Greyhound Racing New South Wales have just released details of a stewards inquiry that concluded a week earlier, regarding the disqualification of Lincoln Moncrieff for obstructing stewards.
The charges relate to the seizure of four greyhounds that had swabbed positive to an “endogenous” substance, believed to be insulin.
There was no word for Greyhound Racing New South Wales in regards to the charges to the positive swabs, nor to the state of the seized greyhounds or any ongoing inquiry surrounding them.
Greyhound Racing NSW Stewards on Tuesday 5 June handed down their decision in respect of offences committed by trainer Lincoln Moncrieff during a kennel inspection at his property on 16 April this year, which was ordered in response to reports from the Australian Racing Forensic Laboratory of the finding of elevated levels of an endogenous substance in a urine sample taken from Avondale Prince at the Gardens meeting on 17 February this year.
Mr Moncrieff appeared before Stewards on 15 May in answer to the relevant charges and provided written material for consideration which was received on 31 May.
Mr Moncrieff pleaded guilty to a charge under GAR 86 (f) of using improper language towards a Steward which occurred during the attempted inspection. In respect of this charge Mr Moncrieff was fined $500. In consideration of penalty Stewards took into account Mr Moncrieff’s previously unblemished record, similar penalties under this rule, his personal circumstances, apologies extended to the Stewards involved and his plea.
Mr Moncrieff was found guilty of a charge under GAR 86 (h) of having attempted to interfere with the carrying out of an investigation. In respect of this offence Mr Moncrieff was disqualified for a period of four months, to expire on 15 August this year. In determining penalty in this instance, consideration was given to the period already served as a result of the imposition of a suspension of Mr Moncrieff’s licence from 16 April. Consideration was also given to Mr Moncrieff’s previously unblemished record relative to similar offences, other penalties for such offences, his involvement in the industry, personal circumstances, not guilty plea and the industry stance on such offences.
Mr Moncrieff has appealed the decisions on both charges