In addition, any penalty must satisfy all persons associated with the industry, including the betting public, that integrity in greyhound racing is being maintained at the highest level at all times.
The Committee is of the view that the breaches can, on this occasion, be adequately dealt with by the imposition of a fine rather than any period of disqualification.
Mr Grimstone produced a schedule of 5 penalties handed down by Judicial Committees for breaches of the Prohibited Substance Rule from June 2011. The Committee noted that the levels of fines, involving various other substances, ranged between $1,450 and $3,000.
Although the Rule itself makes no reference to “negligence”, it is most relevant for a Judicial Committee considering penalty, in a case of a breach or breaches of the Prohibited Substance Rule, to consider the degree of negligence, if any, on the part of the trainer charged. It is our opinion the negligence is low range.
In arriving at penalty we are helped by the Committee in RIU v McI. The Committee in that case stated:
“In the present case, if it involved only a single breach, the Committee is of the view that a fine of $2,000.00 would have been appropriate for that breach.”
The difference between that case and Mr Clark’s case is that in McI he purchased a Prohibited Substance (Canine EPO) and used it with the intention of improving his dog’s performance. In our view the actions surrounding the charges before us today were significantly less than that.
We note in that decision Mrs Williams submitted that Mr McI culpability should be “assessed above mid-range”.
In today's case Mr Grimstone submitted that Mr Clark’s culpability should be “assessed medium to low range”.
Penalty:
After taking into account all of the evidence and submissions presented to us we consider an appropriate penalty is a total fine of $2,600.
Disqualification of Greyhounds:
Rule 87.4 of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association provides:
Any Greyhound which competes in a Race and is found to be the recipient of a prohibited Substance shall be Disqualified from that Race.
That requirement is mandatory. Accordingly the following orders are made:
BLITZING MAYHEM (1st) is disqualified from Race 11, Auckland Derby R/AF 527m, held at the Auckland Greyhound Racing Club’s meeting on 29th June 2014. As a consequence of the disqualification, the amended result for the race is as follows:
1st THRILLING CARTER
2nd ZIPPING ORRICK
3rd RITZA DANNY
4th ALWAYS WELCOME
CORTEZ FLYER (1st) is disqualified from Race 4, Triple Trio Trophies Plus Sprint, held at the Auckland Greyhound Racing Club’s meeting on 13th July 2014. As a consequence of the disqualification, the amended result for the race is as follows:
1st OUR CROWN JEWEL
2nd VICARIOUSLY
3rd PROCRASTINATION
4th CARTERS CASH
It is ordered that the stake paid to the connections of BLITZING MAYHEM and CORTEZ FLYER be repaid to New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association and that stakes for the race be redistributed and paid in accordance with the amended result.
Costs
Due to this matter being heard on a race day there will be no order for JCA costs.
The RIU did not seek any costs.
Adrian Dooley Alan Godsalve
Chair Committee Member
Dated 25 August 2014
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 28/08/2014
Publish Date: 28/08/2014
JCA Decision Fields (raw)
Dmitry: This section contains all JCA fields migrated from the raw data.
Data from these fields should be mapped appropriately to display amongst the standard fields above; please make note of any values below that are missing in the above standard fields but should be there.
hearingid: 5349c6bacf57241127c98fa2af893bbf
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 28/08/2014
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v SP Clark - Decision dated 25 August 2014
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v Mr SP Clark
Rules: 87.1 & 87.3
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
HELD AT CAMBRIDGE RACEWAY
IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Greyhound Racing.
BETWEEN RIU (Mr N Grimstone – Manager Integrity Assurance appearing for the RIU)
Informant
AND Mr SP Clark– Licensed Trainer
Defendant
Information Nos: A7051and A7052
Venue: Cambridge Raceway
Judicial Committee: Mr A Dooley, Chairman – A Godsalve, Committee Member
Persons Present: Mr SP Clark – Licensed Trainer
Mr S Irving – Racing Investigator (Observing)
Mr A Cruickshank – Racing Investigator (Observing)
Mr N Grimstone – Manager Integrity Assurance
Registrar: Mr B Oliver
Plea: Admitted
Date of Hearing: 21 August 2014
Charges:
Information A7051: On the 29th day of June 2014, Stephen Paul Clark was the licensed trainer of the greyhound BLITZING MAYHEM which was presented for and raced in race eleven at a race meeting conducted by the Auckland Greyhound Racing Club at Manukau, when the said greyhound was found to have had administered to it a Prohibited Substance, namely Pheniramine, being an offence under the provisions of Rules 87.1 and 87.3 and punishable pursuant to Rule 89.1 and 87.4 of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association Rules.
Information A7052 : On the 13th day of July 2014, Stephen Paul Clark was the licensed trainer of the greyhound CORTEZ FLYER which was presented for and raced in race four at a race meeting conducted by the Auckland Greyhound Racing Club at Manukau, when the said greyhound was found to have had administered to it a Prohibited Substance, namely Pheniramine, being an offence under the provisions of Rules 87.1 and 87.3 and punishable pursuant to Rule 89.1 and 87.4 of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association Rules.
The Rules:
Rule 87 of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association provides as follows:
87.1 The Owner, Trainer or person in charge of a Greyhound Nominated to compete in an [sic] Race, shall produce the Greyhound for the Race free of any Prohibited Substances.
87.3 Without limiting the provisions of any of these Rules, the Owner and Trainer or person for the time being in charge of any Greyhound brought onto the Racecourse of any Club for the purposes of engaging in any Race which is found on testing, examination or analysis conducted pursuant to these Rules to have received a Prohibited Substance shall be severally guilty of an offence.
The Penalty Rule:
The penalty Rule is Rule 89.1 which provides:
Any person found guilty of an offence under these Rules shall be liable to:
a. A fine not exceeding $10,000.00 for any one offence; and/or
b. Suspension; and/or
c. Disqualification; and/or
d. Warning off.
The Rules also require the mandatory disqualification of the greyhound. Rule 87.4 provides:
Any greyhound which competes in a race and is found to be the recipient of a Prohibited Substance shall be disqualified from that race.
Mr Clark acknowledged that he understood the nature of the charge and the Rule.
Mr Clark confirmed that he admitted both breaches.
Mr Clark confirmed that relevant documents had been disclosed to him. He accepted the contents of the summary of facts and consented to them being admitted as evidence.
The proposed procedure for the conduct of the hearing was explained to the parties present.
Mr Grimstone produced written authorities from the General Manager of the RIU, Mr Godber, authorising the lodging of charges against Mr Clark.
Mr Grimstone presented to the hearing a Summary of Facts:
The respondent Mr S Clark is a licensed trainer under the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Association.
On the 29th June 2014 BLITZING MAYHEM was correctly entered and presented to race by Mr Clark in Race 11 at the Auckland Greyhound Club meeting at Manukau.
BLITZING MAYHEM finished first in the race winning a stake of $4,800 which was paid to Mr Clark. BLITZING MAYHEM is owned by the respondent, Messer’s B. Freemantle and P Dwyer.
Following the race the Greyhound was routinely swabbed. Mr Clark does not contest the swabbing process.
All samples from the meeting were couriered to the New Zealand Racing Laboratory and were analysed for the presence of substances prohibited under the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association.
On the 11th July 2014 the Official Racing analyst reported in writing that the sample from BLITZING MAYHEM had tested positive to Pheniramine.
Pheniramine is an anti – histamine commonly used for the treatment of allergic conditions, such as hay fever and conjunctivitis. It is available to purchase over the counter at most pharmacies.
Pheniramine is a prohibited substance within the meaning of the Rules and its presence in a race day sample is, prima facia, a breach of the Rules.
Mr Clark was interviewed at his property in Maramarua on Monday 21st of July 2014. He was very co–operative and when informed of the nature of the positive test, freely admitted that BLITZING MAYHEM had been administered with anti – histamine eye drops for an eye infection he believe was caused by pine needles from surrounding trees.
He further stated the drops had been purchased from a local pharmacy for human medication and presented investigators with the medication Naphcon–A, which lists on its label as containing Pheniramine. Subsequent analysis reveals that the bottle of Naphcon–A seized does in fact contain Pheniramine.
Mr Clark went on to state that BLITZING MAYHEM was not the only dog that had been treated in such a manner for similar conditions.
On the 24th of July 2014 investigators received a second Confirmation of Analysis in relation to the greyhound CORTEZ FLYER which stated that this greyhound also trained by Mr Clark had also tested positive to Pheniramine.
The details of this matter are that CORTEZ FLYER was correctly entered and presented to race by Mr Clark in race 4 of the Auckland Greyhound Racing Club meeting at Manukau on the 13th of July 2014.
CORTEZ FLYER finished in first in the race winning a stake of $720 which was paid to Mr Clark. CORTEZ FLYER is also owned by the same previously mentioned owners.
Following the race the greyhound was routinely swabbed and Mr Clark once again does not contest the swabbing process.
On the 25th of July 2014 Mr Clark was informed of the second positive for his greyhound CORTEZ FLYER. His explanation was the same as for BLITZING MAYHEM and cannot be advanced any further.
Once again Pheniramine is a prohibited substance within the meaning of the Rules and its presence in a race day sample is, prima facie, a breach of the Rules.
Mr Clark has been involved in the greyhound industry for in excess of 40 years. He has had no previous breaches in this time.
Evidence for the Defendant
Mr Clark told the Committee that he fully accepted that his Greyhounds were presented to race with a Prohibited Substance. Mr Clark said he took full responsibility for the results and was extremely disappointed as he was totally against any drug use in racing and added it was “a kick in the guts to be charged”. Mr Clark advised the Committee that he was not present when the product was administered to the Greyhounds suffering from eye infections.
Mr Clark produced a letter from his partner Ms K Wilson outlining the circumstances regarding the Greyhounds being administered this substance. In this letter Ms Wilson confirmed that she had administered the Prohibited Substance to the two Greyhounds because they suffered from allergic conjunctivitis. This caused blood shot eyes and a huge amount of green discharge to the animals. By her own admission all she ever intended to do was look after the dog’s welfare. She stated that Mr Clark has always been strict and instructed her on many occasions to be very careful of any treatment. She added at no stage did she ever intend to affect the dog’s performance through drug use.
Decision
As Mr Clark admitted the breaches we find the charges proved.
Submissions in relation to penalty by the Informant, Mr Grimstone:
The respondent Mr S Clark is a Licensed Owner/Trainer under the New Zealand Greyhound Rules of Racing. He has been involved in the industry the majority of his adult life, in excess of 40 years.
He has admitted to two separate Rule breaches in relation to two of his Greyhounds BLITZING MAYHEM 29 June 2014 at Manukau and CORTEZ FLYER 13th July 2014 also at Manukau.
The drug concerned, the details of its administering are all contained in the agreed summary of facts and these are not disputed.
The penalties which may be imposed are also fully alluded to in the attached Charge Rule and Penalty Provisions document.
Mr Grimstone believes that these two breaches can be dealt with by way of a monetary penalty. To that end he seeks a fine of $2,000 per breach.
In support of this penalty he referred us to previous decisions by the JCA which set the precedent and may be of some assistance.
RIU v G (26.6.11) penalty imposed $2,000 fine and Greyhound disqualified.
RIU v L (15.11.13) penalty imposed $1,450 and Greyhound disqualified.
RIU v R (2.11.12) penalty imposed $2,000 fine and Greyhound disqualified.
RIU v McA (3.10.11) penalty imposed $2,000 fine and Greyhound disqualified.
RIU v McI (4.11.13) penalty imposed $3,000 total charges with both Greyhounds disqualified.
This matter is not a situation where the drug in this case “Pheniramine” was administered to enhance performance.
The substance which was used was an over the counter anti – histamine purchased by Mr Clark’s partner to treat her on-going conjunctivitis. The animals also having eye infection were treated in the same fashion by her prior to race day.
It is not disputed that Mr Clark was doing what he believed was best for the welfare of both animals.
It is also acknowledged that Mr Clark has an on-going issue with his animals becoming infected in the future due to the location of his training facility, which is situated in the Maramarua Forest and the associated pollen storms which seasonally dump on his property.
It is also acknowledged that Mr Clark has been fully co–operative throughout the investigative process.
He has no other Rule breaches in his lengthy involvement in the industry.
Under Rule 87.4 both Greyhounds are required to be disqualified.
This then requires the issue of prize money paid to Mr Clark to be addressed. For BLITZING MAYHEM he received $4,800 and for CORTEZ FLYER he received $720. This being a total of $5,520.
The “B’ sample has not been tested and the RIU are seeking no costs.
In response to a questions from the Committee, Mr Grimstone assessed the culpability as mid to low range. He said the $2,000 proposed penalty was a starting point figure to consider and added the RIU did not believe there were any aggravating factors in this case.
Submissions in relation to penalty on behalf of the Defendant:
Mr Clark submitted he was in Christchurch when the Greyhounds were administered with the Prohibited Substance. He said there was no malice intended and the reason the dogs were treated was for their welfare. He said no vet, including NZGRA vet, can prescribe anything for this ongoing issue. He asked the Committee to consider the $5,500 in proposed loss of stake monies even though the product is not performance enhancing, rather a performance negative.
Mr Clark made reference to the other Prohibited Substances penalties noting they were all for performance enhancing products and in this case the product is supposed to cause drowsiness.
He submitted that he was totally outspoken against the use of any performance enhancing (or pulling up) drugs and believed there was no place for it in the industry.
In response to a question from the Committee regarding penalty, Mr Clark requested a reduction from the starting point of the RIU.
Reasons for Penalty
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented.
The mitigating factors are Mr Clark’s admission of the breaches, his excellent record over 40 years, and his co-operation with the Racing Investigators during the course of their enquiries.
This matter is an issue of strict liability and Greyhounds in the care of Mr Clark were administered with anti – histamine eye drops intended for human medication. However we are quite satisfied that an honest mistake was made and that there had been no intention to purposely administer a prohibited substance.
The Committee is mindful of the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in greyhound racing and the penalty must, therefore, be such that it leaves no doubt as to the very high responsibility placed on trainers to present their greyhounds to race free of any prohibited substance. In addition, any penalty must satisfy all persons associated with the industry, including the betting public, that integrity in greyhound racing is being maintained at the highest level at all times.
The Committee is of the view that the breaches can, on this occasion, be adequately dealt with by the imposition of a fine rather than any period of disqualification.
Mr Grimstone produced a schedule of 5 penalties handed down by Judicial Committees for breaches of the Prohibited Substance Rule from June 2011. The Committee noted that the levels of fines, involving various other substances, ranged between $1,450 and $3,000.
Although the Rule itself makes no reference to “negligence”, it is most relevant for a Judicial Committee considering penalty, in a case of a breach or breaches of the Prohibited Substance Rule, to consider the degree of negligence, if any, on the part of the trainer charged. It is our opinion the negligence is low range.
In arriving at penalty we are helped by the Committee in RIU v McI. The Committee in that case stated:
“In the present case, if it involved only a single breach, the Committee is of the view that a fine of $2,000.00 would have been appropriate for that breach.”
The difference between that case and Mr Clark’s case is that in McI he purchased a Prohibited Substance (Canine EPO) and used it with the intention of improving his dog’s performance. In our view the actions surrounding the charges before us today were significantly less than that.
We note in that decision Mrs Williams submitted that Mr McI culpability should be “assessed above mid-range”.
In today's case Mr Grimstone submitted that Mr Clark’s culpability should be “assessed medium to low range”.
Penalty:
After taking into account all of the evidence and submissions presented to us we consider an appropriate penalty is a total fine of $2,600.
Disqualification of Greyhounds:
Rule 87.4 of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association provides:
Any Greyhound which competes in a Race and is found to be the recipient of a prohibited Substance shall be Disqualified from that Race.
That requirement is mandatory. Accordingly the following orders are made:
BLITZING MAYHEM (1st) is disqualified from Race 11, Auckland Derby R/AF 527m, held at the Auckland Greyhound Racing Club’s meeting on 29th June 2014. As a consequence of the disqualification, the amended result for the race is as follows:
1st THRILLING CARTER
2nd ZIPPING ORRICK
3rd RITZA DANNY
4th ALWAYS WELCOME
CORTEZ FLYER (1st) is disqualified from Race 4, Triple Trio Trophies Plus Sprint, held at the Auckland Greyhound Racing Club’s meeting on 13th July 2014. As a consequence of the disqualification, the amended result for the race is as follows:
1st OUR CROWN JEWEL
2nd VICARIOUSLY
3rd PROCRASTINATION
4th CARTERS CASH
It is ordered that the stake paid to the connections of BLITZING MAYHEM and CORTEZ FLYER be repaid to New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association and that stakes for the race be redistributed and paid in accordance with the amended result.
Costs
Due to this matter being heard on a race day there will be no order for JCA costs.
The RIU did not seek any costs.
Adrian Dooley Alan Godsalve
Chair Committee Member
Dated 25 August 2014
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Non-race day
Rules:
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid:
race_expapproval:
racecancelled:
race_noreport:
race_emailed1:
race_emailed2:
race_title:
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid:
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport:
waitingforpublication:
meet_emailed1:
meet_emailed2:
meetdate: no date provided
meet_title:
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation:
meet_racingtype:
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: