NZGRA Request for Review M Roberts v RIU – Written Decision dated 25 June 2018 – Chair, Prof G Hall

hearingid: e3b867ba168f742ac2f64a70c0016241

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 25/06/2018

hearing_title: NZGRA Request for Review M Roberts v RIU - Written Decision dated 25 June 2018 - Chair, Prof G Hall

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF

THE JCA IN WANGANUI

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

BETWEEN

MATT ROBERTS, Licensed Trainer

Applicant

AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)

Respondent

Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman

Mrs N Moffatt, Member

Appearing: The Applicant in person

Mr M Austin, Stipendiary Steward, for the Respondent

Date of oral decision: 22 June 2018

Date of written decision: 25 June 2018

WRITTEN DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

[1] On 18 June 2018 the Palmerston North Greyhound Racing Club held a race meeting at the Manawatu Raceway. The Chairman of Stewards at the meeting was Mr M Austin and his deputy on the day was Mr B Bateup.

[2] The dog in question, CAWBOURNE LIZ, is trained by Licensed Public Trainer, Mr M Roberts of Marton.

[3] CAWBOURNE LIZ competed in Race 4, the BROOKS TIMING C1 HEAT 3, and was stood down for 28 days and required to complete a satisfactory trial for failing to pursue the lure. This is an alleged breach of r 55.1.b of the GRNZ Rules of Racing.

[4] The relevant rule that the dog was suspended under reads as follows:

55.1 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] Mr Roberts’ ground for review is that the dog had not failed to pursue the lure.

[6] CAWBOURNE LIZ has had eight starts; four in Australia and four in New Zealand — this was the dog’s second start at the Manawatu raceway and she had previously jumped from the 375 metres boxes.

[7] On the day in question CAWBOURNE LIZ was referred to the veterinarian post-race and cleared of any injury.

[8] Mr Austin viewed the videos with Mr Roberts on the day and expressed the Stewards’ concerns to him. After discussing the matter with Mr Bateup again, he confirmed the Stewards’ decision to stand the dog down. Mr Roberts replied he would seek a review of the decision.

Applicant’s submissions

[9] Mr Roberts commenced his case by stating CAWBOURNE LIZ had never failed to chase the lure. The dog had turned her head inwards trying to find the lure in order to pursue.

[10] Mr Roberts alleged that CAWBOURNE LIZ had never faltered in her stride and had impressively won the race. He emphasised there had been no hesitation on her part.

[11] Mr Roberts stated that at the 375 metres start at Palmerston North it was common for dogs to angle inwards and that was what CAWBOURNE LIZ was doing on this occasion. He said that the boxes were some distance from the rail and once CAWBOURNE LIZ realised the lure was in front of her, she had straightened her head and pushed straight to the front. He believed a contributing factor was the trip point and said that trainers had complained that the lure comes through very fast.

[12] Mr Roberts accepted that the lure was in front of the dog when she turned her head. He emphasised the weather conditions were murky on the day and the lure was dirty. He thought CAWBOURNE LIZ might have been struggling to see the lure. When questioned as to whether dogs reacted to the noise of the lure, he agreed that they did but it was difficult for dogs to determine where the lure was by sound.

[13] Mr Roberts submitted that CAWBOURNE LIZ had not voluntarily turned her head but was looking left to find the lure as she had not been able to identify it in front of her, and therefore she had not failed to pursue.

[14] When the fact that the other dogs’ heads were not turned in the fashion that CAWBOURNE LIZ’s was at the time was raised by this Committee, he replied that this was correct but all dogs were different.

[15] Mr Roberts said that CAWBOURNE LIZ was an inexperienced dog and this was only the second time she had raced on the track. The first time the dog had drawn box 8 and had been slow away.

[16] Mr Roberts questioned why a dog in race 1 had not been stood down as he believed its actions were no different to those of CAWBOURNE LIZ. Mr Austin replied the Stewards had reviewed the race and had concluded that the dog in question had jumped awkwardly and then straightened up.

Respondent’s submissions

[17] Mr Austin stated that he was Chairman of Stewards on the day and had made the decision that the dog had failed to pursue the lure as per r 55.1.b.

[18] Mr Austin referred to the definition of “Fails to Pursue The Lure” in the 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.”

[19] Mr Austin said that although CAWBOURNE LIZ had won the race, when viewing both the race and replays the Stewards were concerned that soon after the start CAWBOURNE LIZ had voluntarily turned her head for two strides towards the dogs to her inside.

[20] Mr Austin demonstrated by synchronising the videos that the lure had clearly gone ahead of the boxes and that the other dogs had not turned their heads, only CAWBOURNE LIZ.

[21] Mr Austin said that where the dog finished in the race was irrelevant. All dogs had to pursue with due commitment throughout the race. There could be no discount for track attributes or for a dog’s dislike of a track or a dog being distracted.

[22] Mr Austin agreed that weather conditions on the day were murky but he believed it had got worse later in the day. It was not that bad for race 4. He agreed the lure could get unclean but it was not an impediment to any dog in race 4.

[23] Stewards were not concerned about the first two strides that CAWBOURNE LIZ had taken on leaving the boxes. However, it was evident that after the initial jump CAWBOURNE LIZ had turned her head away from the lure for two strides. Mr Austin emphasised he did not believe CAWBOURNE LIZ was looking for the lure but rather she was looking at the dogs to her inner. The lure was directly in front of the greyhound and, in the Stewards’ opinion, had “well and truly gone past” the boxes.

Summing up

[24] Mr Roberts responded that CAWBOURNE LIZ was a length ahead of the 2, 3 and 4 dogs. Only the 1 dog was there. He did not believe she was looking at that dog, which was some distance away, and CAWBOURNE LIZ had never drifted into the line of that dog. She had corrected herself and found the lure. She had gone to the front and there had been no hesitation. The dog had never voluntarily turned her head away from the lure.

[25] Mr Austin stated that he did not agree that CAWBOURNE LIZ had not hesitated. He believed she had. With respect to her running towards the 1 dog, he said there was no charge of marring or her attempting to do so.

[26] Mr Austin concluded his summing up by stating the dog had been distracted momentarily for two strides, had looked to her inside at the other dogs, hesitated, and failed to pursue.

Decision

[27] We have studied the videos carefully. The head-on shows that for two strides CAWBOURNE LIZ’s head was focused in the direction of the lure as the dog jumped out of box 5. At the end of the second stride on exiting the box, CAWBOURNE LIZ has lost her focus and her head is no longer pointing forward towards the lure. We are satisfied that at this time the lure is some distance ahead of the boxes and had long gone past the direction in which CAWBOURNE LIZ’s head is pointing.

[28] CAWBOURNE LIZ has made a conscious decision to divert her attention away from the lure and to the dogs to her inside. It is a very pronounced turn of the head. It is for two strides and is while the dog’s body is still facing forward although angled slightly inwards in the direction in which the dog is running.

[29] To recap. We are satisfied that for the first two strides when CAWBOURNE LIZ jumped from the boxes she was chasing. The dog has then angled her head on quite an acute angle to the inside of the track when free of interference. It was only for two strides and from that point the dog has straightened her head and chased the lure. There is no concern with the dog’s racing performance from this point on.

[30] However, we do not accept Mr Roberts’ assertion that CAWBOURNE LIZ did not hesitate. We believe during the two strides that she looked left she lost a fraction of her momentum.

[31] Significantly, in our view, CAWBOURNE LIZ’s head was voluntarily turned away from the lure at the time the dog was looking inwards on the track towards the 1 dog. We thus find that CAWBOURNE LIZ, while free of interference, has voluntarily turned her head and thus has failed to pursue the lure as is required by r 55.1.b.

[32] The review is unsuccessful and the raceday stand down and requirement to trial is confirmed.

Dated at Dunedin this 25th day of June 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: