NZGRA Request for Review R Waite v RIU – Written Decision dated 11 October 2019 – Chair, Mr T Utikere

hearingid: 53ee74788bf72b9212f306190bbeec69

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 11/10/2019

hearing_title: NZGRA Request for Review R Waite v RIU - Written Decision dated 11 October 2019 - Chair, Mr T Utikere

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE

JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY

UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003

------IN THE MATTER of the Rules of Greyhound Racing

BETWEEN R WAITE

Informant

AND-RACING INTEGRITY UNIT

Respondent

Judicial Committee:-Mr T Utikere (Chairman)

Mr N McCutcheon (Member)

Parties:--Mr R Waite (as the Informant)

Mr M Austin (for the RIU)

Hearing:--9 October 2019 at Hatrick Raceway, Whanganui

WRITTEN DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DATED 11 OCTOBER 2019

FACTS

[1] At the Wanganui Greyhound Racing Club's Meeting held at Hatrick Raceway on Wednesday 18 September 2019, the greyhound MISCHIEF SEEKER trained by Mr R Waite started in Race 8.

[2] Following the race, the Stipendiary Stewards stood down MISCHIEF SEEKER for 12 months under Rule 55.1(b) for Failing to Pursue the Lure (Third Offence). It was also ordered to complete a trial to the satisfaction of a Stipendiary Steward prior to its return to racing.

[3] Rule 55.1 in its entirety states:

“Where a Greyhound:

(a) -Mars the running of any other Greyhound during a Race; or

(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, twenty-eight (28) days and until the completion of a Satisfactory Trial; or

(d) -in the case of a second offence under Rule 55.1 (which for clarity need not be the same offence as the first offence under that subsection), three (3) months and until the completion of a Satisfactory Trial, or

(e) -in the case of a third or subsequent offence, under Rule 55.1 (which for clarity need-not be the same offence as the first offence under that subsection), twelve (12) months and until the completion of a Satisfactory Trial.”

[4] This Committee is in receipt of the Notice of Appointment and a copy of the Notice of Appeal that seeks the Review. On 20 September Mr Waite applied for a review of the decision of the Stipendiary Stewards in accordance with Rule 55.11. His reasons for disagreeing with the decision of the Stewards was outlined in his Notice of Appeal and in essence identified that he did not believe there was sufficient evidence to prove that MISCHIEF SEEKER had Failed to Pursue the Lure. This matter was set down for an in person hearing at Hatrick Raceway on Wednesday 9 October.

[5] Mr Austin played the available films of the alleged incident. There were a total of four views simultaneously played on a split screen. The Committee initially viewed all four films without comment from either party.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIU

[6] Using the films, Mr Austin described that MISCHIEF SEEKER had gone to the front soon after the jump, and that there was no dispute that it had received some buffering, but that for the remainder of the race the dog appeared to be travelling comfortably to the home turn. The dog located to its outside (Number 7 Dog) had moved up on MISCHIEF SEEKER’s outer on the home turn to challenge for the lead. The stewards had no issues with the dog’s racing manners at that point.

[7] The side-on film demonstrated that the dog had turned its head towards the Number 7 dog for three strides before straightening. Mr Austin believed MISCHIEF SEEKER had lost concentration before immediately straightening for the run to the line. In comparison with other dogs in the race, he submitted all appeared to be concentrating on the lure. The head-on film showed that at times the lure obscured the view, but that it was nonetheless clear to see the dog’s head turned outwards.

[8] Mr Austin said that following Mr Waite’s previous Review, stewards spoke with him regarding the blinkers not sitting up over the dog’s eyes and suggested purchasing better blinkers; which Mr Waite had done. However, the dog could still sense and hear dogs to its inner and outer; he had known there were other dogs there, and turned its head.

[9] Mr Austin stated that post-race, MISCHIEF SEEKER had been sent to be vetted and he tabled a copy of the Veterinary Examination undertaken on the raceday which indicated there were “spike wounds on low-hind limbs” and that no stand down was required as a result.

[10] After reviewing the available films on the day, Mr Austin had spoken with Mr Waite and he made the decision to stand the dog down for Failing to Pursue the Lure. At that time, Mr Austin had pointed out to Mr Waite that under the Rules, the dog could be presented to a vet within 72 hours if connections believed the dog to be injured. If an injury were to be confirmed, then the Failure to Pursue classification would have been rescinded.

[11] Mr Austin confirmed that Mr Waite had been informed of this on the day, but that he did not take advantage of that opportunity. Stewards therefore inferred that Mr Waite was happy with MISCHIEF SEEKER’s condition and that no injury worries were causing discomfort during the running.

[12] In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Austin believed that the spike wounds were possibly caused after the start from catching the hind legs of another dog. He also confirmed that on a corner, dogs turned their heads, but that the failure to pursue for this dog was as a result of racing in a straight line.

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE INFORMANT

[13] Using the head-on view, Mr Waite identified that the lure had moved significantly around, and that the dogs were in differing positions, so there was more movement in the lure, so his dog’s head would move around as a result.

[14] He also accepted that his dog had been bumped at the start and that while spike wounds were evident, it could not be determined if that had occured at the start or whilst chasing the lure. The Informant submitted that while the vet had determined under Rules that it could have raced the following week, this could have still caused some inconvenience to the dog during the running. This was the dog’s third start in a Grade 2 race, and had been its best performance; finishing third.

[15] In addition to the bump at the start, Mr Waite also believed other factors such as the soft track, could have been the reason why the dog’s head had moved slightly. He described the movement as ‘minute’, and suggested that it did not justify the action that the stewards had taken. He relied on the fact that the head would also need to turn fully due to the peripheral vision being obscured by the blinkers.

CLOSING SUBMISSIONS

[16] Mr Austin did not believe the blinkers had moved after the start, and that while body contact had been made at the time, the blinkers were a very good fit. He also referred to the definition for ‘failing to pursue the lure’, and pointed out that there only had to be a turning of the head once to satisfy the definition.

[17] While a serious injury was an option as a defence, Mr Austin did not believe this was the case. He also provided reasons why a dislike of the track and the quality of the opposition were not defences available, along with the importance of punter confidence in dog racing matters.

[18] Mr Waite confirmed that he had suggested the dog had been performing well as it had been going up in grade. He believed the dog was concentrating and that the slight movement could be explained by other reasons. He did not believe the movement was that significant, and that there needed to be certainty before a decision that would result in a 12 months stand down period being imposed. He believed that the dog should be given the benefit of the doubt on this occasion, otherwise it would not be just.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[19] The Committee has reviewed the available films at some length, and in particular the head-on and side-on angles. While there is some obscured view on the head-on, it is still sufficient for us to reach a determination.

[20] The Informant’s arguments have been identified in the Notice of Appeal, and have been elaborated upon by Mr Waite in person. There is no evidence to suggest that the decision that the stewards made was based on assumptions they had formed around the dog’s previous performances.

[21] The suggestion that the lure’s movement was a contributing factor is, in our view, irrelevant. We form this view on the observation that no other dog’s head is moving in a similar fashion, and any such movement would be consistently seen throughout the race. The role that a new muzzle may have played is also not relevant as there were no other issues with it at any other part of the race.

[22] Mr Waite’s observation that MISCHIEF SEEKER had not moved towards the outside dog in conjunction with the slight movement is also an irrelevant consideration, as such action is not a necessary ingredient for this consideration of failing to pursue.

[23] ‘Failing to Pursue the Lure’ is specifically defined 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.”

[24] This means there are three limbs to the definition, and we form the view that the RIU need only establish that one of the limbs have occurred for the definition of Failing to Pursue to be met. In the context of the current Review, the RIU rely soley on the first limb; that is that MISCHIEF SEEKER voluntarily turned its head without making contact with another Greyhound.

[25] Our role in approaching the Review request is to consider whether the stipendiary stewards’ determination that MISCHIEF SEEKER failed to pursue the lure was made in accordance with the Rules. It is not within our remit to consider whether the penalty of a 12 months stand down period is too harsh or not. Such a course of action follows only after the definition is met. However, the Informant is correct, in that the determination by the stewards regarding the offence needs to be reasonable and free from doubt.

[26] We have had the opportunity to review the race in its entirety, and our assessment of the films establishes that soon after entering the home straight, MISCHIEF SEEKER turns it’s head outwards, without making contact with any other dog, and free from interference. This is for a period of three strides before it straightens its head for its run to the line. We also noted that at the same time, all other dogs’ heads were facing forward in comparison. There is no doubt in our view around this.

[27] Therefore, the definition of failing to pursue has been met and the Review must naturally fail. Accordingly, we find that MISCHIEF SEEKER Failed to Pursue the Lure, as defined in the Rules of Racing, in relation to Race 8 of the Wanganui Greyhound Meeting at Hatrick Raceway on 18 September 2019.

DECISION

[28] The outcome of the Review is that the raceday decision of the Stipendiary Stewards to stand down MISCHIEF SEEKER for a period of 12 months is confirmed. The requirement to satisfactorily trial prior to racing next is also confirmed.

[29] The Committee declines to exercise any discretion in relation to any costs that may have been incurred by the JCA or either party.

Signed at Palmerston North this 11th day of October 2019.

Mr Tangi Utikere

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: