Non Raceday Inquiry – Part 2 – Written Penalty Decision dated 9 February 2026 – Ival Brownlee

Introduction

[1] This is the Part 2 Penalty Decision arising from the charge filed against the Licenced (Harness) Trainer Mr Ival Brownlee (hereafter referred to as the Respondent) for presenting his horse EMILY BAY to race at the Waikato BOP Meeting on 30 October 2025, in breach of Rule 1004A.  Refer to paragraph 5 regarding the Part 1 Decision.

Determination on the Papers

[2] In accordance with Rule 21.1 of the Fifth Schedule of the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Adjudicative Committees, and with the agreement of both parties involved—namely, Mr Carr representing the Racing Integrity Board (RIB) as the Applicant, and Mr R Lawson (Lay Advocate) who initially assisted the Respondent—the matter was adjudicated exclusively on the written documents, which included the evidence and submissions presented by both the Applicant and Respondent. Therefore, no oral hearing was required for this determination, as both parties consented to this approach.

The Charge

[3] Dr E Forbes, the Chief Executive of the Racing Integrity Board (RIB) authorised the filing of this charge against the Respondent, alleging he breached Rule 1004A(2) and (4) of Harness Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing.

[4] The particulars of the charge – Information No. A17994 provides:  

That on 30th October 2025 at the Waikato BOP Harness Club meeting at Cambridge, Ival Brownlee (the Respondent) being the registered licenced trainer of the horse, EMILY BAY for the purpose of engaging in and did engage in Race 3 failing to present the said horse, free of the Prohibited Substance namely Methamphetamine in breach of the New Zealand Harness Racing (HRNZ) Rules 1004A(2) & (4) and subject to the penalties pursuant to Rules 1004D(1) & (2).

Disqualification of EMILY BAY

[5] An earlier Request for a Ruling Decision resulted in EMILY BAY being disqualified from its first placing in Race 3, on  30 October 2025 at the Waikato BOP Harness Club Meeting. This Decision was published on the RIB Website – (refer Non Raceday Inquiry – Part 1 – Request for a Ruling – Written Decision dated 30 December 2025 – EMILY BAY).

[6] The effect of the disqualification from a race is contained within Rule No’s 1308 and 1308A.

The Relevant Rules

[7] Rule 1004A provides that:

2) A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances.

(4) When a horse is presented to race in contravention of sub – rule (2) or (3) the trainer of the horse commits a breach of these Rules.

Disqualification From Race

[8] Rule 1004E provides that:

(1) Any horse taken to a racecourse for the purpose of engaging in a race which is found to have administered to it or ingested by it a prohibited substance or an out of competition prohibited substance must be disqualified from that race.

(2) The mandatory disqualification under sub-rule (1) applies regardless of the circumstances in which the substance came to be present in or on the horse.

Rule 1008 provides that in the absence of any express provision to the contrary in any proceeding for a breach of these Rules:

1. a) it shall not be necessary for the Informant to prove that the Defendant or any person intended to commit that or any breach of the Rule; and
2. b) any breach of a Rule shall be considered as an offence of strict liability.

Penalty Guidelines

[9] The RIB Harness Racing Penalty Guide that came into effective on 1 February 2023, identifies a starting point penalty for Prohibited Substances, namely:

With regards to Presenting Offences for a first offence – $8,000 fine and a second offence – two-year disqualification and fine of up to $20,000.

The penalty provisions are contained in Rule 1004D, which provides that a person who commits a breach of Rule 1004A is liable to: –

• a fine not exceeding $20,000; and/or
• be disqualified or suspension from holding or obtaining a licence for any specific period not exceeding five years.

Any horse connected with the breach must be disqualified from the race and may, in addition, be disqualified for a period not exceeding five years.

The Plea

[10] The Respondent admitted the breach. The charge is therefore proved.

Summary of Facts (Salient Points)

[11] The facts and RIB penalty submissions are not disputed. The key salient facts of the breach are summarised as follows.

[12] On 30 October 2025, EMILY BAY won Race 3, the Fast AF Friday in the Skyline Lounge HCP 2700 metre trot, at the Waikato BOP Harness Club meeting at Cambridge. The gross stake money for first place was $4,400. Emily Bay is a 7-year-old mare trained by the Respondent and is co-owned by his parents.

[13] EMILY BAY was post-race swabbed on 30 October 2025. A urine sample was collected and recorded with Sample Identity Record 208619.

[14] On 20 November 2025, New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services (NZRLS) issued a Certificate of Analysis detailing that the sample obtained from EMILY BAY was positive for the prohibited substance Methamphetamine. The post-race ‘B’ sample was sent to Racing Analytical Services Ltd (RASL) in Australia, who on 18 December 2025, issued a Certificate of Analysis confirming the sample was positive for Methamphetamine, with the control sample clear.

[15] Under the HRNZ Prohibited Substance and Prohibited Practice Regulations, Methamphetamine is classified in Schedule 1 – Prohibited Substances, Category B Raceday Prohibited Substances.

[16] On 21 November 2025, RIB Investigators visited the Respondent’s training facility in Pokeno and interviewed both him and his father, an HRNZ Licensed Amateur Driver and part-owner of EMILY BAY. The Respondent and his father consented to in-field drug screening conducted by The Drug Detection Agency (TDDA). The purpose of the test was to establish, as far as possible, the likely cause of the positive result that arose from the analysis of the sample collected from EMILY BAY.

[17] Urine and hair follicle samples were obtained from the Respondent. Initial screening of the urine sample returned a non-negative result for the presence of Methamphetamine. The Respondent’s father’s urine sample returned a clear negative result.

[18] The Respondent’s samples were sent by TDDA to independent laboratories – PHF Science (formerly ESR) and Omega Laboratories – for analysis.

[19] Six forensic swab samples were also taken by TDDA from the horse truck used to transport the Respondent’s horses to and from the stabling area. On 26 November 2025, the RIB received a copy of TDDA’s Screening Assessment Report undertaken on the truck and stables, which were clear.

[20] On 1 December 2025, the RIB received disclosure from TDDA of analysis of the Respondent’s hair follicle by Omega Laboratories, which confirmed a positive result for the controlled drugs Methamphetamine and Amphetamine.

[21] On 2 December 2025, the RIB received disclosure of the PHF Science Urine Drug Test Report for the Respondent’s sample, which was positive for Methamphetamine, Amphetamine, and THC Acid.

[22] During the interview of the Respondent, he denied having used Methamphetamine since 2012.

Penalty Submissions – Applicant (RIB)

The RIB provided detailed written penalty submissions. These are outlined as follows:

Introduction

[23] The Respondent is a Licensed Public Trainer and Open Driver under the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing. He is 53 years of age and operates a training establishment at Pokeno, where he has approximately eight Standardbreds in work.

[24] He has admitted one charge under Rules 1004A(2) & (4) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing, namely presenting a horse to race that was not free of a Prohibited Substance. Pursuant to Rule 1004D(2), the horse EMILY BAY was subsequently disqualified from the race as per the Adjudicative Committee’s Written Decision dated 30 December 2025.

[25] Details of this offence are outlined in the agreed Summary of Facts at paragraphs 11 to 22.

[26] The Respondent has no previous breaches of the Prohibited Substance Rule. However, he has two prior charges arising from positive human drug tests: in March 2012, he returned a positive test for Methamphetamine, which resulted in a 12-month suspension; and in November 2015, he returned a positive test for THC (Cannabis), which resulted in a nine-month suspension.

[27] The relevant penalty provisions are as outlined in paragraph 9.

Sentencing Principles

[28] The RIB submits that the principles of sentencing relevant to this charge are summarised as follows:

• Penalties are designed to punish the offender for his / her wrongdoing. They are not meant to be retributive in the sense the punishment is disproportionate to the offence, but the offender must be met with a punishment.
• In a racing context it is extremely important that a penalty has the effect of deterring others from committing similar offences.
• A penalty should also reflect the disapproval of the RIB for the type of behaviour in question.
• The need to rehabilitate the offender should be considered.
• The relevant purposes and principles are well established and have been articulated in numerous decisions, including RIU v L (May 2019).
• Proceedings under the Rules are not solely punitive but are primarily directed at protecting the integrity of the racing industry, maintaining public confidence, and ensuring appropriate standards of animal welfare and participant conduct.

Comments Regarding Methamphetamine

[29] Methamphetamine is a Class A Controlled Drug. Its presence in a race‑day sample raises significant integrity, animal welfare, and health and safety concerns.

[30] The Adjudicative Committees have consistently recognised that Methamphetamine offending strikes at the heart of racing’s social licence to operate. Even where no deliberate administration is alleged, the mere presence of the substance has the potential to undermine public confidence in racing outcomes.

[31] The need for general deterrence is particularly acute in Methamphetamine cases due to the known risks of contamination and the seriousness of the drug involved.

RIB’s Position as to Penalty

[32] The RIB submits that a period of disqualification is required to reflect the seriousness of the breach and to meet the objectives of denunciation and general deterrence.

[33] The RIB submits that a starting point of eighteen (18) months disqualification is appropriate, having regard to: –

• The nature of the Prohibited Substance involved, being Methamphetamine, a Class A Controlled Drug.
• The fact that the breach occurred on race-day.
• The integrity and animal welfare considerations engaged.
• The Respondent’s positive human drug tests for Methamphetamine, which elevates the contamination risk; and
• The need for general deterrence across the industry.

[34] The RIB submits that a period of disqualification is required to denounce the conduct, deter similar offending, and maintain public confidence in the integrity of the Harness Racing Industry. While the breach sits within the mid-range of seriousness for a first presentation offence under the Penalty Guide, its gravity is elevated by the nature of the Prohibited Substance (Methamphetamine), the race-day context, and the Respondent’s positive human drug tests for Methamphetamine. The proposed penalty is therefore consistent with the Penalty Guide, while leaving scope for the Adjudicative Committee to adjust the penalty after weighing all aggravating and mitigating factors.

Comparable Cases 

[35] In assessing an appropriate penalty, the RIB relies on the following comparable cases involving Methamphetamine across the three racing jurisdictions. The RIB notes that there are few New Zealand Decisions involving Methamphetamine detected in a race-day equine sample, with the majority of domestic authority arising from greyhound cases.

RIB v Smith (Appeal, 2022)

[36] Thoroughbred Trainer (Mr D Smith): equine and human Methamphetamine positives. In May 2022, the horse TAZIMOTO, trained by Mr Smith, returned a post-race urine sample positive to Methamphetamine after winning at Ruakaka. Subsequent testing of Mr Smith confirmed the presence of Methamphetamine and Amphetamine in both urine and hair samples. Mr Smith admitted both breaches.

[37] The Adjudicative Committee imposed an 18 months’ disqualification for the equine Methamphetamine positive and 9 months’ disqualification for the human drug positive, ordered cumulatively, resulting in a total disqualification of 2 years and 3 months. The Committee emphasised the aggravating nature of Methamphetamine, and the importance of animal welfare, denunciation, and deterrence, noting that comparable Methamphetamine cases had resulted in disqualification periods of up to three years.

[38] On appeal, the Appeals Tribunal confirmed that the overall period of disqualification was appropriate and proportionate, and rejected submissions that the penalties should run concurrently. However, the Tribunal added a conditional suspension mechanism, permitting the remaining period of disqualification to be suspended if Mr Smith demonstrated he was drug-free over an extended period through regular voluntary testing.

RIB v Lockett (2022)

[39] Thoroughbred Trainer (Ms Lockett): Methamphetamine was detected in both the horse and the Trainer’s human samples. A penalty of three years’ disqualification was imposed for each of the two breaches, to be served concurrently. With 18 months of the disqualification period suspended on evidence that Ms Lockett had partaken in a rehabilitation programme and was drug free.

[40] In its Written Decision dated 19 April 2022, the Adjudicative Committee stated that “a penalty of this length satisfies the interests of denunciation and deterrence, as emphasised by the Appeals Tribunal in Turnwald,” and noted that the significant period of disqualification appropriately reflected the integrity and animal welfare concerns arising from the offending.

RIU v Newton (2014)

[41] Thoroughbred Class A Trainer (Ms Newton): was charged with a breach of the Rules of Racing as a result of her horse – I’m NOT TICKLISH returning a positive swab for Methamphetamine from the Egmont Racing Club where it engaged in race two. During the investigation, Ms Newton admitted to being a casual Methamphetamine user. The penalty imposed was a period of disqualification of three years and costs of $2,221.75 to the RIU and $700 to the JCA.

RIB v Prangley (2022)

[42] Greyhound Trainer (Mrs Prangley): admitted Methamphetamine use and contamination. – Penalty: 2 years and 7 months’ disqualification.

RIB v E Toomer (2022)

[43] Greyhound Trainer (Mr Toomer): admitted regular Methamphetamine use with awareness of contamination risk. – Penalty: 3 years’ disqualification.

RIU v Turnwald (Appeal 2021)

[44] No clear source identified; emphasis placed on denunciation and deterrence. – Penalty increased on appeal to 18 months disqualification.

RIB v Anderson (2025)

[45] As distinguishable in Greyhound Trainer Anderson, the RIB submitted that no penalty was required due to the absence of any evidence linking the Respondent or associated persons to Methamphetamine use, the lack of forensic indicators of contamination, and the extremely unusual factual matrix. By contrast, the present matter involves confirmed Methamphetamine presence in a race-day sample and a Respondent who tested positive to Methamphetamine during these enquiries and has previous history for Methamphetamine use, rendering Anderson clearly distinguishable on both culpability and risk profile.

Aggravating Factors

[46] The RIB submits that Methamphetamine is a ‘Class A’ Controlled Drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. It is well documented in the Decisions referred to in these submissions, that exposure to Methamphetamine poses a significant animal welfare issue to the animals involved.

[47] The offending occurred on race‑day, with the horse competing and winning a race.

[48] The Respondent returned positive results for Methamphetamine on human drug testing conducted during the investigation and has a prior history of two positive drug tests, including a positive result for Methamphetamine in March 2012.

Mitigating Factors

[49] The Respondent has admitted the breach.

[50] There is no allegation of deliberate administration to the horse.

[51] The Respondent and his stables have cooperated with the RIB investigation.

Conclusion

[52] In conclusion, the RIB submits that having regard to the seriousness of the offending, the applicable Penalty Guide, and the relevant comparable cases, a starting point of 18 months’ disqualification is appropriate in the present case.

[53] An 18-month starting point appropriately reflects the seriousness of Methamphetamine being detected in a race-day equine sample, the resulting integrity and animal welfare concerns, and the need for denunciation and general deterrence.

[54] The proposed starting point is consistent with RIB v Smith (Appeal, 2022) and RIB v Lockett (2022), both of which involved race-day equine Methamphetamine positives coupled with positive human drug tests and resulted in multi-year disqualification outcomes being upheld as proportionate and necessary to protect the integrity of the industry.

[55] While the precise factual matters differ, those cases confirm that Methamphetamine offending of this nature warrants a period of disqualification, even in the absence of deliberate administration.

[56] The RIB submits that an 18-month starting point appropriately situates the present matter within the established penalty range, while allowing the Adjudicative Committee to make any further adjustment it considers appropriate after weighing the identified aggravating and mitigating factors.

[57] Pursuant to Rule 1004D(2), the horse EMILY BAY was subsequently disqualified from the race in accordance with the Adjudicative Committee’s Written Decision dated 30 December 2025.

Costs

[58] No costs are sought by the RIB.

Penalty Submissions – Respondent

[59] The Respondent provided detailed written penalty submissions, which are set out as follows.

Introduction

[60] The Respondent) acknowledges responsibility for breaching Rules 1004A(2) & (4) and does not seek to diminish the seriousness of Methamphetamine detection in a race-day sample.

[61] These submissions address only the appropriate penalty and aim to assist the Adjudicative Committee in imposing a sanction that is proportionate, fair, and consistent with precedent, while considering the unique circumstances of this case.

[62] The Respondent submits that, although a period of disqualification is available to the Adjudicative Committee, the proposed 18-month starting point advanced by the RIB is excessive when the mitigating factors and absence of deliberate administration are properly weighed.

Nature of the Breach

[63] This matter concerns a presentation offence, as opposed to an administration offence.

[64] There is no allegation, finding, or evidence that the Respondent intentionally administered Methamphetamine to the horse EMILY BAY, nor any intent to enhance performance.

[65] The Respondent’s liability arises from strict liability, as established under the Rules, rather than from deliberate or reckless action toward the horse.

[66] The distinction between intentional administration and unintentional contamination remains critical in determining penalty, despite the seriousness of the substance involved.

Distinguishing Features Relied Upon by the Authorities

[67] The RIB relies heavily on RIB v Smith (Appeal) and RIB v Lockett. These cases are materially more severe than the current matter. For example:

In Smith:

• Multiple concurrent breaches (both equine and human)
• Clear evidence of ongoing Methamphetamine use
• The penalty reflected cumulative offences across two jurisdictions

In Lockett:

• The trainer admitted regular Methamphetamine use
• There was clear awareness of contamination risk
• A three-year disqualification was imposed, suspended only after substantial rehabilitation was demonstrated

In contrast, the Respondent:

• Faces a single equine presentation charge
• Has a long career with no prior Prohibited Substance presentation breaches
• Cooperated fully and admitted the breach immediately
• Has not been found to be a habitual user during the relevant period

[68] The greyhound cases cited by the RIB also involve regular drug use, recognition of contamination risk, or repeated offending, and their relevance should be treated with caution in the present context.

Prior Human Testing History

[69] The Respondent acknowledges prior human drug infringements in 2012 and 2015. These incidents are:

• Historical (10–13 years ago)
• Previously sanctioned by lengthy suspensions
• Not accompanied by intervening Prohibited Substance presentation offences

[70] While the Adjudicative Committee may consider this history at a general level, it would be unjust to increase the starting point based on remote events for which the Respondent has already faced significant consequences.

[71] The objective of penalty is not to readdress historical conduct, but to impose a sanction proportionate to the present breach.

Mitigating Factors

[72] The Respondent submits there are several mitigating factors that warrant meaningful reduction in penalty, namely:

• Early and unequivocal admission of the breach
• Full cooperation with the RIB investigation
• No suggestion of deliberate administration
• No prior Prohibited Substance presentation breaches
• Operation of a small stable (approximately eight horses in work)
• Significant collateral impacts already suffered, including:
• Disqualification of the horse
• Loss of stake money
• Reputational damage within the industry

[73] The Respondent has shown insight into contamination risks and has taken steps to ensure future compliance.

Proportionality and Starting Point

[74] An 18-month starting point, as suggested by the RIB, places this case incorrectly in the mid-to-upper range of seriousness for Methamphetamine matters. Correctly assessed, the present facts support classification at the lower end of seriousness, due to:

• Absence of intentional administration
• Absence of repeated offending
• Absence of evidence of performance-driven conduct

[75] A starting point within 9–12 months would better reflect:

• The strict liability nature of the breach
• Comparable cases where intent was not established
• The principle of proportionality

Alternative Approaches Available to the Adjudicative Committee

[76] The Respondent respectfully requests the Adjudicative Committee consider:

• A reduced period of disqualification
• A partially suspended disqualification
• A combination of suspension and conditions, including voluntary drug testing

[77] Such approaches align with the reasoning adopted by the Appeals Tribunal in Smith, recognising the importance of rehabilitation, monitoring, and maintaining integrity.

Conclusion

[78] The Respondent accepts that a penalty must reflect the seriousness of the breach and uphold the integrity of the industry. However, the Respondent submits that:

• An 18-month starting point is disproportionate
• It fails to adequately distinguish between contamination and intentional administration
• A moderated penalty would still satisfy the aims of deterrence, denunciation, and public confidence

[79] Accordingly, the Respondent asks the Adjudicative Committee to impose a substantially reduced penalty relative to the RIB’s proposal and to consider suspension or rehabilitative conditions that reinforce ongoing industry integrity.

Reasons for Decision

[80] The Adjudicative Committee has considered all of the relevant facts as well as the comprehensive penalty submissions lodged on behalf of the Applicant, and the Respondent.

[81] The Adjudicative Committee’s decision-making process was guided by several key factors to ensure a consistent and fair outcome. As a result, the Adjudicative Committee carefully considered the specific circumstances surrounding the breach, with particular attention given to the Respondent’s level of culpability, his personal situation and the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors.

[82] The Adjudicative Committee reviewed the RIB Penalty Guide, HRNZ Rules, and relevant comparable penalties, to ensure consistency and proportionality.

[83] Given this guiding framework, it is important that the Adjudicative Committee clarifies from the outset, the precise nature of the charge that this Penalty Decision relates to. The charge that the Respondent faces, which he has admitted, is specifically that he failed to present his horse, EMILY BAY, free of the Prohibited Substance Methamphetamine. This means the focus of this Penalty Decision is on his duty as a Licenced Harness Trainer to ensure that his horse, EMILY BAY, was not contaminated by, or with, any banned substances at the time it was presented to race.

[84] The Respondent voluntarily submitted a urine sample as part of the investigative process. Laboratory analysis of this sample confirmed the presence of Methamphetamine. Despite this positive test result, it is important to note that he has not been charged with any offence under Rule 512(1) in relation to his personal use of Methamphetamine.

[85] Also, it is equally noteworthy that when deciding on the penalty, the Adjudicative Committee made sure it strictly aligned to the current breach, rather than re-penalising the Respondent for his past drug related breaches.

[86] But inevitably in these types of cases, a Respondent’s past history and character, good and bad, is always a factor to be considered and weighed up when determining penalty. This approach ensures that the Respondent is not punished twice for previous offending, but it can be considered, thus upholding the principles of fairness and natural justice.

[87] The distinction here is important, because this breach relates directly to the condition of the horse and the Trainer’s responsibilities under the relevant Rules, rather than to the detection and personal use of Methamphetamine by the Respondent.  But unavoidably, the voluntary sample which tested positive for Methamphetamine, is relevant and most likely explains, and is a strong indicator, as to how the contamination may have arisen.

[88] This is particularly so, given that the hair follicle sample taken from the Respondent, underwent laboratory testing and revealed the presence of both Methamphetamine and Amphetamine. The presence of Methamphetamine in the hair, is suggestive of long-term drug use, as opposed to one off use, as tests of this nature can detect the drug for up to 90 days after use. Notably, this finding is in contrast to and tends to negate the Respondent’s prior statements to RIB Investigators, wherein he asserted that he had not used Methamphetamine since 2012.

[89] The timing of the positive result, in close proximity to the date on which the sample was taken from EMILY BAY, provides persuasive evidence that the Respondent did, in fact, use the drug around the relevant period. On that basis, the evidence, albeit circumstantial, is sufficiently cogent for the Adjudicative Committee to infer that the positive test result for EMILY BAY can be directly linked to the Respondent’s recent use of the drug.

Comparable Cases

[90] The RIB referred to seven precedent cases said to involve similar offending. The Adjudicative Committee has considered those Decisions. They are all helpful to varying degrees. Notably, in the Appeal D Smith v RIB (November 2022) involving charges for presenting and testing positive for Methamphetamine, the Appeals Tribunal in upholding the Adjudicative Committee’s penalty stated:

“The RIB sought a total disqualification of four years. The Adjudicative Committee found that excessive and imposed cumulative penalties of nine months and 18 months, totalling two years and three months. We have no difficulty finding the penalty appropriate, consistent with previous cases and balancing the need to deter and denounce such breaches with Mr Smith’s interests.”

The Tribunal in Smith also referenced RIB v Lockett (April 2022), noting that suspending part of a disqualification may be appropriate if rehabilitation conditions are met.

[91] The Adjudicative Committee notes precedent penalties have ranged from 18 months to 3 years, and some involved dual (equine and human) charges.

[92] The Adjudicative Committee has also noted and taken on board, the points of difference highlighted by the Respondent on his submissions at paragraph 67, between the Smith and Lockett cases and the Respondent’s case.

Starting Point Penalty

[93] The  RIB recommends an 18-month disqualification as a suitable starting point, given the seriousness of the offence, Penalty Guidelines, and comparable cases. They submit that this reflects the severity of Methamphetamine in a race-day equine sample, related integrity and welfare concerns, and the need for deterrence.

[94] Further, they submit that the recommended starting point aligns with RIB v Smith (Appeal, 2022) and RIB v Lockett (2022).  These precedents support disqualification, even if there was no deliberate administration. The RIB suggests that 18 months fits within the established range and allows the Adjudicative Committee to adjust for aggravating or mitigating factors.

[95] In contrast, the Respondent acknowledges that the penalty should reflect the seriousness of the breach and protect industry integrity, but argues:

• That an 18-month starting point is excessive.
• That it does not sufficiently distinguish between contamination and intent.
• That a reduced penalty would still deter, denounce, and uphold public confidence.

[96] The Respondent therefore requests a significantly lower penalty than proposed by the RIB and asks the Adjudicative Committee to consider alternatives like suspension or rehabilitation, to maintain industry standards.

Comments on the Respective Positions of the RIB and the Respondent

[97] Although the 18 month disqualification starting point sought by the RIB is significantly more than the recommended Penalty Guide starting point, it is well within the range of the Penalty Section of HRNZ Rules contained in Rule 1004D, which provides that a person who commits a breach of Rule 1004A is liable to: -(a) a fine not exceeding $20,000; and/or (b) be disqualified or suspension from holding or obtaining a licence for any specific period not exceeding five years.

[98] The RIB Penalty Guide recommends an $8,000 fine for a first Rule breach, which differs notably from HRNZ Guidelines. The RIB Guide mainly addresses low-level Prohibited Substances and excludes reference to Class A Drugs like Methamphetamine, which very rarely if ever, but for this case, are found in Harness Racing.

[99] The RIB Penalty Guideline serves as a reference point for determining penalties; however, it is important to recognise that these Guidelines are not binding, whereas Appeals Tribunal Decisions carry significant weight, thereby assisting Adjudicative Committees to achieve consistency and fairness when determining penalties. Therefore, while the RIB Guide helps inform routine raceday penalty settings, significant breaches such as this, are mainly governed by the boundaries set out in HRNZ Rules and Appeals Tribunal Decisions.

[100] Within those boundaries, each case is fact dependent and so too, are the starting points. Consequently, having assessed all of the factors in this case and taken guidance from the comparable cases and Appeals Tribunal Decisions, a starting point penalty of 16 months disqualification has been adopted. Suspension and/or rehabilitation, as suggested by the Respondent, was not considered to be a variable penalty option.

Mitigating factors

[101] The Adjudicative Committee accepts the RIB’s points: namely that the Respondent admitted the breach and cooperated with the investigation.

[102] The Adjudicative Committee also accepts most of the points identified by the Respondent; namely: there is no evidence of intent to administer; no previous breaches for Prohibited Substances (of this nature); he operates a small stable (about eight horses); he has suffered collateral impacts and that he acknowledges responsibility for the breach and does not seek to diminish the seriousness of Methamphetamine detection in a race-day sample.

[103] Although EMILY STAR won the race, no evidence of betting irregularities or attempts to gain an advantage was found. But the disqualification of EMILY BAY or loss of stakemoney is not a mitigating factor, as it was required by the Rules to be disqualified once the positive test came to light.

[104] Handling the matter on the papers avoided a lengthy and costly hearing.

[105] These factors together, support a 15% penalty reduction after an uplift for aggravating factors is applied, and under the circumstances, this is a generous discount.

Aggravating Factors

[106] Methamphetamine is classified as a Class A Drug and is recognised as a powerful central nervous system stimulant. Its ingestion by a racehorse (thoroughbred or standardbred) constitutes a significant animal welfare concern.

[107] Trainers, Riders, Drivers or other Stable Handlers, who use Methamphetamine or other Prohibited Drugs, endanger themselves and others, which is why drug use and abuse are considered serious racing offences.  Therefore, the Respondent’s positive Methamphetamine test is a major aggravating factor, as it most likely led to the contamination of EMILY BAY.

[108] This conduct shows his disregard for Harness Racing’s integrity and the Rules that ensure fair competition and participant welfare.

[109] The Respondent has a history of drug use since at least 2012, admitting charges in both 2012 and 2015 (see paragraph 48).

[110] Given this background, while there was no evidence of intent to administer, the Respondent should have known the risks and consequences of Methamphetamine use and contamination, making the breach more serious. He ought to have understood the potential for contamination and its repercussions.

[111] The Adjudicative Committee recognises the challenge of assigning appropriate weight to the aggravating factors. Notably, because the sample was provided voluntarily and with informed consent by the Respondent, demonstrating a degree of cooperation with the investigative process. Therefore, in consideration of the aggravating factors, the Adjudicative Committee has decided to apply a 20% increase to the initial starting point penalty.

Decision

[112] After adjustments for mitigating factors (15%) and aggravating factors (20%), an end point penalty (rounded) of 16.5 months disqualification is imposed.

Costs

[113] The RIB has made no application for analysis costs of the original sample(s).

[114] As this matter was determined ‘on the papers’, the Adjudicative Committee makes no order for costs in its favour, or for any costs incurred by the RIB.

Note: The Effect of Disqualification

[115] Rules 1301-1303 set out the effect of disqualification.  In particular, note R1301(1) which provides that:

Every disqualification shall take effect immediately, unless the tribunal imposing it defers its commencement. (2) Every disqualification the commencement of which is deferred by the tribunal imposing it shall take effect from the time when that tribunal directs it is to commence.

[116] Accordingly, the Adjudicative Committee directs that the Respondent’s disqualification will commence on 19 February 2026 and conclude 24 June 2027.  This will enable the Respondent time to transfer the care of his 8 horses from his stable to another Licensed Trainer.