Appeal L Ahern v RIU 12 January 2017 – Written Decision dated 16 January 2017 – Chair, Mr T Utikere
ID: JCA13684
Decision:
BEFORE THE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
IN THE MATTER OF The New Zealand Rules of Greyhound Racing
BETWEEN LISA AHERN
Appellant
AND THE RACING INTEGRITY UNIT
Respondent
DECISION OF APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Appeals Tribunal: Mr T Utikere (Chairman)
Mrs N Moffatt (Member)
Parties: Ms L Ahern (as the Appellant)
Mr G Whiterod (for the Respondent)
Registrar: Ms C Hutton
Hearing: On the Papers
Date of Determination: 12 January 2017
Date of Written Decision: 16 January 2017
[1] At the Wanganui Greyhound Racing Club’s Meeting of 30 December 2016 five dogs, namely BIGTIME MONTY, BIGTIME DAZZLER, ALLEGRO GUN, SKUZI and TIMMA TURTLE were stood down for 28 days under the provisions of Rule 64.4 after an alleged breach of Rule 64.3. These dogs are trained by Licensed Trainer Ms Lisa Ahern.
[2] Ms Ahern has appealed the decision of the stipendiary stewards to stand her dogs down under the provisions of Rule 64.4.
[3] The Appellant had sought a Stay of Proceedings, to which the RIU did not object. The Tribunal allowed the Stay until such time as a determination on the Appeal had been communicated to both parties. The Tribunal issued a Minute (Dated 1 January 2017) advising that the Stay had been allowed, and also sought objections from either party for this appeal to be determined on the papers. No objections were received, so the Appeal was determined on that basis and a timetabling framework for further submissions to be placed before the Tribunal was put in place. The Appellant had provided a detailed Notice of Appeal and did not provide any further submission before the directed deadline expired. For the RIU, Mr Whiterod provided Submissions in Response. We will detail the considerations that both parties raised later in this decision.
[4] On 12 January the Tribunal issued a Minute (Determination) advising that the appeal will not succeed, and that the dogs were to be stood down for 28 days effective from Friday 13 January 2017. That Minute also indicated that a written decision, with reasons, will issue at a later date. This decision now fulfils that requirement.
[5] Rule 64.3 states:”If a Greyhound is withdrawn without valid reason after the Box Draw, or after qualifying for a Semi Final or Final of a Totalisator Race, the Owner or Trainer of the Greyhound shall be guilty of an Offence.”
[6] Rule 64.4 states: “When more than one Totalisator Meeting is held on the same day, being drawn into a field at one Totalisator Meeting, (whether as a result of competing in qualifying Races or otherwise) shall not constitute a valid reason for withdrawal of the Greyhound from the Race at another Totalisator Meeting. Such Greyhound shall incur a 28 day suspension effective from the day following the Meeting.”
The Appellant’s Case
[7] Ms Ahern is a Licensed Trainer under the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing. In her Notice of Appeal she details why she disagrees with the decision taken by the RIU to stand her dogs down for a period of 28 days.
[8] She identified that on Friday 30th December there were two race meetings; one held at Wanganui and the other at Cambridge. The Wanganui nominations closed on Thursday the 22nd of December at 12 noon, with the fields then drawn at 2pm that day. At that stage, the heats for Cambridge held on the 24th of December had not been run. This then meant that Ms Ahern did not know which of her dogs would qualify for the finals on the 30th of December. She also stated that she was unable to know which dogs would get into these races and the selectors were unable to tell her which dogs were to race at each meeting, due to the fields being closed at two separate times and the draws being done at different times at the different clubs. She identified that Cambridge fields closed at 12 noon on 28 December.
[9] The fields for Wanganui closed nine days before the Meeting ; which was prior to the Cambridge heats set down for 24 December. Ms Ahern stated that it was therefore impossible to know which dogs would make the races; so she believed that entering them for a race meeting at Wanganui allowed them to continue racing and also helped the local club with its meeting.
[10] With regard to timetabling, her Notice of Appeal specifically stated: “This is not the usual practice for the Wanganui Club in terms of entering dogs for race meetings. Wanganui always close on Mondays and are drawn on Mondays, only ever two to three days before their race meeting. This then allows you to plan where your dogs are going; and if they miss out it allows you to nominate for another race meeting within that week. Cambridge’s normal practice of closure of nominations was also different from the norm. The nominations usually close Monday and dogs race Thursday. This time however, they've closed eight days before their race meeting.”
[11] She also referred to previous years, noting that there had been no heats for some of the feature races at Cambridge and that meant that some dogs went straight into finals.
[12] Not entering her dogs for a race meeting meant that the dogs would not have raced for three weeks. She described the impact being one that was financial in nature for her family who were simply trying to run a successful business. She also noted that she employed several staff members who were passionate about their jobs and who rely on her for their income.
[13] Finally, she indicated that the dogs were not nominated without the thought and advice from others “higher up in the industry”. She also said that further confirmation about her approach in dual nominating her dogs was given from a member of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (NZGRA). Ms Ahern stated that she went ahead with the nominations believing that was the correct procedure to enter the dogs to give them every possible opportunity to race.
The Respondent’s Case
[14] For the RIU, Chief Stipendiary Steward (Greyhounds) Mr Whiterod filed Submissions in Response.
[15] His submissions stated that it was very clear that Rule 64.4 did not allow Greyhounds to be entered into two race meetings being conducted on the same day under any circumstances. He also noted that the penalty in such a circumstance where the rule is breached is a mandatory 28 day stand down. As such, he believed that any submissions regarding nomination times and/or nomination closing times was irrelevant as the nominator would always be aware of the specific date of the race meeting.
[16] He was not aware of any evidence that was before the Tribunal to support the submission that anyone within the industry, including the NZGRA, had given advice that to nominate in a way that was contrary to Rule 64.4 would be acceptable.
[17] It was his contention, that the nominations made by Ms Ahern were an attempt to ensure that should a Greyhound miss out on qualifying for a final at the Cambridge Meeting, they would still have the opportunity to race at the Wanganui Meeting. He described this as an unacceptable practice.
[18] He referred the Tribunal to the fact that there was one other Trainer in the same situation with one Greyhound being entered for the two meetings on 30 December, but that the matter had been dealt with as that Trainer had admitted their guilt for the offence.
Discussion
[19] The Tribunal has considered the written submissions of the Appellant and the Respondent.
[20] Ms Ahern has spent some time detailing the timeframes that relate to the circumstances that led to this appeal. She identifies that processes that were adopted by the Cambridge and Wanganui Racing Clubs in the lead up to their Meetings on 30 December 2016 were irregular and quite different from the norm.
[21] It may simply be due to the festive season or a busy time of the year that those processes had changed, but regardless of irregularities in comparison with the approach adopted in previous years, the specific Rules around withdrawals must be complied with.
[22] She has advanced the notion that to stand the dogs down would be somewhat of an injustice as it is not the Greyhounds who nominate themselves. The Tribunal may assume that the decision to stand a dog down for 28 days in the context of Rule 64.4 is not due to animal welfare issues, but rather as a punishment to connections.
[23] Mr Whiterod, appropriately, indicates that there is no specific evidence before the Tribunal as to the NZGRA’s endorsement of dual nominating without a valid reason. The Appellant refers to this in her submissions, but does not provide specific evidence to the Tribunal to substantiate this. The Tribunal takes the view that a process exists for the development and review of the Greyhound Rules of Racing, and that any issues with their application or applicability need to be addressed as part of that process rather than a deliberate attempt to breach them.
[24] Mr Whiterod also identifies another trainer who was in a similar situation on 30 December, however that trainer admitted guilt for the alleged offence. That has no relevance to the Tribunal’s considerations. Ms Ahern is entitled to lodge an appeal, and expect to have the appeal assessed on the merits of her specific circumstance; and that is precisely what the Tribunal has sought to do.
[25] It is clear that the context of the current appeal requires Rules 64.3 and 64.4 to be read in conjunction with each other.
[26] Rule 64.3 identifies that if a Greyhound is withdrawn after certain timeframes have been met, in this instance the Box Draw, then the Owner or Trainer shall be guilty of an offence. This clearly places the onus with the connections of the Greyhound, rather than the Greyhound itself. The way that the Rule is worded, signifies that a finding of guilt must follow. We note, however, that the Rule has a qualifier in that the connections must not have a “valid reason” if they are to be guilty of an Offence.
[27] This is why in the context of this appeal, it is important to read and apply Rule 64.3 with the Rule that follows it. Rule 64.4 specifically identifies that being drawn into a field at one Totalisator Meeting shall not constitute a valid reason for withdrawal of the Greyhound from the Race at another Totalisator Meeting. This provides specific direction for the Tribunal in making a determination on this matter.
[28] The Appellant has raised a number of issues, which seek to explain the reasons behind her actions, but they are no excuse for a specific breach of the Rules. The reason that she has given for a breach of Rule 64.4 is not a valid reason as it is specifically excluded under the provision of Rule 64.4.
[29] The course of action which must then follow is clear. That is a 28 day stand down as where a valid reason does not exist, such a stand down, for that period of time, is the mandatory penalty as outlined in Rule 64.4.
Decision
[30] The Appeal is dismissed. The decision of the stipendiary stewards to stand the dogs down for 28 days is confirmed.
[31] The dogs BIGTIME MONTY, BIGTIME DAZZLER, ALLEGRO GUN, SKUZI and TIMMA TURTLE will now be subject to a stand down period of 28 days under the provisions of Rule 64.4, commencing on Friday 13 January 2017.
Dated at Palmerston North on 16th January 2017
Mr Tangi Utikere
Tribunal Chairman
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 16/01/2017
Publish Date: 16/01/2017
JCA Decision Fields (raw)
Dmitry: This section contains all JCA fields migrated from the raw data.
Data from these fields should be mapped appropriately to display amongst the standard fields above; please make note of any values below that are missing in the above standard fields but should be there.
hearingid: 57eaa193a7cf9bd758b3b7fc21953cad
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 16/01/2017
hearing_title: Appeal L Ahern v RIU 12 January 2017 - Written Decision dated 16 January 2017 - Chair, Mr T Utikere
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE THE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
IN THE MATTER OF The New Zealand Rules of Greyhound Racing
BETWEEN LISA AHERN
Appellant
AND THE RACING INTEGRITY UNIT
Respondent
DECISION OF APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Appeals Tribunal: Mr T Utikere (Chairman)
Mrs N Moffatt (Member)
Parties: Ms L Ahern (as the Appellant)
Mr G Whiterod (for the Respondent)
Registrar: Ms C Hutton
Hearing: On the Papers
Date of Determination: 12 January 2017
Date of Written Decision: 16 January 2017
[1] At the Wanganui Greyhound Racing Club’s Meeting of 30 December 2016 five dogs, namely BIGTIME MONTY, BIGTIME DAZZLER, ALLEGRO GUN, SKUZI and TIMMA TURTLE were stood down for 28 days under the provisions of Rule 64.4 after an alleged breach of Rule 64.3. These dogs are trained by Licensed Trainer Ms Lisa Ahern.
[2] Ms Ahern has appealed the decision of the stipendiary stewards to stand her dogs down under the provisions of Rule 64.4.
[3] The Appellant had sought a Stay of Proceedings, to which the RIU did not object. The Tribunal allowed the Stay until such time as a determination on the Appeal had been communicated to both parties. The Tribunal issued a Minute (Dated 1 January 2017) advising that the Stay had been allowed, and also sought objections from either party for this appeal to be determined on the papers. No objections were received, so the Appeal was determined on that basis and a timetabling framework for further submissions to be placed before the Tribunal was put in place. The Appellant had provided a detailed Notice of Appeal and did not provide any further submission before the directed deadline expired. For the RIU, Mr Whiterod provided Submissions in Response. We will detail the considerations that both parties raised later in this decision.
[4] On 12 January the Tribunal issued a Minute (Determination) advising that the appeal will not succeed, and that the dogs were to be stood down for 28 days effective from Friday 13 January 2017. That Minute also indicated that a written decision, with reasons, will issue at a later date. This decision now fulfils that requirement.
[5] Rule 64.3 states:”If a Greyhound is withdrawn without valid reason after the Box Draw, or after qualifying for a Semi Final or Final of a Totalisator Race, the Owner or Trainer of the Greyhound shall be guilty of an Offence.”
[6] Rule 64.4 states: “When more than one Totalisator Meeting is held on the same day, being drawn into a field at one Totalisator Meeting, (whether as a result of competing in qualifying Races or otherwise) shall not constitute a valid reason for withdrawal of the Greyhound from the Race at another Totalisator Meeting. Such Greyhound shall incur a 28 day suspension effective from the day following the Meeting.”
The Appellant’s Case
[7] Ms Ahern is a Licensed Trainer under the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing. In her Notice of Appeal she details why she disagrees with the decision taken by the RIU to stand her dogs down for a period of 28 days.
[8] She identified that on Friday 30th December there were two race meetings; one held at Wanganui and the other at Cambridge. The Wanganui nominations closed on Thursday the 22nd of December at 12 noon, with the fields then drawn at 2pm that day. At that stage, the heats for Cambridge held on the 24th of December had not been run. This then meant that Ms Ahern did not know which of her dogs would qualify for the finals on the 30th of December. She also stated that she was unable to know which dogs would get into these races and the selectors were unable to tell her which dogs were to race at each meeting, due to the fields being closed at two separate times and the draws being done at different times at the different clubs. She identified that Cambridge fields closed at 12 noon on 28 December.
[9] The fields for Wanganui closed nine days before the Meeting ; which was prior to the Cambridge heats set down for 24 December. Ms Ahern stated that it was therefore impossible to know which dogs would make the races; so she believed that entering them for a race meeting at Wanganui allowed them to continue racing and also helped the local club with its meeting.
[10] With regard to timetabling, her Notice of Appeal specifically stated: “This is not the usual practice for the Wanganui Club in terms of entering dogs for race meetings. Wanganui always close on Mondays and are drawn on Mondays, only ever two to three days before their race meeting. This then allows you to plan where your dogs are going; and if they miss out it allows you to nominate for another race meeting within that week. Cambridge’s normal practice of closure of nominations was also different from the norm. The nominations usually close Monday and dogs race Thursday. This time however, they've closed eight days before their race meeting.”
[11] She also referred to previous years, noting that there had been no heats for some of the feature races at Cambridge and that meant that some dogs went straight into finals.
[12] Not entering her dogs for a race meeting meant that the dogs would not have raced for three weeks. She described the impact being one that was financial in nature for her family who were simply trying to run a successful business. She also noted that she employed several staff members who were passionate about their jobs and who rely on her for their income.
[13] Finally, she indicated that the dogs were not nominated without the thought and advice from others “higher up in the industry”. She also said that further confirmation about her approach in dual nominating her dogs was given from a member of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (NZGRA). Ms Ahern stated that she went ahead with the nominations believing that was the correct procedure to enter the dogs to give them every possible opportunity to race.
The Respondent’s Case
[14] For the RIU, Chief Stipendiary Steward (Greyhounds) Mr Whiterod filed Submissions in Response.
[15] His submissions stated that it was very clear that Rule 64.4 did not allow Greyhounds to be entered into two race meetings being conducted on the same day under any circumstances. He also noted that the penalty in such a circumstance where the rule is breached is a mandatory 28 day stand down. As such, he believed that any submissions regarding nomination times and/or nomination closing times was irrelevant as the nominator would always be aware of the specific date of the race meeting.
[16] He was not aware of any evidence that was before the Tribunal to support the submission that anyone within the industry, including the NZGRA, had given advice that to nominate in a way that was contrary to Rule 64.4 would be acceptable.
[17] It was his contention, that the nominations made by Ms Ahern were an attempt to ensure that should a Greyhound miss out on qualifying for a final at the Cambridge Meeting, they would still have the opportunity to race at the Wanganui Meeting. He described this as an unacceptable practice.
[18] He referred the Tribunal to the fact that there was one other Trainer in the same situation with one Greyhound being entered for the two meetings on 30 December, but that the matter had been dealt with as that Trainer had admitted their guilt for the offence.
Discussion
[19] The Tribunal has considered the written submissions of the Appellant and the Respondent.
[20] Ms Ahern has spent some time detailing the timeframes that relate to the circumstances that led to this appeal. She identifies that processes that were adopted by the Cambridge and Wanganui Racing Clubs in the lead up to their Meetings on 30 December 2016 were irregular and quite different from the norm.
[21] It may simply be due to the festive season or a busy time of the year that those processes had changed, but regardless of irregularities in comparison with the approach adopted in previous years, the specific Rules around withdrawals must be complied with.
[22] She has advanced the notion that to stand the dogs down would be somewhat of an injustice as it is not the Greyhounds who nominate themselves. The Tribunal may assume that the decision to stand a dog down for 28 days in the context of Rule 64.4 is not due to animal welfare issues, but rather as a punishment to connections.
[23] Mr Whiterod, appropriately, indicates that there is no specific evidence before the Tribunal as to the NZGRA’s endorsement of dual nominating without a valid reason. The Appellant refers to this in her submissions, but does not provide specific evidence to the Tribunal to substantiate this. The Tribunal takes the view that a process exists for the development and review of the Greyhound Rules of Racing, and that any issues with their application or applicability need to be addressed as part of that process rather than a deliberate attempt to breach them.
[24] Mr Whiterod also identifies another trainer who was in a similar situation on 30 December, however that trainer admitted guilt for the alleged offence. That has no relevance to the Tribunal’s considerations. Ms Ahern is entitled to lodge an appeal, and expect to have the appeal assessed on the merits of her specific circumstance; and that is precisely what the Tribunal has sought to do.
[25] It is clear that the context of the current appeal requires Rules 64.3 and 64.4 to be read in conjunction with each other.
[26] Rule 64.3 identifies that if a Greyhound is withdrawn after certain timeframes have been met, in this instance the Box Draw, then the Owner or Trainer shall be guilty of an offence. This clearly places the onus with the connections of the Greyhound, rather than the Greyhound itself. The way that the Rule is worded, signifies that a finding of guilt must follow. We note, however, that the Rule has a qualifier in that the connections must not have a “valid reason” if they are to be guilty of an Offence.
[27] This is why in the context of this appeal, it is important to read and apply Rule 64.3 with the Rule that follows it. Rule 64.4 specifically identifies that being drawn into a field at one Totalisator Meeting shall not constitute a valid reason for withdrawal of the Greyhound from the Race at another Totalisator Meeting. This provides specific direction for the Tribunal in making a determination on this matter.
[28] The Appellant has raised a number of issues, which seek to explain the reasons behind her actions, but they are no excuse for a specific breach of the Rules. The reason that she has given for a breach of Rule 64.4 is not a valid reason as it is specifically excluded under the provision of Rule 64.4.
[29] The course of action which must then follow is clear. That is a 28 day stand down as where a valid reason does not exist, such a stand down, for that period of time, is the mandatory penalty as outlined in Rule 64.4.
Decision
[30] The Appeal is dismissed. The decision of the stipendiary stewards to stand the dogs down for 28 days is confirmed.
[31] The dogs BIGTIME MONTY, BIGTIME DAZZLER, ALLEGRO GUN, SKUZI and TIMMA TURTLE will now be subject to a stand down period of 28 days under the provisions of Rule 64.4, commencing on Friday 13 January 2017.
Dated at Palmerston North on 16th January 2017
Mr Tangi Utikere
Tribunal 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: