Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v AC Roberts – Penalty Decision and Reasons of Judicial Committee dated 22 September 2014
ID: JCA14365
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association
IN THE MATTER of Information No. A7202
BETWEEN S P RENAULT, Stipendiary Steward for the Racing Integrity Unit
Informant
AND A C ROBERTS of Christchurch, Licensed Trainer
Respondent
Judicial Committee: Mr R G McKenzie, Chair - Mr KG Hales, Panellist
Present: Mr S P Renault, the Informant
Mr A C Roberts, the Respondent
Mr N G McIntyre, Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward (Registrar)
Date of Hearing: 18 September 2014
Date of Decision: 22 September 2014
PENALTY DECISION AND REASONS OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
The Charge
[1] Information No.A7202 alleges that the Respondent committed a breach of Rule 88.1.o in that he was “negligent in presenting ZULU CHANEL to race instead of ZULU MERCEDES” at the meeting of Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club at Addington Raceway on Friday, 12 September 2014.
[2] The information was served on Mr Roberts on the raceday. He signed the Statement by the Respondent at the foot of the information form indicating that he admitted the breach.
[3] The hearing of the information was adjourned on raceday and was heard at Addington Raceway on Thursday, 18 September 2014.
[4] Details of the charge and the Rule were read to Mr Roberts at the commencement of the hearing. He confirmed that he understood the charge and the Rule and that he admitted the breach.
[5] Mr Roberts having admitted the charge, the charge was found proved.
The Rule
[6] Rule 88.1 provides as follows:-
Any person (including an Official) commits an offence if he/she:
o. has, in relation to a Greyhound or Greyhound racing, done a thing, or omitted to do a thing which is negligent, dishonest, corrupt, fraudulent or improper, or constitutes misconduct.
Summary of Facts
[7] Mr Renault presented the following Summary of Facts:
1. On Friday the 12th of September 2014 the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held a race meeting at Addington Raceway.
2. The programme for the meeting showed that Race One on the day was the SUPER PETS STAKES to be conducted over 520 metres by dogs classed at C0.
3. Dog number three in that race was shown to be a first starter named ZULU MERCEDES, a white and black bitch, born November 2012 by Head Bound, out of Sugar Plum. This dog was trained by licensed public trainer, Mr Craig Roberts.
4. The ear brand for the dog was listed as ZBCJZ and the microchip number was 956000008461453.
5. Mr Craig Roberts was not in attendance at this stage of the race meeting. The dog was transported to the racecourse by Mr Roberts’ employee Mr Matthew McCook who was also in charge of the dog for the day.
6. During the allocated kennelling time for Races One to Seven which was between 10.13am and 11.13am, the dog was presented at the Veterinary inspection table by Mr McCook. At this point its microchip was scanned for identification purposes. This task was completed by a member of the kennel staff.
7. It then became apparent that the microchip number in the dog presented was not consistent with the number on the identification card of ZULU MERCEDES. The dog’s ear brand was also different to its card.
8. The dog that was presented on the table had a microchip number of 956000008408291 and an ear brand of ZBCJW. The last symbol on the ear brand is smudged and difficult to read.
9. At that time Mr McCook was advised by myself to wait in the kennel block with the dog while my colleague Mr Rick Quirk rang Greyhound Racing New Zealand to identify the microchip number scanned in the dog.
10. It was discovered that the microchip number was registered to ZULU CHANEL, also a white and black bitch, and a litter mate of ZULU MERCEDES by Head Bound out of Sugar Plum also trained by Mr Roberts.
11. ZULU CHANEL was also nominated for this race meeting. The dog was number Ten in Race Seven the CAROL’S TAB DASH conducted over 295 metres by dogs classed at C0.
12. ZULU CHANEL was the second reserve for the race and was subsequently scratched at 7.30am on Friday 12th of September 2014 by the Club after there had been no scratchings of greyhounds drawn to compete in the race.
13. Mr McCook returned ZULU CHANEL to his van and phoned Mr Roberts to inform him of the situation. Mr Roberts then organised fellow employee Miss Melissa Roberts to transport ZULU MERCEDES from his training establishment to the racecourse.
14. ZULU MERCEDES arrived on course at around 11.40am and was identified correctly on the Veterinary inspection table and kennelled.
15. ZULU MERCEDES competed in Race one and finished 7th.
16. Mr Roberts was contacted after the race by Mr Quirk. After a brief discussion Mr Roberts advised Mr Quirk that he was coming to the racecourse later in the day. Mr Quirk informed Mr Roberts that he was required to come to the Stewards room to discuss the matter when he arrived on course.
17. At a subsequent interview with Mr Roberts in the Stewards room. It was established that the identities of the two dogs had been mistaken by the Roberts’ kennel staff since the dogs were young and the correct identity of ZULU MERCEDES and ZULU CHANEL had remained confused until the race meeting in question.
18. Mr Roberts had qualified both dogs at Addington on the 2nd of September 2014 in a 4 dog trial consisting of all Mr Roberts’ dogs.
19. ZULU MERCEDES was correctly presented to race in the trial from box one while ZULU CHANEL was correctly presented to race from box seven. ZULU MERCEDES finished 2nd in the qualifying trial and beat ZULU CHANEL by half a head. Mr Roberts had boxed ZULU MERCEDES for the trial and watched the race from behind the 295 metres boxes located at the entrance to the back straight.
20. Mr Roberts thought that the one dog was ZULU CHANEL and the seven dog was ZULU MERCEDES.
21. Mr Roberts was of the opinion that the seven dog had beaten the one dog because the seven dog had finished strongly over the final stages and had been ahead of the one dog shortly after the finish when appearing from behind the signage around the winning post. The result was in fact different. The official result shows the one dog beat the seven dog by half a head. Mr Roberts had thought ZULU MERCEDES had beaten ZULU CHANEL.
22. As a result of this error, Mr Roberts had nominated ZULU MERCEDES for a 520 metre event and ZULU CHANEL for a 295 event for the race meeting on the 12th of September.
23. As ZULU MERCEDES was the only dog of these two to gain a start on the 12th of September, Mr Roberts sent (who we have now established to be) ZULU CHANEL to race as ZULU MERCEDES.
24. After investigating this matter further it was established that on the 1st of April 2014 both dogs were registered with GRNZ by the owner Jessica Britton to be trained by Mr Roberts.
25. Both dogs are white and black in colour. ZULU CHANEL has large black markings around the eyes and head while ZULU MERCEDES has a predominantly white head.
26. Both dogs were marked by an Official NZGRA Marking Steward namely Ann Jopson on the 4th of July 2014.
Submissions of Respondent
[8] Mr Roberts said that he accepted the Summary of Facts presented by Mr Renault.
[9] Mr Roberts confirmed that, following the trial referred to in the Summary of Facts (paragraphs 18-21), he thought that Zulu Chanel had finished 2nd and that Zulu Mercedes had finished 3rd. He said that he had confused the dogs prior to that trial. It was a very close finish and the dog, that he thought was Zulu Mercedes, was finishing very quickly.
[10] He had had the two dogs at home since they were born. The quality of the earbrands was “pretty ordinary”, he said, and he did not have access to microchip readers. Only the last letter of the earbrand was different. He had experienced some difficulty identifying the earbrands of the dogs in the litter when it came to dividing the litter with the co-owner.
[11] He said that, notwithstanding those matters, he accepted that the confusion was the result of a mistake on his part which could have been avoided had he had a microchip reader at his disposal.
[12] Mr Roberts submitted that he had not been attempting anything “untoward” and, in any event, the checking procedures in place on raceday would ensure that this could not happen – that is to say, that the wrong dog would not be presented to race.
[13] It was unfortunate, Mr Roberts submitted, that had not brought ZULU CHANEL, who had been accepted as a reserve for Race 7 but did not gain a start, to the meeting. Reserve dogs are permitted to trial on the raceday and, had he brought her to the course for a trial, he would have been able to go out to the car park, get the dog and kennel it. The dog had had to be brought in from his kennels, he said.
Penalty Submissions of Informant
[14] Mr Renault presented the following penalty submissions:
1. Mr Roberts has a clear penalty record for alleged breaches of this rule.
2. Mr Roberts has started 24 individual dogs for a combined number of starters of 139 in the current 2014/15 season. Mr Roberts started 46 individual dogs last season for a combined number of starters of 847.
3. Mr Roberts admitted fault in this situation immediately. He has been very co-operative throughout the investigation and has conducted himself in a very professional manner.
4. The incorrect dog was presented to race in an official race. However the correct dog was able to be brought to the racecourse in time which meant the race went ahead as carded.
5. The failure to identify the dogs which were bred by Mr Roberts should not have occurred. If not for the practices in place to identify all dogs prior to a race meeting the result for Mr Roberts and the Racing Industry as a whole could have been serious.
6. Similar breaches of this rule have brought about the following penalties.
- NZTR v L - $500
- NZTR v L - $600
- RIU v B - $400
- RIU v H - $500
- RIU v S - $350
- RIU v M - $425
7. The RIU feel this matter can be dealt with by means of a fine.
8. We believe that the recent case of Mr S is very relevant to today’s hearing. The circumstances surrounding that case are very similar to Mr Roberts’.
9. We submit that a fine of $350 is appropriate and make no application for costs.
Penalty Submissions of Respondent
[15] Mr Roberts referred to a matter involving greyhound trainer A in July of this year where the wrong dog was taken to a meeting at Forbury Park and, consequently, had to be scratched. However, that trainer was fined the sum of $150 under the Schedule of Minor Infringements for a non-valid withdrawal. That trainer had realised his mistake upon arrival at the races and had immediately advised the Stipendiary Stewards. Mr Roberts submitted that this was a similar scenario, except that he had managed to get the correct dog to the races to race, unlike trainer A.
[16] Mr Roberts had nothing further to add in relation to penalty and said that he was happy to leave the matter of penalty to the Committee.
Penalty Rule
[17] Rule 89.1 provides as follows:
Any person found guilty of an Offence under these Rules shall be liable to:
a. A fine not exceeding $10,000.00 for any one (1) Offence; and/or
b. Suspension; and/or
c. Disqualification; and/or
d. Warning Off.
Reasons for Penalty
[18] Mr Roberts was extremely frank, firstly, in acknowledging that he confused the two dogs in the first place and, secondly, in admitting that he presented the wrong dog to race in Race 1 at Addington on 12 September last. It is to his credit that he did not attempt to excuse his negligence in doing so.
[19] His very frank admission of the breach and his previous clear record, the Committee took into account as mitigating factors.
[20] It is of concern that the wrong dog was presented to race at a totalisator meeting. There could have been quite serious consequences were it not for the virtually failsafe system of checks and controls in place on raceday and the vigilance of the kennelling staff. Therefore, in the present case, problems were able to be avoided, the error was discovered and the correct dog was even able to be brought to the track to fulfil its engagement in Race 1 of the meeting thus avoiding any inconvenience to the betting public and any financial loss to the Club had Zulu Mercedes had to be late-scratched.
[21] The Committee received considerable assistance from the case of RIU v S (December 2013) which, fact-wise, was virtually on “all fours” with the present case. In that case, a fine of $350 was imposed by the Judicial Committee. We saw no reason for varying from the fine in S and find that a fine of $350, as submitted by Mr Renault, is appropriate in this case.
[22] In determining penalty, the Committee has had regard to the general purposes of sentencing which are well-established – to hold the offender accountable for his actions, to promote in the offender a sense of responsibility, to denounce the conduct of the offender and to deter the offender or other persons from committing the same or a similar offence. The Committee has also had regard, as always, to the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in Greyhound Racing.
Penalty
[23] Mr Roberts is fined the sum of $350.00.
Costs
[24] Mr Renault did not seek costs on behalf of the Racing Integrity Unit. As the matter was heard on a raceday, there will be no order for costs in favour of the Judicial Control Authority.
R G McKENZIE K G HALES
Chairman Panellist
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 19/09/2014
Publish Date: 19/09/2014
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: 7ab525c2625e1b14b00a896d7ab9406d
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 19/09/2014
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v AC Roberts - Penalty Decision and Reasons of Judicial Committee dated 22 September 2014
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
IN THE MATTER of Information No. A7202
BETWEEN S P RENAULT, Stipendiary Steward for the Racing Integrity Unit
Informant
AND A C ROBERTS of Christchurch, Licensed Trainer
Respondent
Judicial Committee: Mr R G McKenzie, Chair - Mr KG Hales, Panellist
Present: Mr S P Renault, the Informant
Mr A C Roberts, the Respondent
Mr N G McIntyre, Co-Chief Stipendiary Steward (Registrar)
Date of Hearing: 18 September 2014
Date of Decision: 22 September 2014
PENALTY DECISION AND REASONS OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
The Charge
[1] Information No.A7202 alleges that the Respondent committed a breach of Rule 88.1.o in that he was “negligent in presenting ZULU CHANEL to race instead of ZULU MERCEDES” at the meeting of Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club at Addington Raceway on Friday, 12 September 2014.
[2] The information was served on Mr Roberts on the raceday. He signed the Statement by the Respondent at the foot of the information form indicating that he admitted the breach.
[3] The hearing of the information was adjourned on raceday and was heard at Addington Raceway on Thursday, 18 September 2014.
[4] Details of the charge and the Rule were read to Mr Roberts at the commencement of the hearing. He confirmed that he understood the charge and the Rule and that he admitted the breach.
[5] Mr Roberts having admitted the charge, the charge was found proved.
The Rule
[6] Rule 88.1 provides as follows:-
Any person (including an Official) commits an offence if he/she:
o. has, in relation to a Greyhound or Greyhound racing, done a thing, or omitted to do a thing which is negligent, dishonest, corrupt, fraudulent or improper, or constitutes misconduct.
Summary of Facts
[7] Mr Renault presented the following Summary of Facts:
1. On Friday the 12th of September 2014 the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held a race meeting at Addington Raceway.
2. The programme for the meeting showed that Race One on the day was the SUPER PETS STAKES to be conducted over 520 metres by dogs classed at C0.
3. Dog number three in that race was shown to be a first starter named ZULU MERCEDES, a white and black bitch, born November 2012 by Head Bound, out of Sugar Plum. This dog was trained by licensed public trainer, Mr Craig Roberts.
4. The ear brand for the dog was listed as ZBCJZ and the microchip number was 956000008461453.
5. Mr Craig Roberts was not in attendance at this stage of the race meeting. The dog was transported to the racecourse by Mr Roberts’ employee Mr Matthew McCook who was also in charge of the dog for the day.
6. During the allocated kennelling time for Races One to Seven which was between 10.13am and 11.13am, the dog was presented at the Veterinary inspection table by Mr McCook. At this point its microchip was scanned for identification purposes. This task was completed by a member of the kennel staff.
7. It then became apparent that the microchip number in the dog presented was not consistent with the number on the identification card of ZULU MERCEDES. The dog’s ear brand was also different to its card.
8. The dog that was presented on the table had a microchip number of 956000008408291 and an ear brand of ZBCJW. The last symbol on the ear brand is smudged and difficult to read.
9. At that time Mr McCook was advised by myself to wait in the kennel block with the dog while my colleague Mr Rick Quirk rang Greyhound Racing New Zealand to identify the microchip number scanned in the dog.
10. It was discovered that the microchip number was registered to ZULU CHANEL, also a white and black bitch, and a litter mate of ZULU MERCEDES by Head Bound out of Sugar Plum also trained by Mr Roberts.
11. ZULU CHANEL was also nominated for this race meeting. The dog was number Ten in Race Seven the CAROL’S TAB DASH conducted over 295 metres by dogs classed at C0.
12. ZULU CHANEL was the second reserve for the race and was subsequently scratched at 7.30am on Friday 12th of September 2014 by the Club after there had been no scratchings of greyhounds drawn to compete in the race.
13. Mr McCook returned ZULU CHANEL to his van and phoned Mr Roberts to inform him of the situation. Mr Roberts then organised fellow employee Miss Melissa Roberts to transport ZULU MERCEDES from his training establishment to the racecourse.
14. ZULU MERCEDES arrived on course at around 11.40am and was identified correctly on the Veterinary inspection table and kennelled.
15. ZULU MERCEDES competed in Race one and finished 7th.
16. Mr Roberts was contacted after the race by Mr Quirk. After a brief discussion Mr Roberts advised Mr Quirk that he was coming to the racecourse later in the day. Mr Quirk informed Mr Roberts that he was required to come to the Stewards room to discuss the matter when he arrived on course.
17. At a subsequent interview with Mr Roberts in the Stewards room. It was established that the identities of the two dogs had been mistaken by the Roberts’ kennel staff since the dogs were young and the correct identity of ZULU MERCEDES and ZULU CHANEL had remained confused until the race meeting in question.
18. Mr Roberts had qualified both dogs at Addington on the 2nd of September 2014 in a 4 dog trial consisting of all Mr Roberts’ dogs.
19. ZULU MERCEDES was correctly presented to race in the trial from box one while ZULU CHANEL was correctly presented to race from box seven. ZULU MERCEDES finished 2nd in the qualifying trial and beat ZULU CHANEL by half a head. Mr Roberts had boxed ZULU MERCEDES for the trial and watched the race from behind the 295 metres boxes located at the entrance to the back straight.
20. Mr Roberts thought that the one dog was ZULU CHANEL and the seven dog was ZULU MERCEDES.
21. Mr Roberts was of the opinion that the seven dog had beaten the one dog because the seven dog had finished strongly over the final stages and had been ahead of the one dog shortly after the finish when appearing from behind the signage around the winning post. The result was in fact different. The official result shows the one dog beat the seven dog by half a head. Mr Roberts had thought ZULU MERCEDES had beaten ZULU CHANEL.
22. As a result of this error, Mr Roberts had nominated ZULU MERCEDES for a 520 metre event and ZULU CHANEL for a 295 event for the race meeting on the 12th of September.
23. As ZULU MERCEDES was the only dog of these two to gain a start on the 12th of September, Mr Roberts sent (who we have now established to be) ZULU CHANEL to race as ZULU MERCEDES.
24. After investigating this matter further it was established that on the 1st of April 2014 both dogs were registered with GRNZ by the owner Jessica Britton to be trained by Mr Roberts.
25. Both dogs are white and black in colour. ZULU CHANEL has large black markings around the eyes and head while ZULU MERCEDES has a predominantly white head.
26. Both dogs were marked by an Official NZGRA Marking Steward namely Ann Jopson on the 4th of July 2014.
Submissions of Respondent
[8] Mr Roberts said that he accepted the Summary of Facts presented by Mr Renault.
[9] Mr Roberts confirmed that, following the trial referred to in the Summary of Facts (paragraphs 18-21), he thought that Zulu Chanel had finished 2nd and that Zulu Mercedes had finished 3rd. He said that he had confused the dogs prior to that trial. It was a very close finish and the dog, that he thought was Zulu Mercedes, was finishing very quickly.
[10] He had had the two dogs at home since they were born. The quality of the earbrands was “pretty ordinary”, he said, and he did not have access to microchip readers. Only the last letter of the earbrand was different. He had experienced some difficulty identifying the earbrands of the dogs in the litter when it came to dividing the litter with the co-owner.
[11] He said that, notwithstanding those matters, he accepted that the confusion was the result of a mistake on his part which could have been avoided had he had a microchip reader at his disposal.
[12] Mr Roberts submitted that he had not been attempting anything “untoward” and, in any event, the checking procedures in place on raceday would ensure that this could not happen – that is to say, that the wrong dog would not be presented to race.
[13] It was unfortunate, Mr Roberts submitted, that had not brought ZULU CHANEL, who had been accepted as a reserve for Race 7 but did not gain a start, to the meeting. Reserve dogs are permitted to trial on the raceday and, had he brought her to the course for a trial, he would have been able to go out to the car park, get the dog and kennel it. The dog had had to be brought in from his kennels, he said.
Penalty Submissions of Informant
[14] Mr Renault presented the following penalty submissions:
1. Mr Roberts has a clear penalty record for alleged breaches of this rule.
2. Mr Roberts has started 24 individual dogs for a combined number of starters of 139 in the current 2014/15 season. Mr Roberts started 46 individual dogs last season for a combined number of starters of 847.
3. Mr Roberts admitted fault in this situation immediately. He has been very co-operative throughout the investigation and has conducted himself in a very professional manner.
4. The incorrect dog was presented to race in an official race. However the correct dog was able to be brought to the racecourse in time which meant the race went ahead as carded.
5. The failure to identify the dogs which were bred by Mr Roberts should not have occurred. If not for the practices in place to identify all dogs prior to a race meeting the result for Mr Roberts and the Racing Industry as a whole could have been serious.
6. Similar breaches of this rule have brought about the following penalties.
- NZTR v L - $500
- NZTR v L - $600
- RIU v B - $400
- RIU v H - $500
- RIU v S - $350
- RIU v M - $425
7. The RIU feel this matter can be dealt with by means of a fine.
8. We believe that the recent case of Mr S is very relevant to today’s hearing. The circumstances surrounding that case are very similar to Mr Roberts’.
9. We submit that a fine of $350 is appropriate and make no application for costs.
Penalty Submissions of Respondent
[15] Mr Roberts referred to a matter involving greyhound trainer A in July of this year where the wrong dog was taken to a meeting at Forbury Park and, consequently, had to be scratched. However, that trainer was fined the sum of $150 under the Schedule of Minor Infringements for a non-valid withdrawal. That trainer had realised his mistake upon arrival at the races and had immediately advised the Stipendiary Stewards. Mr Roberts submitted that this was a similar scenario, except that he had managed to get the correct dog to the races to race, unlike trainer A.
[16] Mr Roberts had nothing further to add in relation to penalty and said that he was happy to leave the matter of penalty to the Committee.
Penalty Rule
[17] Rule 89.1 provides as follows:
Any person found guilty of an Offence under these Rules shall be liable to:
a. A fine not exceeding $10,000.00 for any one (1) Offence; and/or
b. Suspension; and/or
c. Disqualification; and/or
d. Warning Off.
Reasons for Penalty
[18] Mr Roberts was extremely frank, firstly, in acknowledging that he confused the two dogs in the first place and, secondly, in admitting that he presented the wrong dog to race in Race 1 at Addington on 12 September last. It is to his credit that he did not attempt to excuse his negligence in doing so.
[19] His very frank admission of the breach and his previous clear record, the Committee took into account as mitigating factors.
[20] It is of concern that the wrong dog was presented to race at a totalisator meeting. There could have been quite serious consequences were it not for the virtually failsafe system of checks and controls in place on raceday and the vigilance of the kennelling staff. Therefore, in the present case, problems were able to be avoided, the error was discovered and the correct dog was even able to be brought to the track to fulfil its engagement in Race 1 of the meeting thus avoiding any inconvenience to the betting public and any financial loss to the Club had Zulu Mercedes had to be late-scratched.
[21] The Committee received considerable assistance from the case of RIU v S (December 2013) which, fact-wise, was virtually on “all fours” with the present case. In that case, a fine of $350 was imposed by the Judicial Committee. We saw no reason for varying from the fine in S and find that a fine of $350, as submitted by Mr Renault, is appropriate in this case.
[22] In determining penalty, the Committee has had regard to the general purposes of sentencing which are well-established – to hold the offender accountable for his actions, to promote in the offender a sense of responsibility, to denounce the conduct of the offender and to deter the offender or other persons from committing the same or a similar offence. The Committee has also had regard, as always, to the need to maintain integrity and public confidence in Greyhound Racing.
Penalty
[23] Mr Roberts is fined the sum of $350.00.
Costs
[24] Mr Renault did not seek costs on behalf of the Racing Integrity Unit. As the matter was heard on a raceday, there will be no order for costs in favour of the Judicial Control Authority.
R G McKENZIE K G HALES
Chairman Panellist
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: