NZGRA Request for Review S Evans v RIU – decision dated 12 February 2016 – Chair, Mr T Utikere

hearingid: 323169a93f811f2e6306631708114980

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 12/02/2016

hearing_title: NZGRA Request for Review S Evans v RIU - decision dated 12 February 2016 - Chair, Mr T Utikere

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A REVIEW TRIBUNAL

OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY

AT CHRISTCHURCH

IN THE MATTER of the Rules of Greyhound Racing

AN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW LODGED BY STEVE EVANS

Licensed Greyhound Trainer

Applicant

Review Tribunal: Mr T Utikere, Chairman - Mr S Ching, Tribunal Member

Appearances: Mrs B Evans (for the Review Applicant), Mr S Renault (for the RIU)

Hearing Venue: Addington Raceway, Christchurch

Date of Hearing: 11 February 2016

Date of Oral Decision: 11 February 2016

Date of Written Decision: 12 February 2016

DECISION OF REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Facts

[1] At the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club's Meeting held at Addington Raceway on Thursday 4 February 2016, the greyhound ADJUDICATOR trained by Mr Evans started in Race 2, the David Emerson Consultancy Dash over 295 metres.

[2] Following the race, the Stipendiary Stewards stood down ADJUDICATOR for 28 days under r 79.1.a for marring. It was also ordered to undertake a satisfactory trial.

[3] On 5 February 2016 Mr Evans applied for a review of the decision of the Stipendiary Stewards in accordance with r 91.20. His reason for disagreeing with the decision of the Stewards was that he did not believe ADJUDICATOR was guilty of marring.

[4] A teleconference was held on 9 February and this matter was set down for a hearing on 11 February.

Submissions of the RIU

[5] At the commencement of the hearing, Mr Renault tabled copies of the Stewards Report and the Official Results for the race meeting on 4 February 2016.

[6] Mr Renault played head-on, side-on and back straight films of the alleged incident.

[7] He stated that ADJUDICATOR had raced from the eight box and used the side-on and head-on films to identify that greyhound racing in a four-wide position as the field came around the final bend. He submitted that ADJUDICATOR was located to the inside of STRUGGLE IS REAL by approximately two widths. He believed that the films showed that ADJUDICATOR had turned its head outwards and continued to look at STRUGGLE IS REAL, rather than focussing on the lure. It was his further contention that ADJUDICATOR's head had then made contact with the rear of STRUGGLE IS REAL. Mr Renault believed the films clearly established that the actions of both dogs had changed as a result of contact being made.

[8] Mr Renault submitted that in order for marring to take place, two criteria were required to be met. Firstly, ADJUDICATOR's head had to have turned towards STRUGGLE IS REAL. Secondly, that contact must be made between ADJUDICATOR's head and, on this occasion, the rear of STRUGGLE IS REAL. He also clarified that the stewards did not believe that the turning of the head and the contact with another greyhound had to occur simultaneously for marring to exist.

[9] Mr Renault also believed the committee may be interested in the actions of ADJUDICATOR immediately after crossing the winning post.

Submissions of the Applicant

[10] Mrs Evans identified that ADJUDICATOR had more than 50 starts and had returned to racing on 4 February after a two month recovery from a hamstring injury.

[11] She believed her dog had simply followed STRUGGLE IS REAL out wider on the track and did not believe the films clearly identified any incident. She did not believe ADJUDICATOR turned its head at any stage of the race and also disagreed that contact had been made between the two greyhounds. She used the available films to support the view that it was difficult to determine anything on the films.

[12] She invited the Tribunal to look at the fact that her dog had raised its tail on two occasions, when in close proximity to STRUGGLE IS REAL. Initially she thought that ADJUDICATOR may have been a bit sore, and that that was the reason for its tail movement.

[13] Mrs Evans did not accept Mr Renault's identification on the films of her dog turning its head, preferring instead to identify it as part of the dog's galloping action. She did not believe that any incidents that may have occurred after the winning post were relevant to this hearing and invited the Tribunal to reject this aspect offered by Mr Renault.

[14] She believed that any perceived contact between the two greyhounds was nothing more than a routine racing incident.

Reasons for Decision

[15] The Tribunal has had regard to all the submissions placed before it. We have reviewed the available films on multiple occasions and find the head-on and side-on films of most assistance. We also accept the submission of Mrs Evans that the actions of ADJUDICATOR after the race are not relevant for our determination on this matter.

[16] The definition of “marring” as set out in the Rules is:

“MARRING” means the action of a Greyhound in voluntarily turning the head so as to make head or muzzle contact with another Greyhound.

[17] We are satisfied that there are two components that must be met if marring is to be deemed to have occurred. The first is that the turning of the head towards another greyhound must take place. The second is that contact must occur between the greyhound in question's head and the body of the other greyhound.

[18] We also accept that these two components need not occur at the same time, as the alternative breach in an isolated instance would be one of failing to pursue the lure.

[19] We are satisfied that clear contact has been made between ADJUDICATOR and STRUGGLE IS REAL after the alleged turning of ADJUDICATOR's head. This contact is evident on the films by the joining together of both dogs’ shadows at the point of contact along with the observations of the footprints on the track. This finding is also supported by the change in both dogs’ actions as a result; ADJUDICATOR specifically moves downwards, whilst STRUGGLE IS REAL's rear end goes lower due to contact being made.

[20] Having been satisfied that this component has been met, we now proceed to consider whether or not ADJUDICATOR's head turns voluntarily towards STRUGGLE IS REAL prior to the established contact being made. We accept that while the films are not ideal, ADJUDICATOR can been seen on the side-on film turning its head towards the outside greyhound as both dogs round the final bend. We have determined that ADJUDICATOR has turned its head on at least two occasions. While these could be described as glances, this Tribunal is satisfied that both components of the marring definition have been proved.

[21] Accordingly, we find that ADJUDICATOR marred in relation to Race 2 of the Christchurch Greyhound Meeting at Addington Raceway on 4 February 2016, in breach of r 79.1.a.

Decision

[22] The outcome of the review is that the raceday decision of the Stipendiary Stewards is confirmed.

T Utikere           S Ching

Chairman          Tribunal 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: