Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Decision dated 12 March 2026 – Sam Weatherley

Introduction

[1] Class A Jockey Mr Sam Ronald Frederick Weatherley (“the Respondent”) has admitted that he breached Rule 656(3) of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR) Rules of Racing.

[2] On Friday 30 January 2026, at the Waikato TR Race Meeting held at Te Rapa, the Respondent provided a urine sample which upon analysis, indicated the Respondent was ‘not negative’ to Cocaine. Being positive to Benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of Cocaine, which is a Class A Controlled Drug, as defined in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

[3] Pursuant to New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR) Rule 903(2)(d), Dr Eliot Forbes CE:RIB authorised the filing of an Information alleging that Mr Weatherley was in breach of Rule 656(3) on the said date.

Penalty Decision

[4] Having considered the evidence and assessed the submissions lodged by both the Racing Integrity Board (RIB) and the Respondent, the Adjudicative Committee disqualified Mr Weatherley for a period of 8 months. Part of this period of disqualification, (2 months), may be waived if Mr Weatherley meets the conditions set out in paragraph 69. The facts relating to the breach and reasons for the penalty imposed, are contained within the body of this Decision.

The Charge

[5] The particulars of the charge outlined in the Information are:

THAT On 30 January 2026, at the Te Rapa Racecourse, having been required by a Racing Investigator to supply a sample of your urine in accordance with Rule 656(3) of the NZTR Rules of Racing, you provided urine which upon analysis was found to contain the controlled drug Cocaine , being a Class A Controlled Drug as defined in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and that you are liable to the penalty imposed pursuant to Rule 803 of the rules.

The Rules

[6] The Rules relevant to the charge and penalty are as follows:

Rule 656(3) provides:

A Rider or any other Licenceholder who has carried out, is carrying out or is likely to carry out, a Safety Sensitive Activity at a Racecourse, Training Facility or Trainer’s Premises, who, having been required by a Stipendiary Steward or Investigator to supply a sample in accordance with this Rule must not have a sample which is found upon analysis to contain any controlled drug as defined in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 or other illicit substance or diuretic and/or its metabolites, artefacts or isomers.

Penalty Provisions

[7] The relevant penalty provisions are:

Rule 803(3) provides:

Subject to Rule 803(2)(b), where any Licenceholder who has carried out, is carrying out, or is likely to carry out, a Safety Sensitive Activity at a Racecourse, Training Facility or Trainer’s Premises commits or is deemed to have committed a breach of these Rules related to drugs or alcohol and a penalty is not provided elsewhere in these Rules for that breach, that Licenceholder committing the breach may:

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

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

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

Consequences of Disqualification and/or Suspension

[8] Rules 1101-1107 set out the consequences of a disqualification and/or suspension.

Rule 921(1) provides that:

Subject to any right of appeal pursuant to these Rules the decision of the Adjudicative Committee shall bind all bodies and persons.

(2) Every body which, and person who, is affected by such decision shall forthwith do all that it is necessary for it or him to do for the purpose of giving full effect to such decision.

(3) A person who or body which wilfully fails forthwith to do all that it is necessary for him or it to do for the purpose of giving full effect to a decision of a Tribunal commits a breach of these Rules and, in addition to being liable to the penalty which may be imposed for that breach under any other Rule shall, unless the Tribunal determines otherwise, be disqualified for life. Such disqualification shall be notified in the List of Disqualifications.

Plea and Dealt with on the Papers

[9] The Respondent advised that he admits the charge and sought to have it determined ‘on the papers’ pursuant to Rule 914 which provides that:

A defendant who does not appear at the hearing of the Information may admit the breach of these Rules alleged in that Information by giving written notice to the Adjudicative Committee that he does so and in such event the Adjudicative Committee shall have the same power to deal with him as if he had appeared before it and admitted that breach.

[10] The decision to have this matter dealt with on the papers was with the agreement of both parties involved—namely, Mr Carr representing the Racing Integrity Board (RIB) as the Applicant, and Mr McRae (Lay Advocate) who 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.

Summary of Facts

RIB Investigator Mr Carr presented an agreed Summary of Facts. The salient points are outlined below:

[11] The Respondent is aged 26 years and holds a Class A Rider (Jockey) Licence issued by New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR).

[12] On Friday 30 January 2026, an Investigator from the Racing Integrity Board (RIB) conducted drug screening at the Te Rapa Racecourse during a Waikato Thoroughbred Racing TR Meeting. The Respondent was scheduled to ride in four races that day: races 3, 4, 7, and 9.

[13] Fifteen out of twenty-seven jockeys nominated at the meeting were selected for routine drug testing. The Respondent was served with a Drug Testing Notification Form, requiring him to report to The Drug Detection Agency (TDDA) testing vans, which were present on-site from 11:00 to 15:30. The Respondent acknowledged and accepted the requirement. Due to riding commitments and initial inability to provide a urine sample, one TDDA testing van remained on-site beyond the scheduled timeframe to accommodate the Respondent. He ultimately provided a urine sample at 18:12.

[14] A TDDA Testing Official, in the Respondent’s presence, completed all required documentation; the Respondent consented to having the sample packaged and forwarded to PHF Science (formerly Environmental Science and Research Limited – ESR) for laboratory analysis.

[15] On Monday, 9 February 2026, PHF Science issued a Certificate of Analysis to the RIB confirming that the Respondent’s urine sample tested positive for Cocaine, evidenced by the presence of Benzoylecgonine (a Cocaine Metabolite). Cocaine is classified as a Class A Controlled Drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

[16] On the same day, the Respondent was notified of the positive result and issued a Stand Down Notice pursuant to NZTR Rules of Racing. On Wednesday, 11 February 2026, the Respondent attended a recorded evidential interview at Cambridge Raceway with an RIB Investigator, accompanied by his lay advocate, Mr Chris McRae.

[17] During the interview, the Respondent acknowledged that Riders must not have a sample containing any controlled drug as defined in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, and confirmed his understanding that Cocaine is listed as a Class A Controlled Drug. The Respondent admitted to consuming Cocaine on Sunday, 25 January 2026—five days prior to the race meeting and subsequent drug testing on 30 January 2026. He stated that this occurred during the early evening at a private residence in Auckland.

[18] The Respondent denied any further consumption of Cocaine following 25 January 2026 or on 30 January 2026. Scientific guidance was discussed during the interview regarding detection windows; urine testing typically detects Cocaine for up to one day and its metabolite, Benzoylecgonine, for a longer period. Occasional use is generally detectable for two to three days, while heavier or repeated use, higher dosage, or individual metabolic differences may extend detection to approximately five to seven days.

[19] When asked about the scientific findings compared with his claimed single-use five days prior, the Respondent could not provide an alternative explanation for the detection of Cocaine Metabolites in his sample.

Submissions as to Penalty (RIB)

Mr Carr, on behalf of the RIB, provided detailed written penalty submissions. These are summarised below.

[20] The factual circumstances are fully set out in the agreed Summary of Facts at paragraphs 11 to 19.

[21] The Respondent has admitted a breach of NZTR Rule 656(3) after providing a urine sample on race day, 30 January 2026, at Te Rapa Racecourse, which upon analysis returned positive to Benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of Cocaine. On that raceday, he completed race day riding engagements at Te Rapa Racecourse while Cocaine Metabolites remained present in his system.

[22] Analysis undertaken by The Institute for Public Health and Forensic Science (PHF) confirmed the presence of Benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of Cocaine. The Respondent admitted consuming Cocaine approximately five days prior to race day testing. Regardless of timing of consumption, the Respondent undertook safety-sensitive activity while a Class A Controlled Drug remained present.

[23] The Respondent has previously undergone ten drug tests under the NZTR Rules of Racing since 2017, including urine and hair tests; all results were negative, and there are no prior breaches relating to controlled drug use.

Background

[24] NZTR commenced routine drug testing of industry participants in 1995. Since that time, there has been a clear and well-understood obligation on all licence holders undertaking safety-sensitive activities to present themselves free from the influence of drugs. Drug testing is undertaken for two primary reasons:

1. To maintain a safe and healthy workplace
2. To uphold public confidence in the integrity of Thoroughbred Racing

[25] Riders are routinely reminded of the Rules, the industry’s zero-tolerance position regarding illicit drugs, and the significant consequences that follow non-compliance.

[26] Historical penalties demonstrate that Cocaine offending attracts serious sanction, reflecting both the dangers posed to health and safety and the reputational risk to the racing industry.

[27] The penalty provisions are contained under Rule 803(3) and are set out in paragraph 7. In addition, part or parts of the penalty imposed may be suspended upon completing a drug and alcohol programme and providing evidence of being drug free.

Previous Cases

[28] Previous cases involving Cocaine positives among Riders and Trackwork Riders generally establish a starting point of approximately 9 to 12 months’ disqualification for a first offence, depending on the circumstances.

RIB v A Mudhoo (January 2026)

[29] In the case of RIB v Mudhoo, the Respondent, an Apprentice Jockey, admitted a breach of NZTR Rule 656(3) after providing a urine sample during routine trackwork testing, which returned positive to Cocaine (Class A Controlled Drug) and MDMA (Class B Controlled Drug).

[30] The Adjudicative Committee confirmed that testing positive to a Class A Controlled Drug constitutes one of the most serious integrity breaches within New Zealand Racing and that liability under the Rule is strict, irrespective of impairment.

[31] Consistent with established precedent in Cocaine-related cases, including RIB v Cameron, the Adjudicative Committee adopted a starting point of 12 months’ disqualification. After considering significant mitigating factors, the penalty was reduced to an effective disqualification of eight months, with the final two months suspended upon successful completion of drug counselling and the provision of clear drug tests.

RIB v Ms X (March 2025)

[32] Licensed Trackwork Rider Ms X (personal information redacted on determination of the Adjudicative Committee) provided a sample positive to Benzoylecgonine following routine human testing at Awapuni trackwork on a Monday morning. She explained that she had consumed Cocaine on the previous Saturday evening.

[33] In determining penalty, the Adjudicative Committee adopted a starting point of 9 months’ disqualification and, in consideration of Ms X’s remorse and acceptance of culpability, reduced the term to 8 months. The final 2 months of the disqualification were suspended upon completion of an approved drug and alcohol course and provision of a clear drug test.

RIB v M Cameron (August 2024)

[34] Licensed Jockey M Cameron was riding at a Rotorua race meeting when he provided a sample positive to Cocaine during routine raceday testing. Adopting a starting point of 12 months’ disqualification, given Mr Cameron’s seniority, and the fact he was riding on a raceday, the Adjudicative Committee considered his time ‘stood down’, early plea, and cooperation as mitigating factors, concluding a 9-month disqualification with the final month waived on the provision of three clear drug tests.

The Adjudicative Committee commented: “The Adjudicative Committee does not differentiate between Methamphetamine and Cocaine. Both have been classified as Class A Drugs, and both are said to be extremely harmful to individuals and society. Given the penalties imposed in the various precedent New Zealand cases and in consideration of the facts, and its assessment of the Respondent’s culpability, the Adjudicative Committee adopts a starting point penalty of 12 months disqualification.”

Recent Methamphetamine Cases

[35] Recent cases that have come before the Adjudicative Committee for the Class A Controlled Drug Methamphetamine include the following:

RIB v S Simon (2025)

[36] Class A Trainer positive to Methamphetamine returned when riding trackwork at Te Aroha – 9 months’ disqualification, with 3 months suspended upon successful completion of drug and alcohol counselling and clear testing.

RIB v J Champion (2024)

[37] Trackrider positive to Methamphetamine and THC Cannabis returned when riding trackwork – 10.5 months’ disqualification, with 3.5 months suspended upon successful completion of counselling and/or rehabilitation programme and providing evidence of being drug free.

RIB v T Moki (2023)

[38] Class D (Jumps) Jockey positive to Methamphetamine returned while riding trackwork at Te Aroha – 12 months’ disqualification.

RIB v D Scott (2022)

[39] Trackrider positive to Methamphetamine and Cannabis when riding trackwork – 9.5 months’ disqualification due to her youth and rehabilitative potential, with 3 months suspended upon completing a drug and alcohol programme and providing evidence of being drug free.

Aggravating Factors

[40] The offending occurred on raceday, while the Respondent was engaged to ride in multiple races.

[41] The Respondent acknowledged an awareness that Cocaine is a Prohibited Substance under the Rules and made admissions to consuming Cocaine approximately five days prior to the race meeting and subsequent drug testing. Notwithstanding this, the Respondent presented to ride on raceday and undertook safety-sensitive riding activities while the drug remained present in his system, thereby exposing himself, fellow Riders, and racehorses to significant safety risk.

Mitigating Factors

[42] The Respondent admitted the charge at the earliest opportunity, has been cooperative and respectful throughout the investigative process, and has demonstrated an understanding of the consequences arising from his actions.

[43] He was stood down following the non-negative screening analysis on 9 February 2026 and prohibited from performing any safety-sensitive activities from that date. As in previous cases involving first-time offending for positive drug tests, with disqualifications unable to be backdated, stand down periods have been considered by the Adjudicative Committee as mitigation when determining the length of disqualification.

[44] He has undergone multiple drug tests pursuant to the NZTR Rules of Racing since 2017, all of which returned negative results up to the circumstances giving rise to the present charge.

Submissions as to Penalty

[45] 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 Riders and those undertaking safety-sensitive activities; and to protect the integrity of Thoroughbred Racing.

[46] The RIB submits this matter is distinguishable from cases involving Trackwork Riders and non-raceday participants, as the Respondent was engaged as a Licensed Jockey and rode on raceday, undertaking a highly safety-sensitive activity within a competitive race environment. The obligations and risks associated with raceday riding are materially higher, warranting greater denunciation and deterrence in assessing penalty.

[47] The RIB adopts a starting point of 12 months’ disqualification, subject to any adjustment at the discretion of the Adjudicative Committee having regard to the identified mitigating and aggravating factors.

[48] Consideration may also be given by the Adjudicative Committee to suspending part of the disqualification period upon the Respondent satisfying approved drug rehabilitation requirements and providing clear drug test results, consistent with previous Decisions.

[49] The RIB does not seek an order for costs.

Submissions as to Penalty (Respondent)

[50] The Respondent submitted a comprehensive submission containing a range of information including some personal details. While it is unnecessary for the Adjudicative Committee to restate all of this information, it remains pertinent and has been carefully evaluated during the penalty deliberation process.

[51] The submissions are summarised below:

I have grown up in the racing industry my whole life. I have been involved in the racing industry personally since I was 14 years of age, which is some 12 years ago.

On Sunday the 25 January 2026, I made a serious error of judgment, for which I must now face the consequences. I regret my actions fully and I fully admit that what I did has let myself, my partner, my family, my friends, and the racing industry down as a whole. I am deeply embarrassed and very remorseful for my actions.

The instant that I was informed over the phone of my positive drug test, I immediately admitted this in full, and I offered no excuses for this. I am fully responsible for my actions and no one else is.

The racing industry is my world and, other than my family, my partner, and my friends, it is the reason I get out of bed every day. It is simply my life and all I have done since I was introduced to it due to my family’s involvement.

I have been drug tested (both urine and hair samples) ten times since 2017, for some 8–9 years now, and I have never produced a positive result before. I have no previous controlled drug use charges.

The day after I was advised that I had tested positive for drugs, I immediately arranged for a follow-up drug test at a local medical clinic, and that test was negative.

Every day that I am disqualified is another day that I am not allowed to work in the industry that I love and was born to be part of. This has a massive effect on my health and removes my livelihood and ability to support myself and my partner.

If I were under a period of suspension, I would still be able to work in the racing industry, make an income, and remain part of the racing world away from the actual racing itself, albeit in a much lesser role and lower-profile position.

In my submissions, I am asking the Racing Integrity Board to consider a much shorter period of disqualification and a longer period of suspension, to enable me to return to work in the industry sooner than would normally be possible. I accept that I would not be able to ride on race days or trial days. I could also apply for a trackwork licence if that were possible during a suspension period.

The result of a shorter disqualification period and a longer suspension period would enable me to return to work and focus on my future positively. It would also allow me to find short-term work to get through the disqualification period if it were not so long. This would give me a clear light at the end of the tunnel and allow me to return to the racing industry again.

An example of what I am asking is that, if there were to be a nine-month period of disqualification, it could possibly be structured as a 4.5-month period of disqualification and a 4.5-month period of suspension. This would allow me to return to work earlier in the racing industry, while not being able to ride on race days or trial days during the suspension period. I could, however, ride trackwork and work in stables or other behind-the-scenes roles where staff are required.

I am continuing to manage my health and the drug mishap, and I intend to continue receiving the help and support.

Since receiving the initial notification call of the positive test, I have been stood down. I have not stepped on a racecourse, have had no financial earnings, and will not be able to do so until this situation has been dealt with by the RIB. It has already been four weeks, and I respectfully ask for this to be taken into consideration when determining the penalty.

I am willing, as part of my full penalty period, to submit to further random drug testing, even while I am disqualified or suspended from racing or from involvement in the industry.

In conclusion, I thank you for the opportunity to make my personal submissions. I trust that you will see them for what they are. I have been truthful and upfront from the outset, and I am very apologetic for my behaviour. I wish to make amends for my gross error of judgment and move forward positively with my life.

Penalty and Reasons

[52] The use of Prohibited Drugs in horse racing presents significant safety risks to both Riders and horses. Such substances impair judgment, alertness, and reflexes— abilities that are essential in an inherently dangerous sport. Accordingly, drug use by participants in safety‑sensitive roles must be firmly denounced and treated as a serious racing offence, with penalties that operate as a deterrent, protect participants, and uphold the integrity of the industry.

[53] The RIB submitted that this matter differs from those involving Trackwork Riders, as the Respondent was engaged in raceday riding, which carries greater safety risks, and his experience and seniority increase the severity of the breach. However, the Adjudicative Committee considers drug use by any Licensed Person involved in safety-sensitive roles—whether they be a Senior or Junior Stablehand, Trackwork Rider, or Jockey—they pose equal safety risks and therefore warrant equal culpability. Previous Decisions reinforce this stance in that no distinction is made and indeed should be made.

In RIB v J Smith (August 2022), in its Written Decision the Adjudicative Committee commented:

Serious drug use by Stablehands, Riders and others who participate in the Racing Industry, put at risk themselves and all others, as well as the reputation and integrity of the industry. It has repeatedly been said by the RIB that it cannot be tolerated and significant penalties, to deter others and denounce the behaviour of Licensees, are required.

[54] In RIB v Smith (2022), the Adjudicative Committee stressed that serious drug use by licensed participants jeopardises personal safety, the safety of others, and the reputation of the industry, and therefore cannot be tolerated. While rehabilitation may offer a path back to participation, significant penalties are required to denounce the conduct and deter others.

In RIB v  Mudhoo (January 2026), in its Written Decision the Adjudicative Committee commented:

In the case of riding trackwork specifically, drug use is treated as no less serious than in race riding, because of the unique safety environment.

[55] The New Zealand Supreme Court underscored these principles in L Cropp and Judicial Committee (SC 68/2007 [2008] NZSC 46). Blanchard J emphasised that riding under the influence of controlled drugs, including Methamphetamine, materially increases the risks inherent in horse racing. The Court recognised that drug use compromises care, alertness, and judgment, thereby endangering not only the user but all participants. Although decided in 2008, the reasoning in Cropp remains authoritative and continues to guide disciplinary outcomes.

[56] Subsequent Decisions have reinforced this position. In RIU v Donoghue (2019) and RIU v K Toomer (2020), it was noted that Methamphetamine is a Class A Controlled Drug associated with serious health, social, and economic harm, and that the racing industry is not immune to its effects.

[57] The Adjudicative Committee adopts and endorses these authorities. Participants engaged in safety‑sensitive activities who use Class A or other Prohibited Drugs place themselves and others at unacceptable risk. Such conduct warrants meaningful penalties to reflect denunciation and deterrence. It is against this background that the Adjudicative Committee determines the appropriate penalty in this matter and has had due regard for the following factors:

(a) The written submissions lodged by the Applicant and the Respondent.

(b) The various mitigating and aggravating factors have been considered, including time already spent on stand down.

(c) The Respondent’s culpability and personal circumstances have been assessed.

[58] The Adjudicative Committee aims for consistent penalties that deter, denounce, and ensure accountability, while also allowing offenders access to rehabilitation opportunities.

Starting Point Penalty

[59] The Adjudicative Committee treats Methamphetamine and Cocaine equally, as both are classified as Class A Drugs due to their significant harm. Based on well-established case precedents, the facts, and the Respondent’s culpability, the Adjudicative Committee sets the starting penalty at 12 months’ disqualification.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

[60] The RIB listed aggravating and mitigating factors in paragraphs 40 to 44, which the Adjudicative Committee generally accepts.

[61] The Respondent noted several mitigating factors in paragraph 51, including an early guilty plea, cooperation with the investigation, and demonstrated remorse. He recognised the impact on himself, his family, friends, and industry supporters. By agreeing to a penalty decision on the papers, he helped reduce potential hearing costs and resources.

[62] The Respondent requested the Adjudicative Committee to impose a penalty less severe than the 12 months recommended by the RIB, specifically proposing a penalty that would comprise both suspension and disqualification. The Adjudicative Committee carefully considered the Respondent’s submission and the points raised therein. However, given the gravity of the charge, it was ultimately determined that a full period of disqualification was warranted and necessary.

[63] Notwithstanding this decision, the Adjudicative Committee acknowledges the opportunity for the Respondent to engage in rehabilitation during the disqualification period. Should certain conditions that relate to rehabilitation be met, consideration may be given to reducing part of the disqualification period.

[64] The Respondent was stood down from 9 February 2026, resulting in an immediate limitation of his ability to earn income from that date. The Adjudicative Committee acknowledges that this restriction on earning capacity has had a significant impact. Nevertheless, in accordance with the Appeal Decision in J Smith v RIB (2022), the period spent on standdown cannot be directly deducted from the final penalty imposed. Rather, it is recognised and treated as a mitigating factor during the penalty assessment process. The Adjudicative Committee notes that precedent cases have also considered the time an individual spends on standdown, as a relevant factor when determining the appropriate penalty.

Aggravating Factors

[65] In its assessment of the aggravating factors, the Adjudicative Committee believes that he should have recognised the risk of riding at Waikato days after using Cocaine. The Respondent admitted using Cocaine on 25 January 2026, five days before drug testing at the race meeting.

[66] He denied further use after that date. But during his interview (refer paragraph 18), it was put to him that scientific guidance indicated Cocaine is generally detectable for up to three days, but heavier or repeated use can extend detection to seven days. The Respondent could not explain why Cocaine Metabolites were found in his sample. The Adjudicative Committee makes no further observations on this aspect, but it is a factor that is noted and one we urge the Respondent to reflect on.

[67] The Adjudicative Committee does not propose a further penalty uplift from that starting point, but notes his poor decision making is an aggravating factor, but one that he now regrets.

[68] After considering the above mitigating and aggravating factors, the Adjudicative Committee  determined that a reduction of four months from the starting point of a 12-month disqualification was justified. This reduction fairly and reasonably reflects the overall context and seriousness of the offending, as well as the efforts made by the Respondent to address the matter responsibly. Accordingly, the Adjudicative Committee imposes a final penalty of eight months’ disqualification.

Rehabilitation

[69] In accordance with its reference to the opportunity for rehabilitation in paragraph 63, the Adjudicative Committee adopts the same conditions that were set by the Appeals Tribunal decision in D Smith (2022). The Adjudicative Committee directs that if the Respondent is willing to complete a minimum of three voluntary drug tests during the concluding four months of his period of disqualification, and those tests demonstrate he is drug free, the final 2 months of his disqualification will be waived. This is subject to:

1. The testing is to be undertaken by The Drug Detection Agency.
2. The testing is to be hair/follicle testing with the costs of testing and sample collection met by the Respondent.
3. The test results are to be provided to and assessed by an RIB Investigator, with a summary and recommendation provided to NZTR upon completion of the period of the three drug tests.

[70] For the sake of clarity, the Respondent’s 8-month period of disqualification will commence from 10 March 2026 and will conclude after racing on 10 November 2026. But, if by 10 September 2026, the Respondent has provided three clear drug tests and the RIB and NZTR support reinstatement of his Jockey’s License, he can resume race riding after 10 September 2026.

Penalty and Costs:

[71] The Respondent is disqualified for a period of 8 months, commencing on 10 March 2026. There is no order for costs.

[72] If the Respondent meets the conditions set out in paragraphs 69 and 70, the final two months of his disqualification will be waived.