Appeal – C Roberts v RIU – Decision of Judicial Committee dated 24 January 2014

hearingid: 32755b5629a4e35e1721c264ab2a5b6a

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 22/01/2014

hearing_title: Appeal - C Roberts v RIU - Decision of Judicial Committee dated 24 January 2014

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY AT CHRISTCHURCH

UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003

IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Greyhound Racing

BETWEEN Mr CRAIG ROBERTS of Christchurch, 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 J McLaughlin for the respondent

Date of hearing and oral decision: 17 January 2014

DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

[1] JACK’S A JEWEL started from Box 7 in Race 6, The CTV Dash, a C3 295 metres sprint at the Christchurch Greyhound Club’s meeting at Addington Raceway on 2 January 2014. The dog finished second of eight runners, beaten by a neck.

[2] The Stipendiary Stewards determined that JACK’S A JEWEL had failed to pursue the lure and stood the dog down for 28 days pursuant to r 80.1.b.a.

[3] Mr Roberts, in accordance with rr 80.11 and 92.20, seeks a review of this decision of the Stipendiary Stewards to stand down JACK’S A JEWEL.

[4] Rule 80.1.b provides: “Where a Greyhound fails to pursue the lure in a race, the Stewards may impose the following periods of suspension: a. in the case of a first offence, twenty-eight (28) days and until the completion of a satisfactory trial.”

[5] Rule 80.11 provides: An Owner or Trainer of a Greyhound may seek a review of any decision under r 80.1, by the Judicial Committee, in accordance with r 92.20.

[6] Mr Roberts agreed that it was appropriate for Mr McLaughlin to present his case first.

The respondent’s case

[7] The Stipendiary Stewards on the day were of the view that JACK’S A JEWEL had failed to pursue the lure. The dog in accordance with r 80.2 underwent a veterinarian inspection, which revealed no abnormalities. After hearing from Mr Roberts, the Stewards imposed a 28-day stand-down, including one satisfactory trial, as provided in r 80.1.b.a.

[8] Mr McLaughlin referred the Committee to r 2, which defines “fails to pursue the lure” 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.” He also provided a dictionary definition of “interference” — “the act or an instance of hindering, obstructing or impeding”.

[9] Mr McIntyre, Co-chief Stipendiary Steward demonstrated on the videos that JACK’S A JEWEL chased to the lead rounding the first bend and was two off the running line. Mr McLaughlin stated the Stewards had no concern with the dog’s racing manners up until this stage of the race.

[10] Upon entering the straight JACK’S A JEWEL was in front of the eventual winner of the race, BLUE GALE RISE (the number 2 dog). Mr McLaughlin stated that the concern of the Stewards was that from this point JACK’S A JEWEL had eased and run alongside BLUE GALE RISE, and continued to ease, beaten 0.3 of a length (a neck).

[11] Mr McIntyre said it was not clear just what distance JACK’S A JEWEL was ahead of BLUE GALE RISE on the bend but he estimated the margin was ½ to ¾ of a length.

[12] Mr McIntyre demonstrated that JACK’S A JEWEL brushed with BLUE GALE RISE over the concluding stages. Mr McLaughlin stated this was when JACK’S A JEWEL, which was easing, shifted inwards to get closer to BLUE GALE RISE. He said the dogs had clearly come together on two occasions as the head-on video demonstrated, once on exiting the bend and again near the winning post, but on neither occasion had JACK’S A JEWEL suffered interference. He said JACK’S A JEWEL had moved in and he explained that JACK’S A JEWEL wore blinkers with the inside one being lower than the outside.

[13] The video of the dog’s actions after the winning post demonstrated, Mr McLaughlin said, that JACK’S A JEWEL was not tiring, as the two dogs had run side by side to the lure without JACK’S A JEWEL giving any ground to BLUE GALE RISE.

[14] Mr McLaughlin produced JACK’S A JEWEL’s record. The dog had had 37 starts and had won five (13.5%) and had run second in 15 and third once (43.2% placings). He said this disparity was evidence that JACK’S A JEWEL runs alongside other dogs and does not want to win. He said JACK’S A JEWEL had been stood down on 22 March 2013. As the dog had been clear in ten subsequent runs, the appropriate penalty, when it had failed to chase again, was 28 days under r 80.1.b.a.

[15] Mr McLaughlin said that greyhound races were based on the requirement that all contestants race truly and on this occasion the Stewards believed that JACK’S A JEWEL was clearly not.

The applicant’s case

[16] Mr Roberts questioned the relevance of the previous charge and said the Committee had to determine the matter with reference only to the race at issue. He further said that he had admitted the charge on the previous occasion because he accepted in that instance the dog had shown a tendency not to pursue. He said there was no evidence of the dog easing on this occasion and he questioned whether the Stewards were picking on the dog. Mr McLaughlin refuted this allegation and Mr Roberts adduced no evidence before the Committee to substantiate his claim, which we thus discount.

[17] Mr Roberts said the video demonstrated there was no evidence that JACK’S A JEWEL had eased. He pointed out the dog’s head was pointing forward not sideways. He said JACK’S A JEWEL had never changed stride and that BLUE GALE RISE had bored out onto JACK’S A JEWEL late in the run home. He said JACK’S A JEWEL’s head was ‘never in the air’ nor was he looking inwards or outwards. JACK’S A JEWEL was showing no interest in the dog on his inner (BLUE GALE RISE).

[18] Mr Roberts used the head-on video to demonstrate contact between the dogs as they exited the bend. BLUE GALE RISE was racing on an angle, its head was angled outwards, and the dog was boring out. He said even at that time JACK’S A JEWEL showed no interest in BLUE GALE RISE.

[19] Mr Roberts demonstrated on the side-on video that JACK’S A JEWEL was racing head to head with BLUE GALE RISE all the way up the straight. He said which dog was in front of the other depended on the bob of the head. It was only at the end of the race that BLUE GALE RISE gained a slight advantage over JACK’S A JEWEL. He said there was no proof that JACK’S A JEWEL had eased, rather the inside dog had bored out and had held JACK’S A JEWEL up and he had lost momentum as a result. That was why JACK’S A JEWEL had finished second.

[20] He emphasised by reference to marks on the track that JACK’S A JEWEL was running straight and the dog’s body, including his head, was also straight. It was BLUE GALE RISE that was running on an angle.

[21] He agreed JACK’S A JEWEL was slightly in front of BLUE GALE RISE on the bend but JACK’S A JEWEL was racing wider than BLUE GALE RISE. That was the reason that BLUE GALE RISE had made up ground. It was not because JACK’S A JEWEL had eased.

[22] Mr Roberts also emphasised that the time for the race was 17.53 seconds. JACK’S A JEWEL best time was 17.35, so the dog had raced close to its best considering track variance and that the dogs had come together twice in the run. He thought the contact would have cost JACK’S A JEWEL 0.1 of a second, so it was a great run from the dog in the circumstances.

Summing up

[23] Mr McLaughlin summed up by stating that the dogs had come together twice. He believed JACK’S A JEWEL had at least a neck in front of BLUE GALE RISE early in the home straight and had eased to run alongside that dog to the winning post. He demonstrated by reference to the same mark on the track that Mr Roberts had identified, that in his opinion JACK’S A JEWEL was running in and not BLUE GALE RISE running out.

[24] Mr Roberts reiterated there was no clear evidence JACK’S A JEWEL had voluntarily eased, even when there was twice contact with BLUE GALE RISE. He emphasised BLUE GALE RISE was angling outwards in the home straight and JACK’S A JEWEL was running in a straight line.

Decision

[25] We have studied the videos carefully. Clearly the Stewards’ interpretation of the videos and that of Mr Roberts are at odds. We have not viewed any other videos of JACK’S A JEWEL racing performances, as neither party has adduced these in evidence. Despite the high proportion of second placings to wins, which might suggest JACK’S A JEWEL is content to run alongside other dogs, as Mr McLaughlin alleges, we have to assess the dog’s performance with reference only to this particular race.

[26] We find that there was twice contact between JACK’S A JEWEL and BLUE GALE RISE. Once as the dogs were about to exit the final bend and then again about 20 metres from the winning post. JACK’S A JEWEL is not obviously interfered with on either occasion in that there is no discernible change of stride by the dog. However, on the second occasion the outwards movement from BLUE GALE RISE is enough to allow that dog to put its body slightly in front of JACK’S A JEWEL and it is this action that we believe leads BLUE GALE RISE to have a neck advantage on JACK’S A JEWEL at the winning post.

[27] Significantly, we are satisfied that JACK’S A JEWEL runs a straight line up the straight and for much of this run so does BLUE GALE RISE. It is clear that the dogs are racing stride for stride, head to head, up the straight with perhaps JACK’S A JEWEL holding a slight advantage over BLUE GALE RISE but we accept that with the bobbing of the heads this advantage may have altered from time to time.

[28] There is no video evidence that suggests that JACK’S A JEWEL is taking an undue interest in BLUE GALE RISE. His head does not turn inwards, for example, nor does he run in on an angle. The dog appears to resist the outwards angled movement from BLUE GALE RISE near the winning post and it is this, together with the related slight loss of momentum, which most likely costs JACK’S A JEWEL first place.

[29] Whether JACK’S A JEWEL could have run past BLUE GALE RISE in the run up the home straight is a matter we are unable to determine, although the time JACK’S A JEWEL’s ran would suggest that this was not likely. We also accept Mr Roberts’ point that JACK’S A JEWEL was racing wider on the track than BLUE GALE RISE and thus had covered extra ground on the bend and had expended more energy than had BLUE GALE RISE.

[30] We find that JACK’S A JEWEL ran alongside and to the outside of BLUE GALE RISE all the way up the home straight. We further find that JACK’S A JEWEL for much of this time had a slight advantage over BLUE GALE RISE. We are not satisfied that JACK’S A JEWEL deliberately eased in order to continue to run alongside BLUE GALE RISE rather than to chase the lure.

[31] In these circumstances Mr Robert’s application for a review of the decision of the Stipendiary Stewards is successful and the order for a 28-day stand-down is rescinded.

[32] Neither party has sought costs, and we agree that no order is appropriate in the circumstances of this case.

[33] Dated this 24th day of January 2014.

Geoff Hall                      Chairman

Russell McKenzie           Member of the Committee

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: