Hunt Fined $2000 For 2013 Golden Easter Egg Positive Swab

Greyhound Racing NSW (GRNSW) stewards have finalised deliberations on penalty following analysts’ reports of the finding of the prohibited substance 5beta-androstane-3alpha, 17beta-diol at a concentration in urine of greater than 20 ng/ml in the sample taken from Cracker Jack Lil after that greyhound ran third in the 2013 Golden Easter Egg final at the Wentworth Park meeting on 30 March last year.

The presence of the substance was confirmed by the QLD Racing Science Centre on 26 November 2013, with an inquiry into the reports initially set down for hearing on 7 February 2014. Trainer Peter Hunt was unable to attend this inquiry due to personal circumstances.

After several attempts to conclude the matter, GRNSW, under the provisions of the rules relating to inquiries and notification, determined to hear the matter via written correspondence.

Following alternate correspondence Mr Hunt pleaded guilty to a charge under GAR 83 (2) (a) of having presented Cracker Jack Lil for the event other than free of any prohibited substance in that the urine sample taken from the greyhound was found to contain 5beta-androstane-3alpha, 17beta-diol at a concentration in urine of greater than 20 ng/ml.

On 24 July 2014, Mr Hunt was asked to provide any submissions on penalty by close of business on 8 August 2014. No submissions have been received in respect of penalty.

GRNSW have now determined the matter. Consistent with the position adopted for reports of this nature after the introduction of the threshold for this metabolite on 1 January 2013, Mr Hunt has been fined $2,000.

In considering penalty, stewards took into account such factors as Mr Hunt’s record of having only one previous offence under this rule in 2006, his guilty plea, the lack of any significant wagering support for Cracker Jack Lil, the comparatively low level of the substance reported but also the fact that the report came about after a sample had been taken from a greyhound presented for NSW greyhound racing’s flagship event.

Under GAR 83 (4), Cracker Jack Lil was disqualified from the event in question and the placings amended accordingly.

Mr Hunt was advised of his right of appeal.

ARG Note:
Sometimes Speedy is elevated into third position and receives $31,250 in prizemoney.

Past Discussion

  1. As a new member of the greyhound fraternity I have a few questions? Does the dog in question continue to run and win prize money whilst the process is run?? Is it not dealt with ASAP and dog suspended until investigation complete? Surely you cannot get an adjournment and continue racing that particular dog? I would be very pissed if I had a runner in race in question..

  2. As a new member of the greyhound fraternity I have a few questions? Does the dog in question continue to run and win prize money whilst the process is run?? Is it not dealt with ASAP and dog suspended until investigation complete? Surely you cannot get an adjournment and continue racing that particular dog? I would be very pissed if I had a runner in race in question..

  3. Only if the dog willingly took it Tim Robinson :-) jokes mate the dog did nothing wrong so why would it cop penalties? No it doesn’t is the answer. People get more pissed when a dog returns a positive from heats and due to the laboratory process takes its place in the final. The true joke is big trainers return positives for the biggest races get little fines small trainers get rubbed out for positives in races sometimes worth no more than $1000 to the winner for on occasions something that was an oversight. No transparency whatsoever

  4. Only if the dog willingly took it Tim Robinson :-) jokes mate the dog did nothing wrong so why would it cop penalties? No it doesn’t is the answer. People get more pissed when a dog returns a positive from heats and due to the laboratory process takes its place in the final. The true joke is big trainers return positives for the biggest races get little fines small trainers get rubbed out for positives in races sometimes worth no more than to the winner for on occasions something that was an oversight. No transparency whatsoever