Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v SR Pinfold 10 August 2013 – Reserved Decision dated 16 August 2013
ID: JCA17271
Decision:
NON RACEDAY INQUIRY
RIU v Mr S Pinfold
Reserved Decision dated 16 August 2013
Rules: 804(2)
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
HELD AT PUKEKOHE PARK
IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Racing
BETWEEN RIU (Mr B Oliver – Assistant Investigator appearing for the RIU)
Informant
AND Mr SR Pinfold – Licensed Trainer
Defendant
Information No: A2215
Venue: Pukekohe Racecourse
Judicial Committee: Mr A Dooley, Chairman – B Scott, Committee Member
Appearing: Mr A Fowler – Owner of HOT IN PINK, Ms M Mullan – Partner of Mr Fowler
Registrar: Mr W Robinson – Stipendiary Steward
Plea: Admitted
Date of Hearing: 10 August 2013
Charge:
That on 20 March 2013, at Pukekohe, Mr SR Pinfold being the registered trainer and for the time being in charge of the horse HOT IN PINK which was brought to the Counties Racing Club for the purpose of engaging in, and did engage in, Race 3 of a Race Meeting conducted by the Counties Racing Club, when the said horse was found to have had present in its metabolism a prohibited substance, namely the anabolic steroid Boldenone, and that he is in breach of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Rule 804(2) and is therefore subject to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed pursuant to Rules 804(6) and 804 (7).
Rule 804(2) provides : When a horse which has been brought to a Racecourse or similar racing facility for the purpose of engaging in a Race or trial to which the Third Appendix hereto applies is found by a Tribunal conducting an inquiry to have had administered to it or have had present in its metabolism a Prohibited Substance of the type set out in paragraphs 1 to 4 of the Fourth Appendix to these Rules, the Trainer and any other person who in the opinion of such Tribunal conducting such inquiry was in charge of such horse at any relevant time commits a breach of these Rules unless he satisfies the Tribunal that he had taken all proper precautions to prevent the administration or presence of such Prohibited Substance.
Mr Pinfold acknowledged that he understood the nature of the charge and the Rule.
Mr Pinfold confirmed that he admitted the breach.
Mr Pinfold confirmed that relevant documents had been disclosed to him and that he accepted the contents of the documents and consented to the contents being admitted as evidence. Mr Oliver submitted the documents to be admitted as evidence. The proposed procedure for the conduct of the hearing was explained to the parties present. They confirmed they had no concerns or objections.
Evidence for the Informant:
Mr Oliver presented to the hearing a Summary of Facts:
1. Steven Ross Pinfold, the defendant in these proceedings is a licensed trainer, licensed under the New Zealand Rules of Racing. He has been involved in the Racing Industry in both Australia and New Zealand for over 25 years and has trained on his own since 2005.
2. On the 20th of March 2013, the horse HOT IN PINK, a 3 year old filly, trained by Mr Pinfold was correctly entered and started in Race 3 (The GUNAC GME LTD 1200) at a Race Meeting conducted by the Counties Racing Club at Pukekohe. The horse is owned by Mr A Fowler and Mr C Cochrane.
3. HOT IN PINK finished first earning gross stake money of $4,375.00.
4. HOT IN PINK was selected for a post race swab. During the swabbing process the horse was accompanied by a stable employee. A urine sample was taken at 2.40pm, some 20 minutes after the Race start time. The stable employee and the swab attendant have reported that there were no difficulties or irregularities with the collection or packaging of the samples taken from HOT IN PINK.
5. At the conclusion of the meeting the samples were checked by the Chief Racecourse Investigator and then placed in a tamper proof security bag with the other samples taken that day and forwarded to the Racing Laboratory.
6. On the 15th of April 2013, a Certificate of Analysis signed by Dr Geoff Beresford of New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services advised that the sample taken from HOT IN PINK on the 20th of March at the Counties Racing Meeting had been analysed and contained the anabolic steroid Boldenone.
7. Boldenone is an anabolic steroid and is a prohibited substance at any level when detected in urine samples from female horses.
8. Mr. Pinfold was interviewed at his training establishment at Byerley Park near Kingseat on Friday 19th of April 2013.
9. He co-operated fully with Investigators but was unable to tell how the prohibited substance would enter the horse metabolism. He said he had not heard of Boldenone or any of the proprietary products that it may have come in.
10. A search of the stables and surrounding areas did not find any product that may have contained any anabolic steroid or any substance or product that may have contained Boldenone.
11. Mr. Pinfold’s staff and his veterinarian were interviewed and could not assist. His veterinarian Dr M Gilmore produced his clinic records for the treatment of HOT IN PINK and again they did not assist the enquiry.
12. A number of samples of food products given to HOT N PINK were taken from the stables for further examination none of these samples which have been tested contained Boldenone.
13. With Mr Pinfold’s permission, a further urine sample was taken from HOT IN PINK and the analysis of this sample was completed on the 23rd of April no sign of Boldenone was found in this sample.
14. Mr Pinfold requested that the ‘B’ sample of the positive swab taken on 20th of March 2013, be forwarded to the Australian Racing Forensic Laboratory in Sydney for analysis. The result of the testing of that sample was received on 15 May and was positive to Boldenone.
15. On 27th of April 2013, HOT IN PINK raced at a Waikato Racing Club Meeting at Te Rapa and was again swabbed. Again the sample was negative to Boldenone.
16. Meetings have taken place with Mr. Pinfold, one of HOT IN PINK’S owners Mr A Fowler and a Trainers Association Representative, Mr L Molloy. These meetings were to keep parties involved up to date with the enquiry.
17. An information charging Mr Pinfold with this offence under Rule 804(2) was served on him on the 3rd of July 2013.
18. Mr Pinfold has not renewed his Class A Trainers License for the 2103/14 season. He is a family man residing in the South Auckland area. He has no previous offence with NZTR.
Evidence for the Defendant:
Mr Pinfold's opening submission was that he completed his own research on Boldenone after HOT IN PINK's positive result to the prohibited substance. He said it has been proved that Boldenone may be found in contaminated food, making reference to the case against Trainer Mr L. For this reason he was disappointed that he was first notified that HOT IN PINK had returned a positive swab to Boldenone 3 weeks after she had won at Counties. He said he uses 2 to 3 kg of oats as a base when feeding his horses and if he was notified earlier he could have taken some oat samples from his local feed supplier for further testing. He therefore believed he lost the opportunity to trace back the possible cause of the positive result to Boldenone.
The Committee advised Mr Pinfold that we are fully aware that his local Feed Merchant does supply a large number of Trainers in the Pukekohe, Byerley Park and surrounding areas for both Thoroughbred and Harness Racing horses. Therefore if there was a batch of contaminated oats then on the balance of probabilities other Trainers in the area may have been affected.
Mr Pinfold stated that Boldenone can only be purchased from licensed Veterinarians in Australia. He added that 1997 was the last year that Boldenone could be purchased in New Zealand. He said Boldenone was a long lasting anabolic steroid that had the potential to stay in a horse's system for up to 18 months.
Mr Fowler acknowledged that a full investigation had been completed by the RIU. He stated he did not dispute the fact that Boldenone was detected from a urine sample taken from HOT IN PINK on 20 March 2013 at Counties. He said his biggest concern was how Boldenone got into his horse's metabolism. He said there was no evidence from the RIU's investigation how the prohibited substance would have entered HOT IN PINK's system. He believed Mr Pinfold did take all the proper precautions to comply with the Rules.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Fowler did not elaborate as to what precautions Mr Pinfold did have in place.
The Committee explained to Mr Fowler the Rule is one of strict liability and the sample analysed detected Boldenone in HOT IN PINK's metabolism. We emphasised to Mr Fowler the charge does not allege that Mr Pinfold administered Boldenone.
Mr Fowler noted that with an open door policy people are able to walk into Mr Pinfold's stables. He said Mr Pinfold purchased his feed from a reputable place and does everything that a normal Trainer would do. He added that he would continue to support Mr Pinfold as a Trainer in the future.
Mr Oliver explained to the Hearing that the reason for the delay in notifying Mr Pinfold the result of analysis taken from HOT IN PINK was because the original spike detected after the first series of tests was unusual. The New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services had identified a spike that showed that there was something wrong which then required a further series of tests. This is why the Laboratory results were delivered 3 weeks after HOT IN PINK had raced.
Mr Oliver added that the RIU had spent approximately $15,000 on this case. This included the testing of the A and B samples, numerous food samples given to HOT IN PINK were taken from the stables for further testing and on the 27th of April, HOT IN PINK was again swabbed when she raced at Te Rapa. All of these particular samples taken returned negative results to Boldenone.
Ms Mullan stated that Mr Pinfold was genuinely surprised and shocked when he received the news that Boldenone had been detected in a urine sample taken from HOT IN PINK. She added that this still remains a mystery.
Mr Pinfold advised the Committee that he was going to apply for a Permit to Train License for this season.
Decision:
As Mr Pinfold admitted the breach we find the charge proved.
Submissions in relation to penalty by the Informant Mr Oliver:
1. In four most similar prosecutions under Rule 804(2), a fine of $6000.00 (and in some cases costs) have been sought by the Racing Integrity Unit. Those cases are;
31/05/10 (N)
28/10/10 (S)
22/11/10 (S)
08/10/12 (S)
(Each of the (S) represents different Trainers).
2. In a 2013 case (T) which involved an unnamed horse at a Trial meeting being presented with a prohibited substance in its metabolism, a fine of $3000 was sought.
3. No suspension or disqualification of Mr Pinfold’s license is sought.
4. Although neither Mr Pinfold nor the RIU are able to establish how the prohibited substance got into the horses metabolism, the science concludes that Boldenone was present.
5. Throughout this enquiry Mr Pinfold and all others questioned have been totally co operative and helpful.
6. Considerable expense in the testing of exhibits and sending the B Sample to Sydney has been paid for by Racing Integrity Unit.
7. To be consistent, Mr Oliver has been instructed to seek a fine of $6,000. No costs are sought by the RIU.
8. Rule 804(8) provides for the mandatory disqualification of the horse when a prohibited substance has been detected. It is therefore submitted that HOT IN PINK must be disqualified from Race 3 at the Counties Meeting at Pukekohe on 20 March 2013.
Submissions in relation to penalty on behalf of the Defendant:
Mr Pinfold stated that the RIU's submission was ridiculous and believed a fine far less than $6,000 would be appropriate. He was of the view that there should not be any variance in penalty from a trial meeting to a race day when a prohibited substance is detected. He made reference to the (T) case from earlier this year.
Mr Fowler submitted that Mr Pinfold will be penalised for the rest of his life having this charge on his record and he felt that was enough. He said that Mr Pinfold did not deserve to be fined because he had done nothing wrong.
Ms Mullan submitted that the Committee should take into account that Mr Pinfold has a young family and his passion for the Racing Industry. She asked the Committee to be kind to Mr Pinfold and consider the human element involved in this case.
Reasons for Penalty:
There was no evidence presented to us upon which it could be established precisely how the prohibited substance came to be introduced into the horse. Whether it happened as a result of some mistake at the Stables or was administered by a person unknown while the horse was unattended cannot be established.
The Integrity of Racing however is paramount and all participants in the Racing Industry need to always be aware of this. The Industry depends significantly on the betting turnover and it may well be anticipated that unless Racing is perceived to be conducted fairly and honestly, people may be discouraged from betting.
The New Zealand Thoroughbred Rules of Racing impose a high duty on Trainers to ensure the Rules are complied with, and that horses race free of prohibited substances. NZTR's objective is to have a level playing field for all those who participate in Racing. Nothing is more likely to have an adverse effect on the Integrity of Racing than the fact that horses race when not free of prohibited substances.
Regardless of how they get there the existence of prohibited substances in a horse in a Race attacks the very core of this Integrity.
We have to say that where there is a breach of this Rule, Trainers must expect a significant penalty.
The position facing this Committee today is that we are dealing with a Trainer whose integrity is not challenged by Mr Oliver, who has a clear record under this Rule, who has accepted his responsibility as a Trainer and has co-operated with the Racing Integrity Unit.
Mr Oliver has referred to a number of previous cases but has not presented them to this Committee.
We are however aware of similar cases involving positive swabs arising from post-race testing. The first case was one where Mr N admitted the charge on the basis that he was vicariously responsible for the actions of an unidentified staff member. In that case Mr N was fined the sum of $6,000 and the horse concerned was disqualified from the race and Mr N was also ordered to pay certain costs.
In the case of NZTR v S in October 2010 a $6,000 fine and costs were imposed when it could not be established how a prohibited substance was found present in the horse’s metabolism. Mr S was also found to be vicariously liable because this charge related to a horse in his satellite stable.
This Committee is satisfied that a prohibited substance found in a horse on a Raceday is a more serious offence than a Trial meeting because of the far greater implications that are involved. (Case T 2013) accordingly, this must be reflected in the penalty.
We are also told that Mr Pinfold and his staff have been fully co-operative with the Investigators and on the facts presented to us no one can establish how or when the Boldenone got into HOT IN PINK's system.
Mr Pinfold has admitted the charge and accordingly it is proved.
We are told that there was no deliberate intent by Mr Pinfold to gain an advantage. However, the presence of a prohibited substance which is capable of affecting the horse’s performance means that it is deemed to have an unfair advantage.
Taking into account all of the matters presented to us we will impose a fine on Mr Pinfold. We believe that any fine should be similar to that imposed in the previous decisions referred to us and we are mindful of the need for consistency in imposing penalty.
Penalty:
The Committee therefore imposes a fine of $6,000 on Mr Pinfold.
This Committee has disqualified HOT IN PINK, pursuant to Rule 804, from the first placing in the GUNAC GME LTD 1200 Race Meeting of the Counties Racing Club on 20th March 2013 and the amended placings will be:
HONK KONG PEARL 1st
ROSE TATTOO 2nd
BORN HAPPY 3rd
HOMELAND 4th
MISS CLEVEDON 5th
We also order that the owners of HOT IN PINK repay the full stake money earned by the horse that is subject to the charge. Therefore, the owners need to repay those amounts so that the full stake money is then available for distribution in terms of the amended placings for the Race.
Costs:
Due to this matter being heard on a Raceday there will be no order for JCA costs. The RIU did not seek any costs.
A Dooley B Scott
Chair Committee Member
16 August 2013
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 19/08/2013
Publish Date: 19/08/2013
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: f26675392fddc9132a00edf8bcb6ca81
informantnumber: A2215
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 19/08/2013
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v SR Pinfold 10 August 2013 - Reserved Decision dated 16 August 2013
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
NON RACEDAY INQUIRY
RIU v Mr S Pinfold
Reserved Decision dated 16 August 2013
Rules: 804(2)
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
HELD AT PUKEKOHE PARK
IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Racing
BETWEEN RIU (Mr B Oliver – Assistant Investigator appearing for the RIU)
Informant
AND Mr SR Pinfold – Licensed Trainer
Defendant
Information No: A2215
Venue: Pukekohe Racecourse
Judicial Committee: Mr A Dooley, Chairman – B Scott, Committee Member
Appearing: Mr A Fowler – Owner of HOT IN PINK, Ms M Mullan – Partner of Mr Fowler
Registrar: Mr W Robinson – Stipendiary Steward
Plea: Admitted
Date of Hearing: 10 August 2013
Charge:
That on 20 March 2013, at Pukekohe, Mr SR Pinfold being the registered trainer and for the time being in charge of the horse HOT IN PINK which was brought to the Counties Racing Club for the purpose of engaging in, and did engage in, Race 3 of a Race Meeting conducted by the Counties Racing Club, when the said horse was found to have had present in its metabolism a prohibited substance, namely the anabolic steroid Boldenone, and that he is in breach of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Rule 804(2) and is therefore subject to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed pursuant to Rules 804(6) and 804 (7).
Rule 804(2) provides : When a horse which has been brought to a Racecourse or similar racing facility for the purpose of engaging in a Race or trial to which the Third Appendix hereto applies is found by a Tribunal conducting an inquiry to have had administered to it or have had present in its metabolism a Prohibited Substance of the type set out in paragraphs 1 to 4 of the Fourth Appendix to these Rules, the Trainer and any other person who in the opinion of such Tribunal conducting such inquiry was in charge of such horse at any relevant time commits a breach of these Rules unless he satisfies the Tribunal that he had taken all proper precautions to prevent the administration or presence of such Prohibited Substance.
Mr Pinfold acknowledged that he understood the nature of the charge and the Rule.
Mr Pinfold confirmed that he admitted the breach.
Mr Pinfold confirmed that relevant documents had been disclosed to him and that he accepted the contents of the documents and consented to the contents being admitted as evidence. Mr Oliver submitted the documents to be admitted as evidence. The proposed procedure for the conduct of the hearing was explained to the parties present. They confirmed they had no concerns or objections.
Evidence for the Informant:
Mr Oliver presented to the hearing a Summary of Facts:
1. Steven Ross Pinfold, the defendant in these proceedings is a licensed trainer, licensed under the New Zealand Rules of Racing. He has been involved in the Racing Industry in both Australia and New Zealand for over 25 years and has trained on his own since 2005.
2. On the 20th of March 2013, the horse HOT IN PINK, a 3 year old filly, trained by Mr Pinfold was correctly entered and started in Race 3 (The GUNAC GME LTD 1200) at a Race Meeting conducted by the Counties Racing Club at Pukekohe. The horse is owned by Mr A Fowler and Mr C Cochrane.
3. HOT IN PINK finished first earning gross stake money of $4,375.00.
4. HOT IN PINK was selected for a post race swab. During the swabbing process the horse was accompanied by a stable employee. A urine sample was taken at 2.40pm, some 20 minutes after the Race start time. The stable employee and the swab attendant have reported that there were no difficulties or irregularities with the collection or packaging of the samples taken from HOT IN PINK.
5. At the conclusion of the meeting the samples were checked by the Chief Racecourse Investigator and then placed in a tamper proof security bag with the other samples taken that day and forwarded to the Racing Laboratory.
6. On the 15th of April 2013, a Certificate of Analysis signed by Dr Geoff Beresford of New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services advised that the sample taken from HOT IN PINK on the 20th of March at the Counties Racing Meeting had been analysed and contained the anabolic steroid Boldenone.
7. Boldenone is an anabolic steroid and is a prohibited substance at any level when detected in urine samples from female horses.
8. Mr. Pinfold was interviewed at his training establishment at Byerley Park near Kingseat on Friday 19th of April 2013.
9. He co-operated fully with Investigators but was unable to tell how the prohibited substance would enter the horse metabolism. He said he had not heard of Boldenone or any of the proprietary products that it may have come in.
10. A search of the stables and surrounding areas did not find any product that may have contained any anabolic steroid or any substance or product that may have contained Boldenone.
11. Mr. Pinfold’s staff and his veterinarian were interviewed and could not assist. His veterinarian Dr M Gilmore produced his clinic records for the treatment of HOT IN PINK and again they did not assist the enquiry.
12. A number of samples of food products given to HOT N PINK were taken from the stables for further examination none of these samples which have been tested contained Boldenone.
13. With Mr Pinfold’s permission, a further urine sample was taken from HOT IN PINK and the analysis of this sample was completed on the 23rd of April no sign of Boldenone was found in this sample.
14. Mr Pinfold requested that the ‘B’ sample of the positive swab taken on 20th of March 2013, be forwarded to the Australian Racing Forensic Laboratory in Sydney for analysis. The result of the testing of that sample was received on 15 May and was positive to Boldenone.
15. On 27th of April 2013, HOT IN PINK raced at a Waikato Racing Club Meeting at Te Rapa and was again swabbed. Again the sample was negative to Boldenone.
16. Meetings have taken place with Mr. Pinfold, one of HOT IN PINK’S owners Mr A Fowler and a Trainers Association Representative, Mr L Molloy. These meetings were to keep parties involved up to date with the enquiry.
17. An information charging Mr Pinfold with this offence under Rule 804(2) was served on him on the 3rd of July 2013.
18. Mr Pinfold has not renewed his Class A Trainers License for the 2103/14 season. He is a family man residing in the South Auckland area. He has no previous offence with NZTR.
Evidence for the Defendant:
Mr Pinfold's opening submission was that he completed his own research on Boldenone after HOT IN PINK's positive result to the prohibited substance. He said it has been proved that Boldenone may be found in contaminated food, making reference to the case against Trainer Mr L. For this reason he was disappointed that he was first notified that HOT IN PINK had returned a positive swab to Boldenone 3 weeks after she had won at Counties. He said he uses 2 to 3 kg of oats as a base when feeding his horses and if he was notified earlier he could have taken some oat samples from his local feed supplier for further testing. He therefore believed he lost the opportunity to trace back the possible cause of the positive result to Boldenone.
The Committee advised Mr Pinfold that we are fully aware that his local Feed Merchant does supply a large number of Trainers in the Pukekohe, Byerley Park and surrounding areas for both Thoroughbred and Harness Racing horses. Therefore if there was a batch of contaminated oats then on the balance of probabilities other Trainers in the area may have been affected.
Mr Pinfold stated that Boldenone can only be purchased from licensed Veterinarians in Australia. He added that 1997 was the last year that Boldenone could be purchased in New Zealand. He said Boldenone was a long lasting anabolic steroid that had the potential to stay in a horse's system for up to 18 months.
Mr Fowler acknowledged that a full investigation had been completed by the RIU. He stated he did not dispute the fact that Boldenone was detected from a urine sample taken from HOT IN PINK on 20 March 2013 at Counties. He said his biggest concern was how Boldenone got into his horse's metabolism. He said there was no evidence from the RIU's investigation how the prohibited substance would have entered HOT IN PINK's system. He believed Mr Pinfold did take all the proper precautions to comply with the Rules.
In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Fowler did not elaborate as to what precautions Mr Pinfold did have in place.
The Committee explained to Mr Fowler the Rule is one of strict liability and the sample analysed detected Boldenone in HOT IN PINK's metabolism. We emphasised to Mr Fowler the charge does not allege that Mr Pinfold administered Boldenone.
Mr Fowler noted that with an open door policy people are able to walk into Mr Pinfold's stables. He said Mr Pinfold purchased his feed from a reputable place and does everything that a normal Trainer would do. He added that he would continue to support Mr Pinfold as a Trainer in the future.
Mr Oliver explained to the Hearing that the reason for the delay in notifying Mr Pinfold the result of analysis taken from HOT IN PINK was because the original spike detected after the first series of tests was unusual. The New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services had identified a spike that showed that there was something wrong which then required a further series of tests. This is why the Laboratory results were delivered 3 weeks after HOT IN PINK had raced.
Mr Oliver added that the RIU had spent approximately $15,000 on this case. This included the testing of the A and B samples, numerous food samples given to HOT IN PINK were taken from the stables for further testing and on the 27th of April, HOT IN PINK was again swabbed when she raced at Te Rapa. All of these particular samples taken returned negative results to Boldenone.
Ms Mullan stated that Mr Pinfold was genuinely surprised and shocked when he received the news that Boldenone had been detected in a urine sample taken from HOT IN PINK. She added that this still remains a mystery.
Mr Pinfold advised the Committee that he was going to apply for a Permit to Train License for this season.
Decision:
As Mr Pinfold admitted the breach we find the charge proved.
Submissions in relation to penalty by the Informant Mr Oliver:
1. In four most similar prosecutions under Rule 804(2), a fine of $6000.00 (and in some cases costs) have been sought by the Racing Integrity Unit. Those cases are;
31/05/10 (N)
28/10/10 (S)
22/11/10 (S)
08/10/12 (S)
(Each of the (S) represents different Trainers).
2. In a 2013 case (T) which involved an unnamed horse at a Trial meeting being presented with a prohibited substance in its metabolism, a fine of $3000 was sought.
3. No suspension or disqualification of Mr Pinfold’s license is sought.
4. Although neither Mr Pinfold nor the RIU are able to establish how the prohibited substance got into the horses metabolism, the science concludes that Boldenone was present.
5. Throughout this enquiry Mr Pinfold and all others questioned have been totally co operative and helpful.
6. Considerable expense in the testing of exhibits and sending the B Sample to Sydney has been paid for by Racing Integrity Unit.
7. To be consistent, Mr Oliver has been instructed to seek a fine of $6,000. No costs are sought by the RIU.
8. Rule 804(8) provides for the mandatory disqualification of the horse when a prohibited substance has been detected. It is therefore submitted that HOT IN PINK must be disqualified from Race 3 at the Counties Meeting at Pukekohe on 20 March 2013.
Submissions in relation to penalty on behalf of the Defendant:
Mr Pinfold stated that the RIU's submission was ridiculous and believed a fine far less than $6,000 would be appropriate. He was of the view that there should not be any variance in penalty from a trial meeting to a race day when a prohibited substance is detected. He made reference to the (T) case from earlier this year.
Mr Fowler submitted that Mr Pinfold will be penalised for the rest of his life having this charge on his record and he felt that was enough. He said that Mr Pinfold did not deserve to be fined because he had done nothing wrong.
Ms Mullan submitted that the Committee should take into account that Mr Pinfold has a young family and his passion for the Racing Industry. She asked the Committee to be kind to Mr Pinfold and consider the human element involved in this case.
Reasons for Penalty:
There was no evidence presented to us upon which it could be established precisely how the prohibited substance came to be introduced into the horse. Whether it happened as a result of some mistake at the Stables or was administered by a person unknown while the horse was unattended cannot be established.
The Integrity of Racing however is paramount and all participants in the Racing Industry need to always be aware of this. The Industry depends significantly on the betting turnover and it may well be anticipated that unless Racing is perceived to be conducted fairly and honestly, people may be discouraged from betting.
The New Zealand Thoroughbred Rules of Racing impose a high duty on Trainers to ensure the Rules are complied with, and that horses race free of prohibited substances. NZTR's objective is to have a level playing field for all those who participate in Racing. Nothing is more likely to have an adverse effect on the Integrity of Racing than the fact that horses race when not free of prohibited substances.
Regardless of how they get there the existence of prohibited substances in a horse in a Race attacks the very core of this Integrity.
We have to say that where there is a breach of this Rule, Trainers must expect a significant penalty.
The position facing this Committee today is that we are dealing with a Trainer whose integrity is not challenged by Mr Oliver, who has a clear record under this Rule, who has accepted his responsibility as a Trainer and has co-operated with the Racing Integrity Unit.
Mr Oliver has referred to a number of previous cases but has not presented them to this Committee.
We are however aware of similar cases involving positive swabs arising from post-race testing. The first case was one where Mr N admitted the charge on the basis that he was vicariously responsible for the actions of an unidentified staff member. In that case Mr N was fined the sum of $6,000 and the horse concerned was disqualified from the race and Mr N was also ordered to pay certain costs.
In the case of NZTR v S in October 2010 a $6,000 fine and costs were imposed when it could not be established how a prohibited substance was found present in the horse’s metabolism. Mr S was also found to be vicariously liable because this charge related to a horse in his satellite stable.
This Committee is satisfied that a prohibited substance found in a horse on a Raceday is a more serious offence than a Trial meeting because of the far greater implications that are involved. (Case T 2013) accordingly, this must be reflected in the penalty.
We are also told that Mr Pinfold and his staff have been fully co-operative with the Investigators and on the facts presented to us no one can establish how or when the Boldenone got into HOT IN PINK's system.
Mr Pinfold has admitted the charge and accordingly it is proved.
We are told that there was no deliberate intent by Mr Pinfold to gain an advantage. However, the presence of a prohibited substance which is capable of affecting the horse’s performance means that it is deemed to have an unfair advantage.
Taking into account all of the matters presented to us we will impose a fine on Mr Pinfold. We believe that any fine should be similar to that imposed in the previous decisions referred to us and we are mindful of the need for consistency in imposing penalty.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
The Committee therefore imposes a fine of $6,000 on Mr Pinfold.
This Committee has disqualified HOT IN PINK, pursuant to Rule 804, from the first placing in the GUNAC GME LTD 1200 Race Meeting of the Counties Racing Club on 20th March 2013 and the amended placings will be:
HONK KONG PEARL 1st
ROSE TATTOO 2nd
BORN HAPPY 3rd
HOMELAND 4th
MISS CLEVEDON 5th
We also order that the owners of HOT IN PINK repay the full stake money earned by the horse that is subject to the charge. Therefore, the owners need to repay those amounts so that the full stake money is then available for distribution in terms of the amended placings for the Race.
Costs:
Due to this matter being heard on a Raceday there will be no order for JCA costs. The RIU did not seek any costs.
A Dooley B Scott
Chair Committee Member
16 August 2013
hearing_type: Non-race day
Rules: 804(2)
Informant: Mr B Oliver - Assistant Investigator
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: Mr A Fowler - Owner of HOT IN PINK, Ms M Mullan - Partner of Mr Fowler
Respondent: Mr SR Pinfold - Licensed Trainer of HOT IN PINK
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: