Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Decision dated 15 September 2022 – Marie Prangley

Introduction

[1] Licensed Greyhound Trainer, Marie Prangley (the Respondent) has admitted a charge alleging that on 24 July 2022 she presented her greyhound THRILLING FREDDY to race in Race 9 at the Auckland Greyhound Racing Club, Manukau Stadium, when the said greyhound was presented to race with the Category 2 Prohibited Substance, namely Methylamphetamine (Methamphetamine) and Amphetamine in breach of Rules 61.1 and 61.5.

[2] This prosecution was authorised by Mr M Clement, the Chief Executive – RIB, on 30 August 2022.

Determination on the papers

[3] With the consent of the parties, at the Respondent’s request, the Adjudicative Committee made its determination as to penalty ‘on the papers’ pursuant to paragraph 21.1 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure contained in the Seventh Schedule of Rules of Racing of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association Inc (NZGR).

Charge

[4] Information No. A18506 alleges that:

On the 24th of July 2022, Marie Prangley, licensed Public Trainer and Owner, was in charge of the greyhound THRILLING FREDDY who competed in Race 9 at the Auckland Greyhound Racing Club meeting at Manukau Raceway. She failed to present the greyhound free of the Permanently Banned Prohibited Substance, Methamphetamine and Amphetamine, being an offence under the provisions of Rules 61.5 and punishable pursuant to Rule 63.1 and 61.6 of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association Rules.

The Relevant Rules

[5] Rule 61.1 provides:

The Owner, Trainer, or Person in charge of a Greyhound Nominated to compete in a Race, shall produce the Greyhound for the Race free of any Prohibited Substance.

[6] Rule 61.3 provides:

“Without limiting any of the provisions of these Rules, the Owner and Trainer or person for the time being in charge of any Greyhound brought onto the Racecourse of any Club for the purposes of engaging in any Race which is found on testing, examination or analysis conducted pursuant to these Rules to have received a Prohibited Substance shall be severally guilty of an Offence.”

[7] Rule 61.5 provides:

Without limiting any of the provisions of these Rules, the Owner and Trainer and person for the time being in charge of any Greyhound which is found on testing, examination or analysis conducted pursuant to these Rules to have received a Permanently Banned Prohibited Substance shall be severally guilty of an Offence.

[8] Rule 61.6 provides:

When a Sample taken from a Greyhound has been found to contain a Permanently Banned Prohibited Substance the Greyhound shall be disqualified from any Race or any benefit derived from a Trial or test for which it was nominated at the time the Sample was taken

Plea

[9] The Respondent admitted the breach. The charge is therefore deemed to be proved.

Penalty Provisions

[10] The Penalty Rule is r63.1 which provides that:

“Any Person found guilty of an Offence under these Rules shall be liable to:

(a) a fine not exceeding $10,000 for any one (1) Offence except a luring/baiting Offence under r 86; and/or

(b) Suspension; and/or

(c) Disqualification; and/or

(d) Warning Off.”

[11] In addition, Rule 61.4 provides that:

“Any Greyhound which competes in a Race and is found to be the recipient of a Prohibited Substance shall be Disqualified from that Race.”

[12] The NZGR schedule of ‘Categories of Prohibited Substances,’ sets the starting point at 5 years disqualification for a Category 2 breach.

Summary of Facts

The salient facts are summarised as follows:

[13] The Respondent in this matter is the holder of an Owner/Trainer license issued by GRNZ. She currently owns four greyhounds which are kennelled and trained from her Clevedon address, which she shares with two other Trainers.

[14] On Sunday the 24 July 2022, the Respondent attended the Auckland Greyhound Racing Club meeting at Manukau Raceway with three greyhounds, one of which was THRILLING FREDDY.  The other two included MEDUSA WHO and WHO AM I.

[15] The Respondent transported the three dogs in her Toyota Van, with THRILLING FREDDY being kennelled directly behind the driver’s seat.

[16] THRILLING FREDDY competed in Race 9, the ‘New Zealand Sires Produce Stakes (Group 2) Final and finished in first (1st) place claiming a stake of $10,238.

[17] At the completion of the race THRILLING FREDDY was swabbed and a sample was obtained from him in the presence of the Respondent.

[18] On Tuesday the 9 August 2022, New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services (NZRLS) issued a Certificate of Analysis detailing that the urine sample tested positive to the controlled drugs Methamphetamine and Amphetamine.

[19] Methamphetamine and Amphetamine are Category 2, Permanently Banned Prohibited Substances per the 5th Schedule of the GRNZ Rules.

[20] On Friday the 12 August 2022, RIB staff visited the Respondent’s kennels in Clevedon. She was interviewed regarding the positive result and presented with a copy of the Certificate of Analysis and Sample Identity Record.

[21] During the interview the Respondent declined to have the “B Sample” tested. She acknowledged that she was responsible for the day-to-day operation of the kennels and had been the person responsible for THRILLING FREDDY on the day of the races. She further advised that apart from immediately prior to the race when (name deleted) had loaded the dog into the starting gates, no one else had contact with THRILLING FREDDY.

[22] When questioned regarding the presence of Methamphetamine in the dog’s urine sample, the Respondent advised that she uses Methamphetamine frequently, smoking it at least 3 or 4 times a month, with the most recent time being 3 days prior.  She stated that she never smoked Methamphetamine at the kennel facilities and that she wore rubber gloves whilst handling the dogs in an attempt to avoid cross contamination.

[23] When questioned further, the Respondent advised that she had used Methamphetamine on and off for 16 years, with an increase in frequency over the last year due to an old friend re-entering her life.

[24] The Respondent was offered the option to undertake in-field drug screening conducted by The Drug Detection Agency [TDDA], which she consented to undertake. A urine sample and hair follicle sample were taken from the Respondent with the initial urine screening return a non-negative for the presence of Methamphetamine. Both samples were sent to ESR for analysis.

[25] Swabs were also taken by TDDA from the cab area of the Respondent’s Toyota vehicle, which was used to transport THRILLING FREEDY to the races on the race day in question, 24 July 2022.

[26] The analysis result of the vehicle examination was negative for the presence of Methamphetamine contamination.

[27] The analysis of the Respondent’s hair sample confirmed a positive result to the controlled drug Methamphetamine.

[28] The analysis of the urine sample confirmed a positive result to both Methamphetamine and Amphetamine.

[29] The Respondent is the Trainer of the greyhound concerned and she has been charged under Rule 61.5 of the GRNZ Rules.  Breaches of this nature are strict liability as she is obliged to ensure that her registered greyhounds are free from permanently banned prohibited substances at all times.

[30] The Respondent has no previous charges on her record.

Penalty Submissions – Applicant

Ms Fox provided detailed written penalty submissions.  These are summarised as follows:

[31] The Respondent obtained her Owner/Trainer license in 2018 and began training a small number of Greyhounds. At the time of the offending, she owned four greyhounds which were kennelled and trained from an address in Clevedon which she shares with two other Licensed Greyhound Trainers.

[32] Details of this offence are as outlined in the agreed summary of facts.

[33] The Applicant has submitted that the RIB is seeking:

1. A 2½ year disqualification of the Respondent’s Licence;
2. The disqualification of THRILLING FREDDY; from Race 9, the ‘New Zealand Sires Produce Stakes (Group 2) Final; and
3. Repayment of $10,238 stakes.

[34] The Applicant referred the Adjudicative Committee to the well-known sentencing principles as well as relevant commentary from the Appeals Tribunal decision in RIU v L (2019).

[35] Further reference was made to the decision RIU V Donoghue (2019) which highlighted the dangers of Methamphetamine.  Also, with reference to the RIU V Turnwald (2021) decision, it was submitted that any penalty imposed must act to denounce this offence. The nature of the drug involved, namely Methamphetamine, is a particularly aggravating factor and the need for general deterrence requires a more severe penalty.

[36] The following precedent cases were submitted for the consideration of the Adjudicative Committee.

RIB v E Toomer (2022) – Licensed Public Trainer – Methamphetamine and Amphetamine. 3-year disqualification imposed and ordered to repay $480 in stake money.

RIB V A Turnwald (2021) –Licensed Public Trainer – Methamphetamine and Amphetamine. Initially disqualified for 4-months and ordered to pay $3000 towards RIB costs and $1500 to the JCA. Her initial penalty was appealed by the RIB in May 2021. On appeal Turnwald was disqualified for 18 months and ordered to pay costs of $3,000 to RIB and $500 JCA.

RIU v Toomer (2020) –Licensed Public Trainer – Methamphetamine and Amphetamine.  14 months disqualification.

RIU v D Schofield (2018) -Licensed Public Trainer –Methamphetamine and Amphetamine.  2-year Disqualification.

[37] The Applicant submitted that the offending in this case is similar to that of RIB v E Toomer (2022) in that it involves the personal use of a Class A, illicit drug, by a Trainer and the subsequent contamination of a Greyhound under their care.

[38] The Applicant submitted the following aggravating factors for the consideration of the Adjudicative Committee:

• Methamphetamine poses a significant animal welfare issue to the Greyhound involved in the positive test result.
• The Respondent acknowledged that she has used Methamphetamine for the past 16 years and understood the use of Methamphetamine was prohibited under the GRNZ Rules.
• The Respondent has admitted regular and ongoing personal use of Methamphetamine, smoking it at least 3 or 4 times a month.
• She stated that she never smoked Methamphetamine at the kennel facilities and that she wore rubber gloves whilst handling the dogs in an attempt to avoid cross contamination.

[39] The Applicant submitted the following mitigating factors for the consideration of the Adjudicative Committee:

• The Respondent entered an early guilty plea and accepted full responsibility for her actions.
• The Respondent has been compliant, cooperative, and respectful with all RIB staff throughout the process.
• The Respondent is no longer training from the property in question and has relinquished her dogs to another Trainer.
• The Respondent has been in touch with the NZ Racing Drug and Alcohol Clinician, Dianna Young, and she has indicated that she is willing to seek help for her drug use.

[40] The Applicant concludes that the offending in this case is like that of E Toomer and suggests a starting point of 2½ years disqualification be adopted.

Costs

[41] The RIB does not seek costs in this case.

Disqualification Order 

[42] The disqualification of THRILLING FREDDY; from Race 9, the New Zealand Sires Produce Stakes (Group 2) Final; and Repayment of $10,238 stakes.

Penalty Submissions – Respondent

The Respondent provided written penalty submissions.  These are summarised as follows:

[43] Firstly, the Respondent submitted that she is remorseful, she understands the consequences; and accepts she has not only jeopardised the integrity of herself as a Greyhound Trainer, but also the integrity of the Racing Industry.

[44] The Respondent submitted that “although, a major wrongdoing on my part, I would like to make it clear that there was no act of deliberation behind the positive drug result for ‘Thrilling Freddy’. There must have been some form of cross contamination from my own personal use. This is the last thing I would want for any of my dogs whom I love very much. I took preventative measures to try and ensure such things did not happen, as I understood the repercussions and also the effect that this would have on a dog’s overall wellbeing, which is the heart and centre of what I do”.

[45] The Respondent referred to the fact that the property where her kennels are located is used by other Trainers.  It is 80 acres in total, of which 5 acres are specifically the greyhound training facility. The remaining land is a functioning sheep and beef farm for which she retains responsibility for managing.

[46] She pointed out that she can continue to manage the property without needing to enter on to the greyhound training facility as there is alternative access to the rest of the property. She also advised that with regards to the property, she has engaged a lawyer to remove her as the trustee and has advised GRNZ of this, presumably to ensure that the separate 5 acres of property can continue to be used as a greyhound training facility.

[47] She submitted the legal work may take some time and she asked that it be taken into consideration when deciding on any suspension or disqualification.

[48] With regards to her stated use of Methamphetamine she submitted:

“…. I have smoked Methamphetamine on and off for the last 16 years. When I first started my greyhound training career, I was not using any drugs. If anything, greyhound training was a healthy interest for me and helped me remain sober for several years. I am by no means making any excuses for my actions, but the last two years have been very hard due to a number of reasons….”  (The Respondent referred to her own deteriorating health and that of a close relative who she cares for).

[49] She further submitted that she wanted slowly to transition out of greyhounding racing due to age and it is deeply upsetting to be ‘going out’ on this note.  She doubts that she will be able to make a return due to her health. She further submitted that “I am embarrassed, and I have disappointed myself and those closest to me, this has affected them in more ways than you can imagine”.

[50] She acknowledged the Racing Integrity Board for referring her to the New Zealand Racing Drugs and Alcohol Clinician. She said ….” this as being the first step in the right direction as I do want to get help and better myself by ridding myself of this horrible drug”. She also outlined the strain that her drug use has on her relationships with her loved ones and the loss of her dogs.

[51] In conclusion, the Respondent again expressed her sincere apologies and remorse for breaching the Rules. She hoped her case would serve as a deterrent to others.

Discussion and Reasons for Penalty

[52] GRNZ has issued a schedule of “Categories of Prohibited Substances”. This presentation breach is classified as “Category 2” and according to the schedule the penalty starting point is set at 5 years disqualification. The starting point for a Category 2 breach does not differentiate between presentation (r61.1) and an administration (r61.2) breach in terms of the starting point.

[53] In determining the penalty, the Adjudicative Committee has had due regard for the impact this presenting breach has had on the public perception of Greyhound Racing.   Offending of this nature invariably brings the Industry into disrepute and no doubt impacts on trust and confidence in integrity of racing at every level, particularly so for the betting public who wager on the outcome of races; and other participants who have an expectation of a ‘level playing field’.

[54] Methamphetamine detections are becoming more common.  Moreover, compared to the other two Racing Codes, Harness and Thoroughbred, detections are more prevalent within the Greyhound Industry, which is a cause for real concern.

[55] Other factors considered by the Adjudicative Committee include the animal welfare impacts that the prohibited substance, Methamphetamine, may have had on the greyhound THRILLING FREDDY.

[56] The Respondent has acknowledged that she has used Methamphetamine for 16 years, so clearly the long-term use of the drug characterises her as being an addict.  She therefore ought to have been aware of the toll her addiction has taken on her own health and consequently, it is inconceivable that at some point she did not contemplate the impact that her use of the drug could have contaminated one or more of her dogs, and the potential for the drug to have had an impact on their health and/or wellbeing.

[57] This raises the question as to whether her addiction should be considered in any way as a mitigating factor in her offending.  On one hand it is relevant when evaluating her personal circumstances, but on the other the impact needs to be balanced along with the requirements for deterrence, denunciation, accountability and the harm this offending has had on the wider Greyhound Industry.

[58] Currently there is no specific provision within the GRNZ Rules or Regulations that provide for a rehabilitative approach as part of sentencing, but such an approach would be permissible within the discretion vested in Adjudicative Committees.  The other two Codes, Harness and Thoroughbred do allow for such an approach, but that is due to detection of prohibited substances having a direct relationship with safety sensitive activities.

[59] The Adjudicative Committee has noted the four precedent cases highlighted by the Applicant and agree that the circumstances of the E Toomer (2022) breach closely matches offending in this case. The end result in Toomer was a 3-year disqualification.

[60] The Adjudicative Committee also agrees with the Applicant’s submission that there are several aggravating factors associated with this breach.

[61] There are few, if any mitigating factors, however the Respondent is entitled to credit for (a) her admission of the breach; (b) for agreeing to have the case determined ‘on the papers’ thus reducing the costs that might have otherwise been incurred because of a lengthy hearing; (c) her good record; and (d) her willingness to rehabilitate and participate in drug counselling.  The Adjudicative Committee has received written confirmation that the Respondent has engaged with the NZ Racing Drug and Alcohol Clinician, Dianna Young, but has yet to commence counselling/treatment.

[62] The Adjudicative Committee reinforces the warning that was issued in the recent Toomer case, namely that this case must serve as a warning, a deterrent and further reminder to others in the Industry who may contemplate using prohibited drugs whilst they have Greyhounds in their care.  Offending of this nature is serious and this must be reflected in penalties.  Several cases have emerged in recent times where the significant risks of cross contamination have been highlighted. The Respondent accepts that this is a case of contamination.  She incorrectly assumed that by wearing gloves she could reduce the risk of contamination when she used Methamphetamine. What she and others fail to appreciate, is that Methamphetamine residue is an environmental contaminant that, under certain circumstances, can linger for years.  The Respondent said that she never used Methamphetamine in or near her kennels.  It is hoped that is correct.  It is also hoped that given it is not known where the contamination occurred, steps are taken to deep clean / decontaminate the kennels to avoid any possibility of inadvertent third-party contamination.

[63] Under the circumstances of this case, the Adjudicative Committee has adopted 2 years and 9 months disqualification as the starting point inclusive of the aggravating factors.

[64] After taking into account the mitigating factors, a 2-month reduction is applied. This is in consideration of a rehabilitative response as part of sentencing and assumes the Respondent will fulfil her pledge to participate in a rehabilitation programme. If she does not take part in the programme,  it is perhaps something GRNZ may consider, should she apply for a license to be reinstated after her period of disqualification concludes.

[65] Accordingly, a 2-year 7-month disqualification is imposed.

[66] The Respondent has already disposed of her dogs.  She raised concerns about the kennels being part of the property she farms.  She understands the ramifications of being a disqualified person, and that for the purpose of the disqualification, both properties are separate and have separate access points.  There is no need for her to visit the kennels as part of her farming commitments.

Disqualification of Greyhound

[67] Pursuant to r 61.4 THRILLING FREDDY is disqualified from Race 9, the New Zealand Sires Produce Stakes (Group 2) Final; and stake money of $10,238 stake is to be repaid.

Costs

[68] The RIB has not sought costs and there is no order for Adjudicative Committee costs as the outcome was determined on the papers.