NZGRA Request for Review AC Roberts v RIU – Written Decision dated 19 June 2018 – Chair, Prof G Hall

hearingid: 2a4dc14fae15e80fc012776c19700c4b

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 21/06/2018

hearing_title: NZGRA Request for Review AC Roberts v RIU - Written Decision dated 19 June 2018 - 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

CRAIG ROBERTS, Licensed Trainer

Applicant

AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)

Respondent

Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman

Mr R McKenzie, Member

Appearing: The Applicant in person

Mr S Wallis, Stipendiary Steward, for the Respondent

Date of oral decision: 12 June 2018

Date of written decision: 19 June 2018

WRITTEN DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

[1] On 5 June 2018 the Southland Greyhound Racing Club held a race meeting at the Ascot Park Raceway. The Chairman of Stewards at the meeting was Mr Wallis and his deputy on the day was Mr Munro.

[2] The dog in question, DYNA MONTY, is trained by Licensed Public Trainer, Mr Roberts of Christchurch. DYNA MONTY competed in Race 2, the Southland and Otago Photo Finish C0, and 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.

[3] 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:

(c) in the case of a first offence, 28 days and until the completion of a satisfactory trial.

[4] Mr Roberts’ ground for review is that the dog had not failed to pursue the lure.

[5] DYNA MONTY has had six starts — three each in NZ and Australia. For two wins, one second and a third. The dog was the subject of a charge of failing to pursue the lure in Australia on 7 February 2018 at The Meadows raceway. There was no stand down imposed, as the vet inspection detected an injury.

[6] DYNA MONTY had also been the subject of a successful application for review by Mr Roberts after it was charged with failing to pursue the lure at the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club's meeting on 27 April 2018.

[7] On the day in question DYNA MONTY was referred to the veterinarian post-race and cleared of any injury.

Applicant’s submissions

[8] Mr Roberts commenced his case by stating DYNA MONTY had come out the boxes on a right angle and had never failed to chase the lure.

[9] Mr Roberts attempted to place in evidence a statement from Mr M Rosanowski. The RIU objected to our receiving this as Mr Rosanowski was not available for cross examination. After consideration, we did not admit this statement.

[10] We viewed the side and head-on videos at normal speed and the head-on at ¼ speed.

[11] Mr Roberts submitted that DYNA MONTY had not voluntarily turned its head and therefore had not failed to pursue. He emphasised that the dog’s head was in line with its body.

[12] Mr Roberts said that DYNA MONTY was an inexperienced dog and this was the first time it had raced on the track, which had a hoop arm system with respect to the lure. This meant the lure was out a bit further from the rail than is usual.

[13] Mr Roberts said that DYNA MONTY was lost when it came out of the box and had not turned its head. It was not worried about the 8 dog (MR MATT) and had showed no interest in it even when they had clashed.

[14] Mr Roberts demonstrated on the videos that the 8 dog had come in hard onto DYNA MONTY. He believed DYNA MONTY had jumped and once it realised where the lure was, the dog had straightened up and had chased the lure.

[15] Mr Roberts said that the body of DYNA MONTY was angled towards the outside of the track and the dog’s head was facing in that direction as a consequence.

Respondent’s submissions

[16] Mr Wallis stated that he was Chairman of Stewards on the day and had made the decision that the dog had failed to pursue. Mr Roberts had not been present at the meeting and Mr Bob Blackburn, the Kennel Foreman, had spoken to the Stewards. After hearing from Mr Blackburn, he continued with his decision to charge the greyhound with failing to pursue the lure as per r 55.1.b.

[17] Mr Wallis referred to the definition of “Fails to Pursue The Lure” in the 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.”

[18] Mr Wallis also referred to the online Cambridge Dictionary definition of turn as: “To change the direction in which you are facing or moving”.

[19] Mr Wallis emphasised that 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 which failed to pursue the lure with due commitment throughout the entirety of the race effectively negated the only “protection mechanism” the wagering public had over their investment.

[20] Although DYNA MONTY had won the race, 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 also irrelevant that it was the greyhound’s first time on the track or its first time from a particular box, as dogs were obligated to chase a lure regardless of where that might be. Rule 55.1 does not provide for these to be mitigating factors when assessing a breach of this rule. The greyhound has either committed the offence or not.

[21] Mr Wallis said the Stewards were not concerned about the first 2 or 3 strides that DYNA MONTY had taken on leaving the boxes. However, it was evident that after the initial jump that DYNA MONTY had turned its head away from the lure and was not focused on it. The lure was directly in front of the greyhound and, in the Stewards’ opinion, the dog was acutely aware of where it was on the track. It made a conscious decision to divert its attention away from the lure. In terms of the rule, the dog had turned its head voluntarily when free of interference.

[22] Mr Wallis emphasised that the Stewards were not saying that DYNA MONTY was having a 'play' or was attempting to fight the other greyhounds, rather that DYNA MONTY had failed to pursue with due commitment by turning its head outwards soon after jumping and had diverted its attention away from the lure until it made contact with MR MATT, the 8 dog. DYNA MONTY then refocused on the lure.

[23] Mr Wallis stated that DYNA MONTY had continued to look outwards until contact with the 8 dog. It was running up the track and not looking at the lure.

Summing up

[24] Mr Roberts responded that DYNA MONTY was an inexperienced dog that had never stopped pursuing. The dog had never voluntarily turned its head away from the lure. He said if a dog was angling outwards it had not voluntarily turned its head. He said DYNA MONTY had just jumped outwards very early in the race and once it had its bearings it had “raced okay”.

[25] Mr Wallis stated that the experience of the dog was not relevant. All greyhounds had to chase the lure.

[26] 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. DYNA MONTY shortly after the start had voluntarily turned its head away from the lure while free of interference and was not chasing the lure at this point of the race.

Decision

[27] We have studied the videos carefully. The head-on shows that DYNA MONTY’s head was focused on the lure as the dog jumped out of the box. During the third stride on exiting the box, DYNA MONTY lost its focus and its head was no longer pointing towards the lure.

[28] We are satisfied that for these first two strides the dog clearly spotted the lure. The dog then angled outwards on the track when free of interference. Eventually DYNA MONTY collided with the 8 dog and from that point the dog straightened and its head turned again towards the lure. There is no concern with the dog’s racing performance from this point on.

[29] Significantly, in our view, DYNA MONTY’s head was voluntarily turned away from the lure at the time the dog was running outwards on the track towards the 8 dog, Mr MATT, which at that time was making an acute run inwards towards the rail.

[30] We thus find that DYNA MONTY while free of interference has voluntarily turned its head and thus has failed to pursue the lure as is required by r 55.1.b.

[31] The review is unsuccessful and the raceday stand down is confirmed.

Dated at Dunedin this 19th day of June 2018.

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: