Moody changing stories

[biff 2,158]

8 minutes ago, Leggy said:

Well Biff, looks like the Availa explanation got appropriate short shrift in the decision and the trainer was held accountable for administration which should allay your concerns, but as suggested in my post this morning, no real evidence to make the intentional use of a PED stick. Will they put him out or just a substantial fine?

Well Leggy, they were scathing as to the negligence, I'll stand by my thoughts, what a goose and he's champion trainer, give him a year at least to think about it...FMD.

[Leggy 4,076]

6 minutes ago, Midget said:

Huh ??

You sure you read that decision Leggy ?

Yip beginning to end. What bit did you not understand?

[biff 2,158]

I promise never to mention Moody again, the photo's of him at Gallipoli, and this debacle.......he wont get time, and a fine wont bother him, a hide like a rhino, we shrug and move on.

[Guest 2Admin2]

Victorian RAD Board reasons for the decision on Moody guilty decision 16 MAR 2016 | THOROUGHBREDNEWS NEWS DESK  RACING APPEALS AND DISCIPLINARY BOARD (Original Jurisdiction) RVL Stewards v Peter Moody Reasons for Decision His Honour Judge J. Bowman Chairman Mr C. Fox Member Mr J. Rosenthal Member Appearances MR J.J. GLEESON QC with MR D.W. BENNETT (instructed by Minter Ellison) appeared on behalf of the RVL Stewards. MR M. STIRLING (instructed by Richmond and Bennison) appeared on behalf of Mr P. Moody. General background Licensed trainer Mr Peter Moody has pleaded "not guilty" to three charges, two of them being alternative charges, in connection with the running of the horse Lidari in the Group 1 Turnbull Stakes at Flemington on 4 October 2014. Lidari ran second on that occasion. In essence, a urine sample taken from Lidari after the Turnbull Stakes produced a positive return to 5 cobalt. There is no dispute but that cobalt is a prohibited substance pursuant to the Rules of Racing, if it is at a mass concentration of in excess of 200 micrograms per litre. In the present case, and in the circumstances referred to below, cobalt was detected in the urine sample at 360 to 410 micrograms per litre. As shall be discussed,the case for the defence relies upon an attack on aspects of the process which was followed in relation to the testing of the sample taken from Lidari (the AR 178D argument), and upon the general merits of the case (the merits argument). The matter came before the Board in its original jurisdiction. Mr J Gleeson with Mr D Bennett of counsel appeared on behalf of the Stewards. Mr M Stirling of counsel appeared on behalf of Mr Moody. A considerable number of witnesses gave oral evidence, and a substantial body of material 15 was admitted into evidence. This material included transcripts of many interviews conducted by Stewards with Mr Moody and others in January/February 2015 and November 2015, and a series of expert reports. At the outset, we thank counsel for the way in which this quite difficult case was presented. It was contested vigorously, but fairly and without histrionics. Appropriate concessions were made and careful 20 arguments advanced. Many facts were agreed. The Board gained a lot of assistance from the thorough and professional manner in which the case was put before it. The Rules allegedly breached Mr Moody is charged with breaches of AR 175(h)(i), AR 175(h)(ii), and AR 178. 1. AR 175(h)(i) 25 Pursuant to AR 175(h)(i), the Principal Racing Authority (or the Stewards exercising powers delegated to them) may penalise: Any person who administers, or causes to be administered, to a horse any prohibited substance for the purpose of affecting the performance or behaviour of a horse in a race. This could be described as the principal charge facing Mr Moody.  Pursuant to AR 196(5), where a person is found guilty of a breach of AR 175(h)(i), a penalty of disqualification for a period of not less than 3 years must be imposed, unless a special circumstance is found to exist. LR 73A specifies when such a special circumstance may be found. 2. AR 175(h)(ii) Alternatively, the Stewards have charged Mr Moody under AR 175(h)(ii). After the same introduction concerning administration of the prohibited substance, it reads: which is detected in any sample taken from such horse prior to or following the running of any race. There is no set penalty for this offence. It seems to the Board to be patently a lesser offence than a breach of AR 175(h)(i).  3. AR 178 Again alternatively, the Stewards have charged Mr Moody pursuant to AR 178. This Rule reads as follows: Subject to AR 178G, when any horse that has been brought to a racecourse for the purpose 45 of engaging in a race and a prohibited substance is detected in any sample taken from it prior to or following its running in any race, the trainer and any other person who was in charge of such horse at any relevant time may be penalised. Again, there is no set penalty and this is a lesser charge than the principal charge. It also seems to the Board to be of lesser gravity than the first alternate charge.  In relation to this charge, Mr Stirling conceded that, if the defence based upon the AR 178D argument failed, Mr Moody could not contest guilt pursuant to AR 178. The Standard or Degree of Proof There is no dispute that, given the seriousness of the charges and the potential consequences flowing from them, the standard or degree of proof required for the charges to be established is that described in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 36. The words of Rich J to the effect that what is required is a state of comfortable satisfaction on the balance of probabilities are often used. That comfortable satisfaction can be reached by direct evidence or inference. The AR 178D argument Mr Moody submits that the Stewards breached the provisions of AR 178D in several ways in relation 60 to the post-race urine sample taken from Lidari, and as a result the Stewards are not permitted to rely on any of the analysis evidence which was carried out. At the hearing of this matter, the AR 178D argument was referred to as a potential “knock-out blow”, on the basis that if the analysis evidence is not admitted, then the charges against Mr Moody cannot be sustained.  To understand the AR 178D argument, it is necessary to have regard to the testing process that was followed in this case. The Board is assisted in this regard by an Agreed Statement of Facts which was submitted by the parties in relation to the testing of the post-race urine sample from Lidari. The Agreed Statement of Facts is in a Schedule attached to these Reasons. Mr Moody argues that the Stewards breached AR 178D, which concerns the analysis of samples taken 70 by Stewards, in three ways. These breaches were described as breaches of the “independent analysis obligation”, breaches of the “notification obligation”, and breaches of the “independent nomination obligation”. The acts giving rise to the breaches of the “independent analysis obligation” are said to be the intervention of the Stewards in the laboratory process in directing RASL to split the “B” sample and 75 then refer such samples for the purposes of analysis, so that Mr Moody was deprived of having the first Official Racing Laboratory (ORL) analyse the “A” sample and the second ORL analyse the “B” sample, and that ChemCentre failed to refer the “B” sample to a second ORL as required by AR 178D(2)(b) and failed to advise HKJC as the second ORL of the identity of the prohibited substance as required by AR 178D(2)(b).  The breaches of the “notification obligation” are said to arise by reason of the failure of the Stewards to immediately notify Mr Moody of the detection of a prohibited substance when Stewards became aware of such on 20 November 2014, as required by AR 178D(2)(a). The acts giving rise to the breaches of the “independent nomination obligation” are said to be that ChemCentre failed to nominate a second ORL to test the reserve sample as required by AR 178D(2)(b) 85 and failed to refer the “reserve portion of the same sample” (i.e. the “B” sample) to a second ORL for analysis, and that the Stewards in circumstances where they had no power or authority to do so, installed themselves as the party under 178D(2)(b) which nominated the second ORL, and directed RASL to refer part of the reserve portion of the “B” sample to HKJC as the second ORL for analysis. The Stewards in answer submit (amongst other things) that the procedures set out in AR 178D(2)-(7) are optional and facilitative only, in the sense of providing an evidentiary short cut by prescribing that the two certified findings referred to in AR 178D(2)-(7) constitute prima facie evidence and that the Stewards may avail themselves of that short cut should they choose to do so, but they are not required to. Consequently any departures from AR 178D(2)-(7) either are not breaches of AR 178D by the Stewards, or are of no consequence in circumstances where (as in this case) no challenge is made by Mr 95 Moody to the accuracy of the testing that was done. The Board accepts the submission of the Stewards that they are not prevented from proving that a prohibited substance was administered by evidence other than a certificate or certificates produced pursuant to the processes contemplated in AR 178D. So much is consistent with a number of authorities, including Riley v Racing Victoria Ltd [2015] VSC 527, Harper v The Racing Penalties Appeal Tribunal 100 of Western Australia [2001] WASCA 217, and In the matter of the Appeal of Gregory Alt (Reasons of the Appeal Panel of the NSW Thoroughbred Racing Board dated 4 August 2005). This disposes of much of Mr Moody’s submissions in relation to AR 178D, and in particular as to the effect for which he contended of the “independent analysis obligation” and the “independent nomination obligation”. Further, even if there were breaches of the contract constituted by the Rules of Racing by 105 reason of these matters, the Board is not satisfied that these breaches are capable of having the consequences contended for by Mr Moody, namely the inadmissibility of the analysis evidence that was carried out. As for the notification obligation, and in particular the failure of the Stewards to notify Mr Moody of the finding of the detection of cobalt at above the permitted level, this may be of a different character 110 from the failures to comply with steps which are concerned with the testing of the sample, given that it might be said to be concerned with procedural fairness and affording the opportunity for a trainer, for example, to attend the opening and testing of a “B” sample. The Board was not referred to any authorities where a failure to notify a trainer upon the initial finding was the basis of the alleged non-compliance with AR 178D (or equivalent provision).  However, it is not necessary for the Board to reach a concluded view as to the effect of non-compliance with the notification elements which are referred to in AR 178D(2)(a) and AR 178D(5)(a) given that, in the Board’s view, at most, any failure on the part of the Stewards to notify Mr Moody could only affect the admissibility of the evidence as to testing which any such notification was to precede. The testing which followed was by the HKJC. In the present case, if there was any relevant failure to notify Mr 120 Moody that failure was, in the Board’s view, not after the initial screening analysis of the “A” sample on 20 November 2014 but was following the confirmatory analysis of the portion of the “B” Sample by ChemCentre carried out between 11 and 22 December 2014, which means that the evidence of the initial screen testing and of the confirmatory analysis by ChemCentre are unaffected. So too is the evidence of the analysis conducted of the stored sample pursuant to AR 178DD, which is referred to in paragraph 125 18 of the Agreed Statement of Facts. As noted, the accuracy of these tests is not in dispute, and the results are referred to in the Agreed Statement of Facts (paragraphs 5, 12 and 18). All of these analyses detected cobalt at above the prohibited mass concentration, and at 360 or 380 micrograms per litre, and the Board is entitled to rely on this evidence. For these reasons the Board does not accept the AR 178D argument of Mr Moody.  The merits argument (a) The charge under AR 175(h)(i) For this charge to be proven, the Board must be comfortably satisfied that Mr Moody not only administered or caused to be administered the prohibited substance, namely cobalt at above the permitted level, but did so for the purpose of affecting the performance of Lidari in a race.  The burden of proof is borne by the Stewards. The Stewards’ case The Stewards contend that the explanation advanced on behalf of Mr Moody for the presence of the above threshold cobalt that a product known as Availa was fed to Lidari in far greater amounts than was initially disclosed to the Stewards (the Subsequently Alleged Supplementation) should be rejected, 140 and in circumstances where the post-race urine sample from Lidari discloses cobalt at substantially above the permitted level, which cannot be explained by Availa in the amounts initially disclosed (the Initially Declared Supplementation), the inference should be drawn, and the Board should be comfortably satisfied, that Mr Moody administered cobalt or caused cobalt to be administered to Lidari for the prescribed purpose.  In support of this inference, the Stewards point to the absence of any suggestion of interference by any current or former staff member, or any security breach. The Stewards further contend that this is a circumstantial case, and it is not necessary for the purposes of the charge for the Board to determine or be satisfied as to exactly how or when the cobalt came to be administered to Lidari.  The Defence case Mr Moody contends that there is not a body of evidence in this case from which the inference of administration of cobalt for the prescribed purpose can be drawn. That is for reasons including the Subsequently Alleged Supplementation, which the scientific evidence suggests is a plausible explanation for the detected level of cobalt (if such supplementation occurred), and the absence of any 155 other evidence pre-dating the Turnbull Stakes linking or connecting Mr Moody with cobalt or the administration of it. Background Lidari, previously a European racehorse, first arrived in Mr Moody’s stables in January 2013, and returned to Mr Moody’s stables in July 2014 for a Spring campaign.  Mr Moody has trained other European imports and had noticed that they often had small, shelly or brittle feet which could result in hoof problems when racing on Australian tracks. Accordingly, for some years prior to the arrival of Lidari, Mr Moody had been using for European horses a product called Availa, a powder which is added to feed and which is intended to promote hoof growth. The use of Availa was recommended to Mr Moody, probably by his horse chiropractor, but Mr Moody was quite definite that the use of any supplements or additives in his stables has to be cleared by him. Such substances can only be given to a Moody trained horse if approved by him. Availa contains cobalt. We shall not go into the scientific evidence. Suffice to say that Availa contains a modest amount of cobalt – just over 21 micrograms per recommended daily dose of 8.95 grams. Availa was added to Lidari’s feed shortly after it arrived in Mr Moody’s stable and was continued to be used when the horse was stabled with him. Another European import in the Moody stable at the relevant time, namely Brambles, was also given Availa. The normal stable routine at the time was for horses to be given a vitamin injection consisting of B Complex, vitamin B12 and Cophos two days prior to racing, although for reasons that have not been 175 explained, Lidari received a vitamin injection on 3 October 2014, the day before the Turnbull Stakes. These ingredients contain cobalt in small amounts. Vitamin injections are prepared by the stable staff, then left for the stable vets to administer them subsequently. The vet who administered the injection to Lidari on 3 October 2014, Dr Amber Thiel, consequently had no direct knowledge of what was in the injection given to Lidari on that day.  Consideration and findings The amount of Availa fed to Lidari generally and in the period leading up to its run in the Turnbull Stakes were central issues before the Board. Much of the evidence was concerned with the Subsequently Alleged Supplementation of Availa, which first emerged when Mr Moody filed a Case Statement in this proceeding on 29 September 2015.  The Case Statement asserted that significantly larger amounts of Availa had been given to Lidari in the period prior to the Turnbull Stakes than had originally been disclosed to the Stewards in January/February 2015 during the course of interviews by the Stewards, and that stable employee Mr Rammohan Myala had done much of the feeding of Lidari at the relevant time, rather than Mr Neil Alexander, as the Stewards had previously understood.  Mr Moody’s leading “feed man” is and was Mr Alexander. Both Mr Alexander and Mr Myala have been with Mr Moody for some years. Mr Alexander and Mr Myala gave evidence. Neither was convincing or impressive. Both were poor witnesses. The unreliable evidence of Mr Alexander hardly clarified the situation, with about five different versions of the number of scoops and the size of the scoop or scoops used for Availa being advanced. Mr Myala was much more adamant, two scoops in the morning and one scoop in the afternoon (with a large 30 ml scoop being used each time), but his version does not sit with the ultimate version given by Mr Alexander or with the feeding and supplementation instructions for Availa written on the whiteboard in the stables. It is not even completely clear who fed Lidari and for how many days per week at the relevant time. Mr Moody himself gave the impression of having no direct knowledge, and even little general idea, of the level of Availa fed to Lidari. The Board is also sceptical about the Subsequently Alleged Supplementation for a number of additional reasons, including: (i) that Mr Myala was said to have been involved in the feeding of Lidari only emerged many 205 months after Mr Moody was notified of the detection of cobalt in Lidari’s post-race urine sample; (ii) the timing of this revelation, being after the charges were laid, and after Mr Moody had been provided with the scientific testing, which had been conducted for the Stewards on the basis of the Initially Declared Supplementation, as had been disclosed to the Stewards by 210 Mr Moody and Mr Alexander when they were first interviewed by the Stewards in early 2015; (iii) the inconsistencies between the evidence of Mr Moody, Mr Alexander and Mr Moody’s chief veterinarian Dr Peter Angus as to how the Subsequently Alleged Supplementation was discovered; and (iv) the stark contrast with the test results for Brambles, which is alleged to have been given the same or similar amounts of Availa as Lidari over a lengthy period, yet when tested on 13 September 2014 returned a reading for cobalt in a post-race urine sample of only 26 micrograms per litre. However, even if the Board were not to accept that Lidari was given Availa in accordance with the 220 Subsequently Alleged Supplementation, it does not necessarily follow that the Board should be comfortably satisfied that Mr Moody administered or caused to be administered cobalt at above the permitted level for the prescribed purpose. In the absence of the Subsequently Alleged Supplementation, there is no evidence to explain how Lidari came to have cobalt at the levels detected in its post-race urine sample, save for the suggestion, by Mr Moody’s expert Dr van Eps, that even the amounts of Availa as initially declared (i.e. one scoop a day) could possibly bring about this result, given the lengthy period of supplementation. The Board notes in this regard that the Stewards do not contend that the vitamin injection given to Lidari on 3 October 2014 was the cause, notwithstanding the unusual circumstances in which that vitamin injection was given.  This gap or “vacuum”, as it was referred to at the hearing, arises notwithstanding that the Stewards have had full access to all relevant records of Mr Moody, and the benefit of stable inspections and the like. The Stewards contend that this vacuum should be filled by inference. On balance, the Board is not comfortably satisfied that it should do so. More particularly, whilst we are satisfied that the prohibited substance found its way into Lidari as a result of something which occurred within the stables, we are not comfortably satisfied that we should draw the inference from the evidence before us that Mr Moody administered or caused to be administered cobalt for the purposes of affecting the performance of Lidari in the Turnbull Stakes on 4 October 2014. The Board had the benefit of Mr Moody’s evidence. In several respects, Mr Moody’s evidence was surprising, including his attitude towards cobalt, the limited effort he professed to make to find out the cause of the cobalt reading after first being advised of it in January 2015, his subsequent professed confusion about the barn in which Lidari had been stabled in October 2014, the lack of detailed recall by Mr Moody as to how he came to be aware of the Subsequently Alleged Supplementation notwithstanding the importance of the discovery to his defence of this case, and his apparent indifference or disinterest as to what might be contained in products which were being used in his stables. However, carelessness or even negligence is not purposeful administration. Similarly, mere suspicions are neither direct evidence nor, in this case, evidence from which a persuasive inference can be drawn. The Board does not consider that Mr Moody’s evidence was such that it should conclude that Mr Moody was being untruthful or lacked credibility in his denial of having any explanation for the cobalt reading other than what might have been due to the Availa supplementation. The Board in reaching its conclusion has also taken into account that no other horses of Mr Moody returned an above threshold positive to cobalt (including during the period that the Stewards did not notify him of the result for Lidari), and that Lidari did not return an above threshold positive to cobalt on any other occasion on which it was tested.  Thus, whilst we are satisfied that the prohibited substance found its way into Lidari as a result of something occurring within the stables, we are not comfortably satisfied that Mr Moody administered or caused to be administered that substance for the purpose of affecting the performance or behaviour of a horse - in this instance, Lidari - in a race. Accordingly, the charge pursuant to AR 175(h)(i) is dismissed.  (b) The charge under AR 175(h)(ii) For this charge to be established, it must be proven that Mr Moody administered or caused to be administered to Lidari cobalt above the threshold level. That it was so detected in the analysis of the urine sample taken from Lidari after the running of the Turnbull Stakes is not disputed.  What distinguishes the second charge from the first is that the requirement of a purpose of affecting the performance or behaviour of a horse in a race is absent. As already noted, there is no suggestion in this case of any third party involvement in Lidari’s test result, and we are satisfied that the prohibited substance found its way into Lidari as a result of something occurring within the stables.  As the licensed trainer, Mr Moody was and is responsible for the horses he trains, including Lidari. For a number of reasons, which are discussed further below, we find that Mr Moody’s stable operations were far from satisfactory. Indeed, at times it seemed that the many shortcomings at Mr Moody’s stables were being presented as a defence to the charges against him.  Regardless of the delegation of various tasks and responsibilities within the stable, Lidari was under the care and control of Mr Moody and the buck stops with him. At the very least, Mr Moody failed to prevent the prohibited substance finding its way into Lidari as a result of something occurring within his stables. A considerable part of Mr Moody’s defence was focused on Availa and the administration of it by 280 Mr Alexander and Mr Myala. Whilst the Availa arguments advanced on behalf of Mr. Moody may be of assistance to him in resisting a charge under AR 175(h)(i), with its purposive requirement, those arguments are no defence to the charge under AR 175(h)(ii). Mr Alexander and Mr Myala were under Mr Moody’s control. They were his employees. All supplements fed to horses in his stables had first to be approved by him and their provision to each individual horse authorised. The ultimate responsibility resided with him. The Board is comfortably satisfied that Mr Moody caused to be administered to Lidari a prohibited substance which was detected in a sample taken from that horse following the running of the Turnbull Stakes. It is not necessary for the Board to reach any conclusion about which of the Initially Declared 290 Supplementation or the Subsequently Alleged Supplementation was administered to Lidari, or whether Availa was the primary cause of the above threshold post-race sample. The Board makes no such conclusions. We find the charge pursuant to AR 175(h)(ii) to be proven. (c) The charge under AR 178 295 As a finding of guilt under AR 175(h)(ii) has been made, there is then no need for us to make a finding in relation to the charge under AR 178. It is an alternative charge. Clearly the ingredients of this charge have been made out, but, in the circumstances, no ruling is required in relation to it. Concluding Remarks There are certain additional matters about which the Board wishes to make comment.  It is readily apparent from the evidence before us that that there was significant carelessness, for which Mr Moody was responsible, in relation to the operation of his stables. This was particularly so in relation to the administration of cobalt, as well as general feeding, supplementation and injection procedures. Some of Mr Moody’s answers given in evidence underline this high level of carelessness. Mr Moody said that he did not even know that there was cobalt in Availa until June 2015. He was ignorant as to the dosages horses were receiving. He left it to others to instruct his staff, his explanation being that he is not a “people person”. He said that his understanding of Availa, a substance being administered to horses under his care, was and is “nil”. This is notwithstanding that a warning concerning cobalt had been issued and circulated by the Stewards months before. It was well publicised that, once the threshold had been reached, cobalt was a prohibited substance, and that the consequences of its administration could be dire. Further, Mr Moody stated that, in hindsight, following the initial visit of the Stewards in January 2015, he probably should have gone through his whole stable process so as to identify who had been feeding what horses what substances and when. His admission lays bare a clear lack of knowledge on the part of Mr Moody as to these matters. Insofar as any system of supervision was in place, it was inadequate to say the least. Mr Moody had no recollection of ever having a discussion with his staff about being careful as to what substances were put into horses. Apparently, he left that to others. When interviewed, he had said to the Stewards that “I’m making myself look incompetent”. When it was put in cross-examination that his story required this Board to believe that he’d been completely incompetent, his answer was, “in this point, yes”.  Mr Moody also admitted that he would not have had an awareness as to what was on the stable whiteboard as to the feeding of Lidari. The failure to give Lidari the vitamin injection on the correct day was Mr Moody’s admitted omission. Also of interest is his apparently frank statement, “I didn’t know what things in my feed room contained cobalt”. A further matter of concern to the Board is the processes at Mr Moody’s stables in relation to vitamin injections. The procedure was for someone from the stables to fill the various syringes and place them outside the stalls of the horses that were to be injected. At a later time, a veterinary surgeon would come along and administer the injection, apparently without checking and with no direct knowledge as to what was in fact in the syringe. How much direct interest Mr Moody took in this procedure is questionable.  This reflects poorly upon the level of care taken, both by Mr Moody and by his veterinary surgeons, Dr Peter Angus and his assistant, Dr Amber Thiel. We appreciate that Dr Angus has worked with Mr Moody and been his principal veterinary surgeon for many years, but nevertheless this seems to be a slapdash method of administering injections. Further, supervision seems to have been at a minimum. That high level of carelessness within Mr Moody’s stable 335 is again evident. Result In this case, the charge pursuant to AR 175(h)(i) is dismissed. Mr Moody is found guilty of the charge pursuant to AR 175(h)(ii). We shall hear counsel on the question of penalty.  SCHEDULE AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. A post-race urine sample was taken from the horse Lidari on 4 October 2014 at 4:55pm. That sample was divided into two portions (The A Sample and the B Sample), each of which was put into a separate bottle. A control solution was also put into a separate bottle (Control Solution). The three bottles were collectively given the sample number V318714. 2. The A Sample, B Sample and Control Solution were provided by Racing Victoria (RVL) to Racing Analytical Services Limited (RASL) on 6 October 2014. 3. RASL analysed part of the A Sample for substances other than cobalt. At all relevant times, RASL did not have the capability of analysing urine for the presence of cobalt. 4. RASL sent part of the A Sample to Racing Chemistry Laboratory ChemCentre (ChemCentre) on 8 October 2014 for cobalt screening. 5. ChemCentre screened part of the A Sample for cobalt. The screen returned a urinary cobalt concentration of 360 micrograms per litre. On 20 November 2014, ChemCentre notified RASL of this result in writing. 6. By email dated 25 November 2014, RASL sent to RVL a copy of ChemCentre’s 20 November 2014 written notification in relation to the screen. 7. By email dated 4 December 2014, Naomi Selvadurai of RASL informed Kane Ashby of RVL: "There was insufficient urine in sample V318714 for further analysis, and so was not sent." 8. By email dated 8 December 2014 to David Batty and Naomi Selvadurai of RASL, Kane Ashby of RVL proposed the splitting of B Sample and Control Solution into two parts. The email asked that RASL confirm its agreement to this proposed process. 9. By email dated 9 December 2014 to Kane Ashby of RVL and Naomi Selvadurai of RASL, David Batty of RASL sent a draft document entitled "Inspection, Splitting and Repackaging of Reserve Urine and Control Samples in the Presence of an Independent Witness". By email dated 9 December 2014 to David Batty of RASL, Kane Ashby of RVL provided comments on that draft document. 10. On 10 December 2014, the B Sample and Control Solution were split by RASL in the presence of an independent witness, barrister Mr Serge Petrovich. Half of the B Sample was transferred into a new bottle and half of the Control Solution was transferred into a new bottle, which two new bottles together were given the sample number V324500. The other half of the B Sample was transferred into a new bottle and the other half of the Control Solution was transferred into a new bottle, which two new bottles together were given the sample number V326328. Mr Petrovich and David Batty of RASL signed a document entitled "Inspection, Splitting and Repackaging of Reserve Urine and Control Samples in the Presence of an Independent Witness" describing the procedure which occurred. 11. Sample V324500 was sent by RASL to ChemCentre under cover of a letter from Naomi Selvadurai of RASL to Mr J White of ChemCentre dated 11 December 2014. 12. ChemCentre analysed sample V324500 and detected the presence of cobalt: (1) in the urine sample at a concentration of 380 micrograms per litre, with a measurement of uncertainty of 38 micrograms per litre at equal to or greater than a 99.7%levelof confidence; (2) in the control sample at a concentration of 0.6 micrograms per litre. 13. ChemCentre issued a Certificate of Analysis dated 22 December 2014. 14. By letter dated 29 December 2014 to Dayle Brown of RVL (sent by email dated 29 December 2014), David Batty of RASL referred to the splitting of sample V318714 into samples V324500 and V326328 and enclosed ChemCentre's Certificate of Analysis dated 22 December 2014. 15. Sample V326328 was sent by RASL to Hong Kong Jockey Club Racing Laboratory (HKJC) under cover of a letter from David Batty of RASL to Dr T Wan of HKJC dated 29 December 2014. 16. HKJC analysed sample V326328 and detected the presence of cobalt in the urine sample at a concentration of about 410 micrograms per litre. The control solution was negative. HKJC issued a Test Report and Analysis Report each dated 10 January 2015 which recorded these results. 17. By letter dated 12 January 2015 to Dayle Brown of RVL (sent by email dated 12 January 2015), David Batty of RASL sent a copy of HKJC's Test Report and Analysis. 18. ChemCentre stored part of the A Sample which was sent to it by RASL on 8 October 2014. In December 2015, ChemCentre analysed that stored part of the A Sample and detected the presence of cobalt therein at a concentration of 380 micrograms per litre, with an expanded measurement uncertainty for cobalt determination at the threshold concentration (200 micrograms per litre) of 20 micrograms per litre at >99.7% confidence. ChemCentre issued a Certificate of Analysis dated 7 October 2015 which recorded this result. 19. RASL, ChemCentre and HKJC were each at all relevant times expressly listed as an Official Racing Laboratory under AR 1.

[Trump 2,741]

The article mentions, "another European import Brambles". Wasn't that the NZ import? The NZ Oaks winner?