Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v AC Roberts – Decision dated 31 May 2015
ID: JCA10747
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of Greyhound Racing New Zealand
IN THE MATTER of Information No. A6711
BETWEEN MR R QUIRK, Stipendiary Steward for the Racing Integrity Unit
Informant
AND A C Roberts, Licensed Greyhound Trainer
Respondent
Date of Hearing: 31 May 2015
Venue: Ashburton Raceway, Ashburton
Judicial Committee: S Ching, Chair - R McKenzie, Committee Member
Present: Mr R Quirk, Stipendiary Steward, for the Informant
Mr A C Roberts, trainer of HETFIELD
Date of Decision: 31 May 2015
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
The Charge
[1] Information No.A1099 alleges that:
On 7 May 2015, at a race meeting conducted by the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club, in Race 2, Mr Roberts failed to present HETFIELD for kennelling for Race 6.
[2] Mr Quirk produced a letter signed by Mr M Godber, General Manager of the Racing Integrity Unit, pursuant to Rule 91.2 a authorising the filing of the information.
The Rules
[3] Rule 68.1 of the Greyhound Racing Rules of Racing provides as follows:
68.1 The Handler of a Greyhound competing at a Meeting shall produce the correct Greyhound to the Stewards at or before the time specified in Rule 68.2.
The Plea
[4] Mr Roberts had signed the Statement by the Respondent at the foot of the information form indicating that he admitted the breach of the Rule. He confirmed this at the hearing. Mr Roberts also confirmed that he understood the Rule he was being charged under.
Summary of Facts
[5] An agreed Summary of Facts was presented by Mr Quirk, Stipendiary Steward, to the hearing. That agreed Summary of Facts reads as follows:
1. On Thursday the 7th of May 2015 the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held a race meeting at Addington Raceway. I was the Stipendiary Steward in charge of the meeting on behalf of the RIU.
2. The programme for the meeting showed that Race Six on the day was the CLARKSON SIGN STUDIO SPRINT (Heat 1) to be conducted over 295 metres for dogs classed at C5.
3. Dog number 2 in that race was shown to be HETFIELD, a black dog, whelped in January 2012 by Dyna Lachlan, out of Wicked Witch. This dog was trained by licenced public trainer, Mr Craig Roberts.
4. The ear brand for the dog was listed as VBZEO and the microchip number was 956000008249420.
5. Mr Craig Roberts was not in attendance at this race meeting as he was transporting dogs to the Wellington GRC meeting to be held at Wanganui the following day. The dog was transported to the racecourse by Mr Roberts’ son Mr Daniel Roberts who was also in charge of the dog for the meeting.
6. During the allocated kennelling time for Races One to Six which was between 2.32pm and 3.32pm, the dog purporting to be HETFIELD was presented at the Veterinary inspection table by Mr D Roberts. At this point its microchip was scanned for identification purposes. This task was completed by a member of the kennel staff.
7. It then became apparent that the microchip number in the dog presented was not consistent with the number on the identification card of HETFIELD. The dog’s ear brand was also different to its card.
8. The dog that was presented on the Veterinary inspection table had a microchip number of 956000008869555 and an ear brand of NCCFM. It transpired that the dog presented was actually CAWBOURNE BUTTSY, another black dog trained by Mr C Roberts.
9. Mr D Roberts then returned to his trailer to establish whether HETFIELD had been brought to the track. He could not find HETFIELD and at that stage rang his father, Trainer Mr C Roberts.
10. It then became apparent that the two dogs had been mixed up and that HETFIELD was with Trainer Mr C Roberts en route to Wanganui. HETFIELD was then officially scratched with the TAB.
11. I rang Mr C Roberts a short time after and he admitted that the dogs had been mixed up after racing at Addington the week before. He stated that the dogs look very similar and have the same traits. They are both sprinters and require a similar training programme. He authorised Mr D Roberts to sign the information admitting the breach of the Rule and this was completed.
12. As CAWBOURNE BUTTSY was a reserve for the race at Wanganui this dog was able to be withdrawn under the 100Km Rule with no penalty.
[6] Mr Roberts explained to the Committee that the two dogs had been mistakenly switched over on arrival back at the kennels after both had raced at the same meeting the previous week. He said prior to this incident they used race day collars which he believed were safer than the colour coded kennel collars which are used for dog identification at the kennels. He said his son Daniel, on arrival back at the kennels after the previous weeks meeting, changed the dogs’ race day collars for the colour coded kennel collars and when doing so had mistakenly switched the identifying collars. He said that both dogs were very similar looking and were thereafter housed in the wrong kennels. He also said that due to this incident he had stopped using the race day collars and now only used the colour coded kennel collars on all dogs going to the races. He said that he was confident this would prevent any future possibility of dog mix ups.
Submissions of Informant on Penalty
[7]
1. Mr Roberts has two previous breaches of this rule. These were breaches under Rule 87.1.o.which deals with negligence. Rule 68.1 is now specific as to the wording that the correct dog must be presented. I confirm that the breaches involved similar circumstances notwithstanding this information is laid under a different Rule.
2. Mr Roberts admitted fault in this situation immediately. He has been very co-operative throughout the investigation and has conducted himself in a very professional manner.
3. The incorrect dog was presented to race in an official race. The correct dog was unable brought to the racecourse meaning the club lost money with the dog being scratched and reserves were denied a start.
4. The failure to identify the dogs should not have occurred and it appears that lessons have not been learned by previous mistakes in this kennel. If not for the practices in place to identify all dogs prior to a race meeting the result for Mr Roberts and the Racing Industry as a whole could have been disastrous.
5. Similar breaches of this nature by Mr Roberts have brought about the following penalties:
Decision of 18 September 2004 – fined $350.
Decision of 21 February 2015 – fined $550
6. The RIU feel this matter can be dealt with by means of a fine.
7. We believe the breach of this Rule shows a degree of negligence which is in the mid to high range and the fact that this is the third offence in similar circumstances is a significant aggravating factor.
8. We submit that a fine of $1,000 is appropriate and make no application for costs.
Submissions of Respondent on Penalty
[8] Mr Roberts said the previous first breach of the rules related to young dogs when the names were put on the wrong sets of papers, which was not discovered until the dogs were presented to race at their first start. The second breach was similar to this breach as they were both black dogs that had been returned to the kennels from the races and subsequently kennelled into the incorrect kennels with the wrong identifying collars.
Mr Roberts said that he had spoken to the Club secretary who informed him that there was a small loss for the Club due to a smaller field in this case but said that there often were late scratching’s with 7 dog fields racing. He submitted that the loss to the industry due to this incident was minimal.
He also said that although this was his third breach in 8 months it needs to be noted that he has started 10,000 dogs over the past 20 years with these being the only incidents where the wrong dogs have been presented to race.
Mr Roberts submitted that in his opinion a fine of $1000 in this case was steep. He also said that he had suffered loss already as he had been training the dog concerned for a full month without fees to compensate the owner for any loss.
Reasons for Penalty
[9] In determining penalty the Committee took into consideration Mr Roberts’s frank admission of the breach which was the only mitigating factor in this case. The aggravating factor and of concern was that this was the third case in the past 9 months where the kennel had presented the wrong dog to race. Mr Roberts was fined $350 for the first breach where the correct dog was able to be presented in time but in the second case ($550 Fine) and this case the correct dog was unable to be presented in time to race.
Taking into account the fines of $350 and $550 for previous breaches of the Rules by Mr Roberts, the Committee considered that an uplift of $300 was required in this case and determined that an appropriate penalty for this breach was a fine of $850.
Penalty
[10] Mr Roberts was fined the sum of $850.
Costs
[11] No orders were made for costs.
S C Ching R G McKenzie
Chair Committee Member
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 08/06/2015
Publish Date: 08/06/2015
JCA Decision Fields (raw)
Dmitry: This section contains all JCA fields migrated from the raw data.
Data from these fields should be mapped appropriately to display amongst the standard fields above; please make note of any values below that are missing in the above standard fields but should be there.
hearingid: 1241618b8b529284d9925035634b4560
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 08/06/2015
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v AC Roberts - Decision dated 31 May 2015
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of Greyhound Racing New Zealand
IN THE MATTER of Information No. A6711
BETWEEN MR R QUIRK, Stipendiary Steward for the Racing Integrity Unit
Informant
AND A C Roberts, Licensed Greyhound Trainer
Respondent
Date of Hearing: 31 May 2015
Venue: Ashburton Raceway, Ashburton
Judicial Committee: S Ching, Chair - R McKenzie, Committee Member
Present: Mr R Quirk, Stipendiary Steward, for the Informant
Mr A C Roberts, trainer of HETFIELD
Date of Decision: 31 May 2015
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
The Charge
[1] Information No.A1099 alleges that:
On 7 May 2015, at a race meeting conducted by the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club, in Race 2, Mr Roberts failed to present HETFIELD for kennelling for Race 6.
[2] Mr Quirk produced a letter signed by Mr M Godber, General Manager of the Racing Integrity Unit, pursuant to Rule 91.2 a authorising the filing of the information.
The Rules
[3] Rule 68.1 of the Greyhound Racing Rules of Racing provides as follows:
68.1 The Handler of a Greyhound competing at a Meeting shall produce the correct Greyhound to the Stewards at or before the time specified in Rule 68.2.
The Plea
[4] Mr Roberts had signed the Statement by the Respondent at the foot of the information form indicating that he admitted the breach of the Rule. He confirmed this at the hearing. Mr Roberts also confirmed that he understood the Rule he was being charged under.
Summary of Facts
[5] An agreed Summary of Facts was presented by Mr Quirk, Stipendiary Steward, to the hearing. That agreed Summary of Facts reads as follows:
1. On Thursday the 7th of May 2015 the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held a race meeting at Addington Raceway. I was the Stipendiary Steward in charge of the meeting on behalf of the RIU.
2. The programme for the meeting showed that Race Six on the day was the CLARKSON SIGN STUDIO SPRINT (Heat 1) to be conducted over 295 metres for dogs classed at C5.
3. Dog number 2 in that race was shown to be HETFIELD, a black dog, whelped in January 2012 by Dyna Lachlan, out of Wicked Witch. This dog was trained by licenced public trainer, Mr Craig Roberts.
4. The ear brand for the dog was listed as VBZEO and the microchip number was 956000008249420.
5. Mr Craig Roberts was not in attendance at this race meeting as he was transporting dogs to the Wellington GRC meeting to be held at Wanganui the following day. The dog was transported to the racecourse by Mr Roberts’ son Mr Daniel Roberts who was also in charge of the dog for the meeting.
6. During the allocated kennelling time for Races One to Six which was between 2.32pm and 3.32pm, the dog purporting to be HETFIELD was presented at the Veterinary inspection table by Mr D Roberts. At this point its microchip was scanned for identification purposes. This task was completed by a member of the kennel staff.
7. It then became apparent that the microchip number in the dog presented was not consistent with the number on the identification card of HETFIELD. The dog’s ear brand was also different to its card.
8. The dog that was presented on the Veterinary inspection table had a microchip number of 956000008869555 and an ear brand of NCCFM. It transpired that the dog presented was actually CAWBOURNE BUTTSY, another black dog trained by Mr C Roberts.
9. Mr D Roberts then returned to his trailer to establish whether HETFIELD had been brought to the track. He could not find HETFIELD and at that stage rang his father, Trainer Mr C Roberts.
10. It then became apparent that the two dogs had been mixed up and that HETFIELD was with Trainer Mr C Roberts en route to Wanganui. HETFIELD was then officially scratched with the TAB.
11. I rang Mr C Roberts a short time after and he admitted that the dogs had been mixed up after racing at Addington the week before. He stated that the dogs look very similar and have the same traits. They are both sprinters and require a similar training programme. He authorised Mr D Roberts to sign the information admitting the breach of the Rule and this was completed.
12. As CAWBOURNE BUTTSY was a reserve for the race at Wanganui this dog was able to be withdrawn under the 100Km Rule with no penalty.
[6] Mr Roberts explained to the Committee that the two dogs had been mistakenly switched over on arrival back at the kennels after both had raced at the same meeting the previous week. He said prior to this incident they used race day collars which he believed were safer than the colour coded kennel collars which are used for dog identification at the kennels. He said his son Daniel, on arrival back at the kennels after the previous weeks meeting, changed the dogs’ race day collars for the colour coded kennel collars and when doing so had mistakenly switched the identifying collars. He said that both dogs were very similar looking and were thereafter housed in the wrong kennels. He also said that due to this incident he had stopped using the race day collars and now only used the colour coded kennel collars on all dogs going to the races. He said that he was confident this would prevent any future possibility of dog mix ups.
Submissions of Informant on Penalty
[7]
1. Mr Roberts has two previous breaches of this rule. These were breaches under Rule 87.1.o.which deals with negligence. Rule 68.1 is now specific as to the wording that the correct dog must be presented. I confirm that the breaches involved similar circumstances notwithstanding this information is laid under a different Rule.
2. Mr Roberts admitted fault in this situation immediately. He has been very co-operative throughout the investigation and has conducted himself in a very professional manner.
3. The incorrect dog was presented to race in an official race. The correct dog was unable brought to the racecourse meaning the club lost money with the dog being scratched and reserves were denied a start.
4. The failure to identify the dogs should not have occurred and it appears that lessons have not been learned by previous mistakes in this kennel. If not for the practices in place to identify all dogs prior to a race meeting the result for Mr Roberts and the Racing Industry as a whole could have been disastrous.
5. Similar breaches of this nature by Mr Roberts have brought about the following penalties:
Decision of 18 September 2004 – fined $350.
Decision of 21 February 2015 – fined $550
6. The RIU feel this matter can be dealt with by means of a fine.
7. We believe the breach of this Rule shows a degree of negligence which is in the mid to high range and the fact that this is the third offence in similar circumstances is a significant aggravating factor.
8. We submit that a fine of $1,000 is appropriate and make no application for costs.
Submissions of Respondent on Penalty
[8] Mr Roberts said the previous first breach of the rules related to young dogs when the names were put on the wrong sets of papers, which was not discovered until the dogs were presented to race at their first start. The second breach was similar to this breach as they were both black dogs that had been returned to the kennels from the races and subsequently kennelled into the incorrect kennels with the wrong identifying collars.
Mr Roberts said that he had spoken to the Club secretary who informed him that there was a small loss for the Club due to a smaller field in this case but said that there often were late scratching’s with 7 dog fields racing. He submitted that the loss to the industry due to this incident was minimal.
He also said that although this was his third breach in 8 months it needs to be noted that he has started 10,000 dogs over the past 20 years with these being the only incidents where the wrong dogs have been presented to race.
Mr Roberts submitted that in his opinion a fine of $1000 in this case was steep. He also said that he had suffered loss already as he had been training the dog concerned for a full month without fees to compensate the owner for any loss.
Reasons for Penalty
[9] In determining penalty the Committee took into consideration Mr Roberts’s frank admission of the breach which was the only mitigating factor in this case. The aggravating factor and of concern was that this was the third case in the past 9 months where the kennel had presented the wrong dog to race. Mr Roberts was fined $350 for the first breach where the correct dog was able to be presented in time but in the second case ($550 Fine) and this case the correct dog was unable to be presented in time to race.
Taking into account the fines of $350 and $550 for previous breaches of the Rules by Mr Roberts, the Committee considered that an uplift of $300 was required in this case and determined that an appropriate penalty for this breach was a fine of $850.
Penalty
[10] Mr Roberts was fined the sum of $850.
Costs
[11] No orders were made for costs.
S C Ching R G McKenzie
Chair Committee Member
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Non-race day
Rules:
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid:
race_expapproval:
racecancelled:
race_noreport:
race_emailed1:
race_emailed2:
race_title:
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid:
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport:
waitingforpublication:
meet_emailed1:
meet_emailed2:
meetdate: no date provided
meet_title:
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation:
meet_racingtype:
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: