Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Decision dated 5 June 2025 – Cran and Chrissie Dalgety

 [1] Information A16945 provides: “On the 10th of January 2025 at Richmond Park Nelson, Cran & Chrissie Dalgety, the Registered Training Partnership in charge of the horse, presented BESIDE ME at the Nelson Harness Racing Club meeting for the purpose of engaging in Race 2, when not free of the Prohibited Substance Meloxicam in breach of the New Zealand Harness Racing Rules 1004A(2) & (4) and subject to the penalties pursuant to Rule 1004D(1).”

[2] In a communication to the Informant on 10 April 2025, the Respondents stated that they admitted the charge and agreed with the Summary of Facts, but neither they nor any of their staff admitted to administering the drug in any way to the horse BESIDE ME. The Respondents confirmed this admission in writing to the Adjudicative Committee.

[3] The parties agreed that penalty submissions could be presented “on the papers” rather than at an “in person” hearing.

[4] Rule 1004A provides:

(2) A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances.

(4) When a horse is presented to race in contravention of sub-rule (2) or (3) the trainer of the horse commits a breach of these Rules.

[5] The penalty provision is r 1004D which states:

(1) A person who commits a breach of a rule in rules 1004A, 1004B, or 1004C shall be liable to: (a) a fine not exceeding $20,000.00; and (b) be disqualified or suspended from holding or obtaining a licence for any specific period not exceeding five years.

Summary of Facts

[6] The Respondents Cran and Chrissie Dalgety are a licensed Public Trainer Partnership under the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing. The partnership has been operating since 2021, training from their West Melton property.

[7] The 3yo filly BESIDE ME trained by the Dalgety’s won Race 2 on the first day of the Nelson Harness Racing Club meeting at Richmond Park on Friday 10 January 2025. The filly is owned by Charles Joseph Limited and won a stake of $6,875.

[8] At 4.36pm, a post-race blood sample (#204872) was taken from the filly by vet Dr B Tennent-Brown in the presence of Stablehand Ms B Thomas.

[9] All samples taken on the day were sent to the New Zealand Racing Laboratory Service, which issued a Certificate of Analysis on 31 January detailing the blood sample positive to Meloxicam, exceeding the upper level of calibration of 2.0 ng/mL.

[10] Meloxicam is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) patented by Boehringer Ingelheim. In 2010, a 15mg/mL oral suspension was first licensed by the ACVM for use in horses in New Zealand. The approved label claims it is effective in the alleviation of inflammation and relief of pain in both acute and chronic musculoskeletal disorders.

[11] The NZEVA withholding time list recommends a Meloxicam withholding time of 4.2 days, and to date, there has not been a positive to Meloxicam when following this recommendation.

[12] In the Prohibited Substance and Practices Regulations of the HRNZ Rules, Meloxicam falls under clause 1.1.6: substances capable at any time causing either directly or indirectly an action or effect, or both, on the musculoskeletal system, and in the categories of substances 1.2.21: anti-inflammatory agents.

[13] The presence of Meloxicam in a race-day sample is, prima facie, a breach of the Rules.

[14] On 4 February, the Dalgety’s were interviewed at their stables. They could offer no explanation for the positive sample, categorically stating that BESIDE ME had not been treated with any substances. No evidence was found of the horse being treated, or of Meloxicam being present at the stable.

[15] One other Dalgety trained horse, CARRERA BANDIDO, swabbed (blood sample) clear from the same day at Nelson following its win in Race 4.

[16] Vet inquiries revealed that another Dalgety horse, JOYRIDE, had been prescribed 100mL bottle of Meloxicam following minor surgery on 20 November 2024, under instruction to administer 15mL daily until finished. Mr Dalgety, although not initially recalling that the Meloxicam had been prescribed, later stated that he had followed these instructions.

[17] Advice from HRNZ Chief Veterinarian, Dr Grierson, was that there can be no environmental contamination from other horses being treated with Meloxicam, as the parent drug is eliminated into inactive metabolites in urine and faeces.

[18] Samples taken from BESIDE ME’s sand yard were negative to Meloxicam.

[19] The B sample was sent for analysis and on 18 March ChemCentre, Western Australia confirmed the presence of Meloxicam at a concentration of 2.5 ng/mL.

[20] Dr Grierson also stated that the elimination half-life of Meloxicam is approximately 20 hours and decreases steadily over time. He opined that, to reach a level of 2.5 ng/mL given “a normal dosage rate of 0.6mg/kg, the drug could have been administered around 24 hours before the time of swabbing, give or take.”

[21] Based on Dr Grierson’s opinion and given that the four Dalgety horses arrived at Richmond Park, Nelson, at lunchtime the day prior to the races, any standard dose administration is likely to have occurred there.

[22] Upon arrival at Richmond Park, the four horses were placed in one of several racecourse paddocks out the back of the stabling area. Other than being fed later that afternoon, they were unattended until being brought in and boxed early the following morning.

[23] BESIDE ME is required to be disqualified from Race 2 at Nelson on 10 January pursuant to r 1004E(1).

[24] The C & C Dalgety Training Partnership has no previous breaches of the Prohibited Substance Rules since it was formed in 2021. Mr Dalgety has been a Licensed Trainer since 1992 and has three prior breaches of the Prohibited Substance Rule.

Informant’s Penalty Submissions

[25] The Informant identified the relevant sentencing principles to be punishment (perhaps more correctly, accountability), deterrence, and disapproval of the behaviour in question (denunciation).

[26] With respect to previous cases, the RIB identified three relatively recent NZTR cases involving Meloxicam, however these were not particularly helpful, as the circumstances were different:

RIB v Bergerson (2025) — Trainer admitted administering the drug following dental work, then changed his plans, opting to start the horse at a trial two days later within the recommended withholding time — $4,500 fine.

RIB v Walker (2023) — oral administration occurred through human error involving mistaken identity of two horses boxed next to each other — no nefarious intent by the stable — $8,000 starting point, with a $2,000 uplift applied for the Group 1 status of the race, which was mitigated to a $7,000 fine.

RIU v Pertab (2019) — no source for the positive result could be determined, other than possible cross contamination from another horse in the stable being treated — positive was returned from a trial — $3,000 fine (first offence).

[27] Of more relevance, the Informant believed, was the recent Harness Racing Decision in RIB v S & A Telfer (2023) involving a positive to the NSAID drug, Phenylbutazone. In this case, the RIB investigation could not determine the source of Phenylbutazone in the post-race sample where the horse had won the event. There was no suggestion of foul play, an intent to deceive, or any reckless or deliberate act on the part of the Respondents or any of their staff. The Adjudicative Committee adopted a starting point of $4,000, with a 20% reduction for mitigating factors, including no previous Prohibited Substance breaches (as individuals or in partnerships) since Mr Telfer commenced training in 2007, and with there being no aggravating factors, imposed a $3,200 fine.

[28] Mitigating factors in this case were that the Dalgety’s had admitted the charge and had been cooperative throughout the investigation process. HRNZ statistics indicated the Training Partnership has had 167 wins and no prior breaches of the Prohibited Substance Rule since commencing in 2021.

[29] An aggravating factor was that while the Training Partnership had not had any previous Prohibited Substance breaches, Mr Dalgety has had three previous breaches since his Training Licence was first issued in 1992 (1,231 winners). Mr Dalgety’s previous record, particularly the 2017 breach, was to be considered a ‘second’ offence in establishing a starting point per the Guidelines.

[30] The reference to a two year disqualification and fine up to $20,000 in the Penalty Guide was noted to already incorporate the aggravation of one prior offence and a higher starting point than an $8,000 fine might well be imposed in this case, however given the historical nature of the charges, the RIB submitted that some leniency should be given. In a recent Harness Racing Decision (penalty under appeal and not yet published [but see [50], below]) the Adjudicative Committee adopted an $8,000 starting point for a second offence, which was three years prior. The RIB submitted that the same $8,000 starting point should be adopted in this case.

[31] Mr Dalgety’s record is:

2017 — Five raceday positives to Cobalt identified as resulting from the use of a non-commercial mineral supplement — $32,000 fine.

2013 — Raceday Phenylbutazone positive with source undetermined — $6,000 fine.

2009 — Raceday Caffeine positive from a possible contamination from the liquid supplement Itz Magic — $3,500 fine.

[32] When determining penalty, the RIB submitted that the Adjudicative Committee should have 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 Trainers; and to protect the integrity of Harness Racing.

[33] Given a starting point of $8,000, the mitigating and aggravating factors and the overall circumstances of the case, the RIB submitted a fine of $8,000 was appropriate.

[34] The RIB also sought the disqualification of BESIDE ME from the race in question.

[35] No costs were sought.

Respondent’s Penalty Submissions

[36] The Respondent expressed their “deep shock and dismay” at the presence of Meloxicam in BESIDE ME’s system. The horse had no medical reason to receive Meloxicam, and the attending veterinarian, Dr Sam Taylor, had confirmed in writing that there was no recorded use of this product on BESIDE ME or any other horse in their care at that time.

[37] BESIDE ME and her stablemates were transported from Christchurch to Nelson the day prior to racing, departing at 5:00am on Thursday. Upon arrival, they were turned out in paddocks overnight as part of the stable’s routine recovery protocol following long-distance travel. During this time, trusted staff members, Andrew Drake and Brianna Thomas, were responsible for transporting and supervising the horses.

[38] This timing strongly suggested that any potential administration did not occur while the horse was in the Dalgety Stable or under their immediate supervision. They were unable to determine how the product entered the horse’s system. However, Meloxicam could be administered orally. BESIDE ME might have been an unfortunate and vulnerable target. She was a first-starter in a maiden race, paying $1.50 on the tote, by a leading sire in DOWNBYTHESEASIDE and out of a $1.4 million stakes-winning mare in DREAM ABOUT ME, and was clearly a horse of great interest.

[39] Mr Dalgety stated he had been a Licensed Trainer for 34 years and was currently the fifth all-time leading Trainer in New Zealand Harness Racing history. The suggestion that he would jeopardise his career, reputation, and livelihood for an $11,000 maiden race was “not only unfounded but deeply upsetting.” He referred to the low financial return from such a win, $580.

[40] The Respondents viewed the proposed penalty of $8,000 as excessive and not reflective of the nature or context of the case.

[41] Given the parallels, they referred to RIB v A Telfer, where the Adjudicative Committee accepted that the source of Phenylbutazone in a post-race sample could not be determined. The case resulted in a fine of $3,200.

[42] This incident with BESIDE ME, was entirely beyond their control. While in Nelson, they were stabled at a public training complex where individual horse surveillance was not available, nor was it feasible for stable staff to maintain constant, 24-hour supervision over multiple horses during a four-day away campaign. Such a requirement would be entirely unreasonable and counter to the practical realities of racing travel. Regional carnivals had traditionally been a highlight of the racing calendar: an opportunity for connection, competition, and enjoyment. The Respondents were sad that they were unable to trust the environment or fully embrace the spirit of these events.

[43] The Respondents stated they had always taken great pride in upholding the highest standards of care, with a thorough understanding of all Rules surrounding Prohibited Substances and withholding times. They were committed to ensuring such a situation never had the opportunity to arise again.

[44] The Respondents submitted that a fair and proportionate penalty was a fine of no more than $3,000.

Decision as to Penalty

[45] The starting point in imposing penalty has to be the need to uphold the integrity of Harness Racing. That said, the RIB investigation has concluded that the source of the Meloxicam positive is unknown. The Dalgety’s emphasise that when reference is made to the timings, it is most likely that the substance was administered to BESIDE ME when the horse was housed at the Richmond Racecourse prior to the race on 10 January. The Respondents say that 24/7 surveillance is not feasible, and in the absence of any suggestion of negligence on their part or their staff, the need for deterrence and accountability is not paramount.

[46] An inability to detect the source of a Prohibited Substance is not uncommon in presentation breaches. The administration by outside parties that is mooted as a possibility by the Respondent, is speculation, and the Adjudicative Committee puts this to one side. There is no cogent evidence before the Adjudicative Committee as the origin of the drug. It is also noted that, but for the mandated withholding requirements, Meloxicam is a prescribed drug and can be used for therapeutic purposes.

[47] Guidance is obtained from related cases, although none are exactly on point, as might be expected in the particular circumstances of this case. The penalties in the NZTR cases cited by the Informant are fines ranging from $3,000 to $8,000.

[48] In Telfer, which is a more helpful precedent, penalty was a fine of $3,200, with the starting point being a fine of $4,000. The RIB had submitted in that case that a $4,500 starting point was appropriate, with adjustment at the Adjudicative Committee’s discretion to support the principle of general deterrence, stating that they had been unable to establish the exact cause of the exposure of Phenylbutazone and the Respondents had no explanation for the presence of the substance in the horse’s system. Therefore, it could not be determined whether this level had come about as administration of a therapeutic substance or potential contamination. In adopting the $4,000 starting point, the Adjudicative Committee stated that “in its judgement, a $4,000 starting point is more appropriate in the circumstances of this case.” There is no further explanation for this reduced starting point.

[49] A point of difference, however, is that Telfer was a first breach of the Prohibited Substance Rules. Otherwise, the two cases are similar, especially with regard to the absence of an explanation as to the source of the Prohibited Substance and there being no suggestion of foul play or any reckless or deliberate act on the part of the Respondents or their staff.

[50] The Informant submits that an $8,000 starting point is appropriate and that this should be the final penalty. This is the starting point in the Penalty Guide for a first presentation breach. The RIB cites a recent Harness case (published as RIB v Yesberg (4 June 2025)) as a precedent for a starting point at this level where the previous breach was three years prior. The Adjudicative Committee commented at [24] when fixing the starting point “at only an $8,000 fine” that it “accords some distinct leniency to Mr Yesberg”. That Decision of the Adjudicative Committee was appealed by the Respondent and, in upholding the penalty, the Appeals Tribunal observed the differing starting points ($20,000 and $8,000) and stated at [4.2]: “Mr Yesberg was treated as a first offender. There could have been a further greater uplift to reflect the previous breach.”

[51] The RIB’s submission in this case can be viewed as affording the same “distinct leniency” to the Dalgetys. In that regard, Mr Dalgety’s most recent breach is in 2017, and the partnership itself has had no breaches in the four years of its operation.

[52] The Respondents do not address the issue of starting point specifically, but understandably state that the penalty should be a fine of $3,000 as in Telfer. But Telfer, as noted, had no previous breach, and this factor must be incorporated into the penalty calculation for the Dalgety’s.

[53] The Respondents emphasise that they are long-standing participants in the Industry who are fully committed to the integrity of the sport, and that the penalty should be consistent with precedent. They point to the need for consistency with Telfer. (The penalty in Telfer was in fact a fine of $3,200). In this regard, their submission has weight. However, the Adjudicative Committee can see no reason to deviate from the $8,000 starting point in the Penalty Guide, despite the lesser starting point in Telfer, and it does not do so. This reduced starting point of $8,000, in itself, affords leniency to the Dalgety’s.

[54] There are no aggravating factors in terms of the circumstances of the breach itself. While BESIDE ME won the race, there were no betting irregularities recorded, and the horse’s subsequent performances have demonstrated that the win was no fluke.

[55] The only personal aggravating factor is Mr Dalgety’s previous breaches of the Prohibited Substances Rules. The previous breaches principally are historical in that they are over a decade ago, and little weight is afforded to them in that context. There is no uplift to the starting point.

[56] The Respondents have admitted the breach at the first opportunity and have co-operated with the RIB Investigators. Their standing in the Industry is also considered. They are Trainers of high repute, with Mr Dalgety, in particular, having had an outstanding career in the Industry.

[57] These factors have to be weighed in the context of the need to uphold and maintain the high standards expected of Licensed Trainers and to protect the integrity of Harness Racing. Balancing these matters, the Adjudicative Committee would reach a penalty in the region of $6,500 (approximately a 20% discount). However, the need to avoid a significant (too great a) disparity with the Decision in Telfer, although it must be recalled that the Trainer in that case had no previous breaches, has to be placed in the mix.

[58] The penalty is a fine of $5,750.

Disqualification of BESIDE ME

[59] Rule 1004E(1) requires that BESIDE ME be disqualified. This Rule states:

Any horse taken to a racecourse for the purpose of engaging in a race which is found to have administered to it or ingested by it a Prohibited Substance or an out of competition Prohibited Substance must be disqualified from that race.

[60] BESIDE ME is disqualified from 1st placing in Race 2 at Nelson on 10 January 2025 pursuant to r 1004E(1).

[61] Amended placings are:

1ST   4   LIGHT ME UP
2ND  6   MIKI SKIPPER
3RD  3   AMERICAN BLAZE
4TH  2   MANDALA

[62] Stakes are to be paid in accordance with this order of disqualification. Any stake monies previously paid are to be refunded accordingly.

Costs

[63] The Informant does not seek costs and as the matter was heard on the papers, no order is made.