Appeal A Turnwald v RIU – decision dated 8 April 2015

hearingid: 6a9948c7aa6bbcc9ab46b2c5d788fe0e

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 02/04/2015

hearing_title: Appeal A Turnwald v RIU - decision dated 8 April 2015

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE AN APPEALS TRIBUNAL OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY AT WANGANUI

UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003

IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Greyhound Racing

BETWEEN Ms Angela Turnwald

Appellant

AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT

Respondent

Appeals Tribunal: Prof G Hall, Chairman - Mr T Utikere, Member of Tribunal

Appearing: The appellant in person

Mr G Whiterod, for the respondent

Date of hearing: 1 April 2015

Date of oral decision: 2 April 2015

WRITTEN DECISION OF APPEALS TRIBUNAL

[1] Ms Turnwald appeals against the decision of the raceday stewards at Hatrick Raceway at the Wanganui Greyhound Racing Club’s meeting on 20 March 2015, where the greyhound PEACOCK PRINCESS was stood down for three months pursuant to r 79.1(b)(b) of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association Rules.

[2] The relevant rule provides:

79.1 Where a Greyhound:
b. Fails to pursue the Lure in a Race … the Stewards may impose the following periods of suspension:
b. in the case of a second offence under Rule 79.1 … three (3) months and until the completion of a Satisfactory Trial.

Factual background

[3] PEACOCK PRINCESS started from box 5 in race 6, which was over a distance of 520 metres. The dog had won 4 of her last 5 starts.

[4] PEACOCK PRINCESS had been imported from Australia in mid 2014 and her racing in this country was subject to the condition that she completed a satisfactory trial. Mr Whiterod explained that this meant the dog had failed to pursue the lure in Australia. At her first trial in this country PEACOCK PRINCESS did not qualify. She trialled a second time, this time wearing blinkers, and qualified.

[5] The race record of PEACOCK PRINCESS in New Zealand was 15 starts for 6 wins, 3 seconds and a third. She had 5 wins from 6 races over a sprint distance and 1 win from 9 starts over a middle distance. Mr Whiterod described the race in question as a middle distance race.

[6] Towards the end of last year the stewards had been approached and PEACOCK PRINCESS had had a trial without blinkers. The dog again failed to qualify as she did not pursue the lure and she reverted to wearing blinkers. Mr Whiterod stated the dog had had no other indiscretions in New Zealand.

[7] The race in question was PEACOCK PRINCESS’s tenth start since completing a satisfactory trial. Had she completed this race successfully, upon application by the trainer or owner under r 79.7, any further failure to pursue would have been within the purview of r 79.1(b)(a) which requires a 28-day stand down.

Respondent’s case

[8] With the consent of Ms Turnwald, Mr Whiterod presented his case first.

[9] Mr Whiterod demonstrated on the videos that in his view PEACOCK PRINCESS turned her head outwards in the home straight and moved out wider on the track into the line of LAGOON MAC. He said she was concentrating on the dog outside her (LAGOON MAC) and not on the lure, as required by the Rules.

[10] Mr Whiterod further demonstrated that COLD TURKEY, which won the race, had finished quickly down the outside of the track. That dog had hampered PEACOCK PRINCESS when it went past her in that that dog made an angled run across her running line towards the inside of the track.

[11] Mr Whiterod froze the video frames, commenting that a number of the other dogs were looking forward, whereas PEACOCK PRINCESS was looking outwards when shifting out and hampering LAGOON MAC. The line of running of LAGOON MAC was affected and that dog dropped a length behind. He said the head carriage of PEACOCK PRINCESS then changed in that she looked to the lure once COLD TURKEY had raced by.

[12] Mr Whiterod elaborated that in his view on the point of the home turn PEACOCK PRINCESS had started to look outwards and not concentrate on the lure. The head of PEACOCK PRINCESS was on a slight angle outwards he believed for some 45 metres. The dog was shifting wider on the track at this time.

[13] Mr Whiterod summed up by stating the angle of the head of PEACOCK PRINCESS was the primary issue. It was turned out because she was concentrating on LAGOON MAC and not the lure. He disagreed with Ms Turnwald in that he believed the head of PEACOCK PRINCESS was turned out before the contact with LAGOON MAC.

[14] When questioned by the Tribunal Mr Whiterod accepted that PEACOCK PRINCESS did not alter stride or slow down in the run home.

Appellant’s case

[15] Ms Turnwald commenced her case by stating PEACOCK PRINCESS had raced no differently in this race than she had at her previous start on the track when she had raced on a similar line. There was no dog outside PEACOCK PRINCESS on that occasion and her head was in a straight line, as it was in the race in question. She said the dog would usually swing out on the bend at Hatrick and race down the middle of the track.

[16] PEACOCK PRINCESS was racing in blinkers, Ms Turnwald said, and the lure was a lot further out at Hatrick than it was at Palmerston North. The purpose of the blinkers was to keep the dog focused. It was PEACOCK PRINCESS’s first 520-metre race at Wanganui since she had fallen at that track.

[17] Ms Turnwald said she believed PEACOCK PRINCESS was a middle distance dog and she was not disappointed with her performance in the race in question as she was only gradually coming back to full racing fitness.

[18] Ms Turnwald said PEACOCK PRINCESS had been bumped by LAGOON MAC and was racing on her usual line at that time. LAGOON MAC was a hindrance to PEACOCK PRINCESS. When the dogs turned for home LAGOON MAC was laying down onto PEACOCK PRINCESS and there had been contact on three occasions. First to the body of PEACOCK PRINCESS and then to her back legs.

[19] Ms Turnwald accepted that PEACOCK PRINCESS had shifted out in the straight but her head had never moved. She demonstrated that the head of PEACOCK PRINCESS was straight after COLD TURKEY had crossed her and taken her line. She later conceded that the head of PEACOCK PRINCESS had turned out slightly at the point of first contact between PEACOCK PRINCESS and LAGOON MAC. In her view PEACOCK PRINCESS had not slowed down or changed stride at any time, despite the interference from LAGOON MAC.

[20] Ms Turnwald was permitted to present a written submission from Mr Bechini who is a part-owner of PEACOCK PRINCESS. He stated the dog had a habit of scouting two dogs off the fence on the Hatrick home bend as was evidenced by her 2 previous wins there. He believed she had done the same in the race at issue.

[21] Mr Bechini disputed that PEACOCK PRINCESS had turned her head at any point in the run and especially from the top corner to well into the home straight. He stated he had viewed the videos and these showed that her head remained straight and focused on the lure at all times.

[22] Mr Bechini accepted that PEACOCK PRINCESS had veered out and brushed LAGOON MAC with her shoulder but he emphasised that she had kept chasing all the way to the line.

Discussion

[23] Rule 79.1(b) requires that a dog pursue the lure. There is nothing in the rule that states the head of a dog must at all times be directly focused on the lure, although we accept that the fact a dog’s head is so focused is very likely to be evidence that it is pursuing and vice versa. We believe a broad view needs to be taken of PEACOCK PRINCESS’s run in the home straight, which is the point of the race that was of concern to Mr Whiterod. His submissions were directed to the fact that in his view PEACOCK PRINCESS’s head was angled slightly away from the lure as she progressed down the straight.

[24] Three times after straightening for the run up the straight LAGOON MAC came into contact with PEACOCK PRINCESS. Contact was first made near her off-shoulder and then twice to her back legs. On each occasion LAGOON MAC had moved in crowding PEACOCK PRINCESS. After this contact PEACOCK PRINCESS ran slightly wider on the track and into the running line of LAGOON MAC, which dropped behind PEACOCK PRINCESS. COLD TURKEY then made a run to the outside of PEACOCK PRINCESS before cutting across her running line and going on to win the race.

[25] The run of PEACOCK PRINCESS in her previous race at Hatrick, as Ms Turnwald has emphasised, was on a similar line to the one the dog has taken in this race. However, in that run PEACOCK PRINCESS was racing free of interference and there was no dog to her outside. The circumstances were thus different, although it is fair to say the dog has run home down the middle of the track on both occasions. We have placed little emphasis on this fact.

[26] As to PEACOCK PRINCESS’s head carriage, it was evident that at times her head was not focused directly towards the lure but neither in the home straight could she be said to be racing looking sideways towards LAGOON MAC who was to her outside and bumping into her. Her head was only very slightly to the side and at times when the video frames were frozen her head was looking forward rather than away from the lure.

Decision

[27] We have studied the video frame by frame. In the home straight PEACOCK PRINCESS was hindered on three occasions by LAGOON MAC and then by COLD TURKEY. She thus had a very interrupted run.

[28] The result of PEACOCK PRINCESS being found not to pursue the lure is a three-month stand down and the completion of a satisfactory trial. These are serious consequences. Whilst we find that PEACOCK PRINCESS ran out slightly after the repeated contact with LAGOON MAC and into that dog’s running line, we are not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this was because, as Mr Whiterod has alleged, she was concentrating on LAGOON MAC and was not pursuing the lure.

[29] Significantly, PEACOCK PRINCESS did not alter stride or slow down in the run home.

[30] In these circumstances we order that the stand down period imposed pursuant to r 79.1(b)(b) be lifted. There is no need for PEACOCK PRINCESS to complete a satisfactory trial.

[31] Neither the RIU nor Ms Turnwald sought costs and in the somewhat unusual circumstances of this case we believe it is not appropriate to make any award.

Dated at Dunedin this 8th day of April 2015.

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: