Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Penalty Decision dated 16 June 2025 – Wayne Hillis

Introduction

[1] This is the Penalty Decision arising from a charge lodged against Licensed Class A (Thoroughbred) Trainer Mr Wayne Hillis (the “Respondent”) by Racing Integrity Board (RIB) Investigator, Mr R Carr (the “Applicant”).

[2] The penalty hearing was held at the Te Rapa Racecourse on 14 June 2025. Mr Carr represented the RIB, while Mr Hillis attended in person.

Decision

[3] After considering submissions, the Adjudicative Committee suspended the Respondent’s Class A Trainer’s License for eight weeks. However, the final two weeks of the suspension may be set aside if the preconditions outlined in paragraphs 66 and 67 are met by the Respondent.

Information No. A17988 refers – Particulars of the charge are:

THAT On 12 May 2025, at the Matamata 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 urine which upon analysis was found to contain the controlled drug – Cannabis/THC, being a Class C Controlled Drug as defined in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and that you are liable to the penalty imposed pursuant to Rule 803 of the rules.

The Rule

[4] NZ Thoroughbred Rules (NZTR) of Racing (“the Rules”) relevant to this hearing are Rules 656(3) which establishes the elements of the offence, Rule 803(3) which sets out the Penalty Provisions and Rule 812, which empowers the Adjudicative Committee to consider counselling and rehabilitation.

Rule 656(3) provides that:

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 and/or its metabolites, artefacts or isomers.

The Penalty Provisions

[5] Relevant Penalty Provisions include:

Rule 803(3) 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 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,

Rule 1106(1) – Suspensions

(1)(a) Unless otherwise ordered, during the period that they are suspended, a Trainer or Pre-Trainer must not:

(i) nominate a horse for a Race, Trial or jump-out;

(ii) train, or participate in any way in the training or preparation for racing, of a horse (including, without limitation, the giving of instructions);

(iii) be licensed as an Assistant Trainer, Stablehand, Stable Assistant, Trackwork Rider Fast or Trackwork Rider Slow;

(iv) be employed by, or otherwise engaged to provide any service in any capacity to, any Thoroughbred racing stable;

(v) enter the tie-up area, parade ring, birdcage, jockey weighing area or jockey’s rooms save that where the Trainer or Pre-Trainer so suspended was the holder at the time of his suspension of both a Trainer’s Licence and a Rider’s Licence and the suspension relates to the Trainer’s Licence only, then such person may, with the permission of the Stipendiary Stewards, enter these areas for the purposes only of carrying out their work as a Rider.

(vi) For the avoidance of doubt, a Trainer or Pre-Trainer whose Licence has been suspended, must continue to provide the basic needs of all horses under their care.

Rule 812 provides:

[6] In addition to any penalty that may be imposed, the Adjudicative Committee at their discretion, may impose the provisions of Rule 812, which provides that the Adjudicative Committee may:

(a) in addition to or in substitution of any penalty imposed under Rules 801, 803 and/or 804, require the person committing the breach to complete a counselling or rehabilitation course of the type specified by the Adjudicative Committee; and/or

(b) stay, in whole or in part, and for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it thinks fit, the operation of any penalty imposed for a breach of the Rules, provided that, in the event of any failure to comply with any of the terms and conditions of the stay, the Adjudicative Committee may order that the penalty or the remaining part of the penalty take effect.

General Information

[7] Pursuant to Rule 903(2)(d), the RIB Chief Executive, Dr E Forbes authorised the filing of the charge (Information No. A17988), alleging that the Respondent was in breach of Rule 656(3) on the said date.

The Plea

[8] The Respondent has admitted the charge. On that basis, it is deemed to be proved.

Summary of Facts

The key salient points are as follows:

[9] The Respondent Mr Hillis is the holder of a Class A Trainer’s Licence issued by New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing [NZTR]. He has held his Class A Trainer’s Licence since October 2009, having previously held both a Permit to Train and Licensed Trainer’s Licence since February 1991.

[10] The Respondent currently has a total of eleven horses registered as being in training with NZTR.

Circumstances of the Offence

[11] On Monday 12 May 2025, Investigators from the RIB conducted routine drug screening at the Matamata Racecourse and surrounding thoroughbred training establishments.

[12] The Respondent was observed undertaking a safety sensitive activity at the Matamata Racecourse. He was one of ten people selected for testing who were performing a safety sensitive activity that day.

[13] He was served with a Drug Testing Notification Form requesting he present at The Drug Detection Agency (TDDA) van for testing, which was onsite. He acknowledged that he understood and accepted the notice.

[14] He subsequently presented himself at the van and provided a urine sample.

[15] The TDDA Testing Official, in association with the Respondent, completed the appropriate documentation with the Respondent, who consented to undertake drug screening.

[16] The sample was packaged and sent to Environmental Science and Research Limited (ESR) for analysis. On Monday 19 May 2025, the ESR provided the RIB with a Certificate of Analysis, which confirmed that the urine sample provided by the Respondent was positive to Cannabis at a THC Acid Level of 200 ng/ml.

[17] Cannabis is a Class C Controlled Drug, as defined in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

[18] On Monday 19 May 2025, the Respondent was contacted by the RIB and advised of the positive result and that he would be issued a Stand Down Notice as a result. The Respondent elected to have both Stand Down Notice and the ESR Certificate sent to his email address.

[19] When spoken to, the Respondent admitted to smoking Cannabis on the night prior to the testing. He said, to assist him with pain relief for an historic injury. He further stated, “that he smokes Cannabis approximately 3 to 4 times a week, to relieve him of pain as a result of historic injuries caused by previous falls from horses.”

[20] New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR) advise that the Respondent has a historic (June 2002) prior serious racing offence on file. This offence involved a dishonest act, where he provided a foreign liquid sample to the authorised testing official, attempting to pass it off as his own urine during drug testing. He was subsequently charged and received a penalty by way of a $2,000 fine and 12-month disqualification.

Submissions as to Penalty – Applicant

By way of Written Penalty Submissions on behalf of the RIB, Mr Carr submitted that:

[21] The Respondent is the holder of a Class A Trainer’s Licence issued by New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR).

[22] The Respondent has admitted a breach of the Rules following his positive test result to the Class C Drug Cannabis (THC). Offence details are contained in the agreed Summary of Facts commencing at paragraph 9.

[23] NZTR commenced drug testing Industry participants in 1995 and since then, there has been growing awareness that there is an absolute obligation on Riders to present themselves free from the influence of drugs.

[24] All Riders should be aware of the policy and the consequences, should they not comply. The testing is conducted to maintain a safe and healthy workplace and to maintain the integrity of the industry.

[25] NZTR confirm that, following the Stand Down Notice issued on 19 May 2025, Mr Hillis may care for his eleven horses to the extent necessary for their welfare (e.g., walking, trotting, or slow cantering), but not for race preparation.

[26] Following the issuance of the Stand Down Notice under NZTR Rules, the Respondent transferred several horses to another Licensed Trainer for the purpose of preparing them for racing.

Sentencing Principles

[27] The four principles of sentencing can be summarised briefly:

• Penalties are designed to punish the offender for 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 RIB for the type of behaviour in question.
• The need to rehabilitate the offender should be taken into account.

[28] The RIB submits that all four principles apply in this matter.

Precedent Cases

[29] Historical penalties for breaches of the Industry Drug Rules show some divergence dependent on the type of drug, the amount of the drug in the system. The RIB referred to the following recent like cases relating to Thoroughbred participants.

RIB v D Howard (07/2024) – Class B Trainer – Level >32 ng/mL; seven-week suspension (secondary THC offence) and costs of $187.50 for sample analysis.

RIB v R Cole (01/2024) – Class B Trainer – Level >150 ng/mL; eight-week suspension, two weeks of which is suspended subject to provision of providing a clear negative drug test.

RIB v S Tata (10/2024) – Trackwork Rider – Level >250ng/mL; seven-week suspension (secondary THC offence) and costs of $187.50 for sample analysis.

RIB v K Burgess (11/2023) – Trackwork Rider – Level >500 ng/mL; eight-week suspension (secondary THC offence) and costs of $187.50 for sample analysis.

RIB v R Wiles (09/2023) – Trackwork Rider – Level >500 ng/mL; six-week suspension (five weeks on provision of negative drug test) and costs of $187.50 for sample analysis.

RIB v E Wenn (01/2023) – Licensed Stablehand – Level >500 ng/mL; six-week suspension and costs of $187.50 for sample analysis.

[30] Several recent Harness Driver cases were also submitted for comparison. These cases resulted in broadly similar penalties, albeit there are penalty differentials between Thoroughbred and Harness Codes.

Aggravating Factors

[31] The RIB identified the following factors that it submits are aggravating features of the Respondent’s offending:

[32] The Respondent acknowledged that Cannabis is a Class C Controlled Drug and that its use is prohibited under the Rules.

[33] He admitted to smoking Cannabis three to four times a week, including on the night prior to the test, to manage pain from historic riding injuries.

[34] He has a prior serious racing offence from June 2002, where he provided a foreign liquid sample to deceive a drug test, resulting in a $2,000 fine and 12-month disqualification. This history of dishonesty in relation to drug testing is regarded by the RIB to be a significant aggravating factor.

[35] The Respondent was offered a referral by the RIB to a Vitae Alcohol and Drug Clinician provided by the NZ Racing Industry for an assessment and assistance; to date, this assistance has not been acknowledged by the Respondent.

Mitigating Factors

[36] The RIB identified the following factors that it submits are mitigating features of the Respondent’s offending:

[37] The Respondent entered an early guilty plea and accepted responsibility for the positive test result.

[38] He has been compliant, cooperative, and respectful with all RIB staff throughout the process.

[39] Post the breach, the Respondent had advised that he was going to undertake enquiries via his medical practitioner, as to a prescription for Medicinal Cannabis to mitigate alleged on-going pain.

Note:

[40] With regards to the Respondent seeking a medicinal cannabis prescription for pain relief, the RIB submits that any prescription would need to be carefully evaluated by his doctor, balancing the pain relief benefits against potential side effects, such as dizziness and cognitive impairment, given the safety-sensitive nature of his trackwork riding duties. During the hearing, the Respondent produced a prescription for a medicinal cannabis production – but he said that he has not yet used that product, knowing that he may be required to produce a clear test result prior to having his Trainers Licence reinstated.

Penalty Recommendation

[41] Due to the aggravating factor of Mr Hillis’ history of dishonesty in drug testing, specifically his prior attempt to deceive a drug test by providing a foreign liquid sample, the RIB seeks an eight-week suspension of his Class A Trainer’s Licence, backdated to 19 May 2025.

[42] Additionally, the RIB requests costs of $187.50 for the ESR analysis. This penalty reflects the seriousness of his prior offence, balanced by his early guilty plea and cooperation.

Submissions as to Penalty – Respondent

[43] The Respondent submitted detailed submissions concerning his lengthy career as a Jumps Rider and Trainer. He also outlined the circumstances of the breach and his current personal circumstances. In particular, he described the physical toll that the many riding injuries from 120 race falls and subsequent pain he now suffers from.

The salient points covered in his submission are as follows:

[44] The Respondent submitted that he understands the Rules and that he does not condone drug taking, but he felt that his situation “is completely different to previous people charged”.

[45] The Respondent has devoted his entire working life to the racing profession, commencing at an early age and riding in a substantial number of races and daily trackwork throughout his career.

[46] He outlined the many physical injuries that he has sustained from race falls as a Jumps Rider, resulting in chronic pain. In addition, he said that as a child, he developed a lifelong condition (Perthes Disease) that affected his hip joint, which is also a cause of ongoing pain. He said that despite avoiding prescribed painkillers, he resorted to medical cannabis for relief, considering it a therapeutic option. He submitted that upon being offered cannabis, he found it beneficial in that it assisted him to sleep and proved some pain relief, but faced repercussions following a positive test. He said that he has abstained from cannabis use since the positive test, which has adversely affected his sleep and overall well-being.

[47] The Respondent submitted that since testing positive, he has been able to legally obtain a medical prescription, but has not used it yet, because he may have to provide a clear sample (test) as a condition of having his Trainer License reinstated. In the meantime, he continues to have trouble sleeping, due to the pain.

[48] The Respondent said that due to having only a small team of horses, it is impossible for him to get suitable staff. He said, other than having one person that assists for three hours in the morning from 5am until 8am, he was a lone operator, and he worked 7 days per week year-round and conducted all essential tasks around the stable, including riding trackwork and jump outs. He further outlined, as a sole operator, the challenges he faced getting sufficient rest and sleep. He considered that being a Trainer and a Trackwork Rider, he was being disproportionately penalised, compared to those testing positive, who were Trackwork Riders only.

[49] It is for the reasons as outlined by the Respondent, that he believes his situation is unique compared to younger Riders. He submitted that the immediate stand down from riding and training, has inflicted significant personal and financial strain, leading to public embarrassment and stress for him and his family. In the interim, he put measures in place for the care of his horses, including turning four of their horses out to spell and transferring their training responsibilities to another Trainer. This, he said, has caused questions and rumours to arise, before being able to defend the charge. In addition, he said it has caused considerable stress and anxiety.

[50] The Respondent explained that “had I been tested in January, February, March or April the result would have been negative, but unfortunately for me, 2 weeks prior to testing I slipped and fell on my replacement hip, causing pain, for which I had been having a few puffs at night to be able to sleep, but were in no way impaired by the morning”. He added that “in my statement to Mr Carr I stated that I had smoked 3 or 4 times a week, but this was only in the 2 weeks prior to testing”.

[51] In concluding his submission, the Respondent appealed for leniency due to the fact, he contends, that the hardships he has already endured serve as a sufficient penalty for his offending, emphasising his lifelong dedication to thoroughbred racing. With regards to penalty, he submitted that 4 weeks suspension would be appropriate.

Decision

[52] The Adjudicative Committee has determined that an appropriate penalty is an 8-week suspension, of which 2 weeks is stayed, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 812(b). The stayed two weeks is effective and conditional, upon the Respondent providing a clear drug test at his own expense. Therefore, the Respondent’s Trainers Licence is suspended for a period of 6 weeks, if the precondition is met. Otherwise, his suspension will encompass the full 8-week period.

Reasons for Decision

[53] The Respondent has admitted a charge, that whilst undertaking a safety sensitive activity, he provided a urine sample which upon analysis, was found to contain the controlled drug – Cannabis/THC, being a Class C Controlled Drug as defined in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

[54] Safety Sensitive Activity, as per NZTR Policy, means:

…an activity associated with Races or racing which is of the type that is specified by NZTR in a published policy to be a safety sensitive activity. A Safety Sensitive position is a job or position where a person holding this position has the responsibility for his/her own safety and/or other people’s safety and/or the welfare and safety of all horses affected by their actions. Safety Sensitive Positions include but are not limited to; Trainers preparing and/or handling horses; Licence Holders preparing and/or handling horses; and any other persons who are in direct control of a horse.

[55] The Policy emphasises that it is particularly dangerous for a Trainer, License Holder, or any other person to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol while on duty or attending to racehorses. Individuals in such positions must maintain a clear mind and act diligently. Consequently, regular random drug testing is a crucial investigative tool available for the RIB to monitor and manage the actual or potential use of Prohibited Substances by participants engaged in safety-sensitive activities. A Trainer who is responsible for a wide range of duties, many of which are deemed safety sensitive activities, must maintain a high standard of care.

[56] The NZTR Penalty Guide does not provide a starting point for a breach of this nature and on that basis, breaches of this Rule are determined on a fact dependent basis. As was highlighted by the RIB in their submissions, there has historically been a divergence of penalties imposed, and guidance can be taken from precedent cases, albeit a limited number of Trainers have been prosecuted under the Rule.

[57] In consideration of penalty, the Adjudicative Committee had due regard for the need to impose a penalty that denounces drug use by Industry participants, particularly when they are engaged in safety sensitive activities. Furthermore, any penalty imposed, must also operate as a deterrent to others, who may contemplate breaching the Thoroughbred Code’s Drug Use Rules. Therefore, with these considerations in mind, the Adjudicative Committee evaluated the circumstances of the offence, as outlined in the agreed Summary of Facts, as well as the factors raised by the RIB and Respondent in their respective penalty submissions and determined the Respondent’s offending to be in the mid-range.

[58] The mitigating and aggravating factors outlined by the Applicant, were carefully considered. It was said that the Respondent’s admission, his cooperation with the investigation, and respectful attitude with all RIB staff, should be taken into account and treated as mitigating factors.

[59] In 2002, the Respondent admitted a breach for a drug related charge; for that offence he received a fine and served a period of disqualification. The RIB submits that this is a significant aggravating factor. On this point, the Respondent raised a recent case of a Trainer (RIB v Walker), where the Adjudicative Committee placed little weight of a breach that had occurred over 20 years ago. The Adjudicative Committee takes the view, that although this charge falls outside the criminal court jurisdiction with regards to how some previous breaches are treated by enforcement agencies, it can take some guidance from the Clean Slate Act 2004, which enables some offenders, who breach certain offence categories, to have their previous offending withheld or ‘clean slated’.  Therefore, given the passage of time (23 years) and having since had an unblemished record, the Adjudicative Committee takes the view that the Respondent’s previous breach should, at best, be treated as a neutral factor. Otherwise, a clear record may well have been treated as a mitigating factor. But to be clear, the Adjudicative Committee does not treat this as an aggravating factor.

[60] As per paragraph 19 of the Agreed Summary of Facts, when he was initially spoken to by RIB Investigator Mr Carr, the Respondent admitted to smoking Cannabis on the night prior to the testing, and further stated, “that he smokes Cannabis approximately 3 to 4 times a week, to relieve him of pain as a result of historic injuries caused by previous falls from horses.” This is at odds with what the Respondent submitted. He said that “had I been tested in January, February, March or April the result would have been negative, but unfortunately for me, 2 weeks prior to testing I slipped and fell on my replacement hip, causing pain, for which I had been having a few puffs at night to be able to sleep, but were in no way impaired by the morning”. He added that “in my statement to Mr Carr I stated that I had smoked 3 or 4 times a week, but this was only in the 2 weeks prior to testing”. When questioned about this discrepancy during the hearing, the Respondent explained that there was a misunderstanding between he and Mr Carr, in terms of what he was asked and his subsequent reply.

[61] The RIB’s penalty submissions mention at paragraph 35, that the Respondent has not taken up the offer of the referral by the RIB, to a Vitae Alcohol and Drug Clinician provided by the NZ Racing Industry for an assessment and assistance. When queried about this at the hearing, the Respondent stated that he had not taken up the offer, as he does not believe that he has a drug problem.

[62] The Respondent highlighted the pain he suffers caused by race falls. He maintains he does not wish to take traditional or mainstream pain relief, leading to his use of cannabis. While the Adjudicative Committee understands the desire to seek pain relief, it is important to note that, as the Rules stand, Cannabis/THC are prohibited. The Respondent has now opted for medicinal cannabis to enhance sleep and reduce pain.

[63] The Adjudicative Committee suggested to the Respondent he seek professional help, despite his belief that he does not have a problem with the use of Cannabis. Also, he will need to take advice on whether he is permitted to obtain an exemption as a Licensed Trainer, to use medicinal Cannabis. In that regard, the Adjudicative Committee suggested he contact ONTRACK support to identify which agencies, including NZTR, are best placed to assist him to navigate his way through the approval process(es).

Precedent Cases

[64] The RIB submitted precedent cases, where it was said that the offending was broadly of a similar nature to this breach. Penalties in those cases, ranged between 5 and 8 weeks (suspension). The precedent penalties in the main, relate to Trackwork Riders, and two Licensed Trainers (R Cole), who received an eight-week suspension, two weeks of which were suspended subject to provision of providing a clear negative drug test, and (D Howard), who received a seven-week suspension (secondary THC offence). The Adjudicative Committee also identified the case of a third Trainer (A Hewitson 04/24), who received a six-week suspension. Harness Driver cases were also submitted, but are of limited value, given the relative differences in each Code’s Penalty Guides for like offending.

Conclusion

[65] The Respondent was stood down on 19 May 2025. Therefore, he has not been able to undertake the full range of duties required of him as a Licensed Class A Trainer. He said that his time spent on stand down (4 weeks) is a sufficient penalty. Time spent on stand down is not a penalty, but the time can be taken into account.

Penalty

[66] The Respondent’s Class A Trainers Licence is suspended for 8 weeks, of which 2 weeks is stayed, conditional upon the Respondent providing a negative drug test at his expense.

[67] The commencement of period of suspension is backdated to 19 May 2025 (this being the date when he was stood down) and with 2 weeks stayed, will conclude on 30 June 2025 if the Respondent provides a clear drug test result. If not, the suspension will conclude on 14 July 2025 (Rule 812 refers).

Costs

[68] Costs of $187.50, being the cost of the sample analysis conducted by the ESR, are awarded in favour of the Applicant.

[69] This charge was heard on a race day as a Penalty Hearing. On that basis, no costs are sought or awarded in favour of either the RIB or the Adjudicative Committee.