Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Penalty Decision dated 16 December 2025 – Craig Nevin Anderson

The registered racing Greyhound, HILTON HUSTLER (Good Odds Harada – Ophelia Alien) is trained at Cust by Owner/Trainer, Craig Anderson, and is owned by Craig Robyn Anderson Partnership.

Information A19859 has been filed by filed by Racing Investigator, Simon Irving, alleging that on the 23rd of September 2025 at Cust, Mr Anderson failed to produce the Greyhound for an out of competition test free of the Permanently Banned Substances Methamphetamine and Amphetamine, being an offence under the provisions of Rule 139(3) and punishable pursuant to Rule 174(1) of the Rules of Greyhound Racing New Zealand.

THE RULE:

Rule 139 provides as follows:

(3)     When a sample taken from a greyhound being trained by a trainer or in the care of a registered person has been established to contain a permanently banned prohibited substance:

(a)     the trainer and any other person who was in charge of the relevant greyhound at the relevant time shall be guilty of an offence.

AGREED SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Mr Irving filed the following Summary of Facts, which was agreed by Mr Anderson:

Introduction

1.  The Respondent, Craig Nevin Anderson, is the holder of an Owner/Trainer Licence issued by Greyhound Racing New Zealand (GRNZ).

2.  Mr Anderson is 68 years old and operates a small kennel out of his home property in Cust, North Canterbury, training 5-6 greyhounds.

Circumstances

3.  On Tuesday, 23 September 2025, the Racing Integrity Board (RIB) conducted a traceability visit to the kennel of Mr Anderson by appointment. Traceability visits are a function of the RIB to ensure compliance with industry standards.

4.  As part of the visit, the greyhound HILTON HUSTLER was selected for “out of competition” (OOC) testing. OOC testing is conducted for detection of Permanently Banned Prohibited Substances only.

5.  HILTON HUSTLER is a rising 2yo dog owned by Mr Anderson and his wife.

6.  A urine sample was obtained from HILTON HUSTLER at 11.35am by an RIB Steward in the presence of Mr Anderson. The sample was recorded with the Sample Identity Record 190240.

7.  On 10 October, New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services (NZRLS) issued a certificate of analysis detailing sample 190240 positive to Methamphetamine and Amphetamine, with the control sample clear.

8.  Amphetamines are Permanently Banned Prohibited Substances pursuant to Rule 139(1) of the NZGRA Rules, are considered a Category 2 Prohibited Substance and their presence in an OOC sample is, prima facie, a breach of the Rules.

9.  On 14 October, RIB Investigators visited Mr Anderson’s kennel and interviewed both him and his wife, who are the only residents on the property.

10.  Both Mr Anderson and his wife provided both urine and hair samples to a drug testing technician, which all returned clear.

11.  Forensic samples were taken from the vehicle used to transport Mr Anderson’s greyhounds and from HILTON HUSTLER’s kennel area, all returning clear.

12.  A list of medications taken by Mr Anderson, when referenced by Medsafe, did not contain Methamphetamine or Amphetamine.

13.  No other evidence or indication of Methamphetamine use was identified from the investigation.

14.  The “B” sample was sent to Racing Analytical Services Limited (RASL) in Australia which, on 10 November, issued a Certificate of Analysis confirming the sample positive to Methamphetamine and Amphetamine, with the control sample clear.

15.  While not required to provide quantitative analysis, NZRLS estimated very approximate levels in HILTON HUSTLER to be 0.7ng/mL of Methamphetamine and 3ng/mL of Amphetamine. For comparison, the international standard for positive drug test cut-off concentration applied in human drug testing is 300ng/mL (150ng/mL amphetamine & 150ng/mL methamphetamine). The respective cut-off applied for human urine drug testing are set to differentiate between passive / incidental and active use of the drug.

16.  HILTON HUSTLER was raceday-tested one week prior to the OOC sample on 15 September and two weeks post the OOC on 9 October, with both swabs testing clear. Prior to this, Mr Anderson trained greyhounds had tested clear on 18 occasions, including two OOC samples (one being HILTON HUSTLER) in 2025.

Respondent’s Statement

17.  When interviewed on 14 October, Mr Anderson advised the following:

(a)  He did not know anything about the drug Methamphetamine, had certainly never used the drug and was totally shocked by the positive result; and

(b)  Other than HILTON HUSTLER racing and winning (not swabbed) at Addington the previous afternoon, Monday 22 September, and the usual interactions with kennel staff and other handlers while at the races, no other humans had contact with the dog in the 2-3 days prior to the OOC sample being taken.

Conclusion

18.  The RIB investigation concluded that the source of the Methamphetamine in HILTON HUSTLER’s system remains unknown.

19.  Mr Anderson has held a Greyhound Trainer’s Licence since 2017. He has no previous Prohibited Substance breaches, or any other non-raceday charges.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS

1.  INTRODUCTION:

1.1  The Respondent, Craig Anderson, is a Licensed Owner / Trainer under the Rules of Greyhound Racing New Zealand. He is 68 years old and has held an Owner / Trainer Licence since 2017. He trains 5-6 greyhounds from his property in Cust, North Canterbury.

1.2  Mr Anderson has admitted a charge that, on the 23rd of September 2025, being the Licensed Trainer of the greyhound, HILTON HUSTLER, he failed to produce the greyhound for an out of competition test, free of the Permanently Banned Prohibited Substances, Methamphetamine and Amphetamine, being an offence under the provisions of Rule 139(3).

2.  PENALTY PROVISIONS:

2.1  The penalties which may be imposed are contained under NZGRA Rule 174:

(1)  An Adjudicative Committee may as it thinks fit penalise a person found guilty of an offence under the Rules by any one or a combination of the following penalties:

(a)  a reprimand (sometimes known as a warning or caution);

(b)  a fine not exceeding $10,000.00 for any one offence except a luring and baiting offence under rule 159;

(c)  suspension;

(d)  disqualification;

(e)  cancellation of a registration or a licence, or in the case of a Club, its affiliation to GRNZ; or

(f)  warning off.

(3)  Any part or portion of a penalty imposed may be suspended for a time and pursuant to conditions that an Adjudicative Committee thinks fit.

2.2  The principles of sentencing can be summarised briefly:

• Penalties are designed to punish the offender for his/her wrongdoing. They are not meant to be retributive in the sense the punishment is disproportionate to the offence, but the offender must be met with a punishment.
• In a racing context it is extremely important that a penalty has the effect of deterring others from committing similar offences.
• A penalty should also reflect the disapproval of the Committee for the type of offending in question.
• The need to rehabilitate the offender should be considered.

2.3  In the GRNZ schedule of “Categories of Prohibited Substances”, Amphetamines are classified as Category 2 – Permanently Banned Substances – with a starting point penalty of 5-years disqualification. The starting points do not differentiate between presentation and administration breaches.

RIB POSITION AS TO PENALTY

3.1  The RIB submits there should be no penalty in this case.

3.2  In assessing penalty, the RIB considers this case to be most similar in fact and circumstance to the 2018 thoroughbred case of Rae and Williams. Unlike the six greyhound cases cited which all had a causal link to Methamphetamine, the investigation into the current case revealed no evidence or suspicion of any connection to the drug.

3.3  Comparable Case

RIU v K & L Rae and K Williams (2018)

The thoroughbred training partnership admitted a charge of presenting the horse, ABSOLUT EXCELENCIA, to race at Riccarton with Methamphetamine in its system. The trainers, who operated two training facilities at Ruakaka and Riccarton, could offer no explanation for the positive post-race swab. All persons employed by the trainers who had contact with the horse provided hair samples negative to Methamphetamine. The trainers were cooperative throughout the process, had an unblemished record and neither they nor their staff were suspected of using Methamphetamine and there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. The investigation concluded that the source of the positive was unknown.

The RIU sought a small monetary penalty. The Judicial Control Authority (JCA) imposed no penalty. In summarising their decision, the Committee noted:

[73]  A key aspect of this case is the extremely low level of methamphetamine. If methamphetamine had been deliberately given, to enhance performance, it might be expected that the level detected would be significantly higher. We do not place any weight on the amphetamine level as we understand its presence is simply consequential upon the finding of methamphetamine. As in the Waller case, there is no suggestion of administration and the level is such that it is not likely it would have affected the performance of ABSOLUT EXCELENCIA. These are significant factors when assessing the gravity of the breach and the culpability of the respondents.

[77]  Were we able to see clear signs of negligence we would impose a penalty to denounce the respondents’ actions and to deter and hold them accountable.

[79]  Ultimately, in determining penalty, we have regard to the low level of the drug detected, the absence of any clear evidence of negligence on the part of the respondents, and the acknowledged practice of the RIU of not charging trainers where there is no evidence of negligence by the trainers (“the New Plymouth cases”) or where there is evidence of negligence on the part of a third party…

[82]  We wish to make one final point. It is not our intention that this case be viewed as being a precedent for the imposition of no penalty where the circumstances surrounding a breach of the rule are not evident. This, in itself, we accept, is not an unusual occurrence. The circumstances of this case are, however. The level of methamphetamine is extremely low and is unlikely to have affected the performance of ABSOLUT EXCELENCIA, and the involvement of third parties is not only unable to be excluded but is a distinct possibility.

The reference in the Committee’s decision to “the New Plymouth cases” is regarding four (three from one race meeting) thoroughbred Methamphetamine positives in late 2017 (Brick; Ramsay & Ritchie; Manning) and mid 2018 (Little) which resulted in no charges being laid against the four trainers, with only the horses being disqualified from their races.

3.4  Greyhound Methamphetamine Cases

RIB v J McInerney (2023)

Trainer, John McInerney, admitted a charge, together with his son, licensed handler S McInerney, of failing to produce ALPHA RILEY  for an OOC test free of Methamphetamine. The trainer operated a satellite kennel in the north island operated by his son. The investigation revealed traces of Methamphetamine in the vehicle used to transport the greyhounds and S McInerney provided a urine sample also positive to the drug. John McInerney was aware of his son’s past history of drug abuse. He was disqualified for 12 months. In its written decision the Adjudicative Committee (AC) noted at paragraph 43:

It is evident that at a high level, the Respondent was aware of his son’s issues with drugs and in the Adjudicative Committee’s view, that did obligate him to adopt a higher level of care to ensure that any risk that flowed from that was appropriately managed and supervised.

RIB v L Waretini (2023)

Trainer L Waretini admitted a charge of failing to produce OPAWA PIP to race free of Methamphetamine. Her daughter, who was the handler in charge of the greyhound on the day, was also charged.

The daughter admitted that she used to consume Methamphetamine, but had not done so for two years, but she still spent time in the company of those that do. Forensic samples taken from the two vehicles at the property used to transport greyhounds to and from the races both returned positive for traces of Methamphetamine, above the driver and front passenger seats and on the centre of the steering wheel. Both Waretini’s returned negative results for drugs in urine and hair analysis. The Adjudicative Committee noted at paragraph 88:

The final penalty of 15 months disqualification, so arrived at, reflects the degree of culpability and the circumstances of the Respondent, and is consistent with other penalties. At the same time, we believe, it is sufficient to satisfy the objectives of denunciation and general deterrence.

RIB v M Gowan (2022)

Following a defended hearing, the charge of failing to produce the greyhound, BIG TIME CARDY, free of Methamphetamine and Amphetamine from an OOC (Trial), was found proved.

Gowan was obstructive throughout the OOC testing process. When spoken to during the investigation phase at her property, she stated that she stopped using Methamphetamine about 25 years prior. She agreed to provide a urine sample but refused to supply a hair sample, with the urine sample testing positive to THC (Cannabis) but not Methamphetamine.

Forensic samples taken from Gowan’s vehicle she used to transport her greyhounds to and from the races identified traces of Methamphetamine on the dashboard above the steering wheel, on the driver’s sun visor and on the rear seat roof – the rear seat being where BIG TIME CARDY was positioned when transported to the trial.

In reaching its penalty of 18 months disqualification the Adjudicative Committee commented:

16.  From the Adjudicative Committee’s own experience in dealing with, (regrettably frequent) Methamphetamine cases involving greyhounds and thoroughbreds that urine samples can only test positive for Methamphetamine for a shortened period of up to 5 days. Hair tests cannot detect recent Methamphetamine ingestion, until about 7 days after entering the body, but hair samples may detect long-term use for up to 90 days. It is also well known that oral ingestion of Methamphetamine requires absorption by it from the gastrointestinal tract, into the bloodstream and from there into the kidneys and urine, and a period of 12-24 hours must elapse before it can be detected in urine.

17.  The presence of Methamphetamine traces in the front cab of Ms Gowan’s vehicle reinforces the finding that someone, somehow associated with the training operation, had an involvement with Methamphetamine prior to 10 June 2022.

RIB V M Prangley (2022)

Prangley admitted a charge of presenting her greyhound, THRILLING FREDDY, to race positive to Methamphetamine. Prangley accepted this was highly likely a case of cross-contamination as she was a frequent, long-term user of the drug. She stated that she never smoked Methamphetamine at the kennel block and that she wore rubber gloves whilst handling the dogs in an attempt to avoid cross contamination. Urine and hair follicle samples provided by Prangley both returned positive to the drug. Forensic swabs taken from the cab area of the vehicle used to transport THRILLING FREDDY to the races on the race day in question were negative.

Prangley was disqualified for 2 years and 7 months. In considering this case the Adjudicative Committee noted:

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.

RIB v E Toomer (2022)

Toomer admitted a charge of failing to present his greyhound, THRILLING STELLA, to race free of Methamphetamine. Toomer admitted to being a regular user of the drug and a urine and hair sample obtained from him confirmed the presence of Methamphetamine. Toomer was aware of the contamination risks associated with drug use because less than two years prior, a Methamphetamine positive arose from another greyhound trained on the property by his father, resulting in his father being disqualified. On that occasion the investigation concluded that a sibling living at the property was a Methamphetamine user. Toomer was disqualified for 3 years.

RIU V Turnwald (2021)

Turnwald admitted a charge of failing to present her greyhound, ZIPPING SARAH, to race free of Methamphetamine. Turnwald provided a statement that the greyhound had been contaminated by an owner who had consumed Methamphetamine prior to interacting with the dog at the podium post-race. While an RIU expert witness dispelled this explanation and no obvious source of the Methamphetamine was identified, of concern was that ZIPPING SARAH had been exposed to a third party for a few hours at an associate’s property, having been transported from the north island, before continuing to Addington.

The initial penalty of four months disqualification was increased to 18 months on appeal. The Appeals Tribunal commented that it is incumbent on owners and trainers to protect their animals from exposure to Methamphetamine.

4.  Mitigating Factors

4.1  Mr Anderson has admitted the charge at the earliest opportunity, and has been fully cooperative throughout the investigation and prosecution process.

4.2  GRNZ statistics for the last completed racing year of 2024/2025 detail that Mr Anderson trained greyhounds for 230 starts. His greyhounds have been swabbed 22 times in 2025 and 18 times in 2024. He has no prior breaches of the Prohibited Substance Rule (or any other NRI breach) since commencing training in 2017.

4.3  Due to this case being an OOC test, there is no adverse outcome to race results or wagering to be considered.

4.4  The estimated drug levels in HILTON HUSTLER were 0.7 nanograms per millilitre (ng/mL) of Methamphetamine and 3ng/mL of Amphetamine.

For comparison, the international standard for positive drug test cut-off concentration applied in human drug testing is 300ng/mL (150ng/mL methamphetamine & 150ng/mL amphetamine). The respective cut-off applied for human urine drug testing are set to differentiate between passive/incidental and active use of the drug.

Comparative other cases have been Rae & Williams 7.9; McInerney 7.6; Gowan 2.6; and Turnwald 1,630.

5.  Aggravating Factors

5.1  Methamphetamine is a “Class A” controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. It is well documented in the greyhound decisions referred to in these submissions, that exposure to Methamphetamine poses a significant animal welfare issue to the greyhound involved.

6.  Costs

6.1  No costs are sought.

7.  Conclusion:

7.1  No evidence was identified during the RIB investigation that indicated Mr Anderson or his wife, being the only residents of the property and having no employees, use Methamphetamine.

7.2  The RIB submits that there should be no penalty in this case.

REASONS FOR PENALTY:

The Adjudicative Committee has given consideration to the agreed Summary of Facts, Mr Irving’s Penalty Submissions and to Mr Anderson’s explanation set out in the Summary of Facts [para 17]. Mr Anderson did not wish to add anything to that brief explanation.

The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that neither Mr nor Mrs Anderson was in any way responsible for the Prohibited Substances that were found in the out of competition urine sample that was taken from their Greyhound, HILTON HUSTLER, at their property on 23 September last. The Adjudicative Committee finds that there was no negligence on the part of Mr Anderson.

The Adjudicative Committee notes the very low readings that were found for Methamphetamine (0.7ng/mL) and Amphetamine (3ng/mL) upon analysis of the sample. It notes also that Mr Anderson has admitted the breach, and has cooperated fully during the investigation of the charge. In addition, he has an unblemished record since taking out a Licence in 2017.

Finally, the Adjudicative Committee has had regard to the fact that this was case of out-of-competition testing and, therefore, had no impact on stakes or dividends/betting.

Presenting a Greyhound with a Prohibited Substance in its system is an offence of strict liability – that is to say, an offence is committed even when, as in the present case, no negligence is found. However, where no negligence is found, that finding can lead to a reduced penalty or a very small, or no, fine.

Mr Irving’s submission was that no penalty be imposed and the Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that, in this case, the appropriate course of action is to impose no penalty.

Finally, no order for costs is sought and there will be no order as to costs.