NZGRA Request for Review R Wales v RIU – Written Decision dated 17 December 2018 – Chair, Prof G Hall

hearingid: c811cbd5e04311c27a79ab99ab8de106

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 19/12/2018

hearing_title: NZGRA Request for Review R Wales v RIU - Written Decision dated 17 December 2018 - Chair, Prof G Hall

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

OF THE JCA IN CHRISTCHURCH

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

BETWEEN

ROBIN WALES, Licensed Trainer

Applicant

AND-RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)

Respondent

Judicial Committee: --Prof G Hall, Chairman

Mr S Ching, Member

Appearing:--The applicant in person

Mr R Quirk for the respondent

WRITTEN DECISION OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

[1]-At the meeting of the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held at Addington racecourse on 23 November 2018, the greyhound OUR SIMBA, trained by Mr Wales started in Race 2, the POWER FARMING CANTERBURY STAKES - C0 - 520 METRES. The dog finished first.

[2]-Prior to this race OUR SIMBA had had one start for a 7th placing.

[3]-On the day in question OUR SIMBA was referred to the Veterinarian post-race and cleared of any injury. Mr Quirk, the Chairman of Stewards, then consulted with trainer, Mr Robin Wales, regarding the conduct of OUR SIMBA. After also hearing from trainer Mr Dave Fahey, Mr Quirk stood the greyhound down for 28 days pursuant to r 55.1(b) for failing to pursue the lure.

[4]-This rule reads:

Where a Greyhound: (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, 28 days and until the completion of a Satisfactory Trial.

[5]-“Fails to Pursue The Lure” is defined in the GRNZ 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.”

[6]-Mr Wales filed an application for a review and a stay of the stand down. The application for a stay was refused in a ruling of 26 November.

[7]-The application for a review was heard on 4 December and in an oral decision that day we determined that the review was unsuccessful and a written decision would follow.

[8]-It was agreed that Mr Quirk would present the respondent’s case first.

Respondent’s case

[9]-Mr Quirk demonstrated on the films that in the Stewards’ opinion the 2 dog, OUR SIMBA, had turned its head outwards for 2 or 3 strides shortly after the start of the race. He said there was no concern over the dog’s first 3 strides but on the 4th stride the dog started to angle outwards and the head of OUR SIMBA turned out on the 5th and 6th stride. On the 7th stride there was contact with the 5 dog, OPAWA MAGIC.

[10]-Mr Quirk demonstrated that it was an angled run outwards and that the head of OUR SIMBA was turned outwards even when regard was had to the direction in which the dog was heading. He believed OUR SIMBA was looking at the dog that was coming down the track from box 5, which was OPAWA MAGIC. OUR SIMBA had started from box 2. He emphasised it was not the fact that OUR SIMBA had run outwards that was of concern to the Stewards but the fact that the head was turned away from the lure.

[11]-Mr Quirk then referred to the online Cambridge Dictionary which defines turn as: “To change the direction in which you are facing or moving.”

[12]-Mr Quirk said racing greyhounds were essentially bred for one purpose only and that was to chase or pursue a lure. It was in their physical and mental make-up to do this and they were programmed to do so from an early stage of their lives. Greyhounds which fail to pursue the lure with due commitment throughout the entirety of the race were deemed not to be committed to their sole purpose for racing.

[13]-Mr Quirk said that although OUR SIMBA went on to win the race, when viewing race replays in relation to a non-pursuit charge, it was essential that there was no consideration afforded to the finishing position of the greyhound. It was also irrelevant that it was the greyhound's first time on the track or the first time from a particular box, as stated before, a greyhound's sole purpose is for racing, and to chase a lure regardless of where that might be or the actions of any other greyhound. Rule 55.1 does not provide for these to be a mitigating factor when assessing a breach of this rule. The greyhound has either committed the offence or not.

Applicant’s case

[14]-Mr Wales said that OPAWA MAGIC, which was a big dog and coincidentally was also trained by him, had come “real hard down” on a strong angle on the 2 dog (OUR SIMBA). He said the 2 dog braced itself, expecting to be hit and did get hit. He accepted that OUR SIMBA did run out but a lot of dogs do this. A dog changing direction was not failing to pursue.

[15]-At its previous start OUR SIMBA had run out and had been “hammered”. On that occasion there had been dogs running in and out and OUR SIMBA had been hit pretty hard. He said the dog was shrewd and did not want to get “smashed” in the race before us.

[16]-OUR SIMBA was wanting to run outwards when the 5 dog was running in. Mr Wales emphasised that after the contact OUR SIMBA had chased 100 per cent.

[17]-Mr Wales said OUR SIMBA was not turning its head; it was bracing itself. He believed a 28 day stand down would be career defining for OUR SIMBA as the stand down would stay with the dog, which was unfair considering the dog was protecting itself to prevent it from being knocked over. The dog was lucky to still be on its feet. If it had not braced itself, it would have been knocked over.

[18]-Mr Wales said he accepted OUR SIMBA had run out to the 5 dog. It was still giving 100 per cent and had was anticipating it was going to be hit. If the 5 dog had not been there he believed OUR SIMBA would have come out and run wide on the track.

Summing up

[19]-Mr Quirk stated that he believed OUR SIMBA had marginally lost ground through looking. It was for 3 strides. If the dog had carried on chasing, contact would have been to the rump and not the neck. He demonstrated that OUR SIMBA had stayed on the rail the rest of the race.

[20]-Mr Quirk emphasised, however, that the RIU case was not that the dog had eased but that it had voluntarily turned its head without making contact. It was for 2 strides and for the start of a third.

[21]-Mr Quirk submitted that OUR SIMBA had failed to pursue with due commitment by turning its head outwards in the early stages of the race and diverting its attention away from the lure. OUR SIMBA was looking at the outside dog, OPAWA MAGIC, as that runner ran down the track. The lure was directly in front of the greyhound and he believed it was acutely aware of where it was on the track. It made a conscious decision to divert its attention away from the lure when it saw OPAWA MAGIC running down towards it. OUR SIMBA then refocused its attention to the lure until the finish line and won the race.

[22]-Mr Quirk concluded his submission by stating greyhound racing carries with it the weight of public money and the Stewards had to be seen to be appropriately protecting this. The Stewards 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. It was the respondent’s opinion that OUR SIMBA had failed to pursue the lure by turning its head outwards while free of interference. The greyhound was not chasing the lure at this point of the race.

[23]- Mr Wales disputed the fact that OUR SIMBA had lost ground. He said a dog running at full speed, whether or not its heads is turned, when it is only for a distance of three strides does not lose much ground.

[24]-Mr Wales said there had not been a breach of the rule. There was agreement that OUR SIMBA was going to get hit. Often dogs in the situation OUR SIMBA was in would pull back. OUR SIMBA had not, and did not deserve to be put out for 28 days and have a black mark against it.

Decision

[25]-We are satisfied that shortly after the start and for a distance of 2 to 3 strides OUR SIMBA, which had been making an outwards run, looks to the 5 dog, which was making an angled run towards OUR SIMBA and in the direction of the rail.

[26]-Mr Wales may be right when he says that because of the dog’s experience of being squeezed at its earlier start that it anticipated it was going to be hit. The dog’s head was certainly pointed in the direction of OPAWA MAGIC for 2 ½ strides.

[27]-It is clear OUR SIMBA’s head was turned away from the lure before contact was made. It cannot be said that interference from OPAWA MAGIC was the reason OUR SIMBA’s head was turned. The fact that a dog anticipates it might be hit by another dog is not a valid reason for a dog to turn its head away from the lure. If it were, dogs would be looking around constantly in races without being in breach of the rule.

[28]- We agree with the Stewards the fact that OUR SIMBA has made an outwards run on track is not a breach of the Rules. The fact that the dog, when so doing, has turned its head away from the lure towards the 5 dog, is a breach of r 55.1(b), in that the dog has failed to pursue the lure.

[29]-The application for review is unsuccessful. The Stewards’ decision on 23 November 2018 to impose a 28 stand down on OUR SIMBA is upheld.

Dated at Dunedin this 17th day of December 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: