Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Reserved Decision dated 19 March 2025 – Ms X

INTRODUCTION:

(1) This is a Written Reserved Decision arising as a result of issue of Information No. A16879, which outlined an alleged breach of Rule 656(3).

Particulars of the resultant charge are:

On the 17th February 2025 at Awapuni 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 – Cocaine, being a Class A Controlled Drug defined in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and that you are liable to penalty imposed pursuant to Rule 803(3) of the Rules.

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

A Rider, or any other Licenceholder 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, artifacts or isomers.

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

Subject to Rule 803(2)(b), where any Licenceholder 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 Licenceholder 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)  a fine not exceeding $50,000.

(4) The Adjudicative Committee was provided with an Authority to Charge dated 24 February 2025 issued pursuant to Rule 903(2)(d). In addition, provided was associated pertinent documentation including the Information (unsigned), Summary of Facts, ESR test results etc.

(5) A telephone conference was convened on 7 March 2025. The Respondent acknowledged receipt of all necessary documentation and confirmed admission of the breach. A Minute was issued by the Adjudicative Committee, seeking submissions as to penalty by 13 March 2025 . A written submission was received from the Informant. A  penalty hearing was scheduled for, and held on, 15 March 2025 at Wanganui Racecourse.

(6) During the hearing, the Respondent requested that personal information be redacted from published reports.  Documentation was supplied to the Adjudicative Committee in support of this. After consideration, the Adjudicative Committee determined that it was appropriate to grant such request.

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Salient details are as follows:

(7) The Respondent at the time of the incident was a Licenced Trackwork Rider.

(8) On Monday 17 February 2025, Investigators from the RIB conducted routine drug screening during trackwork at Awapuni Racecourse.

(9) At 6.36am, the Respondent was served with a Drug Testing Notification requesting that she present at the TDDA van for testing onsite between 7am and 10am. The Respondent acknowledged that she understood and accepted the notice.

(10) At approximately 9.25am, the Respondent presented herself to TDDA and a sample was provided, which was non negative to Cocaine.

(11) When initially questioned, the Respondent confirmed that she had consumed Cocaine on the previous Saturday night and had not expected the drug to remain in her system for so long. She consented to the sample to be forwarded to ESR for analysis.

(12) On Wednesday 19 February 2025, ESR provided a Certificate of Analysis confirming that the sample in question was ‘not negative’ to Cocaine, being positive to Benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of Cocaine.

(13) On Thursday 20 February 2025, the Respondent was advised of the ESR result and was served with a ‘stand down notice’.

DECISION:

(14) As the charge has been admitted, it has been proved.

SUBMISSION AS TO PENALTY – INFORMANT:

(15) A written Penalty Submission was provided by Ms Murrow on behalf of the Racing Integrity Board.

(16) The RIB submitted that the penalty in this case reflect a starting point of 9 months disqualification, with adjustments made to recognise the therein outlined aggravating/mitigating factors.

(17) In support of the aforementioned, the submission referred to precedent as follows:

RIB v Cameron (August 2024) – 9 months disqualification (Cocaine)

RIB v Simon (January 2025) – 9 months disqualification with 3 months suspended (Methamphetamine)

RIB v Moki (February 2023) – 12 months disqualification (Methamphetamine)

RIB v McDonald & Scott (October 2022) – disqualified 11 months 2 weeks and 9 months 2 weeks (Methamphetamine and Cannabis)

RIB v Smith (August 2022) – disqualified 12 months with 3 months suspended (Methamphetamine)

(18) The submission outlined mitigating factors acknowledging the Respondent’s full cooperation, remorse and early admission. The Respondent has accepted referral by the RIB to the Vitae Alcohol & Drug Clinician.

SUBMISSION AS TO PENALTY – RESPONDENT:

(19) A written Penalty Submission was not received by the Respondent.

HEARING:

Pertinent detail from the hearing is as follows:

(20) As the Respondent did not provide a written penalty submission, she took the hearing as an opportunity to outline those factors she considered the Adjudicative Committee should take into consideration in setting penalty. She was assisted in the hearing by her employer.

(21) From the outset, the Respondent expressed remorse and accepted culpability for her predicament.  She did not offer excuse and acknowledged an error in judgement.

(22) Discussion did include personal circumstances. The Respondent has been involved with the Racing Industry since leaving school. Her employer did ask that the Adjudicative Committee considers a penalty that would enable her to continue employment in some capacity within the stable.

PENALTY DETERMINATION:

(23) In determining penalty, the Adjudicative Committee is required to suitably deliberate upon the agreed Summary of Facts, respective submissions along with precedent.

(24) Penalty imposed must reflect the serious nature of this 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.

(25) In referencing precedent, it is accepted that in each case, penalty was set dependent upon individual circumstance including aggravating/mitigating factors.  Cameron remains of assistance, given it relates to Cocaine. The Adjudicative Committee does note that in that particular circumstance, the Respondent did not readily accept culpability, initially suggesting that the drug was ingested by mistake. Although not directly rejected by the Adjudicative Committee, this claim was not supported by evidence. The Respondent in this circumstance, has readily accepted her predicament. In Cameron, a starting point of 12 months disqualification was adopted.

(26) While other precedents primarily related to Methamphetamine use, the Adjudicative Committee views the distinction between Cocaine and Methamphetamine as irrelevant in this context.

(27) The Simon Decision (Appeal) provides assistance, resulting in a 9 month disqualification, with 3 months suspended. Although a starting point for penalty was not noted, it is noteworthy that Mr Simon’s case involved aggravating factors including failure to take accountability, denial of the offence, along with suggestion of sample contamination. None of these factors are prevalent with this charge.

(28) There is an assertion by the Respondent that this was her first and only use of Cocaine. Whilst it can be difficult to fully accept this without proof, the lack of prior conviction (despite having been tested) and ready admission, does add credibility to this claim.

(29) The Respondent has requested that consideration be given to a Penalty which would allow her to continue deriving income from the Industry. Breaches of this nature are considered extremely serious within the Racing Industry, and as such, offences have consistently resulted in disqualification. The gravity of these breaches demand penalties that uphold the integrity of Racing. Although the Adjudicative Committee retains authority to consider various options, the established precedent and the need to maintain safety standard and public confidence in the Racing Industry, indicates that disqualification is the appropriate course of action. Consequently, whilst acknowledging the Respondent’s request, the Adjudicative Committee finds it necessary to adhere to the practice of imposing a period of disqualification, during which continued Industry participation would not be possible.

PENALTY AND COSTS:

(30) Upon careful consideration of circumstances surrounding the Respondent’s breach, the Adjudicative Committee has determined the following:

The Respondent is disqualified for a period of  8 months, effective from the date of Decision, being 16th March 2025. Same is based upon a starting point of 9 months, with reduction of 1 month to reflect remorse and record.

Furthermore, the final 2 months of disqualification is to be suspended, contingent upon the following:

• The Respondent must accept referral to the Vitae Alcohol & Drug Clinician and commit to any program recommended as a result of the assessment. The RIB is to monitor and confirm progress.
• The Respondent must provide a clear drug test. The RIB has the discretion to require this test on any day during the 4 week period ending 16 September 2025. The Respondent will be given 24 hours notice, should the RIB choose to exercise this option.

The Respondent is ordered to pay $187.50, this being the cost incurred in obtaining ESR analysis. Given this matter was primarily dealt with on raceday, no further order as to costs is imposed.