NZGRA Request for Review G Fredrickson v RIU – Written Decision dated 17 October 2019 – Chair, Mr T Utikere

hearingid: dc0270176cab3bb4b601846db0f6d576

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 18/10/2019

hearing_title: NZGRA Request for Review G Fredrickson v RIU - Written Decision dated 17 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 G FREDRICKSON

Informant

AND-RACING INTEGRITY UNIT

Respondent

Judicial Committee:-Mr T Utikere (Chairman)

Mr N McCutcheon (Member)

Parties:--Mr G Fredrickson (as the Informant)

Mr M Austin (for the RIU)

Hearing:--16 October 2019 at Hatrick Raceway, Whanganui

WRITTEN DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DATED 17 OCTOBER 2019

FACTS

[1] At the Wanganui Greyhound Racing Club's Meeting held at Hatrick Raceway on Friday 4 October 2019, the greyhound BAVARO trained by Mr G Fredrickson started in Race 4.

[2] Following the race, the Stipendiary Stewards stood down BAVARO for 28 Days under Rule 55.1(b) for Failing to Pursue the Lure. 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 5 October Mr Fredrickson 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 this matter was set down for an in person hearing at Hatrick Raceway on Wednesday 16 October.

[5] The available films of the alleged incident were played. 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] Mr Austin identified that BAVARO was correctly nominated and drawn into the field and had jumped from the Number 1 box. Using the films, Mr Austin described that BAVARO had settled handy in the running several lengths back. Into the far bend the dog had looked to improve. Just prior to the home turn there had been no attempt to angle out over heels, instead seeking to gain a run to the inside.

[7] The head-on film had shown that after entering the straight, BAVARO had moved out and made contact with the hindquarters of the Number 3 dog (BIG TIME OCEAN). This was demonstrated by the hindquarters of that dog turning outwards fractionally. BIG TIME OCEAN then rebalanced and straightened for the run to the line. The head-on film also identified that BAVARO’s head was turned outwards whilst the seven other dogs were all concentrating on the lure.

[8] Mr Austin confirmed that even though BAVARO had moved towards the other dog in the straight, the stewards were not suggesting that he had attempted to mar. This was a simple matter of the dog failing to pursue the lure in accordance with the Rules.

[9] Mr Austin stated that post-race, BAVARO had been sent to be vetted. He tabled a copy the Veterinary Examination undertaken on the raceday which indicated there was “no pain found” 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 Fredrickson 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 Fredrickson 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, instead he had rung Mr Austin the following day indicating he wished to challenge the decision that had been made by way of Review. Mr Austin therefore believed that the trainer was not concerned about the dog carrying any injury that caused the dog to race as it had on the day prior.

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE INFORMANT

[12] Mr Fredrickson played two films to the Committee. The first was of a dog that raced in another race on the day, where the dog had appeared to angle it’s head outwards soon after the jump in an attempt to move to a position wider on the track. His point in identifying this was to indicate that was what some dogs did to align with a preference to race outside where it was more comfortable for their racing manner.

[13] The second film was of BAVARO’s start one week prior at Hatrick Raceway. He said this demonstrated his clear running traits, where he moved from a position 2-3 off the track to a position 4-5 wide, before then running closer to the rail.

[14] Using the side-on and head-on films, Mr Fredrickson said that BAVARO was 34kgs and had been running in his natural running line when BIG TIME OCEAN had been on his outside shoulder before coming together as a result of being forced down. Mr Fredrickson believed he had been naturally moving out, and that as soon as he was in his position he “swoops” away from her, as he had done in his previous start. BAVARO had then got going again, and he pointed out that there was no marring or easing up.

[15] Mr Fredrickson reiterated that the dog preferred a wide running position and its looking across had been very passive whilst the dog was changing ground. He also believed BAVARO’s head turning to the right was a natural trait. He said the interference prior to the bend was key as the dog was tired and became tiring. If there had been no interference, he did not believe he would have sought a Review.

CLOSING SUBMISSIONS

[16] Mr Austin confirmed that there was no suggestion that the dog had eased or attempted to mar. The failure to pursue determination had been made because BAVARO had turned its head outwards for several strides. Whilst the dog may have preferred to race wider on the track, Mr Austin pointed out that was not the case when he attempted to improve alongside BIG TIME OCEAN prior to the turn, which one would expect if that was his natural racing style. Stewards did not have any issue with a dog moving ground, but how they did that was important and on this occasion, the stewards had determined that BAVARO had failed to pursue the lure.

[17] Mr Fredrickson said that as the dog did not ease or mar, this should go in the dog’s favour. He believed there had been previous discretion exercised with other races on the day as others had clearly angled their heads out and changed ground as well. Finally he said that BAVARO’s outwards movement did not impede the result in any way and his previous racing had indicated his racing manner and lines.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[18] The Committee has reviewed the available films, and in particular the head-on and side-on angles. This has allowed us to form some views on the contact on two occasions that BAVARO had with BIG TIME OCEAN, along with the specific actions of Mr Fredrickson’s dog during the running. All parties accept that there were no injury concerns at play, which is confirmed by Mr Fredrickson seeking the Review the following day, within the 72 hour window for a subsequent veterinary assessment.

[19] The Informant’s arguments have been identified in the Notice of Appeal, and have been elaborated upon by Mr Fredrickson in person, which has been of assistance to the Committee.

[20] The Informant’s contention that the dog’s actions had no impact on the end outcome of the race is irrelevant as we are required to consider whether the actions of the stewards were justified based on the context and circumstances placed before us. Our role in approaching the Review request is to consider whether the stipendiary stewards’ determination that BAVARO failed to pursue the lure was made in accordance with the Rules.

[21] ‘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.”

[22] 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 only on the first limb; that is that BAVARO voluntarily turned its head without making contact with another Greyhound.

[23] We have had the opportunity to review the race in its entirety, and our assessment of the films establishes that immediately prior to reaching the home bend, BAVARO receives some interference as a result of contact made with the hindquarters of BIG TIME OCEAN. However, once entering the home straight, BAVARO had straightened and there did not appear to be any reason for him to have shifted to the dramatic extent that he had.

[24] The head-on film is compelling in identifying that the head of BAVARO, along with it’s body, is turned at such an angle; so much so that it is clearly established that the dog is not concentrating on the lure. We also noted that at the same time, all other dogs’ heads were facing forward in comparison. The racing manners, based on its previous start, have no bearing on our assessment as to why the dog’s head was voluntarily turned out to the clear extent that it was for a number of strides. The turning of the head was in isolation, and the prior contact some strides back had no influence upon the dog’s racing style at that time.

[25] Therefore, the definition of failing to pursue has been met and the Review must naturally fail. Accordingly, we find that BAVARO Failed to Pursue the Lure, as defined in the Rules of Racing, in relation to Race 4 of the Wanganui Greyhound Meeting at Hatrick Raceway on 4 October 2019.

DECISION

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

[27] 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 17th 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: