Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Reserved Penalty Decision dated 30 October 2025 – Dean Robert Halliday

Racing Investigator for the Racing Integrity Board (RIB), Simon Irving, has filed two Information’s against Holder of Licence to Train, Dean Robert Halliday, Trainer of the Standardbred Racehorse, ARIZONAWILDCAT (10B g Ohoka Arizona-Sary Hanover), alleging that:

Information A19855:

On the 22nd of August 2025 at Addington Raceway, he presented the horse at the meeting of New Zealand Metropolitan TC for the purpose of engaging in Race 7, VIP Structural Steel Handicap Pace, when not free of the Prohibited Substance Flunixin; and

Information A19856:

On the 5th day of September 2025 at Addington Raceway, he presented the horse at the meeting of New Zealand Metropolitan TC for the purpose of engaging in Race 2, McVicar ITM Mobile Pace, when not free of the Prohibited Substance Flunixin.

It was alleged that both breaches were in breach of Rules 1004A(2) & (4) of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing and subject to the penalties pursuant to Rule 1004D(1).

PLEA / DECISION:

Mr Halliday had signed both Information’s “I do admit a breach of the rule” and he confirmed this at the hearing.

Both charges having been admitted, they are found proved.

THE RULES:

1004A

(2) A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances.

(4) When a horse is presented to race in contravention of sub-rule (2) . . . the trainer of the horse commits a breach of these Rules.

1004D

(1) A person who commits a breach of a rule in rules 1004A, 1004B, or 1004C shall be liable to:

(a) a fine not exceeding $20,000.00; and

(b) be disqualified or suspended from holding or obtaining a licence for any specific period not exceeding five years.

THE FACTS:

Mr Irving presented the following agreed Summary of Facts:

1. The Respondent, Dean Halliday, holds a Licence to Train under the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing. He trains one horse out of a stable occupied by another trainer in Burnham, Canterbury.

2. On Friday 22 August 2025, the 10-y-o gelding, ARIZONAWILDCAT, trained by Mr Halliday, won Race 7 at the NZMTC meeting at Addington Raceway. The gelding is owned by Mr G McStay and won a stake of $8,250.

3. At 7.55pm, a post-race blood sample (#221832) was taken from the gelding in the presence of the owner. All samples obtained that evening were sent to the New Zealand Racing Laboratory Service (NZRLS) for analysis.

4. On Friday 5 September 2025, ARIZONAWILDCAT finished 5th in Race 2 at the NZMTC meeting at Addington Raceway, earning a stake of $280.

5. At 5.33pm, a post-race blood sample (#221859) was taken from the gelding in the presence of Mr Halliday. All samples obtained that evening were sent to NZRLS.

6. On 11 September 2025, NZRLS issued a Certificate of Analysis detailing the first blood sample (#221832) positive to Flunixin, at a level of 1.53 ng/ml (nanograms per millilitre).

7. Flunixin in blood plasma is subject to a regulatory limit of 1.0 ng/ml.

8. Flunixin is a nonsteroidal, anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) with analgesic, antipyretic and anti-inflammatory properties. It is commonly used in equine veterinary practice to relieve pain caused by inflammation.

9. As per the Prohibited Substance Regulations, Clause 1.1.6, Flunixin is a prohibited substance as it directly affects the musculoskeletal system. Additionally, Flunixin falls under both 1.2.9: analgesics and 1.2.21: anti-inflammatory agents.

10. The presence of Flunixin in a race-day sample is, prima facie, a breach of the Rules.

11. On 15 September, Mr Halliday was interviewed at his stable and explained the following:

(i) That ARIZONAWILDCAT had a quarter crack which, on advice from, his vet he had been treating with “Fluximine” oral paste, which he was advised had a 4.2 day withholding time (WDT).

(ii) He had given the horse 10 -15mls of the paste on the Monday (18 August) around 12.45pm, prior to racing on the Friday evening (22 August).

(iii) He had also given the horse 10mls of the paste around the same time on the Monday before the race on 5 September, so expected the second swab to also test positive.

(iv) He produced a half-used oral syringe of “Fluximine” paste which had “Swab: 4.2 days” written on it.

12. Vet inquiries confirmed that Mr Halliday had been prescribed 3x30ml tubes of “Fluximine” over two months, under instruction to administer 10mL and observe a 4.2 day WDT.

13. On 25 September, NZRLS issued a second Certificate of Analysis detailing the second blood sample (#221859) positive to Flunixin, at a level of 2.00 ng/mL.

14. Advice from HRNZ Chief Veterinarian Dr A Grierson is that:

Flunixin is highly stable in the environment and has been detected in stable bedding, walls, and dust following urinary contamination by a horse under treatment. About 75% of the drug is eliminated through urine, with most of it excreted within the first 24 hours of a single treatment. Environmental degradation occurs slowly and may take several years to break down completely. Horses exposed to contaminated boxes without receiving treatment have been found to have detectable levels of flunixin in their blood and urine. Horses treated with flunixin can reintroduce it into their system by consuming feed contaminated with their own urine. Regular cleaning of boxes to remove bedding contaminated by urine helps reduce the recycling of drugs and prevents both self-contamination and cross-contamination.

15. The B sample for the first sample (#221832), was sent for analysis and, on 1 October, Racing Analytical Services Limited (RASL), Melbourne confirmed the presence of Flunixin with no concentration provided.

16. ARIZONAWILDCAT is required to be disqualified from Race 7 at Addington on 22 August, and from Race 2 at Addington on 5 September, pursuant to Rule 1004E.

17. Mr Halliday has no previous breaches of the Prohibited Substance Rules. HRNZ records detail that he held a Trainer’s licence from 1997 – 2001 and from 2021 until current.

PENALTY SUBMISSIONS OF THE INFORMANT

1. Introduction

1.1 The Respondent, Dean Halliday, holds a Licence to Train under the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing, and trains one horse out of a stable occupied by another trainer in Burnham, Canterbury.

1.2 Mr Halliday has admitted two charges under Rule 1004(2) in that he failed to present his horse to race twice free of the prohibited substance Flunixin.

1.3 He has held a Trainer’s licence from 1997-2001 and since 2021 and has no previous breaches of the Prohibited Substance Rule.

2. Dr Grierson advised that the withdrawal time from the administration of Flunixin is 4.2 days. He commented that, when following this guideline, the most likely scenario when a positive test occurs, is the ingestion of urine-contaminated feed, sometime within 4.2 days.

3. Betting analysis of the two races and Mr Halliday’s TAB account revealed no anomalies.

4. Prior to the two positives, ARIZONAWILDCAT had been post-race swabbed clear on 15 occasions.

Penalty Provisions

5. The penalties which may be imposed are:

1004D

(1) A person who commits a breach of a rule in rules 1004A, 1004B, or 1004C shall be liable to:

(a) a fine not exceeding $20,000.00; and

(b) be disqualified or suspended from holding or obtaining a licence for any specific period not exceeding five years.

1004E(1)

Any horse taken to a racecourse for the purpose of engaging in a race which is found to have administered to it or ingested by it a prohibited substance or an out of competition prohibited substance must be disqualified from that race.

6. The RIB Thoroughbred Penalty Guide (February 2025) for Prohibited Substances provides a starting point for penalty for a Presentation Offence as: First Offence – $8,000 fine.

Sentencing Principles

7. The four principles of sentencing can be summarised as follows:

(i) 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.

(ii) In a racing context, it is extremely important that a penalty has the effect of deterring others from committing similar offences.

(iii) A penalty should also reflect the disapproval of the Adjudicative Committee for the type of behaviour in question.

(iv) The need to rehabilitate the offender should be considered.

Previous Cases

8. The three most recent cases of Flunixin positives in New Zealand racing are:

RIB v O’Sullivan & Scott (2024)

Raceday positive. Possible source from another horse in the stable being treated with Flunixin and through contaminated box bedding. Treated as a second offence with a previous prohibited substance charge (6x horses) in 2016. The AC adopted a starting point of $10,000 with a 20% reduction for factors considered when concluding an $8000 fine.

RIU v Barron (2018)

Trials positive. Unidentified source of Flunixin. The JCA adopted a starting point of $6000 due to low culpability, with admission, cooperation, excellent record and reputation considered as mitigating factors. The committee also had regard to the trainer’s reduced training operation as “a small business which would be hurt by a large fine”, when concluding a $3,000 fine.

RIU v A & L Neal (2015)

Raceday positive with the horse being treated with Flunixin for an ailment. The trainer explained a 10ml IV administration of Flunixin six days prior to racing in conservative observation of the 4.2 day WDT. The JCA considered a prior TCO2 breach to be a serious aggravating factor. No starting point or other factors were detailed when determining a fine of $5,500.

Other recent cases involving prohibited substance breaches for consideration:

RIB v Dalgety (2025)

Raceday positive to the NSAID Meloxicam. No source of the drug identified. Previous breaches were deemed historical and therefore no uplift to the starting point. $5,750 fine.

RIB v Hocquard (2025)

Raceday positive to the antihistamine, Cetirizine, with the horse being treated on vet’s advice. The trainer observed the conservative 10-day WDT when adding the crushed tablets to the horses feed. Advice from Dr Grierson was that 60% of Cetirizine is expelled unchanged in the horse’s urine, which may lead to environmental contamination. The Adjudicative Committee adopted a $2,500 starting point, reflecting precedent and a lower level of culpability, and with significant mitigating factors, concluded a fine of $1,800.

RIB v Miller (2023)

Raceday positive to the NSAID “Diclofenac”. 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 in an uplift of $1,200 due to the trainer’s culpability. In consideration of mitigating factors, the fine was set at $3,500.

9. Following the Hocquard case the RIB posted an advisory on its website titled “Reducing Contamination & Adverse Swab Risks” which was also sent to both equine codes for dissemination. HRNZ did not pass the advisory on to its licensed trainers.

10. In relation to the fact that Mr Halliday faces two breaches of the same rule, the RIB submits that the Committee consider the comments in the 2021 decision of RIB v Yesberg concerning 2x trials positives to the NSAID “Bute” and “Ketoprofen” (and one horse additionally to “Furosemide”):

One matter to which the Committee has given earnest consideration is the approach to be adopted when considering that there are two breaches. In this regard, we have adopted the approach of the Judicial Committee in Towers (2015) – two breaches involving one horse – that to impose a penalty for each breach would result in a penalty that would be disproportionate and excessive in the circumstances. A totality approach to penalty is preferable in the present case involving, as it does, the facts relating to the two horses, REINIMIN PATRON and ROCKNROLL DIVA, involving for all intents and purposes one course of conduct and the same fact situation. We intend to adopt a totality approach. Essentially, Mr Yesberg is no more culpable because there are two horses involved.

Mitigating Factors

11. Mr Halliday has admitted the charge at the earliest opportunity and has been fully cooperative throughout the investigation process.

12. HRNZ statistics detail 118 starts for 11 wins in his training career. He has no prior breaches of the Prohibited Substance Rule (or any other non-raceday breach) since first commencing training in 1997.

13. Mr Halliday adhered to the WDT advice given by his vet. He was not advised that 75% of the medication is eliminated through urine and that it can be reintroduced into the horse’s system by consuming feed contaminated by the horse’s own urine.

14. There is no suggestion of any intent to deceive, or any reckless or deliberate act on the part of Mr Halliday.

Aggravating Factors

15. Although “best practice” when medically treating racehorses in a stable environment is to have a separate treatment box, Mr Halliday, like most trainers, treated his horse in its regular box and did not ensure it was meticulously cleaned.

Conclusion

16. When determining penalty, the RIB submits that the Committee have regard to the purpose of the proceedings, which include to ensure the rules are complied with, to uphold and maintain the high standards of trainers and to protect the integrity of racing.

17. In terms of culpability and similar fact, this case is most similar to that of Neal. Given the variation in starting points of recent cases, the mitigating and aggravating factors as listed and the overall circumstances considered in this case, the RIB submits a fine of $4000 – $4500 is appropriate.

18. The RIB also seeks the disqualification of ARIZONAWILDCAT from the two races pursuant to Rule 1004E (1).

19. As the matter has been determined on a raceday, no costs are sought by the RIB.

SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT

20. Mr Halliday began with an apology for the “inconvenience” that the positive swabs have caused and for putting Harness Racing in jeopardy through his “carelessness”.

21. He had consulted his Veterinarian when the horse developed a quarter crack at the end of May. The Vet prescribed Flunixin and advised him of the 4.2 WDT. He treated the horse through June, giving it 10mls a week, stopping the treatment at the end of July, all the while bringing the horse in at night.

22. What the Vet had not told him was that Flunixin was “pretty potent” and has a 75 per cent excretion rate. The horse would have walked around in the sawdust in his stall, reabsorbing it through his frogs and breathing it in. Knowing this now, he would have paddock-trained the horse. During the horse’s spell in June, he would have left the horse out in the paddock to minimise contamination of Flunixin in his box and in his system.

23. HRNZ had not passed on to Trainers, the advisory concerning reducing contamination.

24. The horse was kept at the property of Trainer, Andrew Garters, at Burnham. It gets boxed every night, gets fed and is worked every morning and has a paddock of his own during the day.

25. He has worked part-time for Mr Garters since 2024, doing full-time, part-time work – 7.00am to 1.00pm, Monday to Friday, and 7.00am to 12.00pm on Saturday. That is his only source of income. Any fine will hurt him financially. His partner has been unwell, in and out of hospital this year, and has had a lot of time off work. They have been relying on his wages for most of this year. He is also wanting to repay to the horse’s owner, by instalments, the lost stake. He is also concerned about the likely adverse publicity in the media.

26. Mr Halliday produced testimonials from Grant Payne (Public Trainer), Mr R L Garters (long-standing owner) and Mrs Gemma Edney (friend and neighbour).

GENERAL:

27. Mr Irving said that the RIB sees this case sitting somewhere in between the cases of Neal and Hocquard. The advice from Dr Grierson concerning Flunixin being stable in the environment and approximately 75 per cent of the drug being excreted “unchanged”. In the latter case, “Cetirizine” is excreted at approximately 65 per cent. Following that case, and in consultation with Dr Grierson, the RIB issued an advisory to the two codes and the NZ Veterinary Association in early August. (RIB Advisory: Reducing Contamination and Adverse Swab Risks dated 5 August 2025 – “practical guidance to help trainers reduce the risk of contamination”). HRNZ has not disseminated that advisory to its licenceholders, neither had the Vets Association, which is relevant to the present case as well as Hocquard.

28. Mr Irving produced a packet in which the “Fluximine” was sold. This advised a WDT of 4.2 days but Mr Halliday was not told by his Vet to take care, because it was excreted at 75 per cent. Had Mr Halliday received this advisory, he may have changed his methods around boxing the horse and administering the treatment.

29. Having just been made aware of the situation concerning the RIB Advisory, Mr Irving said, he submitted that a fine of no more than $4,000 might be more appropriate.

REASONS FOR PENALTY:

30. Mr Halliday is, what is usually described as a “hobby trainer” – that is to say, someone who trains a horse or horses on a part-time basis, usually as a hobby rather than a full-time profession, often for personal enjoyment or for friends or family, and who does not have access to large stables, professional staff or expensive facilities.

31. Mr Halliday trains one horse, the 10-year-old gelding, ARIZONAWILDCAT, from the property of another, who holds a Licence to Train, and for whom Mr Halliday works 35 hours a week.

32. Acting under Veterinary advice, he had been administering an anti-inflammatory remedy, “Fluximine” oral paste, to treat a quarter-crack on the horse. Aware of the recommended withholding period for the drug, he gave the horse 10-15mls of the paste in the early afternoon of the Monday prior to the raceday on Friday 22nd August and, similarly, on the Monday prior to the race on Friday, 5th September.

33. Mr Halliday has since learned that about 75 per cent of the drug, Flunixin, is excreted through urine and that Flunixin can be reintroduced into a horse’s system by consuming feed contaminated with its own urine. Regular cleaning of boxes to remove bedding contaminated by urine would have helped to reduce the recycling of drugs and prevent self-contamination and cross-contamination.

34. Following the Hocquard case, earlier this year, the Racing Integrity Board issued an Advisory dated 5th August 2025 offering “practical guidance to help trainers reduce the risk of contamination”. It warned Trainers of the need to “refresh bedding in treatment stalls daily and schedule a weekly deep clean of all surfaces and maintain routine cleaning of high-touch fixtures using neutral pH detergents”. This Advisory, the Adjudicative Committee was told, was forwarded to both equine codes and the NZ Veterinary Association. Unfortunately, this Advisory was not passed on by HRNZ to Trainers, and neither did his Veterinarian advise him of the risk.

35. The Adjudicative Committee accepts that Mr Halliday was unaware of the risk of self-contamination and cross-contamination, and also accepts that as the most likely explanation for the positive swab taken from ARIZONAWILDCAT, after each of the two races the subject of these present charges.

36. Given those circumstances, it is easy to understand how the positive swab resulted in this case. In Mr Halliday’s training area on Mr Garters’ property, it was not practical for him to strictly follow the strict regime required to avoid contamination. This is especially so, given that Mr Halliday was not even aware of the dangers.

37. The Penalty Guide starting point for a first presentation, mid-level offence is a fine of $8,000. Most fines for first presentation offences have been less, even much less, than that starting point. The Adjudicative Committee has considered the fact situations in the similar cases cited by Mr Irving, and the penalties imposed in those cases.

38. The Hocquard case is the most recent case in which this approach has been adopted, the Adjudicative Committee, in that case, adopting a starting point of $2,500 for a breach “reflecting the lower level of culpability”.

39. In the Hocquard case, the Trainer allowed a comfortable margin above the recommended WDT “to be on the safe side”. It could be said that Mr Halliday did not act “on the safe side”, allowing, as he did, the bare recommended 4.2 days – Monday afternoon to Friday evening on both occasions.

40. Having regard to that factor, the Adjudicative Committee considers the level of Mr Halliday’s culpability to be higher than that in Hocquard and, accordingly, it is adopting a starting point for a totality penalty, in this case, of $4,000. There are, of course, two charges.

41. One matter to which the Adjudicative Committee has given earnest consideration, is the approach to be adopted when considering that there are two breaches. In this regard, it has adopted the approach of the (then) Judicial Committee in Towers (2015) – two breaches involving one horse – that to impose a penalty for each breach would result in a penalty that would be disproportionate and excessive in the circumstances. A totality approach to penalty is preferable in the present case involving, as it does, the facts relating to ARIZONAWILDCAT involving, for all intents and purposes, one course of conduct and a similar situation. The Adjudicative Committee intends to adopt a totality approach. Essentially, Mr Halliday is no more culpable because there are two races involved.

42. Mr Halliday first took out a Licence to Train back in the 1997 season. He has since had 118 starts and in that time, has trained ARIZONAWILDCAT to win eleven races.

43. The Adjudicative Committee earlier described Mr Halliday as a “hobby trainer” [para 30 above]. There is an important place in Harness Racing for the likes of Mr Halliday, and the Adjudicative Committee would not wish to be responsible for driving him out of the industry. It has noted his financial situation and the need for rehabilitation in fixing penalty.

44. Mitigating factors advanced by the Informant are Mr Halliday’s cooperation during the investigation of the charges, his early admission of the breaches and his previous good record. Further, the Adjudicative Committee was impressed by his genuine remorse shown at the hearing of the charges. For these factors, Mr Halliday is entitled to a discount from the starting point of $4,000 and the Adjudicative Committee has fixed that discount at 25 per cent or $1,000.

45. In determining an appropriate penalty, the Adjudicative Committee has had regard to the usual principles of sentencing – to hold Mr Halliday accountable for his offending, to promote in him a sense of responsibility for it, an acknowledgement of that offending and the need to denounce his conduct. It has also taken into account the need to deter others from committing the same or a similar breach.

CONCLUSION – PENALTY:

46. Holder of Licence to Train Dean Halliday, is fined the sum of $3,000.

47. It has been said many times that there is nothing more likely to bring down the integrity of the Racing Industry generally than the fact that horses perform at meetings (including trials meetings) when they have been administered a Prohibited Substance, in whatever circumstances, and it is the obligation of Adjudicative Committees to denounce and deter that practice. It is important for public confidence in the industry that horses race free of any Prohibited Substance.

DISQUALIFICATION OF HORSES:

48. Following the hearing of the charges on 15 October 2025, the Adjudicative Committee made the following orders, to have immediate application:

(i) ARIZONAWILDCAT is disqualified from 1st placing in Race 7, VIP Structural Steel Handicap Pace, at the meeting of NZ Metropolitan TC held at Addington Raceway on 22nd August 2025; and

(ii) ARIZONAWILDCAT is disqualified from 5th placing in Race 2, McVicar ITM Mobile Pace, at the meeting of NZ Metropolitan TC held at Addington Raceway on 5th September 2025.

COSTS:

49. The hearing took place on a raceday and, accordingly, there will be no order as to costs.