Non Raceday Inquiry – NZGRA v DE Stapleton – Decision 14 December 2010
ID: JCA15381
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of Racing of Greyhound
Racing New Zealand
BETWEEN Thomas Rodney CARMICHAEL
Informant
AND Deane Edwin STAPLETON
Defendant
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE: Mr Nigel Hampton QC (Chair), Mr John Phelan (Member)
VENUE: Addington Raceway, Christchurch
PRESENT: Mr Deane Stapleton, the Defendant, public trainer, Mr Paul Harper (Stipendiary Steward)
DATE OF HEARING: 14 December 2010
DATE OF ORAL DECISION: 14 December 2010
DATE OF REASONS FOR DECISION: 16 December 2010
REASONS FOR DECISION ON PENALTY
[1] A duly authorised charge was brought against the Defendant alleging that "On the 14th day of September 2010, Deane Edwin Stapleton was the trainer of the greyhound Funtastic Boy which was presented for and raced in race five at a race meeting conducted by the Southland Greyhound Racing Club when the said greyhound was found to have had administered to it a drug, namely 6a-hydroxystanozolol; being an offence under the provisions of Rules 87.1 and 87.3, and punishable pursuant to Rules 87.4 and 89.1".
[2] At the commencement of the hearing the charge was read aloud. The Defendant, in keeping with his earlier written advice, acknowledged the charge and its substance, and admitted the charge. He also acknowledged that he had seen all the documents and the evidence, accepted that evidence, and that he had no issues with the composition of the Judicial Committee.
[3] The accepted statement of facts, in summary, revealed:
a) that the Defendant, as a licensed public trainer, was the official trainer of the registered greyhound, Funtastic Boy.
b) that that dog, under the Defendant's charge (but physically in the care of two other persons employed by and representing the Defendant), had been presented to run and had raced in the race as set out in the charge. The dog won that race, earning a stake of $882.00.
c) that post-race the dog was routinely and correctly swabbed, with the full co-operation of the Defendant's representatives.
d) that the sample taken, on analysis, tested positive for 6a-hydroxystanozolol, the canine metabolite of the anabolic steroid drug Stanozolol, which is derived from testosterone. The drug Stanozolol has been helpfully discussed, in some detail, in the case of “M” (September 2010) at paras. 20 to 28 inclusive, and needs not be repeated here. (That case was the first brought in New Zealand in relation to a greyhound testing positive to Stanozolol).
e) that on interview the Defendant, who was co-operative, denied any intentional administration of any product that might contain Stanozolol; and allowed full access to his kennels, other facilities and his veterinary records. Nothing incriminating of him was found by Inspectors.
f) that, as in the M case, the Informant's view was that here, this Defendant, had been negligent in failing to ensure that the dog was presented and raced in a drug-free state, with liability being analogous to what used to be referred to as "the drug negligence rule" in harness and thorough-bred racing. The Informant also drew attention to the strict liability nature of Rules 87.1 and 87.3.
g) that the Informant did accept that there was no evidence of any deliberate administration of the drug by or on behalf of the Defendant.
h) that the Defendant has a background in horse training and has been training and owning greyhounds for some four years, and has not previously offended.
i) that, consistent with “M", the Informant submitted that a fine in the order of $3000.00 should be imposed on the Defendant, along with the consequent mandatory disqualification of the dog from first place in the race in question.
[4] The Defendant submitted:
a) that he has been involved in racing for some 25 or so years (having held a license of one kind or another since aged 16), having come from a horse racing family. Initially, his interests related to horses.
b) that in the last four years he has been full-time engaged in greyhound racing, having had some 38 greyhounds in his kennels at the time of the offence, but now having scaled the numbers back to 16.
c) that he accepts responsibility, does not try to shift blame on to anyone else, that he has "cut back the number of dogs in my kennels to a number I can handle" and that he is extremely disappointed that this has happened.
d) that he has never had any problems with drugs in the past, whether with dogs or horses, and that his horses and, now, his dogs, have been swabbed on many occasions.
e) that he trusted his staff, fully; and had no difficulty in allowing the Inspectors full access to his staff, kennels and veterinary records.
f) that, as in M, he can only point to the possibility of the drug having been introduced, in
some way, through (horse) meat fed to the dog.
g) that dog training is now his full-time occupation and, with a family of four children, he would rather
be fined than be disqualified.
[5] The Committee, consistent with the decision in M, took the view that this offence, given the Defendant's otherwise good record and the absence of deliberateness in the offending, should properly be dealt with short of personal disqualification.
[6] As in M (para.49), the appropriate starting point for a fine was taken as $2500.00.
[7] The Committee found no aggravating circumstances.
[8] As mitigating circumstances, effectively diminishing the level of fine, the Committee took account of the
Defendant's co-operation, his genuine remorse, his admission of liability made as soon as possible and his otherwise good record over a number of years. And, in finally settling on the level of fine, the personal circumstances of the Defendant were taken into account.
Penalty:
[9] The following penalties were imposed and orders made at the hearing by the Committee and are hereby confirmed:
a) a fine of $2000.00 is imposed on the Defendant;
b) the Defendant is ordered to pay costs of $350.00 to the Judicial Control Authority for Racing (it being noted that the Informant did not seek costs);
c) the greyhound, Funtastic Boy, be disqualified from race five at the Southland Greyhound Racing Club's meeting held at Ascot Park on 14 September 2010 and that the stake money earned by that greyhound be refunded to Greyhound Racing New Zealand, for payment as per the amended placings;
d) those amended placings are declared to be:
first, no. 10, Bombay Tram;
second, no. 4, Moaning Moany;
third, no. 2, Meeces to Pieces.
Nigel Hampton QC John Phelan
(Chair) (Member)
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 09/12/2010
Publish Date: 09/12/2010
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: 8ba477ec95c68da498664ddad444b129
informantnumber: 68692
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 09/12/2010
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry - NZGRA v DE Stapleton - Decision 14 December 2010
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of Racing of Greyhound
Racing New Zealand
BETWEEN Thomas Rodney CARMICHAEL
Informant
AND Deane Edwin STAPLETON
Defendant
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE: Mr Nigel Hampton QC (Chair), Mr John Phelan (Member)
VENUE: Addington Raceway, Christchurch
PRESENT: Mr Deane Stapleton, the Defendant, public trainer, Mr Paul Harper (Stipendiary Steward)
DATE OF HEARING: 14 December 2010
DATE OF ORAL DECISION: 14 December 2010
DATE OF REASONS FOR DECISION: 16 December 2010
REASONS FOR DECISION ON PENALTY
[1] A duly authorised charge was brought against the Defendant alleging that "On the 14th day of September 2010, Deane Edwin Stapleton was the trainer of the greyhound Funtastic Boy which was presented for and raced in race five at a race meeting conducted by the Southland Greyhound Racing Club when the said greyhound was found to have had administered to it a drug, namely 6a-hydroxystanozolol; being an offence under the provisions of Rules 87.1 and 87.3, and punishable pursuant to Rules 87.4 and 89.1".
[2] At the commencement of the hearing the charge was read aloud. The Defendant, in keeping with his earlier written advice, acknowledged the charge and its substance, and admitted the charge. He also acknowledged that he had seen all the documents and the evidence, accepted that evidence, and that he had no issues with the composition of the Judicial Committee.
[3] The accepted statement of facts, in summary, revealed:
a) that the Defendant, as a licensed public trainer, was the official trainer of the registered greyhound, Funtastic Boy.
b) that that dog, under the Defendant's charge (but physically in the care of two other persons employed by and representing the Defendant), had been presented to run and had raced in the race as set out in the charge. The dog won that race, earning a stake of $882.00.
c) that post-race the dog was routinely and correctly swabbed, with the full co-operation of the Defendant's representatives.
d) that the sample taken, on analysis, tested positive for 6a-hydroxystanozolol, the canine metabolite of the anabolic steroid drug Stanozolol, which is derived from testosterone. The drug Stanozolol has been helpfully discussed, in some detail, in the case of “M” (September 2010) at paras. 20 to 28 inclusive, and needs not be repeated here. (That case was the first brought in New Zealand in relation to a greyhound testing positive to Stanozolol).
e) that on interview the Defendant, who was co-operative, denied any intentional administration of any product that might contain Stanozolol; and allowed full access to his kennels, other facilities and his veterinary records. Nothing incriminating of him was found by Inspectors.
f) that, as in the M case, the Informant's view was that here, this Defendant, had been negligent in failing to ensure that the dog was presented and raced in a drug-free state, with liability being analogous to what used to be referred to as "the drug negligence rule" in harness and thorough-bred racing. The Informant also drew attention to the strict liability nature of Rules 87.1 and 87.3.
g) that the Informant did accept that there was no evidence of any deliberate administration of the drug by or on behalf of the Defendant.
h) that the Defendant has a background in horse training and has been training and owning greyhounds for some four years, and has not previously offended.
i) that, consistent with “M", the Informant submitted that a fine in the order of $3000.00 should be imposed on the Defendant, along with the consequent mandatory disqualification of the dog from first place in the race in question.
[4] The Defendant submitted:
a) that he has been involved in racing for some 25 or so years (having held a license of one kind or another since aged 16), having come from a horse racing family. Initially, his interests related to horses.
b) that in the last four years he has been full-time engaged in greyhound racing, having had some 38 greyhounds in his kennels at the time of the offence, but now having scaled the numbers back to 16.
c) that he accepts responsibility, does not try to shift blame on to anyone else, that he has "cut back the number of dogs in my kennels to a number I can handle" and that he is extremely disappointed that this has happened.
d) that he has never had any problems with drugs in the past, whether with dogs or horses, and that his horses and, now, his dogs, have been swabbed on many occasions.
e) that he trusted his staff, fully; and had no difficulty in allowing the Inspectors full access to his staff, kennels and veterinary records.
f) that, as in M, he can only point to the possibility of the drug having been introduced, in
some way, through (horse) meat fed to the dog.
g) that dog training is now his full-time occupation and, with a family of four children, he would rather
be fined than be disqualified.
[5] The Committee, consistent with the decision in M, took the view that this offence, given the Defendant's otherwise good record and the absence of deliberateness in the offending, should properly be dealt with short of personal disqualification.
[6] As in M (para.49), the appropriate starting point for a fine was taken as $2500.00.
[7] The Committee found no aggravating circumstances.
[8] As mitigating circumstances, effectively diminishing the level of fine, the Committee took account of the
Defendant's co-operation, his genuine remorse, his admission of liability made as soon as possible and his otherwise good record over a number of years. And, in finally settling on the level of fine, the personal circumstances of the Defendant were taken into account.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
[9] The following penalties were imposed and orders made at the hearing by the Committee and are hereby confirmed:
a) a fine of $2000.00 is imposed on the Defendant;
b) the Defendant is ordered to pay costs of $350.00 to the Judicial Control Authority for Racing (it being noted that the Informant did not seek costs);
c) the greyhound, Funtastic Boy, be disqualified from race five at the Southland Greyhound Racing Club's meeting held at Ascot Park on 14 September 2010 and that the stake money earned by that greyhound be refunded to Greyhound Racing New Zealand, for payment as per the amended placings;
d) those amended placings are declared to be:
first, no. 10, Bombay Tram;
second, no. 4, Moaning Moany;
third, no. 2, Meeces to Pieces.
Nigel Hampton QC John Phelan
(Chair) (Member)
hearing_type: Non-race day
Rules: 87.1 and 87.3
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr Paul Harper, Stipendiary Steward, Mr D E Stapleton, Public Trainer
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: