NZGRA Request for Review B Pringle v RIU – Written Decision dated 20 June 2018 – Chair, Prof G Hall

hearingid: 3a567cd232538008faa8e105a4af51ae

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 20/06/2018

hearing_title: NZGRA Request for Review B Pringle v RIU - Written Decision dated 20 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

BOB PRINGLE, 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: 20 June 2018

WRITTEN DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

[1] On 8 June 2018 the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held a race meeting at the Addington Raceway. The Chairman of Stewards at the meeting was Mr J McLaughlin and his deputy on the day was Mr D Wadley.

[2] The dog in question, REPLICA CASINO, is trained by Licensed Trainer Mr Pringle. REPLICA CASINO was stood down (2nd offence – 3 months) and required to complete a satisfactory trial for marring. This is an alleged breach of r 55.1.a of the GRNZ Rules of Racing.

[3] The relevant rule that the dog was suspended under reads as follows:

55.1 Where a Greyhound: (a) Mars the running of any other Greyhound during a Race the Stewards may impose the following periods of suspension: … (d) in the case of a second offence under r 55.1, three (3) months and until the completion of a Satisfactory Trial.

[4] REPLICA CASINO has had 27 starts for 2 wins 6 seconds and 4 thirds. The dog had been stood down for marring on 12 December 2017 at Ascot Park. Due to this previous indiscretion REPLICA CASINO was suspended for 3 months on the day in question, with this being her second offence under r 55.1.

[5] The dog had had 10 starts since 12 December and had not been in breach of the rule. However, as Mr Pringle had not applied pursuant to r 55.7 to have the dog’s endorsement cancelled, the 3 month stand down, as opposed to 28 days, applied. Mr Pringle commented with respect to this that he was a hobby trainer and could not be expected to know every rule.

[6] As part of their investigation the Stewards directed that REPLICA CASINO be subjected to a post-race veterinary examination as required by r 55.2. There were no apparent findings reported from the on-course veterinarian after this examination took place.

[7] Mr Wallis stated the Stewards on the day were concerned with REPLICA CASINO’s race manners rounding the home turn in race 5 and were satisfied that REPLICA CASINO had marred the running of the 5 dog, GOLDSTAR HEMI. The Stewards asked Mr Pringle to come to the Stewards’ room and Mr McLaughlin informed him his runner had marred and the dog would be stood down. Mr Pringle became animated and left the Stewards’ room and returned with Mr S Evans. He asked to see the film and was advised to come back later as the Stewards were busy. The trainers came back, viewed the films, and left. Mr Wallis emphasised that r 55.1 does not require trainers’ submissions to be heard.

Applicant’s case

[8] Mr Pringle stated that REPLICA CASINO (7) had been impeded on the first bend by the 2 dog and, on the home bend, had bumped shoulders with the 5 dog, GOLDSTAR HEMI. There was no muzzle or head contact. There was no attempt to fight or play with that dog and REPLICA CASINO was in honest pursuit of the lure.

[9] Mr Pringle pointed out on the video that REPLICA CASINO’s natural galloping gait was to race with a slight head twist to the right.

[10] Mr Pringle said Mr McLaughlin had said there was muzzle contact but Mr McLaughlin had not been able to show him this on the videos in the Stewards’ room when they were there after race 9. Although they had viewed the race 2 or 3 times, it had always been at normal speed.

[11] Mr Pringle said he became exasperated on the day as was sure there was no head contact. Now that he had been able to view the video in slow motion he was even more certain of this.

[12] Mr Pringle demonstrated on the video that in his view REPLICA CASINO had moved out from the rail and had maintained her line and the 5 dog had come down onto her. There was contact but it was shoulder to shoulder.

Respondent’s case

[13] Mr Wallis demonstrated on the videos that REPLICA CASINO shifted outwards around OPAWA MILLIE (1) and then angled back to the rail. The dog then headed outwards towards GOLDSTAR HEMI and he believed she shifted her attention to GOLDSTAR HEMI and marred that runner, with there being muzzle contact. The intent of REPLICA CASINO was to get to the outside greyhound and once she cleared that runner she took a glance to the outside before heading back to the rail.

[14] Mr Wallis believed that these actions proved that REPLICA CASINO was not a greyhound that wanted to run wide rounding the bend but rather was one that was intent on contacting the outside runner. He emphasised that when REPLICA CASINO had raced round the first turn the dog had shown no tendency to shift outwards.

[15] Mr Wallis agreed that the video angles made an assessment of whether there was muzzle contact difficult. At the key point in the video that would have given the best angle the lights were in the way. He believed a further angle, which did not give a close up view of the incident, showed that REPLICA CASINO had her head turned and there was muzzle contact. He thought it was to the neck of the 5 dog. It was just for a stride.

[16] Mr Wallis believed the reason that REPLICA CASINO had shifted out on the bend was because she was interested in the 5 dog, GOLDSTAR HEMI. REPLICA CASINO had bounced off that dog before chasing again.

[17] Mr Wallis accepted that the earlier contact could have unbalanced REPLICA CASINO but he did not believe that this had caused the dog’s head to turn out.

Summing up

[18] Mr Pringle replied that REPLICA CASINO had moved out very marginally on the home bend. This was a natural thing for her to do. He agreed with Mr Wallis that she had come inside the 1 dog but disagreed that she had set her sights on the 5 dog, GOLDSTAR HEMI. It was a collision of dogs racing shoulder to shoulder.

[19] Mr Pringle stated he believed the paws and legs of REPLICA CASINO were too far in advance of GOLDSTAR HEMI for there to be muzzle contact. He therefore disagreed there had been contact with the neck of GOLDSTAR HEMI.

[20] Mr Pringle reiterated that the 5 dog had come down the track and there was contact. REPLICA CASINO was skewed in an outwards direction. There was no malicious intent and significantly there was no clear evidence that there was muzzle contact.

[21] Mr Pringle raised issues with respect to procedural matters on the day. He believed the decision to stand down the dog had been made before he had had a discussion with the Stewards. He was also concerned that there was nothing written in the book and it was only when he went to the website and read the report that he realised REPLICA CASINO had been stood down.

[22] Mr Wallis responded to the effect that Mr Wadley, stipendiary steward, had endeavoured to locate REPLICA CASINO’s registration booklet on the day but had not been able to find it. Stewards were busy on race day and it was not uncommon for them not to be able to endorse a dog’s papers before the trainer left the track.

[23] Mr Wallis stated he was satisfied that on the evidence he had presented to this Committee it was open for the Chairman of Stewards on the day to form the opinion that the greyhound had marred. REPLICA CASINO had shifted up the track and turned her head outwards towards GOLDSTAR HEMI. He did not believe it was possible to tell from the videos that REPLICA CASINO was in front of the 5 dog. If the contact was not with the neck of GOLDSTAR HEMI, it was with that dog’s face

[24] It was the RIU’s view the review should be dismissed and that the stand down imposed on the day in question be upheld.

Decision

[25] It is evident that at the time of contact the 5 dog, GOLDSTAR HEMI, has run in at the same time that REPLICA CASINO has come out. That there was shoulder contact is clear.

[26] The crucial issue for the purpose of r 55.1.a is whether there was muzzle contact by REPLICA CASINO to GOLDSTAR HEMI.

[27] Significantly, the evidence on this point is far from strong. We have already remarked on the unfortunate blocking by a light standard of what would have been the best video angle of the incident. Both Mr McLaughlin and Mr Wallis may be correct in their view that there was muzzle contact. Mr Pringle is strongly of the opposite view, in that it was shoulder only. As he has stated, there is no clear or discernible evidence of muzzle contact.

[28] At best, we are of the view that there may have been muzzle contact. The matter has to be determined on the balance of probabilities and we are far from satisfied to that standard as there is simply insufficient evidence before us. We understand that technical developments are in train that will facilitate a zoom focus on incidents of this nature. That will obviously be of great assistance but it was not available to us on the day of the hearing.

[29] The review is thus successful. The stand down at Addington on 8 June of REPLICA CASINO for 3 months for marring is lifted.

Dated at Dunedin this 20th 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: