Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Decision dated 12 February 2026 – Jonathan McInerney

The Respondent, Mr McInerney, is charged under r 141 of the NZGRA Rules.

Information A19860 reads: “On the 15th of October 2025 at Ascot Park Raceway, Jonathan Tony McInerney, the licensed trainer of IMPRESSIVE SHOW, failed to present the greyhound to compete in Race 15 at the Southland GRC meeting, free of the Prohibited Substance 4-Hydroxyxylazine, being an offence under the provisions of Rule 141(1)(a) & 141(4) and subject to penalty pursuant to Rule 174 of the NZGRA Rules.”

The Respondent has admitted the breach of r 141(1)(a) and has accepted the Summary of Facts.

Both parties agree that the matter can be determined on the papers.

Rule 141 provides:

(1) The trainer or other person in charge of a greyhound:

(a) nominated to compete in an Event must present the greyhound free of any prohibited substance.

(3)  The trainer or person in charge of a greyhound presented contrary to subrule (1) of this rule shall be guilty of an offence.

(4) A greyhound presented for an Event in circumstances where subrule (1) of this rule has been breached must be disqualified from the relevant Event and from receiving any benefit derived from the relevant trial, test or examination.

The penalty provision is r 174:

(1) An Adjudicative Committee may as it thinks fit penalise a person found guilty of an offence under the Rules by any one or a combination of the following penalties:

(a) a reprimand (sometimes known as a warning or caution);

(b) a fine not exceeding $10,000.00 for any one offence except a luring and baiting offence under r 159.

(c) suspension.

(d) disqualification.

(e) cancellation of a registration or a licence, or in the case of a Club, its affiliation to GRNZ; or

(f) warning off.

(3) Any part or portion of a penalty imposed may be suspended for a time and pursuant to conditions that an Adjudicative Committee thinks fit.

Rule 174A(1) provides:

GRNZ may, after consulting the RIB, prescribe different categories of prohibited substance for the purposes of specifying starting points for the penalties for offences involving those different categories of prohibited substance.

4-Hydroxyxylazine is a Prohibited Substance listed under r 137(b)(ii) of the GRNZ Rules and its presence in a race-day sample is, prima facie, a breach of the Rules. The GRNZ Policy document “Categories of Prohibited Substances” lists it as a Category 1 Prohibited Substance – substances that have the ability to negatively impact the performance of a greyhound . This document provides a starting point for a Category 1 offence of 10 years’ disqualification.

Rule 174A(2) states:

An Adjudicative Committee is to have regard to the prescribed starting points when considering any matter relating to the level of penalty imposed or to be imposed in respect of an offence involving a prohibited substance.

Agreed Summary of Facts

1. The respondent Jonathan McInerney is the holder of a Public Trainer licence issued by the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (GRNZ).

2. On 15 October 2025 the greyhound IMPRESSIVE SHOW finished 7th of 7 in Race 15 – the Racing Again 22 October PBD C3 390m – at the Southland Greyhound Racing Club meeting at Ascot Park raceway.

3. IMPRESSIVE SHOW is a 2yo dog owned and trained by Mr McInerney.

4. IMPRESSIVE SHOW was pre-race swabbed (#203477) at 3.33pm and on 10 November the New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services (NZRLS) issued a Certificate of Analysis detailing the sample positive to 4-hyrdroxyxylazine.

5. 4-Hydroxyxylazine is a metabolite produced in the mammalian body after administration of the adrenergic blocking agent Xylazine.

6. Xylazine is a commonly used tranquiliser, with most licences issued for use in horses, cattle and sheep. There is one product, Phoenix 2% Xylazine, still registered for use in horses, cattle, sheep, cats, and dogs. Xylazine is now rarely used in dogs, with the adrenergic blocking agent of choice being medetomidine along with its reversing agent, atipamezole.

7. 4-Hydroxyxylazine is a Prohibited Substance listed under r 137(b)(ii) of the GRNZ Rules and its presence in a race-day sample is, prima facie, a breach of the Rules. It is a GRNZ Category 1 Prohibited Substance – substances that have the ability to negatively impact the performance of a greyhound.

8. On 17 November Mr McInerney was spoken to at his kennels near Darfield and informed of the positive result:

• He could offer no explanation for the positive and explained that no greyhound in his care had been treated with Xylazine.
• He explained that the kennel processes its own meat, mainly dairy cows collected from local farmers averaging 1-2 animals per day.
• A record is kept of the animals processed and whether they are “clean” or “anti” which determines whether the meat is processed to be fed to race dogs or non-racing dogs.
• This system is reliant on the accurate treatment record keeping of the farm they are collected from.

9. Mr McInerney had one other greyhound swabbed on the same day at Ascot Park which returned clear and three clear swabs from Addington five days either side of the positive.

10. Inquiries with kennel vet Dr M Koening confirmed that she had not treated or prescribed any Xylazine for the Homebush kennels. Dr Koening confirmed that “Xylazine has been replaced by other drugs in cats and dogs for a while now by friendlier drugs.”

11. The chief veterinary advisor to the RIB, Dr A Grierson commented:

Both xylazine and 4-Hydroxy xylazine are highly stable in fresh or frozen meat and remain so even after pressure cooking at 116 °C for over 30 minutes. There have been several reported cases of 4-Hydroxy xylazine positives in Australia since 2014. These have been linked to contaminated pet food, most likely from downer cattle. Xylazine works by blocking the action of adrenaline in the body and is considered a ‘stopper’ rather than an ‘enhancer’ of performance. In my view, there would be no benefit in deliberately administering Xylazine to a greyhound.

12. The B sample was sent to Racing Analytical Services Limited (RASL) in Melbourne who on 12 December issued a Certificate of Analysis confirming the reserve sample positive to 4-Hydroxyxylazine.

13. Wagering analysis of the race revealed no irregularities. Mr McInerney had three of the seven runners in the race with IMPRESSIVE SHOW the most favoured (3rd favourite) and he had a win bet on that greyhound only.

14. The source of the 4-Hydroxyxylazine in IMPRESSIVE SHOW remains unknown.

15. Pursuant to Rule 141(4) IMPRESSIVE SHOW is required to be disqualified from its 7th placing in Race 15 at the Southland Greyhound Racing Club on 22 October 2025.

16. GRNZ records detail Mr McInerney first held a trainer’s licence in 2008 and commenced full training of the Homebush Kennels in 2023. He has one previous breach of the Prohibited Substance Rules in September 2024.

Decision

The charge has been admitted; it is found proved.

Informant’s Penalty Submissions

The GRNZ Penalty Guidelines recommended starting point for a Category 1 offence is a 10-year disqualification. The starting points do not differentiate between administration and presentation offences.

There is no requirement to prove the cause of a presentation breach of the Prohibited Substance Rule and in this case, the RIB investigation failed to identify any evidence as to the source of the 4-Hydroxyxylazine.

It has been established in relatively recent Australian cases that unfit for human consumption meat can be a potential source of inadvertent exposure to 4-Hydroxyxylazine.

The Homebush Kennel processes its own meat for feeding their greyhounds, mainly dairy cows collected from local farmers, averaging 1-2 animals per day.

Wagering and race analysis revealed no unusual bets or performance associated with the greyhounds or the race. As 3rd favourite, IMPRESSIVE SHOW was checked twice in the early stages of the race when a number of runners became crowded, somewhat explaining it finishing last, 7 lengths from the winner.

PREVIOUS CASES

There have been no previous greyhound or equine positives for 4-hydroxyxylazione or xylazine in New Zealand.

The most recent GRNZ case for breach of a Category 1 Prohibited Substances is:

RIU v D & J Fahey (2019) – Codeine (opioid pain medication) positive. No evidence to establish conclusively how the substance came to be found in the greyhound, with the Judicial Committee considering the most likely explanation was due to exposure to the dog’s handler who had been taking Codeine. In concluding, a $2,500 fine was appropriate, the Committee commented:

The Committee does not believe that the Penalty Guide starting point of 10 years disqualification is an appropriate starting point in this case. Compelling mitigating factors are the Respondents’ frank admission of the breach, their conduct during the course of the investigation, their previous excellent record and the very low degree of negligence, if any.

In three Australian greyhound cases involving 4-hydroxyxylazine, the penalties were periods of suspension, wholly suspended:

GRV v R Rogers (2024)

Admitted charge to 4-hydroxyxylazine. The trainer stated that he had fed a combination of human consumption and knackery meat at the time. In determining a penalty of a four month suspension, fully suspended for 12 months pending no further relevant offences, the Tribunal noted:

Xylazine is a painkiller and sedative and is used in several animal products. It is often found in knackery meat. Mr Rogers was accustomed to feeding his dogs knackery meat and this appears to be the probable source of the contamination. It is likely that this substance would have a negative effect on the performance of any greyhound to which it was administered.

GWIC v J Callaughan (2021)

Admitted charge to 4-hydroxyxylazine and Dehydronorketamine. The circumstances of the case are not provided in the Decision, but the Commission considered the trainer had provided a reasonable explanation for the likely source of the positive results, being from the consumption of knackery meat. On both charges, the Commission issued a 20 week suspension of licence – wholly suspended for 12 months on the condition of no further breaches.

GWIC v D Thomas (2020)

In a similar case to that of Callaughan, the Commission determined the same penalty of a 20 week suspension of licence – wholly suspended for 12 months on the condition of no further breaches. The Decision stated:

The Commission notes that there have been several recent cases involving meat contamination as the suggested and / or likely source of a positive swab coming before it. For offences that arise in the future, consideration will be given to larger penalties to communicate to the greyhound racing community that the feeding of knackery meat is an unacceptable practice and must stop.

MITIGATING FACTORS

Mr McInerney has been cooperative throughout the investigation and has admitted the breach at the first opportunity.

GRNZ records detail that he first held a Trainer’s Licence in 2008 and commenced full training of the Homebush Kennels in 2023. In the completed 2023/24 season, the Respondent’s greyhounds had 5,728 starts and in the last completed 2024/25 season, 6,055 starts. Two Prohibited Substance Breaches from 11,783 starts (0.00017%) may be interpreted as a reasonably good record, based on the 0.015% national greyhound average.

AGGRAVATING FACTORS

Mr McInerney has one previous breach of the Prohibited Substance Rule from September 2024, presenting his greyhound to race positive to Dexamethasone. In its Written Decision on the reasons for penalty the Adjudicative Committee commented:

As previously observed, there is no evidence of Dexamethasone being on the Respondent’s property at the time of the breach and the source appears to be contaminated meat that has been fed to the Greyhound. While Mr McInerney has said he is committed to ensuring that such an incident never happens again and that he had already implemented measures to prevent future contamination, these measures are not described in his penalty submissions. The Adjudicative Committee believes an incentive for the continued adoption of these practices is apt. However, it does not believe a full suspension of the fine will act as the necessary deterrent.

The penalty issued was a fine of $1,500, with $500 suspended for a period of 12 months from the Decision date (19.12.2024) pursuant to r 174(3), on the condition that the Respondent does not commit any further breach of the Rules within that period, other than a minor Raceday incident, in which case the remainder ($500) of the fine will immediately become payable.

Given the current breach occurred on 22.10.2025 within the 12 month period, the $500 suspended fine must now be payable.

The breach has occurred despite Mr McInerney submitting in 2024 that he had implemented measures to prevent such an incident happening again, specifically expressing his commitment to ensuring that contamination from his meat processing would not happen in the future.

COSTS

No costs are sought.

SUBMISSION

When determining penalty, the RIB submits that the Adjudicative Committee has regard to the purpose of the proceedings, which include: to ensure the Rules are complied with; to uphold and maintain the high standards expected of Trainers; and to protect the integrity of Greyhound Racing.

Given the previous cases cited, the mitigating and aggravating factors as listed and the overall circumstances considered in this case, the RIB submits that a $2,500 fine is an appropriate penalty in this matter.

Respondent’s Penalty Submissions

The Respondent made a written penalty submission. This submission is recorded in full.

On 15 October 2025, IMPRESSIVE SHOW returned a positive swab to the substance to 4-Hydroxyxylazine. I do not dispute this finding.

Prior to being contacted by RIB investigator Simon Irving, I had never heard of this substance. Since that time, I have undertaken extensive research and consulted with farmers, veterinarians, and Mr Irving. Based on these discussions and expert veterinary opinion, it is now believed that the substance was most likely present in meat feed provided to IMPRESSIVE SHOW prior to racing.

I wish to state clearly and unequivocally that none of my greyhounds, including IMPRESSIVE SHOW, have ever been intentionally treated with to 4-Hydroxyxylazine. I do not possess this product, nor has it ever been used on my property. Veterinary advice confirms that this substance is primarily used in large animals such as cattle and horses.

As we process our own meat for feeding our greyhounds, sourcing cattle from local farmers, we necessarily rely on the honesty and accuracy of information provided by those suppliers. This reliance has clearly failed in this instance, and I take responsibility for that failure.

As outlined in the charge sheet, this is my second positive swab within a 12-month period, both relating to processed meat. I cannot overstate how frustrating and disappointing this is. Following my previous positive, I implemented a significantly stricter intake and processing system, which I outline below.

When a farmer contacts me regarding a cow, I ask detailed questions including:

The farmer’s address

Cause of death or reason for supply

Any injuries

Whether the animal has ever received veterinary treatment

What product was used and the exact start and stop dates

These same questions are repeated in person upon collection. If there is any uncertainty at any stage, the animal is classified as a “dirty cow,” spray-painted yellow, and treated as though it has received medication.

Cattle confirmed as untreated are classified as “clean cows” and spray-painted orange. Clean and dirty cows are processed entirely separately. We now use separate mincers, freezers, storage containers, and equipment, and all processing equipment is thoroughly cleaned and disinfected after every use to eliminate the risk of cross-contamination.

Despite these measures, IMPRESSIVE SHOW still returned a positive result. This has left me deeply embarrassed and distressed, particularly given the current scrutiny on the Greyhound Racing Industry. The fact that safeguards I put in place have failed has brought great shame to my kennel and, in my view, reflects poorly on the Industry as a whole. For that, I accept responsibility.

As noted in Mr Irving’s submission, my greyhounds race and are swabbed hundreds of times each year. On the same day as IMPRESSIVE SHOW was tested, another of my greyhounds fed the same meat returned a clear swab. On other occasions at Southland where I have had a positive, multiple dogs were swabbed the same day and all others returned clear results.

Over my years of training and racing across multiple tracks, this kennel has an otherwise clean record. We race three times per week at Christchurch and once per week at Southland. Statistically, the likelihood of a positive swab at Christchurch is significantly higher due to frequency of racing, yet both positives have occurred at Southland.

When racing at Christchurch, dogs are last fed meat at approximately 3:00pm the day prior to racing. At Southland, dogs are last fed meat at approximately 11:30am on the Tuesday before travelling south to race on Wednesday. If the substance was present in the meat, this creates a longer window prior to racing, which raises further concern.

On the day in question, IMPRESSIVE SHOW was late-kennelled due to being drawn in Race 15, meaning he remained in the trailer for several hours. Southland is a small track with limited staffing, and there are periods where security presence is minimal. While I am not alleging interference, I cannot entirely rule out external access. Southland is the only track in New Zealand without cameras in the kennel block.

Unfortunately, our kennel has previously been targeted, including incidents involving tyres being deflated, brakes tampered with, and dogs being released from kennels. These events have weighed heavily on my mind.

In conclusion, I accept that IMPRESSIVE SHOW returned a positive swab. I categorically deny administering any prohibited substance, and the RIB belief that the source was contaminated meat aligns with my understanding.

Nevertheless, this outcome is unacceptable to me.

To ensure this never occurs again, I am implementing further immediate measures:

I will no longer accept or process any cattle that have received any veterinary treatment, regardless of withholding periods.

I am installing security cameras at my property and in all transport vehicles.

I will ensure additional supervision and presence around pre-race kennelling periods.

As you are aware, there was a recent positive swab for methamphetamine. While I do not believe Mr Anderson acted intentionally, methamphetamine is a Class A substance and would not be present in meat, which raises serious concern as it should never come into contact with greyhounds. Despite this, the outcome of that matter was that Mr Anderson received no charge. When comparing that situation to my own, I believe the outcome should be the same. Failing to do so would demonstrate inconsistency, particularly given that the substance detected in IMPRESSIVE SHOW can be clearly and credibly established as unintentional. I believe the penalty of $2,500 is excessive and will create inequality. In these circumstances I ask that the penalty is reviewed and reduced accordingly.

The welfare and safety of my greyhounds is my highest priority. I am deeply embarrassed and disappointed by this incident. Given my long history of clean swabs and the extensive steps taken following my previous positive, I believe the penalty proposed by the RIB is inappropriate.

I give my assurance that I will never administer any substance to my greyhounds to affect their performance. This incident has reinforced the seriousness of that responsibility, and I am committed to ensuring my systems exceed the required standards moving forward.

Reasons for Penalty

Mr McInerney, the Licensed Trainer of IMPRESSIVE SHOW, has admitted a breach of r 141(1)(a) and (3) in that he failed to present the greyhound to compete in Race 15 at the Southland GRC meeting on 15 of October 2025, free of the Prohibited Substance 4-Hydroxyxylazine.

The starting point for a Category-1 Breach is stated in the Categories of Prohibited Substances policy document to be 10 years’ disqualification. As was the case in Fahey, the Adjudicative Committee finds little guidance in that document in the circumstances of this case.

The facts relating to the incident involving Mr Anderson referred to by Mr McInerney in his penalty submissions, are not known to the Adjudicative Committee and would appear not to be of direct relevance to the imposition of penalty in this case.

The penalty this Adjudicative Committee imposes, as the Informant has emphasised in their penalty submissions, has to: ensure the Rules are complied with; uphold and maintain the high standards expected of Trainers; and protect the integrity of Greyhound Racing.

The Informant has not sought the disqualification of Mr McInerney, and it is accepted that the gravity of the breach in this case does not warrant such. Indeed, the breach is at the lower end of the scale when regard is had to the fact a possible reason for the positive result to 4-Hydroxyxylazine from an analysis of the post-race sample, was as a consequence of IMPRESSIVE SHOW being fed contaminated meat. However, as the Summary of Facts states: “The source of the 4-Hydroxyxylazine in IMPRESSIVE SHOW remains unknown.” The expert evidence is to the effect that Xylazine works by blocking the action of adrenaline in the body and is considered a ‘stopper’ rather than an ‘enhancer’ of performance.

With respect to culpability, the possibility of greyhounds being fed contaminated meat was known to Mr McInerney. He is an experienced Licensed Trainer and was clearly made aware of this possibility as a consequence of the previous breach in similar circumstances in 2024. He has described the steps he took as a result. While clearly insufficient, as he has acknowledged in his penalty submission, this is not a case where a Licenceholder has continued to act without regard to his responsibilities under the Rules. In simple terms, Mr McInerney needed to adopt more stringent safeguards against the possibility of contaminated meat than simply taking advice from the farmers and relying on their treatment records, and then marking the cows by spray-painting them different colours as meat able to be fed or not to be fed the racing dogs.

Since the introduction of the new Rules as from 1 February 2023, an Adjudicative Committee has the power under r 174(3) to suspend any part or portion of a penalty for a time and pursuant to conditions that it thinks fit. The Informant has not sought suspension in this case of any fine imposed, nor has the Respondent. This is a responsible position for the  Respondent to adopt, as he has already had the benefit of a suspension of penalty pursuant to r 174(3) and it is not appropriate to implement that provision a second time with the circumstances of the breach in each case being similar. The justification for a suspended penalty was stated in McInerney (2024) to be that there was “more to be gained by adopting a prevention / educative approach, which is a more pragmatic way of resolution using the penalties available within the Rules.” This observation is no longer applicable in this case. It is evident that the suspended fine did not have the necessary deterrent effect.

A starting point of a fine of $2,500 was taken in 2024 in circumstances where the Adjudicative Committee was not informed in any detail, as to what steps the Respondent had been taking at that time, to ensure contaminated meat was not fed and what steps would be taken in the future. Having regard to the fact that as a consequence of that case, Mr McInerney took the steps described in his penalty submission to ensure his compliance with the Rules, a starting point equivalent to that adopted in McInerney (2024) is appropriate.

Personal aggravating and mitigating circumstances must now be considered. There is a need for an uplift for a repeated breach in such a short order. Again, regard is had to the steps Mr McInerney had taken since the 2024 positive, and this uplift is tempered to one of $250 (10 per cent).

The Adjudicative Committee does not overlook the fact that $500 of the $1,500 fine that was suspended in McInerney (2024) is activated as a consequence of this later breach. However, the fine of $1,500 which will now be paid in full, was the penalty the 2024 Adjudicative Committee determined was appropriate for that offending. It is not a further penalty imposed by this Adjudicative Committee.

The Respondent first held a Trainer’s Licence in 2008 and commenced full training of the Homebush Kennels in 2023. While Mr McInerney said in 2024 that he was committed to ensuring that such an incident never happened again and that he had already implemented measures to prevent future contamination, these measures were clearly ineffective in preventing a further breach. This Adjudicative Committee notes his continuing commitment to preventive measures, the increased precautions he has taken with respect to third party access to the dogs, and his placing further restrictions upon the nature of the cattle that are being slaughtered to eliminate the risk of dogs being fed contaminated meat.

Personal mitigating factors are Mr McInerney’s admission of the breach, his co-operation with the RIB investigation and his stated intention to adopt further preventive measures, and his acknowledgement of the harm to the Industry of the positive result. This merits a 20 per cent discount of $500 from the $2,500 starting point.

Penalty

After the personal aggravating and mitigating considerations are factored into the starting point, the fine is one of $2,250.

Disqualification

IMPRESSIVE SHOW is disqualified from 7th placing in Race 15 at the Southland Greyhound Racing Club on 15 October 2025, pursuant to r 141(4).

Costs

The Informant does not seek costs. As the matter was heard on the papers, there are no adjudicative costs.