NZGRA Request for Review W Hodgson v RIU – Written Decision dated 29 January 2021 – Chair, Prof G Hall
ID: JCA16702
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JCA
IN WHANGANUI
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (Incorporated)
BETWEEN
WILLIAM HODGSON, Public Trainer
Applicant
AND-RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Respondent
Judicial Committee: --Prof G Hall, Chairman
Mrs N Moffatt, Member
Present:--The Applicant in person
Mr S Wallis, Chief Stipendiary Steward (Greyhounds), -for the Respondent
Hearing date: --21 January 2021
Date of oral decision: -21 January 2021
WRITTEN DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1]-The Applicant, Mr Hodgson, has applied for a review of the decision from Race 10 at the meeting of the Wanganui Greyhound Racing Club held on 30 December 2020 at Hatrick Raceway where FUNZALO was stood down (2nd offence – three months) for failing to pursue the lure. This is an alleged breach of r 55.1(b) of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing.
[2]-Rule 55.1 provides:
Where a Greyhound:
(b) Fails to pursue the Lure in a Race the Stewards may impose the following periods of suspension:
(d) in the case of a second offence under r 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….
[3]-FUNZALO is trained by Mr Bill Hodgson.
[4]-FUNZALO had, prior to the race in question, 62 starts for 13 wins, 11 seconds and 7 thirds.
[5]-On 5 December 2018 FUNZALO had its third race day start at Whanganui and was stood down for 28 days and ordered to undergo a satisfactory trial for failing to pursue.
[6]-On 1 January 2019 FUNZALO completed a satisfactory trial as required.
[7]-On 6 February 2019 FUNZALO was stood down for three months and ordered to undergo a satisfactory trial for failing to pursue in its fifth start, again at Wanganui.
[8]-FUNZALO then completed a satisfactory trial in blinkers on 3 July 2019.
[9]-FUNZALO completed 10 clear runs which resulted in the latter endorsement being cancelled.
[10]-FUNZALO was checked on the day by the official veterinarian who, after a one hour cooling down period, reported no injury detected.
[11]-Mr Hodgson’s ground for review is that the dog has not failed to pursue the lure.
[12]-With the agreement of Mr Hodgson, Mr Wallis presented the RIU’s case first.
The RIU’s case
[13]-Mr Wallis identified the definition of “fails to pursue the lure” as set out in the Rules:
“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.
[14]-Mr Wallis submitted that Greyhound Racing carries with it the weight of public money and the Stewards had to be seen to be appropriately protecting this. They were charged with the responsibility of enhancing public confidence and integrity within Greyhound Racing by imposing the appropriate penalties/stand downs on greyhounds when required to do so.
[15]-Mr Wallis played the films and described the race.
[16]- FUNZALO jumped from box number 1. FUNZALO ran to the bend with its undivided attention on the lure.
[17]-FUNZALO then shifted up the track while clear of the field rounding the bend with its attention still solely focused on the lure. FUNZALO was checked at this time by PICK A PASCAL (6).
[18]-In the home straight FUNZALO turned its head outwards towards PICK A PASCAL. FUNZALO then changed the direction it was moving up the track to meet this greyhound, before shifting back down the track, refocusing on the lure prior to the finish line.
[19]-Mr Wallis demonstrated by reference to the marks made by the track groomer his contention that FUNZALO had shifted out in the home straight. He observed that with the blinkers being black and FUNZALO being a black dog it was difficult to detect that FUNZALO’s head was turned out. He slowed the films down to support his conclusion that it was. He said FUNZALO had shifted out and its head had turned out too.
[20]-Mr Wallis stated that in his opinion FUNZALO had turned its head outwards after exiting the bend, while free of interference, and thus had breached r 55.1(b). He said the dog knew where the lure was and had given it its full attention up to the moment it made a conscious decision to divert its attention away from it, turning its head outwards all the while free of interference.
[21]-When questioned by the Committee, Mr Wallis stated he believed FUNZALO’s head was turned outwards for 3 1/2 strides before the dog refocused its attention on the lure. He demonstrated this on the films.
Applicant’s submissions
[22]-Mr Hodgson commenced his case by stating that he believed PICK A PASCAL had come in rather than FUNZALO running out.
[23]- The Committee viewed this aspect of the films with Mr Hodgson and he accepted that it was “a bit of both”. FUNZALO had run out while PICK A PASCAL had run in.
[24]-Mr Hodgson showed the film of FUNZALO’s run on 31 July last. He said this demonstrated that FUNZALO had similarly shifted outwards on the track on that occasion.
[25]-Mr Hodgson emphasised that FUNZALO wears blinkers and it was hard to tell, as a consequence, whether the dog’s head was turned outwards. He did not believe it was. He said it was difficult to detect where the head was. He also emphasised it was black blinkers on a black dog. He believed the conclusion the head was turned out was an optical illusion.
[26]-Mr Hodgson added that it was an accepted fact in the industry that dogs with blinkers were not suited to box 1, the box FUNZALO had drawn on this occasion. He commented that the dog had had 58 starts wearing blinkers and there had been no issue with it not chasing.
[27]-When questioned by the Committee, he said he believed FUNZALO’s head was still focused on the lure. He did not agree with Mr Wallis that FUNZALO was looking at the dog to its outside.
Decision
[28]-The films evidence that there was brief contact between FUNZALO and PICK A PASCAL at the point of the bend. This was due to the fact FUNZALO had coursed wide on the track rounding the bend and was clipped from behind by PICK A PASCAL on exiting the bend. This was some time, however, before the incident at issue before us.
[29]-In the run home PICK A PASCAL has shifted in slightly while FUNZALO has run outwards on the track for some distance and to a more marked extent. Mr Hodgson has submitted the inwards movement of PICK A PASCAL was the more significant. We do not agree. The principal movement was the outwards movement by FUNZALO.
[30]-We agree with the parties that black blinkers on a black dog make it more difficult than otherwise it would be the case to determine whether a dog has turned its head. However, we are satisfied on viewing the side-on and head-on films at both normal and slow speed that FUNZALO has turned both its body and its head outwards. The shadow of FUNZALO’s head on the track supports the conclusion that the dog’s head was turned away from the lure.
[31]-We do not believe the film of FUNZALO’s race on 31 July last assists Mr Hodgson. The film simply demonstrates that on an earlier occasion FUNZALO has shifted wider on the track in the run home. The issue before us is whether FUNZALO has turned its head and failed to focus on the lure in race 10 on 30 December last.
[32]-Significantly, in our view, FUNZALO’s head was voluntarily turned away from the lure and outwards towards PICK A PASCAL for some 3 to 4 strides. This was at the time the dog was shifting up the track towards PICK A PASCAL during the run in home straight to the winning post.
[33]-FUNZALO had clearly lost concentration on the lure. Its head was turned outwards towards PICK A PASCAL. We are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that while free of interference FUNZALO has failed to pursue the lure and thus is in breach of r 55.1(b).
[34]-The review is unsuccessful and the raceday stand down and our brief oral decision on the day of the hearing are both confirmed.
Dated at Dunedin this 29th day of January 2021.
Geoff Hall, Chairman
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 01/02/2021
Publish Date: 01/02/2021
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: d64c858a81e9f5039f3c906b24c6cf82
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 01/02/2021
hearing_title: NZGRA Request for Review W Hodgson v RIU - Written Decision dated 29 January 2021 - Chair, Prof G Hall
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JCA
IN WHANGANUI
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (Incorporated)
BETWEEN
WILLIAM HODGSON, Public Trainer
Applicant
AND-RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Respondent
Judicial Committee: --Prof G Hall, Chairman
Mrs N Moffatt, Member
Present:--The Applicant in person
Mr S Wallis, Chief Stipendiary Steward (Greyhounds), -for the Respondent
Hearing date: --21 January 2021
Date of oral decision: -21 January 2021
WRITTEN DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1]-The Applicant, Mr Hodgson, has applied for a review of the decision from Race 10 at the meeting of the Wanganui Greyhound Racing Club held on 30 December 2020 at Hatrick Raceway where FUNZALO was stood down (2nd offence – three months) for failing to pursue the lure. This is an alleged breach of r 55.1(b) of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing.
[2]-Rule 55.1 provides:
Where a Greyhound:
(b) Fails to pursue the Lure in a Race the Stewards may impose the following periods of suspension:
(d) in the case of a second offence under r 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….
[3]-FUNZALO is trained by Mr Bill Hodgson.
[4]-FUNZALO had, prior to the race in question, 62 starts for 13 wins, 11 seconds and 7 thirds.
[5]-On 5 December 2018 FUNZALO had its third race day start at Whanganui and was stood down for 28 days and ordered to undergo a satisfactory trial for failing to pursue.
[6]-On 1 January 2019 FUNZALO completed a satisfactory trial as required.
[7]-On 6 February 2019 FUNZALO was stood down for three months and ordered to undergo a satisfactory trial for failing to pursue in its fifth start, again at Wanganui.
[8]-FUNZALO then completed a satisfactory trial in blinkers on 3 July 2019.
[9]-FUNZALO completed 10 clear runs which resulted in the latter endorsement being cancelled.
[10]-FUNZALO was checked on the day by the official veterinarian who, after a one hour cooling down period, reported no injury detected.
[11]-Mr Hodgson’s ground for review is that the dog has not failed to pursue the lure.
[12]-With the agreement of Mr Hodgson, Mr Wallis presented the RIU’s case first.
The RIU’s case
[13]-Mr Wallis identified the definition of “fails to pursue the lure” as set out in the Rules:
“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.
[14]-Mr Wallis submitted that Greyhound Racing carries with it the weight of public money and the Stewards had to be seen to be appropriately protecting this. They were charged with the responsibility of enhancing public confidence and integrity within Greyhound Racing by imposing the appropriate penalties/stand downs on greyhounds when required to do so.
[15]-Mr Wallis played the films and described the race.
[16]- FUNZALO jumped from box number 1. FUNZALO ran to the bend with its undivided attention on the lure.
[17]-FUNZALO then shifted up the track while clear of the field rounding the bend with its attention still solely focused on the lure. FUNZALO was checked at this time by PICK A PASCAL (6).
[18]-In the home straight FUNZALO turned its head outwards towards PICK A PASCAL. FUNZALO then changed the direction it was moving up the track to meet this greyhound, before shifting back down the track, refocusing on the lure prior to the finish line.
[19]-Mr Wallis demonstrated by reference to the marks made by the track groomer his contention that FUNZALO had shifted out in the home straight. He observed that with the blinkers being black and FUNZALO being a black dog it was difficult to detect that FUNZALO’s head was turned out. He slowed the films down to support his conclusion that it was. He said FUNZALO had shifted out and its head had turned out too.
[20]-Mr Wallis stated that in his opinion FUNZALO had turned its head outwards after exiting the bend, while free of interference, and thus had breached r 55.1(b). He said the dog knew where the lure was and had given it its full attention up to the moment it made a conscious decision to divert its attention away from it, turning its head outwards all the while free of interference.
[21]-When questioned by the Committee, Mr Wallis stated he believed FUNZALO’s head was turned outwards for 3 1/2 strides before the dog refocused its attention on the lure. He demonstrated this on the films.
Applicant’s submissions
[22]-Mr Hodgson commenced his case by stating that he believed PICK A PASCAL had come in rather than FUNZALO running out.
[23]- The Committee viewed this aspect of the films with Mr Hodgson and he accepted that it was “a bit of both”. FUNZALO had run out while PICK A PASCAL had run in.
[24]-Mr Hodgson showed the film of FUNZALO’s run on 31 July last. He said this demonstrated that FUNZALO had similarly shifted outwards on the track on that occasion.
[25]-Mr Hodgson emphasised that FUNZALO wears blinkers and it was hard to tell, as a consequence, whether the dog’s head was turned outwards. He did not believe it was. He said it was difficult to detect where the head was. He also emphasised it was black blinkers on a black dog. He believed the conclusion the head was turned out was an optical illusion.
[26]-Mr Hodgson added that it was an accepted fact in the industry that dogs with blinkers were not suited to box 1, the box FUNZALO had drawn on this occasion. He commented that the dog had had 58 starts wearing blinkers and there had been no issue with it not chasing.
[27]-When questioned by the Committee, he said he believed FUNZALO’s head was still focused on the lure. He did not agree with Mr Wallis that FUNZALO was looking at the dog to its outside.
Decision
[28]-The films evidence that there was brief contact between FUNZALO and PICK A PASCAL at the point of the bend. This was due to the fact FUNZALO had coursed wide on the track rounding the bend and was clipped from behind by PICK A PASCAL on exiting the bend. This was some time, however, before the incident at issue before us.
[29]-In the run home PICK A PASCAL has shifted in slightly while FUNZALO has run outwards on the track for some distance and to a more marked extent. Mr Hodgson has submitted the inwards movement of PICK A PASCAL was the more significant. We do not agree. The principal movement was the outwards movement by FUNZALO.
[30]-We agree with the parties that black blinkers on a black dog make it more difficult than otherwise it would be the case to determine whether a dog has turned its head. However, we are satisfied on viewing the side-on and head-on films at both normal and slow speed that FUNZALO has turned both its body and its head outwards. The shadow of FUNZALO’s head on the track supports the conclusion that the dog’s head was turned away from the lure.
[31]-We do not believe the film of FUNZALO’s race on 31 July last assists Mr Hodgson. The film simply demonstrates that on an earlier occasion FUNZALO has shifted wider on the track in the run home. The issue before us is whether FUNZALO has turned its head and failed to focus on the lure in race 10 on 30 December last.
[32]-Significantly, in our view, FUNZALO’s head was voluntarily turned away from the lure and outwards towards PICK A PASCAL for some 3 to 4 strides. This was at the time the dog was shifting up the track towards PICK A PASCAL during the run in home straight to the winning post.
[33]-FUNZALO had clearly lost concentration on the lure. Its head was turned outwards towards PICK A PASCAL. We are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that while free of interference FUNZALO has failed to pursue the lure and thus is in breach of r 55.1(b).
[34]-The review is unsuccessful and the raceday stand down and our brief oral decision on the day of the hearing are both confirmed.
Dated at Dunedin this 29th day of January 2021.
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: