Non-Raceday Inquiry – DW Harris
ID: JCA21125
Hearing Type (Code):
thoroughbred-racing
Decision:
A Ruling was requested by Mr Scott on behalf of HRNZ to have the horse ROSES IN MAY disqualified from Race 11 The Eureka Trust Mobile Pace at the Oamaru Harness Racing Club's race meeting on 20 May 2007.
A Ruling was requested by Mr Scott on behalf of HRNZ to have the horse ROSES IN MAY disqualified from Race 11 The Eureka Trust Mobile Pace at the Oamaru Harness Racing Club's race meeting on 20 May 2007. Mr Scott produced a letter of 3 July 2007 signed by Mr Edward Rennell, General Manager HRNZ, authorising the lodging of the information pursuant to rule 1103(4)(c).
----After Race 11 at the Oamaru Harness Racing Club's race meeting on 20 May 2007 the horse ROSES IN MAY which ran second and received a stake of $1500 was swabbed and the subsequent analysis revealed the presence of Heptaminol which is a prohibited substance under the NZ Rules of Harness Racing.
----ROSES IN MAY is a 2 year old filly owned by Mr David Harris of Herbert, North Otago. Mr Harris is also the trainer of the filly. He is licensed to train under the Rules of Harness Racing.
----Mr Harris was interviewed by Mr N Scott, Racecourse Inspector, at Mr Harris's stables on 31 May 2007. When advised ROSES IN MAY had returned a positive test to Heptaminol Mr Scott said Mr Harris showed genuine surprise and was at a loss to account for this drug. On being asked if he had administered Kynoselen, a known substance to contain Heptaminol, he readily admitted that he had administered a dose of Kynoselen to the filly on the Saturday morning, the day before the Oamaru race meeting.
----Mr Harris explained that when he purchased the Kynoselen from his local veterinary clinic he specifically requested to be supplied the "safe" Kynoselen, meaning the Kynoselen product that had no withholding time. Currently there are two products under the name of Kynoselen on the market. One Kynoselen contains the prohibited substance Heptaminol and has a withholding time and cannot be administered 72 hours before a horse races. The other Kynoselen does not contain the prohibited substance Heptaminol and has no withholding time.
----Mr Harris told Mr Scott that he had purchased the Kynoselen on 26 March 2007 from one of his local veterinary clinics. In discussion with the veterinarian he stated his filly was ?tying up? and he was adamant he requested the "safe" Kynoselen as his filly was racing at the time. Mr Harris said to Mr Scott that he was present when the veterinary surgeon serving him checked the drug catalogue and indicated that this was the product he required. He stated he repeated again he wanted the "safe" product and no mention was made of any withholding time and he assumed he was being supplied with the "safe" Kynoselen.
----Mr Harris acknowledged to Mr Scott that he did not know the nature or name of the substance or drug (namely Heptaminol) that was in the alternative product also sold as Kynoselen. He further told Mr Scott that he was not familiar with the two different Kynoselen labels and packaging (although minor and subtle), so would not have realised he had the wrong product.
----Inquiries by Mr Scott at the veterinary clinic confirmed Mr Harris's explanation. The veterinarian stated she was not familiar with Kynoselen and did not use it in her day to day work in the small animal side of the practice. She told Mr Scott that she referred to the Ethical Agents drug catalogue (the importer of the product) and it only listed the one Kynoselen product as Kynoselen ? Heptaminol free (nil w/hold). She assumed this was the "safe" Kynoselen Mr Harris was requesting. As such, she had no reason to check the formulation of substances making up the Kynoselen as printed on the package or bottle. She had no knowledge that there were in fact two substances being marketed currently under the same name. The veterinarian acknowledged to Mr Scott that she had unconsciously mislead Mr Harris into believing he had purchased the "safe" Kynoselen product.
----Mr Scott stated that the file had been referred to HRNZ's solicitor. A legal opinion was received by HRNZ to the effect that it would be appropriate not to charge Mr Harris with breaching the prohibited substances regulations as Mr Harris had acted in good faith in making inquiries and relying on veterinary advice that the Kynoselen with which he was provided was "safe".
----Mr Harris told the Committee that Mr Scott's account of events was correct. He emphasised that he had specifically gone back into the veterinary clinic to ensure that the Kynoselen he had been given was the "safe" Kynoselen and that the veterinarian had looked up the catalogue and confirmed to him that it was. He said that if he could not rely on the veterinarian in these circumstances, whom could he rely on.
----Rule 1004D of the Rules Harness Racing provides:
--------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.
----The Committee is satisfied that ROSES IN MAY was entered for and started in the Eureka Trust Mobile Pace at the Oamaru Harness Racing Club's race meeting on 20 May 2007 after having had administered to it the drug Heptaminol which is a prohibited substance under the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing. In these circumstances we disqualify ROSES IN MAY from that race.
----------The amended stake bearing placing are:
----1st BELLE ABBEYE
--2nd DAVINABLE
--3rd EILISH FINN
--4th FEARLESS MADDI
--5th SWINGER
----HRNZ are directed to arrange the necessary amendments and re-allocation of stake monies.
----Neither party has sought an order for costs. The matter has been heard on raceday. There is therefore no order for costs.
------
G Hall Chairman
--D Steel Member
--Decision Date: 01/01/2001
Publish Date: 01/01/2001
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: 6ba9368f68d024aace7d75116577d2ca
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
startdate: 01/01/2001
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: no date provided
hearing_title: Non-Raceday Inquiry - DW Harris
charge:
facts:
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
A Ruling was requested by Mr Scott on behalf of HRNZ to have the horse ROSES IN MAY disqualified from Race 11 The Eureka Trust Mobile Pace at the Oamaru Harness Racing Club's race meeting on 20 May 2007.
A Ruling was requested by Mr Scott on behalf of HRNZ to have the horse ROSES IN MAY disqualified from Race 11 The Eureka Trust Mobile Pace at the Oamaru Harness Racing Club's race meeting on 20 May 2007. Mr Scott produced a letter of 3 July 2007 signed by Mr Edward Rennell, General Manager HRNZ, authorising the lodging of the information pursuant to rule 1103(4)(c).
----After Race 11 at the Oamaru Harness Racing Club's race meeting on 20 May 2007 the horse ROSES IN MAY which ran second and received a stake of $1500 was swabbed and the subsequent analysis revealed the presence of Heptaminol which is a prohibited substance under the NZ Rules of Harness Racing.
----ROSES IN MAY is a 2 year old filly owned by Mr David Harris of Herbert, North Otago. Mr Harris is also the trainer of the filly. He is licensed to train under the Rules of Harness Racing.
----Mr Harris was interviewed by Mr N Scott, Racecourse Inspector, at Mr Harris's stables on 31 May 2007. When advised ROSES IN MAY had returned a positive test to Heptaminol Mr Scott said Mr Harris showed genuine surprise and was at a loss to account for this drug. On being asked if he had administered Kynoselen, a known substance to contain Heptaminol, he readily admitted that he had administered a dose of Kynoselen to the filly on the Saturday morning, the day before the Oamaru race meeting.
----Mr Harris explained that when he purchased the Kynoselen from his local veterinary clinic he specifically requested to be supplied the "safe" Kynoselen, meaning the Kynoselen product that had no withholding time. Currently there are two products under the name of Kynoselen on the market. One Kynoselen contains the prohibited substance Heptaminol and has a withholding time and cannot be administered 72 hours before a horse races. The other Kynoselen does not contain the prohibited substance Heptaminol and has no withholding time.
----Mr Harris told Mr Scott that he had purchased the Kynoselen on 26 March 2007 from one of his local veterinary clinics. In discussion with the veterinarian he stated his filly was ?tying up? and he was adamant he requested the "safe" Kynoselen as his filly was racing at the time. Mr Harris said to Mr Scott that he was present when the veterinary surgeon serving him checked the drug catalogue and indicated that this was the product he required. He stated he repeated again he wanted the "safe" product and no mention was made of any withholding time and he assumed he was being supplied with the "safe" Kynoselen.
----Mr Harris acknowledged to Mr Scott that he did not know the nature or name of the substance or drug (namely Heptaminol) that was in the alternative product also sold as Kynoselen. He further told Mr Scott that he was not familiar with the two different Kynoselen labels and packaging (although minor and subtle), so would not have realised he had the wrong product.
----Inquiries by Mr Scott at the veterinary clinic confirmed Mr Harris's explanation. The veterinarian stated she was not familiar with Kynoselen and did not use it in her day to day work in the small animal side of the practice. She told Mr Scott that she referred to the Ethical Agents drug catalogue (the importer of the product) and it only listed the one Kynoselen product as Kynoselen ? Heptaminol free (nil w/hold). She assumed this was the "safe" Kynoselen Mr Harris was requesting. As such, she had no reason to check the formulation of substances making up the Kynoselen as printed on the package or bottle. She had no knowledge that there were in fact two substances being marketed currently under the same name. The veterinarian acknowledged to Mr Scott that she had unconsciously mislead Mr Harris into believing he had purchased the "safe" Kynoselen product.
----Mr Scott stated that the file had been referred to HRNZ's solicitor. A legal opinion was received by HRNZ to the effect that it would be appropriate not to charge Mr Harris with breaching the prohibited substances regulations as Mr Harris had acted in good faith in making inquiries and relying on veterinary advice that the Kynoselen with which he was provided was "safe".
----Mr Harris told the Committee that Mr Scott's account of events was correct. He emphasised that he had specifically gone back into the veterinary clinic to ensure that the Kynoselen he had been given was the "safe" Kynoselen and that the veterinarian had looked up the catalogue and confirmed to him that it was. He said that if he could not rely on the veterinarian in these circumstances, whom could he rely on.
----Rule 1004D of the Rules Harness Racing provides:
--------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.
----The Committee is satisfied that ROSES IN MAY was entered for and started in the Eureka Trust Mobile Pace at the Oamaru Harness Racing Club's race meeting on 20 May 2007 after having had administered to it the drug Heptaminol which is a prohibited substance under the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing. In these circumstances we disqualify ROSES IN MAY from that race.
----------The amended stake bearing placing are:
----1st BELLE ABBEYE
--2nd DAVINABLE
--3rd EILISH FINN
--4th FEARLESS MADDI
--5th SWINGER
----HRNZ are directed to arrange the necessary amendments and re-allocation of stake monies.
----Neither party has sought an order for costs. The matter has been heard on raceday. There is therefore no order for costs.
------
G Hall Chairman
--D Steel Member
--sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Old Hearing
Rules: 1103.4.c
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: