Appeal B R Shaw v RIU – Decision dated 18 October 2013
ID: JCA16797
Decision:
BEFORE AN APPEALS TRIBUNAL
HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH
IN THE MATTER of a Notice of Appeal
BETWEEN BLAIR R SHAW, of Rangiora, Licensed Trainer
Appellant
AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT
Respondent
Date of Hearing: Friday, 18 October 2013.
Venue: Judicial Room, Addington Raceway, Christchurch
Appeals Tribunal: R G McKenzie, Chair - K G Hales, Committee Member
Present: Mr B R Shaw, the Appellant
Mr J M McLaughlin, Stipendiary Steward, for the Respondent
Mr N G McIntyre, Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward
Mr S P Renault (Registrar)
Date of Decision: 18 October 2013
DECISION OF APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Background
[1] This is an application for a review, by way of an appeal, pursuant to Rule 64.6 of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association, of a decision of the Stipendiary Stewards at the meeting of Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held at Addington Raceway on 8th October 2013.
[2] The Appellant, Mr Shaw, is the trainer of the greyhound BEE OSTEE (b bd Dec 2010 Bit Chilli-Azure Osti). The greyhound is owned by Racingdogs.co.nz.
[3] BEE OSTEE was an acceptor for Race 12, Speight’s Sprint (C1) at the meeting of the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held at Addington Raceway on 8th October 2013.
[4] Mr Shaw scratched BEE OSTEE after 7.30am on the day of the meeting.
[5] He was subsequently charged by the Stewards under Rule 64.2 and was fined $150 and BEE OSTEE was suspended for 28 days.
[6] Mr Shaw now seeks a review by this Committee, pursuant to Rule 64.6, of the finding of the Stewards.
[7] The Notice of Appeal filed by Mr Shaw states that he disagrees with the finding of the Stewards on the ground that “the track was unsatisfactory for racing in Race 12” and “that my dog’s welfare would be at risk if starting on that track”.
The Rules
[8] The relevant Rules are as follows:
64.2 If a Greyhound is withdrawn without valid reason after the Box Draw, or after qualifying for a Semi-Final or Final of a Totalisator Race, the Owner or trainer of the Greyhound shall be guilty of an Offence.
64.6 A greyhound which has been included in the Box Draw for a Meeting or after qualifying for a Semi Final or Final at a Totalisator Race and is not presented to Race, shall be suspended for 28 days unless permission has been granted by the Stewards for the Greyhound to be withdrawn. . . An Owner or Trainer of a Greyhound may seek a review, by a Judicial Committee, of any decision under this Rule in accordance with Rule 92.20.
92.20 The Judicial Committee may review any decisions. . as expressly provided under these Rules. A party who seeks a review of any decision under these Rules shall lodge a written notice with the Executive Officer of the Judicial Control Authority.
Submissions of Appellant
[9] Mr Shaw presented the following written submissions:
“After the running of Race 10, I spoke to Mr Zarb (Stipendiary Steward) regarding my concerns on the racing surface at Addington and the concerns I had regarding the welfare of my dog, BEE OSTEE in Race 12.
At the conclusion of Race 11 where I was a catcher I observed runners in the event to be suffering from blindness, choking and exhaustion caused from the sloppy conditions of the racing surface. After witnessing this there was no doubt in my mind that the track was unsuitable for racing on and that it could be detrimental to the welfare my dog. I had only the one runner in at this meeting and it was not a decision I made lightly.
I feel that after I initially made contact with Mr Zarb that there should have been a track inspection and some consultation with the trainers.
The track could not be groomed after Race 3 due to the weather conditions and therefore it deteriorated throughout the day. This happened at Manawatu Raceway on the 27th May 2013 and trainers were given an opportunity to scratch without penalty.
The run home times on the day were slower than that of a dog running over the extreme distance of 732 metres.
The normal penetrometer range is 10 to 15 mm; on Tuesday 8 October it was as deep as 40 mm.
In conclusion I believe I had a valid reason for the late scratching of BEE OSTEE in Race 12 as I believe there were numerous safety and welfare concerns.”
Submissions of Respondent
[10] Mr McLaughlin presented the following written submissions on behalf of the Respondent:
“Prior to Race 11, trainer Mr Blair Shaw came to the Stewards Room and requested his greyhound BEE OSTEE be late scratched [in Race 12] as he felt that his runner would not suit the prevailing track conditions in respect to the wellbeing of his runner.
He stated that 3 starts previous where the greyhound had run over 520 metres he was at the veterinarians the next day with BEE OSTEE on a drip for acidosis (excess lactic acid).
I advised Mr Shaw that I did not think it was of relevance and although the track had been downgraded to Heavy there was no evidence that the track was unsafe for racing.
Mr Shaw was asked to come back after Race 11 where he again stated that he would not line BEE OSTEE up.
Prior to Race 12 BEE OSTEE was presented to the Club’s Veterinarian and underwent a veterinary inspection where it was passed fit to race.
Mr Michael Zarb relayed that information to me. I asked if Mr Shaw was going to race the greyhound. He confirmed no.
I had no option but to scratch BEE OSTEE from Race 12 when it was apparent that Mr Shaw was not going to present the runner at the boxes.
BEE OSTEE was scratched approximately 8 minutes prior to post time.
Mr Shaw came to the Stewards` Room after the running of Race 12 where I presented him with the information alleging a breach of Rule 64.2.
Mr Shaw defended the charge and subsequently appealed.
The Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club meeting on 8th October 2013 was a 12-race programme with capacity fields drawn to compete. 96 greyhounds accepted to race.
There had been considerable overnight rain and the day had continued to be very wet with a further 18 mls of rain falling throughout the race meeting.
At 7.30am the Club had declared with the TAB and Greyhound Racing New Zealand that the day was raining and the track at that stage was rated Dead.
The forecast was for rain throughout the day which eventuated.
After Race 2 Stewards in consultation with Track Manager A Jopson agreed to keep all machinery off the track as we were concerned that the tyre marks from the tractor may fill with water and make the racing surface unsafe. After Race 6 the track was downgraded to a Heavy rating.
Greyhound Racing New Zealand official track ratings are Fast, Good, Dead and Heavy.
The track record for 295 metres on the Greyhound Racing New Zealand website is 16.84 seconds.
The raceday was a low-class meeting made up of two classes – 2 Class 0 races and 10 Class 1 races.
(Mr McLaughlin produced a track penetrometer report which was carried out in the presence of Mr Michael Zarb (RIU). He also produced race times for the meeting on 8th October and 15th October (Good track) and, for comparison, times for the meeting on 4th June (Heavy track).
BEE OSTEE raced on a Heavy track at Addington on 4th June 2013 over 295 metres in Race 11 on a 12-race programme and finished 4th, 4.4 metres from the winner. The time for the race was 17.89 seconds made up from a lead time of 5.99 seconds and run home of 11.90 seconds. BEE OSTEE has her next start on the 10th of June, some six days later.
Reasons for Decision
[11] The issue before the Tribunal is simple. Did Mr Shaw have “a valid reason” for late scratching his greyhound, BEE OSTEE, from Race 12 at the meeting of Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club at Addington Raceway on 8th October 2013?
[12] Mr Shaw argued that, essentially, he was concerned for the safety and welfare of the dog having observed the runners pulling up after Race 11. In his submissions, he stated that he observed that they were “suffering from blindness, choking and exhaustion caused from the sloppy conditions of the racing surface”.
[13] Mr Shaw advised the Stipendiary Stewards prior to Race 12 that he was not going to present BEE OSTEE for the race. Mr McLaughlin then had a veterinary inspection of BEE OSTEE carried out which revealed that the dog had no injury that would prevent it from racing. When it became apparent that Mr Shaw was not going to present BEE OSTEE for the race, the Stewards had no alternative but to withdraw the dog. [14] In the Tribunal’s view, the test for whether Mr Shaw had a valid reason for withdrawing BEE OSTEE is an objective one – in other words, the reason should be fact-based, measurable and observable. Mr Shaw had made a subjective assessment based on his personal opinion, emotion and judgment.
[14] Looking then at the circumstances objectively, there was no actual evidence presented by Mr Shaw that the track conditions were unsafe or, similarly, that the safety or welfare of his greyhound would have been endangered. He submitted that there were “numerous safety and welfare concerns” but he did not elaborate on these. We heard evidence that the track conditions had deteriorated throughout the course of the race meeting and, in fact, had been downgraded from Dead at the start of racing to Heavy after Race 6.
[15] It is significant that the Rules make no provision for late scratching as of right in the event of a material change in track conditions. It is also significant that, we were informed, no other trainer had attempted to late scratch any greyhound in any of the races. There was no evidence before us that the track was unsafe or was likely to pose a danger to the safety or welfare of any runner.
[16] That change of track conditions, of itself, does not amount to a valid reason. Furthermore, Mr McLaughlin produced evidence that BEE OSTEE had raced on a Heavy track at Addington on 4th June 2013 and finished in 4th placing, 4.4 lengths from the winner. It appears that it did not suffer any ill effects as, the Tribunal noted; it raced again six days later.
[17] We were impressed with Mr Shaw’s sincerity and we do not doubt that he had a genuine concern for the safety and welfare of BEE OSTEE in withdrawing it from its engagement in Race 12 at the race meeting.
[18] However, as stated above, the validity of the reason for late scratching must be assessed objectively. Adopting an objective test, the Tribunal is satisfied that no valid reason existed for Mr Shaw’s withdrawing his greyhound, BEE OSTEE, from Race 12 at Addington on 8th October 2013.
[19] His reasons, no matter how genuinely held, were not in the Tribunal’s view sufficient to justify the late scratching of BEE OSTEE.
[20] This Tribunal is very conscious of the need to have regard to animal welfare. This must always be a consideration. However, we are not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence before us that animal welfare was an issue on this occasion.
Penalty:
[21] Accordingly, this Tribunal dismisses Mr Shaw’s appeal. The decision of the Stipendiary Stewards to fine Mr Shaw the sum of $150 and to stand down BEE OSTEE for 28 days is upheld.
R G McKenzie K G Hales
Chair Committee Member
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 09/10/2013
Publish Date: 09/10/2013
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: a186fae2283f2ce733ad2cbcb1fb4d4e
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 09/10/2013
hearing_title: Appeal B R Shaw v RIU - Decision dated 18 October 2013
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE AN APPEALS TRIBUNAL
HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH
IN THE MATTER of a Notice of Appeal
BETWEEN BLAIR R SHAW, of Rangiora, Licensed Trainer
Appellant
AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT
Respondent
Date of Hearing: Friday, 18 October 2013.
Venue: Judicial Room, Addington Raceway, Christchurch
Appeals Tribunal: R G McKenzie, Chair - K G Hales, Committee Member
Present: Mr B R Shaw, the Appellant
Mr J M McLaughlin, Stipendiary Steward, for the Respondent
Mr N G McIntyre, Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward
Mr S P Renault (Registrar)
Date of Decision: 18 October 2013
DECISION OF APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Background
[1] This is an application for a review, by way of an appeal, pursuant to Rule 64.6 of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association, of a decision of the Stipendiary Stewards at the meeting of Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held at Addington Raceway on 8th October 2013.
[2] The Appellant, Mr Shaw, is the trainer of the greyhound BEE OSTEE (b bd Dec 2010 Bit Chilli-Azure Osti). The greyhound is owned by Racingdogs.co.nz.
[3] BEE OSTEE was an acceptor for Race 12, Speight’s Sprint (C1) at the meeting of the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held at Addington Raceway on 8th October 2013.
[4] Mr Shaw scratched BEE OSTEE after 7.30am on the day of the meeting.
[5] He was subsequently charged by the Stewards under Rule 64.2 and was fined $150 and BEE OSTEE was suspended for 28 days.
[6] Mr Shaw now seeks a review by this Committee, pursuant to Rule 64.6, of the finding of the Stewards.
[7] The Notice of Appeal filed by Mr Shaw states that he disagrees with the finding of the Stewards on the ground that “the track was unsatisfactory for racing in Race 12” and “that my dog’s welfare would be at risk if starting on that track”.
The Rules
[8] The relevant Rules are as follows:
64.2 If a Greyhound is withdrawn without valid reason after the Box Draw, or after qualifying for a Semi-Final or Final of a Totalisator Race, the Owner or trainer of the Greyhound shall be guilty of an Offence.
64.6 A greyhound which has been included in the Box Draw for a Meeting or after qualifying for a Semi Final or Final at a Totalisator Race and is not presented to Race, shall be suspended for 28 days unless permission has been granted by the Stewards for the Greyhound to be withdrawn. . . An Owner or Trainer of a Greyhound may seek a review, by a Judicial Committee, of any decision under this Rule in accordance with Rule 92.20.
92.20 The Judicial Committee may review any decisions. . as expressly provided under these Rules. A party who seeks a review of any decision under these Rules shall lodge a written notice with the Executive Officer of the Judicial Control Authority.
Submissions of Appellant
[9] Mr Shaw presented the following written submissions:
“After the running of Race 10, I spoke to Mr Zarb (Stipendiary Steward) regarding my concerns on the racing surface at Addington and the concerns I had regarding the welfare of my dog, BEE OSTEE in Race 12.
At the conclusion of Race 11 where I was a catcher I observed runners in the event to be suffering from blindness, choking and exhaustion caused from the sloppy conditions of the racing surface. After witnessing this there was no doubt in my mind that the track was unsuitable for racing on and that it could be detrimental to the welfare my dog. I had only the one runner in at this meeting and it was not a decision I made lightly.
I feel that after I initially made contact with Mr Zarb that there should have been a track inspection and some consultation with the trainers.
The track could not be groomed after Race 3 due to the weather conditions and therefore it deteriorated throughout the day. This happened at Manawatu Raceway on the 27th May 2013 and trainers were given an opportunity to scratch without penalty.
The run home times on the day were slower than that of a dog running over the extreme distance of 732 metres.
The normal penetrometer range is 10 to 15 mm; on Tuesday 8 October it was as deep as 40 mm.
In conclusion I believe I had a valid reason for the late scratching of BEE OSTEE in Race 12 as I believe there were numerous safety and welfare concerns.”
Submissions of Respondent
[10] Mr McLaughlin presented the following written submissions on behalf of the Respondent:
“Prior to Race 11, trainer Mr Blair Shaw came to the Stewards Room and requested his greyhound BEE OSTEE be late scratched [in Race 12] as he felt that his runner would not suit the prevailing track conditions in respect to the wellbeing of his runner.
He stated that 3 starts previous where the greyhound had run over 520 metres he was at the veterinarians the next day with BEE OSTEE on a drip for acidosis (excess lactic acid).
I advised Mr Shaw that I did not think it was of relevance and although the track had been downgraded to Heavy there was no evidence that the track was unsafe for racing.
Mr Shaw was asked to come back after Race 11 where he again stated that he would not line BEE OSTEE up.
Prior to Race 12 BEE OSTEE was presented to the Club’s Veterinarian and underwent a veterinary inspection where it was passed fit to race.
Mr Michael Zarb relayed that information to me. I asked if Mr Shaw was going to race the greyhound. He confirmed no.
I had no option but to scratch BEE OSTEE from Race 12 when it was apparent that Mr Shaw was not going to present the runner at the boxes.
BEE OSTEE was scratched approximately 8 minutes prior to post time.
Mr Shaw came to the Stewards` Room after the running of Race 12 where I presented him with the information alleging a breach of Rule 64.2.
Mr Shaw defended the charge and subsequently appealed.
The Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club meeting on 8th October 2013 was a 12-race programme with capacity fields drawn to compete. 96 greyhounds accepted to race.
There had been considerable overnight rain and the day had continued to be very wet with a further 18 mls of rain falling throughout the race meeting.
At 7.30am the Club had declared with the TAB and Greyhound Racing New Zealand that the day was raining and the track at that stage was rated Dead.
The forecast was for rain throughout the day which eventuated.
After Race 2 Stewards in consultation with Track Manager A Jopson agreed to keep all machinery off the track as we were concerned that the tyre marks from the tractor may fill with water and make the racing surface unsafe. After Race 6 the track was downgraded to a Heavy rating.
Greyhound Racing New Zealand official track ratings are Fast, Good, Dead and Heavy.
The track record for 295 metres on the Greyhound Racing New Zealand website is 16.84 seconds.
The raceday was a low-class meeting made up of two classes – 2 Class 0 races and 10 Class 1 races.
(Mr McLaughlin produced a track penetrometer report which was carried out in the presence of Mr Michael Zarb (RIU). He also produced race times for the meeting on 8th October and 15th October (Good track) and, for comparison, times for the meeting on 4th June (Heavy track).
BEE OSTEE raced on a Heavy track at Addington on 4th June 2013 over 295 metres in Race 11 on a 12-race programme and finished 4th, 4.4 metres from the winner. The time for the race was 17.89 seconds made up from a lead time of 5.99 seconds and run home of 11.90 seconds. BEE OSTEE has her next start on the 10th of June, some six days later.
Reasons for Decision
[11] The issue before the Tribunal is simple. Did Mr Shaw have “a valid reason” for late scratching his greyhound, BEE OSTEE, from Race 12 at the meeting of Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club at Addington Raceway on 8th October 2013?
[12] Mr Shaw argued that, essentially, he was concerned for the safety and welfare of the dog having observed the runners pulling up after Race 11. In his submissions, he stated that he observed that they were “suffering from blindness, choking and exhaustion caused from the sloppy conditions of the racing surface”.
[13] Mr Shaw advised the Stipendiary Stewards prior to Race 12 that he was not going to present BEE OSTEE for the race. Mr McLaughlin then had a veterinary inspection of BEE OSTEE carried out which revealed that the dog had no injury that would prevent it from racing. When it became apparent that Mr Shaw was not going to present BEE OSTEE for the race, the Stewards had no alternative but to withdraw the dog. [14] In the Tribunal’s view, the test for whether Mr Shaw had a valid reason for withdrawing BEE OSTEE is an objective one – in other words, the reason should be fact-based, measurable and observable. Mr Shaw had made a subjective assessment based on his personal opinion, emotion and judgment.
[14] Looking then at the circumstances objectively, there was no actual evidence presented by Mr Shaw that the track conditions were unsafe or, similarly, that the safety or welfare of his greyhound would have been endangered. He submitted that there were “numerous safety and welfare concerns” but he did not elaborate on these. We heard evidence that the track conditions had deteriorated throughout the course of the race meeting and, in fact, had been downgraded from Dead at the start of racing to Heavy after Race 6.
[15] It is significant that the Rules make no provision for late scratching as of right in the event of a material change in track conditions. It is also significant that, we were informed, no other trainer had attempted to late scratch any greyhound in any of the races. There was no evidence before us that the track was unsafe or was likely to pose a danger to the safety or welfare of any runner.
[16] That change of track conditions, of itself, does not amount to a valid reason. Furthermore, Mr McLaughlin produced evidence that BEE OSTEE had raced on a Heavy track at Addington on 4th June 2013 and finished in 4th placing, 4.4 lengths from the winner. It appears that it did not suffer any ill effects as, the Tribunal noted; it raced again six days later.
[17] We were impressed with Mr Shaw’s sincerity and we do not doubt that he had a genuine concern for the safety and welfare of BEE OSTEE in withdrawing it from its engagement in Race 12 at the race meeting.
[18] However, as stated above, the validity of the reason for late scratching must be assessed objectively. Adopting an objective test, the Tribunal is satisfied that no valid reason existed for Mr Shaw’s withdrawing his greyhound, BEE OSTEE, from Race 12 at Addington on 8th October 2013.
[19] His reasons, no matter how genuinely held, were not in the Tribunal’s view sufficient to justify the late scratching of BEE OSTEE.
[20] This Tribunal is very conscious of the need to have regard to animal welfare. This must always be a consideration. However, we are not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence before us that animal welfare was an issue on this occasion.
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
[21] Accordingly, this Tribunal dismisses Mr Shaw’s appeal. The decision of the Stipendiary Stewards to fine Mr Shaw the sum of $150 and to stand down BEE OSTEE for 28 days is upheld.
R G McKenzie K G Hales
Chair Committee Member
hearing_type: Non-race day
Rules: 64.6
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent: for the Respondent, Mr N G McIntyre - Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr B R Shaw - Appellant, Mr J M McLaughlin - Stipendiary Steward, Mr S P Renault - Registrar
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: