Appeal Mr B Dann – Decision dated 12 July 2011

BEFORE AN APPEALS TRIBUNAL
HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH
IN THE MATTER of the GREYHOUND RACING NEW ZEALAND RULES OF RACING
BETWEEN BRUCE CHARLES DANN of Rakaia, Licensed Trainer
Appellant
AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT
Respondent
Date of Hearing: 7th July 2011
Venue: Stipendiary Stewards Room, Addington Raceway, Christchurch
Judicial Committee: R G McKenzie (Chairman)
S C Ching
Present: Mr B C Dann (the Appellant)
Mr G J Whiterod (representing the Racing Integrity Unit)
Date of Decision: 12th July 2011

 

 

1. Background
1.1 The Appellant, Mr Dann, is the owner of the greyhound, MISS SNOW ANGEL (Jan 2008 W Bitch by Dabyne Shiraz-Whata Plan), which is trained by Mrs M H Goodwin at Marton.
1.2 Following the running of Race 7, Morrie Gibbons Signs C1, at the meeting of Wanganui Greyhound Racing Club at Hatrick Raceway on 11 May 2011, MISS SNOW ANGEL was stood down for 28 days by the Stewards, pursuant to Rule 80.1.b.i, for failing to pursue the lure in the race.
1.3 Mr Dann, as owner of the dog, has appealed to this Tribunal against the decision of the Stewards on the grounds, as set out in his Notice of Appeal, that “MISS SNOW ANGEL did not fail to chase and video evidence does not show otherwise”.
1.4 The stand down period had expired prior to the hearing date of this appeal. However, Mr Dann wished the appeal to proceed with a view, if the appeal should succeed, to having the suspension, which could affect the value of her progeny, removed from the dog’s racing record.
1.5 It was agreed that the appropriate procedure was for Mr Whiterod to show and comment on the video replays of the race, after which Mr Dann could address the Tribunal with his submissions in support of the grounds of his appeal.

 

2. Submissions of the Parties
2.1 Mr Whiterod said that, as the Stipendiary Steward on duty on the day, he was concerned about the run of MISS SNOW ANGEL in Race 7. The dog was sent for a veterinary examination following the race and it was found that there were no injury concerns affecting it.
2.2 A charge was brought against MISS SNOW ANGEL for failing to pursue the lure. The dog was represented at the hearing by its trainer, Mrs Mary Goodwin, who was supported by her husband, Mr Bruce Goodwin. Following the hearing, the Adjudicating Steward, Mr M Austin, found that MISS SNOW ANGEL had failed to pursue the lure and suspended the dog for 28 days.
2.3 Mr Whiterod then proceeded to show video replays of the race, a race for Class 1 dogs over a distance of 520 metres. He pointed out MISS SNOW ANGEL starting from box 3. He said that it could be clearly seen that the dog had received some “bumping” from the outside at the start and had settled back in the field. It was in last placing coming round the first bend. He then demonstrated that the dog had, he submitted, “eased for several strides” and had then eased again shortly thereafter to be in clear last place. It then raced wide around other runners and ran on fairly in the straight, passing BILLY HAKA, to finish in 7th position.
2.4 He submitted that the dog was “clear of any interference” but eased for a few strides and then eased again when LOTTO BIFF came around it. It went from a position of inside LOTTO BIFF to approximately 4 lengths behind that runner, Mr Whiterod submitted. There was no reason why the dog should have eased on those two occasions and, in particular, there was no interference or pressure from LOTTO BIFF, he said. Once the dog was racing on its own, it then started to “race again”, went out into the clear and continued to make ground on the other runners and, in fact, passed BILLY HAKA and made ground on LOTTO BIFF. It had prejudiced its chance of finishing in a higher placing by easing on those two occasions, Mr Whiterod submitted.
2.5 Mr Whiterod submitted that MISS SNOW ANGEL had clearly breached the Rule by easing on two separate occasions and had put itself in a position from where it was never going to be a chance of finishing in a closer placing.
2.6 Mr Whiterod produced a document entitled “GRNZ Application/Interpretation of Rule 80 in Relation to Marring & Failing to Pursue the Lure”. He explained that it had been prepared and issued to its field staff by Greyhound Racing New Zealand prior to the inception of the Racing Integrity Unit. Mr Whiterod explained that it had been not been issued to licenceholders.
2.7 Mr Whiterod submitted that greyhounds simply are not permitted to “ease” during the running of a race. They are obligated to pursue the lure with due commitment at all times and commit an offence if they do not.
2.8 Mr Whiterod also referred to the transcript of the raceday hearing. He was questioning the trainer, Mrs Goodwin and the transcript records the following:
GW So are you saying that she eased because there was a dog outside her?
MG No I’m not saying that but maybe if she was out wider on the track she may not have eased. I don’t know but maybe she’s eased because she’s been too tight in there and when taking the bend from the distance boxes to the 500 boxes, she’s been three parts wide on the track and she seems to have coped with those bends quite alright. Now she goes into that bend and goes further out.
GW The 8 dog has been checked there and gone out wide.
MG When the 8 passes her she goes out quite sharply again.
GW So can I take it that you are saying that your dog is not happy racing in near the rail?
MG No I’m saying that this is my 2nd week with the dog and I have had a tendency to trial the dog here and pull her up at the 300 boxes which perhaps I need to look at myself. She’s a shy dog and she will shy off people standing at the boxes over there and also shy at the motor box –
GW The water box?
MG Yes the water box
GW Which is the second thing you see?
MG Yes.
2.9 Mr Whiterod submitted, with reference to the NZGR document, that if a greyhound loses concentration, or is distracted in some way which potentially may have contributed to its non-pursuit, this was irrelevant as a defence to the charge.
2.10 Mr Whiterod submitted that MISS SNOW ANGEL had eased for no apparent reason on two separate occasions and had, therefore, prejudiced its chances of finishing in a higher placing. The consequence of this was that the betting public did not get a run for its money because of the dog’s tendency not to race throughout but to ease and lose several lengths in doing so.
2.11 At this point, Mr Dann was given the opportunity to comment on the NZGR document that Mr Whiterod had produced. He submitted, effectively, that little weight should be given to it. He said that greyhounds were not animals produced on a production line “like robots to go round”. There were shy dogs and outgoing dogs, and all dogs reacted differently to stimulus during a race. Some dogs will take gaps, others will not – it is not they are not chasing, it is just how their mind works, Mr Dann said.
2.12 Mr Dann then referred to the videos of the race. He said that MISS SNOW ANGEL does not have a lot of early speed and she has been kept specifically for distance racing. He alleged that LOTTO BIFF had exerted pressure on MISS SNOW ANGEL and had “cut right across the front of her” and taken her line, forcing her to check and drop back or be put back onto the rail. After that, she had “picked herself up”, made ground and had got onto the lure.
2.13 Mr Whiterod responded that he did not believe that LOTTO BIFF had put any pressure whatsoever on MISS SNOW ANGEL. The latter eased when LOTTO BIFF was a half to three-quarters of a length behind it and it had eased when the two dogs were “level pegging” at best. LOTTO BIFF had no tendency to go down to the rail but had stayed off right round the final bend. He submitted that there was no evidence that it had caused MISS SNOW ANGEL to ease. MISS SNOW ANGEL did not like LOTTO BIFF outside it and it was a “blatant breach” of the failing to pursue Rule, Mr Whiterod submitted. From that point, MISS SNOW ANGEL, which had lost about 4 lengths, definitely pursued hard all the way to the line, making ground on LOTTO BIFF, but with no chance after losing too much ground after easing for no reason, Mr Whiterod.
2.14 Mr Whiterod referred again to the transcript of the raceday hearing:
MG My final submission is that I’m going with what I said before and that is that in my opinion the dog is pursuing the lure and just prefers to go outside and I have nothing more to add to that.
GW Do you agree that she has eased on two occasions?
MG I’m not calling it eased, I’m calling it shied.
Mr Whiterod submitted that there was no evidence to support that MISS SNOW ANGEL had shied.
2.15 Mr Dann submitted that the dog had not eased. He said, referring to the video replay:
To me, at that point there, the 8 (LOTTO BIFF) has definitely crossed straight in front of the 3 dog (MISS SNOW ANGEL). . . You’ll see here, she’s not easing, she’s not easing, to me it’s still running. The pressure’s really coming down. She’s crossed straight across in front of her. He’s running along the rail and as he gets up behind the 7 dog (BILLY HAKA) you’ll see he actually switches back out here, you see him go out to go around the 7 dog.
2.16 In explanation for the first occasion when the dog allegedly eased, Mr Dann said:
I’m not sure what happened there. It could have been anything – a bit of loose track or, who knows? There are a myriad of reasons why a dog can lose stride. As you can see here, the track is quite slippery. Dogs are not getting good footing. When the pressure comes, watch her, the tail goes up in the air. She was not happy at that point.
2.17 In conclusion, Mr Dann said that most of the dog’s placings had been over 600 metres, when she gets a chance to really wind up, but there were not many distance races so it was necessary for her to be raced over 500 metres just to keep her fitness up.
2.18 Mr Whiterod provided the Tribunal with details of MISS SNOW ANGEL’s racing record – sprint 1 start for no placings, middle distance 23 starts for 1 win and 2 placings and, over a distance, 5 starts for 2 placings.

 

3. Reasons for Decision
3.1 It is appropriate to set out verbatim the raceday decision of the Adjudicating Stewart, Mr M Austin:
I find that the dog MISS SNOW ANGEL has failed to pursue the lure under the Rule 80.1.b. Mr Whiterod has read you the Rule Mrs Goodwin and Mr Goodwin and you understand the charge and I find that the dog has failed to pursue the lure and as Mr Whiterod has demonstrated on the film, the points are that around the turn, the 8 dog has come in a bit and MISS SNOW ANGEL has eased for a few strides and loses a bit of ground at that point and then as they came up towards the boxes and LOTTO BIFF (8) comes up to your dog, she eases and loses several lengths. I have looked at the film numerous times and I don’t believe that the electrical box or the water box had any bearing on the dog’s racing manners and she has failed to pursue as per the Rule.
3.2 The relevant Rule is Rule 80 which provides as follows:
80.1 Where a Greyhound, in the opinion of the Stewards;
b. Fails to pursue the lure in a Race;
the Stewards may impose the following periods of suspension.
i. In the case of a first offence, twenty-eight (2) days and until the completion of a Satisfactory Trial.
3.3 In an appeal which deals with a Rule which is expressed in terms of “in the opinion of the Stewards”, it is a difficult matter for an appellant to succeed and discharge the appellant’s onus of proof.
3.4 This has been expressed in a leading Australian authority in the following terms:
In order for this Tribunal to interfere with a determination made in respect of a Rule which specifies “in the opinion of the Stewards”, we have to be satisfied that no reasonable Stewards, armed with all relevant information, could reasonably have formed the opinion which these Stewards did in all of the circumstances. In order for us to be persuaded of that, there is a difficult onus of proof placed on an appellant.
3.5 In essence, the issue that we must determine is whether in fact MISS SNOW ANGEL failed to chase the lure keenly throughout the race.
3.6 The Tribunal had the opportunity of viewing the video replays of the race and listening to the interpretation of those videos by Mr Whiterod, an experienced Greyhound Stipendiary Steward, and by Mr Dann, a successful Greyhound Trainer of long-standing.
3.7 Mr Whiterod submitted to us that this was a “blatant case” of failing to pursue in that MISS SNOW ANGEL had eased on two occasions and, as a consequence, had put herself in a position where she was never going to finish in a higher position.
3.8 Mr Dann submitted that the dog had not failed to pursue the lure and put forward a number of possible explanations for the dog’s performance including that she had no early speed, the state of the track and that she had received interference from another runner.
3.9 It was significant, in the Committee’s view, that Mr Dann did not dispute that MISS SNOW ANGEL had shortened stride on a couple of occasions and it did appear to the Tribunal that she had done so. Mrs Goodwin, the trainer, at the hearing before the Stewards, conceded that the dog may have eased and, later, that she “shied”.
3.10 The Tribunal is not persuaded that the Stewards erred. In evidence at the appeal hearing, the Tribunal saw videos of the race. The Tribunal finds that MISS SNOW ANGEL did ease for no apparent reason, and certainly for no reason that would justify its doing so, on two separate occasions. Such easing was, the Tribunal is satisfied, sufficient to constitute the offence of failing to pursue the lure and, therefore, the Stewards were entitled, on all the evidence, to form the opinion which they did.
 

 

4. Decision
4.1 The appeal is dismissed.
 

 

5. Costs
5.1 Both parties are invited to make submissions in relation to costs, such submissions to be in writing and filed with the Judicial Control Authority within 7 days of the date of this decision.

 

R G McKenzie                           S C Ching
Chairman                                 Panellist