Once again this week we have another case of a young harness racing trainer falling foul of rule 1004 (1A) which states: “A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances.”

Andrew Grant, the young trainer in  question was also charged with breaching two other rules which read as follows

Rule 1004(3) – “When a horse is presented to race in contravention of sub-rule (1A) or (2) the trainer of the horse commits a breach of these Rules.”

Rule 1004(D) – “Any horse which has been taken to a racecourse for the purpose of engaging in a race which is found to have administered to it or ingested by it any prohibited substance shall be disqualified from that race.”

The long arduous process that led to the charges he finally faced being laid are lade out in full in the JCA statement of the hearing you can access below.

What is clear from the transcript of the hearing is Andrew Grant has done little wrong except in respect of adequate book keeping.

It appears highly likely that the administration in this case was done by an employee but as the trainer, Andrew Grant has to take full responsibility.

The fine assessed by the JCA was $5000 which seems to be a starting point these day for this offense.

He was convicted of the least serious of the three levels of culpability under rule 1007 (penalty provision) of "failing to take proper care."

The starting point for fines for first offenders under this rule is $8,000 but in the view of the JCA, mitigating factors reduced this to $5,000 in this case.

As well Andrew Grant had costs awarded against him of  $3364 with $2089 to the RIU and another $1275 to the JCA.

The issue of awarding costs in this case is one we find hard to justify.

The RIU pursued a much more serious charge for a long time and only amended the charge to the much less serious one he was convicted of at the hearing which they are fully entitled to do.

But to expect the defendant to pay for the RIU's folly in pursuing the original charges right to midway through the hearing is hard to accept and the RIU's behaviour contributed to the costs incurred by both Andrew Grant and the JCA .

By the time you take the costs into account on top of the fine and Andrew Grant's own legal fees, then the total bill is over $10,500.

That is for a first offender who was convicted of "failing to take proper care."

One of the considerations the JCA took into account when settling on the fine and the costs amount was Andrew Grant's ability to pay.

The fine was in line with others handed down in similar cases and sends the signal that failing to take proper care has a cost.

But to then add the costs component they did to a young trainer who is in poor financial health was unnecessary and not supported by the performance of the RIU in this matter.

Hearing transcript

JC