Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v A Bradshaw, J Jopson, C Steele and A Lee – Reserved Decision dated 19 December 2018 – Chair, Prof G Hall
ID: JCA17863
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
OF THE JCA AT CHRISTCHURCH
-IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (Incorporated)
BETWEEN
RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Informant
ASHLEY BRADSHAW, Licensed Trainer
First Respondent
JANINE JOPSON, Licensed Trainer
Second Respondent
COREY STEELE, Licensed Trainer
Third Respondent
ALISON LEE, Licensed Trainer
Fourth Respondent
Information Nos.--A11151, 11152, 11153, 11154
Judicial Committee: --Prof G Hall, Chairman
Mr S Ching, Member
Appearing:- -Mr K Coppins, Stipendiary Steward, for the Informant
The Respondents in person
RESERVED DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1]-The four respondents are charged as a result of their withdrawing the named greyhounds from a race meeting of the Otago Greyhound Racing Club held on 8 November 2018 at Forbury Park.
[2]-Information A11151 alleges that Ms Ashley Bradshaw withdrew without valid reason the greyhounds, BOSTON POWERS (R7), ZUGZWANG (R8), HANKENSTEIN (R8), NOZZNO FEAR (R9), ASSERTING POWER (R9), GO ALL IN (R9), HIGH SPARROW (R12) and MOHICAN RUN (R12). This is an alleged breach of r 40.3 of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing.
[3]-Information No A1152 alleges that Miss Janine Jopson withdrew without valid reason the greyhounds EPIC ROSE (R7), KOPUTARA (R8), ANOTHER MESSAGE (R8), WHO’S JOHN GAIT (R9) and KING KALI(R13). This is an alleged breach of r 40.3 of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing.
[4]-Information No A11153 alleges that Mr Corey Steele withdrew without valid reason the greyhound OPAWA BRAD (R10). This is an alleged breach of r 40.3 of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing.
[5]-Information No A11154 alleges that Ms Alison Lee withdrew without valid reason the greyhound MAN OF LETTERS (R15). This is an alleged breach of r 40.3 of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing.
[6]-Mr Coppins tabled a letter from Mr M Godber, the General Manager of the RIU, dated 8 November 2018 which authorised pursuant to r 66(2) the laying of the charges alleging breaches of r 40.3.
[7]-Rule 40.3 provides:
If a Greyhound is withdrawn without valid reason after the Box Draw, or after qualifying for a Semi Final or Final of a Totalisator Race, the Owner or Trainer of the Greyhound shall be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.
[8]-The issue is simple. Did any of the respondents have a valid reason to withdraw their dogs? As there is common ground in the reasons for the withdrawal of the greyhounds in question, these charges were heard at the same time.
[9]-The respondents each applied for stays of the 28 day stand downs pending the hearing of the charges. The stays were granted. These were extended at the hearing until such time as this reserved decision is released.
Informant’s case
[10]-Mr Coppins stated he was Chairman of Stewards at the Otago GRC meeting held at Forbury Park on 8 November 2018. He was working with Stipendiary Steward, Mr Davidson.
[11]-On arriving at the venue Mr Coppins walked the track and, while doing this, he talked to course curator, Mr P Hammond, who advised him that following the heavy rain overnight and through the morning that the track was slushy on top and that he would be reluctant to take any heavy machinery on to the track. Mr Coppins said during his discussion with Mr Hammond he agreed that it would be advisable to not use the tractor. However he believed that despite the slushy top surface, it was of normal firmness beneath that slushy top. Mr Hammond agreed and the Stewards did not envisage any issues with racing.
[12]-Mr Coppins said in his opinion the track was safe for racing. When Mr Davidson arrived, Mr Coppins spoke with him about the slushy nature of the track and they decided that they would, as would be normal with any race meeting, monitor the track throughout the day. Mr Coppins said this would be something that the Stewards would do whether there had been significant rain or not.
[13]-Mr Coppins then spoke with Mr J Carlyle, the Club secretary, about whether or not any trials had been scheduled, to which he responded that he did not wish to hold trials. Mr Coppins agreed, and told him that the Stewards would continue to monitor the track throughout the day.
[14]-Kennelling was completed and no comments were made concerning the weather conditions or the track to the Stewards, the race day veterinarian (Dr T Malthus) or the Club.
[15]-Racing duly commenced and while watching each of the first four races Mr Coppins said he did notice that on TV the track did look very slushy. Mr Davidson, who had been going to the start of each race, also said that while it was wet, no trainers had made any adverse comments to him.
[16]-At this point (following race 4 and prior to race 5) Mr Coppins advised Mr Davidson that he would go to the kennel block and chat to a couple of trainers and the vet. Mr Coppins spoke to four trainers (Mr C Steele, Mr J McInerney, Mr G Cleeve and Mr B Conner) who all indicated they thought the track was fine. Mr Coppins also spoke to Mr P Seque (handler for trainer Ms A Bradshaw) who did not really want to comment as he had only been out in one earlier race.
[17]-Following race 5 Mr Seque entered the Stewards’ room saying that he had been advised by Ms Bradshaw to withdraw her remaining runners. Mr Coppins advised Mr Seque that until this point the Stewards had received no negative comments about the track and that it was still deemed to be safe to race on and that all runners would be stood down for 28 days. A short time later Mr Steele entered and stated he wanted to withdraw his runner and the remaining runners of his employer, Ms J Jopson. Mr Coppins advised Mr Steele what the situation would be regarding the 28 day stand down. Mr Steele advised that he would “take the 28 days and go to the JCA”, but he “didn’t want to be the reason for a meeting being abandoned”.
[18]-Mr Seque mentioned that one of his runners had been injured, however Dr Malthus was not aware of this and had not treated or examined any Bradshaw runners. The following week, Christchurch GRC New Zealand Cup night, Ms Bradshaw advised Stewards that one of her runners from the Otago GRC meeting the previous week was found to have a torn gracilis muscle.
[19]-Mr Coppins went with Mr Seque and Mr Steele to see Mr Carlyle and notify him of the late scratchings so he could then notify Race Day Control. Mr Davidson ‘Tweeted’ the information and Mr Coppins contacted the on-course commentator about the late scratchings. With the exception of two races ie race 8 (four runners) and race 9 (four runners) the remainder of the fields were not dramatically reduced in numbers.
[20]-Mr Davidson went to the kennel block with Messrs Seque and Steele to notify kennel staff that these dogs were late scratchings. Mr Coppins contacted RIU Chief Greyhound Steward, Mr G Whiterod, to ensure that he was happy with the approach and process that Mr Coppins had followed to that point, ie, talking to trainers, the veterinarian and the Club. Mr Whiterod advised that he was satisfied that this approach was in line with the RIU approach.
[21]-Mr Davidson and Mr Coppins discussed the ongoing procedure for the remainder of the meeting. They decided to continue to monitor the track, talk to trainers, the vet and Club.
[22]-Following race 7 Mr Cleeve came to see Stewards and Mr Coppins asked him again what his opinion was and he said that while the track was definitely very wet with some splashing of dogs, in his opinion the track was still safe.
[23]-Following race 7, in which she had a runner, Ms A Lee advised Mr Coppins that she did not wish to start her runner in race 15. Mr Coppins advised her of the 28 day stand down.
[24]-Prior to race 9 Mr Cleeve, Mr Davidson, Mr Hammond and Mr Coppins went to inspect the track. Again, Mr Cleeve said that he thought that the track was still safe and that it was a good idea not to take any machinery onto the track as this could have an adverse effect in that it would draw moisture up.
[25]-There were 120 dogs accepted to race on the day, of which 105 raced (15 late scratchings from four trainers) and stewards sent only one dog to the veterinarian, Dr Malthus, post-race. This was due to this runner possibly hitting the rail and no injury was detected. The vet did advise that he had examined one dog at the request of connections and found it to have cramped and required a five-day stand-down, but he did not put this down to the track.
[26]-Mr Coppins introduced a statement from Dr Malthus in response to Mr Coppins’ request to send “something confirming that you were happy with the track, the dogs racing, ie none presented with injury etc”. Dr Malthus confirmed he was the duty veterinarian on the day. He said “[i]t was a cold wet day, there was only one greyhound presented with a post-race injury. This was a minor scratch … and had nothing to do with the track conditions.” We note that Dr Malthus makes no other reference to the track conditions.
[27]-The TAB had the track/weather conditions listed as slushy/raining. The previous three meetings, which were all listed as good/fine, there were a total of 11 dogs sent for post-race vet checks with nine returning no injury on the days concerned.
[28]-After the meeting Mr Coppins contacted Mr Whiterod who told him to charge each of the trainers with a breach of the Rules. These charges would normally be by way of a Minor Infringement, but due to the fact that all parties had left the track Mr Whiterod advised that Mr Coppins should call each trainer to notify them of the 28 day stand down and the fact that he would also be filing informations. Before he could call them, Ms Bradshaw rang Mr Coppins and he advised her that she could apply for a review of the 28 days, and also about the charge. Ms Jopson then called Mr Coppins and he told her the same, and before he could call Mr Steele, Mr Steele called him and Mr Coppins had the same conversation with him. Mr Coppins attempted to call Ms Lee. He left a message and talked to her the following day.
[29]-When questioned by the Committee as to the weather conditions, Mr Coppins said there had been heavy overnight rain and it rained or was showery during the course of the meeting. With respect to consulting trainers, he said he had spoken to a number after race 4 and had had conversation with senior trainers during the day. Mr J McInerney was there and he had 43 dogs racing on the day. He was one of the trainers spoken to after race 4. He was content that the meeting proceed.
Respondents’ cases
[30]-Ms Bradshaw was the first respondent to make an oral submission. She read from a prepared statement.
[31]-Ms Bradshaw said that while watching the running of race 5 she noticed the deterioration of the track around the two bends since her dog had raced in race 1. During the running of this race the box 4 dog, IT'S A JOKE, was slow coming out of the boxes resulting in it being several lengths behind the field. Entering the bend her dog, box 5, ODIN SLAYER, was sitting in position 4/5. About half way around this bend, ODIN SLAYER was sitting wide on the track, free of interference and could be seen pulling up, dropping back to 7th position and going out of sight on the replays.
[32]-When ODIN SLAYER and IT'S A JOKE reappeared on the screen six seconds later, IT'S A JOKE was 6.3 lengths ahead of ODIN SLAYER, who was a total of 20 lengths behind the winner.
[33]-In the replay of this race published online, handler Mr P Seque can be seen looking at the back leg of ODIN SLAYER, who collapses.
[34]-During the running of this race and watching the poor result of ODIN SLAYER, despite being clear of interference, Ms Bradshaw made the assumption that ODIN SLAYER had torn a gracilis. An injury which at his age was career ending due to recovery time and high injury recurrence. Later she told the Committee the dog was retired and she confirmed her belief that the injury was due to the state of the track.
[35]-In a phone call following the running of the race, Mr Seque confirmed to her that her suspicions were true and ODIN SLAYER had torn a gracilis. During this call Ms Bradshaw and Mr Seque discussed the unsafe track that they believed to be a danger to the safety of their dogs. They decided the risk of losing another race dog was too great and felt it best on welfare concerns to scratch their remaining dogs from the meeting.
[36]-Ms Bradshaw said this was not a decision they made lightly. That morning they had received a $3,000 combined monthly and emergency vet bill which had taken one of their race dogs out for several months. Plus they had the loss of ODIN SLAYER for racing purposes following that race. They were also scratching over half of their race team knowing the risk of their not being allowed to race for 28 days.
[37]-This decision was going to put Ms Bradshaw into financial strain as greyhound racing was her and Mr Seque’s only source of income to provide for her family and dogs, as well as employee wages.
[38]-Ms Bradshaw emphasised this was a meeting they believed they had several good chances of winning. The nature of the track supported dogs that jumped to the front, which many of their dogs did. Even so, they assessed the welfare risk as too great.
[39]-As a trainer Ms Bradshaw said she was obliged to have regard to r 85.3, which states:
A licensed person must exercise such reasonable care and supervision as may be necessary to prevent greyhounds under the licensed person’s care or custody from being subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering.
[40]-It was Ms Bradshaw’s opinion that the condition of the track surface posed an unnecessarily heightened risk of injury. The fact that no other dog was injured, she believed, was due to good luck not good management.
[41]-When Mr Seque approached Mr Coppins about their intentions, he informed Mr Coppins that ODIN SLAYER had torn a gracilis muscle during the running. She understood that Mr Coppins had shown no interest in this information and did not ask about a vet check, nor was this injury recorded in the Stipendiary Stewards’ report despite it being a serious career ending injury. During this meeting Ms Bradshaw said only one vet inspection was recorded, a far lower number than the national average of six inspections per meeting and certainly less than would be expected on such a wet, uneven track, when dogs could clearly be seen faltering on the television coverage.
[42]-Ms Bradshaw said that the Stipendiary Stewards’ report stated that discussions were had with trainers throughout the meeting. They had earlier in the meeting asked Mr Seque what his thoughts on the track were, to which he had replied he was unsure as he had not been on the track since race 1.
[43]-Significantly, Ms Bradshaw said that when Mr Seque came to Mr Coppins with their concerns and intentions he did not make any mention of organising a track inspection.
[44]-Ms Bradshaw said when she questioned Mr Coppins as to when he had performed a consultation on the track with senior trainers, the vet and track representatives, as listed in the report, and as per the guidelines, he failed to share inspection times and instead referred her to the Stipendiary Stewards’ report which did not make note of the time either.
[45]-Ms Bradshaw believed this inspection took place around race 8 or 9 (Mr Coppins states it was prior to race 9) after four trainers had already pulled their dogs out and was far too late to preserve the integrity of the race meeting. She questioned how other trainers, including one who recently was found guilty of animal welfare charges, could make a decision on what is safe for her dogs.
[46]-Ms Bradshaw believed that if protocol was followed in a more efficient manner, for example the races pushed back one race while the track had an assessment prior to her kennel’s scratchings, the opinions of other trainers may have differed without their having the knowledge of the late scratchings leaving fields easier and safer due to smaller field sizes with an increased chance of prize money, as a large number of the remaining dogs had been withdrawn. One trainer earned another $3k after this inspection and another a further $7k.
[47]-Ms Bradshaw said it was also stated on TV during race 7 that trainers had been given the option to scratch, and that the track conditions looked worse on TV than they actually were. She believed this was a most unusual comment and demonstrated that even the race commentator, Mr Teaz, had concerns about the images being presented to the public.
[48]-When they committed to racing their dogs, Ms Bradshaw said, they did so on the expectation that the track would be in safe condition for the duration of the entire meeting and trainers should not be expected to endanger their dogs on an uneven and deteriorating track surface. This expectation, she said comes from the constitution of racing under cl 2.1(f), to uphold the highest standards of Greyhound racing in New Zealand, and cl 2.1(c) to formulate and administer Regulations governing Greyhound racing and the registration, breeding, safety and welfare of Greyhounds in New Zealand.
[49]-It was Ms Bradshaw’s belief that the Club was not able to maintain a safe track for the duration of the meeting and therefore she should incur no penalty for scratching their dogs.
[50]-Ms Bradshaw said there was a precedent for abandoning a meeting because of an unsafe track. She referred to 18 June 2015 at Addington raceway. The meeting was abandoned following the running of race 3 after a dog was euthanized after injuring himself free of interference. She remembered attending this meeting, and after the trainer of the dog that died said he would not race on the track anymore that day, an inspection was done.
[51]-Ms Bradshaw questioned why the same offer of an inspection was not made at the Forbury meeting. She pondered whether the Stipendiary Stewards had decided she and the other trainers were not experienced enough to have their concerns taken seriously. She asked whether it would it have taken a dog to die as a result of the track before the Stipendiary Stewards would take a serious look at the track.
[52]-Ms Bradshaw placed in evidence a number of photos of dogs racing on the track on the day, and a series of photos that demonstrated the deterioration in the track conditions during the day. She expressed concern as to the depth of the top of the track and the other respondents’ submissions echoed this concern.
[53]-Ms Bradshaw questioned Mr Coppins as to why, when ODIN SLAYER had drifted out of the race, this had not been noted in the Stipendiary Stewards’ report. She said surely it was an animal welfare issue. Mr Coppins said the dog did drift out but he had not noticed this at the time, therefore he did not request a veterinarian check. Had any concern been expressed to him, he would have required a check.
[54]-Mr Coppins asked Ms Bradshaw why she had taken six days to take ODIN SLAYER to the vet. He questioned why it was not on race day. Ms Bradshaw said she was an organised trainer and she had “meds available at the time”. She had no ability to rush to a vet and took the dog to one when circumstances allowed. Mr Seque had pain meds and these were given to ODIN SLAYER two hours after the race with food.
[55]-Mr Coppins replied to Ms Bradshaw’s submission that the Addington approach should have been taken. He emphasised that the Stewards were not considering abandoning the Forbury Park meeting. Therefore, there was no inspection. He was comfortable with discussing the issue with other trainers on the day. He would have only convened a meeting with the trainers if the Stewards were considering abandoning the meeting, They were not. He emphasised both he and Mr Davidson were talking to other trainers on the day. He noted that 13 of the 17 trainers at the track had continued to race their dogs.
[56]-Mr Coppins said that below the slush there was a good surface. It was moulding sand which “holds well”. With reference to the photos produced by Ms Bradshaw showing the Addington track and the Forbury Park track, he said a comparison was false as the dogs at Forbury Park were moving and would go into the track further than dogs standing, as they were at Addington.
[57]-Mr Coppins said the reason the Stewards decided to talk to a group of trainers after race 4 was that on TV it did not look great. He emphasised that Mr Davidson had talked to trainers both before and after each race. He said these were the major trainers, including representatives of the Adcock, Evans and Wales kennels.
[58]-Mr Coppins said Mr Seque had expressed concern about the state of the track when he late scratched his dogs after race 5. Mr Steele had said the same thing at that time. Ms Lee had not expressed her concern as to the track until after race 7 or race 8 when she withdrew her dog from race 15. Mr Steele was also representing the Jopson kennel. There were thus only three persons who expressed concern about the track.
[59]-Mr Coppins said Mr Teaz was wrong to say Ms Bradshaw had been given the option to scratch her dogs. Ms Bradshaw confirmed this to the Committee. Mr Coppins said the allegation that Mr Teaz said the track did not look good was hearsay. We do not place any weight on the view of Mr Teaz in this instance and do not address this point.
[60]-Ms Bradshaw responded to Mr Coppins’ comment about the dogs getting a grip from the moulding sand. She said the uneven top could be dangerous. ODIN SLAYER had been seen by the physio two days before the meeting and had no injury. The dogs go through the top quickly and the moulding sand was like concrete. She said there was bitumen under the moulding sand.
[61]-Miss Jopson then addressed the Committee. She said she believed dogs could sometimes get down into the hard under-surface at Forbury Park and would chip nails and skin their pads. She said a Stipendiary Steward had told her “they did find tarseal.” (We note at this point that Mr Coppins disputed this and the issue was never resolved to the Committee’s satisfaction. We proceed on the accepted basis there was a hard layer of sand under a loose top to the track.)
[62]-Miss Jopson said a Forbury Park meeting had been abandoned some two weeks later and this one should have been as well. Mr Coppins replied that the abandonment was due to there being a lot of rain in Otago at the time and there being early concerns about the track. Because of the rain the Club had not had the opportunity to prepare the track as they had had two weeks earlier (ie for the meeting in question).
[63]-Miss Jopson said because of the sludge and the splattering as the dogs raced through it, there was a visibility issue and dogs were getting splash back into their eyes and throats. She was also concerned about toe, ligament and hock damage.
[64]-Miss Jopson said the handlers had had to walk on the grass to the boxes. This showed the sloppiness of the surface. A meeting with the trainers, Club committee and the veterinarian should have been called.
[65]-Miss Jopson referred us to the Blackburn decision of 28 September 2016 where animal welfare issues had been emphasised. She believed these were of greater concern in today’s environment. Trainers were “under the gun all the time” to make things safe for the dog.
[66]-Mr Coppins said to Miss Jopson that after race 4 he had spoken to Mr Steele who was representing her kennel on the day, and he had said he was happy and that the track was consistent. Miss Jopson replied that Mr Steele was not as experienced a trainer as was she, and that she could see more on TV. She said she spoke to Mr Steele after race 4, and after race 5 she made the decision to pull her dogs as the track was deteriorating race by race. She believed that the dogs were getting through the surface too much after race 5.
[67]-Mr Coppins replied to Miss Jopson that the handlers were walking on the outside of the track or on the path over the fence because they wanted to walk out there and in order to preserve the track for the dogs.
[68]-Mr Steele said he decided after race 6 to withdraw the dogs after consulting with Miss Jopson. He said in the catching area it was possible to put fingers in the holes made by the dogs’ footprints. The base was very firm. There was no slush just a compacted hardness. He emphasised the track had not been groomed. He believed the chance of a dog going from a slushy surface to a hard surface in the same stride, ie with one foot in a hole and one in slop, was high, and injuries were more likely in these circumstances.
[69]-Mr Steele said at the start of the day the track was slushy but was consistent throughout the whole track. At the conclusion of race 6 he thought the track was getting worse and he was not happy to let a dog race on it. He said for him it was not a visibility issue but the uneven nature of the surface. It was not consistent. Rule 85.3 had the effect that “the number one obligation was to the welfare of the dog” and therefore this was a valid reason to withdraw a dog. Media publicity, politics and Greyhound Board scrutiny meant animal welfare was the number one priority.
[70]-Mr Steele pointed out that all four respondents were Canterbury trainers and he described the arduous nature of the day, the associated travel costs, and lost stake money. For the Jopson kennel, these were the only starts that week and thus the only chance to earn stake money. The cost of an injury to a dog was an issue, too.
[71]-When questioned by Mr Coppins as to why other trainers were prepared to continue racing, Mr Steele replied that perhaps these trainers did not have animal welfare as their number one priority.
[72]-Ms Lee was the final trainer to put her defence to the charge. She said she had been a trainer for over 18 years. She said there was steady rain all day and she had been unable to trial her reserve dogs as Mr Carlyle, the Club secretary, had said to her that the Stipendiary Stewards had wanted to protect the track.
[73]-Ms Lee said her dog in race 1 was covered in sand but she thought the track was okay. She did not go on the track again until race 7. Her dog in that race was covered head to toe with sand. The dog could hardly see. She was concerned about the welfare of her dogs particularly because of the inability of track staff to groom the track. She concluded it was not a safe racing surface. Her dog in race 7 usually came from behind. It was coughing and was covered in sand and could not see. She believed the track was unfair for dogs that came from behind.
[74]-Ms Lee said that although she withdrew her dog in race 15, it was a dog that jumps. It was a young dog and had previously had a hock injury in late August. After a 10 day stand down the dog had had 2 starts, winning one. She was concerned the dog might re-injure its hock because of the depth of the track.
[75]-Ms Lee emphasised she had made her decision to withdraw her dog independently of the other trainers.
Summing up
[76]-Mr Coppins said the fact that some trainers perceived the track to be unsafe was not a valid reason when a number of senior trainers said the track was safe to race on and this was supported by the veterinarian and the track curator. He said he had an obligation to other trainers to continue racing.
[77]-Animal welfare was always a concern. The other 13 trainers were happy to continue racing and no other injuries were notified. He said Mr Cleeve had said to him there was a lot of water and splash back but he did not raise visibility issues as a welfare concern. Indeed, Mr Coppins said visibility was never raised with the Stipendiary Stewards on the day as being an issue.
[78]-Mr Coppins said it was not unusual for a club not to hold trials and he took issue with Mr Carlyle if he had said the Stipendiary Stewards did not want trials as Mr Carlyle had said the Club wanted “to keep the track” and he had agreed with Mr Carlyle.
[79]-Mr Coppins reiterated no thought had been given to meeting with trainers as the Stewards did not consider abandoning the meeting. The Stewards had continued to monitor the track conditions and continued discussions with trainers.
[80]-Mr Steele stated his kennel only currently had two dogs racing. So loss through injury or a stand down was a big one for the kennel. He reiterated it was not a spur of the moment decision to withdraw his dog. There was a cost and inconvenience thr
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 20/12/2018
Publish Date: 20/12/2018
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: f742d0fed4c9e3f0fd0429d32fcacedf
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 20/12/2018
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v A Bradshaw, J Jopson, C Steele and A Lee - Reserved Decision dated 19 December 2018 - Chair, Prof G Hall
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
OF THE JCA AT CHRISTCHURCH
-IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (Incorporated)
BETWEEN
RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Informant
ASHLEY BRADSHAW, Licensed Trainer
First Respondent
JANINE JOPSON, Licensed Trainer
Second Respondent
COREY STEELE, Licensed Trainer
Third Respondent
ALISON LEE, Licensed Trainer
Fourth Respondent
Information Nos.--A11151, 11152, 11153, 11154
Judicial Committee: --Prof G Hall, Chairman
Mr S Ching, Member
Appearing:- -Mr K Coppins, Stipendiary Steward, for the Informant
The Respondents in person
RESERVED DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1]-The four respondents are charged as a result of their withdrawing the named greyhounds from a race meeting of the Otago Greyhound Racing Club held on 8 November 2018 at Forbury Park.
[2]-Information A11151 alleges that Ms Ashley Bradshaw withdrew without valid reason the greyhounds, BOSTON POWERS (R7), ZUGZWANG (R8), HANKENSTEIN (R8), NOZZNO FEAR (R9), ASSERTING POWER (R9), GO ALL IN (R9), HIGH SPARROW (R12) and MOHICAN RUN (R12). This is an alleged breach of r 40.3 of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing.
[3]-Information No A1152 alleges that Miss Janine Jopson withdrew without valid reason the greyhounds EPIC ROSE (R7), KOPUTARA (R8), ANOTHER MESSAGE (R8), WHO’S JOHN GAIT (R9) and KING KALI(R13). This is an alleged breach of r 40.3 of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing.
[4]-Information No A11153 alleges that Mr Corey Steele withdrew without valid reason the greyhound OPAWA BRAD (R10). This is an alleged breach of r 40.3 of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing.
[5]-Information No A11154 alleges that Ms Alison Lee withdrew without valid reason the greyhound MAN OF LETTERS (R15). This is an alleged breach of r 40.3 of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing.
[6]-Mr Coppins tabled a letter from Mr M Godber, the General Manager of the RIU, dated 8 November 2018 which authorised pursuant to r 66(2) the laying of the charges alleging breaches of r 40.3.
[7]-Rule 40.3 provides:
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.
[8]-The issue is simple. Did any of the respondents have a valid reason to withdraw their dogs? As there is common ground in the reasons for the withdrawal of the greyhounds in question, these charges were heard at the same time.
[9]-The respondents each applied for stays of the 28 day stand downs pending the hearing of the charges. The stays were granted. These were extended at the hearing until such time as this reserved decision is released.
Informant’s case
[10]-Mr Coppins stated he was Chairman of Stewards at the Otago GRC meeting held at Forbury Park on 8 November 2018. He was working with Stipendiary Steward, Mr Davidson.
[11]-On arriving at the venue Mr Coppins walked the track and, while doing this, he talked to course curator, Mr P Hammond, who advised him that following the heavy rain overnight and through the morning that the track was slushy on top and that he would be reluctant to take any heavy machinery on to the track. Mr Coppins said during his discussion with Mr Hammond he agreed that it would be advisable to not use the tractor. However he believed that despite the slushy top surface, it was of normal firmness beneath that slushy top. Mr Hammond agreed and the Stewards did not envisage any issues with racing.
[12]-Mr Coppins said in his opinion the track was safe for racing. When Mr Davidson arrived, Mr Coppins spoke with him about the slushy nature of the track and they decided that they would, as would be normal with any race meeting, monitor the track throughout the day. Mr Coppins said this would be something that the Stewards would do whether there had been significant rain or not.
[13]-Mr Coppins then spoke with Mr J Carlyle, the Club secretary, about whether or not any trials had been scheduled, to which he responded that he did not wish to hold trials. Mr Coppins agreed, and told him that the Stewards would continue to monitor the track throughout the day.
[14]-Kennelling was completed and no comments were made concerning the weather conditions or the track to the Stewards, the race day veterinarian (Dr T Malthus) or the Club.
[15]-Racing duly commenced and while watching each of the first four races Mr Coppins said he did notice that on TV the track did look very slushy. Mr Davidson, who had been going to the start of each race, also said that while it was wet, no trainers had made any adverse comments to him.
[16]-At this point (following race 4 and prior to race 5) Mr Coppins advised Mr Davidson that he would go to the kennel block and chat to a couple of trainers and the vet. Mr Coppins spoke to four trainers (Mr C Steele, Mr J McInerney, Mr G Cleeve and Mr B Conner) who all indicated they thought the track was fine. Mr Coppins also spoke to Mr P Seque (handler for trainer Ms A Bradshaw) who did not really want to comment as he had only been out in one earlier race.
[17]-Following race 5 Mr Seque entered the Stewards’ room saying that he had been advised by Ms Bradshaw to withdraw her remaining runners. Mr Coppins advised Mr Seque that until this point the Stewards had received no negative comments about the track and that it was still deemed to be safe to race on and that all runners would be stood down for 28 days. A short time later Mr Steele entered and stated he wanted to withdraw his runner and the remaining runners of his employer, Ms J Jopson. Mr Coppins advised Mr Steele what the situation would be regarding the 28 day stand down. Mr Steele advised that he would “take the 28 days and go to the JCA”, but he “didn’t want to be the reason for a meeting being abandoned”.
[18]-Mr Seque mentioned that one of his runners had been injured, however Dr Malthus was not aware of this and had not treated or examined any Bradshaw runners. The following week, Christchurch GRC New Zealand Cup night, Ms Bradshaw advised Stewards that one of her runners from the Otago GRC meeting the previous week was found to have a torn gracilis muscle.
[19]-Mr Coppins went with Mr Seque and Mr Steele to see Mr Carlyle and notify him of the late scratchings so he could then notify Race Day Control. Mr Davidson ‘Tweeted’ the information and Mr Coppins contacted the on-course commentator about the late scratchings. With the exception of two races ie race 8 (four runners) and race 9 (four runners) the remainder of the fields were not dramatically reduced in numbers.
[20]-Mr Davidson went to the kennel block with Messrs Seque and Steele to notify kennel staff that these dogs were late scratchings. Mr Coppins contacted RIU Chief Greyhound Steward, Mr G Whiterod, to ensure that he was happy with the approach and process that Mr Coppins had followed to that point, ie, talking to trainers, the veterinarian and the Club. Mr Whiterod advised that he was satisfied that this approach was in line with the RIU approach.
[21]-Mr Davidson and Mr Coppins discussed the ongoing procedure for the remainder of the meeting. They decided to continue to monitor the track, talk to trainers, the vet and Club.
[22]-Following race 7 Mr Cleeve came to see Stewards and Mr Coppins asked him again what his opinion was and he said that while the track was definitely very wet with some splashing of dogs, in his opinion the track was still safe.
[23]-Following race 7, in which she had a runner, Ms A Lee advised Mr Coppins that she did not wish to start her runner in race 15. Mr Coppins advised her of the 28 day stand down.
[24]-Prior to race 9 Mr Cleeve, Mr Davidson, Mr Hammond and Mr Coppins went to inspect the track. Again, Mr Cleeve said that he thought that the track was still safe and that it was a good idea not to take any machinery onto the track as this could have an adverse effect in that it would draw moisture up.
[25]-There were 120 dogs accepted to race on the day, of which 105 raced (15 late scratchings from four trainers) and stewards sent only one dog to the veterinarian, Dr Malthus, post-race. This was due to this runner possibly hitting the rail and no injury was detected. The vet did advise that he had examined one dog at the request of connections and found it to have cramped and required a five-day stand-down, but he did not put this down to the track.
[26]-Mr Coppins introduced a statement from Dr Malthus in response to Mr Coppins’ request to send “something confirming that you were happy with the track, the dogs racing, ie none presented with injury etc”. Dr Malthus confirmed he was the duty veterinarian on the day. He said “[i]t was a cold wet day, there was only one greyhound presented with a post-race injury. This was a minor scratch … and had nothing to do with the track conditions.” We note that Dr Malthus makes no other reference to the track conditions.
[27]-The TAB had the track/weather conditions listed as slushy/raining. The previous three meetings, which were all listed as good/fine, there were a total of 11 dogs sent for post-race vet checks with nine returning no injury on the days concerned.
[28]-After the meeting Mr Coppins contacted Mr Whiterod who told him to charge each of the trainers with a breach of the Rules. These charges would normally be by way of a Minor Infringement, but due to the fact that all parties had left the track Mr Whiterod advised that Mr Coppins should call each trainer to notify them of the 28 day stand down and the fact that he would also be filing informations. Before he could call them, Ms Bradshaw rang Mr Coppins and he advised her that she could apply for a review of the 28 days, and also about the charge. Ms Jopson then called Mr Coppins and he told her the same, and before he could call Mr Steele, Mr Steele called him and Mr Coppins had the same conversation with him. Mr Coppins attempted to call Ms Lee. He left a message and talked to her the following day.
[29]-When questioned by the Committee as to the weather conditions, Mr Coppins said there had been heavy overnight rain and it rained or was showery during the course of the meeting. With respect to consulting trainers, he said he had spoken to a number after race 4 and had had conversation with senior trainers during the day. Mr J McInerney was there and he had 43 dogs racing on the day. He was one of the trainers spoken to after race 4. He was content that the meeting proceed.
Respondents’ cases
[30]-Ms Bradshaw was the first respondent to make an oral submission. She read from a prepared statement.
[31]-Ms Bradshaw said that while watching the running of race 5 she noticed the deterioration of the track around the two bends since her dog had raced in race 1. During the running of this race the box 4 dog, IT'S A JOKE, was slow coming out of the boxes resulting in it being several lengths behind the field. Entering the bend her dog, box 5, ODIN SLAYER, was sitting in position 4/5. About half way around this bend, ODIN SLAYER was sitting wide on the track, free of interference and could be seen pulling up, dropping back to 7th position and going out of sight on the replays.
[32]-When ODIN SLAYER and IT'S A JOKE reappeared on the screen six seconds later, IT'S A JOKE was 6.3 lengths ahead of ODIN SLAYER, who was a total of 20 lengths behind the winner.
[33]-In the replay of this race published online, handler Mr P Seque can be seen looking at the back leg of ODIN SLAYER, who collapses.
[34]-During the running of this race and watching the poor result of ODIN SLAYER, despite being clear of interference, Ms Bradshaw made the assumption that ODIN SLAYER had torn a gracilis. An injury which at his age was career ending due to recovery time and high injury recurrence. Later she told the Committee the dog was retired and she confirmed her belief that the injury was due to the state of the track.
[35]-In a phone call following the running of the race, Mr Seque confirmed to her that her suspicions were true and ODIN SLAYER had torn a gracilis. During this call Ms Bradshaw and Mr Seque discussed the unsafe track that they believed to be a danger to the safety of their dogs. They decided the risk of losing another race dog was too great and felt it best on welfare concerns to scratch their remaining dogs from the meeting.
[36]-Ms Bradshaw said this was not a decision they made lightly. That morning they had received a $3,000 combined monthly and emergency vet bill which had taken one of their race dogs out for several months. Plus they had the loss of ODIN SLAYER for racing purposes following that race. They were also scratching over half of their race team knowing the risk of their not being allowed to race for 28 days.
[37]-This decision was going to put Ms Bradshaw into financial strain as greyhound racing was her and Mr Seque’s only source of income to provide for her family and dogs, as well as employee wages.
[38]-Ms Bradshaw emphasised this was a meeting they believed they had several good chances of winning. The nature of the track supported dogs that jumped to the front, which many of their dogs did. Even so, they assessed the welfare risk as too great.
[39]-As a trainer Ms Bradshaw said she was obliged to have regard to r 85.3, which states:
A licensed person must exercise such reasonable care and supervision as may be necessary to prevent greyhounds under the licensed person’s care or custody from being subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering.
[40]-It was Ms Bradshaw’s opinion that the condition of the track surface posed an unnecessarily heightened risk of injury. The fact that no other dog was injured, she believed, was due to good luck not good management.
[41]-When Mr Seque approached Mr Coppins about their intentions, he informed Mr Coppins that ODIN SLAYER had torn a gracilis muscle during the running. She understood that Mr Coppins had shown no interest in this information and did not ask about a vet check, nor was this injury recorded in the Stipendiary Stewards’ report despite it being a serious career ending injury. During this meeting Ms Bradshaw said only one vet inspection was recorded, a far lower number than the national average of six inspections per meeting and certainly less than would be expected on such a wet, uneven track, when dogs could clearly be seen faltering on the television coverage.
[42]-Ms Bradshaw said that the Stipendiary Stewards’ report stated that discussions were had with trainers throughout the meeting. They had earlier in the meeting asked Mr Seque what his thoughts on the track were, to which he had replied he was unsure as he had not been on the track since race 1.
[43]-Significantly, Ms Bradshaw said that when Mr Seque came to Mr Coppins with their concerns and intentions he did not make any mention of organising a track inspection.
[44]-Ms Bradshaw said when she questioned Mr Coppins as to when he had performed a consultation on the track with senior trainers, the vet and track representatives, as listed in the report, and as per the guidelines, he failed to share inspection times and instead referred her to the Stipendiary Stewards’ report which did not make note of the time either.
[45]-Ms Bradshaw believed this inspection took place around race 8 or 9 (Mr Coppins states it was prior to race 9) after four trainers had already pulled their dogs out and was far too late to preserve the integrity of the race meeting. She questioned how other trainers, including one who recently was found guilty of animal welfare charges, could make a decision on what is safe for her dogs.
[46]-Ms Bradshaw believed that if protocol was followed in a more efficient manner, for example the races pushed back one race while the track had an assessment prior to her kennel’s scratchings, the opinions of other trainers may have differed without their having the knowledge of the late scratchings leaving fields easier and safer due to smaller field sizes with an increased chance of prize money, as a large number of the remaining dogs had been withdrawn. One trainer earned another $3k after this inspection and another a further $7k.
[47]-Ms Bradshaw said it was also stated on TV during race 7 that trainers had been given the option to scratch, and that the track conditions looked worse on TV than they actually were. She believed this was a most unusual comment and demonstrated that even the race commentator, Mr Teaz, had concerns about the images being presented to the public.
[48]-When they committed to racing their dogs, Ms Bradshaw said, they did so on the expectation that the track would be in safe condition for the duration of the entire meeting and trainers should not be expected to endanger their dogs on an uneven and deteriorating track surface. This expectation, she said comes from the constitution of racing under cl 2.1(f), to uphold the highest standards of Greyhound racing in New Zealand, and cl 2.1(c) to formulate and administer Regulations governing Greyhound racing and the registration, breeding, safety and welfare of Greyhounds in New Zealand.
[49]-It was Ms Bradshaw’s belief that the Club was not able to maintain a safe track for the duration of the meeting and therefore she should incur no penalty for scratching their dogs.
[50]-Ms Bradshaw said there was a precedent for abandoning a meeting because of an unsafe track. She referred to 18 June 2015 at Addington raceway. The meeting was abandoned following the running of race 3 after a dog was euthanized after injuring himself free of interference. She remembered attending this meeting, and after the trainer of the dog that died said he would not race on the track anymore that day, an inspection was done.
[51]-Ms Bradshaw questioned why the same offer of an inspection was not made at the Forbury meeting. She pondered whether the Stipendiary Stewards had decided she and the other trainers were not experienced enough to have their concerns taken seriously. She asked whether it would it have taken a dog to die as a result of the track before the Stipendiary Stewards would take a serious look at the track.
[52]-Ms Bradshaw placed in evidence a number of photos of dogs racing on the track on the day, and a series of photos that demonstrated the deterioration in the track conditions during the day. She expressed concern as to the depth of the top of the track and the other respondents’ submissions echoed this concern.
[53]-Ms Bradshaw questioned Mr Coppins as to why, when ODIN SLAYER had drifted out of the race, this had not been noted in the Stipendiary Stewards’ report. She said surely it was an animal welfare issue. Mr Coppins said the dog did drift out but he had not noticed this at the time, therefore he did not request a veterinarian check. Had any concern been expressed to him, he would have required a check.
[54]-Mr Coppins asked Ms Bradshaw why she had taken six days to take ODIN SLAYER to the vet. He questioned why it was not on race day. Ms Bradshaw said she was an organised trainer and she had “meds available at the time”. She had no ability to rush to a vet and took the dog to one when circumstances allowed. Mr Seque had pain meds and these were given to ODIN SLAYER two hours after the race with food.
[55]-Mr Coppins replied to Ms Bradshaw’s submission that the Addington approach should have been taken. He emphasised that the Stewards were not considering abandoning the Forbury Park meeting. Therefore, there was no inspection. He was comfortable with discussing the issue with other trainers on the day. He would have only convened a meeting with the trainers if the Stewards were considering abandoning the meeting, They were not. He emphasised both he and Mr Davidson were talking to other trainers on the day. He noted that 13 of the 17 trainers at the track had continued to race their dogs.
[56]-Mr Coppins said that below the slush there was a good surface. It was moulding sand which “holds well”. With reference to the photos produced by Ms Bradshaw showing the Addington track and the Forbury Park track, he said a comparison was false as the dogs at Forbury Park were moving and would go into the track further than dogs standing, as they were at Addington.
[57]-Mr Coppins said the reason the Stewards decided to talk to a group of trainers after race 4 was that on TV it did not look great. He emphasised that Mr Davidson had talked to trainers both before and after each race. He said these were the major trainers, including representatives of the Adcock, Evans and Wales kennels.
[58]-Mr Coppins said Mr Seque had expressed concern about the state of the track when he late scratched his dogs after race 5. Mr Steele had said the same thing at that time. Ms Lee had not expressed her concern as to the track until after race 7 or race 8 when she withdrew her dog from race 15. Mr Steele was also representing the Jopson kennel. There were thus only three persons who expressed concern about the track.
[59]-Mr Coppins said Mr Teaz was wrong to say Ms Bradshaw had been given the option to scratch her dogs. Ms Bradshaw confirmed this to the Committee. Mr Coppins said the allegation that Mr Teaz said the track did not look good was hearsay. We do not place any weight on the view of Mr Teaz in this instance and do not address this point.
[60]-Ms Bradshaw responded to Mr Coppins’ comment about the dogs getting a grip from the moulding sand. She said the uneven top could be dangerous. ODIN SLAYER had been seen by the physio two days before the meeting and had no injury. The dogs go through the top quickly and the moulding sand was like concrete. She said there was bitumen under the moulding sand.
[61]-Miss Jopson then addressed the Committee. She said she believed dogs could sometimes get down into the hard under-surface at Forbury Park and would chip nails and skin their pads. She said a Stipendiary Steward had told her “they did find tarseal.” (We note at this point that Mr Coppins disputed this and the issue was never resolved to the Committee’s satisfaction. We proceed on the accepted basis there was a hard layer of sand under a loose top to the track.)
[62]-Miss Jopson said a Forbury Park meeting had been abandoned some two weeks later and this one should have been as well. Mr Coppins replied that the abandonment was due to there being a lot of rain in Otago at the time and there being early concerns about the track. Because of the rain the Club had not had the opportunity to prepare the track as they had had two weeks earlier (ie for the meeting in question).
[63]-Miss Jopson said because of the sludge and the splattering as the dogs raced through it, there was a visibility issue and dogs were getting splash back into their eyes and throats. She was also concerned about toe, ligament and hock damage.
[64]-Miss Jopson said the handlers had had to walk on the grass to the boxes. This showed the sloppiness of the surface. A meeting with the trainers, Club committee and the veterinarian should have been called.
[65]-Miss Jopson referred us to the Blackburn decision of 28 September 2016 where animal welfare issues had been emphasised. She believed these were of greater concern in today’s environment. Trainers were “under the gun all the time” to make things safe for the dog.
[66]-Mr Coppins said to Miss Jopson that after race 4 he had spoken to Mr Steele who was representing her kennel on the day, and he had said he was happy and that the track was consistent. Miss Jopson replied that Mr Steele was not as experienced a trainer as was she, and that she could see more on TV. She said she spoke to Mr Steele after race 4, and after race 5 she made the decision to pull her dogs as the track was deteriorating race by race. She believed that the dogs were getting through the surface too much after race 5.
[67]-Mr Coppins replied to Miss Jopson that the handlers were walking on the outside of the track or on the path over the fence because they wanted to walk out there and in order to preserve the track for the dogs.
[68]-Mr Steele said he decided after race 6 to withdraw the dogs after consulting with Miss Jopson. He said in the catching area it was possible to put fingers in the holes made by the dogs’ footprints. The base was very firm. There was no slush just a compacted hardness. He emphasised the track had not been groomed. He believed the chance of a dog going from a slushy surface to a hard surface in the same stride, ie with one foot in a hole and one in slop, was high, and injuries were more likely in these circumstances.
[69]-Mr Steele said at the start of the day the track was slushy but was consistent throughout the whole track. At the conclusion of race 6 he thought the track was getting worse and he was not happy to let a dog race on it. He said for him it was not a visibility issue but the uneven nature of the surface. It was not consistent. Rule 85.3 had the effect that “the number one obligation was to the welfare of the dog” and therefore this was a valid reason to withdraw a dog. Media publicity, politics and Greyhound Board scrutiny meant animal welfare was the number one priority.
[70]-Mr Steele pointed out that all four respondents were Canterbury trainers and he described the arduous nature of the day, the associated travel costs, and lost stake money. For the Jopson kennel, these were the only starts that week and thus the only chance to earn stake money. The cost of an injury to a dog was an issue, too.
[71]-When questioned by Mr Coppins as to why other trainers were prepared to continue racing, Mr Steele replied that perhaps these trainers did not have animal welfare as their number one priority.
[72]-Ms Lee was the final trainer to put her defence to the charge. She said she had been a trainer for over 18 years. She said there was steady rain all day and she had been unable to trial her reserve dogs as Mr Carlyle, the Club secretary, had said to her that the Stipendiary Stewards had wanted to protect the track.
[73]-Ms Lee said her dog in race 1 was covered in sand but she thought the track was okay. She did not go on the track again until race 7. Her dog in that race was covered head to toe with sand. The dog could hardly see. She was concerned about the welfare of her dogs particularly because of the inability of track staff to groom the track. She concluded it was not a safe racing surface. Her dog in race 7 usually came from behind. It was coughing and was covered in sand and could not see. She believed the track was unfair for dogs that came from behind.
[74]-Ms Lee said that although she withdrew her dog in race 15, it was a dog that jumps. It was a young dog and had previously had a hock injury in late August. After a 10 day stand down the dog had had 2 starts, winning one. She was concerned the dog might re-injure its hock because of the depth of the track.
[75]-Ms Lee emphasised she had made her decision to withdraw her dog independently of the other trainers.
Summing up
[76]-Mr Coppins said the fact that some trainers perceived the track to be unsafe was not a valid reason when a number of senior trainers said the track was safe to race on and this was supported by the veterinarian and the track curator. He said he had an obligation to other trainers to continue racing.
[77]-Animal welfare was always a concern. The other 13 trainers were happy to continue racing and no other injuries were notified. He said Mr Cleeve had said to him there was a lot of water and splash back but he did not raise visibility issues as a welfare concern. Indeed, Mr Coppins said visibility was never raised with the Stipendiary Stewards on the day as being an issue.
[78]-Mr Coppins said it was not unusual for a club not to hold trials and he took issue with Mr Carlyle if he had said the Stipendiary Stewards did not want trials as Mr Carlyle had said the Club wanted “to keep the track” and he had agreed with Mr Carlyle.
[79]-Mr Coppins reiterated no thought had been given to meeting with trainers as the Stewards did not consider abandoning the meeting. The Stewards had continued to monitor the track conditions and continued discussions with trainers.
[80]-Mr Steele stated his kennel only currently had two dogs racing. So loss through injury or a stand down was a big one for the kennel. He reiterated it was not a spur of the moment decision to withdraw his dog. There was a cost and inconvenience thr
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: