Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v R Death, P Coutts and D Laing – Reserved Decision dated 29 June 2018 – Chair, Prof G Hall
ID: JCA13649
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
OF THE JCA
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (Incorporated)
BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Informant
AND ROBERT DEATH, Club Manager
Respondent
BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU),
Informant
AND PAM COUTTS, Kennel Steward
Respondent
BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU),
Informant
AND DANNY LAING, Starter
Respondent
Information: A3386, A3387, A3388
Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman
Mr P Williams, Committee Member
Appearing: Ms P Kinsey, Stipendiary Steward
The respondents in person
RESERVED DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] The RIU have laid three informations arising out of the late scratching of two greyhounds in race 13 at a race meeting conducted by Auckland Greyhound Racing Club at Manukau on 4 June 2018.
[2] Information 3386 alleges that on 4 June 2018 at a race meeting conducted by Auckland Greyhound Racing Club at Manukau, Mr D Laing allowed two dogs to start from wrong boxes in Race 13 which resulted in both being disqualified. This is an alleged breach of r 62.1(o) of the GRNZ Rules of Racing.
[3] Information 3387 alleges that on 4 June 2018 at a race meeting conducted by Auckland Greyhound Racing Club at Manukau, in Race 13 Ms P Coutts changed box position information without seeking confirmation that the change was correct. This is an alleged breach of r 62.1(o) of the GRNZ Rules of Racing.
[4] Information 3388 alleges that on 4 June 2018 at a race meeting conducted by Auckland Greyhound Racing Club at Manukau, in race 13 Mr R Death supplied incorrect information regarding box positions to the kennel staff which was negligent. This is an alleged breach of r 62.1(o) of the GRNZ Rules of Racing.
[5] Two telephone conferences were held with the parties. Each respondent has admitted the breach and has made written submissions as to penalty.
Summary of facts
[6] There were two original scratchings in Race 13.
[7] GOING BANANAS (number 8) was scratched at 9.15am on 30 May 2018 when found to be in season. This meant that SNOOPY’S HERO (number 9 and first reserve) gained a start from box 8.
[8] MAI MENG (number 6) was scratched at 7.53pm on 31 May 18 following an injury received in race one that day. This meant KING SHAQ (number 10 and second reserve) gained a start from box 6.
[9] The Stewards at Auckland Greyhound Racing Club are given a scratching sheet from Mr Death at the start of every race meeting. On this sheet are all of the scratchings from the meeting, the times the greyhounds were scratched, and the reason. The Steward in charge of the meeting then goes through the race book and marks off the scratchings. The Stewards then confirm the information is consistent throughout publications and check the TAB website to ensure the correct information is publicised. In this instance the TAB publications were correct.
[10] Stipendiary Steward, Ms Kinsey, recorded and watched the footage available for race 13. As the runners were being boxed away she could see the front of the starting boxes. The starter had correctly placed the reserve numbers on the front of the boxes: Box 8, number 9; and box 6, number 10.
[11] On reviewing the film it was immediately evident that the two reserve greyhounds had been placed in and had started from the wrong box positions.
[12] Ms Kinsey alerted the Judge, the Starter, the Assistant Stipendiary Steward, and kennel staff via radio immediately following the event and withheld the payment of dividends. Both runners 9 and 10 were subsequently disqualified from the event as per r 53.15.
[13] Ms Kinsey informed the connections of the greyhounds, at which point it became apparent the handlers of the two dogs had been given the wrong information.
[14] Mr Death supplies the kennel staff with paperwork for the meeting. He provided Ms Coutts with two copies of the race book. One was correct and showed SNOOPY’S HERO to be in box 8 and KING SHAQ in box 6. The other race book was incorrect showing SNOOPY’S HERO from box 6 and KING SHAQ from box 8. Mr Death also provided Ms Coutts with the kennelling cards that are provided to the handlers when the greyhounds are kennelled for the meeting. On this card is the meeting date, race number, box number and the greyhound’s name. The kennelling cards had the correct box numbers for the reserve dogs.
[15] Ms Coutts checked one of the race books given to her and changed the kennelling cards that are given to the handlers. In so doing she made the kennel cards incorrect. Ms Coutts did not confirm this information before making changes which meant the handlers kennelled the dogs in the wrong kennels for the day and when they retrieved the dogs for the race they proceeded to the starting boxes unaware that they had been given the wrong information.
[16] The Starter, Mr Laing, was given the correct information at the start of the day from Mr Death. Mr Laing did not confirm the reserve dogs starting positions prior to calling the runners into line and allowed the reserve runners to be boxed in the incorrect starting positions, with the result that both dogs were subsequently disqualified.
[17] Due to there being a chain of events to work through to establish the facts and many people to interview, the matter was opened and adjourned on the day. Interviews were carried out at the next Auckland Greyhound Racing Club meeting on 10 June 2018 and charges were presented to Ms Coutts and Mr Death for negligence under 62.1(o) and Mr Laing for a starting offence under 62.1(o).
Submissions as to penalty
[18] The RIU stated that usually in the case of greyhounds being placed in the incorrect starting positions the Starter would be fined $200 under r 62.1(o) on the minor infringement table. In this instance the Stewards believed with the mitigating circumstances and the chain of events leading to this error, that a lesser fine would be appropriate, and therefore had filed it as an information and not a minor infringement.
[19] The Stewards sought a fine of $100 in the case of all three respondents.
[20] All of the respondents filed brief written submissions as to penalty.
[21] Mr Death stated the race meeting held on 4 June 2018 was a meeting postponed from 3 June due to weather and the state of the track. The meeting was officially postponed at 2.30pm on Monday 3 June after the NZRB followed due processes.
[22] The race meeting was allocated a new timetable by the NZRB to facilitate betting and television coverage throughout Australasia. The NZRB updated field information on their database on Monday night. Due to the statutory holiday weekend, GRNZ did not update their database. The Club regenerated the race books, kennel cards and notices.
[23] The RIU summary of facts indicates the runners were disqualified from the event in accordance with r 53.15. Mr Death believed the RIU went beyond the scope of r 53.15 and declared the runners to be late scratchings. That issue is not directly relevant to our hearing and we make no comment on this submission.
[24] The effect of declaring the two dogs as late scratchings was that all investments on these dogs were refunded and the race does not appear on the dog's record and therefore the race did not impact on future field selections. If the two dogs had been just disqualified it would appear on their race record and would have had a negative impact in field selection. The Club lost the turnover commissions.
[25] The Club on the day made a compensation payment of $20 to the connections of King Shaq. This amount being the lost stake money.
[26] Mr Death explained the Club prepares two versions of an official race book mainly because of clarity in printing. The NZRB version enables the Club to print an A5 booklet for the public. The GRNZ print on the race book is not practical for reducing to A5 size, which the race caller, kennel staff and office staff prefer to use because it is more user friendly. The GRNZ race book is supplied in A4 size to the RIU and officials to ensure they have the up to date data from the GRNZ database.
[27] One race book Mr Death had prepared was correct, the other was not.
[28] Mr Death believed the matter should have been dealt with by either a minor infringement on the day with respect to the Starter or with Mr Death being charged with providing the inaccurate information to officials that had caused the event.
[29] Mr Death further stated that there was provision under r 66.3 whereby the RIU could have sought that the JCA reduce the fine for Mr Laing due to the mitigating circumstances. It is not evident to us which subclause in r 66.3 Mr Death believed was appropriate. In any event, r 66.3(g) is authority for the action taken by the RIU.
[30] Mr Death acknowledged that there was no provision in the minor infringement table relating to a careless/negligent error by an official. Both he and Mrs Coutts had admitted failing to take care in ensuring documents were correct. He believed when other offences covered by the minor infringement table were considered, these offences were at the lower end of the scale.
[31] Ms Coutts stated she been employed by the Auckland Greyhound Club since 2007 in the kennel block and had been the Kennel Steward for the last nine years. As Kennel Steward she would have kennelled and overseen race preparation for approximately 6,480 races. Much of this work was done in the absence of an RIU steward.
[32] By way of mitigation, Ms Coutts emphasised this was her first offence. She had corrected what she thought was an error on the kennel cards prior to the kennels opening. There was no RIU Steward present for the kennelling of the dogs for race 13, when the dogs were collected for the race or in the parade ring.
[33] Ms Coutts alleged that the dogs paraded to the start in the incorrect formation. Nobody observing the parade, including the judge, lure driver, or the RIU, all of whom had the correct information in their race book, had intervened and pointed out the error.
[34] Ms Coutts submitted that given her good record a penalty of a warning that was registered on her record was appropriate.
[35] Mr Laing stated he had been employed by the Auckland Greyhound Club since 2012 and had held the positions of: runner between judge and office; kennel hand; office assistant; identification steward; and relief kennel steward.
[36] He had held a Trial Starters licence since 2017 and had taken on the role of Starter on 13 May 2018.
[37] This, too, was Mr Laing’s first offence. It was his fifth race meeting as the Official Starter and was the second race he had started where the two emergencies had regained the field. The first such race was race 7 on 4 June 2018 (viz, six races before the one at issue).
[38] Mr Laing’s understanding when he took on the position as Starter was that there would be an RIU Steward overseeing each race at the start. On reviewing the replays for 4 June, he noted there was a RIU Steward for only one of the seven races started from the 318 metres boxes on the day. There was no RIU Steward at the start for race 13.
[39] Mr Laing said he had placed the correct numbers on the starting boxes for the emergencies.
[40] The race meeting was conducted in showery weather and he had permitted the handlers to assemble under the shelter. Normally the dogs assembled in two lines on the track and the dogs walked past him to assemble behind their starting positions. By allowing them to be assembled behind the boxes on the day, he had restricted vision of the dogs.
[41] We invited Ms Kinsey to reply to the respondents’ submissions. She did so briefly, stating that there was no requirement for a Stipendiary Steward to be present at the kennels and starting boxes. Stewards carried out a variety of duties on a race day and could not always be present at the start or the kennels to oversee club staff carrying out their employment duties.
[42] On 4 June prior to race 13 Mr Van Kan, Assistant Steward, was overseeing a draw for the Silver Collar and was unable to be present for the runners being prepared for the event. He did not attend the start.
[43] Ms Kinsey emphasised that the runners are under the control of the Starter and it is his responsibility to ensure that they are placed in the correct starting positions. It was paramount that the kennel stewards and administration were vigilant in carrying out their duties to avoid errors occurring.
[44] The RIU did not believe the points raised by Mr Death were relevant to these charges.
[45] The outcome of the error on this occasion was significant. It was important that the trainers and betting public were not penalised due to the actions of race day staff.
[46] The RIU believed a fine was the appropriate penalty.
Decision as to penalty
[47] The events on the day that led to the greyhounds being placed in the wrong boxes and eventually late scratched were due to a litany of errors.
[48] First, Mr Death produced two race books, as is his usual practice because of printing requirements, but one had transposed the two dogs and the two boxes. This error was not known to Mr Death.
[49] Ms Coutts received two race books. One was correct, one was not. Ms Coutts decided to rely on one but not the other. She did not explain the basis for her choice and, unfortunately, she chose the wrong one. She did not confer with Mr Death or point out the conflicting information to either Mr Death or Mr Laing. The handlers relied on the amended kennelling cards provided by Ms Coutts.
[50] Mr Laing had the correct race book and he had relied on the dogs being loaded in the correct boxes. They were not. Due to the weather conditions on the day the parade was brief and the dogs had assembled behind the boxes. Mr Laing had correctly labelled the boxes but did not notice the fact that each of the two dogs was being loaded into a box that did not correspond with the colour of that dog’s rug.
[51] The RIU have adopted a pragmatic approach to the incident. We can readily understand why the incident was not dealt with immediately on the day. It is evident that an ongoing inquiry was necessary to ascertain why the two dogs had not been boxed correctly.
[52] While each respondent has been charged with a breach of the Rules, and these breaches have been admitted, the RIU have indicated that their view is that a penalty below the minor infringement level is appropriate on this occasion. We understand that this is due to the fact it was a chapter of errors.
[53] Mr Death has explained the reason for there being two versions of the race book. He was clearly negligent when he compiled one of the versions. We would recommend that procedures be adopted that avoid the necessity for double handling of this nature, as it is clearly a process that can give rise to errors such as that which occurred on this occasion.
[54] We have given due consideration to Ms Coutts’ submission that she merely be warned. We are aware that she had two race books and that she took it upon herself to alter the kennelling cards to accord with one of these books without notifying anyone of this fact. She has not given a satisfactory explanation as to why she did this.
[55] The Club has been affected by the loss of betting on the race, and those persons that invested on the dogs were inconvenienced, although their money would have been returned to them as the dogs were late scratchings.
[56] We view the position adopted by the RIU as being a sensible one in the circumstances of this case. However, while we agree that there is little to be gained by differentiating between the respondents, we emphasise ultimately it is the Starter’s responsibility to ensure each dog starts from its correct box, the more so, when the correct loading information has been given to him. We believe his degree of culpability is slightly higher than that of the other two respondents. In setting his penalty we are cognisant of the fact that Mr Laing is an inexperienced Starter and will clearly learn from his mistake. There is no escaping the fact that each respondent has made an error, without which the dogs would not have started from their incorrect boxes and ultimately have been disqualified from the race.
[57] There needs to be some degree of accountability and the imposition of a penalty which upholds the integrity of greyhound racing but equally bears in mind the relatively low level nature of the breaches.
[58] Mr Death and Ms Coutts are each fined the sum of $100. Mr Laing is fined $125. These amounts reflect the unusual circumstances of this case, and the fact that each respondent has admitted the breach and has an excellent record under the Rules. It also reflects the extent of the remuneration for their services that two of the respondents have stated they receive on raceday.
[59] The matter has been determined on the papers. There is no order for costs.
Dated at Dunedin this 29th day of June 2018.
Geoff Hall, Chairman
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 02/07/2018
Publish Date: 02/07/2018
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: 53a2d796bbb87debffa0a9956cb55682
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 02/07/2018
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v R Death, P Coutts and D Laing - Reserved Decision dated 29 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 THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (Incorporated)
BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Informant
AND ROBERT DEATH, Club Manager
Respondent
BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU),
Informant
AND PAM COUTTS, Kennel Steward
Respondent
BETWEEN RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU),
Informant
AND DANNY LAING, Starter
Respondent
Information: A3386, A3387, A3388
Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman
Mr P Williams, Committee Member
Appearing: Ms P Kinsey, Stipendiary Steward
The respondents in person
RESERVED DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] The RIU have laid three informations arising out of the late scratching of two greyhounds in race 13 at a race meeting conducted by Auckland Greyhound Racing Club at Manukau on 4 June 2018.
[2] Information 3386 alleges that on 4 June 2018 at a race meeting conducted by Auckland Greyhound Racing Club at Manukau, Mr D Laing allowed two dogs to start from wrong boxes in Race 13 which resulted in both being disqualified. This is an alleged breach of r 62.1(o) of the GRNZ Rules of Racing.
[3] Information 3387 alleges that on 4 June 2018 at a race meeting conducted by Auckland Greyhound Racing Club at Manukau, in Race 13 Ms P Coutts changed box position information without seeking confirmation that the change was correct. This is an alleged breach of r 62.1(o) of the GRNZ Rules of Racing.
[4] Information 3388 alleges that on 4 June 2018 at a race meeting conducted by Auckland Greyhound Racing Club at Manukau, in race 13 Mr R Death supplied incorrect information regarding box positions to the kennel staff which was negligent. This is an alleged breach of r 62.1(o) of the GRNZ Rules of Racing.
[5] Two telephone conferences were held with the parties. Each respondent has admitted the breach and has made written submissions as to penalty.
Summary of facts
[6] There were two original scratchings in Race 13.
[7] GOING BANANAS (number 8) was scratched at 9.15am on 30 May 2018 when found to be in season. This meant that SNOOPY’S HERO (number 9 and first reserve) gained a start from box 8.
[8] MAI MENG (number 6) was scratched at 7.53pm on 31 May 18 following an injury received in race one that day. This meant KING SHAQ (number 10 and second reserve) gained a start from box 6.
[9] The Stewards at Auckland Greyhound Racing Club are given a scratching sheet from Mr Death at the start of every race meeting. On this sheet are all of the scratchings from the meeting, the times the greyhounds were scratched, and the reason. The Steward in charge of the meeting then goes through the race book and marks off the scratchings. The Stewards then confirm the information is consistent throughout publications and check the TAB website to ensure the correct information is publicised. In this instance the TAB publications were correct.
[10] Stipendiary Steward, Ms Kinsey, recorded and watched the footage available for race 13. As the runners were being boxed away she could see the front of the starting boxes. The starter had correctly placed the reserve numbers on the front of the boxes: Box 8, number 9; and box 6, number 10.
[11] On reviewing the film it was immediately evident that the two reserve greyhounds had been placed in and had started from the wrong box positions.
[12] Ms Kinsey alerted the Judge, the Starter, the Assistant Stipendiary Steward, and kennel staff via radio immediately following the event and withheld the payment of dividends. Both runners 9 and 10 were subsequently disqualified from the event as per r 53.15.
[13] Ms Kinsey informed the connections of the greyhounds, at which point it became apparent the handlers of the two dogs had been given the wrong information.
[14] Mr Death supplies the kennel staff with paperwork for the meeting. He provided Ms Coutts with two copies of the race book. One was correct and showed SNOOPY’S HERO to be in box 8 and KING SHAQ in box 6. The other race book was incorrect showing SNOOPY’S HERO from box 6 and KING SHAQ from box 8. Mr Death also provided Ms Coutts with the kennelling cards that are provided to the handlers when the greyhounds are kennelled for the meeting. On this card is the meeting date, race number, box number and the greyhound’s name. The kennelling cards had the correct box numbers for the reserve dogs.
[15] Ms Coutts checked one of the race books given to her and changed the kennelling cards that are given to the handlers. In so doing she made the kennel cards incorrect. Ms Coutts did not confirm this information before making changes which meant the handlers kennelled the dogs in the wrong kennels for the day and when they retrieved the dogs for the race they proceeded to the starting boxes unaware that they had been given the wrong information.
[16] The Starter, Mr Laing, was given the correct information at the start of the day from Mr Death. Mr Laing did not confirm the reserve dogs starting positions prior to calling the runners into line and allowed the reserve runners to be boxed in the incorrect starting positions, with the result that both dogs were subsequently disqualified.
[17] Due to there being a chain of events to work through to establish the facts and many people to interview, the matter was opened and adjourned on the day. Interviews were carried out at the next Auckland Greyhound Racing Club meeting on 10 June 2018 and charges were presented to Ms Coutts and Mr Death for negligence under 62.1(o) and Mr Laing for a starting offence under 62.1(o).
Submissions as to penalty
[18] The RIU stated that usually in the case of greyhounds being placed in the incorrect starting positions the Starter would be fined $200 under r 62.1(o) on the minor infringement table. In this instance the Stewards believed with the mitigating circumstances and the chain of events leading to this error, that a lesser fine would be appropriate, and therefore had filed it as an information and not a minor infringement.
[19] The Stewards sought a fine of $100 in the case of all three respondents.
[20] All of the respondents filed brief written submissions as to penalty.
[21] Mr Death stated the race meeting held on 4 June 2018 was a meeting postponed from 3 June due to weather and the state of the track. The meeting was officially postponed at 2.30pm on Monday 3 June after the NZRB followed due processes.
[22] The race meeting was allocated a new timetable by the NZRB to facilitate betting and television coverage throughout Australasia. The NZRB updated field information on their database on Monday night. Due to the statutory holiday weekend, GRNZ did not update their database. The Club regenerated the race books, kennel cards and notices.
[23] The RIU summary of facts indicates the runners were disqualified from the event in accordance with r 53.15. Mr Death believed the RIU went beyond the scope of r 53.15 and declared the runners to be late scratchings. That issue is not directly relevant to our hearing and we make no comment on this submission.
[24] The effect of declaring the two dogs as late scratchings was that all investments on these dogs were refunded and the race does not appear on the dog's record and therefore the race did not impact on future field selections. If the two dogs had been just disqualified it would appear on their race record and would have had a negative impact in field selection. The Club lost the turnover commissions.
[25] The Club on the day made a compensation payment of $20 to the connections of King Shaq. This amount being the lost stake money.
[26] Mr Death explained the Club prepares two versions of an official race book mainly because of clarity in printing. The NZRB version enables the Club to print an A5 booklet for the public. The GRNZ print on the race book is not practical for reducing to A5 size, which the race caller, kennel staff and office staff prefer to use because it is more user friendly. The GRNZ race book is supplied in A4 size to the RIU and officials to ensure they have the up to date data from the GRNZ database.
[27] One race book Mr Death had prepared was correct, the other was not.
[28] Mr Death believed the matter should have been dealt with by either a minor infringement on the day with respect to the Starter or with Mr Death being charged with providing the inaccurate information to officials that had caused the event.
[29] Mr Death further stated that there was provision under r 66.3 whereby the RIU could have sought that the JCA reduce the fine for Mr Laing due to the mitigating circumstances. It is not evident to us which subclause in r 66.3 Mr Death believed was appropriate. In any event, r 66.3(g) is authority for the action taken by the RIU.
[30] Mr Death acknowledged that there was no provision in the minor infringement table relating to a careless/negligent error by an official. Both he and Mrs Coutts had admitted failing to take care in ensuring documents were correct. He believed when other offences covered by the minor infringement table were considered, these offences were at the lower end of the scale.
[31] Ms Coutts stated she been employed by the Auckland Greyhound Club since 2007 in the kennel block and had been the Kennel Steward for the last nine years. As Kennel Steward she would have kennelled and overseen race preparation for approximately 6,480 races. Much of this work was done in the absence of an RIU steward.
[32] By way of mitigation, Ms Coutts emphasised this was her first offence. She had corrected what she thought was an error on the kennel cards prior to the kennels opening. There was no RIU Steward present for the kennelling of the dogs for race 13, when the dogs were collected for the race or in the parade ring.
[33] Ms Coutts alleged that the dogs paraded to the start in the incorrect formation. Nobody observing the parade, including the judge, lure driver, or the RIU, all of whom had the correct information in their race book, had intervened and pointed out the error.
[34] Ms Coutts submitted that given her good record a penalty of a warning that was registered on her record was appropriate.
[35] Mr Laing stated he had been employed by the Auckland Greyhound Club since 2012 and had held the positions of: runner between judge and office; kennel hand; office assistant; identification steward; and relief kennel steward.
[36] He had held a Trial Starters licence since 2017 and had taken on the role of Starter on 13 May 2018.
[37] This, too, was Mr Laing’s first offence. It was his fifth race meeting as the Official Starter and was the second race he had started where the two emergencies had regained the field. The first such race was race 7 on 4 June 2018 (viz, six races before the one at issue).
[38] Mr Laing’s understanding when he took on the position as Starter was that there would be an RIU Steward overseeing each race at the start. On reviewing the replays for 4 June, he noted there was a RIU Steward for only one of the seven races started from the 318 metres boxes on the day. There was no RIU Steward at the start for race 13.
[39] Mr Laing said he had placed the correct numbers on the starting boxes for the emergencies.
[40] The race meeting was conducted in showery weather and he had permitted the handlers to assemble under the shelter. Normally the dogs assembled in two lines on the track and the dogs walked past him to assemble behind their starting positions. By allowing them to be assembled behind the boxes on the day, he had restricted vision of the dogs.
[41] We invited Ms Kinsey to reply to the respondents’ submissions. She did so briefly, stating that there was no requirement for a Stipendiary Steward to be present at the kennels and starting boxes. Stewards carried out a variety of duties on a race day and could not always be present at the start or the kennels to oversee club staff carrying out their employment duties.
[42] On 4 June prior to race 13 Mr Van Kan, Assistant Steward, was overseeing a draw for the Silver Collar and was unable to be present for the runners being prepared for the event. He did not attend the start.
[43] Ms Kinsey emphasised that the runners are under the control of the Starter and it is his responsibility to ensure that they are placed in the correct starting positions. It was paramount that the kennel stewards and administration were vigilant in carrying out their duties to avoid errors occurring.
[44] The RIU did not believe the points raised by Mr Death were relevant to these charges.
[45] The outcome of the error on this occasion was significant. It was important that the trainers and betting public were not penalised due to the actions of race day staff.
[46] The RIU believed a fine was the appropriate penalty.
Decision as to penalty
[47] The events on the day that led to the greyhounds being placed in the wrong boxes and eventually late scratched were due to a litany of errors.
[48] First, Mr Death produced two race books, as is his usual practice because of printing requirements, but one had transposed the two dogs and the two boxes. This error was not known to Mr Death.
[49] Ms Coutts received two race books. One was correct, one was not. Ms Coutts decided to rely on one but not the other. She did not explain the basis for her choice and, unfortunately, she chose the wrong one. She did not confer with Mr Death or point out the conflicting information to either Mr Death or Mr Laing. The handlers relied on the amended kennelling cards provided by Ms Coutts.
[50] Mr Laing had the correct race book and he had relied on the dogs being loaded in the correct boxes. They were not. Due to the weather conditions on the day the parade was brief and the dogs had assembled behind the boxes. Mr Laing had correctly labelled the boxes but did not notice the fact that each of the two dogs was being loaded into a box that did not correspond with the colour of that dog’s rug.
[51] The RIU have adopted a pragmatic approach to the incident. We can readily understand why the incident was not dealt with immediately on the day. It is evident that an ongoing inquiry was necessary to ascertain why the two dogs had not been boxed correctly.
[52] While each respondent has been charged with a breach of the Rules, and these breaches have been admitted, the RIU have indicated that their view is that a penalty below the minor infringement level is appropriate on this occasion. We understand that this is due to the fact it was a chapter of errors.
[53] Mr Death has explained the reason for there being two versions of the race book. He was clearly negligent when he compiled one of the versions. We would recommend that procedures be adopted that avoid the necessity for double handling of this nature, as it is clearly a process that can give rise to errors such as that which occurred on this occasion.
[54] We have given due consideration to Ms Coutts’ submission that she merely be warned. We are aware that she had two race books and that she took it upon herself to alter the kennelling cards to accord with one of these books without notifying anyone of this fact. She has not given a satisfactory explanation as to why she did this.
[55] The Club has been affected by the loss of betting on the race, and those persons that invested on the dogs were inconvenienced, although their money would have been returned to them as the dogs were late scratchings.
[56] We view the position adopted by the RIU as being a sensible one in the circumstances of this case. However, while we agree that there is little to be gained by differentiating between the respondents, we emphasise ultimately it is the Starter’s responsibility to ensure each dog starts from its correct box, the more so, when the correct loading information has been given to him. We believe his degree of culpability is slightly higher than that of the other two respondents. In setting his penalty we are cognisant of the fact that Mr Laing is an inexperienced Starter and will clearly learn from his mistake. There is no escaping the fact that each respondent has made an error, without which the dogs would not have started from their incorrect boxes and ultimately have been disqualified from the race.
[57] There needs to be some degree of accountability and the imposition of a penalty which upholds the integrity of greyhound racing but equally bears in mind the relatively low level nature of the breaches.
[58] Mr Death and Ms Coutts are each fined the sum of $100. Mr Laing is fined $125. These amounts reflect the unusual circumstances of this case, and the fact that each respondent has admitted the breach and has an excellent record under the Rules. It also reflects the extent of the remuneration for their services that two of the respondents have stated they receive on raceday.
[59] The matter has been determined on the papers. There is no order for costs.
Dated at Dunedin this 29th 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: