NZGRA Request for Review C Weir v RIU – Written Decision dated 15 May 2018 – Chair, Prof G Hall

hearingid: b6845c6366a5f539caa394b780d25ddd

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 15/05/2018

hearing_title: NZGRA Request for Review C Weir v RIU - Written Decision dated 15 May 2018 - Chair, Prof G Hall

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JCA

AT CHRISTCHURCH

IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (Incorporated) 

BETWEEN

CALUM WEIR, Licensed Public Trainer

Applicant

AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)

Respondent

Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman

Mr A Smith, Committee Member

Appearing: The Applicant in person

Mr R Quirk, Stipendiary Steward, for the Respondent

Venue: Addington Raceway, Christchurch

Date of Hearing and

Oral Decision : 9 May 2018

Date of written Decision: 15 May 2018

DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

[1] The applicant, Mr Weir, has requested a review of the decision from Race 3, at a race meeting of the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held on 30 April 2018 at Addington where SHADY BANJO was stood down (2nd offence – 3 months) for marring. This is an alleged breach of r 55.1(a) of the GRNZ Rules of Racing.

[2] On 30 April 2018 the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held its race meeting at Addington Raceway. The Chairman of Stewards was Mr Quirk and his deputy on the day was Mr Wallis.

[3] SHADY BANJO is trained by Licensed Public Trainer Mr Weir. SHADY BANJO was correctly nominated and started from Box 8 in Race 3, the KAISA EARTHWORKS Ph. 0272073323 DASH, which was a Class 1 race over 295 metres.

[4] SHADY BANJO’s racing record reads 3 starts for 1 win, 1 second and an 8th. This was SHADY BANJO’s second totalisator start in New Zealand having won its first start at Addington on 13 April 2018. The dog had 1 start in Australia. SHADY BANJO had also completed a satisfactory trial at Addington on 5 April 2018, having been stood down for marring at Nowra on 1 January 2018.

[5] The relevant rule that the dog was suspended under on 30 April 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, 3 months and until the completion of a Satisfactory Trial.

[6] Following the event Stewards conducted an inquiry into the racing conduct of SHADY BANJO. Of particular concern to Stewards were the greyhound’s manners when turning its head inwards and marring the greyhound on its inside in the approach to the bend.

[7] Stewards also directed that SHADY BANJO be subjected to a post-race veterinary examination after the dog had been dragged down from behind on the home turn. There were no apparent findings reported from the on-course veterinarian after this examination took place.

[8] Stewards invited Mr Weir to the Stewards’ room to view the videos and discuss the racing manners of SHADY BANJO. Mr Quirk said that Mr Weir did not engage in any reasonable dialogue about the dog’s manners preferring to ask where he could obtain a review form. After this, the Stewards from their own observations of video replays were satisfied that SHADY BANJO had breached r 55.1(a) and that it had marred another runner as defined under r 1, which reads:

Mar or Marring: means the action of the Greyhound in voluntarily turning the head so as to make head or muzzle contact with another Greyhound.

[9] Mr Weir’s application for a review is in accordance with rr 55.11 and 66.20. His reason for disagreeing with the decision of the Stewards was that SHADY BANJO wanted to get to the rail, has been checked multiple times, and was dragged down.

[10] After discussing the issue with the parties, we decided that Mr Quirk would present the RIU’s case first.

The RIU’s case

[11] Mr Quirk with the assistance of Mr Wallis, Stipendiary Steward, demonstrated on the films that in the Stewards’ opinion SHADY BANJO had voluntarily turned his head inwards for one stride in the run to the first bend and made muzzle contact with dog 2, ITS THAT FRESH. SHADY BANJO then straightened up and pursued the lure. SHADY BANJO went on to run second. Mr Quirk said it was apparent from the video that SHADY BANJO had run inwards earlier in the back straight pushing dog 3 HOMEBUSH HAZEL out of the way and down the track. This carried on for a few strides before SHADY BANJO was clear of the 3 dog and had balanced up. SHADY BANJO was then intent on marring the dog to its inside (IT’S THAT FRESH) with muzzle or head contact being made. There was only one bite but this came within the definition of marring, and was a breach of r 55.1.a. Later SHADY BANJO was dragged down by a dog getting on to its rear legs. This was after the incident in question.

[12] Mr Quirk stated that the Stewards’ concern was that the angle of the head of SHADY BANJO was pointed at the body of IT’S THAT FRESH. Its mouth was wide open and its head stretched to the inside towards the other runner. They alleged that SHADY BANJO took one lunge to the inside, made contact with IT’S THAT FRESH, then straightened up and chased the lure as required.

[13] The key element of their case was, therefore, that SHADY BANJO had turned its head inwards with its mouth wide open and made muzzle contact for one stride. Rule 55.1 did not provide for the level of offending to be a mitigating factor for the Stewards when determining whether a greyhound should be charged. Nor did it allow the finishing place of a greyhound to be a mitigating factor. The Stewards believed that a greyhound had either breached r 55.1 to any degree or it had not.

[14] Mr Quirk further submitted that greyhound racing carries with it the weight of public money and the Stewards, had to be seen to be appropriately protecting this. Stewards had to take into account the potential loss of confidence of any other runner as a result of the actions of the dog in question. They were charged with the responsibility of enhancing public confidence and integrity within greyhound racing by imposing the right penalties/stand downs on greyhounds when required to do so.

[15] The RIU was satisfied that it was open to the Stewards on the day to form the opinion that SHADY BANJO had marred another runner. The review should therefore be dismissed and the stand down imposed on the day should stand.

[16] Mr Weir questioned Mr Quirk as to the significance of the mouth of SHADY BANJO being wide open. He said this was not part of the rule. Mr Quirk replied, “No, but this showed the intent of SHADY BANJO.” Mr Weir countered by saying it could be that this was simply SHADY BANJO taking a breath after being checked severely. Mr Quirk said it was clear there was muzzle contact and that this was marring.

Applicant’s case

[17] Mr Weir opened his case by called Mr Wate as a witness. Mr Wate stated that he had been a licence holder for 15 years. He had been a trainer for a time.

[18] Mr Wate believed it was significant that SHADY BANJO had never changed stride, as he believed a dog that was intent on marring would usually do this.

[19] Mr Wate interpreted the films. He said the 2 dog had wanted out and had gone backwards. The 8 dog (SHADY BANJO) did not affect this decision of the 2 dog to pull out of the gap. The 3 dog had run into the back of the 2 dog as SHADY BANJO had gone past. SHADY BANJO was looking at the lure at the time it had made head contact with the 2 dog (IT’S THAT FRESH).

[20] Mr Wate believed the 2 dog was under pressure and had pushed out. SHADY BANJO was looking at the lure before being pushed by the 3 dog and becoming unbalanced. SHADY BANJO was trying to counteract this pushing and, just before the head contact with the 2 dog, SHADY BANJO had been twisted. The 3 dog was pushing out on to SHADY BANJO and the back end of SHADY BANJO was turned out. He believed SHADY BANJO’s head was straight in line with its body, which was pointed towards the lure and that the dog was running towards the rail to chase when its mouth had come into contact with the 2 dog.

[21] Mr Quirk questioned Mr Wate who agreed with him that there had been muzzle contact by SHADY BANJO with the 2 dog. However, he emphasised that he did not believe this was intentional and that SHADY BANJO was looking at the lure at the time. The 2 dog had kept a straight line and SHADY BANJO was entitled to go down to the rail.

[22] Mr Wate agreed with Mr Quirk that the head of SHADY BANJO was angled towards the inside more so than was the head of any other dog. He emphasised, however, the bumping that had occurred before this time, and that SHADY BANJO was going towards the rail.

[23] When the Committee questioned Mr Wate as to whether he confirmed his earlier statement there was “a possibility that the dog had done nothing wrong”, he said yes that was so, as SHADY BANJO had been checked several times.

[24] Mr Weir said he had asked the RIU for all available video angles and these had not been given to him. With respect to this issue, we emphasise that disclosure of all video evidence within the RIU’s possession should be given when a request is made in order to facilitate the hearing of the review and, of course, in the interests of natural justice.

[25] Mr Weir said his interpretation of the film was that the 3 dog (HOMEBUSH HAZEL) was pushing through and had turned SHADY BANJO sideways. SHADY BANJO was an inexperienced dog and had been drawn wide, which did not suit the dog due to its railing ability.

[26] SHADY BANJO had jumped well enough and was headed towards the rail when it had collided heavily with the 3 dog. SHADY BANJO had then collided with IT’S THAT FRESH, which turned sideways taking SHADY BANJO with her. They both lost their chance to win the race.

[27] Mr Weir believed SHADY BANJO had not breached the rule. It had been a very wet day and SHADY BANJO had run a creditable second. The dog had received a number of checks and its head was not turned. A warning would have been sufficient and this would have been the best result, as SHADY BANJO was just jostling for the right position.

Summing up

[28] Mr Quirk stated there were two issues: whether there was head or muzzle contact; and had SHADY BANJO voluntarily turned its head. The RIU’s position was that both these issues should be answered in the affirmative. SHADY BANJO, he emphasised, had balanced up after earlier receiving interference. The 3 dog was out of the way of SHADY BANJO before it turned its head inwards and marred IT’S THAT FRESH.

[29] Mr Weir said at the time of the head contact the 3 dog was pushing out and making contact with SHADY BANJO. He disagreed with Mr Quirk that the 3 dog was out of the way. It was trying to push through a gap that was not there. SHADY BANJO had not voluntarily turned its head because of the amount of contact and jostling it had received prior to the incident. SHADY BANJO was still unbalanced at the time it turned its head.

Decision

[30] The videos evidence that SHADY BANJO has moved the 3 dog (HOMEBUSH HAZEL) out of the way in an attempt to get to the rail. HOMEBUSH HAZEL has received interference but the RIU has no issue with this.

[31] SHADY BANJO has continued to make its angled run and, when free of contact with HOMEBUSH HAZEL, has had a lunge, with its mouth open, at the 2 dog (IT’S THAT FRESH) for one stride. As we have said, there is contact prior to this, but this is no more than that that occurs commonly in the course of racing. Significantly, we do not believe it has caused SHADY BANJO to lunge at IT’S THAT FRESH.

[32] SHADY BANJO has its head turned inwards at the time of the lunge. The head is not on a markedly acute angle, but it is angled inwards, nevertheless. The lunge is to the back of the 2 dog at a point forward of its rump.

[33] There is heavy contact with IT’S THAT FRESH for a period afterwards. The back legs of the 2 dog are dragged down by the 3. The 2 dog then makes contact with SHADY BANJO, whose legs are also dragged down briefly, and IT’S THAT FRESH becomes unbalanced. HOMEBUSH HAZEL then goes on to win the race and SHADY BANJO runs second. IT’S THAT FRESH drops out.

[34] We believe at the time of the alleged breach that IT’S THAT FRESH is running a straight line to the bend. SHADY BANJO is angling to the rail with its head angled inwards towards IT’S THAT FRESH. Contact has occurred whilst the mouth of SHADY BANJO is wide open and the dog is lunging. As SHADY BANJO was slightly behind IT’S THAT FRESH, there was no need for SHADY BANJO to turn its head significantly to mar IT’S THAT FRESH.

[35] We are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that SHADY BANJO has marred IT’S THAT FRESH and that the actions of the dog cannot be attributed to the earlier interference that SHADY BANJO suffered.

[36] We thus find that SHADY BANJO was in breach of r 55.1(a) and uphold the decision of the Stewards on 30 April 2018 to stand the dog down for 3 months for marring.

Dated at Dunedin this 15th day of May 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: