NZGRA Request for Review S Hindson v RIU – Written Decision dated 6 May 2019 – Chair, Prof G Hall

hearingid: 25ad7ba5d9ed6d788f43726caa6213a3

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 08/05/2019

hearing_title: NZGRA Request for Review S Hindson 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

SHARON HINDSON, 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 H Anderton

Mr S Wallis, Senior Stipendiary Steward, for the Respondent

Date of oral decision: 24 April 2019

WRITTEN DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

[1] On Tuesday 16 April 2019 the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held a race meeting at Addington Raceway. The Chairman of Stewards at the meeting was Mr Wallis.

[2] The dog in question, INKY LORD, is trained by Licensed Public Trainer, Ms Hindson of Christchurch but on the day INKY LORD was being cared for by Ms Hindson’s partner, Mr Anderton.

[3] The dog was engaged to race in Race 2, the A2C Asphalt 2 Concrete Ph 0800222583 Sprint. INKY LORD ran wide and eased considerably rounding the bend. The dog continued to lose ground with the field thereafter. INKY LORD finished 25.7 lengths from the winner.

[4] INKY LORD 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.

[5] 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.

[6] “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.”

Applicant’s case

[7] Mr Anderton spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that INKY LORD had raced wide and had clearly eased rounding the bend and had stopped chasing. This was not disputed.

[8] Mr Anderton said he had not realised there was anything untoward with INKY LORD until he lifted the dog up to put him in the vehicle. He could feel that the dog’s heart was beating excessively fast and the beat was irregular. It was a hard thump against his hand. He got a drink of water for the dog and by the time INKY LORD was drinking his heart beat had returned to normal.

[9] Mr Anderton acknowledged he had had the opportunity to take the dog to the on-course veterinarian at this time but he could see no point in doing so as the dog’s heart rate was no longer out of the ordinary. He believed INKY LORD had suffered an atrial fibrillation.

[10] Mr Anderton said the veterinarian had checked INKY LORD after the race but had not checked the dog’s heart or chest.

[11] Mr Anderton stated that the veterinarian on the day was their usual veterinarian and he had no issues with her competence but he did question why she wore a stethoscope if she was not going to use it. He said she had checked INKY LORD physically but had not checked him medically. Had she done so, she would have detected the elevated heart rate.

[12] Mr Anderton said INKY LORD was 4 years old and was near the end of his career. Ms Hindson explained she had had the dog since it was a pup. The dog would only have a few more starts. INKY LORD had had an elevated heart rate once previously. This was at a trial in September 2018, but they had been told anything could bring it on. The dog had been okay when trialling at home subsequent to the latest incident.

[13] Mr Anderton believed that the after-race veterinarian check should be both medical and physical in nature. He questioned why the Rules did not provide for this.

Respondent’s case

[14] Mr Wallis said that when watching the race live, in his opinion the dog had clearly eased rounding the bend. At that time the reason for the greyhound to have eased was unknown. He said when the Stewards are of the opinion that a greyhound has failed to pursue the lure they must have the greyhound examined by the official veterinarian pursuant to r 55.2.

[15] This examination was conducted on the day by the on-course veterinarian Dr Lesley Roberts. Mr Wallis described Mrs Roberts as an experienced and respected veterinarian, having practised for 36 years.

[16] Dr Roberts examined INKY LORD after the race. Her report, which Mr Wallis presented in evidence, is dated 18 April with a time of 3.50pm, and it states no abnormalities were detected.

[17] Dr Roberts recommended to Mr Anderton that INKY LORD be re-presented for a further examination when the greyhound had completely cooled down. Mr Wallis said he was also in favour of this second examination. This was not carried out due to Mr Anderton declining to re-present INKY LORD for the recommended examination.

[18] Mr Wallis referred the Committee to r 55.4, which reads:

Where a Greyhound is found not to be seriously injured upon an examination pursuant to r 55.2, the Owner or Trainer of the Greyhound may, within 72 hours after the completion of the Meeting at which the Greyhound failed to pursue the Lure, apply to the Stewards seeking a re-examination at a time to be agreed by the Stewards.

[19] Ms Hindson had not applied for this.

[20] Mr Wallis also referred to two further rules.

[21] Rule 55.5 reads:

Where a Greyhound is found to be seriously injured upon an examination pursuant to Rule 55.2 or re-examination pursuant to Rule 55.4, a certificate shall be produced to the Stewards by the Veterinarian or Authorised Person detailing the injury. The Stewards shall not endorse the Greyhound’s Certificate of Registration and shall not impose a Suspension pursuant to Rule 55.1 but shall order the Greyhound to undergo a Satisfactory Trial before it is eligible to compete in any Race.

[22] This was not the case as Dr Roberts’ report detailed.

[23] GRNZ Rule 55.3 reads:

For the purposes of this Rule, “seriously injured” means an injury which the Veterinarian or Authorised Person concludes will result in a period of incapacitation of 21 days or more.

[24] INKY LORD’s veterinary examination failed to conclude that the greyhound had an injury which would result in a 21 days or more period of incapacitation.

[25] Mr Wallis stated that Mr Anderton believed INKY LORD had fibrillated. This had not been diagnosed by anyone other than Mr Anderton.

[26] Mr Wallis emphasised that greyhound racing carries with it the weight of public money and the Stewards have to be seen to be appropriately protecting this. They are 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.

[27] Mr Wallis said he could not comment on whether INKY LORD had suffered what was being alleged, as Dr Roberts had made no mention of it. Dr Roberts reported that no abnormalities were detected and therefore he was obliged to form the opinion that INKY LORD had failed to pursue the lure.

[28] Mr Wallis concluded his submission by stating the 28 day stand down and satisfactory trial imposed for a first offence under r 55.1(b) was correct and the review should be dismissed.

Decision

[29] This is an unusual case in that both parties agree that INKY LORD has voluntarily eased and, in so doing, has failed to pursue the lure.

[30] Dr Roberts, the official veterinarian, examined the dog at 3.50 pm following the race and found no abnormalities. Her report states she recommended to Mr Anderton that he re-present the dog after a suitable cool down period. Mr Anderton declined this opportunity. As Mr Anderton has explained, he saw little point as the dog’s heart rate had returned to normal.

[31] We accept that both the applicant and Mr Anderton have the interests of INKY LORD at the forefront of their minds. They are aware that the issue can arise with the dog at any time and not just when he is racing. They said they intend to continue to race the dog but should there be any future concern he would be retired immediately.

[32] The Rules do not provide for atrial fibrillation. The applicant principally wants to draw attention to this omission in the Rules and, that as a consequence, heart issues with dogs that are being examined for failing to pursue, such as atrial fibrillation, are in all likelihood going undetected.

[33] We explained that this issue was not within the purview of this Committee and encouraged Mr Anderton to take his concerns to GRNZ. Mr Anderton stated that he would do so.

[34] The review is not successful. The stand down of INKY LORD and the requirement that the dog complete a satisfactory trial, ordered by the Stewards on 16 April 2019, are 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: