Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v M J Flipp 15 August 2013 – Reserved Decision dated 4 September 2013

hearingid: 5f4378e121c9f60dc9b37df72dbc2379

informantnumber: A5007

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 01/09/2013

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v M J Flipp 15 August 2013 - Reserved Decision dated 4 September 2013

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH

IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association

IN THE MATTER of Information No. A5007

BETWEEN KYLIE ROCHELLE WILLIAMS, Racing Investigator for the Racing Integrity Unit

Informant

AND MARCELLE JEAN FLIPP of Rakaia, Licensed Public Trainer

Respondent

Judicial Committee: R G McKenzie, Chairman - S C Ching, Committee Member

Present:

Mrs K R Williams, the Informant

Ms M J Flipp, the Respondent

Mr R A Quirk, Registrar

Date of Hearing: 15 August 2013

Date of Decision: 4 September 2013

RESERVED DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

The Charge:

[1] Information No.A5007 alleges that:

(1) On the 4th June 2013, Marcelle Jean Flipp, being the registered trainer of the greyhound BANK ROLLER presented the greyhound to race in Race 8, the Clarkson Sign Studio Stakes, at the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club meeting with a prohibited substance, namely Caffeine, Theobromine, Theophylline and Paraxanthine, in its system . . in breach of Rule 87.1 and 87.3 of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules;

(2) On the 11th June 2013, Marcelle Jean Flipp being the registered trainer of the greyhound POPSTAR ROCKET presented the greyhound to race in Race 9, the Graduation Final, at the Southland Greyhound Racing Club meeting with a prohibited substance, namely Caffeine, Theobromine, Theophylline and Paraxanthine, in its system. . in breach of Rule 87.1 and 87.3 of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules;

(3) On the 13th June 2013, Marcelle Jean Flipp, being the registered trainer of the greyhound SAHARA STORM presented the greyhound to race in Race 8, the Shirley Vet Service Distance Feature, at the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club meeting with a prohibited substance, namely Caffeine, Theobromine, Theophylline and Paraxanthine, in its system . . in breach of Rule 87.1 and 87.3 of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules; and

(4) (4) On the 24th June 2013, Marcelle Jean Flipp, being the registered trainer of the greyhound BANK ROLLER presented the greyhound to race in Race 5, the Flatpack Houses Ph. 03 3715005 Sprint, at the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club meeting with a prohibited substance, namely Caffeine, Theobromine, Theophylline and Paraxanthine, in its system . . in breach of Rule 87.1 and 87.3 of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules; and

[2] Mrs Williams produced a letter signed by Mr M R Godber, General Manager of the Racing Integrity Unit, authorising the lodging of the information.

The Rules:

[3] Rule 87 of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association provides as follows:

87.1 The Owner, Trainer or person in charge of a Greyhound Nominated to compete in an [sic] Race, shall produce the Greyhound for the Race free of any Prohibited Substances.

87.3 Without limiting the provisions of any 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.

The Plea:

[4] The above charges and Rules were read to Ms Flipp and she indicated that she admitted each of the four charges.

Background:

[5] Ms Flipp stated in a statement to Racing Investigators that she originally saw a full-page advertisement for “EPO Canine” in “The Greyhound Recorder”, 21 February 2013 edition, while she was in Australia.

[6] Upon returning to New Zealand, Ms Flipp located the website for the product and read up on it before deciding to import some into New Zealand. The website is operated by the USA-based Biomedical Research Laboratories (BRL). Miss Flipp advised that she paid particular attention to the claim that the product is “safe, effective, legal”. This statement is clearly visible on the bottles of “EPO Canine”, the advertising and the website. The advertising also claimed that the product will not produce a positive swab. The ingredients listed as being in the product are purported to be natural and caffeine was not listed as a component.

[7] Ms Flipp subsequently opened an account with BRL online and made her first order for three bottles on 29 April 2013. After receiving these, she then ordered another twelve bottles on 28 May 2013.

[8] That subsequent order was intercepted and stopped at Auckland by the Ministry of Primary Industry (MPI) who had concerns about the ACVM (Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act) class determination. Ms Flipp was advised of this by e-mail. She contacted BRL who, instead of resolving the problem with MPI, simply dispatched a new shipment to Ms Flipp.

[9] Ms Flipp subsequently received a shipment of twelve bottles of “EPO Canine”. The packing slip on the container in which the bottles came stated that the box contained twelve bottles of “Vita Boost” valued at $120. The cost of twelve bottles of “EPO Canine” is $494.60. The ingredients of the two products are very similar.

[10] Ms Flipp stated to the Racing Investigators that she administered “EPO Canine” to her greyhounds – two capsules twice a day with the morning and night feeds, even on raceday.

Summary of Facts (BANK ROLLER):

[11] Following the race at Addington on 4th June, BANK ROLLER, which finished 2nd in the race earning a stake of $422.50, was routinely swabbed by the Club’s Veterinarian, Mr Dave Matheson. Ms Flipp was present during the taking of the sample and did not contest the swabbing process.

[12] On 14th June 2013, the New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services (NZRLS) advised that the urine sample taken from BANK ROLLER on 4th June 2013 had tested positive to Caffeine and its metabolites Theobromine, Theophylline and Paraxanthine. Caffeine is a prohibited substance.

[13] On 19th June 2013, Racing Investigators Mr Robin Scott and Mrs Williams, visited Ms Flipp’s property and advised her of the positive swab. Ms Flipp provided the Investigators with a product labelled “EPO Canine” which was forwarded to NZRLS for analysis.

[14] Ms Flipp was advised by the Racing Investigators to cease using “EPO Canine” while tests were being conducted on the product. Ms Flipp stopped using the product for two days but then recommenced its use, believing that it had not been the cause of the positive swab.

Summary of Facts (POPSTAR ROCKET):

[15] Following the race at Southland on 11th June 2013, POPSTAR ROCKET, which won the race earning a stake of $2,250, was routinely swabbed by the Club’s Veterinarian, Mrs L Stuart. Ms Flipp was present during the taking of the sample and did not contest the swabbing process.

[16] In a Certificate of Analysis dated 26th June 2013, the New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services (NZRLS) advised that the urine sample taken from OPAWA PATCH had tested positive to Caffeine and its metabolites Theobromine, Theophylline and Paraxanthine.

Summary of Facts (SAHARA STORM):

[17] Following the race at Christchurch on 13th June 2013, SAHARA STORM, which won the race earning a stake of $1,320, was routinely swabbed by the Club’s Veterinarian, Mr D Matheson. Ms Flipp was present during the taking of the sample and did not contest the swabbing process.

[18] In a Certificate of Analysis dated 26th June 2013, the New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services (NZRLS) advised that the urine sample taken from SAHARA STORM had tested positive to Caffeine and its metabolites Theobromine, Theophylline and Paraxanthine.

Summary of Facts (BANK ROLLER – 2nd BREACH):

[19] Following the race at Addington on 24th June, BANK ROLLER, which finished 5th in the race, was routinely swabbed by the Club’s Veterinarian, Mr Dave Matheson. Ms Flipp was present during the taking of the sample and did not contest the swabbing process.

[20] On 9th July 2013, the New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services (NZRLS) advised that the urine sample taken from BANK ROLLER on 24th June 2013 had tested positive to Caffeine and its metabolites Theobromine, Theophylline and Paraxanthine. Caffeine is a prohibited substance.

General Submissions by the Informant:

[21] On 25th June 2013, NZRLS advised that the sample of “EPO Canine” given by Ms Flipp to the Racing Investigators on 19th June 2013 had been analysed and caffeine had been detected.

[22] On 26th June 2013, Mr Scott and Mrs Williams returned to Ms Flipp’s property to advise her of the laboratory analysis of the “EPO Canine”. She was also advised at that time that caffeine had been detected in the samples taken from POPSTAR ROCKET and SAHARA STORM.

[23] On 26th June 2013, an advisory was issued by Mr Malcolm Jansen, Veterinary Advisor for NZGRA and Messrs Ross Neal and Nigel McIntyre, Co-Chief Stipendiary Stewards for the RIU, making greyhound trainers aware of the concerns held in relation to “EPO Canine”. This was e-mailed to all trainers and also advertised on the NZGRA website and other websites.

[24] When Ms Flipp was interviewed, she stated that she did not consult any officials on the use of “EPO Canine” prior to importing it or using it. Veterinarian, Mr Dave Matheson, confirmed in a written statement that, had he been consulted on the use of “EPO Canine”, his advice would have been: “It says on the bottle that it is legal and safe to use on racing greyhounds but I have had two occasions where caffeine was found in a similar product and this was not noted on the label. I would have advised exercising caution.”

[25] Ms Flipp had consulted with two of her owners, Messrs Christopher Earl and James Schierny, before putting their greyhounds on “EPO Canine”. Mr Earl looked at the product on the internet and came to the same conclusion as Ms Flipp that it is made specifically for racing greyhounds and should not produce a positive swab. He was, therefore, happy for Ms Flipp to use the product on his greyhounds.

[26] BRL gave an undertaking to Ms Flipp to have the product tested. They forwarded to her a copy of an e-mail they had received from Mr Bill Fanning, Integrity Manager Greyhound Racing Authority NSW, who had received advice of three of the positive swabs returned by greyhounds trained by Ms Flipp. In that e-mail Mr Fanning said:

This follows on from an analysis by our laboratory of capsules taken from a container labelled EPO Canine; Lot No. 1209197, results of which were reported by ARFL last week. This report also confirmed the presence of caffeine and its major metabolite, theobromine, in the product. Notwithstanding your advice that there is no caffeine in the product, in fairness to our participants, we believe a product warning should be posted, advising of the presence of caffeine in the product.

[27] It is clear that, despite reports from both New Zealand and Australian laboratories, BRL has not shifted from the position that its product “EPO Canine” is “safe” and did not contain any caffeine. This is, however, at odds with expert opinion as, clearly, the product was not “safe” and there were obvious issues with it.

[28] Mrs Williams produced a letter from Mr Geoff Beresford, Technical Manager of NZRLS, which contained the following:

…no one knows just what dose of caffeine is the minimum that would be detected by our analysis…It has been said many times before that it is impossible from a single urine concentration to say when, how much or in what form a dose of any drug has been administered. The key factor is probably the time of administration but the hydration level of the dog and time of sampling in relation to the urine voiding cycle of the dog will be influential.

The Penalty Rule:

[29] The penalty Rule is Rule 89.1 which 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 offence; and/or

b. Suspension; and/or

c. Disqualification; and/or

d. Warning off.

[30] The Rules also require the mandatory disqualification of the greyhound. 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.

Informant’s Penalty Submissions:

[31] Mrs Williams submitted that Ms Flipp’s culpability should be “assessed at the higher range of culpability”.

[32] She had purchased a product which is advertised as capable of affecting performance but which is described as safe because it is undetectable and can be administered to greyhounds before racing.

[33] The definition of “prohibited substances” clearly enunciates what constitutes a prohibited substance and, when referenced against the claims made by BRL, there is most clearly a conflict, especially when it is claimed that the product “increases speed, strength, endurance and recovery”.

[34] It is a misconception of trainers that only substances that are detectable are prohibited, whereas the Rules require a greyhound to be presented substance-free whether the substance is detectable or not.

[35] Ms Flipp failed to make any enquiry in relation to the use of the product in New Zealand. Further, she failed to enquire of her veterinarian nor did she actually check that the substance, which is made in the USA, was actually permitted for use in New Zealand. Nor did she enquire from BRL as to whether they had made enquiries of the New Zealand authorities concerning the product’s permitted use in this country.

[36] Ms Flipp should have been well aware that the claims made about “EPO Canine” being performance enhancing meant that its use in New Zealand greyhound racing was prohibited. She has ignored this critical component in her analysis of the product but, rather, has focussed her attention and determination about purchasing it on simply whether or not it would give rise to an adverse swab result. The outcome is that she has acquired and used “EPO Canine” because it was purported to be safe. It was submitted that simply because it was claimed to be “safe” is no defence to justify its use.

[37] Much more care needs to be taken when evaluating and selecting supplements, tonics and remedies to be given to animals. As a consequence of a global change in the mode of sales, more and more products are being sold on the internet by direct marketing and this is of concern. Where once only veterinarians prescribed such products and there was a level of professional advice, this has now been well departed from. Miss Flipp sought no veterinary expertise.

[38] While the need for medication of racing animals for the treatment of disease and injury is recognised, it is of critical importance that a trainer must fully familiarise him or herself with what effect the substance will have on the animal. A trainer must be fully aware of and understand the claims made that any product claims to treat and/or, if administered, modifies physiological functions by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action on a racing animal.

[39] Miss Flipp clearly used the “EPO Canine” with the intention of improving the greyhounds’ performance; otherwise, such a product would not be used.

[40] A significant aggravating factor of the fourth breach (BANK ROLLER on 24th June 2013) is that it occurred after Ms Flipp had been advised by the Racing Investigators to discontinue use of the product. Ms Flipp has chosen to ignore this advice in favour of BRL’s assurances that their product was not the source of her adverse test results. This approach, it was submitted, was reckless.

[41] To blindly shelter behind claims made about a product without first seeking expert opinion is cavalier at best, and it is clear that, in this case, Ms Flipp has placed reliance solely on the claims made by BRL, an overseas-based company, who in their advertising material made the claim that the product was safe. This is unacceptable as, regardless of the claims made by BRL, the product did contain a substance capable of affecting performance by way of a prohibited substance. Ms Flipp made very little enquiry from any source other than BRL itself.

[42] Ms Flipp has previously breached Rule 87.1 - in August 2003, she was fined $750 and costs of $250 after TOP CURRENT returned two positives to caffeine. This is an aggravating factor.

[43] During the course of the investigation, Ms Flipp had been open, frank and cooperative with the Racing Investigators and this is another mitigating factor.

[44] Penalties for breaches of the Prohibited Substance Rule are usually dealt with by way of fine. In this case, it was submitted, Ms Flipp’s culpability was high. The circumstances of this case illustrate the real risk to trainers in purchasing such products.

[45] It was submitted that the appropriate starting point should be a lengthy period of disqualification where a product with the stated purpose of enhancing performance has been purchased over the internet.

[46] However, in the particular circumstances of this case, it is accepted that Ms Flipp has acted with a mistaken belief that the substance was safe to use. After being advised of the first positive, Ms Flipp again contacted the manufacturer and received erroneous assurances as to the safety of the product.

[47] Finally, the RIU submitted that it would be open for the Committee to impose a term of disqualification. However, having regard to the mitigating factors, it was submitted that a substantial fine should be imposed but with a warning to the industry that future similar cases are likely to be met with a lengthy period of disqualification.

Submissions of the Respondent:

[48] Ms Flipp said that she believed that some 72 trainers in Australia had been using “EPO Canine”, yet no Australian trainer had been involved in a positive swab as a result – only the two Canterbury trainers. This suggested a “contaminated batch”, she submitted. She had not been using the product for very long.

[49] She explained that the reason that she had not consulted her veterinarian was that she had consulted with her owners. One of those owners had made enquiries of an Australian contact and had been assured of its safety, but was told that it would not help every dog. She only used it on selected dogs, she said.

[50] It was significant that the Australian distributor, BRL, had had its own tests carried out and it was determined that caffeine was present in the batch that had been used by Ms Flipp and the other Canterbury trainer.

[51] She had been advised by BRL that any benefit from using the product would not be apparent for 2-3 weeks. SAHARA STORM and POPSTAR ROCKET had been on the product for only 2 weeks. BANK ROLLER was “on and off it” over a period of about a month.

[52] The original advertisement for “EPO Canine”, which she saw in Australia, claimed the product to be “safe, legal and effective” and with a “90 day money back risk free guarantee”. She attempts to cater for the needs of each individual greyhound and she had a couple of dogs that were not performing as well as they should be, Ms Flipp said. The owners agreed and the dogs were put on “EPO Canine”.

[53] Ms Flipp referred to an e-mail, a copy of which was produced, in which it was stated that the manufacturer had advised of a possibility that, during the manufacturing process, the same mixers were used for “Endurafuel” (another BRL product that does contain a small amount of caffeine) and “EPO Canine”. The amount of caffeine could show up in a sample testing but would not have any effect on greyhounds nor would it show in any swab because the amount was so small that it could not be detected in a urine or blood sample. The e-mail went on to say that approximately 72 Australian trainers are using “EPO Canine” on their dogs and none has returned a positive swab.

[54] Ms Flipp pointed out that the advisory from the RIU was issued on 26th June 2013. By that date, all three dogs the subject of the charges had completed their races. She accepted that she had received a warning but she did not believe that the caffeine had come from the “EPO Canine”, because of the research that she and the owners had done. She continued to use it on the one dog, BANK ROLLER.

[55] Ms Flipp produced a copy of a warning notice issued by Greyhound Racing New South Wales on 2nd August. The notice stated:

Participants are advised that analysis from two accredited laboratories has detected the presence of caffeine in the recently introduced product, EPO Canine, which is being advertised heavily as a safe and legal substance that has beneficial effects on the cardiovascular and respiratory systems of a greyhound.

The product has been linked to several reports of the presence of caffeine in raceday samples in at least one jurisdiction outside of NSW.

Trainers are warned against the use of EPO Canine and any supplement close to race day that claim to have such beneficial effects , without first consulting the Controlling Body for advice regarding the properties of such properties.

[56] The advice of the first positive result (BANK ROLLER on 4th June 2013) was received on 19th June. Two of the other positive swabs arose from races on 11th and 13th June – before she had been advised of the positive swab by BANK ROLLER on 4th June.

[57] Ms Flipp submitted, in conclusion, that she had taken “all reasonable steps” that a reasonable person would have taken as far as checking on the product was concerned. She had visited Australia in February and had not started using the “EPO Canine” until the end of May.

[58] Ms Flipp told the Committee that she had suffered the loss of several dogs from her kennels as a result of the positive swabs. One very promising dog, in particular, had had two starts for two wins and has since had another start for another win. This has affected her financially.

[59] Ms Flipp said that she would not wish to receive a period of disqualification.

Reasons for Penalty:

[60] The Committee wishes to record, at the outset, that it is satisfied that the source of the prohibited substance that resulted in these charges against Ms Flipp was the product “EPO Canine”.

[61] The mitigating factors that the Committee took into account in determining penalty in this case are, as submitted by Mrs Williams, Ms Flipp’s admission of the breaches and her cooperation with the Racing Investigators during the course of their enquiries.

[62] Ms Flipp had previously breached the Rule on a previous occasion in 2003. Mrs Williams submitted that this was an aggravating factor. However, the Committee did not regard it as such, given that it was 10 years ago and that Ms Flipp has not breached the Rule since that time.

[63] Although the Rule itself makes no reference to “negligence”, it is most relevant for a Judicial Committee considering penalty, in a case of a breach or breaches of the Prohibited Substance Rule, to consider the degree of negligence, if any, on the part of the trainer charged.

[64] Mrs Williams has submitted that Ms Flipp’s culpability should be assessed as “at the higher range of culpability”, that assessment being based on the following:

• She purchased a product which is capable of affecting performance described as “safe” because it is undetectable;

• She failed to make adequate enquiry in relation to the use of “EPO Canine” in New Zealand;

• She should have been aware that claims made about “EPO Canine” being performance-enhancing meant that its use in New Zealand was prohibited; and

• She sought no advice from her veterinarian prior to using the product.

[65] Ms Flipp did not dispute any of those submissions. Her response was, essentially, that in addition to her own enquiries about “EPO Canine” one of her owners had also made enquiries concerning the product and was satisfied that it was safe to use. Furthermore, she submitted, the product had been used extensively in Australia without any positive swabs being returned as a result of its use. It had been used by some 70 Australian trainers without a positive swab. The product was advertised as “safe, legal and effective” she said.

[66] The Committee agrees with Mrs Williams that it was imprudent of Ms Flipp not to make more exhaustive enquiries prior to using the product, “EPO Canine”, on her racing greyhounds. However, in the Committee’s view, she has been more luckless than negligent. The product had been extensively used in Australia, by 72 trainers we were told, without any positive swabs having been returned. It does appear likely that Ms Flipp, somehow, may have received a batch of the product that was contaminated. The consequences for her are significant – disqualification of the greyhounds, being charged and penalised and, not least, the harm to her reputation. She also told the Committee that a couple of greyhounds had been removed from her kennels by their owners.

[67] It is a further aggravating factor that Ms Flipp started her greyhound, BANK ROLLER, in the race at Christchurch on 24th June 2013 after having been advised by the Racing Investigators to discontinue use of the product. She was, therefore, aware of the problems associated with the use of “EPO Canine” when she started the greyhound in that race.

[68] It is of concern that the charges against Ms Flipp involve four positive swabs to a prohibited substance. On the other hand, and in fairness to Ms Flipp, the greyhounds the subject of the other three charges, had completed their races prior to her receiving notice on 19th of June that the first of those greyhounds to race, BANK ROLLER on the 4th of June, had returned a positive swab.

[69] The Committee is conscious, as always, of the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in greyhound racing and the penalty must, therefore, be such that it leaves no doubt as to the very high responsibility placed on trainers to present their greyhounds to race free of any prohibited substance. In addition, any penalty must satisfy all persons associated with the industry, including the betting public, that integrity in greyhound racing is being maintained at the highest level at all times.

[70] The Committee regards Ms Flipp’s record as being a good one, notwithstanding the previous breach in 2003.

[71] After weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Committee is of the view that the breaches can, on this occasion, be adequately dealt with by the imposition of a fine rather than any period of disqualification. Mrs Williams invited us to impose a fine rather than a term of disqualification. We do not propose to disqualify Ms Flipp, principally, because of the mitigating factors and the rather unusual circumstances of the breaches.

[72] Mrs Williams produced a schedule of penalties handed down by Judicial Committees for breaches of the Prohibited Substance Rule from July 2010. The Committee noted that there was one previous breach involving caffeine – that of B in 2010, in which case a fine of $1,500 was imposed. The levels of fines, involving various other substances, ranged between $1,500 and $3,500. In two cases, the trainer received a period of disqualification.

[73] In the present case, if it involved only a single breach, the Committee is of the view that a fine of $2,000 would be appropriate for that breach. In fact, there are four separate charges against Ms Flipp. However, to impose a fine of $2,000 for each breach – a total of $8,000 – would result in an excessive penalty and the tot

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

[74] Ms Flipp is fined the total sum of $5,000 on the four charges set out in the Schedule of Charges to Information No.A5007.

Disqualification of Greyhounds:

[75] Rule 87.4 of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association 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.

[76] That requirement is mandatory.

[77] Accordingly the following orders are made:

(i) BANK ROLLER, placed 2nd, is disqualified from Race 8, Clarkson Sign Studio Stakes, held at the Christchurch Greyhound Club’s meeting on 4th June 2013. As a consequence of the disqualification, the amended result for the race is as follows:

1st Chevy Chevelle

2nd Know Future

3rd Jinja Jam

4th Opawa Supreme

It is ordered that the stake paid to Ms Flipp be repaid by her to New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association and that stakes for the race be redistributed and paid in accordance with the amended result.

(ii) POPSTAR ROCKET, placed 2nd, is disqualified from Race 9, Graduation Final, held at the Southland Greyhound Racing Club’s meeting on 11th June 2013. As a consequence of the disqualification, the amended result for the race is as follows:

1st Grant A Wish

2nd Bone Nerd

3rd Waimak Dave

4th Take A Trick

It is ordered that the stake paid to Ms Flipp be repaid by her to New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association and that stakes for the race be redistributed and paid in accordance with the amended result.

(iii) SAHARA STORM, placed 1st, is disqualified from Race 8, Shirley Vet Clinic Distance Feature, held at the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club’s meeting on 13th June 2013. As a consequence of the disqualification, the amended result for the race is as follows:

1st Know Taste

2nd Know Future

3rd Botany Comet

4th Cawbourne Kesha

It is ordered that the stake paid to Ms Flipp be repaid by her to New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association and that stakes for the race be redistributed and paid in accordance with the amended result.

(i) BANK ROLLER (unplaced) is disqualified from Race 5, Flatpack Houses Ph. 03.3715005 Sprint, held at the Christchurch Greyhound Club’s meeting on 24th June 2013.

Costs:

[78] Mrs Williams did not seek costs on behalf of the Racing Integrity Unit. Ms Flipp is ordered to pay hearing costs to the Judicial Control Authority in the sum of $350.00.

R G McKENZIE          S C CHING

Chairman                     Committee Member 

hearing_type: Non-race day

Rules: 87.1 and 87.3

Informant: Mrs K R Williams - Racing Investigator for the Racing Integrity Unit

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent: Mrs K R Williams - the Informant, Ms M J Flipp - the Respondent, Mr R A Quirk - Registrar

Respondent: Ms M J Flipp - Licensed 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: