Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v S & B Evans – decision dated 10 April 2015

hearingid: 8df05cc56b2959f2224f119d0561990d

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 02/04/2015

hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v S & B Evans - decision dated 10 April 2015

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

IN THE MATTER of the Rules of Greyhound Racing New Zealand

IN THE MATTER of Information No. A1091

BETWEEN MR S RENAULT, Stipendiary Steward for the Racing Integrity Unit

Informant

AND S & B EVANS

of Leeston, Licensed Greyhound Trainers

Respondents

Date of Hearing: 10 April 2015

Venue: Addington Raceway, Addington

Judicial Committee: S Ching, Chair - R McKenzie, Committee Member

Present: Mr S Renault, Stipendiary Steward, for the Informant

Mr S Evans, Co-Trainer of BIZARRO

Date of Decision: 10 April 2015

DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

The Charge

[1] Information No.A1091 alleges that:

On 7 April 2015, at a race meeting conducted by the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club, in Race 2, Mr Evans was negligent in that he failed to bring his dog, BIZARRO to Addington Raceway for the purpose of racing, resulting in it being declared a late scratching. An alleged breach of Rule 87.1.o of the Greyhound Rules of Racing.

The Rules

[2] Rule 87.1.o of the Greyhound Racing Rules of Racing 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;

The Plea

[3] Mr Evans had signed the Statement by the Respondent at the foot of the information form indicating that he admitted the breach of the Rule. He confirmed this at the hearing. Mr Evans also confirmed that he understood the Rule he was being charged under.

Summary of Facts

[4] An agreed Summary of Facts was presented by Mr Renault, Stipendiary Steward, to the hearing. That agreed Summary of Facts reads as follows:

1. On Tuesday 7 April 2015 the Greyhound Racing Club held a race meeting at Addington Raceway.

2. The programme for the meeting showed that Race two on the day was the ACTIVE ELECTRICAL CHRISTCHURCH SPRINT to be conducted over 295 metres by dogs classed at C1.

3. Dog number four in that race was shown to be BIZARRO. This dog is trained by licensed public trainers, Steve and Bonnie Evans.

4. During the allocated kennelling time for Races one to seven which was between 10.10am and 11.10am, Mr Evans and his employee, Miss Sam Stone, were kennelling their dogs that were competing in the early races on the day.

5. Between 10.45am and 10.50am Mr Evans informed Mr Renault that he had inadvertently left the dog BIZARRO at his kennels in Leeston.

6. Mr Evans advised Mr Renault that it would be at least an hour round trip to retrieve the dog from his kennels and that it was too late to go back to his property to collect the dog.

7. Mr Evans accepted that the dog would be a late scratching from Race two.

8. The scratching of BIZARRO was phoned through to the TAB and accordingly BIZARRO was declared a late scratching at 10.59.

9. The emergencies for Race two, ZULU BRO and JET TO MARS competed in other races during the day so they had not been denied a start by the scratching of BIZARRO.

10. When questioned regarding the reason BIZARRO was not bought to the races, Mr Evans advised that his employee Miss Stone had loaded the dogs into his van on the morning of the races and had simply miscounted the dogs in the vehicle.

[5] Mr Evans explained to the Committee that he had 13 dogs to take to the races that day. He said that they always had a meeting summary with all the dogs required, prepared prior to the days racing which they use to load the bus and mark the dogs as loaded on it but have just missed one on this occasion.. He said that he has a two level bus for transporting the dogs with 10 stalls on the bottom level and 10 on the top. He asked Miss Stone if there was a full number on the bottom level and 3 in the top level. She replied to him that there was 4 dogs up top to which he replied that there must be an empty space on the lower level. Miss Stone walked up and down the bus and stated to him that there was an empty space on the lower level but obviously did not realise that there was another empty space. He said it was a genuine mistake that BIZARRO was left behind and did not arrive at the meeting. By the time the omission was discovered it was too late to rectify the situation as it was an hour’s travel to return to the kennels and back which would have put BIZARRO outside the required kennelling time of at latest 11.10am.

Submissions of Informant on Penalty

[6] Mr Renault provided written penalty submissions for hearing as follows:

1. Mr and Mrs Evans have been training in partnership since the 2011/12 season.

2. They have clear penalty records for alleged breaches of this rule.

3. They have started 42 individual dogs for a combined number of starters of 671 in the current 2014/15 season. They started 40 individual dogs last season for a combined number of starters of 877.

4. Mr Evans admitted fault in this situation immediately. He has been very co-operative throughout the investigation and has conducted himself in a very professional manner.

5. Mr Evans failed to present BIZARRO to race in an official race. BIZARRO was unable to be presented in time to race and as a result the dog was declared a late scratching, which affects the club and punters who had already invested in the race.

6. Similar breaches of this Rule in Greyhound racing have brought about the following penalties. Full details of these cases were provided by Mr Renault.

-Stapleton 2013 -$350
-McInerney 2013-$425
-Roberts 2014-$350
-Roberts 2015-$550

7. The RIU feel this matter can be dealt with by means of a fine.

8. We submit that a fine of between $250 and $400 appropriate and make no application for costs.

Submissions of Respondent on Penalty

[7] Mr Evans firstly questioned the reason why he was being charged in front of the JCA when a couple of weeks earlier Mr Dempsey was issued with a Minor Infringement Notice when he failed to present his dog to race at a recent meeting. Mr Evans believed that was exactly what he had done-failed to present his dog to race at the meeting. He said his case could have been handled under the Minor Infringement System.

Mr Evans also stated that the penalty comparisons put forward by the RIU were not comparable as they were all situations where the incorrect dog was presented at the races. Mr Evans said that those cases were irrelevant in comparison to his case due to that reason. He said that he had made a basic mistake of failing to bring a dog to the races. Mr Evans submitted that the other cases where the wrong dog was presented to race were higher in negligence than in his case of just mistakenly leaving a dog at home.

He had he had presented over 2400 dogs to race over 5 seasons with this being the first time he had omitted to bring a dog to the races. He said that this was the first mistake he had made.

Mr Evans said that other trainers had told him that he should have said the dog was sick to the Stewards and “lied through his teeth” but that he wanted to be honest and upfront with the Stewards.

Mr Evans submitted that the fine suggested by the RIU was excessive and believed that a fine similar to the penalty of $150 for failing to present a dog to race as under the Minor Infringement System should be considered.

Reasons for Penalty

[8] In determining penalty the Committee took into consideration Mr Evans’ frank admission of the breach and his clear record in regard the rule. The Committee also took into account penalties for other similar breaches of this rule, in particular, with regard to the negligence aspect of the rule.

In relation to those similar cases and penalties as provided by the RIU, Mr Roberts was fined $350 for presenting the wrong dog but was able to get the correct dog back to the races in time. Mr Stapleton was also fined $350 for presenting the wrong dog but was also able to produce the correct dog in time to race. Mr McInerney was fine $425 for presenting the wrong dog but was unable to rectify this as the dog was at another venue.

[9] The Committee noted Mr Evans submissions relating to earlier cases where the trainers where dealt with under the Minor Infringement System and under a different rule. We were not aware of the full circumstances of these cases and therefore have not taken those into account in this case.

[10] We do not see the degree of negligence as being as quite as high in this case as in the cases put forward by the RIU in penalty submissions. Taking all factors into consideration the Committee determined that an appropriate penalty in this case was a fine of $300.

Penalty

[11] The training partnership of S & B Evans is fined the sum of $300.

Costs

[12] No orders were made for costs.

S C Ching                     R G McKenzie

Chair                            Committee Member

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: