Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Reserved Decision dated 23 June 2025 – Erin Hocquard

[1] Information A16944 provides: “On 10 April 2025 at Waverley Racecourse, Erin Hocquard, Registered Trainer of the horse ‘KING OF HEARTS’ presented and engaged the horse in Race 6 of the Waverley Racing Club’s Meeting, failing to present the horse free of the Prohibited Substance ‘Cetirizine’ in breach of Rule 804(2) and liable to the penalty imposed pursuant to Rule 804(7) and 804(1)(i) of the Rules.”

[2] 804(2) provides:

When a horse which has been brought to a Racecourse or similar racing facility, or a Training Facility, for the purpose of: (a) engaging in a Race or trial to which the Third Appendix hereto applies; or (b) obtaining a barrier or other certificate or a clearance to race (as the case may be), is found by a Tribunal conducting an inquiry to have had administered to it or have had present in its metabolism a Prohibited Substance, as defined in Part A of Prohibited Substance Regulations, the Trainer and any other person who in the opinion of such Tribunal conducting such inquiry was in charge of such horse at any relevant time commits a breach of these Rules.

[3] Penalty provision:

804(7) A person who commits a breach of sub-Rule (2) or (3) or (4) or (5) or (5A) or (6) of this Rule shall be liable to: (a) be disqualified for a period not exceeding five years; and/or (b) be suspended from holding or obtaining a Licence for a period not exceeding 12 months. If a Licence is renewed during a term of suspension, then the suspension shall continue to apply to the renewed Licence; and/or (c) a fine not exceeding $25,000.

[4] A hearing was held at Wanganui Racecourse prior to racing on Saturday June 14th, 2025. Ms Hocquard was supported by Licensed Thoroughbred Trainer Mr Bill Thurlow. Stipendiary Steward Mr K Coppins was present on behalf of RIB Investigator Mr Simon Irving. Ms Hocquard confirmed she admitted the charge and agreed with the Summary of Facts.

Summary of Facts

[5] The Respondent Erin Hocquard is a Licensed Class B Trainer under the New Zealand Rules of Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR). She has held a Trainer’s Licence since 2016, currently training six horses from her property near Waitotara.

[6] On Thursday 10 April 2025, the 6yo gelding ‘KING OF HEARTS’ trained by Ms Hocquard, won Race 6 at the Waverley Racing Club’s Meeting at Waverley Racecourse. The gelding is owned by a syndicate of five Owners and won a stake of $9,520. The stake money was inadvertently paid out by NZTR.

[7] At 4.55pm, a post-race urine sample (#128628) was obtained from the gelding in the presence of Ms Hocquard.

All samples taken on the day were sent to the New Zealand Racing Laboratory Service (NZRLS), who on 02 May, issued a Certificate of Analysis detailing the sample positive to Cetirizine.

Cetirizine is a second-generation antihistamine used to treat allergic rhinitis in humans.

[8] Cetirizine is not registered with the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act for use in horses in New Zealand. Nonetheless, documented applications and withdrawal time (WDT) suggestions can be reviewed in overseas literature. The NZVA specifies a WDT of 5.6 days following the last dose of 190mg administered twice daily.

[9] Under the Prohibited Substance Regulations for the Rules of Racing, Cetirizine and its metabolites are classified as Prohibited Substances under sections 1.1.2 and 1.1.7. These substances are prohibited in race day samples at any time for causing, either directly or indirectly, an action or effect, or both, in one or more of the mammalian body systems. Additionally, antihistamines are specifically listed under 1.2.19 as substances that fall within the defined categories of Prohibited Substances.

[10] The presence of Cetirizine in a race day sample is, prima facie, a breach of the Rules.

On 05 May 2025, Ms Hocquard was interviewed at her stables. She explained:

• Following the horse’s race at Wanganui on 15 March, he was a bit “snuffy’ so the Raceday Vet scoped him and identified some mucous, for which she prescribed Cetirizine 10mg tablets.
• The Owners collected the prescription and delivered 6x boxes of 100 tablets of ‘Zista’ to her on 18 March. The instructions on the label were “Give TEN TABLETS (100mg) twice daily”.
• The instructions given by the Vet in a telephone call, were that there was a 10 day withholding period.
• She initially crushed and mixed 10 tablets with the evening feeds for three days and then 20 tablets crushed and mixed in the evening feeds for another 4-5 days, being 15-16 clear days before the positive was returned.
• Examination of the remaining ‘Zista’ boxes was consistent with her explanation.
• An entry in her treatment diary on 26 March, indicates the day that the Vet’s 10-day recommended withhold would be, as the horse also raced on 05 April.

[11] Vet inquiries confirmed the advice of a 10-day WDT was to be “on the safe side”.

[12] KING OF HEARTS also won a race at Waverley on 21 April, 11 days after the 10 April race and swabbed clear.

[13] The B sample was sent for analysis and on 23 May 2025, Racing Analytical Services Limited, Flemington produced a Certificate of Analysis also confirming the presence of Cetirizine.

[14] Advice from HRNZ Chief Veterinarian Dr Grierson was that on average, 60% of Cetirizine is expelled unchanged in the horse’s urine, which may lead to environmental contamination. If soiled bedding is not removed from a horse’s stall, any horse that comes into contact with that contaminated environment could test positive for as long as Cetirizine remains present. Cetirizine is stable in the environment against both hydrolysis by water and microbial breakdown, including during wastewater treatment, resulting in detectable low levels in global waterways.

[15] Dr Grierson also referred to the Guide for NZVA members:

Oral Administration

Wherever possible, oral medications should be administered directly into the horse’s mouth, rather than mixed in feed or water. This ensures an accurate dose is administered and reduces the potential environmental contamination with the parent drug.

[16] Based on Dr Grierson’s opinion and advice, it is possible that, if the horse’s box was not cleaned meticulously, environmental contamination could explain the positive result.

[17] Betting analysis of the race revealed no anomalies.

[18] ‘KING OF HEARTS’ is required to be disqualified from Race 6 at Waverley on 10 April 2025, pursuant to Rule 804(1) and an order for the stake money to be repaid.

[19] Ms Hocquard has no previous breaches of the Prohibited Substance Rules since she commenced training in 2016.

Informant’s Penalty Submissions

[20] The RIB Thoroughbred Racing Penalty Guide (2024) for Prohibited Substances provides a starting point penalty for a Presentation Offence as: First offence – $8,000 fine.

Sentencing Principles

[21] The four 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 Adjudicative Committee for the type of behaviour in question.
• The need to rehabilitate the offender should be considered.

The first three principles apply in this matter.

Previous Cases

[22] There is only one previous case of a Cetirizine positive in New Zealand Racing:

RIU v Oulaghan (2021)

On advice from his Vet to treat an allergy, the Trainer was administering ‘Zista’ per the recommended dosage. The Vet failed to advise the Trainer that Cetirizine was a Prohibited Substance, due to it not being included in the NZVA Guideline, and this was correctly considered by the Adjudicative Committee as a significant mitigating factor. The fact the horse won a ‘Listed’ Race with a $50,000 stake, was considered aggravating, when concluding a $4,000 fine.

[23] Other recent cases involving Raceday positives to Prohibited Substances for consideration:

RIB v Quinn (2023)

Positive to Prednisolone, a corticosteroid used to treat allergies or immune disorders. No source of the drug identified, and the horse had been in the care of another Trainer in the days leading up to the race. The Adjudicative Committee adopted a $2,500 starting point and after considering mitigating factors, issued a $1,500 fine.

RIB v Miller (2023)

Positive to Diclofenac, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory. The source of the positive was identified as the application of Voltaren Emugel to the horse’s legs. The Adjudicative Committee determined a starting point of $3,300 and factored an uplift of $1,200 due to the Trainer’s culpability. In consideration of mitigating factors, the fine was set at $3,500.

RIB v Clement (2023)

Positive to Dexamethasone, a corticosteroid used in horses to treat allergic reactions and inflammatory disease. No obvious source of the positive identified. $2,000 fine.

RIB v Isdale (2022)

Positive to Caffeine. The source of the positive was believed to be contamination from human urination at the stable. The Adjudicative Committee adopted a $2,000 starting point and placing no weight on aggravating and mitigating factors, settled on a $2,000 fine.

Mitigating Factors

[24] Ms Hocquard has admitted the charge at the earliest opportunity and has been fully cooperative throughout the investigation process.

[25] NZTR statistics detail she has had 152 starts for 19 wins.  She has no prior breaches of the Prohibited Substance Rule (or any other NRI breach) since commencing training in 2016.

[26] Ms Hocquard adhered to the generous WDT advice given by the Vet. She could not have known that 60% of the medication is excreted unchanged and does not ‘break down’ in the environment.

[27] There is absolutely no suggestion of foul play, an intent to deceive, or any reckless or deliberate act on the part of Ms Hocquard.

Aggravating Factors

[28] Although ‘best practice’ when medically treating racehorses in a stable environment is to have a separate treatment box, Ms Hocquard, like most Trainers, treated her horse in its regular box and did not ensure it was meticulously cleaned.

Conclusion

[29] When determining penalty, the RIB submits that the Adjudicative Committee has 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 Thoroughbred Racing.

[30] Given an adopted starting point similar to that of recent cases of $2,000-$3,000, the mitigating and aggravating factors as listed and the overall circumstances considered in this case, the RIB submits a fine of $2,500 is appropriate.

[31] The RIB also seeks the disqualification of ‘KING OF HEARTS’ from the race pursuant to Rule 804(1), with stake money to be refunded.

[32] As the matter has been determined on a Raceday, no costs are sought by the RIB.

Respondent’s Penalty Submissions

[33] Ms Hocquard explained that she carefully followed her Veterinarian’s instructions regarding the administration of Cetirizine, but did not complete the full course of tablets, as she observed they were not making much of a difference.

[34] She pays close attention to her horses’ feeding habits, ensuring that each horse consumes its full feed, and she exceeded the recommended withholding time for the medication.

[35] Ms Hocquard had no knowledge that Cetirizine could result in environmental contamination through urine excretion.

[36] Mr Thurlow referenced the case of Mr Lennox, whose horse tested positive for Dexamethasone. In that instance, the horse was disqualified, but no charge was brought against Mr Lennox, due to him having no knowledge of the drug administered by the Vet.

[37] Mr Thurlow submitted that Ms Hocquard’s situation was similar, as the error originated from the Veterinarian’s failure to advise her of the risk of environmental contamination.

[38] During the hearing, Mr Coppins was unable to confirm whether Dr Grierson was aware of the 60% urinary excretion rate of Cetirizine prior to Ms Hocquard’s positive test.

[39] Mr Irving, contacted by telephone, stated that he assumed Dr Grierson would have known, as the risk of environmental contamination from excretion is relatively normal.

[40] Dr Grierson has had a recent seminar with Vets, reminding them of the dangers of contamination via excretion.

[41] Although best practice recommends the use of a separate treatment box for medicating horses, the RIB Stewards acknowledged that this is not the current industry standard and that most Trainers, including Ms Hocquard, do not have such facilities.

[42] Finally, Ms Hocquard presented a character reference from a fellow Trainer and Owner, highlighting her diligence and accuracy in maintaining records for all horses under her care.

Decision as to Penalty

[43] The RIB Penalty Guide (March 2024) sets the starting point for a first offence “presentation” breach involving a Prohibited Substance in Thoroughbred Racing at $8,000.

[44] This reflects the seriousness with which such breaches are regarded, given their potential to undermine the integrity of racing and public confidence in the sport.

[45] Adjustment of Starting Point: In considering the appropriate penalty, the Adjudicative Committee must assess the circumstances of the breach, including aggravating and mitigating factors, as well as precedents from recent cases.

[46] While the $8,000 starting point is the Guideline, recent Decisions for similar breaches, have seen the starting point reduced to reflect lower culpability and the specifics of each case.

[47] In this matter, the Adjudicative Committee has determined that the circumstances justify a significant reduction from the $8,000 starting point. This is consistent with:

• The only previous Cetirizine case (RIU v Oulaghan 2021), where a $4,000 fine was imposed after the horse won a Listed Race. The Veterinarian did not advise the Trainer that the drug was a Prohibited Substance.
• Other recent cases involving therapeutic or environmental contamination (RIB v Quinn 2023, RIB v Miller 2023, RIB v Clement 2023, RIB v Isdale 2022), where starting points ranged from $2,000 to $3,300, and final fines were between $1,500 and $3,500, depending on culpability and mitigation.

[48] Accordingly, the Adjudicative Committee adopts a starting point of $2,500 in this case, reflecting both precedent and the lower level of culpability compared to the baseline.

[49] Mitigating Factors: The following mitigating factors have been given substantial weight:

• Early admission of the breach and full cooperation throughout the investigation. An unblemished record since commencing training in 2016 (152 starts, 19 wins, no prior breaches).
• Strict adherence to Veterinary advice, including observing a withholding time longer than recommended.
• No knowledge by either the Trainer or the prescribing Veterinarian that Cetirizine is excreted in urine at rates that could lead to environmental contamination.
• No evidence of betting irregularities, intent to deceive, recklessness, or deliberate act.
• Accurate and transparent record-keeping of medication administration.
• Positive character reference supporting the Respondent’s diligence and integrity.

[50] Aggravating Factors: There are no aggravating factors in the circumstances of this breach.

[51] The Adjudicative Committee notes that while best practice is to treat horses in a separate treatment box, this is not standard industry practice, and the failure to do so, is not considered an aggravating factor in this context.

Determination

[52] After weighing all factors, the Adjudicative Committee finds that a further reduction from the adjusted starting point is warranted.

[53] Applying the personal mitigating factors, the Adjudicative Committee imposes a final penalty of $1,800.

[54] The Adjudicative Committee has carefully considered the submission referencing the Lennox case, where no charge was brought against the Trainer, due to a lack of knowledge regarding the administration of the Prohibited Substance by the Veterinarian.

[55] In contrast, while Ms Hocquard’s situation similarly involved an error originating from the Veterinarian’s failure to advise her of the risk of environmental contamination, she nonetheless played a direct role in administering the medication to the horse.

[56] This distinction is significant, as the Rules impose an absolute responsibility on Trainers to ensure their horses are free from Prohibited Substances, regardless of intent or knowledge.

[57] However, the Adjudicative Committee acknowledges that the Veterinarian’s lack of adequate warning and the absence of any deliberate wrongdoing by Ms Hocquard, are substantial mitigating factors that justify a reduced penalty in this instance.

[58] The penalty imposed reflects the significant mitigating factors present. The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that this outcome upholds the integrity of Thoroughbred Racing and is consistent with both the Penalty Guide and recent precedent.

Disqualification of KING OF HEARTS

[59] 804(1)(i) A horse which has been brought to a Racecourse or similar racing facility and which is found by a Tribunal conducting an inquiry to have had administered to it or have had present in its metabolism a Prohibited Substance shall be, in addition to any other penalty which may be imposed, disqualified for any Race or Trial to which the Third Appendix hereto applies in which it has started on that day irrespective of the circumstances in which the Prohibited Substance was administered or came to be present in, or on, the horse.

[60] KING OF HEARTS is disqualified from Race 6, Pioneer P9911 1200m.

Amended placings are:

1ST   2  BARONET

2ND  1  POKURU GOLD

3RD  7  ARCADIAN LYNX

4TH  4  STEAL MY THUNDER

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

Costs

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