Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Decision dated 25 February 2025 – David McCormick

BACKGROUND:

Information No. A16942 has been filed by Racing Investigator, Simon Irving, against Holder of Licence to Train and Open Driver, David Douglas McCormick, alleging a breach of Rule 411(2) in that “on the 3rd and 9th December 2024 at Ashburton Raceway, the Trainer and person responsible for the nomination, he presented the unregistered 3yo filly Waterloo Sunset -Queen Mary to compete and did compete in two trials, when he had nominated what he thought was the 3yo filly LONGBEACH ROAD.

An Authority to Charge, signed by Dr Eliot Forbes, Chief Executive of the Racing Integrity Board, was produced.

It has been agreed between the parties that the matter may be determined “on the papers” as per clause 21 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure in the Fifth Schedule of the Rules.

Mr McCormick has confirmed that he admits the breach.

THE RULE:

Rule 411 provides:

(2)     Where a horse has, or is deemed to have, been accepted for a race no horse other than the accepted horse shall be brought to the racecourse for the purpose of the race

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Mr Irving presented the following agreed Summary of Facts:

1. The Respondent, David Douglas McCormick, is the holder of a Licence to Train and an Open Driver under the Rules of New Zealand Harness Racing.

2. On 3 December 2024, Mr McCormick nominated and presented what he thought was his 3yo trotting filly LONGBEACH ROAD to the Mid Canterbury TOA Trials meeting at Ashburton Raceway.

3. During pre-race blood testing, the horse was identified through its microchip number by Racing Investigator, Kylie Williams, and found to have a different number, out by one digit.

.…186614 – 3yo filly LONGBEACH ROAD (What The Hill – Dora Explorer)

.…186613 – 3yo filly Waterloo Sunset – Queen Mary (unregistered)

4. Neither filly was freeze branded, this being the first crop of non-brands, and both were trotting-bred and owned by Mr and Mrs McCormick on their property near Tinwald.

5. When spoken to at the time, Mr McCormick was adamant that he had the correct horse and explained that the foal’s microchip number must have been assigned incorrectly by the HRNZ horse identification contractor.

6. Samples were taken for DNA analysis, and Mr McCormick was given the option to start the filly or scratch, opting to start in Race 2 of the trials.

7. On 9 December, with DNA results not yet confirmed, Mr McCormick again nominated and raced, what he thought, was his 3yo filly LONGBEACH ROAD in Race 5 of the Ashburton TC Trials meeting at Ashburton Raceway.

8. On 19 December, the DNA results were reported confirming the 3yo filly, LONGBEACH ROAD, was in fact the 3yo unregistered filly Waterloo Sunset – Dora Explorer.

9. When provided with the DNA information, Mr McCormick admitted that the mistaken identity must have occurred at his property some time after the two fillies were microchipped.

10. LONGBEACH ROAD is required to be disqualified from the two trials.

11. Mr McCormick has held a Trainer’s Licence for 43 years and has no previous breaches of this Rule.

DECISION:

The breach having been admitted, it is deemed proved.

SUBMISSIONS FOR PENALTY:

1.  The standard penalty for this type of breach in the equine codes is a $400 – $500 fine, from an $800 starting point per the RIB Penalty Guidelines 2023.

2. More recent similar cases involving trials meetings include:

          RIB v Auret (2025) – TR Trials (fined $480)

          RIU v Liefting (2020) – TR Trials (fined $400)

         RIU v Court (2019) – HR Trials (fined $500)

         RIU v Bridge (2015) – TR Trials (fined $500)

3. Even in previous cases, where the owner or breeder has made a genuine mistake, Committees have found that the trainer has ultimate responsibility to check identity to ensure the correct horse is nominated and presented to trial or race.

In RIU v L (2020) the Committee commented:

There is a crucial obligation on trainers to exercise extreme care in identifying the horses they train and nominate, and especially with unnamed horses. All trainers have to understand that a breach of this Rule, and the duty of care necessary, will carry with it some penalty.

4. Aggravating factor:

When the discrepancy in the microchip numbers was identified prior to the first trial, Mr McCormick was given the option to scratch the horse, but he opted to start. He again opted to start the horse in the second trial on 9 December.

5. Mitigating factors:

• There was absolutely no intent by Mr McCormick to deceive the betting public or prospective buyers from running the incorrect horse in the trials.
• This was a trials meeting as opposed to a race meeting.
• Mr McCormick has admitted the charge at the earliest opportunity.
• He has an unblemished training career record spanning 42 years.

6. It is therefore submitted that a $500 fine is appropriate.

7. No costs are sought.

Mr McCormick made the following written submission in relation to penalty:

“I am the Owner and Breeder of both the fillies involved. This was a genuine mistake. These fillies are the first year where they have not been branded and only microchipped. I had not purchased a microchip reader. Both myself and my son, Lawrence, were of the opinion that we had the right filly. Unfortunately, we were wrong. There was no intention to deceive anyone.

As I am both the Owner, Trainer and breeder of both horses involved, I feel that a warning in this case is sufficient, as it is unlikely to happen again. My record as a Trainer is blemish-free. Please take this into account when assessing my penalty”.

REASONS FOR PENALTY:

As of 1 August 2021, all Standardbred foals were to be microchipped and DNA tested only. HRNZ was no longer carrying out freeze branding on Standardbreds. It became the responsibility of the Owner and/or Trainer to be able to correctly identify their horses. HRNZ updated the Infohorse database to include the Microchip numbers.

LONGBEACH ROAD (foaled on 15 December 2021) was, therefore, microchipped but not freeze branded. During pre-race blood testing, microchipping testing showed that the horse that Mr McCormick believed to be LONGBEACH ROAD was, in fact, another 3yo filly in his stable. His son also believed the filly to be LONGBEACH ROAD, he said.

Mr McCormick has explained that he was unable to correctly identify the horse in the absence of a freeze brand. There was, therefore, no outward evidence of the horse’s identity. The only way to identify it correctly would have been by way of a microchip reader which, he said, he did not own. He has said that he has now purchased a microchip reader.

Mr McCormick has not explained how he came to confuse the two fillies in the first instance. It is interesting that his son made the same mistake. He took the filly that he believed to be LONGBEACH ROAD to the trials meeting on 3 December and, so certain was he that he had the correct filly, that he elected to line it up in the heat, despite having been alerted by the Racing Investigator that there may have been a problem with the filly’s identity. Furthermore, while the results of the DNA test were still awaited, he again lined the filly up in a trial 6 days later, obviously satisfied that it was indeed LONGBEACH ROAD. It was 10 days later again, upon receipt of the results of the DNA testing, that it came to light that the two fillies had been mixed up. He then admitted that the mistaken identity must have occurred at his property, some time after the fillies had been microchipped.

Penalties imposed in the most recent cases cited by the Informant are consistently in the range of $400-500. Those cases were in the Thoroughbred Code and involved the wrong horse being presented to compete at a trials meeting. The penalties were arrived at based on the Thoroughbred Racing Penalty Guide starting point of $800 for “wrong horse to races/trials/jump-outs”.

A breach of Rule 411(2) is not referred to in the RIB Harness Racing Penalty Guide (October 2024). However, it suggests starting points for penalty for breaches of Rule 502A(1) and (2) of bringing an incorrect horse to the racecourse of a $400 fine and, for a breach of presenting the incorrect horse to race, a fine of $400. Mr McCormick has been charged under another, similar Rule, but the Penalty Guide starting points seem appropriate to this breach. The Adjudicative Committee, therefore, takes the appropriate starting point in this case to be $800, consistent with the Thoroughbred Racing Penalty Guide.

A significant aggravating factor in the present case, identified in the Informant’s penalty submissions, and referred to earlier in these Reasons, is that Mr McCormick was alerted, prior to the filly competing in the heat on 3 December 2024, that there may have been a case of mistaken identity. Mr McCormick could have mitigated the breach, simply, by not starting the filly in that or the subsequent trial. However, he was so confident that it was LONGBEACH ROAD that he was presenting to race. For this factor, the Adjudicative Committee uplifts the starting point to $1,000.

The Adjudicative Committee recognises that the meetings were both trials meetings and, accordingly, the adjusted starting point is reduced to $800.

Mitigating factors to be considered, and referred to by the Informant, are Mr McCormick’s admission of the breach and his undeniably outstanding record over a period of 42 years. In addition, the Adjudicative Committee accepts that Mr McCormick has made an honest mistake and that there was no intention on his part to deceive. For a combination of those factors, the Adjudicative Committee gives a discount of $200.

CONCLUSION – PENALTY:

The Respondent, David McCormick, is fined the sum of $600. The matter has been heard on the papers, and, accordingly, there will be no order as to costs.

DISQUALIFICATION OF HORSE:

Pursuant to Rule 1003(1), the horse LONGBEACH ROAD is disqualified from the two heats, namely – Race 2 at the meeting of Mid Canterbury TOA at Ashburton Raceway on 3 December 2024 (placed 2nd) and Race 5 at the meeting of Mid Canterbury TOA at Ashburton Raceway on 9 December 2024 (placed 4th).