Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v T Agent – decision dated 20 January 2015
ID: JCA18127
Decision:
IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Greyhound Racing
BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT – Andy Cruickshank
Investigator
Informant
AND TRENT AGENT – Licensed Trainer NZGRA
Respondent
Rules: 87.1, 87.3, 89.1 and 87.4
Information: A7103
Judicial Committee: BJ Scott, Chairman – AJ Godsalve, Committee Member
Appearing: Mr A Cruickshank (Investigator) for the Informant
Mr T Agent as the Respondent
Registrar: Mr W Robinson
Venue: Cambridge Raceway, Cambridge
Date of Hearing: 24th December 2014
Date of Decision: 20th January 2015
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
1. Mr Agent appeared before this Judicial Committee on the following charge:
On the 30th day of October 2014, Trent Agent was the Licenced Trainer of the Greyhound “Tepirita Enforce” which was presented for and raced in Race 11 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 5 Prohibited Substance, namely Procaine, 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.
2. Rule 87.1 provides:
“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 any Prohibited Substance.”
Rule 87.3 provides:
“Without limiting any of the provisions 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.”
Rule 89.1 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 (1) Offence; and/or
b. Suspension; and/or
c. Disqualification; and/or
d. Warning Off.
Rule 87.4 provides:
“Any Greyhound which competes in a Race and is found to be the recipient of a Prohibited Substance shall be Disqualified from that Race.
3. Mr Agent confirmed that he understood the above Rules and that he admitted the charge. We thus find the charge approved.
4. Mr Cruickshank tabled a signed authority from the Racing Integrity Unit General Manager to proceed with the charge against Mr Agent.
5. Mr Cruickshank also tabled a copy of the Certificate of Analysis from New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services together with RIU Sample Identity Record No. 64193 and a copy of Mr Agent’s License Application.
Summary of Facts
6. The Respondent is a licensed Owner/Trainer under the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Association.
7. On the 30th of October 2014 “Tepirita Enforce” was correctly entered and presented to race by the Respondent in Race 11 at the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club Meeting at Cambridge.
8. “Tepirita Enforce” underwent a random Post Race swab. The Respondent does not contest the swabbing process.
9. “Tepirita Enforce” finished second of the eight Greyhounds and won a stake of $550.00.
10. All swab samples from the Meeting were couriered to the New Zealand Racing Laboratory and were analysed for the presence of substances prohibited under the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association.
11. On the 12th of November 2014 the Official Racing Analyst reported in writing that the sample from “Tepirita Enforce” had tested positive to Procaine.
12. Procaine Penicillin is an antibiotic based prescription medicine used to treat infections. It is a Restricted Veterinary Medicine and is not available over the counter.
13. Procaine 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.
14. The Respondent was spoken to at his home address on Thursday the 20th of November 2014. He advised Investigators that he had injected “Tepirita Enforce” with Intracillin about 14 days before he was due to race. The Respondent stated that he was treating the Greyhound for diarrheoa and had been advised by his Vet that Intracillin would clear it up.
15. The Respondent has been involved in the Greyhound Industry for over three years and is the Trainer of a number of Greyhounds. He has had no previous rule breaches in this time.
16. The Respondent was given the opportunity to address the Committee and he said that he accepted the Summary of Facts as presented by Mr Cruickshank.
17. He did say however that prior to using the Intracillin he had spoken to his Vet about it and was told that there was a five day withholding period. After being questioned by the Committee the Respondent did say that it may have been a Vet Nurse that he spoke to.
He did say that he gave his dog one shot of Intracillin 14 days before Race Day.
18. The Committee questioned the Respondent further because the Procaine in Intracillin appears to be an anaesthetic drug. He said that he was using it because the dog had blood in its faeces and he was trying to cure that problem. He said that he was not trying to enhance the performance of his dog but only to fix the problem.
19. Mr Cruickshank disputed the Respondent’s recollection of his contact with the Veterinary Company. He said that he had spoken with the Taumarunui Vets and that no one at the Veterinary Services recalled advising the Respondent to use Intracillin for a dog with diarrhoea or advising him that the stand down period would be five days.
20. Mr Cruickshank had the bottle of Intracillin with him and the label disclosed that the withholding period was 21 days.
Penalty Submissions by Mr Cruickshank
21. The Respondent is a licensed Owner/Trainer under the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Association. He has been involved in the Industry for approximately three and one half years. He is 41 years of age with a date of birth of 27.08.1973.
22. He has admitted a breach of the Rules in relation to the Greyhound he trains “Tepirita Enforce” on the 30th of October 2014 at the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club Meeting at Cambridge.
23. The drug concerned, the details of its administration are all contained in the agreed Summary of Facts above and these are not disputed.
24. The penalties which may be imposed are also fully detailed in the attached Charge Rule Penalty provision documents.
25. On the 1st of September 2014 the Board of Greyhound Racing New Zealand gave approval to new penalty standards and categorized various Prohibited Substances.
26. Procaine is categorized as a Category 5 Prohibited Substance. The new penalties allow for a Disqualification and/or 3 months suspension and/or a fine of $4,000.00.
27. Mr Cruickshank advised the Committee that he believed that this breach can be dealt with by way of monetary penalty. To that end he sought a fine of $4,000.00.
28. These are new penalties which were well publicized within the Greyhound Racing community and were intended to encourage more diligence and compliance with the Rules, by Owners, Trainers and those in charge of Greyhounds at Race Meetings.
29. Mr Cruickshank advised that he understood that this is the first matter to be heard under the new penalty provisions.
30. In support of this penalty Mr Cruickshank referred to previous decisions by the JCA made prior to the new penalty standards, which may be of some assistance.
31. In RIU v P (6.11.14) in this matter a Greyhound tested positive for Diclofenac which was mistakenly administered. The penalty imposed was a fine of $1,400.00 and the dog was disqualified.
32. In RIU v C (25.08.2014) in this matter the two Greyhounds tested positive for Pheniramine which was mistakenly administered. The penalty imposed was a total fine of $2,600.00 and both dogs disqualified.
33. RIU v G (26.6.11) in this matter the Greyhound had Stanozolol negligently administered and was fined $2,000.00, $350.00 JCA costs and the Greyhound disqualified.
34. RIU v L (15.11.13) in this matter the Greyhound had Difflam administered knowing it contained Benzyclamine. Penalty imposed $1,450.00 fine, no costs and the Greyhound disqualified.
35. RIU v CR (2.11.12) in this matter was the non-intentional administration of Morphine through having feed poppy seed bread. Penalty imposed $2,000.00 fine, JCA costs $350.00 and the Greyhound disqualified.
36. RIU v M (3.10.11) the same circumstances as paragraph 30. Penalty imposed $2,000.00 fine, JCA costs $500.00 and Greyhound disqualified.
37. RIU v M (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. Penalty imposed $3,000.00 on both charges with both Greyhounds disqualified.
38. This matter is not a situation where the drug in this case “Procaine” was administered to enhance performance.
39. Procaine penicillin is a component of the product Intracillin. This is a Restricted Veterinary Medicine which the Respondent had purchased previously.
40. When spoken to the Respondent advised that when he purchased the produce he was advised by the Veterinary Centre that there was a 5 day stand down period for the product.
41. Enquiries were carried out with the Vets where the Intracillin was purchased, Totally Vets, Taumarunui. In particular Dr Natasha Smith advised that none of the staff had spoken to the Respondent since July 2014 and none recalled advising him to use Intracillin to treat diarrhoea or advising that the stand down period is 5 days.
42. Dr Smith also advised that she did not personally discuss the stand down period with the Respondent in July but the Intracillin label specifies that there is a 21 day withhold for horse racing (which is the same as for dog racing).
43. It is acknowledged that the Respondent has been fully co-operative throughout the investigative process.
44. The Respondent has no other rule breaches during his three and one half year involvement in the Industry.
45. “Tepirita Enforce” placed second in the Race and received a stake of $550.00. Repayment of the winning stake is required.
47. The “B” sample has not been tested and the RIU are seeking no costs.
Penalty Submission by the Respondent
48. The Respondent produced two references in support of him from fellow Trainers.
49. The Respondent also referred to the penalties given in prior decisions that were produced by Mr Cruickshank. He submitted that based on those decisions his penalty should be a fine at the lower level. He also said that the prior cases dealt with substances in higher categories of Prohibited Substances than his one and this should be taken into account as far as his penalty was concerned.
Reasons for Penalty
50. The Committee has carefully considered all the evidence and the submissions put before us.
51. In mitigation, the Committee notes the Respondent’s admission of the breach, his full cooperation with the investigation process, his references and his good record.
52. The Respondent has advised us that he does not own “Tepirita Enforce” and he is likely to be responsible to his Owners for any refund of the stake that the Greyhound won.
53. The aggravating features however are firstly that this was the result of a positive test for his Greyhound and also the fact that the Respondent did not undertake proper investigation about the product. He told us that he spoke to a Vet Nurse (he thought) although the Veterinary Firm disputes the Respondent’s recollection of this.
54. Procaine is a local anaesthetic and we are in some doubt as to the Respondent’s reasons for using the product.
55. The matter that most concerns us is that on the label of the product it specifies that there is a 21 day withholding period. It is our view that the Respondent has been negligent and simply reading the label would have helped him.
There is a clear message for any Trainer in any Code giving a product to their Greyhounds or their Horses that they should not only take veterinary advice but they should read the labels. That is a matter of common-sense and to ignore the label exposes the Trainer to a charge of being negligent. Trainers always have a duty of care and part of that duty is to read labels on products.
56. It is very important that the Integrity of Racing is preserved and a positive test for any animal undermines that Integrity and always leads to bad publicity.
57. In the latter part of 2014 Greyhound Racing New Zealand has categorized Prohibited Substances and has provided new penalty starting points in each of those categories. The drug involved in this matter is in Category 5 and the starting point penalty is 3 months disqualification and/or a fine of $4,000.00.
58. 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.
59. 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.
60. In coming to our decision as to penalty we are also aware of the fact that the Respondent does not own “Tepirita Enforce” and because we will order that the stake of $550.00 won by the Greyhound must be returned we assume that the Respondent will be responsible to his Owners for that amount.
Penalty
61. Pursuant to Rule 87.4 the Committee orders that “Tepirita Enforce” be disqualified from Race 11 at the Race Meeting conducted by Waikato Greyhound Racing Club at Cambridge on the 30th day of October 2014.
62. The Committee orders that the stake of $550.00 earned by “Tepirita Enforce” is to be refunded to Greyhound Racing New Zealand for distribution in accordance with the amended placings consequent upon the disqualification of “Tepirita Enforce”.
63. The Committee imposes a fine of $3,000.00 on Mr Agent.
64. The RIU did not apply for costs and accordingly no Orders as to Costs are made.
65. This Hearing was conducted on a Race Day and accordingly there are no further Orders as to Costs.
BJ Scott AJ Godsalve
Chairman Committee Member
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 25/01/2015
Publish Date: 25/01/2015
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: f0ccac99c4fcd271ca7569e2b4b337e8
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 25/01/2015
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v T Agent - decision dated 20 January 2015
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Greyhound Racing
BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT – Andy Cruickshank
Investigator
Informant
AND TRENT AGENT – Licensed Trainer NZGRA
Respondent
Rules: 87.1, 87.3, 89.1 and 87.4
Information: A7103
Judicial Committee: BJ Scott, Chairman – AJ Godsalve, Committee Member
Appearing: Mr A Cruickshank (Investigator) for the Informant
Mr T Agent as the Respondent
Registrar: Mr W Robinson
Venue: Cambridge Raceway, Cambridge
Date of Hearing: 24th December 2014
Date of Decision: 20th January 2015
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
1. Mr Agent appeared before this Judicial Committee on the following charge:
On the 30th day of October 2014, Trent Agent was the Licenced Trainer of the Greyhound “Tepirita Enforce” which was presented for and raced in Race 11 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 5 Prohibited Substance, namely Procaine, 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.
2. Rule 87.1 provides:
“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 any Prohibited Substance.”
Rule 87.3 provides:
“Without limiting any of the provisions 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.”
Rule 89.1 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 (1) Offence; and/or
b. Suspension; and/or
c. Disqualification; and/or
d. Warning Off.
Rule 87.4 provides:
“Any Greyhound which competes in a Race and is found to be the recipient of a Prohibited Substance shall be Disqualified from that Race.
3. Mr Agent confirmed that he understood the above Rules and that he admitted the charge. We thus find the charge approved.
4. Mr Cruickshank tabled a signed authority from the Racing Integrity Unit General Manager to proceed with the charge against Mr Agent.
5. Mr Cruickshank also tabled a copy of the Certificate of Analysis from New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services together with RIU Sample Identity Record No. 64193 and a copy of Mr Agent’s License Application.
Summary of Facts
6. The Respondent is a licensed Owner/Trainer under the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Association.
7. On the 30th of October 2014 “Tepirita Enforce” was correctly entered and presented to race by the Respondent in Race 11 at the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club Meeting at Cambridge.
8. “Tepirita Enforce” underwent a random Post Race swab. The Respondent does not contest the swabbing process.
9. “Tepirita Enforce” finished second of the eight Greyhounds and won a stake of $550.00.
10. All swab samples from the Meeting were couriered to the New Zealand Racing Laboratory and were analysed for the presence of substances prohibited under the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association.
11. On the 12th of November 2014 the Official Racing Analyst reported in writing that the sample from “Tepirita Enforce” had tested positive to Procaine.
12. Procaine Penicillin is an antibiotic based prescription medicine used to treat infections. It is a Restricted Veterinary Medicine and is not available over the counter.
13. Procaine 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.
14. The Respondent was spoken to at his home address on Thursday the 20th of November 2014. He advised Investigators that he had injected “Tepirita Enforce” with Intracillin about 14 days before he was due to race. The Respondent stated that he was treating the Greyhound for diarrheoa and had been advised by his Vet that Intracillin would clear it up.
15. The Respondent has been involved in the Greyhound Industry for over three years and is the Trainer of a number of Greyhounds. He has had no previous rule breaches in this time.
16. The Respondent was given the opportunity to address the Committee and he said that he accepted the Summary of Facts as presented by Mr Cruickshank.
17. He did say however that prior to using the Intracillin he had spoken to his Vet about it and was told that there was a five day withholding period. After being questioned by the Committee the Respondent did say that it may have been a Vet Nurse that he spoke to.
He did say that he gave his dog one shot of Intracillin 14 days before Race Day.
18. The Committee questioned the Respondent further because the Procaine in Intracillin appears to be an anaesthetic drug. He said that he was using it because the dog had blood in its faeces and he was trying to cure that problem. He said that he was not trying to enhance the performance of his dog but only to fix the problem.
19. Mr Cruickshank disputed the Respondent’s recollection of his contact with the Veterinary Company. He said that he had spoken with the Taumarunui Vets and that no one at the Veterinary Services recalled advising the Respondent to use Intracillin for a dog with diarrhoea or advising him that the stand down period would be five days.
20. Mr Cruickshank had the bottle of Intracillin with him and the label disclosed that the withholding period was 21 days.
Penalty Submissions by Mr Cruickshank
21. The Respondent is a licensed Owner/Trainer under the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Association. He has been involved in the Industry for approximately three and one half years. He is 41 years of age with a date of birth of 27.08.1973.
22. He has admitted a breach of the Rules in relation to the Greyhound he trains “Tepirita Enforce” on the 30th of October 2014 at the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club Meeting at Cambridge.
23. The drug concerned, the details of its administration are all contained in the agreed Summary of Facts above and these are not disputed.
24. The penalties which may be imposed are also fully detailed in the attached Charge Rule Penalty provision documents.
25. On the 1st of September 2014 the Board of Greyhound Racing New Zealand gave approval to new penalty standards and categorized various Prohibited Substances.
26. Procaine is categorized as a Category 5 Prohibited Substance. The new penalties allow for a Disqualification and/or 3 months suspension and/or a fine of $4,000.00.
27. Mr Cruickshank advised the Committee that he believed that this breach can be dealt with by way of monetary penalty. To that end he sought a fine of $4,000.00.
28. These are new penalties which were well publicized within the Greyhound Racing community and were intended to encourage more diligence and compliance with the Rules, by Owners, Trainers and those in charge of Greyhounds at Race Meetings.
29. Mr Cruickshank advised that he understood that this is the first matter to be heard under the new penalty provisions.
30. In support of this penalty Mr Cruickshank referred to previous decisions by the JCA made prior to the new penalty standards, which may be of some assistance.
31. In RIU v P (6.11.14) in this matter a Greyhound tested positive for Diclofenac which was mistakenly administered. The penalty imposed was a fine of $1,400.00 and the dog was disqualified.
32. In RIU v C (25.08.2014) in this matter the two Greyhounds tested positive for Pheniramine which was mistakenly administered. The penalty imposed was a total fine of $2,600.00 and both dogs disqualified.
33. RIU v G (26.6.11) in this matter the Greyhound had Stanozolol negligently administered and was fined $2,000.00, $350.00 JCA costs and the Greyhound disqualified.
34. RIU v L (15.11.13) in this matter the Greyhound had Difflam administered knowing it contained Benzyclamine. Penalty imposed $1,450.00 fine, no costs and the Greyhound disqualified.
35. RIU v CR (2.11.12) in this matter was the non-intentional administration of Morphine through having feed poppy seed bread. Penalty imposed $2,000.00 fine, JCA costs $350.00 and the Greyhound disqualified.
36. RIU v M (3.10.11) the same circumstances as paragraph 30. Penalty imposed $2,000.00 fine, JCA costs $500.00 and Greyhound disqualified.
37. RIU v M (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. Penalty imposed $3,000.00 on both charges with both Greyhounds disqualified.
38. This matter is not a situation where the drug in this case “Procaine” was administered to enhance performance.
39. Procaine penicillin is a component of the product Intracillin. This is a Restricted Veterinary Medicine which the Respondent had purchased previously.
40. When spoken to the Respondent advised that when he purchased the produce he was advised by the Veterinary Centre that there was a 5 day stand down period for the product.
41. Enquiries were carried out with the Vets where the Intracillin was purchased, Totally Vets, Taumarunui. In particular Dr Natasha Smith advised that none of the staff had spoken to the Respondent since July 2014 and none recalled advising him to use Intracillin to treat diarrhoea or advising that the stand down period is 5 days.
42. Dr Smith also advised that she did not personally discuss the stand down period with the Respondent in July but the Intracillin label specifies that there is a 21 day withhold for horse racing (which is the same as for dog racing).
43. It is acknowledged that the Respondent has been fully co-operative throughout the investigative process.
44. The Respondent has no other rule breaches during his three and one half year involvement in the Industry.
45. “Tepirita Enforce” placed second in the Race and received a stake of $550.00. Repayment of the winning stake is required.
47. The “B” sample has not been tested and the RIU are seeking no costs.
Penalty Submission by the Respondent
48. The Respondent produced two references in support of him from fellow Trainers.
49. The Respondent also referred to the penalties given in prior decisions that were produced by Mr Cruickshank. He submitted that based on those decisions his penalty should be a fine at the lower level. He also said that the prior cases dealt with substances in higher categories of Prohibited Substances than his one and this should be taken into account as far as his penalty was concerned.
Reasons for Penalty
50. The Committee has carefully considered all the evidence and the submissions put before us.
51. In mitigation, the Committee notes the Respondent’s admission of the breach, his full cooperation with the investigation process, his references and his good record.
52. The Respondent has advised us that he does not own “Tepirita Enforce” and he is likely to be responsible to his Owners for any refund of the stake that the Greyhound won.
53. The aggravating features however are firstly that this was the result of a positive test for his Greyhound and also the fact that the Respondent did not undertake proper investigation about the product. He told us that he spoke to a Vet Nurse (he thought) although the Veterinary Firm disputes the Respondent’s recollection of this.
54. Procaine is a local anaesthetic and we are in some doubt as to the Respondent’s reasons for using the product.
55. The matter that most concerns us is that on the label of the product it specifies that there is a 21 day withholding period. It is our view that the Respondent has been negligent and simply reading the label would have helped him.
There is a clear message for any Trainer in any Code giving a product to their Greyhounds or their Horses that they should not only take veterinary advice but they should read the labels. That is a matter of common-sense and to ignore the label exposes the Trainer to a charge of being negligent. Trainers always have a duty of care and part of that duty is to read labels on products.
56. It is very important that the Integrity of Racing is preserved and a positive test for any animal undermines that Integrity and always leads to bad publicity.
57. In the latter part of 2014 Greyhound Racing New Zealand has categorized Prohibited Substances and has provided new penalty starting points in each of those categories. The drug involved in this matter is in Category 5 and the starting point penalty is 3 months disqualification and/or a fine of $4,000.00.
58. 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.
59. 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.
60. In coming to our decision as to penalty we are also aware of the fact that the Respondent does not own “Tepirita Enforce” and because we will order that the stake of $550.00 won by the Greyhound must be returned we assume that the Respondent will be responsible to his Owners for that amount.
Penalty
61. Pursuant to Rule 87.4 the Committee orders that “Tepirita Enforce” be disqualified from Race 11 at the Race Meeting conducted by Waikato Greyhound Racing Club at Cambridge on the 30th day of October 2014.
62. The Committee orders that the stake of $550.00 earned by “Tepirita Enforce” is to be refunded to Greyhound Racing New Zealand for distribution in accordance with the amended placings consequent upon the disqualification of “Tepirita Enforce”.
63. The Committee imposes a fine of $3,000.00 on Mr Agent.
64. The RIU did not apply for costs and accordingly no Orders as to Costs are made.
65. This Hearing was conducted on a Race Day and accordingly there are no further Orders as to Costs.
BJ Scott AJ Godsalve
Chairman Committee Member
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: