Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Reserved Decision dated 23 February 2023 – Lisa Waretini

THE CHARGE:

Information A16856 alleges that the Respondent, Licensed Public Trainer, Lisa Waretini, as the person in charge of the Greyhound, OPAWA PIP, who ran in Race 8, at the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club meeting at Addington Raceway, she failed to present the Greyhound free of the Category 2 Prohibited Substances, Methamphetamine and Amphetamine, being an offence under the provisions of Rule 61.1 and punishable pursuant to Rules 63.1 and 61.4 of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association.

THE RULE:

61.1 The Owner, Trainer or Person in charge of a Greyhound Nominated to compete in a Race, shall produce the Greyhound for the Race free of any Prohibited Substance.

THE PLEA:

The charge and the Rule were read to the Respondent, who confirmed that the she understood the Rule and the nature of the charge.

The charge is admitted by the Respondent and is therefore deemed proved.

THE FACTS:

Mr Parry (Counsel for the Informant) presented the following Summary of Facts on behalf of the Informant:

1. The Respondent in this matter, Lisa Waretini, is the holder of a Public Trainer’s licence issued by New Zealand Greyhound Racing (GRNZ).

2. She trains from her home address in Christchurch. This address is shared with her daughter Alysha Waretini, who holds a kennel hand licence.

3. Lisa Waretini trains the dog OPAWA PIP. Her daughter, Alysha Waretini, handles the dog and is responsible for him at the races.

4. On the 21st of April 2022, Alysha Waretini attended the GRNZ race meeting at Addington Raceway in Christchurch. She drove to Addington Raceway from her home address in Kaiapoi in her van, registration number MMS896.

5. OPAWA PIP competed in race 8, which he won. He earned $1470, which has not been paid out.

6. Following the race, OPAWA PIP was selected to be swabbed. A urine sample was obtained at 3.20 pm by an RIB Swabbing Official in the presence of Alysha Waretini. The samples were recorded with the Reference Identification Number: 167591.

7. On the 11th of May 2022, the New Zealand Racing Laboratory reported that the urine sample Reference Identification Number 167591 was positive to Methamphetamine and Amphetamine.

8. Methamphetamine and Amphetamine are Category 2 Prohibited Substances as per the 5th Schedule of the GRNZ Rules.

9. On the 17th of May 2022, RIB Investigators visited the training premises of Lisa Waretini and both her and her daughter were interviewed. Alysha advised she had sole responsibility for the greyhound OPAWA PIP on the 21st of April 2022. Lisa explained she was responsible for the day-to-day care of the dog, including feeding.

10. Alysha advised she used to take Methamphetamine but had not done so for 2½ years. She admitted she still spent time in the company of those who used Methamphetamine but had not been in the same area as them when they took it, nor had they ever travelled in her vehicles.

11. Forensic samples were taken from the two vehicles located at the address that are used to transport greyhounds to and from the races. Both vehicles returned positive results for traces of Methamphetamine. The van contained traces of Methamphetamine above the driver and front passenger seats and on the centre of the steering wheel.

12. Both Lisa and Alysha were also tested that day and returned negative results for drugs in urine and hair analysis.

13. Alysha has also been charged under 61.3 of the GRNZ rules as the person responsible for OPAWA PIP on the 21st April 2022, failing to present the dog free of a prohibited substance.

14. Lisa has had no previous charges before the JCA or an Adjudicative Committee.

15. OPAWA PIP is required to be disqualified from the race per Rule 61.4.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS OF THE INFORMANT:

16. The Respondent, Lisa Waretini, has admitted one charge, alleging a breach of rule 61.1 of the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association Incorporated including the Rules of Racing (Rules) by, as the Trainer of the Greyhound OPAWA PIP, failing to produce OPAWA PIP for a race free of any Prohibited Substance.

17. The Respondent is a Licensed Public Trainer under the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Association. She is 54 years old and has been involved in the industry for over 20 years as a Public Trainer. At the time of the offending, she trained approximately 20 racing Greyhounds.

Penalty provisions

18. The relevant purposes and considerations are helpfully stated in the Appeals Tribunal decision in RIU v L (13th May 2019):

Proceedings under the Rules of Harness Racing, as is the position in all cases involving professional disciplines, are designed not simply to punish the transgressor, but crucially are to protect the profession/public/industry/ and those who are to deal with the profession….
….A common thread in cases involving serious misconduct is for the regulatory tribunal generally to focus on the interests and reputation of the profession as being more important than the fortunes of the individual offending member….The tribunal must endeavour to reach a proportionate balance between:
• the public interest
• the interests of the offending member
• the interests of the professional body as a while
• the seriousness of the offending
• any aggravating and mitigating factors.

19. The principles of sentencing relevant to this charge can be summarised briefly:

-Penalties are designed to punish the offender for his/her wrongdoing. They are not 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.

Public Interest

20. The importance of animal welfare must be considered in this case. This was emphasised by the Judicial committee in RIU v Alford (10 May 2021):

If animal welfare standards are not upheld in the industry and when necessary, with condign sanctions by the Judicial Control Authority, the industry cannot maintain a social licence in order to continue to operate.

Methamphetamine is a potent central nervous system stimulant which poses significant animal health and welfare issues, it is an illegal Class A drug.

Interests of the Professional Body

21. Offending of this nature carries with it the significant risk of adversely affecting the interests of the professional racing body. The dangers of methamphetamine were highlighted in RIU V Donoghue (2019). The Judicial Committee noted that the issues associated with the use of Methamphetamine are well documented and it is said to be at the heart of many health, social and economic problems within communities across New Zealand. The Committee went on to observe that, even if a race winner returned a positive swab where no blame could be apportioned, it could still have immeasurable consequences for public trust and confidence in the industry.

22. In RIU v Turnwald (9 July 2021), it was noted any penalty imposed must act to denounce this type of offending. The nature of the drug involved, namely Methamphetamine, is a particularly aggravating factor and the need for general deterrence requires a more severe penalty.

23. Incidents such as this place the integrity and viability of the industry at risk. In RIU v Toomer (3 November 2020), the Committee emphasised that there is a need to maintain the confidence and integrity of Greyhound racing at every level.

RIB’s Position as to Penalty

24. Rule 63.1 provides:

“Any Person found guilty of an Offence under the Rules shall be liable to:
(a) a fine not exceeding $10,000.00; and/or
(b) suspension; and/or
(c) disqualification; and/or
(d) warning off.”

25. Rule 61.4 provides:

“Any greyhound which competes in a race and is found to be the recipient of a Prohibited Substance shall be disqualified from that Race.”

26. On 1 September 2014, the Board of Greyhound Racing New Zealand gave approval to penalty standards and categorised various Prohibited Substances.

Methamphetamine and Amphetamine are categorised as Category 2 Prohibited Substances. The penalties allow for starting point of 5 years disqualification but do not differentiate between presentation and administration offences. These penalty guidelines have been well publicised within the Greyhound Racing community. They are intended to encourage more responsibility, diligence and compliance with the Rules by trainers and those in charge of Greyhounds at race meetings.

27. The RIB submits the penalty in this case should be a period of disqualification of not less than 18 months.

Comparable Cases

28. The following recent comparable cases might assist the Committee.

RIB v Gowan (October 2022)

Ms Gowan was found guilty of an offence against rule 61 of the New Zealand Rules of Racing, in that as the trainer of the dog, BIG TIME CARDY, she failed to present the dog for a trial free of prohibited substances. A post-trial swab test of BIG TIME CARDY tested positive for Methamphetamine and Amphetamine. Ms Gowan denied being the source of Methamphetamine contamination in the greyhound. After a defended hearing, the Committee found the charge proved. The Committee was not persuaded that the offending was mitigated by the fact that the test was taken out of competition, commenting:

“It is vital for the protection of greyhounds, as well as to promote the integrity and community perception of the code, that high standards are adhered to whether in or out of scheduled competition”.

The Committee adopted a starting point of 16 months disqualification. This was increased by three months for aggravating factors and reduced by one month for Ms Gowan’s unblemished record, resulting in a period of 18 months disqualification.

RIB v Prangley (September 2022)

Ms Prangley admitted an offence against Rule 61 of the New Zealand Rules of Racing, in that as the trainer of the dog THRILLING FREDDY she failed to present  THRILLING FREDDY for a Race free of prohibited substances. On 24 July 2022, THRILLING FREDDY won Race 9 at the Auckland Greyhound Racing Club meeting at Manukau Stadium. A post-race swab tested positive for Methamphetamine and Amphetamine.

In considering this case, the Adjudicative Committee said:

“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.”

Ms Prangley accepted that she was a long-term user of Methamphetamine and that this was a case of cross-contamination. The penalty imposed was disqualification for a period of 2 years and 7 months.

RIB v E Toomer (2022)

Mr Toomer was the licensed trainer of the Greyhound THRILLING STELLA. The dog raced on the 28th of April 2022 at the Waikato Racing Club and subsequently tested positive to Methamphetamine and Amphetamine.

In this case, the Adjudicative Committee noted previous cases in which animals have been inadvertently contaminated by methamphetamine due to the Respondent’s use of the drug, including the two thoroughbred cases of Lockett and Newton. Both these cases resulted in 3-year disqualification periods.

The Committee also noted that the Respondent’s knowledge of his father’s disqualification for the same offending made him aware of the risks associated with use of the drug Methamphetamine. This knowledge placed Mr Toomer’s level of culpability in the high range.

The Committee imposed a period of disqualification of 3 years.

RIU v K Toomer (November 2020)

Mr K Toomer was the licensed trainer of the greyhound MARGAUX which was presented for and raced on 10 September 2020 at the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club at Cambridge. MARGAUX subsequently tested positive to Methamphetamine and Amphetamine.

Mr Toomer acknowledged that the possible source of contamination was his son who had previous involvement with Methamphetamine. Mr Toomer advised that he had tried periodic searches of his bedroom without finding any evidence of Methamphetamine. In respect of this explanation, the Committee said:

“In circumstances where there is an actual or potential risk of contamination of a Class A drug, such as Methamphetamine, by an adult with a past drug history, there is an expectation of a higher level of care. And that care falls on Mr Toomer who as a licensed person must ensure that he takes all reasonable steps to comply with the  rules”.

The Committed adopted a starting point of two years disqualification. This was reduced to a penalty of 14 months disqualification as a result of a number of mitigating factors, including Mr Toomer’s unblemished record and his co-operation with the RIU (including disclosing his son’s history of drug use).

Aggravating factors

29. Methamphetamine is a ‘Class A’ controlled drug and Amphetamine a ‘Class B’ controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

30. Methamphetamine poses a significant animal welfare issue to the Greyhound involved.

31. Ms Waretini, as the trainer, had the ultimate responsibility for ensuring her dog was drug-free and did not have contact with Methamphetamine.

Mitigating factors

32. Ms Waretini has admitted the charge at a relatively early stage. A penalty hearing has however been delayed by her application to the Committee for an order that the Informant be required to undertake testing of the B Sample at its own expense. This application was not granted.

33. Ms Waretini was not the person who transported the dog to the races that day, nor was she responsible for the dog whilst it was at the races. However, as previous Committees have observed, this offence is one of strict liability, requiring a trainer to take all care to ensure that there is no opportunity for a dog to be contaminated with prohibited substances. This is therefore the absence of an aggravating factor (i.e. administration or direct responsibility) rather than a mitigating factor.

Discussion

34. The offending in this case is serious as it involves the contamination of a dog with a class A illicit drug. It not only undermines the integrity of the racing industry but also poses a serious animal welfare and safety issue. Any penalty must not only demonstrate a denunciation of this type of offending but also function as a deterrent to others. The reputation of the industry relies on members following the rules, and breaches such as these undermine public trust and confidence and bring the industry into disrepute.

35. The offending is similar to that involved in the cases of Gowan and K Toomer discussed above. It is not alleged that Ms Waretini was responsible for the contamination but, as a licensed trainer, she failed in her obligation to take all care to ensure that contamination could not occur.

36. This case is less serious than Pringley and E Toomer, as Ms Waretini was not the cause of contamination (as in Pringley) and did not have the knowledge of previous contamination having occurred (as in E Toomer).

37. In light of the mitigating factors available to Ms Waretini, a term of disqualification for 18 months would be appropriate to sanction this offending.

Costs

38. RIB costs will be sought. A memorandum regarding the costs incurred will be filed after the hearing.

39. The RIB anticipates the usual Adjudicative Committee costs will also be ordered.

FURTHER ORAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE INFORMANT

40. Mr Parry stressed that the charge is one of presentation and not administration. The two most relevant cases are those of Gowan and K Toomer in which the facts are broadly comparable. Both cases were without significant aggravating factors, as in the present case. The other two cases referred to in his submissions involved more significant aggravating factors.

41. The principal aggravating factor is that the prohibited substance is Methamphetamine, which involves significant animal welfare issues. In mitigation, the Respondent admitted the breach at an early stage and has a clear record. These factors are taken into account by the RIB in submitting for the penalty it has.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

42. Ms Lisa Waretini has admitted one charge of presenting a dog, namely OPAWA PIP, with a prohibited substance, being Methamphetamine, on 21 April 2022.

43. The offence is one of strict liability.

44. The Respondent is the Trainer. Her daughter, Alysha Waretini, holds a Kennel Hand Licence. Alysha was responsible for taking the Greyhounds to the race meeting and returning them to the kennels in Ohoka.

45. The Respondent did not, as a matter of fact, attend the race meeting.

46. The Respondent has been training Greyhounds for approximately 20 years. There are 30 Greyhounds on her property, of which 20 are in racing kennels. During her adult life, the Respondent has known no other trade.

47. The disqualification will have a major impact on her ability to earn an income. At the age of 54 years, having spent 20 years in the industry without any previous offence, the Respondent’s ability to suddenly change her way of life and position to obtain a meaningful income will be difficult.

48. RIU v K R Toomer (2020)

The Respondent presented a Greyhound to the races which subsequently tested positive to Methamphetamine. He had 25 years involvement in the industry with no previous breaches. He did not attend the race meeting, leaving his son to take the dog to the races. The son or an associate was a possible source of the contamination. The Respondent was an owner-trainer, with one Greyhound in training. An end sentence of 14 months disqualification was imposed, from a 2-year starting point.

49. RIB v Gowan (2022)

The charge was found proved following a defended hearing. A starting point of 16 months disqualification was adopted and, after taking into account aggravating factors, an end period of 18 months was imposed. The Respondent was described as being uncooperative and obstructive in trying to avoid the testing process or delay it. This resulted in an uplift of 3 months from the starting point of 16 months, with a deduction of 1 month for the unblemished record.

50. In the decisions of E Toomer (August 2022) and RIB v Prangley (September 2022), both Public Trainers, both Respondents admitted using Methamphetamine, which placed a high level of culpability on both, with a known risk of contamination. Disqualification periods of 2 years 7 months and 3 years respectively were imposed.

51. It is submitted that a starting point between 16 months (RIB v Gowan) and 24 months (RIU v K Toomer) be adopted.

52. There are no aggravating factors personal to the Respondent that would justify an uplift in the starting point.

53. The Respondent was cooperative during the investigation. She agreed to hair and urine samples being taken which both tested negative for Methamphetamine.

54. It is noted that Methamphetamine was detected in swabs taken from the vehicle used to transport the Greyhound to and from Addington Raceway. However the report stated that the levels were so low as to mean there had been no contamination of the vehicle.

55. The Respondent appears before the Committee on her first breach, having never been charged with any previous offence. There was an admission of the breach, at the first reasonable opportunity.

56. It was submitted that there should be a deduction from any starting point of 3 months for cooperation and admission of the offending and a further deduction of 1 month for a clear record. The level of culpability for the offending is low.

57. The Respondent had no knowledge, nor should she have had any knowledge, that contamination may result from transportation of the Greyhounds from the kennels to the racecourse and return. Although this does not provide a defence to the strict liability charge, it is submitted that it is a factor that the Committee can take into account when assessing the appropriate period of disqualification.

58. The facts of RIB v K R Toomer, in which the disqualification period was 14 months, are closely aligned to the facts of this case, it is submitted. The major difference is in personal circumstances – Mr Toomer was an owner/trainer with one dog in training – and, therefore, not “heavily reliant on the industry for his wellbeing, financial or otherwise”. The opposite is applicable to the Respondent.

59. A period of disqualification will prevent the Respondent from earning an income from what has been her sole source of income for the last 20 years. It will also impact upon her way of life. The 30 Greyhounds on her property, other than those retired and retained as pets, will have to be removed from the property.

60. The significant impact on the Respondent allows for a further reduction in the starting point, taking into account her personal circumstances and the impact on her personally, which was not present in the case of K R Toomer.

61. Welfare of the Greyhound has been paramount to the Respondent.

FURTHER ORAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

62. Mr McCall (Counsel for the Respondent) said that the Respondent appears, having had an unblemished record for 20 years and she has admitted the breach at the first practical opportunity.

63. The fact that the prohibited substance was Methamphetamine cannot be an aggravating factor, as it is inherent in the charge.

64. Mr McCall touched upon the deterrent aspect referred to in the Applicant’s submissions. He said that the Respondent stayed home and never went to the races. However, she is the trainer of the Greyhound, and as such “the buck stops with her”. There was no actual conduct on her part that led to the contamination.

65. The facts are not disputed. In the case of Methamphetamine, no level has to be established. Once a prohibited substance is detected, the charge is one of strict liability.

66. Mr McCall highlighted the “low, low level” of Methamphetamine detected in the sample. This does not provide a defence to the charge but the Committee should take the low level into account in determining penalty.

67. The starting point in Gowan was 16 months. This was uplifted for the Respondent’s uncooperative behaviour. The final sentence was one of 18 months (see para 47) In RIB v K Toomer, the facts were very similar to the present case (see para 46). In that case, the starting point was 24 months, and the final penalty 14 months. Mr McCall submitted that this Committee should take a starting point of between 16 months as in Gowan and 24 months as in Toomer.

68. There are no aggravating factors. It is a mitigating factor that the Respondent willingly submitted to the taking of hair and urine samples both of which returned negative results to Methamphetamine.

69. Mr McCall said that nowhere could he find, in either this country or in Australia, where two persons have been charged with the one offence of presenting an animal with a prohibited substance. He referred to the thoroughbred case of Sharrock in which a trainer presented two horses with Methamphetamine, but was not charged. The case went to the High Court as to whether the stake moneys should be lost where the judge said that the trainer was not charged because it was not his fault. However, the charge is one of strict liability. In this case, two persons have been charged.

70. In the case of K Toomer, the Respondent was an owner/trainer with one dog. He did not rely on Greyhound racing for a living. In the case of Ms Waretini, Greyhound racing has been her sole source of income for 20 years.

71. Since two persons have been charged, the Committee is able to impose a lesser penalty than otherwise.

72. Mr McCall presented two Australian Greyhound appeal decisions, both involving Methamphetamine, in which sentences had been handed down with a “good behaviour bond”. Part of the period of disqualification was suspended.

73. Mr McCall submitted that a starting point of less than 14 months could be considered, with a portion of that period to be suspended. This would mitigate the harsh consequence of a disqualification of both the Respondent and her daughter, in the event that the charge against the daughter is upheld. The Respondent has been caught by a strict liability breach, where there are no aggravating factors.

74. Mr Parry submitted that the fact that the prohibited substance was Methamphetamine should be regarded as an aggravating factor. It is an illegal substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act, and not simply a prohibited substance. In the case of K Toomer, the Committee treated it as an aggravating factor. He also submitted that general deterrence should be a factor taken into account by the Committee.

75. Mr Parry reminded the Committee that it had already ruled on the issue of whether two persons could be charged (Minute dated 7 November 2022) and rejected the argument that they could not. This is the standard that the industry has set. A second person may be charged for a breach, when it occurs. It is certainly acceptable for two persons to be charged under the criminal law. Neither is it a valid argument that, where two persons are charged with the same offence, the liability of each is somehow reduced.

76. To impose a period of disqualification, with a suspension of part of the period, would result in a lesser penalty, inconsistent with the precedent decisions, Mr Parry submitted.

REASONS FOR PENALTY:

77. The Respondent, Lisa Waretini, has admitted a charge that, as the Trainer of the Greyhound, OPAWA PIP, she failed to present that Greyhound to race in Race 8, Real Pet Food Rolleston Sprint, at the meeting of Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club at Addington Raceway on 21 April 2022 free of the prohibited substance, Methamphetamine.

78. The Adjudicative Committee has received lengthy and helpful submissions from Counsel for both parties, and Counsel presented oral submissions in support of those submissions at the hearing before the Adjudicative Committee.

79. The Adjudicative Committee was referred to a number of previous Greyhound racing decisions involving the prohibited substance, Methamphetamine, and these were of great assistance to the Adjudicative Committee in deciding penalty. The Adjudicative Committee has relied on those cases to establish a starting point.

80. Starting point in those cases ranged between 16 months (Gowan) at the lower end, 24 months in the case of K Toomer and, in each of the Prangley and E Toomer cases, the Adjudicative Committee took a starting point of 2 years and 9 months. Those starting points varied greatly, according to the circumstances of each.

81. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Prangley and E Toomer cases should not be considered in fixing a starting point, as the Trainers in each of those cases admitted to be users of Methamphetamine and, therefore, their culpability was high. There is merit in that submission.

82. Having regard to those comparable cases, the Adjudicative Committee has settled on a starting point, in this case, of 18 months. The starting points in Gowan (16 months) and K Toomer (24 months) were too low and too high respectively, in the Adjudicative Committee’s opinion. The starting point of 18 months takes into account the low level of culpability, the Respondent not being aware that contamination may result from the vehicle in which the Greyhound was transported to the race meeting and, otherwise, had taken all due care.

83. Counsel for the Respondent also submitted that there were no aggravating factors. The principal aggravating factor suggested by Counsel for the Applicant was that the prohibited substance, Methamphetamine, is a “Class A” Drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act. That is not a factor to which the Adjudicative Committee gives significant weight, although it is acknowledged that Methamphetamine is a Class A Drug and, as such, raises animal welfare concerns.

84. Mitigating factors are the Respondent’s admission of the breach, her cooperation during the course of the investigation and her excellent record.

85. The task of this Adjudicative Committee is to weigh up all factors and arrive at an appropriate penalty, having regard to all of the circumstances. A former Chief Justice of New South Wales put it this way:

The … core of the sentencing task is a process of balancing overlapping, contradictory and incommensurable objectives. The requirements of deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation, punishment and restorative justice, do not generally point in the same direction. Specifically, the requirements of justice, in the sense of just deserts, and of mercy, often conflict. Yet we live in a society which values both justice and mercy.

86. The requirement for deterrence in this case is for general deterrence only. There has been no wrong act on the part of the Respondent. There are elements of rehabilitation, denunciation and punishment to which the Adjudicative Committee has had regard.

87. As stated, the Adjudicative Committee has taken a starting point of 18 months disqualification. There are no aggravating factors. In the Gowan case, a discount of 1 month was given for the Respondent’s good record. That is appropriate. The charge in Gowan was defended, so no credit could be given for admission of the breach. In this case, the admission of the breach by the Respondent can be recognised by a discount of 2 months. The discount for mitigating factors is, therefore, 3 months.

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.

89. The Adjudicative Committee notes that Counsel for the Respondent’s suggestion that the Adjudicative Committee might consider suspending part of the disqualification period was not deemed appropriate in a case such as this, which did not involve behaviour.

PENALTY

90. The Respondent is disqualified for a period of 15 months from 11 March 2023 and ending on 10 June 2024. The deferment is granted to enable the Respondent to make arrangement for her racing Greyhounds.

DISQUALIFICATION OF GREYHOUND

91. OPAWA PIP is disqualified from Race 8, Real Pet Food Rolleston Sprint, held at the meeting of Christchurch GRC held at Addington Raceway on 21 April 2022. Consequent upon the disqualification, the amended result for the race is as follows:

1st   1  Mitcham Ivan
2nd  3  Young Mase
3rd   5  Goldstar Flora
4th   6  Razor Rufus

It is ordered that stakes be paid in accordance with that amended result. If the stake has already been paid to the Respondent, it is to be repaid.

COSTS

92. The parties are invited to file submissions regarding costs within 10 days of the date of this decision.