NZGRA Request for Review R Waite v RIU – Written Decision dated 26 July 2019 – Chair, Mr T Utikere

hearingid: e67276aea93629cb7fd74198ecf1599d

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 26/07/2019

hearing_title: NZGRA Request for Review R Waite v RIU - Written Decision dated 26 July 2019 - Chair, Mr T Utikere

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE AN APPEALS TRIBUNAL OF THE

JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY

UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003

------IN THE MATTER of the Rules of Greyhound Racing

BETWEEN R WAITE

Appellant

AND-RACING INTEGRITY UNIT

Respondent

Appeals Tribunal:-Mr T Utikere (Chairman)

Mr N McCutcheon (Member)

Parties:--Mr R Waite (as the Appellant)

Mr M Austin (for the RIU)

Hearing:--23 July 2019 at Hatrick Raceway, Whanganui

WRITTEN DECISION OF APPEALS TRIBUNAL DATED 26 JULY 2019

FACTS

[1] At the Wanganui Greyhound Racing Club's Meeting held at Hatrick Raceway on Wednesday 10 July 2019, the greyhound MISCHIEF SEEKER trained by Mr R Waite started in Race 15, the Laser Plumbing C1 over 305 metres.

[2] Following the race, the Stipendiary Stewards stood down MISCHIEF SEEKER for 12 months under Rule 55.1(b) for Failing to Pursue the Lure (Third Offence). It was also ordered to complete a trial to the satisfaction of a Stipendiary Steward prior to its return to racing.

[3] Rule 55.1 in its entirety states:

“Where a Greyhound:

(a) -Mars the running of any other Greyhound during a Race; or

(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, twenty-eight (28) days and until the completion of a Satisfactory Trial; or

(d) -in the case of a second offence under Rule 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, or

(e) -in the case of a third or subsequent offence, under Rule 55.1 (which for clarity need-not be the same offence as the first offence under that subsection), twelve (12) months and until the completion of a Satisfactory Trial.”

[4] This Tribunal is in receipt of the Notice of Appointment and a copy of the Notice of Appeal. On 15 July Mr Waite applied for a review of the decision of the Stipendiary Stewards in accordance with Rule 55.11. His reason for disagreeing with the decision of the Stewards was that he did not believe there was sufficient evidence to prove that MISCHIEF SEEKER had Failed to Pursue the Lure. This matter was set down for an in person hearing at Hatrick Raceway on Tuesday 23 July.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIU

[5] At the commencement of the hearing, it was agreed that the RIU would present its submissions first, followed by the Appellant. Mr Austin tabled copies of the Stewards Report for the race meeting on 10 July 2019 along with the racing history for the greyhound MISCHIEF SEEKER.

[6] Mr Austin stated that post-race, MISCHIEF SEEKER had been sent to be vetted and received the all clear with no injuries or abnormalities. After reviewing the available films, he made the decision to stand the dog down for Failing to Pursue the Lure.

[7] Under the Rules, the dog could have been presented within 72 hours if connections believed the dog to be injured. If an injury were to be confirmed, then the Failure to Pursue classification would have been rescinded. Mr Austin confirmed that Mr Waite had been informed of this on 11 July, but that he did not take advantage of that opportunity.

[8] Mr Austin played the available films of the alleged incident. There were a total of four views simultaneously played on a split screen. He identified MISCHIEF SEEKER in the No. 4 rug, indicating that the dog had jumped well and had worked its way to the lead. As the dog turned for home, the RIU contention was that it had turned its head on more than one occasion and eased.

[9] Using the head-on view, Mr Austin confirmed that the dog had been wearing blinkers, had eased outwards and that this was evidenced by following the dog’s movement relative to the strip in the sand. He believed that MISCHIEF SEEKER had eventually made contact with the No. 6 dog racing to it’s outside and had eased for at least three strides; allowing the other dog to get the advantage and go on and win the race.

[10] Mr Austin pointed out his belief that the dog had turned its head outwards on three occasions prior to making contact with the outer dog; and had also eased for two to three strides at the same time. In response to a question from the Tribunal, Mr Austin identified that there would be no other discernible body movement on the part of the dog from the head-on view to indicate it had turned its head, except for the obvious movement of the head.

[11] The RIU tabled an extract from a Veterinary Manual to indicate that dogs have 75% more peripheral vision and can have more acute hearing than humans. This was used to confirm that even if a dog was racing in blinkers, it would still be aware of other dogs positioned adjacent to them.

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE APPELLANT

[12] Mr Waite used the back straight film to point out that MISCHIEF SEEKER had been squeezed up at the point of dispatch, but that there was no indication at that stage in the race that there was some form of irregular head movement. Mr Waite described it as not being MISCHIEF SEEKER’s natural motion, even when he had been squeezed up, as evidenced on the films.

[13] Using the head-on film in the final straight, the Appellant pointed out that MISCHIEF SEEKER had moved out, but that the No. 6 dog had moved in, and that once contact had been made, MISCHIEF SEEKER had moved away. While Mr Waite agreed that there was a 75% differential in peripheral vision, the dog had blinkers on and this meant it was difficult to see when the dog had turned its head outwards on the available films.

[14] He reiterated his belief that his dog was starting to tire in the straight, and that the film footage was inconclusive in establishing that MISCHIEF SEEKER had voluntarily turned its head or that it had eased up. While he accepted that the dog had a reputation for some bad behaviour in the past, the lack of evidence on this occasion meant it was unfair to have the dog stood down for 12 months as this was unjustified. Mr Waite also advised the Tribunal that MISCHIEF SEEKER had worn blinkers four times and that it had not worn blinkers when the dog had previously failed to pursue the lure.

CLOSING SUBMISSIONS

[15] Mr Austin reiterated that the RIU opinion on the day meant that stipendiary stewards were required to evaluate and make a considered determination. On that basis, it was his judgement that the dog had turned its head slightly on three occasions and had eased. The dog had been vetted and returned a clear result, so in his professional view he believed the dog had failed to pursue the lure and that the 12 month stand down was warranted.

[16] Mr Waite confirmed that he understood he had a 72 hour window to present the dog to the vet following the race if he had any concerns about possible injuries his dog had sustained. However, he felt the dog did not have an injury so no check was required. He described MISCHIEF SEEKER as ‘not a young dog anymore’, so a 12 months stand down would effectively signal the end of his racing career. Finally, Mr Waite reiterated that what had been imposed was a harsh penalty for an inconclusive set of circumstances.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[17] The Tribunal has reviewed the available films at some length, and in particular the head-on and side-on angles.

‘Failing to Pursue the Lure’ is specifically defined 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.”

[18] This means there are three limbs to the definition, and we form the view that the RIU need only establish that one of the limbs have occurred for the definition of Failing to Pursue to be met. In the context of the current Appeal, the RIU rely on the first two limbs; that is that MISCHIEF SEEKER either voluntarily turned its head without making contact with another Greyhound, or that the dog had voluntarily eased up.

[19] We have had the opportunity to review the race in its entirety, and we form the view that there is no issue with the dog’s movement from the point of dispatch as identified by Mr Waite. Our assessment of the films establishes that approaching the home turn, the dog clearly moves out upon straightening. It is clear to us that soon after entering the straight the dog was showing signs of capitulation and weakening.

[20] We form the view that based on our assessment of the available films, which are not of a clear or refined standard, it is difficult for us to ascertain with a degree of certainty that there was a voluntary turning outwards of the dog’s head prior to contact with the No. 6 dog. We simply cannot tell for sure from the films, nor can we ascertain any voluntary easing for MISCHIEF SEEKER. The dog simply appears to have come to the end of its run, as after contact it did not appear to pick up any speed.

[21] As soon as contact was made, the No. 4 dog, wearing blinkers, immediately shifted back towards the running rail in the face of the No. 6 dog continuing to shift inwards until the conclusion of the race.

[22] Therefore, due to the lack of certainty before us, the Review must succeed. Accordingly, we find that there is insufficient evidence to reach the determination that MISCHIEF SEEKER Failed to Pursue the Lure in relation to Race 15 of the Wanganui Greyhound Meeting at Hatrick Raceway on 10 July 2019.

DECISION

[23] The outcome of the review is that the raceday decision of the Stipendiary Stewards to stand down MISCHIEF SEEKER for a period of 12 months is rescinded. The requirement to satisfactorily trial prior to racing next is also rescinded.

[24] Any Appeal Fee that has been paid is forfeited to the JCA. The Tribunal also declines to exercise any discretion in relation to any costs that may have been incurred by the JCA or either party.

Signed at Palmerston North this 26th day of July 2019.

Mr Tangi Utikere

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: