Appeal – Written Decision dated 19 May 2026 – Bruce Negus

1) INTRODUCTION

These proceedings have had an extraordinary longevity. On the 28th of September 2017, a blood sample was taken from the horse MISSANDEI. Mr Negus was the trainer of that horse. That blood sample was detected to have an Out of Competition Prohibited Substance namely Testosterone Cypionate (TC). The sample taken on 28 September 2017 is sample 129275.

There were extended hearings before the Adjudicative Committee on the 24th and 25th of October 2023 and on the 21st and 22nd of March 2024. The delay in hearing before the Adjudicative Committee was in part in consequence of the Covid outbreak. Final submissions for the parties were lodged with the Adjudicative Committee on the 18th of September 2024. The Decision of the Adjudicative Committee is dated the 6th of December 2024. A Penalty and Costs Decision was issued by the Adjudicative Committee on the 20th of March 2025. An appeal was then lodged.

The Appeals Tribunal held a two day hearing in Christchurch on the 27th and 28th of August 2025. There followed an exchange of submissions and telephone conferences about what appropriate evidence should be received by the Appeals Tribunal. More will be said of that later in this Decision.

On the 18th and 19th of November 2025, a further hearing was held before the Appeals Tribunal in Christchurch. On the 11th of February 2026, yet another hearing took place before the Appeals Tribunal in Christchurch.

An issue arose as to the representation of Mr Negus. Regulation 48.1 of the 5th Schedule to the Rules allows representation by Counsel or a lay advocate. It does not make reference to representation by both. It was clear from reading the transcript of the hearing before the Adjudicative Committee, that Mr John Langbehn had played a significant role and that both he and Ms Thomas had engaged in cross examination of witnesses and making of submissions. In those somewhat unusual circumstances, the Tribunal took the view that it would be appropriate for both Mr Langbehn and Ms Thomas to participate in the hearing before the Tribunal and a Minute was issued in advance of the hearing setting out that position. Mr Langbehn took an active part in the hearing before the Tribunal. Reference is made to that later in this Decision.

In accordance with directions given by the Tribunal, both parties have filed written closing submissions. The last of these was from the Respondent and is dated the 7th of April 2026. Counsel for the Appellant had filed submissions when lodging the appeal. Those submissions were more than 100 pages.

2) THE RELEVANT PRIMARY FACTS AND RELEVANT RULES

There was evidence before the Adjudicative Committee that TC is a man made compound and that was not disputed by the expert witness Professor Shaw called for the Appellant.

Rule 1004AB provides:

1) A Stipendiary Steward or Racecourse Inspector may at any time carry out tests and/or examinations, including the taking of a sample on any registered horse to determine whether a prohibited substance was in, is in, or on a horse.
2) For the purpose of testing or examining a horse the Stipendiary Steward or Racecourse Inspector may use the services of a Veterinary Surgeon or other appropriately qualified person.
3) Every owner, trainer and person in apparent control of the horse shall comply with any direction relating to such testing and examination given by the Stipendiary Steward or Racecourse Inspector.
4) No person shall interfere with, or prevent, or endeavour to interfere with or prevent the carrying out of any test or examination.
5) When any sample taken has detected in it, or any test or examination establishes the horse has had administered to it, any prohibited substance specified in Prohibited Substance Regulations as “Out of Competition Prohibited Substance”, the trainer and any other person in apparent control of the horse commits a breach of the Rules.
6) A breach of sub-rule (3), (4) and (5) hereof shall be declared a serious racing offence.
7) The elements of an offence against r 1004AB(5) are:

(a) the Respondent was the trainer or a person in apparent control of the horse MISSANDEI;
(b) a sample taken from MISSANDEI had detected in it TC, which is a prohibited substance specified in the Prohibited Substance Regulations.

8) Pursuant to cl 6.5 of the HRNZ Prohibited Substances and Practices Regulations, TC is an Out of Competition Prohibited Substance as it is an anabolic androgenic steroid.

This was accepted by the parties. The presence of TC is a breach of the Regulations.

3) THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND THE RULE

a) The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. The Adjudicative Committee noted that this is the conventional civil standard of proof and referenced the Decision of the Supreme Court in Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2009] 1 NZLR 1. That judgment makes clear that the more serious the allegation, the more compelling must be the evidence required to prove such allegation.
b) The Rule 1008(b) makes clear that a breach of Rule 1004AB is a strict liability offence.
c) The Decision of the Adjudicative Committee was comprehensive – some 66 pages. It was a senior and experienced Adjudicative Committee.

4) THE SAMPLES TAKEN

With reference to sample 129275 and other samples, the Adjudicative Committee set out the position at page 4 of its Decision. We now set that out:

(a) Sample 129275, taken on 28 September 2017, comprised eight tubes of blood packed into a sealed sample bag (also referred to as a satchel or a security pouch):

(i) Tube 1 was used by New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services Ltd (NZRLS) for screening analysis. This analysis returned an indicative positive for TC.
(ii) Tubes 2 and 3 were used by NZRLS for confirmatory analysis. This analysis confirmed that the sample contained TC. The Certificate of Analysis was produced at the hearing as Exhibit 3.
(iii) Tube 4 was used by NZRLS for an experiment to understand the effect of the thawing process on degradation of TC in the sample. This experiment was not reported on, and data was not retained as the process followed was not confirmatory analysis.
(iv) Tubes 5 and 6 comprised the B-sample. These were sent to Racing Analytical Services Ltd (RASL) for confirmatory analysis. The analysis confirmed that the sample contained TC. The Certificate of Analysis was produced at the hearing as Exhibit 5.
(v) Tube 7 was used by the Hong Kong Jockey Club (HKJC) laboratory for confirmatory analysis on 3 October 2019. TC was not detected in Tube 7.
(vi) Tube 8 was used by NZRLS for confirmatory analysis on 11 December 2019. TC was not detected in Tube 8.

5) THE NATURE OF THE HEARING

Appeal hearings are by way of a re-hearing: see 5th schedule no 44. 44.1 is as follows ‘all appeals are by way of re-hearing except to the extent that the Appeals Tribunal otherwise directs’.

Notwithstanding that the conduct of the appeal is by way of re-hearing, the proceedings have taken on something of a re-trial. This, because information became available from Mr Rob Howitt, the Director of NZRLS, making information known that was not previously disclosed. Counsel for the Respondent filed a formal statement from Mr Howitt dated the 22nd of July 2025. That explains how the circumstances just referred to came about. It is appropriate to quote verbatim the relevant part of Mr Howitt’s statement. It is as follows:

“4. At the second hearing in 2024, I was asked if the testosterone level in the sample 129275 was above the ‘the limit’ and if so, would this have been reported. I answered that had the limit been exceeded, then it would have been reported. This was the first time I had been asked to comment on the level of testosterone in sample 129275 and I was not asked any other questions about the testosterone level in sample 129275.
5. I have since reviewed the International Thresholds in place at the time and can confirm that the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities (IFHA) did not introduce the international threshold for testosterone in plasma from mares and fillies until 2018. This threshold, set at of 100pg/mL, was therefore not in place when sample 129275 was screened in 2017.
6. I have re-examined the screening data for sample 129275 in order to provide an estimate of the level of testosterone in the sample. I had not previously been asked to provide such an estimate nor was I aware that the level of testosterone was the subject of expert evidence in the second hearing. I was not asked about the level of testosterone in the sample at the first and second hearing, other than what is included above.
7. Having looked at the screening data for testosterone, I am able to estimate of a level of approximately 8pg/ml. I attach to this formal statement the data that I have relied on in making this assessment.”

6) Following discussion with Counsel, it was determined that a number of witnesses who had given evidence before the Adjudicative Committee should give evidence before the Tribunal. The identity of those witnesses and the nature of the evidence which they gave will be set out later in this Decision.

7) TAKING OF THE SAMPLES

a) The Appellant contends that the taking of the samples from the horse MISSANDEI may have led to a mixing up or contamination.
b) Evidence was given at the Adjudicative Committee hearing by Mrs Kylie Williams. She is a Racecourse Investigator and has held that position since 2012. Prior to that, she had been a Stipendiary Steward in the Harness Racing Industry.
c) She had arrived at the Appellant’s property on 27 September 2017 for the purpose of taking blood samples from both MISSANDEI and ARYA. In preparation for taking of the samples, she had dated the swab cards on that date. However, on arrival, the Appellant was not present and following a telephone conversation, it was agreed with the Appellant, that Mrs Williams would return the following day.
d) In preparation for taking of the sample, she has dated the swab cards on 27 September 2017. She did not amend the date on the swab cards. They remained dated 27 September 2017, even though the swabs were actually taken on 28 September 2017.
e) On 28 September 2017, Mrs Williams together with Dr Ailsa Corser, who is a veterinary surgeon, arrived at the Appellant’s property for the purposes of taking samples. This was completed, with the Appellant’s wife Mrs Colleen Negus, holding the horses. There were 8 vials of blood taken from each horse. The sample taken from MISSANDEI was numbered 129275. On taking the samples, these were placed in a security pouch, which is normally sealed on a flat surface. However, as the samples were taken in a stable environment, Mrs Williams placed the vials in the security pouch and sealed them across her body.
f) She then arranged for the samples to be sent to NZ Racing Laboratory Services in Auckland. On receipt by the laboratory in Auckland, there was a photograph taken of the pouch as a means of acknowledging receipt of the samples.
g) Mrs Williams made a written statement some 8 months later. In that statement she stated she placed the vials in the security pouch in a two-by-two-by-two-by-two formation. However, the photographic receipt from the laboratory in Auckland showed the vials were in the sample pouch in a one-by-one-by-three-by-three formation. On sighting that photographic receipt and comparing that to Mrs Williams’ statement, the Appellant naturally had suspicions the vials may have been tampered with from the time that they were placed in the security pouch, until arrival in Auckland.
h) Prior to the hearing before the Adjudicative Committee, Mrs Williams was shown the photographic receipt and acknowledged she had incorrectly indicated the formation of the vials in the security pouch. She confirmed the practice at the time of taking the samples, was for them to be placed in a one-by-one-by-three-by-three formation, but by the time she made her statement, the practice had changed and at the time of that statement, the accepted practice was for a two-by-two-by-two-by-two formation.
i) The Adjudicative Committee accepted the explanation given by Mrs Williams.
j) The Tribunal agrees with the finding made by the Adjudicative Committee in this regard. The incorrect statement given by Mrs Willams does not, in our view, give rise to any suggestion that contamination may have occurred due to the different formations in the security pouch.
k) At the hearing, Ms Thomas raised concerns about the photographic receipt being shown to Mrs Williams after she had made the earlier statement. She suggested this was inappropriate and should rather have been put to Mrs Williams during the course of the hearing before the Adjudicative Committee. Mr Dow maintained there was nothing improper from showing this photographic receipt to Mrs Williams prior to the hearing. The Tribunal was not asked to make any ruling in this regard and does not do so.

8) TESTING OF THE SAMPLES

a) The sample 129275 taken on the 28th of September 2017, comprised 8 tubes of blood packed into a security pouch. Reference the evidence of Mrs Williams set out in para 7 above. Tube no. 1 was used by NZRLS for screening analysis. That analysis returned a positive for TC.
b) Tubes 2 and 3 were used by NZRLS for confirmatory analysis that confirmed the sample contained TC. That certificate of analysis was put in evidence before the Adjudicative Committee.
c) Tube 4 was used by NZRLS for an experiment to understand the effect of the thawing process on degradation of TC. That experiment was not reported on to the Adjudicative Committee.
d) Tubes 5 and 6 comprised the B sample. Those were sent to Racing Analytical Services Limited (RASL) for confirmatory analysis. That analysis confirmed that the sample contained TC. That certificate was produced in evidence before the Adjudicative Committee.
e) Tube 7 was used by the Hong Kong Jockey Club (HKJC) laboratory for confirmatory analysis on the 3rd of October 2019. TC was not detected in tube no. 7.
f) Tube 8 was used by NZRLS for confirmatory analysis on the 11th of December 2019 and TC was not detected in that tube.
g) Also on the 28th of September 2017, a sample was taken from the horse ARYA, trained by Mr Negus. Analysis showed trace indications of TC, but at a very low level.
h) A second blood sample was taken from MISSANDEI on the 18th of October 2017. Analysis undertaken by NZRLS did not detect any TC.
i) Three hair samples were taken from MISSANDEI:

i. A hair sample was taken on the 3rd of November 2017 and was sent to RASL for analysis. No TC was detected in that sample.
ii. A second hair sample was taken on the 25th of January 2018 and was sent to HKJC for analysis. It was not accepted by HKJC, as it was not accompanied by a certificate clearing MISSANDEI from disease.
iii. A third hair sample was taken from MISSANDEI on the 31st of January 2018 and sent to HKJC for analysis. The report from HKJC on the 13th of March 2018 advised that TC was not detected in that hair sample.

9) THE APPELLANT’S CASE ON APPEAL

The case for the Appellant on appeal was essentially the same as the case advanced before the Adjudicative Committee. What was advanced was as follows:

a) There was contamination when the samples were taken.
b) There was contamination in the laboratory.
c) Subsequent testing showed such a low level of TC that supported the proposition that contamination had occurred. The Appellant points to the high variations within sample 129275. These were as follows:

i. Going from 80% to 20% within three days while degradation should have arrested in the frozen sample.
ii. The reported 50% TC level reduction (within two days for the next frozen tube).
iii. There was an apparent increase from the tube tested on the 4th of October 2017, some 6 days later.
iv. The last two tubes from sample 129275 tested negative.
v. Elevated levels of testosterone were not detected in sample 129275, nor was it detected in the sample taken on the 18th of October 2017.
vi. The hair sample taken on the 3rd of November 2017 tested negative.
vii. The hair sample taken on the 31st of January 2018 tested negative.
viii. It was the case for the Appellant that there were a number of deficiencies in the process followed by the Respondent. These were:

a) Failure to follow swabbing best practice. The use of unvalidated or unaccredited methods at NZRLS which were then used to inform the RIU to make a decision to send the B sample to RASL for testing. This was said to be a clear breach of the IANZ standard.
b) That NZRLS issued incorrect reports in relation to mishandling or mismanaging samples – the hair sample taken on the 25th of January 2018 that was rejected in Hong Kong and that there was inconsistent and misleading advice regarding the disposition of the 8 tubes that made up sample 129275 and further incomplete provision of analytical data.
c) It was said that the sending of the B sample to RASL was a clear and intentional breach of the regulations and that this caused some prejudice to the Appellant. The nature of that alleged prejudice was not explained.
d) In support of the submission that there was the possibility of contamination, the Appellant pointed to the following:

i. Professor Shaw, a witness for the Appellant before the Adjudicative Committee stated ‘very strange that TC was not detected in those tubes because pharmacokinetically that’s not possible’.
ii. Mr Reeve gave evidence as follows, ‘I think the one thing that everybody leans on is that there is a pretty rapid drop off in the TC in the blood certainly in those 2017 results. The two 2019 results being negative that concerned me essentially because I believe that enzyme activity is almost non-existent once frozen. The chemical is not chemically unstable so I wouldn’t have thought that any deterioration over those two years would have been very small, to the point of being insignificant’.
iii. The submissions for the Appellant are critical of Mr Howitt in contending that he only ever considered one possibility regarding the large variation of TC test results without ever conducting any further investigation saying that his knowledge of the 2010 research notwithstanding. It is said for the Appellant that this pointed to a closed mind and a lack of scientific rigor.
iv. The Appellant submits that the variations (and significantly the negative findings) of sample 129275 are inexplicable in any scientific context and thus the sample is unreliable.
v. There is also criticism by the Appellant that all of the scientific analytical data should have been provided as part of the initial disclosure pack for sample 129275. It is said that this had an impact on the duration of the proceedings and prejudiced Mr Negus. The nature of that prejudice is unexplained.

e) The Appellant raised an abuse of process argument, with reference to the conduct of the persons who attended the Negus stable in September 2017. During the course of the hearing, the Tribunal indicated it was not attracted to that ground of appeal. While there may have been little diplomacy, no abuse of process occurred.

10) THE RESPONDENT’S CASE

a) It is said that the criticism of the RIB and NZRLS in relation to the testosterone issue is unwarranted and that how the Adjudicative Committee dealt with that issue is unwarranted. Further, that the additional evidence did not mean that the Adjudicative Committee erred in relation to the testosterone issue. It is said that when all of the evidence is considered, this Tribunal can be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that a contamination event did not occur, from which it follows that the only explanation for the detection of TC in MISSANDEI, is that MISSANDEI was exposed to TC at some point prior to the taking of sample 129275.
b) The submissions for the Respondent set out in detail how the testosterone issue arose and the role of Mr Rob Howitt. It is appropriate to set out that explanation by quoting directly from the submissions. On this subject they were as follows:

i. The Appellant is critical of both the RIB and NZRLS Director Rob Howitt (Mr Howitt) for failing to disclose data relating to the testosterone level at an earlier stage in these proceedings. That criticism is unwarranted. While this issue is somewhat peripheral to proof of the charge, given the weight placed on it by the Appellant, it is important to outline the relevant background context to properly advance this submission.
ii. As explained in Counsel’s Memorandum of 24 July 2025, the first time the RIB became aware of the estimated testosterone level, or even the ability for the level to be estimated from the screening data, was on 14 July 2025. In the course of reviewing the Appellant’s submissions on appeal, Mr Howitt reviewed the screening data and used it to estimate a level of testosterone in the sample. Prior to that point, even Mr Howitt did not know the estimated level of testosterone.
iii. There can be no criticism of the RIB for failing to disclose evidence that it did not hold and did not know existed. This is consistent with the position in criminal proceedings – section 15 of the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008 provides that nothing in that Act requires a prosecutor to disclose information if the prosecutor is not in possession or control of that information. This reflects an obvious point – a prosecutor cannot disclose that which it does not even know exists.
iv. The Appellant is also critical of the information submitted in the RIB’s Memorandum of 29 July 2022. This criticism is also unwarranted.
v. This Memorandum was filed in an attempt by recently instructed Counsel to consolidate the position on a large number of disclosure issues raised on behalf of Mr Negus, including 44 discrete disclosure requests made in the Appellant’s 8 June 2022 Memorandum. Those requests were accompanied in that Memorandum by allegations such as that the process had “turned from a prosecution into a persecution of Mr Negus” and that the matter had within it “evidence and disclosure that is not only contradictory, but deliberately misleading and false”. These were troubling allegations.
vi. As stated in the RIB’s 29 July 2022 Memorandum, mindful of those allegations, Counsel was therefore “endeavouring to respond to each of the matters raised in order to consolidate everything that is required for this matter to proceed to trial”. The RIB accordingly submitted that all analytical data had been disclosed. The RIB understood this comment to relate to analytical data in respect of the detection of Testosterone Cypionate. Notwithstanding the 44 discrete disclosure requests, there had been no request (specific or otherwise) for data relating to testosterone.
vii. Further, as has been explained by Mr Howitt in this proceeding, the laboratory will not provide “all analytical data” as the IFHA Guidelines do not require this, and in any event, doing so would reveal the full scope of testing carried out by the laboratory. Despite the lengthy cross-examination of Mr Howitt on this point, suggesting his position is unreasonable as there is significant publicly available information about the scope of testing, it is (and was) answered very simply: the publicly available information does not reveal the substances that are tested for. Disclosing the full scope of testing would reveal the substances tested for, and by elimination, the substances that are not tested for, so in the wrong hands, this information would readily enable a person so minded to engage in drug cheating with impunity. As Mr Howitt said, “People can’t know what we’re testing for cos if they did, they could use something else that we weren’t testing for”. This is a sound reason to keep the scope of testing confidential.
viii. The Appellant could have specifically requested information about the estimated level of testosterone in sample 129275 at any point between June 2022 and the first time the issue arose in March 2024. He did not. It is not reasonable to then criticise the RIB or Mr Howitt for failing to appreciate the potential significance of this data and failing to proactively obtain and then disclose it. Indeed, the fact that it was not requested or even raised at any point prior to March 2024, somewhat undermines the Appellant’s position that it is highly relevant evidence in this case. To the contrary, it supports the RIB’s position, consistent with the evidence of Dr Ho – that it should not contradict the adverse analytical finding of TC and the inference that follows from that finding that the horse was exposed to the substance.
ix. The issue of the level of testosterone in sample 129275 did not arise at all during the first two days of the hearing before the Adjudicative Committee. Mr Howitt was not asked about it, nor was Dr Wan. The Appellant’s witnesses called during that part of the hearing, including Professor Shaw and Mr Reeve, did not make any comment on it.
x. The level of testosterone in sample 129275 was first raised during the cross-examination of Mr Howitt on day 3 of the hearing, before the Adjudicative Committee on 24 March 2024. Mr Howitt was asked whether the testosterone level in the samples taken from MISSANDEI and ARYA would have been below “the threshold”. Mr Howitt said that the laboratory did use an internal standard for testosterone so the laboratory “could make that estimate accurately”, but Mr Howitt was not asked whether he had made that estimate and if so, what the estimated level of testosterone was. All he was asked was to confirm that if testosterone had been at an elevated level, it would have been reported. Mr Howitt confirmed this. The obvious inference could be drawn from this that sample 129275 did not have an elevated testosterone level – obvious because it was known to all parties throughout this proceeding, that no elevated testosterone level had been reported. This inference did not even require Mr Howitt’s evidence to be drawn – it could be drawn regardless from the lack of reporting of an elevated testosterone level. This was therefore not new information.
xi. Dr Dunnett gave evidence the following morning, day 4 of the hearing, before the Adjudicative Committee. Dr Dunnett’s evidence was that the fact that an elevated testosterone level was not reported in the sample meant that in his opinion, it was more likely than not, that Testosterone Cypionate was not administered to the horse. Professor Shaw was also asked during his evidence in chief, about the significance of this evidence.
xii. The proposition advanced by Dr Dunnett had not been put to any of the RIB’s witnesses at any point prior to this. It had not been put to Mr Howitt or to Dr Wan at the first hearing; it had not been put to Mr Howitt or David Batty (RASL Director) at the second hearing. Even more significantly, it had not been included in Dr Dunnett’s brief, nor had it been included in the briefs of evidence of either Professor Shaw or Mr Reeve.
xiii. To be clear: the point being discussed here is not that the purpose of a testosterone ester is to elevate the level of testosterone in the subject. That is uncontroversial and is well established by the evidence and the literature. Rather, the issue is whether the absence of an elevated level of testosterone in the specific circumstances of the known analytical data in this case, is diagnostically significant. This does not necessarily follow from the fact that the purpose of the ester is to increase testosterone levels – that is Dr Ho’s point (discussed further below). This more nuanced point is what should have been put to the RIB’s witnesses and included in the briefs of evidence, if the Appellant wished to rely on it as a submission. It was not.
xiv. Against this background, the Tribunal should not find that the RIB has erred in any way in failing to provide the information relating to the testosterone level prior to disclosure of Mr Howitt’s 24 July 2025 statement. This background context does not support the Appellant’s criticism of the RIB or of Mr Howitt. To the contrary, as soon as the RIB became aware of this potentially relevant evidence, it took the necessary steps to obtain it in a recorded form and disclose it to Mr Negus, which Mr Howitt did.

Before the Tribunal, Mr Howitt was the subject of an extended and at times aggressive cross examination by Mr Langbehn. The Tribunal finds that Mr Howitt was a credible witness. The Tribunal having considered the written advice submitted by Mr Howitt, the explanation for delay and the disclosure as conducted by Counsel for the RIB, together with the cross examination referenced above, is not persuaded that the Appellant suffered any meaningful prejudice. Some delay to the hearing(s) before the Tribunal and extended time resulted, but that did not cause prejudice to the Appellant.

11) EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL

Dr Ho and Dr Dunnett gave evidence before the Tribunal. Dr Ho is the chief racing chemist and head of racing laboratory at the Hong Kong Jockey Club. It was her position that TC and that the analytical data in this case did not negate the inference that the horse was exposed to TC. That evidence from Dr Ho was consistent with the evidence that Dr Wan gave before the Adjudicative Committee. Dr Ho was cautious about the use of the estimated testosterone level which could be influenced by numerous variables.

“…the concentration ratio of TCyp to free T in the blood sample collected at an unknown time after exposure to TCyp by the relevant horse and subject to the conditions of storage and transport cannot be scientifically interpreted, and there is no inconsistency between the screening estimates of 8pg/mL of free T and 200pg/mL of TCyp in the same sample. In the absence of substance-specific pharmacokinetic data, knowledge of when and how the horse had been exposed to the reported substance, and a clear understanding of the sample storage and transport conditions, extrapolating from studies of different substances, such as TEna, is not justified.”

The Tribunal found Dr Ho to be a compelling witness. The evidence she gave before the Tribunal was consistent with the evidence she had given before the Adjudicative Committee. While she acknowledged that the circumstances were unusual, she was able to explain that there was a credible set of circumstances to account for the unusual readings.

The Tribunal heard further evidence from Dr Mark Dunnett. The qualifications and experience of Dr Dunnett were detailed in the Decision of the Adjudicative Committee.

The subsequent evidence from Dr Dunnett, arose from the disclosure of the estimated testosterone level in MISSANDEI at 8pg/ml.

It was the view of Dr Dunnett, that level of testosterone of 8pg/ml in a mare is very low and consistent with the low end of a normal range for a mare. He was also of the view, if any Testosterone Cypionate (TC) was present in the sample, then there would have been a significant increase in the concentration of the testosterone in the sample.

In his view, there were four possible scenarios:

a) MISSANDEI never had any TC in her system. This was considered by Dr Dunnett to be the most likely scenario, which leads to a conclusion of contamination in the sampling.
b) MISSANDEI had TC in her system, but it was not at an elevated level and this was considered to be a less likely scenario.
c) MISSANDEI had TC in her system, which elevated the level of testosterone, but from a very low level to 8pg/ml. Dr Dunnett did not consider this to be a possibility and therefore disagreed with the evidence of Dr Ho.
d) The estimated levels of testosterone were not correct, which he also considered to be an unlikely scenario.

Dr Dunnett considered the most likely explanation to be an absence of TC in the mare, but any presence in the sample, would most likely have arisen from contamination.

At the Adjudicative Committee hearing, Dr Dunnett was critical of the sampling processes adopted. He noted he had observed a sampling process at a racecourse in New Zealand, which in his opinion, did not comply with best practice. Therefore, any contamination most likely would have arisen during the sampling process.

However, after considering the further evidence of Mr Howitt, who conceded there had been some examples of contamination in the laboratory, Dr Dunnett moved to then take the view the contamination most likely occurred in the laboratory during the testing procedures.

However, Mr Howitt added, any contamination which had occurred in the laboratory, had been quickly detected and therefore, there had been no adverse laboratory results. He stated this was because any sample was tested on a number of occasions and any contamination could not continue through all of the samples which were tested. His view was therefore, the likelihood of any contamination in the laboratory processing was nil.

The Tribunal have therefore concluded that Dr Dunnett’s view of contamination was speculative and he was not able to credibly point to any particular circumstance when contamination could have taken place.

12) THE DECISION UNDER APPEAL

a) The Decision of the Adjudicative Committee was comprehensive. This is noted in paragraph 3(c) above. The Decision contains a comprehensive analysis of the evidence presented, with particular reference to the expert witnesses and the issue of degradation. It is not necessary to reference that evidence in detail, but appropriate to set out the conclusions reached by the Committee. At paragraphs 378 to 381 of the Decision under appeal, we quote:

“[378]Degradation is supported by the evidence of Dr Ho, Mr Howitt, and Mr Zahra.

[379]The experts were reluctant, understandably, to speculate as to the reason for the conflicting results. Dr Dunnett suggested contamination might be “a potential explanation” and referred in his brief to methodological and procedural inconsistencies, deviations from best practice, and conflicting analytical findings. He also suggested chain of custody issues. We have recounted the evidence relating to this and find no break. Again, this would not satisfactorily explain the six positives and the two negatives.

[380]Professor Shaw agreed that he could not point to any evidence to support a theory of contamination, other than the apparently contradictory analytical results.

[381]The Informant’s witnesses all proffer the explanations of degradation (blood), or the fact that different results from different matrices (blood and hair) is not unexpected.”

b) The summary of the Adjudicative Committee findings set out above, followed a detailed and careful assessment of the scientific evidence.
c) The evidence before the Tribunal referenced above confirms the analysis of the Adjudicative Committee. In particular, the change of position by Dr Dunnett, following the disclosure from Mr Howitt. Moreover, Dr Ho’s evidence before the Tribunal, reinforced her earlier evidence given before the Adjudicative Committee.
d) The civil standard of proof applies. This is set out earlier in this Decision. The Tribunal has not been persuaded by the evidence it has heard, to differ from the view of the Adjudicative Committee. The reasoning of the Adjudicative Committee was orthodox, careful and was conscious of the appropriate standard of proof.
e) The tenor of much of the evidence and the submissions for the Appellant appear to convey the position that if some doubt can be established, then the charge will fail. That is not consistent with the standard of proof that is required. The Respondent was not required to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt – rather to the civil standard.

13) CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, the Appellant has not established that the Adjudicative Committee was in error. Rather, the scientific evidence heard before the Tribunal, reinforced the position advanced for the Respondent. The appeal is dismissed. The costs award by the Adjudicative Committee was not challenged.

14) COSTS

The parties are invited to file submissions in relation to costs. Given the extended hearings before the Tribunal and the transportation of persons to and from Christchurch, the costs incurred may well be significant. Submissions for the Respondent are to be filed by the 2nd day of June 2026 and reply submissions from the Appellant by the 16th day of June 2026. The submissions will not exceed 5 pages.