Appeal R Wales v RIU – Written Decision dated 20 June 2016 – Chair, Prof G Hall
ID: JCA13886
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (Incorporated)
BETWEEN
ROBIN WALES, Licensed Trainer
Applicant
AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Respondent
Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman
Mr S Ching, Member
Present: Mr R Wales, Applicant
Mr S Wallis, Stipendiary Steward, for the Respondent
Mr R Quirk, Stipendiary Steward
Date of Hearing: 14 June 2016
Venue: Addington Raceway, Christchurch
Date of oral Decision: 13 June 2016
Date of written Decision: 20 June 2016
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] At the meeting of the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held at Addington racecourse on 3 June 2016, the greyhound IDOL STAR, trained by Mr Wales started in Race 14, CAROL'S TAB CLENDON INN SPRINT C1 295 metres. The dog finished second, half a length behind the winner.
[2] Following the race, the Stipendiary Stewards suspended IDOL STAR for 28 days under r 79.1.b for failing to pursue the lure. The veterinarian examination having found no injury to the dog.
[3] Rule 79.1 of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing states:
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.
[4] On 4 June 2016 Mr Wales applied for a review of the decision of the Stipendiary Stewards in accordance with r 91.20. His reason for disagreeing with the stewards was that “the dog did not fail to pursue the lure”.
Submissions
[5] After discussing the issue with the parties, it was decided that Mr Wallis would present the RIU case first.
[6] Mr Wallis identified the definition of “fails to pursue the lure” as set out in the Rules:
“FAILS TO PURSUE THE LURE” means the action of a Greyhound voluntarily turning the head without making contact with another Greyhound, or voluntarily easing up, or stopping during a Race while free of interference.
[7] Mr Wallis said the RIU in this case were alleging that IDOL STAR had voluntarily turned its head. As it was the dog’s first breach, it had been stood down for 28 days and until it trialled satisfactorily.
[8] Mr Wallis showed the Committee the side-on and head-on videos of the incident. We viewed them in both real time and slow motion.
[9] IDOL STAR had drawn box 1 and jumped out with the other dogs. The dog was in front and commenced to race wider on the track. In so doing, it came into contact with the dogs in boxes 2 and 3 (PAGANI and CLEVER SAGE).
[10] Mr Wallis stated that after being free of interference, IDOL STAR then turned its head outwards and looked towards the 7 dog, UGO FLASH, for 2 strides. The dog eased slightly at this time.
[11] As IDOL STAR was shifting outwards, UGO FLASH came down the track crowding dogs 5 and 9, BOTANY ALAN and LOOK AT LUCY (the latter had started in box 4).
[12] Mr Wallis said the RIU had no issue with IDOL STAR other than for the 2 strides when it turned its head.
[13] Mr Wallis acknowledged that IDOL STAR had been jostled in the early stages of the race but emphasised the dog was clear of the dogs that had drawn boxes 2 and 3 when it turned its head away from the lure.
[14] Mr Wales stated that IDOL STAR had had 10 starts and had had 1 win, 6 seconds, and a third. There had been no previous incidents with the dog.
[15] Mr Wales stated that when IDOL STAR came out of the boxes it was “trying to get off the track a bit”. He demonstrated on the videos that IDOL STAR wanted to keep out and had “copped the other dogs as they came down”. When questioned by this Committee, he said this was the first time IDOL STAR had started from box 1 and that the dog did like to run off the rail.
[16] Mr Wales emphasised the interference that IDOL STAR had struck just prior to the incident. The head-on video demonstrated that IDOL STAR had been pushed around by the 2 and 3 dogs and its back-legs were askew. He believed there had been contact on the left hand side of IDOL STAR only half a stride before the dog’s head went out. He added it was only natural that a dog’s head would go round when bumped.
[17] Mr Wales emphasised that IDOL STAR never looked like marring the 7 dog, UGO FLASH, and that IDOL STAR never lost ground when it turned its head.
[18] Mr Wales reiterated that IDOL STAR had copped a couple and had become unbalanced. He said IDOL STAR “had had a look because it was hammered by the other dogs”. He believed the incident would not have happened had the dog not been touched so many times.
[19] After viewing the videos at normal and slow speed Mr Wales agreed that IDOL STAR’s head was turned out for 2 strides. He emphasised IDOL STAR had not lost ground and if it had not been touched, we would not have had a case to determine as we were only here because IDOL STAR had been interfered with.
[20] In concluding, Mr Wales disputed that IDOL STAR had voluntarily turned its head. He said IDOL STAR had seen the other dog coming to its outside when it was straightening up after becoming unbalanced. It had not eased up.
[21] In summing up Mr Wallis stressed that Mr Wales had acknowledged that IDOL STAR might be having a look. He said that when clear of interference, the body of IDOL STAR straightened and its head turned outwards. This was for 2 strides and the dog had eased at this time. The dog had then run true once its head was straight.
[22] Mr Wales replied that IDOL STAR had not eased. He said it was not certain why the dog’s head was turned out but he believed the fact that it received 2 whacks when trying to get off the fence would have had something to do with it. He believed IDOL STAR had not done anything wrong as it had not stopped or lost ground over the incident.
Decision
[23] IDOL STAR has jumped from box 1 and has immediately started to move wider on the track. The dog at this time was marginally ahead of the other dogs due to its jumping out quickly. This was the first time the dog had drawn the 1 box and it is clear that IDOL STAR was trying to get to the middle of the track. As Mr Wales has said, the dog is “not a railer”.
[24] In moving outwards IDOL STAR has come into contact with the number 2 and the number 3 dogs. On each occasion IDOL STAR has been bumped and its legs are askew at one point. We could not verify from the videos Mr Wales’ allegation that IDOL STAR had received a bump immediately prior to the dog turning its head outwards. Had there been any contact, it would have to the near hind-quarters of IDOL STAR, whereas the dog’s head was turned outwards away from the alleged touching.
[25] The videos evidence that when IDOL STAR was racing ahead of the 5 dog, BOTANY ALAN, IDOL STAR was free of interference. The body of the dog straightened and for 2 to 2 ½ strides the dog’s head was turned outwards towards the 7 dog, UGO FLASH. At this time IDOL STAR was about a head in front of UGO FLASH.
[26] The side-on video demonstrates that IDOL STAR lost a little ground on UGO FLASH at this time. It was not a lot, but it is perceptible. Thus we accept Mr Wallis’ submission that IDOL STAR has eased.
[27] Mr Wallis’s case, however, is based on the fact that IDOL STAR has voluntarily turned its head away from the lure, and we are satisfied that he is correct.
[28] We accept Mr Wales’ submission that IDOL STAR had suffered interference prior to the incident and had become unbalanced. The videos confirm this. However, the videos also demonstrate that IDOL STAR had balanced up for a couple of strides and was running straight when its head was turned outwards to UGO FLASH, which was progressing to the dog’s outside and was approximately a head behind IDOL STAR at the relevant time.
[29] We are satisfied that in voluntarily turning its head towards UGO FLASH and away from the lure, that IDOL STAR has failed to pursue as defined in the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing and we thus find that the Stewards’ decision on the day was correct.
[30] Mr Wales’ application for review is thus not successful.
Dated at Dunedin this 20th day of June 2016.
Geoff Hall, Chairman
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 21/06/2016
Publish Date: 21/06/2016
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: 7cecbf297dda4f878ab3ee263129349c
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 21/06/2016
hearing_title: Appeal R Wales v RIU - Written Decision dated 20 June 2016 - Chair, Prof G Hall
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (Incorporated)
BETWEEN
ROBIN WALES, Licensed Trainer
Applicant
AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Respondent
Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman
Mr S Ching, Member
Present: Mr R Wales, Applicant
Mr S Wallis, Stipendiary Steward, for the Respondent
Mr R Quirk, Stipendiary Steward
Date of Hearing: 14 June 2016
Venue: Addington Raceway, Christchurch
Date of oral Decision: 13 June 2016
Date of written Decision: 20 June 2016
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] At the meeting of the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held at Addington racecourse on 3 June 2016, the greyhound IDOL STAR, trained by Mr Wales started in Race 14, CAROL'S TAB CLENDON INN SPRINT C1 295 metres. The dog finished second, half a length behind the winner.
[2] Following the race, the Stipendiary Stewards suspended IDOL STAR for 28 days under r 79.1.b for failing to pursue the lure. The veterinarian examination having found no injury to the dog.
[3] Rule 79.1 of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing states:
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.
[4] On 4 June 2016 Mr Wales applied for a review of the decision of the Stipendiary Stewards in accordance with r 91.20. His reason for disagreeing with the stewards was that “the dog did not fail to pursue the lure”.
Submissions
[5] After discussing the issue with the parties, it was decided that Mr Wallis would present the RIU case first.
[6] Mr Wallis identified the definition of “fails to pursue the lure” as set out in the Rules:
“FAILS TO PURSUE THE LURE” means the action of a Greyhound voluntarily turning the head without making contact with another Greyhound, or voluntarily easing up, or stopping during a Race while free of interference.
[7] Mr Wallis said the RIU in this case were alleging that IDOL STAR had voluntarily turned its head. As it was the dog’s first breach, it had been stood down for 28 days and until it trialled satisfactorily.
[8] Mr Wallis showed the Committee the side-on and head-on videos of the incident. We viewed them in both real time and slow motion.
[9] IDOL STAR had drawn box 1 and jumped out with the other dogs. The dog was in front and commenced to race wider on the track. In so doing, it came into contact with the dogs in boxes 2 and 3 (PAGANI and CLEVER SAGE).
[10] Mr Wallis stated that after being free of interference, IDOL STAR then turned its head outwards and looked towards the 7 dog, UGO FLASH, for 2 strides. The dog eased slightly at this time.
[11] As IDOL STAR was shifting outwards, UGO FLASH came down the track crowding dogs 5 and 9, BOTANY ALAN and LOOK AT LUCY (the latter had started in box 4).
[12] Mr Wallis said the RIU had no issue with IDOL STAR other than for the 2 strides when it turned its head.
[13] Mr Wallis acknowledged that IDOL STAR had been jostled in the early stages of the race but emphasised the dog was clear of the dogs that had drawn boxes 2 and 3 when it turned its head away from the lure.
[14] Mr Wales stated that IDOL STAR had had 10 starts and had had 1 win, 6 seconds, and a third. There had been no previous incidents with the dog.
[15] Mr Wales stated that when IDOL STAR came out of the boxes it was “trying to get off the track a bit”. He demonstrated on the videos that IDOL STAR wanted to keep out and had “copped the other dogs as they came down”. When questioned by this Committee, he said this was the first time IDOL STAR had started from box 1 and that the dog did like to run off the rail.
[16] Mr Wales emphasised the interference that IDOL STAR had struck just prior to the incident. The head-on video demonstrated that IDOL STAR had been pushed around by the 2 and 3 dogs and its back-legs were askew. He believed there had been contact on the left hand side of IDOL STAR only half a stride before the dog’s head went out. He added it was only natural that a dog’s head would go round when bumped.
[17] Mr Wales emphasised that IDOL STAR never looked like marring the 7 dog, UGO FLASH, and that IDOL STAR never lost ground when it turned its head.
[18] Mr Wales reiterated that IDOL STAR had copped a couple and had become unbalanced. He said IDOL STAR “had had a look because it was hammered by the other dogs”. He believed the incident would not have happened had the dog not been touched so many times.
[19] After viewing the videos at normal and slow speed Mr Wales agreed that IDOL STAR’s head was turned out for 2 strides. He emphasised IDOL STAR had not lost ground and if it had not been touched, we would not have had a case to determine as we were only here because IDOL STAR had been interfered with.
[20] In concluding, Mr Wales disputed that IDOL STAR had voluntarily turned its head. He said IDOL STAR had seen the other dog coming to its outside when it was straightening up after becoming unbalanced. It had not eased up.
[21] In summing up Mr Wallis stressed that Mr Wales had acknowledged that IDOL STAR might be having a look. He said that when clear of interference, the body of IDOL STAR straightened and its head turned outwards. This was for 2 strides and the dog had eased at this time. The dog had then run true once its head was straight.
[22] Mr Wales replied that IDOL STAR had not eased. He said it was not certain why the dog’s head was turned out but he believed the fact that it received 2 whacks when trying to get off the fence would have had something to do with it. He believed IDOL STAR had not done anything wrong as it had not stopped or lost ground over the incident.
Decision
[23] IDOL STAR has jumped from box 1 and has immediately started to move wider on the track. The dog at this time was marginally ahead of the other dogs due to its jumping out quickly. This was the first time the dog had drawn the 1 box and it is clear that IDOL STAR was trying to get to the middle of the track. As Mr Wales has said, the dog is “not a railer”.
[24] In moving outwards IDOL STAR has come into contact with the number 2 and the number 3 dogs. On each occasion IDOL STAR has been bumped and its legs are askew at one point. We could not verify from the videos Mr Wales’ allegation that IDOL STAR had received a bump immediately prior to the dog turning its head outwards. Had there been any contact, it would have to the near hind-quarters of IDOL STAR, whereas the dog’s head was turned outwards away from the alleged touching.
[25] The videos evidence that when IDOL STAR was racing ahead of the 5 dog, BOTANY ALAN, IDOL STAR was free of interference. The body of the dog straightened and for 2 to 2 ½ strides the dog’s head was turned outwards towards the 7 dog, UGO FLASH. At this time IDOL STAR was about a head in front of UGO FLASH.
[26] The side-on video demonstrates that IDOL STAR lost a little ground on UGO FLASH at this time. It was not a lot, but it is perceptible. Thus we accept Mr Wallis’ submission that IDOL STAR has eased.
[27] Mr Wallis’s case, however, is based on the fact that IDOL STAR has voluntarily turned its head away from the lure, and we are satisfied that he is correct.
[28] We accept Mr Wales’ submission that IDOL STAR had suffered interference prior to the incident and had become unbalanced. The videos confirm this. However, the videos also demonstrate that IDOL STAR had balanced up for a couple of strides and was running straight when its head was turned outwards to UGO FLASH, which was progressing to the dog’s outside and was approximately a head behind IDOL STAR at the relevant time.
[29] We are satisfied that in voluntarily turning its head towards UGO FLASH and away from the lure, that IDOL STAR has failed to pursue as defined in the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing and we thus find that the Stewards’ decision on the day was correct.
[30] Mr Wales’ application for review is thus not successful.
Dated at Dunedin this 20th day of June 2016.
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: