Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Decision dated 10 December 2025 – Paul Yesberg

1. This matter concerns an Information filed by the Racing Integrity Board (RIB) against Mr Yesberg, a licensed stablehand on 30 July 2025.

2. The RIB alleges a breach of Rule 1001A(2) of the NZ Rules of Harness Racing (the Rules).

3. Mr Yesberg faces one charge under Rule 1001A(2) of the Rules, that between 28 March and 27 June 2025, Mr Yesberg sent inappropriate and disrespectful communications to RIB employees in breach of the NZ Harness Racing Code of Conduct Regulations and therefore Rule 1001A(2) and is subject to penalties pursuant to Rule 1003(1).

BACKGROUND

4. Mr Yesberg holds a stablehand licence and assists his son, trainer Trent Yesberg at Ripple Creek Racing. During, and following proceedings relating to his son’s prohibited substance matter, Mr Yesberg sent several electronic communications to RIB staff. These communications contained repeated references to corruption, allegations of dishonesty and included disrespectful language. One email was copied to senior executives at the RIB and another to a media outlet.

5. The communications occurred over a three-month period and were confirmed in a statement of evidence provided by Mrs Gina Ward, RIB Administrator, with supporting documentary exhibits.

6. Mrs Ward’s statements in the documentary exhibit were admitted at hearing by consent.

7. The first electronic communication occurred on 28 March 2025, when while paying an appeal filing fee via bank transfer to the RIB, Mr Yesberg wrote in the PAYE details YESBERG/CORRUPTION.

8. On 6 May 2025, following receipt of the RIB’s appeal submissions, Mr Yesberg sent an email to Mrs Ward, his son Trent Yesberg, and his son’s Counsel Ms Mary-Jane Thomas stating the matter was corruption at its best.

9. On 28 May 2025, Mr Yesberg sent another email to Mrs Ward requesting the RIB refrain from publishing the outcome of Mr Trent Yesberg’s hearing while we seek a judicial review. Mr Yesberg further stated we are not going to stand by and allow this level of corruption to occur in our industry.

10. In a written decision of the Appeals Tribunal dated 3 June 2025 (Yesberg v Racing Integrity Board RIB A16938 at [5.6]), concerning the emails of Mr Yesberg of 26 and 28 May 2025, the Tribunal commented that the repeated reference to corruption by Mr Yesberg was wholly inappropriate.

11. Following receipt of RIB submissions on costs on 11 June 2025, Mr Yesberg sent a further reply to Mrs Ward copying RIB Chief Executive Dr Elliot Forbes and Harness Racing NZ CEO Mr Brad Steele, which was argumentative in nature and stated:

Allowing Grierson to change his evidence and deliberately exclude the facts and denying us the opportunity of cross examining that evidence shows how dishonest your organisation is. You are either completely corrupt or antisemitic. There is no other explanation for your disgraceful behaviour. The latest decision with Dalgety’s buggers belief and reaffirms our opinion that you are not fit for purpose, so stick your costs where the sun don’t shine.

12. Following receipt of the Appeals’ Tribunal’s written decision on 26 June 2025, Mr Yesberg sent a further reply to Mrs Ward, again copying his son Mr Trent Yesberg and Ms Thomas, stating tell the corrupt prices (sic) to go and get stuffed.

13. On 27 June 2025, Mr Yesberg sent another email to Mrs Ward and Mr Trent Yesberg, copying in Mr Forbes and also copying in Mr Sam Sherwood of media outlet Radio NZ. In that email, Mr Yesberg stated:

Thanks Gina, another corrupt decision by your dishonest bunch of henchmen. I did supply a comprehensive response in regards to costs, as per normal your little henchmen couldn’t be bothered reading them. The original hearing and appeal were heard on the papers, I cannot find another decision where your little henchmen have charged costs that is the whole point of on the papers but am I surprises (sic) of course I am not, your mob couldn’t lie straight in bed. Had we known costs would accrue, we would not have agreed to it on the papers and would have demanded a hearing we could confront these dubious people. I have copied in the media and intend filing a complete dossier of your corrupt decisions since the fat porn star appointed you to your position, these will include and not be limited to Operation INCA, McGrath decision, Dalgety decision, DNS White decision, T Yesberg decision, money laundering and antisemitic bias.

RELEVANT RULES

14. Rule 1001A(2) provides that a person who fails to comply with the Code of Conduct Regulations commits a breach of the Rules.

15. Clause 7 of the Code requires participants to ensure their interactions are appropriate, respectful and courteous and prohibits harassment or unlawful discrimination.

16. Rule 1103(2) prescribes penalties for breaches including a fine of up to $10,000, suspension or disqualification. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

INFORMANT’S SUBMISSIONS

17. Mr Irving, on behalf of the Informant, submitted the language and tone of the communications were objectively inappropriate and disrespectful, breaching clauses 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 of the Code and as a result, the Rules.

18. The repeated allegations of corruption, the escalation to senior officials and media and the inclusion of offensive language were said to aggravate the breach. Mr Irving argued that frustration with the process does not excuse conduct that undermines the integrity of racing and the dignity of participants.

RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS

19. Mr Yesberg submitted that the emails were sent in frustration at perceived inconsistencies in his son’s case and argued they amount to robust criticism rather than harassment. Mr Yesberg acknowledged sending the communications, but denied that they breach the Code.

20. Mr Yesberg contended that his intent was to challenge the perceived unfairness, not to harass staff and at hearing, questioned who could be properly described as the victim in these circumstances.

21. Mr Yesberg also produced a screenshot from Facebook at hearing, showing comments from another licensed person in relation to the RIB and questioned why that person had not been charged.

DECISION

22. Having considered the evidence and submissions, the Adjudicative Committee finds the charge proved. The emails contain language that is plainly inconsistent with the standards of respect and courtesy required by the Code. Repeated allegations of corruption and dishonesty and the abusive phrasing demonstrate conduct that falls outside of acceptable bounds.

23. In reaching this conclusion, the Adjudicative Committee had particular regard to the following remarks:

a. The reference to sticking costs where the sun don’t shine.

b. The reference in one of the communications to the fat porn star appointing the RIB during questioning at hearing, Mr Yesberg confirmed at hearing this was a reference to a senior leadership of Entain New Zealand.

c. The implication of Mr Yesberg’s comments is that the RIB, its CEO, employees and Committees / Tribunals are somehow accountable or under the control or instruction of Entain. Setting aside that the legal framework of the Racing Act 2020 itself makes it clear this is not the case, the inference in such remarks is a direct attack on the integrity on a number of persons within the RIB and their independence.

d. Additionally, the Adjudicative Committee has also considered the repeated references in terms of corruption, completely corrupt, dishonest or fraudulent conduct conveyed to a number of parties including but not limited to Mrs Ward, Mr Forbes and Ms Fisher.

e. Taken as a whole, Mr Yesberg’s behaviour falls well short of the standards expected under the Code of Conduct.

24. For completeness, the Adjudicative Committee has also had regard to matters of freedom of expression arising under section 14 the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990. At a starting point under section 5, the Bill of Rights Act is subject to justifiable limitations – in this instance – the proper regulation of the industry.

25. However, on the available evidence, the issue is not Mr Yesberg’s expression, but rather the manner and form in which Mr Yesberg chose to express himself that was wholly inconsistent with the professional expectations of persons who are afforded the privilege of licensee status in the NZ Racing Industry to treat others with respect, courtesy and without harassment or unlawful discrimination under Clause 7 of the HRNZ Code of Conduct.

26. While the Adjudicative Committee accepts that Mr Yesberg was frustrated, that does not excuse the manner in which his concerns were expressed.

27. On the balance of probabilities, the Adjudicative Committee is satisfied Mr Yesberg failed to comply with Clause 7 of the Code of Conduct regulations and thereby breached Rule 1001A(2).

PENALTY DECISION

28. Mr Irving, on behalf of the Informant, made brief submissions at hearing as to penalty, indicating the Informant was seeking a $1,000 fine. Mr Irving further noted that Mr Yesberg had one misconduct charge from 2013 involving email correspondence with the NZ Sires Stakes Board. Mr Irving noted that was 12 years ago and could be regarded as a neutral factor.

29. Mr Yesberg submitted that he did not think there should be any penalty and maintains that the decisions were corrupt, and if not corrupt, antisemitic. Mr Yesberg indicated he would be happy to provide an apology.

30. After consideration, the Adjudicative Committee decided it was appropriate that the hearing be adjourned part-heard to enable Mr Yesberg an opportunity to provide that apology and invited Mr Yesberg to consider the scope and form that apology should take.

31. The matter is therefore adjourned part-heard for submissions on penalty which will be heard on the papers. Directions for filing and submissions as to penalty will be issued separately.