Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v D Stapleton 12 December 2013 – Decision dated 17 December 2013

hearingid: b0d0365a92ae3cc62af978b4ef3f5850

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 17/12/2013

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v D Stapleton 12 December 2013 - Decision dated 17 December 2013

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH

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

IN THE MATTER of Information No.A5200

BETWEEN N M YDGREN, Stipendiary Steward For the Racing Integrity Unit

Informant

AND DEANE STAPLETON of Rakaia, Licensed Public Trainer

Respondent 

Judicial Committee: Mr R G McKenzie, Chairman - Mr S C Ching, Committee Member

Present: Mr N M Ydgren, the Informant

Date of Hearing: 12 December 2013

Date of Decision: 17 December 2013

RESERVED DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

The Charge

[1] Information No.A5200 alleges that:

That on the 6th day of December 2013, being the person responsible for the nomination and acceptance of the registered greyhound OCHE (a 2.2 year old black bitch by the sire Bond from the bitch Genista Summer) an acceptor for Race 4 a 295 metre event at a race meeting being conducted by the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club at Addington Raceway on that day, you in fact presented LA FONTAINE a 2.2 year old black bitch (by the sire Bond from the bitch Genista Summer) for the purpose of competing in such race as OCHE, AND that in doing so you were negligent.

[2] Mr Ydgren produced a letter signed by Mr M R Godber, General Manager of the Racing Integrity Unit, authorising the lodging of the information.

The Rule

[3] Rule 88 of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association provides as follows:

88.1 Any person (including an official) commits an offence if he/she:

o. has, in relation to a Greyhound or Greyhound racing, done a thing, or omitted to do a thing which is negligent, dishonest, corrupt, fraudulent or improper, or constitutes misconduct.

The Plea

[4] Mr Stapleton had signed the Statement by the Respondent on the information form indicating that he admitted the breach of the Rule. Mr Ydgren confirmed that Mr Stapleton did not wish to be present at the hearing of the information.

[5] Mr Stapleton having admitted the breach, the charge was found proved.

Summary of Facts

[6] Mr Ydgren presented a written Summary of Facts as follows:

1. On Friday the 6th day of December 2013 the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held a race meeting at Addington Raceway.

2. The programme for the meeting showed that Race 4 on the day was the Racingdogs.co.nz sprint to be conducted over 295 metres by dogs classed at C0.

3. Dog number 3 in that race was shown to be OCHE, a two year old black bitch (Bond-Genista Summer). The dog was trained by Licensed Trainer, Mr Deane Stapleton.

4. The ear brand for this dog was listed as ZAATE.

5. Mr Deane Stapleton was not attending the race meeting and so had arranged transport for his dogs with Licensed Trainer, Mr Andy McCook.

6. During the allocated time the dog was presented at the Veterinary inspection table by Mr McCook. At this point its microchip and ear brand were checked for identification purposes. This task was completed by Kennelling staff member, Jim Smith.

7. It then became apparent that the chip number in the dog was not consistent with the number on the same dog’s identification chart. The dog’s ear brand was also different to its card.

8. The dog being inspected was later discovered to be another two year old black bitch called LA FONTAINE which was also trained by Mr Deane Stapleton.

9. Mr McCook returned the dog to the vehicle it had arrived in and organised for the correct dog to be brought to the racecourse.

10. Mr Stapleton was contacted at this point and notified of the incident.

11. At a subsequent interview at his kennels Mr Stapleton advised that three dogs, who were all litter sisters, arrived at his property in close proximity to each other. Their identities were immediately mistaken and the correct identity of LA FONTAINE and OCHE had remained confused until this point.

12. The brands of the two confused dogs were only different by one symbol. ZAATE for OCHE and ZAATC for LA FONTAINE. Of note, however, is that LA FONTAINE does have a considerably sized white chest blaze (photographs produced).

13. On the 26th day of November 2013 at 11.45am Mr Stapleton phoned GRNZ to advise them he had taken into his training care the two dogs. Mr Stapleton had made no endeavour to cross check the brand in the dogs’ ears with those on the computer.

The Penalty Rule

[7] The penalty Rule is Rule 89.1 which provides:

Any person found guilty of an offence under these Rules shall be liable to:

a. A fine not exceeding $10,000.00 for any one offence; and/or

b. Suspension; and/or

c. Disqualification; and/or

d. Warning off.

Penalty Submissions by the Informant

[8] Mr Ydgren presented written penalty submissions as follows:

1. Mr Stapleton has a clear penalty record for alleged breaches of this Rule.

2. Mr Stapleton when spoken to regarding the matter admitted fault immediately. He has been entirely cooperative throughout the proceeding and has conducted himself in a very professional manner. Mr Stapleton has taken full responsibility for his actions.

3. The dog was presented to race in an official race. This is not a desirable incident. However, it is somewhat lessened by the fact that the right dog was able to be presented eventually which meant that nobody with an investment on the race suffered.

4. A breach of this Rule is a Serious Racing Offence.

5. The failure to check the brand of the dog at any stage was a basic error and should not have occurred. If not for the vigilance of the kennel staff the result for Mr Stapleton and the racing industry as a whole could have been disastrous.

6. Mr Ydgren referred to six recent cases in the thoroughbred and harness codes for presenting the wrong horse for a race or trial in which the fines ranged from $400 to $600.)

7. It is widely accepted that penalties in Greyhound racing such as positive drug samples are significantly lower than that of Thoroughbred and Harness [racing] and for that reason submit that the above noted penalties are excessive in this instance.

8. The RIU feel this matter can be dealt with by means of a fine.

9. We submit that a fine of between $300 and $350 is appropriate and make no application for costs.

Submissions of the Respondent

[9] Mr Stapleton had filed written submissions. Those submissions are set out verbatim hereunder.

“On Friday 6th December I had a greyhound named OCHE that was entered in Race 4 at the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club’s meeting held at Addington.

I sent the dog to the races in my vehicle with trainer Andrew McCook which was loaded up by one of my workers Peter Seque. When OCHE was presented to kennel it was found that it was in fact her litter sister LA FONTAINE that was being presented. At that time Andrew contacted me to tell me of the error and I quickly phoned Peter and got him to bring OCHE to the track and present her to the kennels with the Stipendiary Stewards permission.

This has come about as when we received these two greyhounds from Jason Dunn, former kennel foreman Stuart Barber collected the dogs and when they arrived home he told us what dog was what and we kennelled them accordingly. The dogs have different markings and so I didn’t check that he had it right as he was always very reliable with duties like that.

Therefore this was a genuine honest mistake that the wrong dog was taken to the track on Friday. I understand that I as the registered trainer should have been more careful and checked the dogs more closely but as I said before I completely trusted that this was done at the time of picking them up. With my kennel growing in numbers lately I trust that my staff have undertaken every job carefully and I will be taking a more active role in ensuring this from now on.

I have raced many dogs throughout the South Island and even the lower North Island for a number of years and I have never had any problem such as this happen before.

I was fortunate that this dog was entered for Christchurch and not a track further away so that the mistake could be rectified before any other trainer, owner or betting public were affected by my error. As this is in fact the case, that nobody was affected by this error and I understand that I am to take more care in the future then I believe that a warning should be sufficient in this case.”

Reasons for Penalty

[10] The principal mitigating factors are Mr Stapleton’s admission of the breach and his previous good record. His admission of the breach was tempered somewhat by the fact that, in his penalty submissions, he did not fully accept the blame for the two dogs being confused in the first place. He merely acknowledged that he “should have been more careful and checked the dogs more closely”. It was Mr Stapleton’s clear responsibility, as the trainer of the dogs, to personally verify the identity of those dogs and he was negligent not to have done so. The identity of animals when they arrive at a trainer’s kennels should be verified, by that trainer, as a matter of routine. A trainer should not trust information from an owner or staff member.

[11] An aggravating factor is that the dog was presented to race at a totalisator meeting as opposed to a trial. The consequences of the wrong greyhound starting in the race, it goes without saying, could have been serious. Mr Ydgren made reference to this in his penalty submissions. Fortunately, the vigilance of the kennelling staff member, Mr Smith, prevented this happening and the correct greyhound was able to be brought to the racecourse and compete in the race.

[12] Mr Ydgren referred to penalties in a number of previous cases in thoroughbred and harness racing involving presenting the wrong horse either for a trial or a race. Those fines ranged from $400 at the lower end to $600 at the top end. We were not made aware of any previous cases involving greyhounds. There is a common thread running through most of those cases and that is that the particular trainer had not checked the brands of the horse when it arrived at his or her stable. The number of cases is quite alarming.

[13] Mr Ydgren submitted that penalties in Greyhound Racing are “significantly lower” than in the other codes and, for that reason, he submitted that a fine of between $300 and $350 was appropriate in this case.

[14] The Committee accepts Mr Ydgren’s submission that penalties in the Greyhound code are, generally speaking, lower than in the other two codes.

[15] Furthermore, we accept Mr Ydgren’s submission that a fine in the range of $300 to $350 is appropriate.

[16] The Committee is of the view that the degree of negligence is in the mid to high range and, for that reason, we propose to adopt a figure at the higher end of the range submitted by Mr Ydgren.

Penalty

[17] Mr Stapleton is fined the sum of $350.00.

Costs

[18] Mr Ydgren did not seek costs on behalf of the Racing Integrity Unit. Mr Stapleton is ordered to pay the sum of $200 towards the costs of the Judicial Control Authority.

R G McKENZIE             S C CHING

Chairman                    Committee Member 

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: