Non Raceday Inquiry – RIU v GJ Anderson and AL Hoffman 26 February 2013 – Decision dated 5 March 2013
ID: JCA17153
Decision:
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing
BETWEEN MR BARRY KITTO
Racecourse Investigator
(ON BEHALF OF THE RIU)
Informant
AND MR GRAEME ANDERSON AND MS AMBER HOFFMAN
Public Trainers
Respondents
Information Nos: A1151 and A1152
Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall (Chairman), Mr R McKenzie (Committee Member)
Appearing: Informant in person, Respondents in person
Venue: Forbury Park Racecourse
Date of Hearing: 26 February 2013
Date of Decision: 5 March 2013
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] The respondents in these proceedings, the licensed public trainers Mr G Anderson and Ms A Hoffman who train in partnership under the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing, appear before us on a charge of presenting a horse, LEIF ERIKSON, to race with a prohibited substance in its system in breach of r 1004(1), (2) and (4).
[2] The informant, Mr Kitto, produced an email dated 25 February 2013 from Mr G Duggan, a co-owner of LEIF ERIKSON, which stated that neither he nor his son, the other co-owner, wished to appear at the hearing.
[3] Mr Kitto produced written permission to file an information from the General Manager of the Racing Integrity Unit, Mr M Godber, in accordance with r 1103(4).
[4] Rule 1004, which is preceded by the heading “Prohibited Substance Rule”, reads relevantly:
(1) A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances.
(2) Where a horse is taken, or is to be taken, to a racecourse for the purpose of engaging in a race otherwise than in accordance with sub-rule (1) the trainer of the horse commits a breach of these Rules.
(4) A breach of these rules under sub-rule (2) … is committed regardless of the circumstances in which the prohibited substance came to be present in or on the horse.
[5] The penalties for a breach of these rules are set out in r 1004 which provides in subss (7) and (8):
(7) Every person who commits a breach of sub-rule (2) … shall be liable to:
(a) a fine not exceeding $10,000; and /or
(b) be disqualified or suspended from holding or obtaining a licence for any specific period not exceeding five years.
(8) Any horse connected with a breach of sub-rule (1) or (2) … shall be disqualified from any race entered and/or liable to a period of disqualification not exceeding five years.
[6] Rule 1004D is also relevant. It reads:
Any horse which has been taken to a racecourse for the purpose of engaging in a race which is found to have administered to it or ingested by it any prohibited substance shall be disqualified from that race.
[7] The respondents have admitted the breach. We thus find the charge in each information to be proved.
Facts
[8] LEIF ERIKSON has started 11 times from 11 May 2012 until 02 December 2012 for the respondents, winning stakes of $17,094.
[9] LEIF ERIKSON was entered for and started in Race 6, The Wobbly’s Sports Bar Mobile Pace, over 2200 metres at Forbury Park on 22 November 2012. LEIF ERIKSON won the race winning a stake of $4,200. The horse was 2/3 in the betting.
[10] Following the running of the race LEIF ERIKSON was selected by the Stipendiary Stewards to be post race swabbed. The sample, together with others, was forwarded to the New Zealand Racing Laboratory in Auckland.
[11] The informant received a Certificate of Analysis Report dated 6 December, 2012, from Dr Beresford, Official Racing Analyst and Ms Martin, Racing Analyst, declaring the urine sample to be positive to Morphine and that that drug was not detected in the control sample
[12] At the request of co-trainer Mr Anderson the reserve urine sample was sent to Racing Analytical Services Ltd, Flemington Victoria. On 16 January 2013 the Laboratory reported that the urine sample was shown to contain Morphine and that Morphine was not detected in the associated control sample.
[13] On 11 December 2012, together with Stipendiary Steward Mr Mark Davidson, the informant went to the respondents’ Westwood Beach stables at Brighton, Dunedin, where they interviewed Mr Anderson and Ms Hoffman.
[14] The respondents could not explain the positive for Morphine and appeared to Mr Kitto to be genuinely perplexed by the situation.
[15] Mr Kitto made two examinations of the tie up area and he produced photos of this area. On the second, which was a more careful and close examination, Mr Kitto found a small opium poppy plant and a stalk of a second opium plant that were growing in the midst of other vegetation. These were difficult to see because of the surrounding vegetation.
[16] Mr Kitto removed these plants and forwarded them to the Racing Laboratory, which identified the two plants, on analysis, as Morphine detected.
[17] The interview with the respondents focused on the likelihood of opium poppies growing on the property and Mr Anderson in his interview stated with respect to the greenery by the tie-up area: “There is, was a couple of poppies growing there and the horses have been known to eat them and pull them out and eat them but we have removed them since…. When it was done I couldn’t totally recall that.”
[18] Later in the interview, Mr Anderson said they knew there were a few poppies growing on the property, and they had said to each other that they had better get rid of them. He added that the last day they saw them might have been the day before LEIF ERIKSON raced. He was not sure of the timing.
[19] When interviewed by Mr Kitto, Ms Hoffman stated that she was aware there were poppies by the tie-up area but was not aware that these were opium poppies. She knew LEIF ERIKSON would nibble on the foliage, and added the horse “sort of eats anything he can get in contact with.”
[20] When questioned by this Committee, Mr Anderson said he and Ms Hoffman had removed as much vegetation as they could from the coastal property, including some poppies, and to the best of his knowledge there were none on the property. Ms Hoffman confirmed she had made a thorough examination of the open yards and bush-clad area but did not find any more opium poppies on the property.
[21] The stable Veterinarian, Dr Peter Gillespie, supplied veterinary records that showed that LEIF ERIKSON had never been treated with or administered Morphine.
[22] Feed samples from the locked container on the property were sent away for visual analysis but neither signs of contamination by poppy seeds nor the presence of poppy plant material could be ascertained by visual inspection.
[23] Poppy heads located on a neighbouring property were sent to the Racing Laboratory and identified as containing Morphine.
[24] Mr Kitto stated that greyhounds had returned positives for Morphine after eating bread with contaminated poppy seeds and when he informed the respondents of this fact, they were surprised that a horse, due to its much larger size, could be affected the same way.
Submissions as to penalty:
[25] The RIU (through Mr Kitto) submitted that there had been cases in Australia where the horse involved had been disqualified and no penalty imposed on the trainers.
[26] The RIU believed that this breach had been totally accidental and to some extent, could be difficult to prevent. However, the rule was one of strict liability and there was a responsibility on all trainers to ensure this did not happen and that any horse must be produced to race drug free.
[27] The RIU submitted that in this particular case any penalty imposed could be by way of a fine, at the lower end of the scale.
[28] Mr Kitto produced the trainer statistics for Mr Anderson and Ms Hoffman. They have been training in partnership since 2010 and have had 404 starts with 83 wins and 115 placings for stakes of $415,770. They have never offended against the drug rules.
[29] The RIU sought disqualification of LEIF ERIKSON from the race and that the placings be amended accordingly.
[30] The RIU did not seek any costs but acknowledged that costs in favour of the JCA were appropriate.
[31] Mr Anderson said that their 15-acre training property was coastal and they had removed as much vegetation as they thought was feasible. They had a policy of removing any plants that they thought to be “suspicious”. Ms Hoffman confirmed this. They both stated they were unaware there were opium poppies in the foliage in the tie-up area at the relevant time, although Ms Hoffman said she was aware that from time to time there were poppies on the property. She had not realised these were opium poppies, nor was she aware of the significance of this fact.
[32] Mr Anderson told this Committee that he was well known for his vocal anti-drug views and was mortified to think that one of his horses had returned a positive.
[33] Mr Anderson stated he had had to pay $1,500 for the reserve sample analysis and had lost training fees of about $3,500. He asked us to take into account that he had a total loss of $5,000 already as a consequence of the positive swab.
[34] Mr Anderson said he was in a position to pay a fine and would meet the fine that was imposed on the training partnership, as Ms Hoffman was not in a strong financial position. He added LEIF ERIKSON had been removed from the stable but they had not lost any other horses due to the breach, despite the fact they were aware they had been the subject of whisper and innuendo.
Decision as to penalty:
[35] The degree of negligence and thus the culpability of the respondents is at the lower end of the scale. The property is a sea-side one and, as a consequence, has a number of wind-blown plants. Ms Hoffman was tasked with removing any plants that looked “suspicious”. She said she did this on a regular basis. And we accept this. The two plants that have led to the positive test were concealed beneath other foliage near the tie-up area. Neither of the respondents was aware that these particular plants were there and Mr Kitto only discovered them on close inspection. He explained they were no more than 15 to 20 inches in height.
[36] Significantly, however, both Mr Anderson and Ms Hoffman in their statements to Mr Kitto and in their submissions to this Committee have acknowledged that they were aware there were poppy plants growing on the property and that this included from time to time the foliage near the tie-up area. Ms Hoffman has said she did not realise that these were opium poppy plants and that a horse could return a positive test as a consequence of eating them. The respondents stated LEIF ERIKSON was a forager for feed. The horse must have grazed within the foliage near the tie-ups with the consequence that that horse ate opium poppy heads. The wisdom of the presence of foliage, which is able to conceal the presence of wind-blown opium poppies, so close to the tie-ups is a matter that the respondents may wish to address.
[37] We thus impose penalty on the basis that the respondents were aware the property was susceptible to wind-blown poppies, although the full significance of this fact (that a horse could return a positive through eating opium poppies) was not known. We accept that they had adopted procedures to deal with this issue but the necessity to be proactive (such as removing vegetation where poppies could be concealed) or to deal with the poppies at first sight was not fully appreciated.
[38] We have obtained assistance from three cases. The first is S (2008) which was referred to us by the informant. This is an example in the thoroughbred code of a horse eating opium poppy heads and returning a positive on two occasions within a 2-week period. The penalty was a fine of $4,000. A significant point of difference is that S planted the poppies himself, oblivious to the fact that they could affect a horse, and they were 6 feet high and hanging over a fence to where his horses were grazing. He was aware that the horse in question had been nibbling on the plants prior to racing and it appeared he was aware something was amiss as he had removed the poppies prior to his being investigated by NZTR. That breach was described by the Judicial Committee as being mid range.
[39] The respondents brought to our attention the case of H (2011) where a penalty of $450 was imposed upon H whose horse had returned a positive to Ranitidine. H had placed his horse in a stall at a racecourse that had a fixed feed bin. A trainer at that course had used the feed-bin and had used Ranitidine, bound in molasses, to treat a horse. H had checked the bin and had seen 6 to 8 grains, at best. He had not run his hand round the bin and had failed to note there was molasses sticking to the sides. The circumstances were that the light was dim and H was unable to see fully into the feed bin. The informant in that case had submitted that a starting point of $750 was appropriate. That submission was adopted by the Committee, which then gave a discount for admission of the breach and excellent record.
[40] We refer also to a recent case in the greyhound code, R (2012), where a fine of $2,000 was imposed upon a trainer whose dog had been fed bread containing poppy seeds. He was aware of the need to avoid bread with seeds but a family member had made up the feeds the night before racing and had fed the dog the offending slices. Significantly, R was aware of the presence of poppy seed bread, but said, “Usually it was fed to the non-race dogs”. R refers to a similar case of McA (2011) where a fine of $2,000 was also imposed.
[41] The Committee in R stated helpfully:
He (R) was negligent, albeit, at the lower end of the scale. In setting penalty, the Committee is mindful that the integrity of greyhound racing is paramount. All licenced [sic] holders must be treated on equal terms, and any penalty must contain a deterrent element.
[42] We accept the informant’s submission that culpability in this case is not at the level of that in S. S was aware of the poppies and that the horse (which returned positives on two occasions) was feeding on them. Mr Anderson and Ms Hoffman were unaware that the particular poppies were present on their property and had been taking steps to ensure that poppies were removed whenever they were identified. However, we do not accept the respondents’ submission that the penalty should be at the level in H. The circumstances in H are quite different to those in this case, although that case is an example of a small financial penalty being imposed where culpability is at a very low level. We are unaware of the circumstances in the Australian cases where no penalty was imposed, and the horse merely disqualified.
[43] We believe the most analogous case is that of R where the penalty was $2,000. However, a distinguishing feature is that the offending bread was deliberately fed to the animal, whereas the respondents were unaware that opium poppies were near the tie-up area and that LEIF ERIKSON had been grazing on them. However, as we have noted, they were aware that poppies did self-seed on the property and had taken precautions to remove them. Unfortunately, these steps were inadequate on this occasion.
[44] We emphasise the need to uphold the integrity of harness racing. We believe the need for deterrence is tempered somewhat by the unusual circumstances of this case and, in particular, by the fact that the respondents were endeavouring to keep the property clear of poppies and any other “suspicious” plants.
[45] The respondents are entitled to credit for the fact they were totally co-operative throughout the investigation, this is their first breach of the prohibited substance rules, and they have admitted the breach at the earliest opportunity. We also note the financial loss the partnership has already suffered as a consequence of the breach.
Penalty:
[46] We believe a fine at a level mid-way between that imposed in H and R is appropriate. We impose a fine of $1,250.
[47] The RIU does not seek costs. An award in favour of the JCA is appropriate. We do not intend to meet all the Authority’s costs and make an order in the sum of $400.
Disqualification:
[48] Pursuant to r 1004(8) we disqualify LEIF ERIKSON from Race 6, The Wobbly’s Sports Bar Mobile Pace at Forbury Park on 22 November 2012. Official placings are to be altered accordingly.
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 19/02/2013
Publish Date: 19/02/2013
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: d337519504ffaec9b0e4f1a77c3cc895
informantnumber: A1151 and A1152
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 19/02/2013
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry - RIU v GJ Anderson and AL Hoffman 26 February 2013 - Decision dated 5 March 2013
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing
BETWEEN MR BARRY KITTO
Racecourse Investigator
(ON BEHALF OF THE RIU)
Informant
AND MR GRAEME ANDERSON AND MS AMBER HOFFMAN
Public Trainers
Respondents
Information Nos: A1151 and A1152
Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall (Chairman), Mr R McKenzie (Committee Member)
Appearing: Informant in person, Respondents in person
Venue: Forbury Park Racecourse
Date of Hearing: 26 February 2013
Date of Decision: 5 March 2013
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] The respondents in these proceedings, the licensed public trainers Mr G Anderson and Ms A Hoffman who train in partnership under the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing, appear before us on a charge of presenting a horse, LEIF ERIKSON, to race with a prohibited substance in its system in breach of r 1004(1), (2) and (4).
[2] The informant, Mr Kitto, produced an email dated 25 February 2013 from Mr G Duggan, a co-owner of LEIF ERIKSON, which stated that neither he nor his son, the other co-owner, wished to appear at the hearing.
[3] Mr Kitto produced written permission to file an information from the General Manager of the Racing Integrity Unit, Mr M Godber, in accordance with r 1103(4).
[4] Rule 1004, which is preceded by the heading “Prohibited Substance Rule”, reads relevantly:
(1) A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances.
(2) Where a horse is taken, or is to be taken, to a racecourse for the purpose of engaging in a race otherwise than in accordance with sub-rule (1) the trainer of the horse commits a breach of these Rules.
(4) A breach of these rules under sub-rule (2) … is committed regardless of the circumstances in which the prohibited substance came to be present in or on the horse.
[5] The penalties for a breach of these rules are set out in r 1004 which provides in subss (7) and (8):
(7) Every person who commits a breach of sub-rule (2) … shall be liable to:
(a) a fine not exceeding $10,000; and /or
(b) be disqualified or suspended from holding or obtaining a licence for any specific period not exceeding five years.
(8) Any horse connected with a breach of sub-rule (1) or (2) … shall be disqualified from any race entered and/or liable to a period of disqualification not exceeding five years.
[6] Rule 1004D is also relevant. It reads:
Any horse which has been taken to a racecourse for the purpose of engaging in a race which is found to have administered to it or ingested by it any prohibited substance shall be disqualified from that race.
[7] The respondents have admitted the breach. We thus find the charge in each information to be proved.
Facts
[8] LEIF ERIKSON has started 11 times from 11 May 2012 until 02 December 2012 for the respondents, winning stakes of $17,094.
[9] LEIF ERIKSON was entered for and started in Race 6, The Wobbly’s Sports Bar Mobile Pace, over 2200 metres at Forbury Park on 22 November 2012. LEIF ERIKSON won the race winning a stake of $4,200. The horse was 2/3 in the betting.
[10] Following the running of the race LEIF ERIKSON was selected by the Stipendiary Stewards to be post race swabbed. The sample, together with others, was forwarded to the New Zealand Racing Laboratory in Auckland.
[11] The informant received a Certificate of Analysis Report dated 6 December, 2012, from Dr Beresford, Official Racing Analyst and Ms Martin, Racing Analyst, declaring the urine sample to be positive to Morphine and that that drug was not detected in the control sample
[12] At the request of co-trainer Mr Anderson the reserve urine sample was sent to Racing Analytical Services Ltd, Flemington Victoria. On 16 January 2013 the Laboratory reported that the urine sample was shown to contain Morphine and that Morphine was not detected in the associated control sample.
[13] On 11 December 2012, together with Stipendiary Steward Mr Mark Davidson, the informant went to the respondents’ Westwood Beach stables at Brighton, Dunedin, where they interviewed Mr Anderson and Ms Hoffman.
[14] The respondents could not explain the positive for Morphine and appeared to Mr Kitto to be genuinely perplexed by the situation.
[15] Mr Kitto made two examinations of the tie up area and he produced photos of this area. On the second, which was a more careful and close examination, Mr Kitto found a small opium poppy plant and a stalk of a second opium plant that were growing in the midst of other vegetation. These were difficult to see because of the surrounding vegetation.
[16] Mr Kitto removed these plants and forwarded them to the Racing Laboratory, which identified the two plants, on analysis, as Morphine detected.
[17] The interview with the respondents focused on the likelihood of opium poppies growing on the property and Mr Anderson in his interview stated with respect to the greenery by the tie-up area: “There is, was a couple of poppies growing there and the horses have been known to eat them and pull them out and eat them but we have removed them since…. When it was done I couldn’t totally recall that.”
[18] Later in the interview, Mr Anderson said they knew there were a few poppies growing on the property, and they had said to each other that they had better get rid of them. He added that the last day they saw them might have been the day before LEIF ERIKSON raced. He was not sure of the timing.
[19] When interviewed by Mr Kitto, Ms Hoffman stated that she was aware there were poppies by the tie-up area but was not aware that these were opium poppies. She knew LEIF ERIKSON would nibble on the foliage, and added the horse “sort of eats anything he can get in contact with.”
[20] When questioned by this Committee, Mr Anderson said he and Ms Hoffman had removed as much vegetation as they could from the coastal property, including some poppies, and to the best of his knowledge there were none on the property. Ms Hoffman confirmed she had made a thorough examination of the open yards and bush-clad area but did not find any more opium poppies on the property.
[21] The stable Veterinarian, Dr Peter Gillespie, supplied veterinary records that showed that LEIF ERIKSON had never been treated with or administered Morphine.
[22] Feed samples from the locked container on the property were sent away for visual analysis but neither signs of contamination by poppy seeds nor the presence of poppy plant material could be ascertained by visual inspection.
[23] Poppy heads located on a neighbouring property were sent to the Racing Laboratory and identified as containing Morphine.
[24] Mr Kitto stated that greyhounds had returned positives for Morphine after eating bread with contaminated poppy seeds and when he informed the respondents of this fact, they were surprised that a horse, due to its much larger size, could be affected the same way.
Submissions as to penalty:
[25] The RIU (through Mr Kitto) submitted that there had been cases in Australia where the horse involved had been disqualified and no penalty imposed on the trainers.
[26] The RIU believed that this breach had been totally accidental and to some extent, could be difficult to prevent. However, the rule was one of strict liability and there was a responsibility on all trainers to ensure this did not happen and that any horse must be produced to race drug free.
[27] The RIU submitted that in this particular case any penalty imposed could be by way of a fine, at the lower end of the scale.
[28] Mr Kitto produced the trainer statistics for Mr Anderson and Ms Hoffman. They have been training in partnership since 2010 and have had 404 starts with 83 wins and 115 placings for stakes of $415,770. They have never offended against the drug rules.
[29] The RIU sought disqualification of LEIF ERIKSON from the race and that the placings be amended accordingly.
[30] The RIU did not seek any costs but acknowledged that costs in favour of the JCA were appropriate.
[31] Mr Anderson said that their 15-acre training property was coastal and they had removed as much vegetation as they thought was feasible. They had a policy of removing any plants that they thought to be “suspicious”. Ms Hoffman confirmed this. They both stated they were unaware there were opium poppies in the foliage in the tie-up area at the relevant time, although Ms Hoffman said she was aware that from time to time there were poppies on the property. She had not realised these were opium poppies, nor was she aware of the significance of this fact.
[32] Mr Anderson told this Committee that he was well known for his vocal anti-drug views and was mortified to think that one of his horses had returned a positive.
[33] Mr Anderson stated he had had to pay $1,500 for the reserve sample analysis and had lost training fees of about $3,500. He asked us to take into account that he had a total loss of $5,000 already as a consequence of the positive swab.
[34] Mr Anderson said he was in a position to pay a fine and would meet the fine that was imposed on the training partnership, as Ms Hoffman was not in a strong financial position. He added LEIF ERIKSON had been removed from the stable but they had not lost any other horses due to the breach, despite the fact they were aware they had been the subject of whisper and innuendo.
Decision as to penalty:
[35] The degree of negligence and thus the culpability of the respondents is at the lower end of the scale. The property is a sea-side one and, as a consequence, has a number of wind-blown plants. Ms Hoffman was tasked with removing any plants that looked “suspicious”. She said she did this on a regular basis. And we accept this. The two plants that have led to the positive test were concealed beneath other foliage near the tie-up area. Neither of the respondents was aware that these particular plants were there and Mr Kitto only discovered them on close inspection. He explained they were no more than 15 to 20 inches in height.
[36] Significantly, however, both Mr Anderson and Ms Hoffman in their statements to Mr Kitto and in their submissions to this Committee have acknowledged that they were aware there were poppy plants growing on the property and that this included from time to time the foliage near the tie-up area. Ms Hoffman has said she did not realise that these were opium poppy plants and that a horse could return a positive test as a consequence of eating them. The respondents stated LEIF ERIKSON was a forager for feed. The horse must have grazed within the foliage near the tie-ups with the consequence that that horse ate opium poppy heads. The wisdom of the presence of foliage, which is able to conceal the presence of wind-blown opium poppies, so close to the tie-ups is a matter that the respondents may wish to address.
[37] We thus impose penalty on the basis that the respondents were aware the property was susceptible to wind-blown poppies, although the full significance of this fact (that a horse could return a positive through eating opium poppies) was not known. We accept that they had adopted procedures to deal with this issue but the necessity to be proactive (such as removing vegetation where poppies could be concealed) or to deal with the poppies at first sight was not fully appreciated.
[38] We have obtained assistance from three cases. The first is S (2008) which was referred to us by the informant. This is an example in the thoroughbred code of a horse eating opium poppy heads and returning a positive on two occasions within a 2-week period. The penalty was a fine of $4,000. A significant point of difference is that S planted the poppies himself, oblivious to the fact that they could affect a horse, and they were 6 feet high and hanging over a fence to where his horses were grazing. He was aware that the horse in question had been nibbling on the plants prior to racing and it appeared he was aware something was amiss as he had removed the poppies prior to his being investigated by NZTR. That breach was described by the Judicial Committee as being mid range.
[39] The respondents brought to our attention the case of H (2011) where a penalty of $450 was imposed upon H whose horse had returned a positive to Ranitidine. H had placed his horse in a stall at a racecourse that had a fixed feed bin. A trainer at that course had used the feed-bin and had used Ranitidine, bound in molasses, to treat a horse. H had checked the bin and had seen 6 to 8 grains, at best. He had not run his hand round the bin and had failed to note there was molasses sticking to the sides. The circumstances were that the light was dim and H was unable to see fully into the feed bin. The informant in that case had submitted that a starting point of $750 was appropriate. That submission was adopted by the Committee, which then gave a discount for admission of the breach and excellent record.
[40] We refer also to a recent case in the greyhound code, R (2012), where a fine of $2,000 was imposed upon a trainer whose dog had been fed bread containing poppy seeds. He was aware of the need to avoid bread with seeds but a family member had made up the feeds the night before racing and had fed the dog the offending slices. Significantly, R was aware of the presence of poppy seed bread, but said, “Usually it was fed to the non-race dogs”. R refers to a similar case of McA (2011) where a fine of $2,000 was also imposed.
[41] The Committee in R stated helpfully:
He (R) was negligent, albeit, at the lower end of the scale. In setting penalty, the Committee is mindful that the integrity of greyhound racing is paramount. All licenced [sic] holders must be treated on equal terms, and any penalty must contain a deterrent element.
[42] We accept the informant’s submission that culpability in this case is not at the level of that in S. S was aware of the poppies and that the horse (which returned positives on two occasions) was feeding on them. Mr Anderson and Ms Hoffman were unaware that the particular poppies were present on their property and had been taking steps to ensure that poppies were removed whenever they were identified. However, we do not accept the respondents’ submission that the penalty should be at the level in H. The circumstances in H are quite different to those in this case, although that case is an example of a small financial penalty being imposed where culpability is at a very low level. We are unaware of the circumstances in the Australian cases where no penalty was imposed, and the horse merely disqualified.
[43] We believe the most analogous case is that of R where the penalty was $2,000. However, a distinguishing feature is that the offending bread was deliberately fed to the animal, whereas the respondents were unaware that opium poppies were near the tie-up area and that LEIF ERIKSON had been grazing on them. However, as we have noted, they were aware that poppies did self-seed on the property and had taken precautions to remove them. Unfortunately, these steps were inadequate on this occasion.
[44] We emphasise the need to uphold the integrity of harness racing. We believe the need for deterrence is tempered somewhat by the unusual circumstances of this case and, in particular, by the fact that the respondents were endeavouring to keep the property clear of poppies and any other “suspicious” plants.
[45] The respondents are entitled to credit for the fact they were totally co-operative throughout the investigation, this is their first breach of the prohibited substance rules, and they have admitted the breach at the earliest opportunity. We also note the financial loss the partnership has already suffered as a consequence of the breach.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
[46] We believe a fine at a level mid-way between that imposed in H and R is appropriate. We impose a fine of $1,250.
[47] The RIU does not seek costs. An award in favour of the JCA is appropriate. We do not intend to meet all the Authority’s costs and make an order in the sum of $400.
Disqualification:
[48] Pursuant to r 1004(8) we disqualify LEIF ERIKSON from Race 6, The Wobbly’s Sports Bar Mobile Pace at Forbury Park on 22 November 2012. Official placings are to be altered accordingly.
hearing_type: Non-race day
Rules: 1004(1)(2)abd (4)
Informant: Mr B Kitto - RIU Racecourse Inspector
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr M Davidson - Registrar
Respondent: Mr GJ Anderson - Public Trainer, Ms AL Hoffman - 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: