Appeal – C Weir v NZGRA 16 February 2010 decision

hearingid: 77eeb5e38a19f5556f52ba7ea90d9bcf

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing

startdate: 01/01/2001

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: no date provided

hearing_title: Appeal - C Weir v NZGRA 16 February 2010 decision

charge:

facts:

appealdecision:

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE THE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH

IN THE MATTER OF the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association

BETWEEN C. Weir

  Appellant

AND New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association

  Respondent

Tribunal:   Mr J. M. Phelan (Chairman),  Mr J. Millar

Appearing:   Mr C. Weir in person
                       Mr P. L. Harper for the Respondent

Date of Hearing:  16 February 2010

Date of Decision:

DECISION OF APPEAL TRIBUNAL

[1] This is an appeal by Trainer Mr C. Weir against a suspension imposed on his greyhound “Jay O’Mac” on 19 January 2010.  On that date “Jay O’Mac” started in Race 18 at the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club’s race meeting held at Addington raceway.

[2] Following the running of this race it was alleged that “Jay O’Mac” had failed to pursue the lure in breach of Rule 80.1.b., and after a race day judicial hearing “Jay O’Mac” was suspended for a period of 12 months, this being its third offence.

[3] Present at this hearing were the appellant (“Mr Weir”) and Mr P. L. Harper, representing Greyhound Racing New Zealand.

[4]  It was established that there was no transcript of the hearing held on 19 January 2010, and for this reason, in accordance with Rule 97.4, it was decided that this matter would be reheard.

BEFORE THE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH

IN THE MATTER OF the Rules of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association

BETWEEN C. Weir

  Appellant

AND New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association

  Respondent

Tribunal:   Mr J. M. Phelan (Chairman),  Mr J. Millar

Appearing:   Mr C. Weir in person
                       Mr P. L. Harper for the Respondent

Date of Hearing:  16 February 2010

Date of Decision:

DECISION OF APPEAL TRIBUNAL

[1] This is an appeal by Trainer Mr C. Weir against a suspension imposed on his greyhound “Jay O’Mac” on 19 January 2010.  On that date “Jay O’Mac” started in Race 18 at the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club’s race meeting held at Addington raceway.

[2] Following the running of this race it was alleged that “Jay O’Mac” had failed to pursue the lure in breach of Rule 80.1.b., and after a race day judicial hearing “Jay O’Mac” was suspended for a period of 12 months, this being its third offence.

[3] Present at this hearing were the appellant (“Mr Weir”) and Mr P. L. Harper, representing Greyhound Racing New Zealand.

[4]  It was established that there was no transcript of the hearing held on 19 January 2010, and for this reason, in accordance with Rule 97.4, it was decided that this matter would be reheard.

[5] Video coverage of the race was viewed in the presence of both parties on numerous occasions.  This was a 520 metre race which began at the top of the home straight.  “Jay O’Mac” raced handy early and went to the lead down the back straight.  It was passed by other dogs coming round the final bend, but ran on again late in the race to finish in 4th place. 

[6] During the hearing it was established that “Jay O’Mac” was an Australian greyhound which had been imported by Mr Weir in about July 2009.  It had last raced in Australia at Geelong on 12 June 2009, and after this race it had been charged with “….failing to pursue the lure with due commitment….”, and it was suspended for three months, this being its second such offence.  It was confirmed by Mr Harper that the Australian Rules of Greyhound Racing are the same as the New Zealand Rules, and that suspensions imposed in Australia are effective in New Zealand.

 Mr Harper called evidence from the following witnesses.

[7] Mr Peter Knowles gave evidence that he is the lure driver and has been so employed for about 20 years, and for all the time that greyhound racing has been conducted at Addington Raceway, which is about 12 years.

[8] This witness said that he recalled that there had been a lure failure in Race 17 that day, and that a replacement lure had been used for Race 18.  This witness said that the lure’s speed had been the same as for all races. He also said that it appeared to him that on the home bend “Jay O’Mac” had stopped chasing the lure.

[9] Mr Knowles, when questioned by Mr Weir about a “grinding” noise, said that he was unaware of such a noise.  He was also asked about the apparent difference in the speed of the lure at trial meetings.  Mr Knowles explained that the lure was driven differently when inexperienced greyhounds were being trialled, and that he adjusted the speed of the lure to suit the field.

[10] It was also put to Mr Knowles that in this particular race the lure sped up around the home bend.  Mr Knowles repeated that the lure was driven at the same speed and at the same distance in front of the leading dog as in all the other races, and confirmed that it was travelling at between 5 and 8 metres in front of the leading dog.

[11] Graham McCormick was the race starter on this day.  He said that during this race he was standing by the starting boxes at the top of the home straight, and quite close to Mr Weir.  This witness said that “Jay O’Mac” wasn’t chasing hard down the back straight, and coming around the home bend it was turning its head and almost running the other dogs off the track, although “Jay O’Mac” was not “having a go” at the other dogs.

[12]  Mr Weir, when asked, had no questions to put to Mr McCormick.  After Mr McCormick had been excused Mr Weir said that he felt “uncomfortable” when Mr McCormick gave his evidence.  On going into this matter it was established that Mr Weir and Mr McCormick both worked part time for the same greyhound trainer.  It was also established that Mr Weir did not socialise with him, and that there was no other reason why Mr McCormick might be biased.  We find that there was no reason why Mr McCormick’s evidence might have been considered to be biased.  It is also relevant that other witnesses gave similar evidence.

[13] Mr Graham Van Tongeren, the club’s electrician, gave evidence that there was a malfunction with the lure in Race 17, and that this resulted in that race being abandoned.  The witness said that this is not an uncommon occurrence, and that other lures are always on standby.  The lure was replaced for Race 18 and there was no incident in this race relating to the lure.

[14] Mr Weir put it to the witness that the lure had sped up when it came to the point where the lure had broken down in the previous race, so as to get past that point without incident.  The witness said that there was no reason to do this as the rail was unaffected by the previous breakdown.

[15] Mr Weir also asked if there had been a change of noise on the rail with the replacement lure.  The witness said that there could have been, and this would depend on how tight the lure had been put on, but that the lure driver would be quick to have this problem corrected.

[16] When the video coverage of this race had been shown earlier in the hearing, Mr Weir said that he had been assured that there was video coverage taken from a different angle to those shown today.  Mr Harper said that there were only two video angles available, these being the overall view of the race, and the front on view of the start of the race.  Mr Weir said that he had been told by Mr Music that there was another view available for the race.  

[17] Mr Tony Music, CEO of the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club, gave evidence that he had not told Mr Weir that a third video angle was available.  He said that it had been discussed that this would have been helpful had it been available.  Mr Music explained that a third camera had been trialled on some occasions, but that it was not available on this day.

[18] Mr Music also said that there were two cameras available on this day.  The first one was sited on the top floor, and this gave an overall view of the race.  The second camera is moved around so that it gives a look down the front or back straight towards the starting boxes, and this depends on the distance of the race.

[19] After hearing this evidence Mr Weir accepted that he was mistaken in believing that an additional video angle was available.

[20]  Mr Harper gave evidence that he was the Stipendiary Steward officiating at this race meeting.  He said that “Jay O’Mac” pulled up for two strides going down the back straight.  Rounding the bend it turned its head outwards and again eased, although it did not make contact with the other dogs. 

[21]  Mr Harper also said that the Rules (Rule 80.2) provide that a dog which fails to pursue the lure is to be examined by a Veterinarian, which he arranged for.  The examination disclosed no injury or other reason to explain why “Jay O’Mac” failed to pursue the lure.

[22] Mr Harper said that after considering the facts of this matter he decided that “Jay O’Mac” had failed to pursue the lure and it was suspended for 12 months, this being its third such breach.

[23]  Mr Weir asked Mr Harper to clarify his evidence regarding his dog turning its head on two occasions. It was also put to Mr Harper that “Jay O’Mac” had received an injury that would have accounted for the way it raced.  Mr Harper did not accept that this was the case, and also pointed out that an injury to his dog was not included as a ground for his appeal.

[24]  The question of whether Mr Weir should be allowed to raise an injury to his dog as an additional ground for this appeal was discussed.  Rule 97.5 provides that no appellant shall argue or be permitted to argue any ground of appeal not set out in the notice of appeal.

[25]  We decided that we would hear Mr Weir’s evidence on this matter, and decide later whether we would allow him to rely on this additional ground.

[26]  It was Mr Weir’s evidence that he was unaware at the time that he filed this appeal that his dog had suffered an injury that could have affected his racing manners.   Mr Harper produced the Veterinarian’s certificate for race day, and this disclosed a very minor injury that would not have affected “Jay O’Mac’s” performance. 

[27]  The second Veterinarian’s certificate was issued the following day, 20 January 2010.  This also showed that “Jay O’Mac” was suffering from no serious injury that would have affected the way it raced the previous day.

[28] Mr Weir was present at both these examinations and we reject his evidence that he was not aware of the outcome of those examinations until after he lodged his appeal on 22 January 2010.  To say that he was not aware until much later is not credible. We are also satisfied that it was an afterthought for Mr Weir to want to include an injury to “Jay O’Mac” as an additional ground for his appeal.

[29]  For the above reasons we refuse to give Mr Weir leave to argue this additional ground of appeal.

Decision and Reasons

[30] Rule 80 of the New Zealand Rules of Greyhound Racing provides, so far as that Rule is applicable to this case, as follows.
 “80.1 – Where a Greyhound, in the opinion of the Stewards;

(a) ……

(b) Fails to pursue the Lure in a Race;

  the Stewards may impose the following periods of suspension.

 (i) ……

 (ii) ……

 (iii) in the case of a third or subsequent similar offence, twelve (12) months and until the completion of a Satisfactory Trial.”   
                            
[31] Having reviewed the evidence we are satisfied that “Jay O’Mac” had clearly not pursued the lure in accordance with the Rules.  In particular we accept the evidence of Mr Harper that “Jay O’Mac” stopped pursuing the lure as he has described, and also turned its head outwards.

[32]  We also take into account the evidence the video coverage which confirmed to us “Jay O’Mac’s” failure to pursue the lure.  There was also the evidence from the other witnesses, Mr Knowles and Mr McCormick, that “Jay O’Mac” had stopped pursuing the lure.

[33] For the above reasons we find the charge proved.   In accordance with Rule 98.2 we confirm the penalty and dismiss the appeal.

Costs and Filing Fee:
[34] The matter of costs was not raised at the hearing.  The parties are to file written submissions on costs with the Executive Officer of the Judicial Control Authority within seven working days of this decision.  Submissions should also include the disposal of the filing fee.
 

________________   __________________
J. M. Phelan                  J. Millar
Chairman                      Tribunal Member

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Old Hearing

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: