Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v GA Lawrence – decision dated 2 March 2015
ID: JCA14837
Decision:
Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v Mr GA Lawrence 26 February 2015
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 A Cruickshank – Racing Investigator appearing for the RIU)
Informant
AND Mr GA Lawrence – Licensed Owner/Trainer
Defendant
Information No: A7107, A7108 and A7110
Venue: Cambridge Raceway
Judicial Committee: Mr A Dooley, Chairman – Mr R Seabrook, Committee Member
Persons Present: Mr GA Lawrence – Licensed Owner/Trainer
Mr A Cruickshank - Racing Investigator
Registrar: Mr W Robinson – Stipendiary Steward
Plea: Admitted
Date of Hearing: 26 February 2015
Decision Dated: 2 March 2015
Charges
Information number A7107: that on the 24th day of December 2014, Arch Lawrence was the licensed Trainer of the Greyhound “TEEGAMBO” which was presented for and raced in Race 2 at a race meeting conducted by the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club at Cambridge, when the said Greyhound was found to have had administered to it a Category 1 Prohibited Substance, namely Morphine, 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 number A7108: that on the 2nd day of January 2015, Arch Lawrence was the licensed Trainer of the Greyhound “TEEGAMBO” which was presented for and raced in Race 9 at a race meeting conducted by the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club at Cambridge, when the said Greyhound was found to have had administered to it a Category 1 Prohibited Substance, namely Morphine, 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 number A7110: that On the 2nd January 2015, Arch Lawrence was the licensed Trainer of the Greyhound “TEEMARIA” which was presented for and raced in Race 8 at a race meeting conducted by the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club at Cambridge, when the said Greyhound was found to have had administered to it a Category 1 Prohibited Substance, namely Morphine, 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 86.4(as at 1st of February 2015)) 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 Lawrence acknowledged that he understood the nature of the charge and the Rule.
Mr Lawrence confirmed that he admitted all three breaches.
Mr Lawrence 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 Cruickshank produced written authorities from the General Manager of the RIU, Mr Godber, authorizing the lodging of charges against Mr Lawrence.
Mr Cruickshank presented to the hearing a Summary of Facts:
The respondent Gordon Albert (Arch) Lawrence is a licensed Owner/Trainer under the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Association.
Charge 1 - Information A7107
On the 24th December 2014 TEEGAMBO was correctly entered and presented to race by Mr Lawrence in Race 2 at the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club meeting at Cambridge.
TEEGAMBO underwent a random Post Race urine swab. Mr Lawrence does not contest the swabbing process. TEEGAMBO finished first of the eight Greyhounds and won a stake of $1,440.00.
All swab samples from the meeting were couriered to the New Zealand Racing Laboratory and were analyzed for the presence of substances prohibited under the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association.
On the 2nd January 2015 the Official Racing Analyst reported in writing that the sample from TEEGAMBO had tested positive to Morphine.
Charge 2— Information A7108
On the 2nd January 2015 TEEGAMBO was correctly entered and presented to race by Mr Lawrence in Race 9 at the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club meeting at Cambridge.
TEEGAMBO underwent a random Post Race urine swab. Mr Lawrence does not contest the swabbing process. TEEGAMBO finished third of the eight Greyhounds and won a stake of $2,775.00.
All swab samples from the meeting were couriered to the New Zealand Racing Laboratory and were analyzed for the presence of substances prohibited under the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association.
On the 28th January 2015 the Official Racing Analyst reported in writing that the sample from TEEGAMBO had tested positive to Morphine.
Charge 3 - Information A7110
On the 2nd January 2015 TEEMARIA was correctly entered and presented to race by Mr Lawrence in Race 8 at the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club meeting at Cambridge.
TEEMARIA underwent a random Post Race urine swab. Mr Lawrence does not contest the swabbing process. TEEMARIA finished third of the eight Greyhounds and won a stake of $750.00.
All swab samples from the meeting were couriered to the New Zealand Racing Laboratory and were analyzed for the presence of substances prohibited under the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association.
On the 28th January 2015 the Official Racing Analyst reported in writing that the sample from TEEMARIA had tested positive to Morphine.
Morphine like other Oploids acts directly on the central nervous system to relieve pain. It is a Restricted Veterinary Medicine and in its purest form is not available over the counter.
Morphine 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 Lawrence stated that the only reasonable explanation is that there has been a contamination of milk powder he has purchased from a local bulk retail store.
Mr Lawrence was spoken to at his home address on Thursday 29th January and again on 4th February 2015. He advised Investigators that he was shocked to learn of the positive tests and unsure how the Greyhounds had tested positive as he has never administered Morphine. Mr Lawrence does not feed his dogs bread. In previous cases before the JCA, Greyhounds have tested positive to Morphine after having consumed poppy seed bread.
The retail store sells bulk products including milk powder and poppy seeds. The products are located approximately 5m apart however Mr Lawrence stated that some customers are known to use their own Tupperware or similar type containers when purchasing their product and he believed that it is also possible that they use their own scoops to fill their containers. Mr Lawrence also stated that a contamination of the milk powder may have occurred in the shop storage area.
Mr Lawrence has been involved in the greyhound industry for approximately 15 years and is the Trainer of a number of Greyhounds. He has had no previous rule breaches in this time.
Evidence for the Defendant
Mr Lawrence told the Committee there was no reason he could find relating to the positive swabs to his Greyhounds. He meticulously investigated the Greyhounds' feed and he could find no evidence that there was any sign of contamination. He went on to say that the bulk store where he purchased his milk powder from may have been contaminated because they sold poppy seed in close proximity to the milk powder. He advised the Committee that he did not feed any bread in his Greyhounds’ diet as he was aware that poppy seeds can produce a positive result to morphine.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Lawrence advised that he had changed his milk powder supplier approximately twelve months ago. He confirmed that he had clear sampling results until December 2014.
Mr Lawrence informed the Committee that subsequent to the charges being instigated he requested that three of his Greyhounds be swabbed. The results came back negative to any prohibited substance.
Decision
As Mr Lawrence admitted the breach we find the three charges proved.
Submissions in relation to penalty by the Informant Mr Cruickshank:
1. The respondent Gordon Albert (Arch) Lawrence is a licensed Owner/Trainer under the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Association. He has been involved in the industry for approximately 15 years. He is 76 years of age with a date of birth of 10.09.38.
2. He has admitted a breach of the rules in relation to the Greyhound he trains, TEEGAMBO, on 24th December 2014 at the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club meeting at Cambridge.
3. He has admitted a breach of the rules in relation to the Greyhound he trains, TEEGAMBO, on 2nd January 2015 at the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club meeting at Cambridge.
4. He has admitted a breach of the rules in relation to the Greyhound he trains, TEEMARIA, on 2nd January 2015 at the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club meeting at Cambridge.
5. The drug concerned, the details of its administration are all contained in the agreed Summary of Facts and these are not disputed.
6. The penalties which may be imposed are also fully detailed in the attached Charge Rule Penalty provisions document.
7. On the 1 September 2014 the Board of Greyhound Racing New Zealand gave approval to new penalty standards and categorized various Prohibited Substances.
8. Morphine is categorized as a Category 1 Prohibited Substance. The new penalties allow for a maximum disqualification of 10 years.
9. However, Mr Cruickshank believes that this breach can be dealt with by way of monetary penalty. To that end I seek a fine of $3000.00 on each charge.
10. In support of this penalty Mr Cruickshank referred the Committee to previous decisions by the JCA which may be of some assistance.
11. RIU v MG CHILTON ROBERTS (2.11.12) in this matter was the non-intentional administration of Morphine through having fed poppy seed bread. Penalty imposed $2,000 fine, JCA costs of $350 and the Greyhound disqualified.
12. RIU v JA McARTHUR (3.10.11) the same circumstances as paragraph 11. Penalty imposed $2,000 fine, JCA costs of $500 and Greyhound disqualified.
13. RIU v TA AGENT (24.12.14) in this matter a Greyhound tested positive for Procaine Penicillin which was knowingly administered. The greyhound raced whilst the trainer mistakenly believed it was outside the withholding period. The penalty imposed was a fine of $3000 and the dog was disqualified.
14. RIU v TM PATTON (6.11.14) in this matter a Greyhound tested positive for Diclofenac which was mistakenly administered. The penalty imposed was a fine of $1,400 and the dog was disqualified.
15. RIU v SP CLARK (25.08.14) in this matter the two Greyhounds tested positive for Pheniramine which was mistakenly administered. The penalty imposed was a total fine of $2,600 and both dogs disqualified.
16. RIU v JT McINERNEY (4.11.13) this matter related to a performance enhancing Caffeine type product that was safe to use because it was undetectable. It was intentionally administered to two greyhounds and a fine of $1,500 was imposed for each animal and both Greyhounds disqualified.
17. This matter is not a situation where the drug in this case ‘Morphine’ was administered to enhance performance. Mr Lawrence runs a very professional and secure training establishment and in this case the administration of the Morphine has not been evidentially established.
18. When spoken to Mr Lawrence advised that he was shocked to learn of the positive test and spent many nights awake trying to establish how it was possible that his Greyhounds had tested positive.
19. It is acknowledged that Mr Lawrence has been fully co-operative throughout the investigative process.
20. He has no other Rule breaches during his 15 year involvement in the industry.
21. Under Rule 87.4 TEEGAMBO is required to be disqualified from both the meeting on 24th December 2014 and also 2nd January 2015.
22. TEEGAMBO won the race on 24th December 2014 and received a stake of $1,440. He finished third at the meeting on 2nd January and received a stake of $2,775.00. Repayment of these stakes totalling $4,215.00 is required.
23. Under Rule 87.4 TEEMARIA is required to be disqualified from the race on 2nd January 2015.
24. TEEMARIA finished third in the race and received a stake of $750.00. Repayment of the stake is required.
25. None of the ‘B’ samples have been tested and the R.I.U are not seeking costs.
Submissions in relation to penalty on behalf of the Defendant:
Mr Lawrence commenced his submissions by saying that he picked up his interest in racing Greyhounds from his neighbour over 15 years ago. He said since then he has become passionate about the sport and would never intentionally bring the industry into disrepute.
He said when he was first notified that one of his Greyhounds returned a positive swab to morphine he was in absolute disbelief. When the same Greyhound and another tested positive again a week later he said he was utterly shocked. He said he had to come to terms with the fact the results were correct but he was still completely at a lost as to how any of his Greyhounds could have ingested any morphine. He said he has been awake at night trying to determine where the morphine could have come from and although he had explored many possibilities he could not find a conclusive answer.
He submitted it was clear that contamination had occurred in the Greyhounds feed somewhere, either their meat, kibble or milk powder but he had no conclusive evidence for these sources. He advised the Committee that two other local Trainers have also had positive test results recently and the one common denominator is that they all feed their Greyhounds the same kibble. He said there was some analysis being done on the kibble at the moment, the results of which are not yet available. He said this may not be an accurate test because the sample may not be from the same bag of kibble they had feed their Greyhounds.
He submitted that given that he had no intent either knowingly or mistakenly to administer morphine to any of his animals at any time, he believed that any penalty imposed should be considered as one offence. He said this was because whatever contamination had occurred it had been the same incidence of contamination. He added that any fine should take into account his lack of intent.
He advised the Committee that in the case of RIU v MG Chilton Roberts the penalty imposed was $2,000 plus $350 JCA costs. He said however Mr Chilton Roberts had in fact fed poppy seed to his dog albeit mistakenly.
He also submitted in the case RIU v T Agent the heavier penalty of $3,000 was imposed because in this instance Mr Agent knowingly administered a banned substance.
He submitted that in light of these cases and the other examples that he had knowledge of he considered a maximum penalty of $2,000 to $3,000 would be more representative of the offence committed.
Mr Lawrence in conclusion submitted that he would like to inform the Committee of the impact this incident has had on him and how he now feels about what has previously been for him a most enjoyable retirement hobby. He said these charges have left him disheartened and the enjoyment that racing has always given him has now gone. He said he no longer felt confident feeding his Greyhounds.
Reasons for Penalty
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented.
The mitigating factors are Mr Lawrence's admission of the breaches, his excellent record over 15 years, and his co-operation with the Racing Investigators during the course of their enquiries. It was evident during the hearing that Mr Lawrence showed genuine remorse in finding himself in this situation and we assess his culpability is low range.
There was no evidence presented to us upon which it could be established precisely how the prohibited substance came to be introduced into the Greyhounds. Whether it happened as a result of some mistake at the kennels, was administered by a person unknown while the Greyhounds were unattended, or contamination of feed cannot be established. However, the Committee is fully satisfied that there was no intent by Mr Lawrence to gain an unfair advantage by feeding a prohibited substance to his Greyhounds. The Committee was made aware by Mr Lawrence and not disputed by the RIU that two other local Trainer’s Greyhounds have returned positive swabs to morphine from feeding kibble produced from the same supplier as that of Mr Lawrence.
The position facing this Committee today is that we are dealing with a Trainer whose integrity is not challenged by Mr Cruickshank and who has accepted his responsibility as a Trainer.
This Committee is mindful that on the 1 September 2014 the Board of Greyhound Racing New Zealand gave approval to new penalty standards and categorized various Prohibited Substances.
We note that the only charge pertinent to this Rule since 1 September 2014 was Mr Agent (24.12.14) who knowingly administered Procaine Penicillin and was fined a sum of $3,000.
Morphine is categorized as a Category 1 Prohibited Substance. The new penalties allow for a maximum disqualification of 10 years.
Mr Cruickshank advised that the new categories were published in the New Zealand Greyhound magazine in August 2014 and the Respondent acknowledged that he received that monthly magazine. He was therefore quite aware of the new categories.
In providing the Schedule of Categories of Prohibited Substances, clearly Greyhound Racing New Zealand is setting higher starting points for penalties in each category and is giving a warning to Trainers who race Greyhounds which have Prohibited Substances in them.
This matter is an issue of strict liability and Greyhounds in the care of Mr Lawrence were not presented to race free of any 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 Cruickshank produced a schedule of 6 penalties handed down by Judicial Committees for breaches of the Prohibited Substance Rule from October 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.
The Committee is aware of the case between RIU v Mr McInerney (4.11.13) where he was fined $1,500 for each Greyhound. We note the Judicial Committee assessed Mr McInerney’s culpability as above mid – range.
Given the unique circumstances in the present case and if it only involved a single breach the Committee is of the opinion that a fine of $3,000 would be appropriate for this breach. After taking into account the compelling mitigating factors and because two Greyhounds are involved this necessitates three separate charges. However, to impose a fine of $3,000 for each breach – a total of $9,000 – would result in a disproportionately severe penalty and the totality principle requires the Committee to ensure that Mr Lawrence receives an appropriate overall sentence. It is therefore necessary for us to adjust the total of the fines downward in order to achieve an appropriate relativity between the totality of Mr Lawrence’s culpability and the totality of the fines.
Penalty:
After taking into account all of the evidence and submissions presented to us we consider an appropriate penalty is a total fine of $4,000 which equates to $2,000 for a single charge and $1,000 each for the two other charges.
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.
TEEGAMBO is disqualified from both the meeting on 24th December 2014 and also 2nd January 2015.
TEEGAMBO won the race on 24th December 2014 and received a stake of $1,440. TEEGAMBO finished third at the meeting on 2nd January and received a stake of $2,775.00. Repayment of these stakes totalling $4,215.00 is required.
TEEMARIA is disqualified from the race on 2 January 2015.
TEEMARIA finished third in the race on 2 January 2015 and received a stake of $750.00.
It is ordered that the stake paid to the connections of TEEMARIA and TEEGAMBO be repaid to New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association and that stakes for the race be redistributed and paid in accordance with the amended results.
Costs
In addition, Mr Lawrence is ordered to pay the sum of $300 by way of contribution to the costs of the JCA.
The RIU did not seek any costs.
Adrian Dooley Chair
Richard Seabrook Committee Member
Dated 2 March 2015
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 02/03/2015
Publish Date: 02/03/2015
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: 8205e6d4d5ec29a3338c432ff0881e3f
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 02/03/2015
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v GA Lawrence - decision dated 2 March 2015
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v Mr GA Lawrence 26 February 2015
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 A Cruickshank – Racing Investigator appearing for the RIU)
Informant
AND Mr GA Lawrence – Licensed Owner/Trainer
Defendant
Information No: A7107, A7108 and A7110
Venue: Cambridge Raceway
Judicial Committee: Mr A Dooley, Chairman – Mr R Seabrook, Committee Member
Persons Present: Mr GA Lawrence – Licensed Owner/Trainer
Mr A Cruickshank - Racing Investigator
Registrar: Mr W Robinson – Stipendiary Steward
Plea: Admitted
Date of Hearing: 26 February 2015
Decision Dated: 2 March 2015
Charges
Information number A7107: that on the 24th day of December 2014, Arch Lawrence was the licensed Trainer of the Greyhound “TEEGAMBO” which was presented for and raced in Race 2 at a race meeting conducted by the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club at Cambridge, when the said Greyhound was found to have had administered to it a Category 1 Prohibited Substance, namely Morphine, 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 number A7108: that on the 2nd day of January 2015, Arch Lawrence was the licensed Trainer of the Greyhound “TEEGAMBO” which was presented for and raced in Race 9 at a race meeting conducted by the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club at Cambridge, when the said Greyhound was found to have had administered to it a Category 1 Prohibited Substance, namely Morphine, 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 number A7110: that On the 2nd January 2015, Arch Lawrence was the licensed Trainer of the Greyhound “TEEMARIA” which was presented for and raced in Race 8 at a race meeting conducted by the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club at Cambridge, when the said Greyhound was found to have had administered to it a Category 1 Prohibited Substance, namely Morphine, 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 86.4(as at 1st of February 2015)) 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 Lawrence acknowledged that he understood the nature of the charge and the Rule.
Mr Lawrence confirmed that he admitted all three breaches.
Mr Lawrence 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 Cruickshank produced written authorities from the General Manager of the RIU, Mr Godber, authorizing the lodging of charges against Mr Lawrence.
Mr Cruickshank presented to the hearing a Summary of Facts:
The respondent Gordon Albert (Arch) Lawrence is a licensed Owner/Trainer under the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Association.
Charge 1 - Information A7107
On the 24th December 2014 TEEGAMBO was correctly entered and presented to race by Mr Lawrence in Race 2 at the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club meeting at Cambridge.
TEEGAMBO underwent a random Post Race urine swab. Mr Lawrence does not contest the swabbing process. TEEGAMBO finished first of the eight Greyhounds and won a stake of $1,440.00.
All swab samples from the meeting were couriered to the New Zealand Racing Laboratory and were analyzed for the presence of substances prohibited under the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association.
On the 2nd January 2015 the Official Racing Analyst reported in writing that the sample from TEEGAMBO had tested positive to Morphine.
Charge 2— Information A7108
On the 2nd January 2015 TEEGAMBO was correctly entered and presented to race by Mr Lawrence in Race 9 at the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club meeting at Cambridge.
TEEGAMBO underwent a random Post Race urine swab. Mr Lawrence does not contest the swabbing process. TEEGAMBO finished third of the eight Greyhounds and won a stake of $2,775.00.
All swab samples from the meeting were couriered to the New Zealand Racing Laboratory and were analyzed for the presence of substances prohibited under the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association.
On the 28th January 2015 the Official Racing Analyst reported in writing that the sample from TEEGAMBO had tested positive to Morphine.
Charge 3 - Information A7110
On the 2nd January 2015 TEEMARIA was correctly entered and presented to race by Mr Lawrence in Race 8 at the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club meeting at Cambridge.
TEEMARIA underwent a random Post Race urine swab. Mr Lawrence does not contest the swabbing process. TEEMARIA finished third of the eight Greyhounds and won a stake of $750.00.
All swab samples from the meeting were couriered to the New Zealand Racing Laboratory and were analyzed for the presence of substances prohibited under the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association.
On the 28th January 2015 the Official Racing Analyst reported in writing that the sample from TEEMARIA had tested positive to Morphine.
Morphine like other Oploids acts directly on the central nervous system to relieve pain. It is a Restricted Veterinary Medicine and in its purest form is not available over the counter.
Morphine 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 Lawrence stated that the only reasonable explanation is that there has been a contamination of milk powder he has purchased from a local bulk retail store.
Mr Lawrence was spoken to at his home address on Thursday 29th January and again on 4th February 2015. He advised Investigators that he was shocked to learn of the positive tests and unsure how the Greyhounds had tested positive as he has never administered Morphine. Mr Lawrence does not feed his dogs bread. In previous cases before the JCA, Greyhounds have tested positive to Morphine after having consumed poppy seed bread.
The retail store sells bulk products including milk powder and poppy seeds. The products are located approximately 5m apart however Mr Lawrence stated that some customers are known to use their own Tupperware or similar type containers when purchasing their product and he believed that it is also possible that they use their own scoops to fill their containers. Mr Lawrence also stated that a contamination of the milk powder may have occurred in the shop storage area.
Mr Lawrence has been involved in the greyhound industry for approximately 15 years and is the Trainer of a number of Greyhounds. He has had no previous rule breaches in this time.
Evidence for the Defendant
Mr Lawrence told the Committee there was no reason he could find relating to the positive swabs to his Greyhounds. He meticulously investigated the Greyhounds' feed and he could find no evidence that there was any sign of contamination. He went on to say that the bulk store where he purchased his milk powder from may have been contaminated because they sold poppy seed in close proximity to the milk powder. He advised the Committee that he did not feed any bread in his Greyhounds’ diet as he was aware that poppy seeds can produce a positive result to morphine.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Lawrence advised that he had changed his milk powder supplier approximately twelve months ago. He confirmed that he had clear sampling results until December 2014.
Mr Lawrence informed the Committee that subsequent to the charges being instigated he requested that three of his Greyhounds be swabbed. The results came back negative to any prohibited substance.
Decision
As Mr Lawrence admitted the breach we find the three charges proved.
Submissions in relation to penalty by the Informant Mr Cruickshank:
1. The respondent Gordon Albert (Arch) Lawrence is a licensed Owner/Trainer under the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Association. He has been involved in the industry for approximately 15 years. He is 76 years of age with a date of birth of 10.09.38.
2. He has admitted a breach of the rules in relation to the Greyhound he trains, TEEGAMBO, on 24th December 2014 at the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club meeting at Cambridge.
3. He has admitted a breach of the rules in relation to the Greyhound he trains, TEEGAMBO, on 2nd January 2015 at the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club meeting at Cambridge.
4. He has admitted a breach of the rules in relation to the Greyhound he trains, TEEMARIA, on 2nd January 2015 at the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club meeting at Cambridge.
5. The drug concerned, the details of its administration are all contained in the agreed Summary of Facts and these are not disputed.
6. The penalties which may be imposed are also fully detailed in the attached Charge Rule Penalty provisions document.
7. On the 1 September 2014 the Board of Greyhound Racing New Zealand gave approval to new penalty standards and categorized various Prohibited Substances.
8. Morphine is categorized as a Category 1 Prohibited Substance. The new penalties allow for a maximum disqualification of 10 years.
9. However, Mr Cruickshank believes that this breach can be dealt with by way of monetary penalty. To that end I seek a fine of $3000.00 on each charge.
10. In support of this penalty Mr Cruickshank referred the Committee to previous decisions by the JCA which may be of some assistance.
11. RIU v MG CHILTON ROBERTS (2.11.12) in this matter was the non-intentional administration of Morphine through having fed poppy seed bread. Penalty imposed $2,000 fine, JCA costs of $350 and the Greyhound disqualified.
12. RIU v JA McARTHUR (3.10.11) the same circumstances as paragraph 11. Penalty imposed $2,000 fine, JCA costs of $500 and Greyhound disqualified.
13. RIU v TA AGENT (24.12.14) in this matter a Greyhound tested positive for Procaine Penicillin which was knowingly administered. The greyhound raced whilst the trainer mistakenly believed it was outside the withholding period. The penalty imposed was a fine of $3000 and the dog was disqualified.
14. RIU v TM PATTON (6.11.14) in this matter a Greyhound tested positive for Diclofenac which was mistakenly administered. The penalty imposed was a fine of $1,400 and the dog was disqualified.
15. RIU v SP CLARK (25.08.14) in this matter the two Greyhounds tested positive for Pheniramine which was mistakenly administered. The penalty imposed was a total fine of $2,600 and both dogs disqualified.
16. RIU v JT McINERNEY (4.11.13) this matter related to a performance enhancing Caffeine type product that was safe to use because it was undetectable. It was intentionally administered to two greyhounds and a fine of $1,500 was imposed for each animal and both Greyhounds disqualified.
17. This matter is not a situation where the drug in this case ‘Morphine’ was administered to enhance performance. Mr Lawrence runs a very professional and secure training establishment and in this case the administration of the Morphine has not been evidentially established.
18. When spoken to Mr Lawrence advised that he was shocked to learn of the positive test and spent many nights awake trying to establish how it was possible that his Greyhounds had tested positive.
19. It is acknowledged that Mr Lawrence has been fully co-operative throughout the investigative process.
20. He has no other Rule breaches during his 15 year involvement in the industry.
21. Under Rule 87.4 TEEGAMBO is required to be disqualified from both the meeting on 24th December 2014 and also 2nd January 2015.
22. TEEGAMBO won the race on 24th December 2014 and received a stake of $1,440. He finished third at the meeting on 2nd January and received a stake of $2,775.00. Repayment of these stakes totalling $4,215.00 is required.
23. Under Rule 87.4 TEEMARIA is required to be disqualified from the race on 2nd January 2015.
24. TEEMARIA finished third in the race and received a stake of $750.00. Repayment of the stake is required.
25. None of the ‘B’ samples have been tested and the R.I.U are not seeking costs.
Submissions in relation to penalty on behalf of the Defendant:
Mr Lawrence commenced his submissions by saying that he picked up his interest in racing Greyhounds from his neighbour over 15 years ago. He said since then he has become passionate about the sport and would never intentionally bring the industry into disrepute.
He said when he was first notified that one of his Greyhounds returned a positive swab to morphine he was in absolute disbelief. When the same Greyhound and another tested positive again a week later he said he was utterly shocked. He said he had to come to terms with the fact the results were correct but he was still completely at a lost as to how any of his Greyhounds could have ingested any morphine. He said he has been awake at night trying to determine where the morphine could have come from and although he had explored many possibilities he could not find a conclusive answer.
He submitted it was clear that contamination had occurred in the Greyhounds feed somewhere, either their meat, kibble or milk powder but he had no conclusive evidence for these sources. He advised the Committee that two other local Trainers have also had positive test results recently and the one common denominator is that they all feed their Greyhounds the same kibble. He said there was some analysis being done on the kibble at the moment, the results of which are not yet available. He said this may not be an accurate test because the sample may not be from the same bag of kibble they had feed their Greyhounds.
He submitted that given that he had no intent either knowingly or mistakenly to administer morphine to any of his animals at any time, he believed that any penalty imposed should be considered as one offence. He said this was because whatever contamination had occurred it had been the same incidence of contamination. He added that any fine should take into account his lack of intent.
He advised the Committee that in the case of RIU v MG Chilton Roberts the penalty imposed was $2,000 plus $350 JCA costs. He said however Mr Chilton Roberts had in fact fed poppy seed to his dog albeit mistakenly.
He also submitted in the case RIU v T Agent the heavier penalty of $3,000 was imposed because in this instance Mr Agent knowingly administered a banned substance.
He submitted that in light of these cases and the other examples that he had knowledge of he considered a maximum penalty of $2,000 to $3,000 would be more representative of the offence committed.
Mr Lawrence in conclusion submitted that he would like to inform the Committee of the impact this incident has had on him and how he now feels about what has previously been for him a most enjoyable retirement hobby. He said these charges have left him disheartened and the enjoyment that racing has always given him has now gone. He said he no longer felt confident feeding his Greyhounds.
Reasons for Penalty
The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented.
The mitigating factors are Mr Lawrence's admission of the breaches, his excellent record over 15 years, and his co-operation with the Racing Investigators during the course of their enquiries. It was evident during the hearing that Mr Lawrence showed genuine remorse in finding himself in this situation and we assess his culpability is low range.
There was no evidence presented to us upon which it could be established precisely how the prohibited substance came to be introduced into the Greyhounds. Whether it happened as a result of some mistake at the kennels, was administered by a person unknown while the Greyhounds were unattended, or contamination of feed cannot be established. However, the Committee is fully satisfied that there was no intent by Mr Lawrence to gain an unfair advantage by feeding a prohibited substance to his Greyhounds. The Committee was made aware by Mr Lawrence and not disputed by the RIU that two other local Trainer’s Greyhounds have returned positive swabs to morphine from feeding kibble produced from the same supplier as that of Mr Lawrence.
The position facing this Committee today is that we are dealing with a Trainer whose integrity is not challenged by Mr Cruickshank and who has accepted his responsibility as a Trainer.
This Committee is mindful that on the 1 September 2014 the Board of Greyhound Racing New Zealand gave approval to new penalty standards and categorized various Prohibited Substances.
We note that the only charge pertinent to this Rule since 1 September 2014 was Mr Agent (24.12.14) who knowingly administered Procaine Penicillin and was fined a sum of $3,000.
Morphine is categorized as a Category 1 Prohibited Substance. The new penalties allow for a maximum disqualification of 10 years.
Mr Cruickshank advised that the new categories were published in the New Zealand Greyhound magazine in August 2014 and the Respondent acknowledged that he received that monthly magazine. He was therefore quite aware of the new categories.
In providing the Schedule of Categories of Prohibited Substances, clearly Greyhound Racing New Zealand is setting higher starting points for penalties in each category and is giving a warning to Trainers who race Greyhounds which have Prohibited Substances in them.
This matter is an issue of strict liability and Greyhounds in the care of Mr Lawrence were not presented to race free of any 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 Cruickshank produced a schedule of 6 penalties handed down by Judicial Committees for breaches of the Prohibited Substance Rule from October 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.
The Committee is aware of the case between RIU v Mr McInerney (4.11.13) where he was fined $1,500 for each Greyhound. We note the Judicial Committee assessed Mr McInerney’s culpability as above mid – range.
Given the unique circumstances in the present case and if it only involved a single breach the Committee is of the opinion that a fine of $3,000 would be appropriate for this breach. After taking into account the compelling mitigating factors and because two Greyhounds are involved this necessitates three separate charges. However, to impose a fine of $3,000 for each breach – a total of $9,000 – would result in a disproportionately severe penalty and the totality principle requires the Committee to ensure that Mr Lawrence receives an appropriate overall sentence. It is therefore necessary for us to adjust the total of the fines downward in order to achieve an appropriate relativity between the totality of Mr Lawrence’s culpability and the totality of the fines.
Penalty:
After taking into account all of the evidence and submissions presented to us we consider an appropriate penalty is a total fine of $4,000 which equates to $2,000 for a single charge and $1,000 each for the two other charges.
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.
TEEGAMBO is disqualified from both the meeting on 24th December 2014 and also 2nd January 2015.
TEEGAMBO won the race on 24th December 2014 and received a stake of $1,440. TEEGAMBO finished third at the meeting on 2nd January and received a stake of $2,775.00. Repayment of these stakes totalling $4,215.00 is required.
TEEMARIA is disqualified from the race on 2 January 2015.
TEEMARIA finished third in the race on 2 January 2015 and received a stake of $750.00.
It is ordered that the stake paid to the connections of TEEMARIA and TEEGAMBO be repaid to New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association and that stakes for the race be redistributed and paid in accordance with the amended results.
Costs
In addition, Mr Lawrence is ordered to pay the sum of $300 by way of contribution to the costs of the JCA.
The RIU did not seek any costs.
Adrian Dooley Chair
Richard Seabrook Committee Member
Dated 2 March 2015
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: