Appeal A McCook v RIU – Written decision dated 17 September 2014

hearingid: c385d46c491c2c4ed5f28a3e9d6dd853

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 28/08/2014

hearing_title: Appeal A McCook v RIU - Written decision dated 17 September 2014

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY AT CHRISTCHURCH

UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003

IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Greyhound Racing

BETWEEN ANDREW McCOOK of Darfield, Licensed trainer

Applicant

AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT

Respondent

Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman - Mr R McKenzie, Member of Committee

Appearing: The Applicant in person

Mr J McLaughlin, Stipendiary Steward for the Respondent

Also present: Mr N McIntyre, Co-chief Stipendiary Steward

Date of oral decision: 6 September 2014

Date of written decision: 17 September 2014

DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

[1] The applicant, Mr A McCook, sought review of the decision of the stipendiary stewards at the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club meeting at Addington Raceway on 2 September 2014 where in Race 5, the PROTEXIN SPRINT HEAT 4 C1Q the greyhound ROCKWOOD ARCHIE was stood down for 28 days under Rule 80.1.b for failing to pursue the lure.

[2] It is appropriate to record the relevant Rules.

80.1 Where a Greyhound:

b. Fails to pursue the Lure in a Race the Stewards may impose the following periods of suspension:

a. in the case of a first offence, twenty-eight (28) days and until the completion of a Satisfactory Trial;

80.11 An Owner or Trainer of a Greyhound may seek a review of any decision under Rule 80.1, by the Judicial Committee, in accordance with Rule 92.20.

[3] Mr McLaughlin asked Mr McIntyre to comment on the race videos. Mr McIntyre stated that the distance of the race was 295 metres and ROCKWOOD ARCHIE, which had drawn box 7, ran out on the apex of the turn and came into contact with ABOGADO. He said the dog continued to shift away from the lure and the only reason the charge was not one of marring was that there was not clear contact between ABOGADO and the muzzle of ROCKWOOD ARCHIE. This was because the camera shot of the 2 dogs was obscured at the relevant time by a light stand.

[4] Mr McIntyre stated that in his view ROCKWOOD ARCHIE was concentrating on the number 3 dog (ABOGADO) as there had been an earlier bumping between them. He believed that ROCKWOOD ARCHIE voluntarily shifted outwards on the track with his head facing towards ABOGADO. There was a further bump and then ROCKWOOD ARCHIE resumed chasing the lure. ROCKWOOD ARCHIE went on to win the race. The margin back to the second dog was 2 lengths.

[5] Mr McLaughlin explained that the basis of the decision to stand down ROCKWOOD ARCHIE was that for 3 or 4 strides the dog was focused not on the lure but on ABOGADO. The dog ran out on the turn with his head turned out focusing only on ABOGADO. He demonstrated that half way through the race there had been contact between ROCKWOOD ARCHIE and ABOGADO. He stated the veterinarian had found nothing amiss with ROCKWOOD ARCHIE after the race.

[6] In response to a question by the Committee, Mr McLaughlin stated he had had no previous concerns with ROCKWOOD ARCHIE and that to his knowledge the dog had not otherwise come to the attention of the stipendiary stewards.

[7] Mr McCook stated he was experienced with greyhounds, having had an involvement in the industry from an early age. He said that a dog that wins by 2 or 3 lengths cannot have failed to pursue the lure.

[8] Mr McCook emphasised that the stipendiary stewards were only concerned with the 3 or 4 strides where the dog had raced wide on the bend. He demonstrated by showing videos of other sprint races involving the dog that it tended to race wide on the bends. He said it was no different this time except that on this occasion ROCKWOOD ARCHIE had a dog on his outside. He added that ROCKWOOD ARCHIE was ungainly in his action and was getting worse at handling the Addington track.

[9] Mr McCook further stated that ROCKWOOD ARCHIE always raced with his head pointing to the right and that the videos were very deceiving in that the attention of ROCKWOOD ARCHIE was not on the other dog. In his view ROCKWOOD ARCHIE would have raced the same on this bend whether or not ABOGADO was there.

[10] Mr McLaughlin in reply stated that he accepted dogs do race wide on bends but when they did, unlike ROCKWOOD ARCHIE, they were focused on the lure and not on the dog to their outside. He said it was obvious that for 3 or 4 strides ROCKWOOD ARCHIE’s focus was not on the lure but on the dog to his outside, ABOGADO. ROCKWOOD ARCHIE had pursued ABOGADO for those 3 or 4 strides. Once they came into contact, ROCKWOOD ARCHIE refocused and went on to win the race.

[11] Mr McCook responded that ROCKWOOD ARCHIE had lost his balance on the bend, as he frequently did, because he was a big 38 kg dog and, once he had got going again, he had run on. Therefore, he said, the dog had chased the lure. This was the dog’s racing style. He added that if ROCKWOOD ARCHIE was a non-chaser, he would have continued to play with the dog on his outside. He emphasised ROCKWOOD ARCHIE won by 2 or 3 lengths.

Decision

[12] As ROCKWOOD ARCHIE entered the bend he clearly angled out towards ABOGADO who was racing on his outside. For 3 or 4 strides the attention of ROCKWOOD ARCHIE was on ABOGADO and not the lure. The focus of the dog at this point in the race was clearly on the dog to his outside with whom he had come into contact earlier in the race. His head was turned sideways in the direction of ABOGADO. For 3 or 4 strides ROCKWOOD ARCHIE was not pursuing the lure. It was only after contact with ABOGADO for a second time that ROCKWOOD ARCHIE clearly refocused on the lure and ran on well, winning the race by 2 lengths.

[13] The fact that ROCKWOOD ARCHIE is ungainly in his action, has a high head carriage with his head being pointed outwards, has a habit of drifting out on the bends, and is allegedly having difficulty handling the Addington track does not in our view explain the dog’s actions on this occasion. While Mr McCook played videos where ROCKWOOD ARCHIE had raced wide on bends, there was no video that demonstrated a veering outwards for a few strides, as ROCKWOOD ARCHIE has done on this occasion. We do not accept Mr McCook’s contention that ROCKWOOD ARCHIE would have raced in the manner that he did whether or not ABOGADO had been to his outside.

[14] It follows, therefore, that we are satisfied that the stipendiary stewards decision on the day was correct and that ROCKWOOD ARCHIE failed to pursue the lure. The application for review is unsuccessful.

[15] A filing fee of $250 is to be paid by Mr McCook.

Dated at Dunedin this 17th day of September 2014.

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: