NZGRA Request for Review D Fahey v RIU – Written Decision dated 6 May 2019 – Chair, Prof G Hall
ID: JCA11508
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF
THE JCA IN CHRISTCHURCH
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (Incorporated)
BETWEEN
DAVID FAHEY, Licensed Trainer
Applicant
AND
RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Respondent
Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman
Mr R McKenzie, Member
Appearing: The Applicant in person, with the assistance of
Mr D McLachlan, owner of VON STRASS
Mr S Wallis, Senior Stipendiary Steward, for the Respondent
Date of oral decision: 24 April 2019
WRITTEN DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] On Thursday 18 April 2019 the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held a race meeting at Addington Raceway. The Chairman of Stewards at the meeting was Mr R Quirk.
[2] VON STRASS competed in Race 11, which was Heat 4 of the FITZ SPORTS BAR NEW ZEALAND OAKS run over the distance of 520m. VON STRASS finished in second place giving the dog automatic selection for the New Zealand Oaks final. The prize pool for this race is $46k and it is a Group 1 Race.
[3] VON STRASS was stood down for 28 days and required to complete a satisfactory trial for failing to pursue the lure. This is an alleged breach of r 55.1(b) of the GRNZ Rules of Racing.
[4] The relevant rule that the dog was suspended under reads as follows:
55.1 Where a Greyhound:
(b) Fails to pursue the lure in a race; the Stewards may impose the following periods of suspension: In the case of a first offence, 28 days and until the completion of a satisfactory trial.
[5] “Fails to Pursue The Lure” is defined in the GRNZ Rules as: “the action of the Greyhound voluntarily turning the head without making contact with another Greyhound, or voluntarily easing up, or stopping during a Race while free of interference.”
[6] On the day in question VON STRASS was referred to the official veterinarian post-race and cleared of any injury.
[7] VON STRASS has had 17 starts for 8 wins, 3 seconds and 4 thirds. Five of these races were in Australia where it had 1 win, 1 second and 3 thirds. At its last start in Australia VON STRASS was stood down for 28 days and pending a satisfactory trial for marring another runner.
[8] The dog completed a satisfactory trial on 2 November 2018 at Addington Raceway. VON Strass had competed in 10 clear races on 14 February this year and the endorsement for marring was cancelled.
[9] On the day in question it was requested that the greyhound race without blinkers for the first time.
[10] Mr Fahey filed an application for a review of the Stewards’ decision to stand down VON STRASS. This application was heard on 24 April and in an oral decision we determined that the review was unsuccessful and that a full written decision would follow.
Applicant’s case
[11] Mr Fahey opened his case by stating that VON STRASS had trialled the day before the hearing without any issues. Had he had any concerns with the dog not chasing, he would have not proceeded with this review.
[12] Mr Fahey said he been watching the race and did not realise that anything untoward had happened. Both he and Mr McLachlan questioned whether the video angles were such that it could be determined that the dog had turned its head. In particular, they pointed out that the head-on view was not a straight head-on.
[13] Mr Fahey believed all that had occurred was that VON STRASS had run out under pressure. He said if there had been a turn of the head, it was ever so slight. He said it was hard to tell if there had been contact with the other dog. He did not believe that there had been.
[14] Mr Fahey said VON STRASS has a tendency to run wide in the straight, especially in the home straight when the dog is under pressure.
[15] Mr Fahey alleged the veterinarian examination was delayed and was not until 20 minutes after the race.
Respondent’s case
[16] Mr Wallis opened his submission by stating that although VON STRASS went on to place in the race in question, when viewing race replays in relation to a non-pursuit charge it was essential that there was no consideration afforded to the finishing position of the greyhound. It was irrelevant the degree to which the greyhound has turned its head, as a greyhound’s sole purpose is for racing, and to chase a lure with due commitment. Rule 55.1 does not provide for this to be a mitigating factor when assessing a breach of this rule. The greyhound has either committed the offence or it has not.
[17] Mr Wallis believed that the films showed that VON STRASS had made 3 to 4 lengths up on the lead greyhound, OPAWA HOP, rounding the bend, until it was perhaps a neck behind that dog. VON STRASS then turned its head outwards away from the lure and was thus not focused on it for the entirety of the home straight. He believed if there had been a true head-on angle it would show that VON STRASS had contacted the hind quarters of OPAWA HOP. He said VON STRASS had earlier been bumped and squeezed for room but he did not believe this had any bearing on the breach.
[18] The lure was directly in front of VON STRASS and Mr Wallis believed the dog was acutely aware of where it was on the track. It had had 11 races and 1 trial on this track. It knew where the lure was and had made a conscious decision to divert its attention away from it and to focus on the hind quarters of the #1 dog, OPAWA HOP. He believed this was for a distance of some 6 strides.
[19] Mr Wallis said racing greyhounds were essentially bred for one purpose only and that was to chase or pursue a lure. It was in their physical and mental make-up to do this and they were programmed to do so from an early stage of their lives. Greyhounds that fail to pursue the lure with due commitment throughout the entirety of the race were deemed not to be committed to their sole purpose for racing.
[20] At stake here with this review was a place in a Group 1 race with a stake of several thousand dollars. Mr Wallis emphasised that greyhound racing carries with it the weight of public money and the Stewards had to be seen to be appropriately protecting this. They were charged with the responsibility of enhancing public confidence and integrity within greyhound racing by imposing the right penalties/stand downs on greyhounds when required to do so.
[21] Mr Wallis stated he was not aware there was any delay in the veterinarian examination of VON STRASS. There was no mention by Mr Quirk of there being any delay on the day.
[22] Given the films, along with Mr Fahey’s own submission that the greyhound had turned its head slightly, Mr Wallis believed that the Stewards were correct in their opinion that VON STRASS had failed to pursue the lure over the final stages of the race with due commitment, and therefore the review should be dismissed.
Decision
[23] VON STRASS was mid field shortly after the start and, after contacting an outside runner, ran wide entering the back straight. It is in the home straight that the Stipendiary Stewards allege that the dog diverted its head outwards and away from the lure. Significantly, they submit that the dog was free of interference at this time.
[24] We find that for some 6 strides in the home straight VON STRASS is more interested in the #1 dog than in the lure. In so doing, the dog’s head is turned outwards and away from the lure. There is no video evidence to the effect that the dog was interfered with at this time.
[25] In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the dog has failed to pursue the lure and is thus in breach of r 55.1.
[26] The review is not successful. The Stewards’ decision to stand down VON STRASS and require the completion of a satisfactory trial is upheld.
Dated at Dunedin this 6th day of May 2019.
Geoff Hall, Chairman
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 08/05/2019
Publish Date: 08/05/2019
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: 1e9e45b65d82e8d633c6642636ac9580
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 08/05/2019
hearing_title: NZGRA Request for Review D Fahey v RIU - Written Decision dated 6 May 2019 - Chair, Prof G Hall
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF
THE JCA IN CHRISTCHURCH
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (Incorporated)
BETWEEN
DAVID FAHEY, Licensed Trainer
Applicant
AND
RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Respondent
Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman
Mr R McKenzie, Member
Appearing: The Applicant in person, with the assistance of
Mr D McLachlan, owner of VON STRASS
Mr S Wallis, Senior Stipendiary Steward, for the Respondent
Date of oral decision: 24 April 2019
WRITTEN DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] On Thursday 18 April 2019 the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held a race meeting at Addington Raceway. The Chairman of Stewards at the meeting was Mr R Quirk.
[2] VON STRASS competed in Race 11, which was Heat 4 of the FITZ SPORTS BAR NEW ZEALAND OAKS run over the distance of 520m. VON STRASS finished in second place giving the dog automatic selection for the New Zealand Oaks final. The prize pool for this race is $46k and it is a Group 1 Race.
[3] VON STRASS was stood down for 28 days and required to complete a satisfactory trial for failing to pursue the lure. This is an alleged breach of r 55.1(b) of the GRNZ Rules of Racing.
[4] The relevant rule that the dog was suspended under reads as follows:
55.1 Where a Greyhound:
(b) Fails to pursue the lure in a race; the Stewards may impose the following periods of suspension: In the case of a first offence, 28 days and until the completion of a satisfactory trial.
[5] “Fails to Pursue The Lure” is defined in the GRNZ Rules as: “the action of the Greyhound voluntarily turning the head without making contact with another Greyhound, or voluntarily easing up, or stopping during a Race while free of interference.”
[6] On the day in question VON STRASS was referred to the official veterinarian post-race and cleared of any injury.
[7] VON STRASS has had 17 starts for 8 wins, 3 seconds and 4 thirds. Five of these races were in Australia where it had 1 win, 1 second and 3 thirds. At its last start in Australia VON STRASS was stood down for 28 days and pending a satisfactory trial for marring another runner.
[8] The dog completed a satisfactory trial on 2 November 2018 at Addington Raceway. VON Strass had competed in 10 clear races on 14 February this year and the endorsement for marring was cancelled.
[9] On the day in question it was requested that the greyhound race without blinkers for the first time.
[10] Mr Fahey filed an application for a review of the Stewards’ decision to stand down VON STRASS. This application was heard on 24 April and in an oral decision we determined that the review was unsuccessful and that a full written decision would follow.
Applicant’s case
[11] Mr Fahey opened his case by stating that VON STRASS had trialled the day before the hearing without any issues. Had he had any concerns with the dog not chasing, he would have not proceeded with this review.
[12] Mr Fahey said he been watching the race and did not realise that anything untoward had happened. Both he and Mr McLachlan questioned whether the video angles were such that it could be determined that the dog had turned its head. In particular, they pointed out that the head-on view was not a straight head-on.
[13] Mr Fahey believed all that had occurred was that VON STRASS had run out under pressure. He said if there had been a turn of the head, it was ever so slight. He said it was hard to tell if there had been contact with the other dog. He did not believe that there had been.
[14] Mr Fahey said VON STRASS has a tendency to run wide in the straight, especially in the home straight when the dog is under pressure.
[15] Mr Fahey alleged the veterinarian examination was delayed and was not until 20 minutes after the race.
Respondent’s case
[16] Mr Wallis opened his submission by stating that although VON STRASS went on to place in the race in question, when viewing race replays in relation to a non-pursuit charge it was essential that there was no consideration afforded to the finishing position of the greyhound. It was irrelevant the degree to which the greyhound has turned its head, as a greyhound’s sole purpose is for racing, and to chase a lure with due commitment. Rule 55.1 does not provide for this to be a mitigating factor when assessing a breach of this rule. The greyhound has either committed the offence or it has not.
[17] Mr Wallis believed that the films showed that VON STRASS had made 3 to 4 lengths up on the lead greyhound, OPAWA HOP, rounding the bend, until it was perhaps a neck behind that dog. VON STRASS then turned its head outwards away from the lure and was thus not focused on it for the entirety of the home straight. He believed if there had been a true head-on angle it would show that VON STRASS had contacted the hind quarters of OPAWA HOP. He said VON STRASS had earlier been bumped and squeezed for room but he did not believe this had any bearing on the breach.
[18] The lure was directly in front of VON STRASS and Mr Wallis believed the dog was acutely aware of where it was on the track. It had had 11 races and 1 trial on this track. It knew where the lure was and had made a conscious decision to divert its attention away from it and to focus on the hind quarters of the #1 dog, OPAWA HOP. He believed this was for a distance of some 6 strides.
[19] Mr Wallis said racing greyhounds were essentially bred for one purpose only and that was to chase or pursue a lure. It was in their physical and mental make-up to do this and they were programmed to do so from an early stage of their lives. Greyhounds that fail to pursue the lure with due commitment throughout the entirety of the race were deemed not to be committed to their sole purpose for racing.
[20] At stake here with this review was a place in a Group 1 race with a stake of several thousand dollars. Mr Wallis emphasised that greyhound racing carries with it the weight of public money and the Stewards had to be seen to be appropriately protecting this. They were charged with the responsibility of enhancing public confidence and integrity within greyhound racing by imposing the right penalties/stand downs on greyhounds when required to do so.
[21] Mr Wallis stated he was not aware there was any delay in the veterinarian examination of VON STRASS. There was no mention by Mr Quirk of there being any delay on the day.
[22] Given the films, along with Mr Fahey’s own submission that the greyhound had turned its head slightly, Mr Wallis believed that the Stewards were correct in their opinion that VON STRASS had failed to pursue the lure over the final stages of the race with due commitment, and therefore the review should be dismissed.
Decision
[23] VON STRASS was mid field shortly after the start and, after contacting an outside runner, ran wide entering the back straight. It is in the home straight that the Stipendiary Stewards allege that the dog diverted its head outwards and away from the lure. Significantly, they submit that the dog was free of interference at this time.
[24] We find that for some 6 strides in the home straight VON STRASS is more interested in the #1 dog than in the lure. In so doing, the dog’s head is turned outwards and away from the lure. There is no video evidence to the effect that the dog was interfered with at this time.
[25] In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the dog has failed to pursue the lure and is thus in breach of r 55.1.
[26] The review is not successful. The Stewards’ decision to stand down VON STRASS and require the completion of a satisfactory trial is upheld.
Dated at Dunedin this 6th day of May 2019.
Geoff Hall, Chairman
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: