Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Decision dated 23 January 2026 – Toni Moki

The Adjudicative Committee appointed by the Racing Integrity Board to this Non Raceday Inquiry, is satisfied that no conflict of interest arises out of this Non Raceday Inquiry.

The Informant charged Toni Lee Moki, a Class D Rider with a breach of Rule 656(3) of the NZTR Rules of Racing, in particular she was charged with providing urine which upon analysis, was found to contain the controlled drug – Methamphetamine, being a Class A Controlled Drug as defined in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 for which she is liable to a penalty imposed pursuant to Rule 803 of the Rules.

Rule 656(3)

A Rider or any other Licence holder who has carried out, is carrying out, or is likely to carry out, a Safety Sensitive Activity at a racecourse, training facility or trainer’s premises, who, having been required by a Stipendiary Steward or Inspector, to supply a sample in accordance with this Rule must not have a sample, which is found upon analysis to contain any controlled drug as defined in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1075 or other illicit substance or diuretic and to its metabolites, artifacts or isomers.

Penalty Rule 803(3)

Subject to Rule 803(2)(b), where any licence holder who has carried out, is carrying out, or is likely to carry out a Safety Sensitive Activity at a racecourse, training facility or trainer’s premises commits or is deemed to have committed a breach of these rules related to drugs or alcohol and a penalty is not provided else-where in the rules for that breach, that Licenceholder committing the breach may:

(a) Be disqualified for a period not exceeding 5 years; and/or

(b) Be suspended from holding or obtaining a licence for a period not exceeding 12 months; and/or

(c) Be fined a sum not exceeding $50,000.

COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS

The hearing date for this charge, namely 7 November 2025, was confirmed at the teleconference Ms Moki attended on 11 September 2025 and further confirmed in the Minute dated 23 September 2025 from the Adjudicative Committee which was sent to Ms Moki and the RIB by the Administrator, Ms Ward.

There is no basis for the subsequent claim by Ms Moki that the date was only “Pencilled in”.

Ms Moki did not attend the hearing at Te Rapa racecourse on 7 November 2025 nor has she provided any explanation for her absence. The RIB has received no further communications from her since that date.

The Adjudicative Committee therefore decided that the hearing will be on the papers only.

EVIDENCE FOR THE INFORMANT

The Committee has received sworn witness statements from Richard Carr, a Senior Investigator employed by the Racing Integrity Board, Caitlyn Redwood, a Testing Technician employed by the Hamilton Branch of the Drug Detection Agency and Michelle Ann Christensen who is employed as Senior Scientist by the New Zealand Institute for Public Safety and Forensic Science.

(1) Richard Carr, an Investigator for the RIB evidence statement.

Ms Toni Moki, the respondent, was nominated to ride and completed riding engagements in several races at Te Aroha Race Course on 27 July 2025 , including races 1 and 5. She was therefore “carrying out a Safety Sensitive Activity at a Race Course” as provided in R 803(3).

In total, all fifteen jumps jockeys nominated for riding engagements in both the hurdles and steeplechase races that day were selected for drug screening.

Ms Moki was served with a Drug Testing Notification form at 10.15 hours requesting she present at the Drug Detection Agency (TDDA) van for testing on site between 10:00 to 14:30 hours. Ms Moki acknowledged that she understood and accepted the notice and she subsequently presented herself at the TDDA van at 10:59 hours.

A TDDA Testing Official together with Ms Moki, completed the appropriate documentation with Ms Moki having consented to undertake drug screening.

At 11:02 hours, Ms Moki provided a urine sample.

Ms Moki gave her consent for her urine sample to be packaged and sent to PHF Science (formerly Environmental Science and Research Limited – ESR) for analysis.

On Friday, 1 August 2025, PHF Science provided the RIB with a Certificate of Analysis, confirming that the urine sample provided by Ms Moki was positive for Methamphetamine.

Methamphetamine is a Class A Controlled Drug as defined in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

On the same day, 1 August 2025, Ms Moki was contacted and advised that she had tested positive for Methamphetamine and as a result she would be issued with a Stand Down Notice.

Ms Moki informed the RIB that she required the “B” sample to be tested and was provided with two accredited laboratory options, PHF Science or the independent laboratory, Canterbury Health Laboratories (CHL).

On 14 August 2025, Ms Moki elected to have her sample independently analysed by Canterbury Health Laboratories.

On 21 August 2025, Canterbury Health Laboratories provided the RIB with a Certificate of Analysis, which confirmed that Ms Moki’s urine sample which she had provided, was positive for Methamphetamine.

The Certificate states that Ms Moki’s result is consistent with Methamphetamine use within two or three days prior to the provision of the urine sample.

(2) Caitlyn Redwood evidence statement

On the 27 July 2025, Caitlyn Redwood was employed as a testing technician with the Hamilton Branch of the Drug Detection Agency.

Ms Redwood is a NZQA qualified collector pursuant to the AS/NZS 4308:2008 Standard (Collect specimens for drugs of abuse, testing and participating in workplace health and safety).

TDDA testing facilities (including mobile clinics) are an accredited laboratory pursuant to ISO 15189:2007 for the purposes of medical testing.

TDDA provides drug and alcohol testing services for the Racing Integrity Board (Previously known the Racing Integrity Unit).

All urine drug testing conducted by TDDA is performed pursuant to the AS/NZS 4308:2008 Standard.

On the 27.07.25, Ms Redwood was working as a Testing Technician of the TDDA Hamilton Clinic when she drove the TDDA mobile clinic to the Te Aroha Race Course to undertake drug testing for the Racing Integrity Board.

Upon arrival at the site, Ms Redwood liaised with the RIB Senior Investigator – Richard Carr and then parked up the mobile clinic and spent some time setting up in preparation for the drug testing process. The reason for testing that day was the random collection of urine samples which were to be sent to the laboratory for analysis.

At approximately 10:59am on this date, Ms Redwood greeted a new donor to the mobile clinic who identified herself as Toni Moki, which was confirmed by Richard Carr, who was present.

Ms Redwood invited Ms Moki to have a seat in the rear of the clinic and she then sat on the seat directly opposite Ms Moki.

Ms Redwood introduced herself and explained the collection process.

At 11:02am Ms Moki, the donor, provided a urine sample that was subsequently prepared and dispatched to PHF Science for screening and confirmation pursuant to the AS/NZS 4308:2008 standard.

(3) Michelle Ann Christensen, evidence statement

Ms Michelle Ann Christensen is employed as a Senior Scientist by the New Zealand Institute for Public Health and Forensic Science, known as PHF Science, located in Porirua, Wellington.

Ms Christensen was awarded a Master of Science in Analytical Toxicology from the University of London UK. She has been working in the field of drugs of abuse analysis since September 2010 and has been employed at PHF Science since March 2013. One of her roles in this time has been the interpretation of urine analysis for drugs of abuse. Prior to this, Ms Christensen was employed by Kings College Hospital, London, UK where she carried out a similar role. Ms Christensen is a member of The International Association of Forensic Toxicologists and the Forensic and Clinical Toxicology Association. She has published papers on the analysis of drugs in urine.

The workplace drug testing laboratories of PHF are accredited by International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ). She is a “Key Technical Person” for all tests under this accreditation.

Ms Christensen’s statement was prepared at the request of the Racing Integrity Board. It is supplementary to and should be read in conjunction with the analyst report dated 01 August 2025 pertaining to Toni Moki.

The analyses performed on this sample were carried out and reviewed by other analysts in the Workplace Drug Testing programme at PHF Science. In preparation of this statement, Ms Christensen has reviewed all of the data in relation to the analyses.

Sample Receipt

Laboratory records show that a urine sample relating to Toni Moki, with specimen ID U444942, was receipted at the PHF Science Workplace Drug Testing laboratory on 31 July 2025 according to standard laboratory procedures. It was allocated PHF Science reference A25ESR09176. The paperwork that accompanied the sample states that the sample was collected on 27 July 2025.

Analysis and Results

PHF Science bases its urine drug testing procedures on the Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4308:2008, ‘Procedures for specimen collection and the detection and quantification of drugs of abuse in urine’. This standard requires that for a result to be reported as positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine, it must comply with two sections of the Standard:

• It must contain 300 or more nanograms of amphetamine per millilitre of urine for the first test (also known as the screen analysis)
• It must also contain 150 or more nanograms of either amphetamine or methamphetamine per millilitre of urine for a second more specific test (also known as the confirmation analysis)

The drug test report mentioned above stated that a urine sample from Toni Moki contained both Amphetamine and Methamphetamine at levels greater than the cut-off levels stated in AS/NZS 4308:2008. That is, both Amphetamine and Methamphetamine were present in the urine sample at levels greater than 150 nanograms per millilitre of urine.

The screen analysis was carried out by immunoassay. Immunoassay is a technique that indicates a particular class of drug, such as Amphetamines, may be present in the sample.

The confirmation analysis was carried out by liquid chromatography – tandem mass spectrometry. This is a technique that confirms the presence of a substance in a sample. Initially, the urine sample is subjected to a process where it is filtered to remove waste products in urine. It is then diluted before it is injected into the liquid chromatograph where the sample is dissolved in a mobile phase which passes through a column containing absorbent material. As the sample passes through the column, any drugs that are present in the sample are separated so that they emerge at different specified times. The mass spectrometer then breaks down each component, for example Amphetamine or Methamphetamine, into fragments. For each drug present, a specific fragmentation pattern is formed, this is sometimes known as the ‘molecular fingerprint’. Known certified reference samples are analysed contemporaneously and used as a comparison for both the time the drug emerged from the column, and the fragmentation pattern. When both of these match, and the amount of drug present is determined to be above the cut-off level stated in AS/NZS4308:2008, a positive result is confirmed.

Sample A25ESR09176 was confirmed positive for Amphetamine and Methamphetamine. That is, both Amphetamine and Methamphetamine were present in the urine at a level greater than 150 nanograms per millilitre of urine.

During the testing process, the sample is verified as human urine by measuring the creatinine level. Creatinine is a breakdown product of creatinine phosphate in muscle and is found in everyone. It is always present in urine and in an individual is produced at a relatively constant rate. The sample with PHF Science reference A25ESR09176 has an abnormally high urine creatinine level of approximately 3310 milligrams per litre of urine. The normal upper limit for an adult female is generally 3000 milligrams per litre of urine (reference 1).

Comments

Amphetamine is a metabolite of Methamphetamine, as well as a drug in its own right. Methamphetamine is metabolized in the body to Amphetamine. Therefore, when Methamphetamine is excreted from the body, both Methamphetamine and Amphetamine may be present in the urine. In this case, it is likely that the Amphetamine is present as a metabolite of Methamphetamine.

Summary

In summary, the sample reported on 01 August 2025 for Toni Moki with PHF Science reference A25ESR09176 was confirmed positive for Amphetamine and Methamphetamine according to AS/NZS4308:2008. In Ms Christensen’s opinion, this result is indicative of Methamphetamine ingestion.

The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that the charge is proved on the balance of probabilities. The Committee accepts the evidence of Richard Carr, Caitlyn Redwood and Michelle Ann Christensen. There is no issue that at the time of the positive test for Methamphetamine, Ms Moki was the holder of a Class D Riders Licence issued by New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing, which she has held since 2018, she had been undertaking a Safety Sensitive Activity on the day she provided the urine sample and that sample tested positive for Methamphetamine.

Ms Moki has one previous breach relating to controlled drug use, in December 2022, for Methamphetamine when undertaking trackwork at the Te Aroha Racecourse and was disqualified for 12 months. Ms Moki engaged in a drug and alcohol assessment programme with the Salvation Army in January 2023. She was drug tested in July 2024 as part of her NZTR relicensing programme following her 12-month disqualification, and tested as part of random testing of track riders in September 2024.

The Adjudicative Committee requests written submissions as to penalty. The RIB is to provide written submissions within 10 days from the date of this decision.

Ms Moki is required to provide written submissions as to penalty within 20 days from the date of this decision.