Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v AC Roberts – Decision dated 20 February 2015
ID: JCA11501
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of The New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association
IN THE MATTER of Information No. A5816
BETWEEN CHRISTOPHER BOYD, Stipendiary Steward for the Racing Integrity Unit
Informant
AND ANTHONY CRAIG ROBERTS of Christchurch, Licensed Public Trainer
Respondent
Judicial Committee: Mr R G McKenzie, Chair - Mr K G Hales, Committee Member
Present: Mr S P Renault, the Informant
Mr A C Roberts, the Respondent
Ms S Washington
Mr R A Quirk, Stipendiary Steward (Registrar)
Date of Hearing: 20 February 2015
Date of Decision: 20 February 2015
PENALTY DECISION AND REASONS OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
The Charge
[1] Information No. A5816 alleges that at the meeting of Southland Greyhound Racing Club at Invercargill on the 27th January 2015, the Respondent committed a breach of Rule 88.1.o in that he was “negligent in that the incorrect greyhound was presented for kennelling for Race 9 (SGRC $26 Five Wire Muzzle Stakes C2/3). CAWBOURNE WAR, a black dog identified by Brand NAJKY and Chip 956000008235721 was presented instead of CHLOE’S PRODIGY”.
[2] Mr Renault produced a letter signed by Mr M R Godber, General Manager of the Racing Integrity Unit, pursuant to Rule 91.2 a authorising the filing of the information.
[3] The information was served on Mr Roberts on the 16th February 2015. He signed the Statement by the Respondent at the foot of the information form indicating that he admitted the breach.
[4] The information was heard at Addington Raceway on Friday, 20 February 2015.
[5] Mr Roberts was present at the hearing and details of the charge and the Rule were read to him at the commencement of the hearing. He confirmed that he understood the charge and the Rule and that he admitted the breach.
[6] Mr Roberts having admitted the charge, the charge was found proved.
The Rule
[7] Rule 88.1 provided as follows:-
Any person (including an Official) commits an offence if he/she:
o. has, in relation to a Greyhound or Greyhound racing, done a thing, or omitted to do a thing which is negligent, dishonest, corrupt, fraudulent or improper, or constitutes misconduct.
Summary of Facts
[8] Mr Renault presented the following Summary of Facts:
1. On Tuesday the 27th of January 2015, the Southland Greyhound Racing Club held a race meeting at Ascot Park Raceway in Invercargill.
2. Licensed Public Trainer, Mr Craig Roberts, had 10 dogs racing at the meeting. He was not in attendance at the race meeting. All of his runners were transported to the races by Mr Stephen Whall and his son, Jordan Whall, who met Mr Roberts at his property at around 4.30am on the morning of the races. On arrival, some dogs had been emptied out and placed in the trailer and the others were placed by Mr Roberts in the trailer. No dogs were placed in the trailer by Mr Whall, and Mr Jordan Whall placed only CAWBOURNE KENNY in the trailer. Mr Stephen Whall was in charge of all the dogs for the day.
3. Mr Roberts provided Mr Stephen Whall with a diagram of the trailer showing where each dog was (this was produced to the Committee). CHLOE’S PRODIGY is shown as being in the rear trailer berth on the left. This was the berth containing CAWBOURNE WAR with Mr Stephen Whall removing the greyhound from that berth to kennel.
4. The programme for the meeting showed that Race 9 on the day was the SGRC $26 Five Wire Muzzle Stakes to be conducted over 457 metres for dogs classed at C2/3.
5. Dog number 7 in that race was shown to be CHLOE’S PRODIGY, a black dog born October 2011 by Smooth Fancy, out of Prodigal Child. This dog is trained by Mr Roberts.
6. The ear brand for the dog was listed as NBKSE and the microchip number was 956000008869034.
7. During the allocated kennelling time for the 2nd kennelling, the dog was presented at the Veterinary inspection table by Mr Whall. At this point, its microchip was scanned for identification purposes. This task was completed by a member of the Southland GRC kennel staff.
8. It then became apparent that the microchip number in the dog presented was not consistent with the number on the identification card of CHLOE’S PRODIGY. The dog’s ear brand was also different from its card.
9. It was discovered that the microchip number was registered to CAWBOURNE WAR, a black dog, by Dyna Lachlan out of Sonic Bomb also trained by Mr Roberts.
10. The veterinarian at the race meeting, Mrs Lisa Stuart, has submitted a statement (which was produced to the Committee) regarding the presentation of CAWBOURNE WAR instead of CHLOE’S PRODIGY, with details of the ear brand of CAWBOURNE WAR. In the presence of the Stipendiary Steward, Mr Christopher Boyd, CAWBOURNE WAR was further identified by its microchip number 956000008235721.
11. Printouts of the ear brands and microchip numbers recorded for CHLOE’S PRODIGY and CAWBOURNE WAR on the GRNZ website were produced.
12. CAWBOURNE WAR was not nominated to race at this meeting.
13. Mr Whall phoned Mr Roberts to inform him of the situation. Mr Roberts then went out to the kennels on his property and found that CHLOE’S PRODIGY was being housed in the kennel designated to CAWBOURNE WAR.
14. After interviewing Mr Roberts in the days following the race meeting, it was established that the identities had been mistaken after both CHLOE’S PRODIGY and CAWBOURNE WAR had raced at the Christchurch GRC meeting on Sunday, 25 January 2015.
15. Mr Roberts’ partner, Angela Washington, had taken the dogs back to his property following the races on that day and had placed CAWBOURNE WAR in CHLOE’S PRODIGY’s kennel at home and CHLOE’S PRODIGY in CAWBOURNE WAR’s kennel.
16. The following day, both dogs had been removed from their respective kennels to be emptied out however the mistake made by Ms Washington in placing the dogs in the wrong kennel had still not been discovered and they were again returned to the incorrect kennel.
17. CAWBOURNE WAR had been removed from CHLOE’S PRODIGY’s kennel in the early hours of Tuesday 27 January 2015 and loaded into the trailer by Mr Roberts who thought that the dog was CHLOE’S PRODIGY.
18. The mistake was only found following the phone call from Mr Whall after CAWBOURNE WAR had been presented to race as CHLOE’S PRODIGY.
19. As a result of the wrong dog being presented on course, CHLOE’S PRODIGY was declared a late scratching from Race 9 on the day in question.
[9] Mr Renault also produced the raceday report on the incident by Racing Integrity Stipendiary Steward, Mr Christopher Boyd. That report is set out in its entirety hereunder.
“At the meeting of the Southland Greyhound Racing Club on Tuesday, 27th January 2015 the incorrect greyhound was presented at kennelling for Race 9 the “SGRC $26 Five Wire Nuzzle Stakes 457m”.
The greyhound presented was CAWBOURNE WAR and not CHLOE’S PRODIGY as drawn into the field. Both dogs are trained by Mr AC (Craig) Roberts, and were under the care of Mr Stephen Whall and his son Mr Jordan Whall at the Southland meeting.
The veterinarian Mrs Lisa Stuart has submitted a statement regarding the presentation of CAWBOURNE WAR instead of CHLOE’S PRODIGY, with details of the ear brand of CAWBOURNE WAR. In the presence of the Stipendiary Steward, Mr Christopher Boyd, CAWBOURNE WAR was further identified by its microchip number 956000008235721.
The handler of the greyhound Mr Stephen Whall advised that he had collected the trailer and greyhounds from the property of Mr Craig Roberts at about 4.30am on Tuesday, 27th January. On arrival some dogs had been emptied out and placed in the trailer and the others were placed by Mr Roberts in the trailer. No dogs were placed in the trailer by Mr Whall, and Mr Jordan Whall placed only Cawbourne Kenny in the trailer.
Mr Roberts provided Mr Stephen Whall with a diagram of the trailer showing where each dog was, and this is attached as Appendix 2. CHLOE’S PRODIGY is shown as being in the rear trailer berth on the left. This was the berth containing CAWBOURNE WAR with Mr Stephen Whall removing the greyhound from that berth to kennel.
CAWBOURNE WAR is a black male dog and CHLOE’S PRODIGY is also a black male dog, and Mr Stephen Whall presented the greyhound at kennelling on assumption that it was the correct dog. Mr Whall is neither the trainer nor the usual handler of either of the two dogs concerned.
Christopher Boyd
Stipendiary Steward
27th January 2015"
Submissions of Respondent
[10] Mr Roberts confirmed that he accepted the accuracy of the Summary of Facts presented by Mr Renault.
[11] Mr Roberts, in response to a question from the Committee, said that the two dogs, CAWBOURNE WAR and CHLOE’S PRODIGY, were very similar in appearance and very difficult to tell apart.
[12] Mr Roberts’ partner, Ms Angela Washington confirmed that she, not Mr Roberts, had placed the dog in the trailer on the morning of the races.
[13] Mr Roberts explained that there had been races at Addington on the previous afternoon. Immediately following the races, Mr Roberts had to go and work a shift on “Trackside”. Ms Washington took the dogs home and put them away. When Ms Washington put the dogs out the next morning for loading on the trailer, she had no reason to suspect that the dogs had been switched. Mr Roberts had been engaged in other activities at the kennels. This was at about 4.00am on 27th January.
[14] Mr Roberts said that the opportunity to race CHLOE’S PRODIGY and, possibly, earn stake money had been lost.
[15] Mr Roberts said that, since this incident, he had been carefully checking the earbrands on his dogs to avoid any repeat.
[16] Ms Washington confirmed that the two dogs were similar in appearance. Both had “big broad heads” and the same sort of eyes, she said.
[17] Mr Roberts said that he had 40 dogs in his kennels and, of those 40 dogs, at least 20 were black in colour.
[18] Mr Roberts said that he was “very shocked and disappointed” to get the telephone call advising him that the wrong dog had been presented and it was embarrassing to him as a trainer.
Penalty Submissions of Informant
[19] Mr Renault presented the following submissions relating to penalty:
1. Mr Roberts has a breach of this rule on 12 September 2014 when presenting the incorrect dog to race and was fined $350. On that occasion, the dog in question was able to be brought to the track and take its place in the field.
2. Mr Roberts has started 39 individual dogs for a combined number of starters of 611 in the current 2014/15 season. Mr Roberts started 46 individual dogs last season for a combined number of starters of 847.
3. Mr Roberts has admitted fault in this situation immediately. He has been very co-operative throughout the investigation and has conducted himself in a very professional manner.
4. The incorrect dog was presented to race in an official race. CHLOE’S PRODIGY was unable to be presented in time to race and as a result the dog was declared a late scratching, which affects not only the club and punters who had already invested on the race but also it also penalises the owners of the dog by not allowing them the opportunity for their dog to race and attempt to earn stake money.
5. The failure to present the correct dog to race should not have occurred. 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 very serious.
6. Similar breaches of this rule in Greyhound racing have brought about the following penalties.
RIU v Stapleton 2013 - $350
RIU v McInerney 2013 - $425
RIU v Roberts 2014 - $350
7. The RIU feel this matter can be dealt with by means of a fine.
8. We believe that a significant aggravating factor in this case is that Mr Roberts was charged with a breach of this Rule when presenting the wrong dog to race only a matter of 4½ months ago.
9. We submit that a fine of between $500 and $700 is appropriate and make no application for costs.
Penalty Submissions of Respondent
[20] Mr Roberts said that his arrangement with the owner of the dog was that he paid all costs in relation to the training and racing of CHLOE’S PRODIGY and, in return, received 50% of any stake monies earned by the dog. Both himself and the owner were out of pocket to the same extent. He had a good opportunity to earn stake money, as it was only a 6-dog field before the late scratching of CHLOE’S PRODIGY.
[21] Mr Roberts acknowledged that he had a recent similar breach and it was, therefore, difficult for him to argue against the level of fine submitted by Mr Renault. He readily accepted that, although he had not been to blame for the dogs being switched, he had to accept responsibility as their trainer.
[22] He told the Committee that he had to bear the cost of taking the wrong dog to the races and had missed the opportunity to race for stake money for himself and the owner. He submitted that this was a “reasonable penalty”.
[23] He submitted that an appropriate level of the fine should be between $350 and $500. There was “financial pressure” on trainers with the cost of bringing dogs in from Australia - $500 payable to the Association – before a dog could even start racing.
Penalty Rule
[24] Rule 88.1 provides as follows:
Any person found guilty of an Offence under these Rules shall be liable to:
a. A fine not exceeding $10,000.00 for any one (1) Offence; and/or
b. Suspension; and/or
c. Disqualification; and/or
d. Warning Off.
Reasons for Penalty
[25] Mr Roberts was extremely frank, firstly, in acknowledging that the two dogs were confused in the first place and, secondly, in admitting that he presented the wrong dog to race in Race 9 at Southland on 27 January 2015. It is to his credit that he did not attempt to excuse his negligence in doing so or blame anyone else for what happened.
[26] His very frank admission of the breach, although somewhat inevitable, the Committee took into account as a mitigating factor.
[27] It is of concern that the wrong dog was presented to race at a totalisator meeting. There could have been quite serious consequences were it not for the virtually failsafe system of checks and controls in place on raceday and the vigilance of the kennelling staff. Therefore, in the present case, problems were able to be avoided, and the error was discovered. The error inevitably led to the late scratching of CHLOE’S PRODIGY from the race. It was fortunate that no other dog was denied a start as a consequence but there was a financial loss to the Club and, no doubt, inconvenience to members of the betting public. As has been discussed, there was also the possibility that the dog’s owner had been deprived of the opportunity to earn stake money.
[28] The Committee received considerable assistance from the three previous cases to which it was referred by Mr Renault. Of course, one of those previous cases also involved Mr Roberts and, on that occasion, he was fined $350 by the Judicial Committee.
[29] The previous case that provided the most assistance was the case of RIU v McInerney (see above) in which the facts were almost identical to the present case. Briefly, the facts of that case were that Mr McInerney was the trainer of a dog that was incorrectly presented to race at Cambridge on 24 December 2013. The incorrect dog had been loaded at home by his staff and taken to the races. The correct dog was not on course and therefore the dog was a late scratching. Mr McInerney admitted the charge and was fined the sum of $425.
[30] In this Committee’s view it is appropriate to take, as a starting point, the fine of $425 in the McInerney case and add an uplift for the additional aggravating factor that, in the present case, the breach is a second offence. We consider that an appropriate uplift is $125.
[31] In arriving at penalty, we have taken into account the penalty submissions of Mr Renault on behalf of the Racing Integrity Unit and those of Mr Roberts.
[32] In determining penalty, the Committee has also had regard to the general purposes of sentencing which are well-established – to hold the offender accountable for his actions, to promote in the offender a sense of responsibility, to denounce the conduct of the offender and to deter the offender or other persons from committing the same or a similar offence. The Committee has also had regard, as always, to the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in Greyhound Racing.
Penalty
[33] Mr Roberts is fined the sum of $550.00.
Costs
[34] Mr Renault did not seek costs on behalf of the Racing Integrity Unit. As the matter was heard on a raceday, there will be no order for costs in favour of the Judicial Control Authority.
R G McKENZIE K G HALES
Chairman Committee Member
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 02/03/2015
Publish Date: 02/03/2015
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: 29e9b366aecdd5215696a48e1934b30c
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 02/03/2015
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v AC Roberts - Decision dated 20 February 2015
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of The New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association
IN THE MATTER of Information No. A5816
BETWEEN CHRISTOPHER BOYD, Stipendiary Steward for the Racing Integrity Unit
Informant
AND ANTHONY CRAIG ROBERTS of Christchurch, Licensed Public Trainer
Respondent
Judicial Committee: Mr R G McKenzie, Chair - Mr K G Hales, Committee Member
Present: Mr S P Renault, the Informant
Mr A C Roberts, the Respondent
Ms S Washington
Mr R A Quirk, Stipendiary Steward (Registrar)
Date of Hearing: 20 February 2015
Date of Decision: 20 February 2015
PENALTY DECISION AND REASONS OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
The Charge
[1] Information No. A5816 alleges that at the meeting of Southland Greyhound Racing Club at Invercargill on the 27th January 2015, the Respondent committed a breach of Rule 88.1.o in that he was “negligent in that the incorrect greyhound was presented for kennelling for Race 9 (SGRC $26 Five Wire Muzzle Stakes C2/3). CAWBOURNE WAR, a black dog identified by Brand NAJKY and Chip 956000008235721 was presented instead of CHLOE’S PRODIGY”.
[2] Mr Renault produced a letter signed by Mr M R Godber, General Manager of the Racing Integrity Unit, pursuant to Rule 91.2 a authorising the filing of the information.
[3] The information was served on Mr Roberts on the 16th February 2015. He signed the Statement by the Respondent at the foot of the information form indicating that he admitted the breach.
[4] The information was heard at Addington Raceway on Friday, 20 February 2015.
[5] Mr Roberts was present at the hearing and details of the charge and the Rule were read to him at the commencement of the hearing. He confirmed that he understood the charge and the Rule and that he admitted the breach.
[6] Mr Roberts having admitted the charge, the charge was found proved.
The Rule
[7] Rule 88.1 provided as follows:-
Any person (including an Official) commits an offence if he/she:
o. has, in relation to a Greyhound or Greyhound racing, done a thing, or omitted to do a thing which is negligent, dishonest, corrupt, fraudulent or improper, or constitutes misconduct.
Summary of Facts
[8] Mr Renault presented the following Summary of Facts:
1. On Tuesday the 27th of January 2015, the Southland Greyhound Racing Club held a race meeting at Ascot Park Raceway in Invercargill.
2. Licensed Public Trainer, Mr Craig Roberts, had 10 dogs racing at the meeting. He was not in attendance at the race meeting. All of his runners were transported to the races by Mr Stephen Whall and his son, Jordan Whall, who met Mr Roberts at his property at around 4.30am on the morning of the races. On arrival, some dogs had been emptied out and placed in the trailer and the others were placed by Mr Roberts in the trailer. No dogs were placed in the trailer by Mr Whall, and Mr Jordan Whall placed only CAWBOURNE KENNY in the trailer. Mr Stephen Whall was in charge of all the dogs for the day.
3. Mr Roberts provided Mr Stephen Whall with a diagram of the trailer showing where each dog was (this was produced to the Committee). CHLOE’S PRODIGY is shown as being in the rear trailer berth on the left. This was the berth containing CAWBOURNE WAR with Mr Stephen Whall removing the greyhound from that berth to kennel.
4. The programme for the meeting showed that Race 9 on the day was the SGRC $26 Five Wire Muzzle Stakes to be conducted over 457 metres for dogs classed at C2/3.
5. Dog number 7 in that race was shown to be CHLOE’S PRODIGY, a black dog born October 2011 by Smooth Fancy, out of Prodigal Child. This dog is trained by Mr Roberts.
6. The ear brand for the dog was listed as NBKSE and the microchip number was 956000008869034.
7. During the allocated kennelling time for the 2nd kennelling, the dog was presented at the Veterinary inspection table by Mr Whall. At this point, its microchip was scanned for identification purposes. This task was completed by a member of the Southland GRC kennel staff.
8. It then became apparent that the microchip number in the dog presented was not consistent with the number on the identification card of CHLOE’S PRODIGY. The dog’s ear brand was also different from its card.
9. It was discovered that the microchip number was registered to CAWBOURNE WAR, a black dog, by Dyna Lachlan out of Sonic Bomb also trained by Mr Roberts.
10. The veterinarian at the race meeting, Mrs Lisa Stuart, has submitted a statement (which was produced to the Committee) regarding the presentation of CAWBOURNE WAR instead of CHLOE’S PRODIGY, with details of the ear brand of CAWBOURNE WAR. In the presence of the Stipendiary Steward, Mr Christopher Boyd, CAWBOURNE WAR was further identified by its microchip number 956000008235721.
11. Printouts of the ear brands and microchip numbers recorded for CHLOE’S PRODIGY and CAWBOURNE WAR on the GRNZ website were produced.
12. CAWBOURNE WAR was not nominated to race at this meeting.
13. Mr Whall phoned Mr Roberts to inform him of the situation. Mr Roberts then went out to the kennels on his property and found that CHLOE’S PRODIGY was being housed in the kennel designated to CAWBOURNE WAR.
14. After interviewing Mr Roberts in the days following the race meeting, it was established that the identities had been mistaken after both CHLOE’S PRODIGY and CAWBOURNE WAR had raced at the Christchurch GRC meeting on Sunday, 25 January 2015.
15. Mr Roberts’ partner, Angela Washington, had taken the dogs back to his property following the races on that day and had placed CAWBOURNE WAR in CHLOE’S PRODIGY’s kennel at home and CHLOE’S PRODIGY in CAWBOURNE WAR’s kennel.
16. The following day, both dogs had been removed from their respective kennels to be emptied out however the mistake made by Ms Washington in placing the dogs in the wrong kennel had still not been discovered and they were again returned to the incorrect kennel.
17. CAWBOURNE WAR had been removed from CHLOE’S PRODIGY’s kennel in the early hours of Tuesday 27 January 2015 and loaded into the trailer by Mr Roberts who thought that the dog was CHLOE’S PRODIGY.
18. The mistake was only found following the phone call from Mr Whall after CAWBOURNE WAR had been presented to race as CHLOE’S PRODIGY.
19. As a result of the wrong dog being presented on course, CHLOE’S PRODIGY was declared a late scratching from Race 9 on the day in question.
[9] Mr Renault also produced the raceday report on the incident by Racing Integrity Stipendiary Steward, Mr Christopher Boyd. That report is set out in its entirety hereunder.
“At the meeting of the Southland Greyhound Racing Club on Tuesday, 27th January 2015 the incorrect greyhound was presented at kennelling for Race 9 the “SGRC $26 Five Wire Nuzzle Stakes 457m”.
The greyhound presented was CAWBOURNE WAR and not CHLOE’S PRODIGY as drawn into the field. Both dogs are trained by Mr AC (Craig) Roberts, and were under the care of Mr Stephen Whall and his son Mr Jordan Whall at the Southland meeting.
The veterinarian Mrs Lisa Stuart has submitted a statement regarding the presentation of CAWBOURNE WAR instead of CHLOE’S PRODIGY, with details of the ear brand of CAWBOURNE WAR. In the presence of the Stipendiary Steward, Mr Christopher Boyd, CAWBOURNE WAR was further identified by its microchip number 956000008235721.
The handler of the greyhound Mr Stephen Whall advised that he had collected the trailer and greyhounds from the property of Mr Craig Roberts at about 4.30am on Tuesday, 27th January. On arrival some dogs had been emptied out and placed in the trailer and the others were placed by Mr Roberts in the trailer. No dogs were placed in the trailer by Mr Whall, and Mr Jordan Whall placed only Cawbourne Kenny in the trailer.
Mr Roberts provided Mr Stephen Whall with a diagram of the trailer showing where each dog was, and this is attached as Appendix 2. CHLOE’S PRODIGY is shown as being in the rear trailer berth on the left. This was the berth containing CAWBOURNE WAR with Mr Stephen Whall removing the greyhound from that berth to kennel.
CAWBOURNE WAR is a black male dog and CHLOE’S PRODIGY is also a black male dog, and Mr Stephen Whall presented the greyhound at kennelling on assumption that it was the correct dog. Mr Whall is neither the trainer nor the usual handler of either of the two dogs concerned.
Christopher Boyd
Stipendiary Steward
27th January 2015"
Submissions of Respondent
[10] Mr Roberts confirmed that he accepted the accuracy of the Summary of Facts presented by Mr Renault.
[11] Mr Roberts, in response to a question from the Committee, said that the two dogs, CAWBOURNE WAR and CHLOE’S PRODIGY, were very similar in appearance and very difficult to tell apart.
[12] Mr Roberts’ partner, Ms Angela Washington confirmed that she, not Mr Roberts, had placed the dog in the trailer on the morning of the races.
[13] Mr Roberts explained that there had been races at Addington on the previous afternoon. Immediately following the races, Mr Roberts had to go and work a shift on “Trackside”. Ms Washington took the dogs home and put them away. When Ms Washington put the dogs out the next morning for loading on the trailer, she had no reason to suspect that the dogs had been switched. Mr Roberts had been engaged in other activities at the kennels. This was at about 4.00am on 27th January.
[14] Mr Roberts said that the opportunity to race CHLOE’S PRODIGY and, possibly, earn stake money had been lost.
[15] Mr Roberts said that, since this incident, he had been carefully checking the earbrands on his dogs to avoid any repeat.
[16] Ms Washington confirmed that the two dogs were similar in appearance. Both had “big broad heads” and the same sort of eyes, she said.
[17] Mr Roberts said that he had 40 dogs in his kennels and, of those 40 dogs, at least 20 were black in colour.
[18] Mr Roberts said that he was “very shocked and disappointed” to get the telephone call advising him that the wrong dog had been presented and it was embarrassing to him as a trainer.
Penalty Submissions of Informant
[19] Mr Renault presented the following submissions relating to penalty:
1. Mr Roberts has a breach of this rule on 12 September 2014 when presenting the incorrect dog to race and was fined $350. On that occasion, the dog in question was able to be brought to the track and take its place in the field.
2. Mr Roberts has started 39 individual dogs for a combined number of starters of 611 in the current 2014/15 season. Mr Roberts started 46 individual dogs last season for a combined number of starters of 847.
3. Mr Roberts has admitted fault in this situation immediately. He has been very co-operative throughout the investigation and has conducted himself in a very professional manner.
4. The incorrect dog was presented to race in an official race. CHLOE’S PRODIGY was unable to be presented in time to race and as a result the dog was declared a late scratching, which affects not only the club and punters who had already invested on the race but also it also penalises the owners of the dog by not allowing them the opportunity for their dog to race and attempt to earn stake money.
5. The failure to present the correct dog to race should not have occurred. 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 very serious.
6. Similar breaches of this rule in Greyhound racing have brought about the following penalties.
RIU v Stapleton 2013 - $350
RIU v McInerney 2013 - $425
RIU v Roberts 2014 - $350
7. The RIU feel this matter can be dealt with by means of a fine.
8. We believe that a significant aggravating factor in this case is that Mr Roberts was charged with a breach of this Rule when presenting the wrong dog to race only a matter of 4½ months ago.
9. We submit that a fine of between $500 and $700 is appropriate and make no application for costs.
Penalty Submissions of Respondent
[20] Mr Roberts said that his arrangement with the owner of the dog was that he paid all costs in relation to the training and racing of CHLOE’S PRODIGY and, in return, received 50% of any stake monies earned by the dog. Both himself and the owner were out of pocket to the same extent. He had a good opportunity to earn stake money, as it was only a 6-dog field before the late scratching of CHLOE’S PRODIGY.
[21] Mr Roberts acknowledged that he had a recent similar breach and it was, therefore, difficult for him to argue against the level of fine submitted by Mr Renault. He readily accepted that, although he had not been to blame for the dogs being switched, he had to accept responsibility as their trainer.
[22] He told the Committee that he had to bear the cost of taking the wrong dog to the races and had missed the opportunity to race for stake money for himself and the owner. He submitted that this was a “reasonable penalty”.
[23] He submitted that an appropriate level of the fine should be between $350 and $500. There was “financial pressure” on trainers with the cost of bringing dogs in from Australia - $500 payable to the Association – before a dog could even start racing.
Penalty Rule
[24] Rule 88.1 provides as follows:
Any person found guilty of an Offence under these Rules shall be liable to:
a. A fine not exceeding $10,000.00 for any one (1) Offence; and/or
b. Suspension; and/or
c. Disqualification; and/or
d. Warning Off.
Reasons for Penalty
[25] Mr Roberts was extremely frank, firstly, in acknowledging that the two dogs were confused in the first place and, secondly, in admitting that he presented the wrong dog to race in Race 9 at Southland on 27 January 2015. It is to his credit that he did not attempt to excuse his negligence in doing so or blame anyone else for what happened.
[26] His very frank admission of the breach, although somewhat inevitable, the Committee took into account as a mitigating factor.
[27] It is of concern that the wrong dog was presented to race at a totalisator meeting. There could have been quite serious consequences were it not for the virtually failsafe system of checks and controls in place on raceday and the vigilance of the kennelling staff. Therefore, in the present case, problems were able to be avoided, and the error was discovered. The error inevitably led to the late scratching of CHLOE’S PRODIGY from the race. It was fortunate that no other dog was denied a start as a consequence but there was a financial loss to the Club and, no doubt, inconvenience to members of the betting public. As has been discussed, there was also the possibility that the dog’s owner had been deprived of the opportunity to earn stake money.
[28] The Committee received considerable assistance from the three previous cases to which it was referred by Mr Renault. Of course, one of those previous cases also involved Mr Roberts and, on that occasion, he was fined $350 by the Judicial Committee.
[29] The previous case that provided the most assistance was the case of RIU v McInerney (see above) in which the facts were almost identical to the present case. Briefly, the facts of that case were that Mr McInerney was the trainer of a dog that was incorrectly presented to race at Cambridge on 24 December 2013. The incorrect dog had been loaded at home by his staff and taken to the races. The correct dog was not on course and therefore the dog was a late scratching. Mr McInerney admitted the charge and was fined the sum of $425.
[30] In this Committee’s view it is appropriate to take, as a starting point, the fine of $425 in the McInerney case and add an uplift for the additional aggravating factor that, in the present case, the breach is a second offence. We consider that an appropriate uplift is $125.
[31] In arriving at penalty, we have taken into account the penalty submissions of Mr Renault on behalf of the Racing Integrity Unit and those of Mr Roberts.
[32] In determining penalty, the Committee has also had regard to the general purposes of sentencing which are well-established – to hold the offender accountable for his actions, to promote in the offender a sense of responsibility, to denounce the conduct of the offender and to deter the offender or other persons from committing the same or a similar offence. The Committee has also had regard, as always, to the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in Greyhound Racing.
Penalty
[33] Mr Roberts is fined the sum of $550.00.
Costs
[34] Mr Renault did not seek costs on behalf of the Racing Integrity Unit. As the matter was heard on a raceday, there will be no order for costs in favour of the Judicial Control Authority.
R G McKENZIE K G HALES
Chairman 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: