Non Raceday Inquiry – NZGRA v NP Green – 24 June 2011 – Decision 26 June 2011

hearingid: af699ea1547e9410d95d70489465e33f

informantnumber: 69181

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 23/06/2011

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry - NZGRA v NP Green - 24 June 2011 - Decision 26 June 2011

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

Non Raceday Inquiry - NZGRA v N P GREEN - Decision 24 June 2011
Rules:  87.1 and 87.3, punishable pursuant to Rules 87.4 and 89.1
Information Number:  69181
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE HELD AT AUCKLAND
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing
BETWEEN Thomas Rodney CARMICHAEL
Informant
AND Norman Phillip GREEN
Defendant
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE: Mr Gavin Jones (Chair) and Mr Bryan Scott (Member)
VENUE: Alexandra Park, Auckland
PRESENT: Mr Norman Green, Public Trainer, Mr Thomas Carmichael, Racing Investigator and Mr R Quirk, Registrar
DATE OF HEARING: 24 June 2011
DATE OF ORAL DECISION: 24 June 2011
DATE OF REASONS FOR DECISION: 26 June 2011

Reasons for Decision on Penalty

1) A charge was brought against the Defendant, Mr Green alleging that on the 10th day of February 2011, “ Norman Phillip Green was the trainer of the greyhound Sippin Tequila which was presented for and raced in race four (Greyhounds North Distance Series Final) at a race meeting conducted by the Waikato and Districts Greyhound Racing Club when the said greyhound was found to have had administered to it a Prohibited substance, 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) New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (NZGRA) Rules relating to Prohibited Substances provide that:
The Owner, Trainer or Person in charge of a Greyhound Nominated to compete in a Race, shall produce the Greyhound for the Race free of a Prohibited Substance (Rule 87.1).
Without limiting any of the provisions of these rules, the Owner and Trainer or persons for the time being in charge of any Greyhound brought onto the Racecourse of any Club for the purpose 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 severely guilty of an Offence, unless the Board determines to absolve the Owner and/or Trainer or person in charge of any Greyhound from the Offence (Rule 87.3).
Any Greyhound which competes in a Race and is found to be the recipient of a Prohibited Substance shall be Disqualified from that Race (Rule 87.4).
3) NZGRA Rules relating to Penalties provide that:
Any Person found guilty of an Offence under these Rules shall be liable to (Rule 89.1):
a. A fine not exceeding $10,000 or for any one (1) Offence; and/or
b. Suspension; and/or
c. Disqualification; and/or
d. Warning off.
4) At the commencement of the hearing the charge was put to Mr Green who acknowledged the nature and substance of the charge. He also acknowledged that he had seen all the relevant documents and that he accepted the evidence.
5) Mr Green confirmed that he had no issues or concerns with the proposed procedure for the conduct of the hearing.
6) Mr Green admitted the Rule breach. The charge is therefore proved.
7) Mr Carmichael presented an agreed summary of facts. The key relevant points are as follows:
a) The Defendant, Mr Green is a licensed Public Trainer. He has held a licence in New Zealand for 15 years and has previously trained in Australia and the United Kingdom.
b) On 10 February 2011 Mr Green was the official trainer of the greyhound Sippin Tequila who was correctly entered for and started in race four, the Greyhounds North Distance Final, at a meeting conducted by the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club at the Cambridge Raceway. Sippin Tequila finished in first place and earned a gross stake of $1320.
c) Mr Green was present at the meeting and the person in charge of the greyhound when it was presented to race.
d) Following the running of the race Seppin Tequila was selected for a post race swab. The swab sample was analysed by the Racing Laboratory in Auckland. The sample tested positive to 6a-hydroxystanozolol, a Prohibited Substance within New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (NZGRA) Rules relating to Prohibited Substances.
e) 6a-hydroxystanozolol is the canine metabolite of the synthetic anabolic steroid drug Stanozolol. Stanozolol has legitimate uses in animal medication and is only available on prescription from a Veterinarian.
f) Stanozolol is water based and is administered by injection. It is generally prescribed to increase both muscular and skeletal weight and to hasten the repair of tissues.
g) A further non-raceday urine sample was subsequently taken from Sippin Tequila which also tested positive to 6a-hydroxystanozolol.
h) In response to the positive tests Mr Green told Mr Carmichael, the Chief Racing Investigator, that at some time prior to 10 February 2011 he had obtained a syringe from his Veterinarian to treat another dog and that syringe may have contained Stanazol.
i) He said that the syringe had been left in his fridge along with other medication and that on 28 January 2011 he used the syringe to inject Sippin Tequila with therapeutic doses of Coforta and B15 (DADA 250). Mr Green provided Mr Carmichael with the two bottles of Coforta and B15 (DADA 250).
j) These were submitted to the Racing Laboratory for testing. On analysis the Prohibited Substance Stanazol was detected in the DADA 250 and no Prohibited Substances were found to be present in the Coforta.
k) On the basis of the evidence it is therefore highly likely that the Prohibited Substance was negligently administered to Seppin Tequila by Mr Green on the 28th January 2011 as a result of his using a contaminated syringe. This scenario is accepted by both the Informant and Defendant.
l) The investigation into this incident did not identify any irregular betting patterns in respect of the race won by Seppin Tequila and Mr Green advised that he did not place a bet on his greyhound.
8) In response to the summary of facts Mr Green submitted:
a) That he did not expect his greyhound to win the race and emphasised that he did not place a bet on the race. In support he produced betting figures for the race indicating that $9527 ($7677 win and $1850 place) was wagered on the race off-course and only $27 ($16 win and $11) wagered on-course.
b) That he injected his greyhound on 28th January 2011 with doses of Coforta and B15 and sincerely believed that he was simply administering vitamins – not any prohibited substance.
c) That he on the day he administered the Coforta and B15 he was in a rush and acknowledges that he should have exercised more care in relation to the use of the syringe.

Submissions as to Penalty

Mr Carmichael submitted:
9) That Mr Green was negligent in relation to his use of the syringe given that it may have been used on a previous occasion and in doing so he failed to present the greyhound Seppin Tequila for racing in a drug free state.
10) That on the basis of the strict liability nature of the Prohibited Substance Rule, Mr Green is prima facie in breach of the Rule and that in accordance with Rule 87.4 an order is sought for Seppin Tequila to be disqualified from first place in Race four at the meeting conducted by the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club at Cambridge Raceway on 10 February; and that placing be amended accordingly.
11) That following the identification of the canine metabolite 6a-hydroxystanozolol following Stanozolol administration in late 2008 a number of positive tests have been declared in the United Kingdom and Australia and that cases sourced by the Informant, positive tests have resulted from an actual admitted administration, or sequence of administrations, of Stanazolol for legitimate reasons.
12) That there have been two recent cases in New Zealand greyhound racing involving positive tests arising from administration or ingestion of Stanozolol and that in those cases there were no direct admissions by the Trainers as to the use or administration of Stanozolol, namely:
NZGRA and M [1 September 2010] – Penalty $3000
NZGRA and S [14 December 2010] – Penalty $2000
13) That consistent with the penalties handed down in the cases referred to a fine in the order of $3000 is sought.
14) That Mr Green has no previous history for any serious breaches of the Rules and he cooperated with the conduct of the investigation.
15) That Mr Green has been involved in the Greyhound Industry for a long time both as a Trainer and Administrator and he is known as an advocate for the Rules to be followed.
16) That the circumstances of the breach are at the mid-range of seriousness.
17) That a disqualification or suspension of Mr Green Trainers Licence is not sought.
18) That the Informant makes no application for costs.
Mr Green submitted:
19) That he realised that the detection of a Prohibited Substance was a serious breach of the Rules.
20) That the Committee take into account his service to the Greyhound Industry in an administrative capacity. In support of this submission he provided the Committee with four written testimonials from industry participants. They paid tribute to Mr Green’s honesty and the contribution he has made to Greyhound Racing over a number of years. Mr Carmichael confirmed that the referees were known to him and in his opinion are respected persons within the industry.
21) That the Committee also take into account the scale of his training operation and the impact that a significant monetary penalty would have on him.
22) Prior to the Committee considering the penalty Mr Carmichael clarified his position as to penalty by adding that given the circumstances and degree of negligence an appropriate recommended starting point for a fine was $2500.
Reasons for Penalty:
23) The Committee has carefully considered the facts and submissions lodged by both the Informant and the Defendant. We have taken into account Mr Green’s cooperation with the investigation, his admission of the breach and his good record including referee commentary. We have also considered Mr Green’s personal circumstances.
24) The Committee is satisfied that this is a case of negligence in which Mr Green clearly used the syringe without due care or regard to the possibility of it being contaminated. We accept that there was no element of deliberateness on Mr Green’s part to intentionally gain an advantage.
25) The Committee has taken guidance from similar decisions and penalties resulting from breaches of this Rule involving the Prohibited Substance 6a-hydroxystanozolol. We have benchmarked our decision making against those cases with allowance given for both similarities and points of difference.
26) The Committee notes that the potency of Stanozolol ought to serve as a salient warning to all industry participants in that particular care must be taken in respect of the handling and administration of this product. In this case it was able to be detected 3 months after being was administered. This is consistent with other cases both in New Zealand and overseas. 

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

27) Taking all of the above matters into account, we impose the following penalties and make the following orders:
a) That the Defendant is fined $2000.
b) That although this matter was heard on a raceday it was conducted in the nature of a non-raceday hearing. On that basis an order is made for costs of $350 in favour of the Judicial Control Authority. It is noted that the Racing Integrity Unit did not seek an order for costs.
c) That pursuant to Rule 87.4 the greyhound Sippin Tequila be disqualified from race four (the Greyhounds North Distance Series final); and
d) That all stake money earned by Sippin Tequila as a result of finishing is first place in race four be refunded to the NZGRA; and
e) That placing for the race be amended as follows:
1st Thrilling March
2nd Cold Fingers
3rd Glorianna

G R Jones (Chair)     B Scott (Committee)

hearing_type: Non-race day

Rules: 871.1 and 87.3

Informant: Mr TR Carmichael - Racing Investigator

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent: Mr R Quirk - Registrar

Respondent: Mr NP Green - Public Trainer

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: