Non-Raceday Inquiry – GV Laursen

hearingid: abe8211664dd344fd9710d25a41a0e16

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 01/01/2001

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Non-Raceday Inquiry - GV Laursen

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

The facts set out were that the horse MAN IN CHARGE was brought to the Waipukurau Racecourse on Sunday 10 December and started in the Waipukurau Construction Super Liquor Waipawa Dash and won.    Subsequently the horse was swabbed

INQUIRY HELD AT AWAPUNI RACECOURSE PALMERSTON NORTH

ON THURSDAY 25 JANUARY 2007

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE:

Mr BP Holland  (Chairman)

Mrs NM Moffatt

PRESENT:

Mr RP Bevege  -  Racecourse Inspector  -  Informant

Mr JW McKenzie - Chief Racecourse Inspector

Mr GV Laursen  -  Defendant

Mr J Tannahill  -  Counsel for Defendant

Mr N Goodwin  -  NZTR Stipendiary Steward   -  Hearing Registrar

_______________________________________________________________

DECISION OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

________________________________________________________________

Firstly the Committee heard Information No 41336 "Request for a Ruling"

The facts set out were that the horse MAN IN CHARGE was brought to the Waipukurau Racecourse on Sunday 10 December and started in the Waipukurau Construction Super Liquor Waipawa Dash and won.

Subsequently the horse was swabbed and this showed the horse had been administered a prohibited substance in breach of Rule 1004 (2) and that by virtue thereof and of the provisions of the Rule 1004 (1) of the New Zealand Rules of Racing, the said horse shall be disqualified.

There were no objections from either Mr Tannahill nor Mr Laursen and both fully understood and accepted that the horse namely MAN IN CHARGE would be disqualified.

Amended placings for the race are:

1^st Squire Lloyd

2^nd J Que

3^rd Lady Babs

4^th Babe in Boxes

4^th Wailea Miss

The Committee then heard Information 7019 "Alleging a Breach of the Rules" namely Rule 1004 (2.)

Mr McKenzie read the rule and Mr Tannahill and Mr Laursen acknowledged they understood same. Mr Laursen through Mr Tannahill admitted the breach of the rule.

Mr McKenzie then gave the Committee the following summary.

MAN IN CHARGE is a 4 year old chestnut horse, which is trained at Foxton by Licensed Trainer Mr Grant LAURSEN who appears before the tribunal today. The horse is leased by the Man in Charge Syndicate which is administered by Patrick Murphy, who is the Racing Manager.

MAN IN CHARGE was started in Race 2 in the Waipukurau Construction Liquor Waipawa Dash at Waipukurau Jockey Club Meeting run at the Waipukurau Racecourse on Sunday 10 December 2006. The horse won the race and was then taken to the Swabbing box for swabbing.

The horse was accompanied to the swab box by M/s Sarah Satherley, who is the partner of the Trainer. The swabbing was carried out in accordance with the directives of the NZTR with the collection of the urine sample and the relative documentation attended to before the sealing of the samples for the dispatch to New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services. The urine sample collected from MAN IN CHARGE was issued with Swab Card Record Number 4556.

On 22 December 2006, the official Racing Analyst, by way of a certificate of analysis identified that the urine sample NZTR 4556 was received in laboratory with all seals on 12 December 2006 and was given laboratory number 06/6167. His findings were that the urine sample contained metabolites of the substance Dipyrone. The control sample was negative.

Dipyrone is a prohibited substance as defined under Rule 105 of the New Zealand Rules of Racing and Dr Andrew Grierson, New Zealand Veterinary Consultant for New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing, confirmed that in a written opinion was given to the Committee.

On 29 December 2006, Racecourse Inspector RP Bevage went to the training premises of Mr G Laursen at Foxton to speak to him about the Analyst's finding. Mr Laursen was advised of the positive swab and given a copy of the Certificate of Analysis.

Mr Laursen expressed surprise and denied having any knowledge of how the horse MAN IN CHARGE could have returned a positive sample.

Dipyrone is a drug found in the compound known by its commercial name of Buscopan. Buscopan is used for the treatment of horses suffering from colic.

When questioned Mr Laursen admitted that he had been supplied with Buscopan by his Veterinary Surgeon. This substance is normally administered by the Vet. It is administered by way of intravenous injection. However, because of the distance that his Veterinary Surgeon would be required to travel to treat a horse suffering from an attack of Colic she leaves a syringe with 10 mls of the drug for Mr Laursen to administer should one of his horses suffer such and attack.

Mr Laursen told the Racecourse Inspector that about nine days prior to the Waipukurau Jockey Club meeting one of his horses had suffered an attack of Colic. This attack had occurred late in the evening and he had injected the horse using the syringe left by the Vet.

He further stated that he would normally then throw away the needle and washes out the syringe but because of the time of night he is unsure that he did that on this occasion.

Mr Laursen then stated the he had prepared a Vitamin Mixture in that Syringe and had administered that to the horse MAN IN CHARGE some three days prior to it racing at Waipukurau

The only explanation he can give for MAN IN CHARGE returning a positive Swab is that there was still a quantity of the prohibited substance Dipyrone left in the Syringe and that this has been administered along with the Vitamins.

Mr Laursen was able to show the Racecourse Inspector the Syringes made up with the Vitamin mixtures and these were photographed.

The photos were then shown to the Committee and Mr Tannahill.

Mr Laursen supplied a written statement and a copy of that is attached hereto.

Mr Laursen fully understands the stand down period required for the drug Dipyrone (Buscopan) but not believing that the horse had ever had it administered to it had no cause for concern.

It should be pointed out that Mr Laursen and his staff fully co-operated with the Racecourse Inspector and that he had accepted the findings of the Racing Laboratory.

Mr Tannahill asked the Committee to consider Mr Laursen's good record (it is his 1^st charge under this rule and he has been training for 20 years) and the fact that he co-operating fully with authorities and was quick to admit the breach, Mr McKenzie asked the Committee to impose a substantial monetary penalty and requested costs of $1500.00 for NZTR.

The Committee when considering penalty took into account submissions from both parties, Mr Laursen's good record and his co-operation with NZTR however they were of the view that the days of modest penalties submitted by Mr Tannahill are long gone. Substantial fines even for first offenders must be expected.

Any penalty must be a punishment a deterrent to others and show disapproval.

Racing must always be seen to be on an even playing field and a product people can invest in with confidence.

The penalty in this case will be a fine of $4000 and we also order $1500 to be paid to NZTR and $650 to the Judicial Control Authority.

BP Holland

NM Moffatt

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

Rules: 1004.2, 1004.1

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: