NZGRA Request for Review S Evans v RIU – decision dated 22 December 2015 – Chair, Prof G Hall
ID: JCA14181
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (Incorporated)
BETWEEN
Mr STEVE EVANS, Licensed Trainer
Applicant
AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Respondent
Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman - Mr S Ching, Member
Present: Mr S Renault, Stipendiary Steward
Date of Hearing: 15 December 2015
Venue: Addington Raceway, Christchurch
Date of oral Decision: 15 December 2015
Date of written Decision: 22 December 2015
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] At the meeting of Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held at Addington Raceway on 27 November 2015, the greyhound ACE ACTION, trained by Mr Evans started in Race 1, the Super Pets Dash.
[2] Following the race, the Stipendiary Stewards stood down ACE ACTION for 28 days under r 79.1.b for failing to pursue the lure.
[3] On 7 December 2015 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 ACE ACTION, which was having its first start, was a green dog and had just run out.
[4] Mr Renault showed the Committee videos of the incident.
[5] ACE ACTION had drawn box 1 and jumped with the other dogs. For the first 2 strides the dog jumps inwards and appears to be concentrating on the lure. ACE ACTION then looks to its outside and commences an acutely angled run across the other dogs until eventually coming into contact with the number 3 dog, FIERY FAGAN. At that point ACE ACTION straightens and rails chasing the lure. ACE ACTION wins the race.
[6] Mr Renault explained that it was the turning of the head away from the lure and the running away from the lure just after the start of the race that was of concern to the Stewards and which had led them to conclude that ACE ACTION was in breach of r 79.1.b.
[7] Mr Renault concluded by stating the Stewards were not alleging marring and their concern was that the dog had turned his head away from the lure.
[8] Mr Evans emphasised that the dog was very inexperienced. He said it was too early in the dog’s career to determine whether it was a dog that wanted to race wide on the track or would race close to the rail. He said ACE ACTION might be the former and that this was all the dog was doing on this occasion. The dog had got “lost” when it jumped and all it was doing was “looking for clear air”.
[9] Mr Evans emphasised the dog was racing in blinkers and had qualified at Dunedin wearing blinkers. He said that with the blinkers on ACE ACTION had a limited vision and it was thus harder for the dog to see where it was going. The dog had got lost momentarily and had corrected himself and had raced “ok”, had chased the lure and had won well. He did not believe the dog had failed to pursue.
[10] Mr Evans demonstrated the run of OHOKA JOKA in race 2 at Addington on 9 June. He said that dog’s run was similar to ACE ACTION and that dog had not been stood down.
[11] Mr Evans questioned why ACE ACTION could not have just been stood down and required to produce a satisfactory trial.
[12] Mr Renault in reply stated OHOKA JOKA was a noted wide runner and, although it had run wide, the dog had not turned its head away from the lure, as had ACE ACTION. He showed a video of the performance of PACIFIC VIBE at Addington in race 5 on 31 July. This dog too had drawn box 1 and had turned its head away from the lure for 2 strides just after the start of the race. That dog, as had ACE ACTION, had been stood down for 28 days.
[13] Mr Renault stated ACE ACTION had run in at the start and had had ample opportunity to see the lure but was not interested in that but in the other dogs. ACE ACTION had its head turned away from the lure up to the time of contact and had only straightened after that time.
[14] He said the reason ACE ACTION had not been required merely to produce a satisfactory trial was that in the Stewards’ opinion the dog had clearly failed to pursue the lure.
[15] Mr Evans summed up by stating ACE ACTION was just green and its inexperience was the reason it had raced as it had. He agreed that ACE ACTION “possibly had” turned its head away from the lure but reiterated it was looking for clear air.
Decision
[16] The definition of “fails to pursue the lure” as set out in the Rules is:
“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.
[17] We are satisfied that ACE ACTION has run inwards for 2 or 3 strides after the start of the race, and at that time is chasing the lure, but then the dog has turned its head away from the lure and has run outwards on the track before coming into contact with FIERY FAGAN. This run is made at quite an acute angle.
[18] The video evidence is clear that the head of ACE ACTION is turned outwards towards the other dogs for some 2 or 3 or strides shortly after the start and at that time the dog has run towards the outside of the track. It is only after contact with FIERY FAGAN that ACE ACTION straightens, rails, and runs on well.
[19] The videos we have had played to us of dogs running wide from box 1 in other races have not greatly assisted us with our determination in this case. Each case has to be considered on its own merits. Nonetheless, Mr Renault’s comments as to the extent to which the dog’s head has turned away from the lure in each case is an understandable basis on which the Stewards have determined whether or not to lay a charge of a breach of the rule.
[20] We accept that ACE ACTION is young and inexperienced and has eventually railed well and gone on to win the race but this does not alter the fact that shortly after the start the dog has failed to pursue the lure in breach of r 79.1.b.
[21] The outcome of the review is that the raceday decision of the Stipendiary Stewards is confirmed.
Dated at Dunedin this 22nd day of December 2015.
Geoff Hall, Chairman
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 22/12/2015
Publish Date: 22/12/2015
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: a4c4d8f965bd9cb112ac1fe7389de6be
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 22/12/2015
hearing_title: NZGRA Request for Review S Evans v RIU - decision dated 22 December 2015 - Chair, Prof G Hall
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (Incorporated)
BETWEEN
Mr STEVE EVANS, Licensed Trainer
Applicant
AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Respondent
Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman - Mr S Ching, Member
Present: Mr S Renault, Stipendiary Steward
Date of Hearing: 15 December 2015
Venue: Addington Raceway, Christchurch
Date of oral Decision: 15 December 2015
Date of written Decision: 22 December 2015
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] At the meeting of Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held at Addington Raceway on 27 November 2015, the greyhound ACE ACTION, trained by Mr Evans started in Race 1, the Super Pets Dash.
[2] Following the race, the Stipendiary Stewards stood down ACE ACTION for 28 days under r 79.1.b for failing to pursue the lure.
[3] On 7 December 2015 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 ACE ACTION, which was having its first start, was a green dog and had just run out.
[4] Mr Renault showed the Committee videos of the incident.
[5] ACE ACTION had drawn box 1 and jumped with the other dogs. For the first 2 strides the dog jumps inwards and appears to be concentrating on the lure. ACE ACTION then looks to its outside and commences an acutely angled run across the other dogs until eventually coming into contact with the number 3 dog, FIERY FAGAN. At that point ACE ACTION straightens and rails chasing the lure. ACE ACTION wins the race.
[6] Mr Renault explained that it was the turning of the head away from the lure and the running away from the lure just after the start of the race that was of concern to the Stewards and which had led them to conclude that ACE ACTION was in breach of r 79.1.b.
[7] Mr Renault concluded by stating the Stewards were not alleging marring and their concern was that the dog had turned his head away from the lure.
[8] Mr Evans emphasised that the dog was very inexperienced. He said it was too early in the dog’s career to determine whether it was a dog that wanted to race wide on the track or would race close to the rail. He said ACE ACTION might be the former and that this was all the dog was doing on this occasion. The dog had got “lost” when it jumped and all it was doing was “looking for clear air”.
[9] Mr Evans emphasised the dog was racing in blinkers and had qualified at Dunedin wearing blinkers. He said that with the blinkers on ACE ACTION had a limited vision and it was thus harder for the dog to see where it was going. The dog had got lost momentarily and had corrected himself and had raced “ok”, had chased the lure and had won well. He did not believe the dog had failed to pursue.
[10] Mr Evans demonstrated the run of OHOKA JOKA in race 2 at Addington on 9 June. He said that dog’s run was similar to ACE ACTION and that dog had not been stood down.
[11] Mr Evans questioned why ACE ACTION could not have just been stood down and required to produce a satisfactory trial.
[12] Mr Renault in reply stated OHOKA JOKA was a noted wide runner and, although it had run wide, the dog had not turned its head away from the lure, as had ACE ACTION. He showed a video of the performance of PACIFIC VIBE at Addington in race 5 on 31 July. This dog too had drawn box 1 and had turned its head away from the lure for 2 strides just after the start of the race. That dog, as had ACE ACTION, had been stood down for 28 days.
[13] Mr Renault stated ACE ACTION had run in at the start and had had ample opportunity to see the lure but was not interested in that but in the other dogs. ACE ACTION had its head turned away from the lure up to the time of contact and had only straightened after that time.
[14] He said the reason ACE ACTION had not been required merely to produce a satisfactory trial was that in the Stewards’ opinion the dog had clearly failed to pursue the lure.
[15] Mr Evans summed up by stating ACE ACTION was just green and its inexperience was the reason it had raced as it had. He agreed that ACE ACTION “possibly had” turned its head away from the lure but reiterated it was looking for clear air.
Decision
[16] The definition of “fails to pursue the lure” as set out in the Rules is:
“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.
[17] We are satisfied that ACE ACTION has run inwards for 2 or 3 strides after the start of the race, and at that time is chasing the lure, but then the dog has turned its head away from the lure and has run outwards on the track before coming into contact with FIERY FAGAN. This run is made at quite an acute angle.
[18] The video evidence is clear that the head of ACE ACTION is turned outwards towards the other dogs for some 2 or 3 or strides shortly after the start and at that time the dog has run towards the outside of the track. It is only after contact with FIERY FAGAN that ACE ACTION straightens, rails, and runs on well.
[19] The videos we have had played to us of dogs running wide from box 1 in other races have not greatly assisted us with our determination in this case. Each case has to be considered on its own merits. Nonetheless, Mr Renault’s comments as to the extent to which the dog’s head has turned away from the lure in each case is an understandable basis on which the Stewards have determined whether or not to lay a charge of a breach of the rule.
[20] We accept that ACE ACTION is young and inexperienced and has eventually railed well and gone on to win the race but this does not alter the fact that shortly after the start the dog has failed to pursue the lure in breach of r 79.1.b.
[21] The outcome of the review is that the raceday decision of the Stipendiary Stewards is confirmed.
Dated at Dunedin this 22nd day of December 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: