Appeal RIU v A Lee – Decision dated 30 November 2015 – Chair, Prof G Hall
ID: JCA13000
Decision:
BEFORE AN APPEALS TRIBUNAL
HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (Incorporated)
BETWEEN
RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Appellant
AND Ms Allison Lee, Licensed Trainer
Respondent
Appeals Tribunal: Prof G Hall, Chairman
Mr S Ching, Member
Present: Mr N McIntyre, Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward
Mr R Quirk, Stipendiary Steward
Date of Hearing: 23 November 2015
Venue: Addington Raceway, Christchurch
Date of oral Decision: 23 November 2015
Date of written Decision: 30 November 2015
DECISION OF APPEALS TRIBUNAL
[1] At the meeting of Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held at Addington Raceway on 4 November 2015, the greyhound ECKLES, trained by Mr J Dunn was the winner of Race 6, the Super Pets Galaxy Semi Semi-Final 2.
[2] Following the race, the Stipendiary Stewards stood down ECKLES for 28 days under r 79.1.b for failing to pursue the lure.
[3] On 5 November 2015, upon application by Mr Dunn, the decision of the Stipendiary Stewards was reviewed by a Judicial Committee in accordance with r 91.20.
[4] The outcome of that review was that the raceday decision of the Stipendiary Stewards was reversed.
[5] The RIU now appeals the decision of the Judicial Committee.
[6] The RIU produced written authorisation from Mr M Godber, the General Manager of the RIU, pursuant to r 92.2.e, dated 19 November, to lodge the appeal against the review under r 79.11. The Appellant also produced written confirmation that the Board of the New Zealand Greyhound Association supported the appeal.
[7] Mr Quirk read to the Tribunal the definition of “fails to pursue the lure” as set out in the Rules:
“FAILS TO PURSUE THE LURE” means the action of a Greyhound voluntarily turning the head without making contact with another Greyhound, or voluntarily easing up, or stopping during a Race while free of interference.
[8] Mr Quirk demonstrated on the videos that ECKLES, when free of interference in the home straight, looked to its outside as LITTLE REGUS was mounting a run down the outside of the track. He said there was a discernible change in ECKLES’s action at this time and a very slight easing in the pace of the greyhound.
[9] Mr Quirk further stated ECKLES had come back to LITTLE REGUS on the line and he did not believe this was solely due to the fact that ECKLES was tiring. He emphasised the margin to LITTLE REGUS when ECKLES looked was a length and a half to 2 lengths and the winning margin was only a nose. He concluded his analysis of the videos by stating the RIU were in no doubt that ECKLES had failed to pursue the lure.
[10] Mr Quirk said that it was ECKLES’ 42nd start and its 13th win. It had had 10 2nds and five 3rds in its career. The Stewards had no record of any “indiscretion” by the dog in the past.
[11] The greyhound ECKLES is now with Ms A Lee and she appeared at the appeal hearing by way of telephone.
[12] The Tribunal questioned Ms Lee as to why she was not contesting the appeal. She stated that she accepted the raceday decision of the Stipendiary Stewards was correct.
[13] We asked Ms Lee to describe to us the history of her involvement in greyhound racing. She said that she was an experienced trainer, having been in the industry for 20 years, and training for 15. She said it was clear in her mind that ECKLES, which in her opinion was a highly-strung dog, had failed to pursue for a brief time. She wondered whether the lights and shadows on the track had contributed to this.
[14] Ms Lee added that the dog was spelling at present and she did not intend to race ECKLES in the 28-day period in question. Her intention was to house the dog with GAP but until that occurred she intended to train and race ECKLES.
[15] Our function as an Appeals Tribunal is to have regard to the evidence and, in making an evaluative decision, we must consider the merits of the case afresh and give judgment in accordance with our own opinion: see eg Kumar v Police [2015] NZCA 460, at [80].
[16] We have viewed the video of the race on a number of occasions and we are satisfied that ECKLES has failed to “pursue the lure”, as that expression is defined in the Rules, momentarily in the home straight at a point some 40 metres from the winning post. This is evidenced by the fact the dog’s head turns outwards and thus away from the lure, there is a change in its stride, and an accompanying very brief loss of momentum.
[17] There is no need for us to attempt to ascertain why ECKLES may have failed to chase. It may be that shadows on the track diverted the attention of the dog away from the lure, as argued before the Judicial Committee by Mr Dunn and before us by Ms Lee. However, in our view it is telling that LITTLE REGUS was commencing a run some 4 or 5 dog widths to the outside of ECKLES, and it appears ECKLES, which we are told was running contrary to its usual style of racing in that it was leading from the front rather than running on from the back, resented this fact. At the winning post LITTLE REGUS had moved down on the track to be racing alongside ECKLES and ECKLES shows a great deal more interest in that dog rather than the lure when the lure is halted at the end of the race.
[18] Mr McIntyre at the commencement of the Appellant’s case questioned aspects of the reasoning of the Judicial Committee. We do not intend to comment on these issues. They have not been addressed by the Respondent, and we are satisfied on viewing the videos that ECKLES has failed to pursue, as defined in the Rules.
[19] The decision of the Judicial Committee on 5 November is thus set aside pursuant to r 97.1.b. ECKLES is stood down for 28 days from 12 November (the date of the dog’s last race) up to and including 9 December 2015.
[20] The RIU have not sought costs and an award in favour of the JCA is not appropriate in the circumstances of this case.
Dated at Wellington this 30th day of November 2015.
Geoff Hall, Chairman
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 01/12/2015
Publish Date: 01/12/2015
JCA Decision Fields (raw)
Dmitry: This section contains all JCA fields migrated from the raw data.
Data from these fields should be mapped appropriately to display amongst the standard fields above; please make note of any values below that are missing in the above standard fields but should be there.
hearingid: 34e2b27b180ff78b14ba364d3e66f5c2
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 01/12/2015
hearing_title: Appeal RIU v A Lee - Decision dated 30 November 2015 - Chair, Prof G Hall
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE AN APPEALS TRIBUNAL
HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (Incorporated)
BETWEEN
RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Appellant
AND Ms Allison Lee, Licensed Trainer
Respondent
Appeals Tribunal: Prof G Hall, Chairman
Mr S Ching, Member
Present: Mr N McIntyre, Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward
Mr R Quirk, Stipendiary Steward
Date of Hearing: 23 November 2015
Venue: Addington Raceway, Christchurch
Date of oral Decision: 23 November 2015
Date of written Decision: 30 November 2015
DECISION OF APPEALS TRIBUNAL
[1] At the meeting of Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held at Addington Raceway on 4 November 2015, the greyhound ECKLES, trained by Mr J Dunn was the winner of Race 6, the Super Pets Galaxy Semi Semi-Final 2.
[2] Following the race, the Stipendiary Stewards stood down ECKLES for 28 days under r 79.1.b for failing to pursue the lure.
[3] On 5 November 2015, upon application by Mr Dunn, the decision of the Stipendiary Stewards was reviewed by a Judicial Committee in accordance with r 91.20.
[4] The outcome of that review was that the raceday decision of the Stipendiary Stewards was reversed.
[5] The RIU now appeals the decision of the Judicial Committee.
[6] The RIU produced written authorisation from Mr M Godber, the General Manager of the RIU, pursuant to r 92.2.e, dated 19 November, to lodge the appeal against the review under r 79.11. The Appellant also produced written confirmation that the Board of the New Zealand Greyhound Association supported the appeal.
[7] Mr Quirk read to the Tribunal the definition of “fails to pursue the lure” as set out in the Rules:
“FAILS TO PURSUE THE LURE” means the action of a Greyhound voluntarily turning the head without making contact with another Greyhound, or voluntarily easing up, or stopping during a Race while free of interference.
[8] Mr Quirk demonstrated on the videos that ECKLES, when free of interference in the home straight, looked to its outside as LITTLE REGUS was mounting a run down the outside of the track. He said there was a discernible change in ECKLES’s action at this time and a very slight easing in the pace of the greyhound.
[9] Mr Quirk further stated ECKLES had come back to LITTLE REGUS on the line and he did not believe this was solely due to the fact that ECKLES was tiring. He emphasised the margin to LITTLE REGUS when ECKLES looked was a length and a half to 2 lengths and the winning margin was only a nose. He concluded his analysis of the videos by stating the RIU were in no doubt that ECKLES had failed to pursue the lure.
[10] Mr Quirk said that it was ECKLES’ 42nd start and its 13th win. It had had 10 2nds and five 3rds in its career. The Stewards had no record of any “indiscretion” by the dog in the past.
[11] The greyhound ECKLES is now with Ms A Lee and she appeared at the appeal hearing by way of telephone.
[12] The Tribunal questioned Ms Lee as to why she was not contesting the appeal. She stated that she accepted the raceday decision of the Stipendiary Stewards was correct.
[13] We asked Ms Lee to describe to us the history of her involvement in greyhound racing. She said that she was an experienced trainer, having been in the industry for 20 years, and training for 15. She said it was clear in her mind that ECKLES, which in her opinion was a highly-strung dog, had failed to pursue for a brief time. She wondered whether the lights and shadows on the track had contributed to this.
[14] Ms Lee added that the dog was spelling at present and she did not intend to race ECKLES in the 28-day period in question. Her intention was to house the dog with GAP but until that occurred she intended to train and race ECKLES.
[15] Our function as an Appeals Tribunal is to have regard to the evidence and, in making an evaluative decision, we must consider the merits of the case afresh and give judgment in accordance with our own opinion: see eg Kumar v Police [2015] NZCA 460, at [80].
[16] We have viewed the video of the race on a number of occasions and we are satisfied that ECKLES has failed to “pursue the lure”, as that expression is defined in the Rules, momentarily in the home straight at a point some 40 metres from the winning post. This is evidenced by the fact the dog’s head turns outwards and thus away from the lure, there is a change in its stride, and an accompanying very brief loss of momentum.
[17] There is no need for us to attempt to ascertain why ECKLES may have failed to chase. It may be that shadows on the track diverted the attention of the dog away from the lure, as argued before the Judicial Committee by Mr Dunn and before us by Ms Lee. However, in our view it is telling that LITTLE REGUS was commencing a run some 4 or 5 dog widths to the outside of ECKLES, and it appears ECKLES, which we are told was running contrary to its usual style of racing in that it was leading from the front rather than running on from the back, resented this fact. At the winning post LITTLE REGUS had moved down on the track to be racing alongside ECKLES and ECKLES shows a great deal more interest in that dog rather than the lure when the lure is halted at the end of the race.
[18] Mr McIntyre at the commencement of the Appellant’s case questioned aspects of the reasoning of the Judicial Committee. We do not intend to comment on these issues. They have not been addressed by the Respondent, and we are satisfied on viewing the videos that ECKLES has failed to pursue, as defined in the Rules.
[19] The decision of the Judicial Committee on 5 November is thus set aside pursuant to r 97.1.b. ECKLES is stood down for 28 days from 12 November (the date of the dog’s last race) up to and including 9 December 2015.
[20] The RIU have not sought costs and an award in favour of the JCA is not appropriate in the circumstances of this case.
Dated at Wellington this 30th day of November 2015.
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: