Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Decision dated 23 July 2024 – Matthew Harris

Introduction:

(1) This is a Penalty Decision arising as a result of issue of Information A16865 which outlined an alleged breach of Rule 656(3).

Particulars of the resultant charge are that the Respondent:

On the 2nd July 2024, at New Plymouth 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 a sample which upon analysis was found to contain the controlled drug THC (Cannabis) as defined in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

(2) This constitutes an offence under Rule 656(3) which provides:

A Rider, or any other Licence Holder 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 metabolites and/or artefacts or isomers.

(3) The Penalty for this offence arises under Rule 803 which provides:

Subject to Rule 803(2)(b), where any Licence Holder 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 for elsewhere in these Rules for that breach, that Licence Holder 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.

(4) The Adjudicative Committee was provided with an Authority to Charge dated 8th July 2024 issued pursuant to Rule 903(2)(d).

(5) The Adjudicative Committee issued a Minute on 10th July 2024, seeking specific written confirmation/submissions from both parties.

(6) By virtue of that email received by the RIB on Friday 12th July 2024, the Respondent confirmed that he was happy that the matter was dealt with ‘on the papers’ (Rule 914 provides).

Summary of Facts

Salient details are as follows:

(7) The Respondent, Mr Matthew Harris, is a Class B (Trackwork Rider) Licenced Person under the Rules of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing.

(8) On Tuesday 2nd July 2024, Investigators from the Racing Integrity Board, conducted routine drug testing at the New Plymouth Racecourse.

(9) The Respondent was observed riding a horse onto the racetrack.

(10) The Respondent was issued with a Drug Testing Notification form. Mr Harris presented himself at the TDDA van, completed the appropriate paperwork and provided the required sample.

(11) The sample returned a non-negative result for THC and was forwarded to Environmental Science Research Limited (ESR) for analysis.

(12) On Thursday 4th July 2024, ESR provided a Certificate of Analysis and confirmed that the urine sample provided by Mr Harris was positive to Cannabis at a THC Acid level of >440 ng/ml.

(13) On the 8th July 2024, Mr Harris was advised of the positive result and via email, a stand-down notice and copy of the ESR Certificate was provided to him.

(14) The Summary of Facts noted Mr Harris was polite and compliant throughout the process.

Submission as to Penalty – Informant

(15) A written Penalty Submission was provided by Mrs Georgina Murrow, as Informant on behalf of the Racing Integrity Board.

(16) The RIB sought a 6 week suspension, along with costs of $187.50, being that expense incurred in obtaining ESR analysis .

(17) In support of same, the submission identified Precedent by way of some 8 Decisions (Thoroughbred and Harness), where Licence Holders had tested positive to Cannabis. Also identified, were both aggravating and mitigating factors the RIB considered material in determining penalty.

Submission – Respondent

(18) The Respondent did not (beyond the aforementioned email) provide written submission.

Penalty Determination:

(19) In determining the appropriate penalty, the Adjudicative Committee is required to suitably deliberate upon the agreed Summary of Facts, respective Submissions along with Precedent (comparable historical penalty).

(20) Penalty imposed must reflect the serious nature of the offence. It is not unreasonable that Licenced industry participants, whether it be Trainers, Jockeys, Trackwork Riders or Stablehands, discharge their duties with the expectation that their safety is not compromised by another participant, who may have their judgement impaired by the presence of drugs or alcohol in their system.

(21) In referencing Precedent, it is accepted that in each case, penalty was set dependent upon individual circumstance, including the amount of drug evident in the system, along with any aggravating/mitigating factors.  The following are relevant Penalty Decisions relating to a positive test to Cannabis.

RIB v Ward (10/8/2022) – 6 weeks suspension – stay of 1 week given satisfaction of terms and conditions

RIB v Wenn (12/1/2023) – 6 weeks suspension

RIB v Wiles (3/10/2023) – 6 weeks suspension – stay of 1 week given satisfaction of terms and conditions

RIB v Burgess (7/11/2023) – 8 weeks suspension – 2nd offence

RIB v Cole ( 18/1/2024) – 8 weeks suspension – stay of 2 weeks given satisfaction of terms and conditions

In all circumstances, Respondents were also required to meet the cost of sample analysis.

Decision:

(22) The Adjudicative Committee has determined that a suspension of 6 weeks is an appropriate penalty. In setting penalty, it is recognised that Mr Harris acknowledged his understanding of the Rule. It is also noted that he remained cooperative throughout the process.

(23) The circumstances of the breach are outlined within the Summary Facts.

(24) Precedent is sufficiently comparable in type and circumstance, to provide guidance as to ‘considered’ penalty.

Penalty and Costs:

(25) The Adjudicative Committee imposes a suspension of the Respondent’s Licence for a period of 6 weeks.

(26) The period of suspension is backdated to that date at which the stand-down notice was issued, being 8th July 2024. Therefore, the suspension takes effect from 8th July 2024, up to and including 19th August 2024.

(27)  The Respondent is ordered to pay $187.50, this being the cost incurred in obtaining ESR analysis. Given this matter has been dealt with on the papers, no further order as to cost is made.