Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v S L Ross – Reserved Decision dated 24 September 2020 – Chair, Mr B J Scott
ID: JCA10627
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
Information Numbers: A8716, A8717, A8718, A8719
In the matter of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Rules
BETWEEN:
RACING INTEGRITY UNIT
Informant
AND
SHIRLEY LORAINE ROSS
Respondent
Judicial Committee:
B J Scott – Chair
A Smith – Member
Present:
Mr A Cruickshank – for the Informant
Mr N Webby – Counsel for Informant
Ms S L Ross – Respondent
Ms J K Gilby-Todd – Counsel for the Respondent
RESERVED DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DATED 24 SEPTEMBER 2020
CHARGES:
A8716
On the 9th day of July 2020, at the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club meeting, Cambridge Raceway, Taylor Street Cambridge did an act detrimental to the interests and welfare of Greyhound Racing by using a dummy electronic aversion device (shock collar), in breach of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Health and Welfare Standards thereby committing a breach of Rule 62.1(q) AND IS therefore liable to the penalty of penalties that may be imposed pursuant to Rule 63.1 of the said Rules.
A8717
On the 9th day of July 2020, at 158 Park Road, Horotiu did obstruct a Racing Integrity Unit Official, who was undertaking an investigation into the use of an electronic aversion device, by refusing to answer questions related to the investigation thereby committing a breach of Rule 62.1(g) of the New Zealand Rules of Greyhound Racing AND IS therefore liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed pursuant to Rule 63.1 of the said Rules.
A8718
On the 9th day of July 2020, at 158 Park Road, Horotiu did fail to comply with the lawful order of a Racing Integrity Unit Official, by refusing to state the location of or provide to Officials all electronic aversion devices held on the property thereby committing a breach of Rule 62.1(p) of the New Zealand Rules of Greyhound Racing AND IS therefore liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed pursuant to Rule 63.1 of the said Rules.
A8719
On the 9th day of July 2020, at 158 Park Road, Horotiu did make a statement which was known to be false to a Racecourse Investigator in the execution of his duty thereby committing a breach of Rule 62.1(w) of the New Zealand Rules of Greyhound Racing AND IS therefore liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed pursuant to Rule 63.1 of the said Rules.
RULES:
Rule 62.1
Any person (including an Official) commits an offence if he/she:
(q) commits or omits to do any act or engages in conduct which is in any way detrimental or prejudicial to the interest, welfare, image, control or promotion of Greyhound Racing;
(g) assaults, obstructs, impedes, abuses, threatens or insults the Board, any member of the Board, a Club, any member of a Club Committee, any Steward, any member of a Judicial Committee and any member of the Appeals Tribunal or any other Official;
(p) disobeys or fails to comply with the lawful order of a Steward or other Person having Official duties in relation to Greyhound racing;
(w) makes any statement which is to his/her knowledge false either orally, by print, in writing, by electronic means or by any combination thereof to a member of the Board, Steward, Racecourse Investigator, Appeals Tribunal, a Judicial Committee, Veterinarian or an Official in the execution of his/her duty.
PENALTY:
Rule 63.1
1.-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 except a luring/baiting Offence under Rule 86; and/or
b.-Suspension; and/or
c. Disqualification; and/or
d. Warning Off.
SUMMARY OF FACTS:
The Respondent, Ms Shirley ROSS is an Owner Trainer under the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules.
On Thursday 9th July 2020 the Respondent, Ms Shirley ROSS was at the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club meeting in Cambridge. She had four greyhounds entered to race that day.
At about 10.00am Ms ROSS kennelled her greyhound in the confines of the kennel block.
INFORMATION A8716
Shortly after one of the kennelling staff employed by the Racing Club advised Stipendiary Stewards that there was a suspicious collar on the greyhound “Sovereign Pride” which is trained by Ms ROSS.
Sovereign Pride” was due to race in Race 5 ‘The Clubhouse Sports Bar Sprint C2 375m’.
Stewards entered the kennels and found “Sovereign Pride” wearing what appeared to be a ‘shock collar’. The collar contained a battery and had two metal prongs which when worn by the greyhound press against the dog’s neck.
Clause 4.6 of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association Incorporated Health & Welfare Standards provides that the use of aversive electronic training devices is prohibited. As a result the collar was seized, the dog scratched and Ms ROSS spoken to.
Ms ROSS was adamant that there was no issue as the device does not work. She stated numerous times that she would never use a ‘shock collar’ on one of her dogs as she thought it was cruel.
It was explained to Ms ROSS that using a ‘shock collar’ on a greyhound and then putting a dummy ‘shock collar’ on was of no relevance to the dog. The dog would expect that the dummy collar was capable of administering the same shock as the working ‘shock collar’.
The collar located on “Sovereign Pride” has not been tested to confirm whether it works or whether it is in fact a dummy collar. A search of Ms ROSS’ vehicle and trailer failed to locate the remote for this device.
The Chief Veterinary Advisor to Greyhound Racing New Zealand, Dr Malcom Jansen has provided a report on the use of ‘shock collars’ in Greyhound Racing. His report is annexed to this Summary of Facts.
INFORMATION A8717
Racing Integrity Unit (RIU) staff met Ms ROSS at her training facility at 158 Park Road, Horotiu as she returned home at the conclusion of the race meeting.
Ms ROSS was obstructive throughout the RIU attendance. She refused to answer questions, was misleading in the responses she gave, and repeatedly denied there was another ‘shock collar’ at the property. After several minutes she did admit that there was one at the property but refused to state where it was.
INFORMATION A8718
Despite being directed several times to provide all shock collars on the property Ms ROSS refused. She was warned numerous times that her obstructive conduct amounted to the commission of various racing offences, however she stated that the RIU were making a big deal out of nothing.
As a result of her refusal to provide the ‘shock collar’ RIU staff commenced a search of her kennelling block. Ms ROSS was angry with this and stated “I don’t think you’ve got the right to go through all my … next thing you will want to go through my house”.
The garage was clearly set up for use as the training facility and kennel of the greyhounds. It contained beds, medicine/treatment cabinet, syringes and other greyhound training related items.
It was pointed out on several occasions to Ms ROSS that her obstructive nature, coupled with the use of the ‘shock collar’ could result in serious charges and Greyhound Racing New Zealand issuing her with a ‘show cause’ notice.
Ms ROSS denied ever having used a ‘shock collar’, however did admit to using a dummy.
After nearly 10 minutes of direction and warnings Ms ROSS finally showed RIU staff where the shock collar was located. She stated “It doesn’t belong to me”, “I have not done anything wrong”.
The collar was located on a set of drawers in the garage where the search was being undertaken. The device was turned on and the remote was set to 80/100. This appeared to be the strength of the shock to the animal. In this case 80%. The collar was seized.
INFORMATION A8719
Ms ROSS was asked several times who gave her the shock collar. She replied “You can’t do that to me. That’s not very fair”. She eventually stated that the collar was lent to her a week earlier and that the same person had given her both collars.
She refused to state who had given it to her despite being further warned. She stated that she had used the dummy collar on “Sovereign Pride” three times because he barked and that the dummy collar stopped him from barking.
Ms ROSS stated that she didn’t think the person who had given her the ‘shock collar’ was still a licence holder under Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules but indicated that the person had previously been involved.
She also indicated that she could name at least three people who use these devices but when asked who these persons were she refused to name them.
When Ms ROSS was advised that her response to the question of who gave her the ‘shock collar’ could be the difference between remaining a licence trainer and not she replied “I don’t care. You can take my licence for that matter. I’m not going to dob people in. I don’t think that’s fair.” “No I can’t do that”. She then stated “It wasn’t given to me by a licenced person, I picked it up on the side of the road”.
The Respondent, Shirley Loraine ROSS is a licensed greyhound trainer living in Horotiu. She has been involved in Greyhound Racing for over 30 years. She has one previous Rule Breach in 2000 for a drug positive for which she had her Trainers Licence suspended for 6 months.
Mr Cruickshank produced a letter dated 17 July 2020 signed by the General Manager of the Racing Integrity Unit authorising the charges to be lodged against Ms Ross.
EVIDENCE OF A CRUICKSHANK:
1.-That is my name. I am a Senior Racing Investigator employed by the Racing Integrity Unit.
2.-On Thursday 9 July 2020 I was contacted by Stipendiary Steward Philippa Kinsey who advised that she had taken what appeared to be a shock collar off a greyhound in the kennel block at the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club meeting in Cambridge.
3.-I also spoke to the Racing Integrity Unit Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr Scott Wallis.
4.-As a result of those conversations I went to the Cambridge Raceway on Taylor Street, Cambridge.
5.-I spoke to Ms Kinsey who showed me a collar that she had removed from a greyhound in the kennels earlier in the day (REF EXH).
6.-The greyhound was “Sovereign Pride” trained by the Respondent, Ms Ross.
7.-We then had discussions about going to Ms Ross’ training establishment in Horotiu in order to see if there was a remote for the device.
8.-We arrived at the property at about 5pm as Ms Ross returned from the race meeting.
9.-I introduced myself and explained why we were there and what we were looking for.
10.-Ms Ross was not happy to see us at her kennels.
11.-Ms Ross showed us to the kennelling block where we discussed what had happened earlier in the day.
12.-When it became apparent that Ms Ross was going to be obstructive and uncooperative I advised her that I would be turning on my voice recorder, which I did.
13.-The full transcript is attached (PRO EXH).
14.-Located in the kennel block was a shock collar and remote (REF EXH).
15.-Ms Kinsey showed me that it was turned on and set to 80/100. This appears to be 80 power, meaning the dog would be shocked at this level.
16.-As a result of Ms Ross’ obstructive and uncooperative behaviour I was unable to ascertain who gave her the shock collar or whether there is wide spread use of these collars by Greyhound Trainers as Ms Ross had indicated whilst we were talking to her.
17.-On Monday 14 July I received a phone call from a Licensed Greyhound Trainer from the Central Districts, Mr Bernie Mitchell.
18.-Mr Mitchell was not present for any of the investigation or present at this particular race day.
19.-He is however fully supportive of Ms Ross and her conduct, which was the purpose of his call.
20.-During the course of the phone call Mr Mitchell unwittingly advised me that Ms Ross had obtained the shock collar from Mr Jimmy Black.
21.-It was only through Mr Mitchell’s disclosure that I was able to determine the background to Ms Ross having the shock collars as she had repeatedly refused to answer my questions during my visit on 9 July.
22.-I was then able to complete the investigation.
CROSS EXAMINATION
23.-In response to questions put to him Mr Cruickshank said that “the inference is that if you have one (shock collar) on the property then you have used it”. He was asked if a trainer is allowed to have one on the property and he said “not that he was aware of”.
24.-He was asked, in response to the recording of his meeting with Jimmy Black if that was the first time that he had spoken to Mr Black. He confirmed that it was.
EVIDENCE OF M JANSEN:
1.-That is my full name. I am a licensed Veterinarian and Chief Veterinary Advisor to Greyhound Racing New Zealand (GRNZ).
2.-I graduated from the Massey University School of Veterinary Science in 1970 with a Bachelor of Veterinary Science degree (BVSc).
3.-I have been associated with greyhounds and Greyhound Racing since 1982 and was appointed Chief Veterinary Advisor to GRNZ in 2012.
4.-I am currently on the GRNZ Welfare Committee which meets every 2 months. The Committee is chaired by Mr Jim Edwards, past president of the World Veterinary Association.
5.-The Welfare Committee has representatives from the New Zealand Veterinary Association, National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
6.-On 15 July 2020 I received an email request from Senior Racecourse Investigator, Andy Cruickshank to provide information on the use of shock collars on greyhounds by Licensed Trainers.
7.-I provided a report to Mr Cruickshank later that day (PRODUCE EXHIBIT).
EVIDENCE OF MR JAMES BLACK:
1.-That is my full name. I am a Licensed Owner Trainer under Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules. I live in Rotorua.
2.-I had previously spoken to Ms Shirley Ross about dealing with her greyhound “Sovereign Pride” that was biting the kennels and had left blood in its mouth.
3.-I advised Ms Ross that I had used a shock collar on my hunting dogs and that helped control them.
4.-I offered to lend the shock collar to Ms Ross and she agreed to try it.
5.-On about 2 July 2020 I met with Mr Joe Kingsnorth at my home address. I gave him a shock collar and remote (PRO EXH) and a dummy collar (PRO EXH).
6.-I have owned these devices for a couple of years having used them on my hunting dogs to stop them going after kiwi.
7.-I explained and demonstrated how to use it. Mr Kingsnorth put the collar around his knee and I gave him a little shock to show that the shock collar works.
8.-I did not know they were illegal under Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules. I have not used the shock collar on any of my greyhounds and I kept it in my house.
9.-I only became aware that they were illegal under the Rules when my daughter Marsha told me that they were after this investigation was started.
CROSS EXAMINATION
10.-In response to questions put to him Mr Black confirmed that one collar was live and one was a dummy. He said that he used the live one on one or two occasions and then the dummy. He said that if by using it in that manner they think the dummy is real. He confirmed that he gave the collars to Mr Kingsnorth.
11.-In response to further questions he confirmed in the photos that there was a remote with the collars. He said that reference to the 80 setting, he never altered it.
12.-In response to a further question when asked why he gave Mr Kingsnorth both collars he said one was to teach the dog that there are consequences of its actions and the dummy was as a reminder to keep the dogs settled.
13.-Mr Black was asked what other such items had Ms Ross tried and he said that she was a professional trainer and did not need other similar items.
14.-Mr Black confirmed that Ms Ross was not very happy when he suggested the use of the shock collar. In response to a further question he said that Mr Kingsnorth came back after two weeks and said that she couldn’t turn it on.
EVIDENCE OF MS WENDY TOOMATH:
1.-That is my full name. I have an Owner Trainer Licence under Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules. I live in Ohaupo.
2.-On Thursday 9 July 2020 I was a kennelling Steward at the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club meeting at the Cambridge Raceway in Taylor Street, Cambridge.
3.-The Racing Integrity Unit Chairman of Stewards was Ms Philippa Kinsey assisted by Mr Warwick Robinson.
4.-At about 10am while I was assisting in kennelling the dogs for the meeting I saw Ms Shirley Ross put something on the greyhound “Sovereign Pride”.
5.-“Sovereign Pride” was due to race in Race 5 ‘The Clubhouse Sports Bar Sprint C2 375m’.
6.-I wasn’t sure what Ms Ross put on “Sovereign Pride” but was concerned enough that I advised Ms Kinsey that she may want to have a look.
CROSS EXAMINATION
7.-In response to a question put to her Ms Toomath said that she had known Shirley Ross for about 12 years.
In response to further questions Ms Toomath said she saw Ms Ross put the “Sovereign Pride” in the kennel and then put a collar on it. The collar was black and she said she didn’t think anything of it to start off with. She said that Ms Ross was then walking another dog and then “Sovereign Pride (Buzz)” was barking its head off. She said that she asked the Vet if a shock collar was illegal and he said he didn’t know and went to ask Phillipa Kinsey.
8.-Ms Toomath was asked to look at the photos and she confirmed that the black collar was the collar she saw put on the dog and that there was a black box on the right hand side of the neck. She said she only saw the prongs when the collar was taken off the dog.
9.-Ms Toomath said that she was very familiar with “Buzz” and his issues and that he is a very naughty dog and has hurt himself while in the kennel.
She said that she asked Phillipa Kinsey to come and look at the collar.
EVIDENCE OF MR JOE KINGSNORTH:
1.-That is my full name. I am a Licensed Handler under Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules. I live in Rotorua.
2.-I know the Respondent, Ms Shirley Ross. I also know that she is a Licensed Trainer under Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules.
3.-I am aware that she has had issues with her greyhound “Sovereign Pride” hurting itself in the kennels.
4.-I spoke to Mr Jimmy Black about “Sovereign Pride” injuring itself.
5.-As a result of that conversation it was agreed that he would loan Ms Ross a shock collar.
6.-On about 2 July 2020 I met Mr Black at his property in Rotorua.
7.-He handed me two collars and a remote. One is a shock collar (REF EXH) and the other is a dummy collar (REF EXH).
8.-Mr Black demonstrated on my arm that it worked by giving me a zap.
9.-On about 6 July I gave the collars to Ms Shirley Ross. They were in a plastic bag.
10.-I did not show her how to use them as I know that she knows how to use them.
11.-Her father is one of the first inventors of the shock collar in New Zealand.
CROSS EXAMINATION
12.-In response to questions Mr Kingsnorth confirmed that both collars were given back to Jimmy Black. Mr Kingsnorth said that he subsequently picked them up on 3 July and gave them back to Ms Ross on 6 July.
13.-In response to a further question Mr Kingsnorth said that in his opinion Greyhounds are working dogs.
He said that he gave the working collar and the dummy collar in the same bag to Ms Ross but he said that he knew he wouldn’t use the working one. He said that he put the working one on his own arm and tested it and he got a small shock.
14.-In response to a further question he said he has been helping Ms Ross on a Monday for many years and when asked if he had ever seen her hurt a dog he said no.
EVIDENCE OF MS P KINSEY:
1.-That is my full name. I am a Stipendiary Steward employed by the Racing Integrity Unit.
2.-On Thursday 9 July 2020 I was Chairman of Stewards at the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club meeting at the Cambridge Raceway in Taylor Street, Cambridge.
3.-I was working with Stipendiary Steward, Mr Warwick Robinson.
4.-At about 10am as the greyhounds were being kennelled for the days races I was contacted by Ms Wendy Toomath who is a kennelling steward.
5.-She was concerned about the collar on the greyhound “Sovereign Pride”.
6.-“Sovereign Pride” was due to race in Race 5 ‘The Clubhouse Sports Bar Sprint C2 375m’. It is trained by the Respondent, Ms Shirley Ross.
7.-I entered the kennel block and went over to inspect the greyhound. It was evident to me that the collar was a battery operated device with metal prongs pressing against the dogs neck (REF EXH).
8.-I took photos and removed the collar from the dog and confiscated it (REF EXH).
9.-I left the kennel block and showed the collar to Mr Robinson.
10.-I then sent photos taken to the Chief Greyhound Steward for the Racing Integrity Unit, Mr Scott Wallis.
11.-After discussions with Mr Wallis it was agreed that “Sovereign Pride” should be scratched from the meeting as electronic collars are prohibited.
12.-I located Ms Ross in the carpark and explained we had removed the collar from “Sovereign Pride” and that the dog would be scratched from the meeting.
13.-I entered the kennel block with Ms Ross and “Sovereign Pride” was removed.
14.-I went to the Stewards room and set up recording device and had Ms Ross come up to interview her about the situation with myself and Mr Robinson present.
15.-Ms Ross was adamant there was no issue as the device did not work. She went on to say on numerous occasions she would never use a shock collar on a dog and that she thought they were cruel.
16.-It was explained to Ms Ross that electronic collars are prohibited and our concerns that if the dog was trained at home with an electronic collar then having a dummy collar on would have the same affect.
17.-If the dog had not been subject to the use of an electronic collar then putting a ‘dummy’ collar on would be of no relevance to the dog.
18.-I then spoke to Ms Toomath who had escorted “Sovereign Pride” to the kennel. She advised that she saw Ms Ross put something on the dog but was unsure what.
19.-She stated that when she went back to kennel another dog in the same race/set of kennels and saw the device. She then contacted me.
20.-Due to concerns that Ms Ross may have had the remote for the device in her car or dog trailer a search was undertaken with Ms Ross’ consent. No remote was located. Throughout the search Ms Ross repeatedly stated that the collar did not work.
21.-It was then decided that a visit to Ms Ross’ property should be undertaken when she arrived home from the race meeting in order to try and locate the remote for the device before it was disposed of.
22.-I arranged with Senior Racing Investigator, Mr Andy Cruickshank to be at Ms Ross’ property when she returned from the race meeting.
23.-We arrived at the property at about 5pm as Ms Ross arrived home.
24.-Ms Ross was not at all happy to see us at her kennels. She was very uncooperative.
25.-She admitted that there was an electronic collar on the property but refused to provide it or tell us where it was despite repeated warnings.
26.-When it was clear Ms Ross was going to continue to be uncooperative and obstructive Mr Cruickshank advised her that he was turning on his voice recorder.
27.-We then commenced a search of her kennels, starting with a cupboard that she had directed us to.
28.-Ms Ross was directed several times by Mr Cruickshank and myself to provide the shock collar and tell us who had given it to her but she refused.
29.-After about 10 minutes Ms Ross agreed to show us the shock collar.
30.-The device was sitting out in the open on a set of draws partially covered by a plastic bag. I took photos of the collar and its location (PRO EXH).
31.-There were two parts to the device. The collar and a remote. The remote was on and was set to 80/100. I assumed this to be 80 percent power.
32.-Ms Ross stated that she was only given the collars last week but refused to state who had given her the collars or whether they were a licensed person. Again, she was warned that by refusing she was committing racing offences.
33.-The collar and remote were seized.
34.-At about 5.20pm we left the property.
CROSS EXAMINATION
35.-Ms Kinsey said that in the interview with Ms Ross she was having trouble finding the relevant Rule and Stipendiary Steward Mr Warwick Robinson was sent down with the relevant Rule. It was 4.6 of the Greyhound New Zealand Health and Welfare Standards. Ms Kinsey was asked about her statement that you cannot have the shock collars on your property. She was asked where it said that in the Rules but she was not sure.
EVIDENCE OF MR A MUNCASTER:
I, Allan Russell Muncaster (known as Russell), retired, of Whakatane say –
1.-I have known Shirley Ross for many years, since approximately the 1980s when I was a top public trainer for greyhounds.
2.-I held a Trainer’s Licence for many years, but retire
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 28/09/2020
Publish Date: 28/09/2020
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: 057c6969ff87f779464ef2af2fa4dff5
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 28/09/2020
hearing_title: Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v S L Ross - Reserved Decision dated 24 September 2020 - Chair, Mr B J Scott
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
Information Numbers: A8716, A8717, A8718, A8719
In the matter of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Rules
BETWEEN:
RACING INTEGRITY UNIT
Informant
AND
SHIRLEY LORAINE ROSS
Respondent
Judicial Committee:
B J Scott – Chair
A Smith – Member
Present:
Mr A Cruickshank – for the Informant
Mr N Webby – Counsel for Informant
Ms S L Ross – Respondent
Ms J K Gilby-Todd – Counsel for the Respondent
RESERVED DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DATED 24 SEPTEMBER 2020
CHARGES:
A8716
On the 9th day of July 2020, at the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club meeting, Cambridge Raceway, Taylor Street Cambridge did an act detrimental to the interests and welfare of Greyhound Racing by using a dummy electronic aversion device (shock collar), in breach of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Health and Welfare Standards thereby committing a breach of Rule 62.1(q) AND IS therefore liable to the penalty of penalties that may be imposed pursuant to Rule 63.1 of the said Rules.
A8717
On the 9th day of July 2020, at 158 Park Road, Horotiu did obstruct a Racing Integrity Unit Official, who was undertaking an investigation into the use of an electronic aversion device, by refusing to answer questions related to the investigation thereby committing a breach of Rule 62.1(g) of the New Zealand Rules of Greyhound Racing AND IS therefore liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed pursuant to Rule 63.1 of the said Rules.
A8718
On the 9th day of July 2020, at 158 Park Road, Horotiu did fail to comply with the lawful order of a Racing Integrity Unit Official, by refusing to state the location of or provide to Officials all electronic aversion devices held on the property thereby committing a breach of Rule 62.1(p) of the New Zealand Rules of Greyhound Racing AND IS therefore liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed pursuant to Rule 63.1 of the said Rules.
A8719
On the 9th day of July 2020, at 158 Park Road, Horotiu did make a statement which was known to be false to a Racecourse Investigator in the execution of his duty thereby committing a breach of Rule 62.1(w) of the New Zealand Rules of Greyhound Racing AND IS therefore liable to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed pursuant to Rule 63.1 of the said Rules.
RULES:
Rule 62.1
Any person (including an Official) commits an offence if he/she:
(q) commits or omits to do any act or engages in conduct which is in any way detrimental or prejudicial to the interest, welfare, image, control or promotion of Greyhound Racing;
(g) assaults, obstructs, impedes, abuses, threatens or insults the Board, any member of the Board, a Club, any member of a Club Committee, any Steward, any member of a Judicial Committee and any member of the Appeals Tribunal or any other Official;
(p) disobeys or fails to comply with the lawful order of a Steward or other Person having Official duties in relation to Greyhound racing;
(w) makes any statement which is to his/her knowledge false either orally, by print, in writing, by electronic means or by any combination thereof to a member of the Board, Steward, Racecourse Investigator, Appeals Tribunal, a Judicial Committee, Veterinarian or an Official in the execution of his/her duty.
PENALTY:
Rule 63.1
1.-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 except a luring/baiting Offence under Rule 86; and/or
b.-Suspension; and/or
c. Disqualification; and/or
d. Warning Off.
SUMMARY OF FACTS:
The Respondent, Ms Shirley ROSS is an Owner Trainer under the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules.
On Thursday 9th July 2020 the Respondent, Ms Shirley ROSS was at the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club meeting in Cambridge. She had four greyhounds entered to race that day.
At about 10.00am Ms ROSS kennelled her greyhound in the confines of the kennel block.
INFORMATION A8716
Shortly after one of the kennelling staff employed by the Racing Club advised Stipendiary Stewards that there was a suspicious collar on the greyhound “Sovereign Pride” which is trained by Ms ROSS.
Sovereign Pride” was due to race in Race 5 ‘The Clubhouse Sports Bar Sprint C2 375m’.
Stewards entered the kennels and found “Sovereign Pride” wearing what appeared to be a ‘shock collar’. The collar contained a battery and had two metal prongs which when worn by the greyhound press against the dog’s neck.
Clause 4.6 of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association Incorporated Health & Welfare Standards provides that the use of aversive electronic training devices is prohibited. As a result the collar was seized, the dog scratched and Ms ROSS spoken to.
Ms ROSS was adamant that there was no issue as the device does not work. She stated numerous times that she would never use a ‘shock collar’ on one of her dogs as she thought it was cruel.
It was explained to Ms ROSS that using a ‘shock collar’ on a greyhound and then putting a dummy ‘shock collar’ on was of no relevance to the dog. The dog would expect that the dummy collar was capable of administering the same shock as the working ‘shock collar’.
The collar located on “Sovereign Pride” has not been tested to confirm whether it works or whether it is in fact a dummy collar. A search of Ms ROSS’ vehicle and trailer failed to locate the remote for this device.
The Chief Veterinary Advisor to Greyhound Racing New Zealand, Dr Malcom Jansen has provided a report on the use of ‘shock collars’ in Greyhound Racing. His report is annexed to this Summary of Facts.
INFORMATION A8717
Racing Integrity Unit (RIU) staff met Ms ROSS at her training facility at 158 Park Road, Horotiu as she returned home at the conclusion of the race meeting.
Ms ROSS was obstructive throughout the RIU attendance. She refused to answer questions, was misleading in the responses she gave, and repeatedly denied there was another ‘shock collar’ at the property. After several minutes she did admit that there was one at the property but refused to state where it was.
INFORMATION A8718
Despite being directed several times to provide all shock collars on the property Ms ROSS refused. She was warned numerous times that her obstructive conduct amounted to the commission of various racing offences, however she stated that the RIU were making a big deal out of nothing.
As a result of her refusal to provide the ‘shock collar’ RIU staff commenced a search of her kennelling block. Ms ROSS was angry with this and stated “I don’t think you’ve got the right to go through all my … next thing you will want to go through my house”.
The garage was clearly set up for use as the training facility and kennel of the greyhounds. It contained beds, medicine/treatment cabinet, syringes and other greyhound training related items.
It was pointed out on several occasions to Ms ROSS that her obstructive nature, coupled with the use of the ‘shock collar’ could result in serious charges and Greyhound Racing New Zealand issuing her with a ‘show cause’ notice.
Ms ROSS denied ever having used a ‘shock collar’, however did admit to using a dummy.
After nearly 10 minutes of direction and warnings Ms ROSS finally showed RIU staff where the shock collar was located. She stated “It doesn’t belong to me”, “I have not done anything wrong”.
The collar was located on a set of drawers in the garage where the search was being undertaken. The device was turned on and the remote was set to 80/100. This appeared to be the strength of the shock to the animal. In this case 80%. The collar was seized.
INFORMATION A8719
Ms ROSS was asked several times who gave her the shock collar. She replied “You can’t do that to me. That’s not very fair”. She eventually stated that the collar was lent to her a week earlier and that the same person had given her both collars.
She refused to state who had given it to her despite being further warned. She stated that she had used the dummy collar on “Sovereign Pride” three times because he barked and that the dummy collar stopped him from barking.
Ms ROSS stated that she didn’t think the person who had given her the ‘shock collar’ was still a licence holder under Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules but indicated that the person had previously been involved.
She also indicated that she could name at least three people who use these devices but when asked who these persons were she refused to name them.
When Ms ROSS was advised that her response to the question of who gave her the ‘shock collar’ could be the difference between remaining a licence trainer and not she replied “I don’t care. You can take my licence for that matter. I’m not going to dob people in. I don’t think that’s fair.” “No I can’t do that”. She then stated “It wasn’t given to me by a licenced person, I picked it up on the side of the road”.
The Respondent, Shirley Loraine ROSS is a licensed greyhound trainer living in Horotiu. She has been involved in Greyhound Racing for over 30 years. She has one previous Rule Breach in 2000 for a drug positive for which she had her Trainers Licence suspended for 6 months.
Mr Cruickshank produced a letter dated 17 July 2020 signed by the General Manager of the Racing Integrity Unit authorising the charges to be lodged against Ms Ross.
EVIDENCE OF A CRUICKSHANK:
1.-That is my name. I am a Senior Racing Investigator employed by the Racing Integrity Unit.
2.-On Thursday 9 July 2020 I was contacted by Stipendiary Steward Philippa Kinsey who advised that she had taken what appeared to be a shock collar off a greyhound in the kennel block at the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club meeting in Cambridge.
3.-I also spoke to the Racing Integrity Unit Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr Scott Wallis.
4.-As a result of those conversations I went to the Cambridge Raceway on Taylor Street, Cambridge.
5.-I spoke to Ms Kinsey who showed me a collar that she had removed from a greyhound in the kennels earlier in the day (REF EXH).
6.-The greyhound was “Sovereign Pride” trained by the Respondent, Ms Ross.
7.-We then had discussions about going to Ms Ross’ training establishment in Horotiu in order to see if there was a remote for the device.
8.-We arrived at the property at about 5pm as Ms Ross returned from the race meeting.
9.-I introduced myself and explained why we were there and what we were looking for.
10.-Ms Ross was not happy to see us at her kennels.
11.-Ms Ross showed us to the kennelling block where we discussed what had happened earlier in the day.
12.-When it became apparent that Ms Ross was going to be obstructive and uncooperative I advised her that I would be turning on my voice recorder, which I did.
13.-The full transcript is attached (PRO EXH).
14.-Located in the kennel block was a shock collar and remote (REF EXH).
15.-Ms Kinsey showed me that it was turned on and set to 80/100. This appears to be 80 power, meaning the dog would be shocked at this level.
16.-As a result of Ms Ross’ obstructive and uncooperative behaviour I was unable to ascertain who gave her the shock collar or whether there is wide spread use of these collars by Greyhound Trainers as Ms Ross had indicated whilst we were talking to her.
17.-On Monday 14 July I received a phone call from a Licensed Greyhound Trainer from the Central Districts, Mr Bernie Mitchell.
18.-Mr Mitchell was not present for any of the investigation or present at this particular race day.
19.-He is however fully supportive of Ms Ross and her conduct, which was the purpose of his call.
20.-During the course of the phone call Mr Mitchell unwittingly advised me that Ms Ross had obtained the shock collar from Mr Jimmy Black.
21.-It was only through Mr Mitchell’s disclosure that I was able to determine the background to Ms Ross having the shock collars as she had repeatedly refused to answer my questions during my visit on 9 July.
22.-I was then able to complete the investigation.
CROSS EXAMINATION
23.-In response to questions put to him Mr Cruickshank said that “the inference is that if you have one (shock collar) on the property then you have used it”. He was asked if a trainer is allowed to have one on the property and he said “not that he was aware of”.
24.-He was asked, in response to the recording of his meeting with Jimmy Black if that was the first time that he had spoken to Mr Black. He confirmed that it was.
EVIDENCE OF M JANSEN:
1.-That is my full name. I am a licensed Veterinarian and Chief Veterinary Advisor to Greyhound Racing New Zealand (GRNZ).
2.-I graduated from the Massey University School of Veterinary Science in 1970 with a Bachelor of Veterinary Science degree (BVSc).
3.-I have been associated with greyhounds and Greyhound Racing since 1982 and was appointed Chief Veterinary Advisor to GRNZ in 2012.
4.-I am currently on the GRNZ Welfare Committee which meets every 2 months. The Committee is chaired by Mr Jim Edwards, past president of the World Veterinary Association.
5.-The Welfare Committee has representatives from the New Zealand Veterinary Association, National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
6.-On 15 July 2020 I received an email request from Senior Racecourse Investigator, Andy Cruickshank to provide information on the use of shock collars on greyhounds by Licensed Trainers.
7.-I provided a report to Mr Cruickshank later that day (PRODUCE EXHIBIT).
EVIDENCE OF MR JAMES BLACK:
1.-That is my full name. I am a Licensed Owner Trainer under Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules. I live in Rotorua.
2.-I had previously spoken to Ms Shirley Ross about dealing with her greyhound “Sovereign Pride” that was biting the kennels and had left blood in its mouth.
3.-I advised Ms Ross that I had used a shock collar on my hunting dogs and that helped control them.
4.-I offered to lend the shock collar to Ms Ross and she agreed to try it.
5.-On about 2 July 2020 I met with Mr Joe Kingsnorth at my home address. I gave him a shock collar and remote (PRO EXH) and a dummy collar (PRO EXH).
6.-I have owned these devices for a couple of years having used them on my hunting dogs to stop them going after kiwi.
7.-I explained and demonstrated how to use it. Mr Kingsnorth put the collar around his knee and I gave him a little shock to show that the shock collar works.
8.-I did not know they were illegal under Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules. I have not used the shock collar on any of my greyhounds and I kept it in my house.
9.-I only became aware that they were illegal under the Rules when my daughter Marsha told me that they were after this investigation was started.
CROSS EXAMINATION
10.-In response to questions put to him Mr Black confirmed that one collar was live and one was a dummy. He said that he used the live one on one or two occasions and then the dummy. He said that if by using it in that manner they think the dummy is real. He confirmed that he gave the collars to Mr Kingsnorth.
11.-In response to further questions he confirmed in the photos that there was a remote with the collars. He said that reference to the 80 setting, he never altered it.
12.-In response to a further question when asked why he gave Mr Kingsnorth both collars he said one was to teach the dog that there are consequences of its actions and the dummy was as a reminder to keep the dogs settled.
13.-Mr Black was asked what other such items had Ms Ross tried and he said that she was a professional trainer and did not need other similar items.
14.-Mr Black confirmed that Ms Ross was not very happy when he suggested the use of the shock collar. In response to a further question he said that Mr Kingsnorth came back after two weeks and said that she couldn’t turn it on.
EVIDENCE OF MS WENDY TOOMATH:
1.-That is my full name. I have an Owner Trainer Licence under Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules. I live in Ohaupo.
2.-On Thursday 9 July 2020 I was a kennelling Steward at the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club meeting at the Cambridge Raceway in Taylor Street, Cambridge.
3.-The Racing Integrity Unit Chairman of Stewards was Ms Philippa Kinsey assisted by Mr Warwick Robinson.
4.-At about 10am while I was assisting in kennelling the dogs for the meeting I saw Ms Shirley Ross put something on the greyhound “Sovereign Pride”.
5.-“Sovereign Pride” was due to race in Race 5 ‘The Clubhouse Sports Bar Sprint C2 375m’.
6.-I wasn’t sure what Ms Ross put on “Sovereign Pride” but was concerned enough that I advised Ms Kinsey that she may want to have a look.
CROSS EXAMINATION
7.-In response to a question put to her Ms Toomath said that she had known Shirley Ross for about 12 years.
In response to further questions Ms Toomath said she saw Ms Ross put the “Sovereign Pride” in the kennel and then put a collar on it. The collar was black and she said she didn’t think anything of it to start off with. She said that Ms Ross was then walking another dog and then “Sovereign Pride (Buzz)” was barking its head off. She said that she asked the Vet if a shock collar was illegal and he said he didn’t know and went to ask Phillipa Kinsey.
8.-Ms Toomath was asked to look at the photos and she confirmed that the black collar was the collar she saw put on the dog and that there was a black box on the right hand side of the neck. She said she only saw the prongs when the collar was taken off the dog.
9.-Ms Toomath said that she was very familiar with “Buzz” and his issues and that he is a very naughty dog and has hurt himself while in the kennel.
She said that she asked Phillipa Kinsey to come and look at the collar.
EVIDENCE OF MR JOE KINGSNORTH:
1.-That is my full name. I am a Licensed Handler under Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules. I live in Rotorua.
2.-I know the Respondent, Ms Shirley Ross. I also know that she is a Licensed Trainer under Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules.
3.-I am aware that she has had issues with her greyhound “Sovereign Pride” hurting itself in the kennels.
4.-I spoke to Mr Jimmy Black about “Sovereign Pride” injuring itself.
5.-As a result of that conversation it was agreed that he would loan Ms Ross a shock collar.
6.-On about 2 July 2020 I met Mr Black at his property in Rotorua.
7.-He handed me two collars and a remote. One is a shock collar (REF EXH) and the other is a dummy collar (REF EXH).
8.-Mr Black demonstrated on my arm that it worked by giving me a zap.
9.-On about 6 July I gave the collars to Ms Shirley Ross. They were in a plastic bag.
10.-I did not show her how to use them as I know that she knows how to use them.
11.-Her father is one of the first inventors of the shock collar in New Zealand.
CROSS EXAMINATION
12.-In response to questions Mr Kingsnorth confirmed that both collars were given back to Jimmy Black. Mr Kingsnorth said that he subsequently picked them up on 3 July and gave them back to Ms Ross on 6 July.
13.-In response to a further question Mr Kingsnorth said that in his opinion Greyhounds are working dogs.
He said that he gave the working collar and the dummy collar in the same bag to Ms Ross but he said that he knew he wouldn’t use the working one. He said that he put the working one on his own arm and tested it and he got a small shock.
14.-In response to a further question he said he has been helping Ms Ross on a Monday for many years and when asked if he had ever seen her hurt a dog he said no.
EVIDENCE OF MS P KINSEY:
1.-That is my full name. I am a Stipendiary Steward employed by the Racing Integrity Unit.
2.-On Thursday 9 July 2020 I was Chairman of Stewards at the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club meeting at the Cambridge Raceway in Taylor Street, Cambridge.
3.-I was working with Stipendiary Steward, Mr Warwick Robinson.
4.-At about 10am as the greyhounds were being kennelled for the days races I was contacted by Ms Wendy Toomath who is a kennelling steward.
5.-She was concerned about the collar on the greyhound “Sovereign Pride”.
6.-“Sovereign Pride” was due to race in Race 5 ‘The Clubhouse Sports Bar Sprint C2 375m’. It is trained by the Respondent, Ms Shirley Ross.
7.-I entered the kennel block and went over to inspect the greyhound. It was evident to me that the collar was a battery operated device with metal prongs pressing against the dogs neck (REF EXH).
8.-I took photos and removed the collar from the dog and confiscated it (REF EXH).
9.-I left the kennel block and showed the collar to Mr Robinson.
10.-I then sent photos taken to the Chief Greyhound Steward for the Racing Integrity Unit, Mr Scott Wallis.
11.-After discussions with Mr Wallis it was agreed that “Sovereign Pride” should be scratched from the meeting as electronic collars are prohibited.
12.-I located Ms Ross in the carpark and explained we had removed the collar from “Sovereign Pride” and that the dog would be scratched from the meeting.
13.-I entered the kennel block with Ms Ross and “Sovereign Pride” was removed.
14.-I went to the Stewards room and set up recording device and had Ms Ross come up to interview her about the situation with myself and Mr Robinson present.
15.-Ms Ross was adamant there was no issue as the device did not work. She went on to say on numerous occasions she would never use a shock collar on a dog and that she thought they were cruel.
16.-It was explained to Ms Ross that electronic collars are prohibited and our concerns that if the dog was trained at home with an electronic collar then having a dummy collar on would have the same affect.
17.-If the dog had not been subject to the use of an electronic collar then putting a ‘dummy’ collar on would be of no relevance to the dog.
18.-I then spoke to Ms Toomath who had escorted “Sovereign Pride” to the kennel. She advised that she saw Ms Ross put something on the dog but was unsure what.
19.-She stated that when she went back to kennel another dog in the same race/set of kennels and saw the device. She then contacted me.
20.-Due to concerns that Ms Ross may have had the remote for the device in her car or dog trailer a search was undertaken with Ms Ross’ consent. No remote was located. Throughout the search Ms Ross repeatedly stated that the collar did not work.
21.-It was then decided that a visit to Ms Ross’ property should be undertaken when she arrived home from the race meeting in order to try and locate the remote for the device before it was disposed of.
22.-I arranged with Senior Racing Investigator, Mr Andy Cruickshank to be at Ms Ross’ property when she returned from the race meeting.
23.-We arrived at the property at about 5pm as Ms Ross arrived home.
24.-Ms Ross was not at all happy to see us at her kennels. She was very uncooperative.
25.-She admitted that there was an electronic collar on the property but refused to provide it or tell us where it was despite repeated warnings.
26.-When it was clear Ms Ross was going to continue to be uncooperative and obstructive Mr Cruickshank advised her that he was turning on his voice recorder.
27.-We then commenced a search of her kennels, starting with a cupboard that she had directed us to.
28.-Ms Ross was directed several times by Mr Cruickshank and myself to provide the shock collar and tell us who had given it to her but she refused.
29.-After about 10 minutes Ms Ross agreed to show us the shock collar.
30.-The device was sitting out in the open on a set of draws partially covered by a plastic bag. I took photos of the collar and its location (PRO EXH).
31.-There were two parts to the device. The collar and a remote. The remote was on and was set to 80/100. I assumed this to be 80 percent power.
32.-Ms Ross stated that she was only given the collars last week but refused to state who had given her the collars or whether they were a licensed person. Again, she was warned that by refusing she was committing racing offences.
33.-The collar and remote were seized.
34.-At about 5.20pm we left the property.
CROSS EXAMINATION
35.-Ms Kinsey said that in the interview with Ms Ross she was having trouble finding the relevant Rule and Stipendiary Steward Mr Warwick Robinson was sent down with the relevant Rule. It was 4.6 of the Greyhound New Zealand Health and Welfare Standards. Ms Kinsey was asked about her statement that you cannot have the shock collars on your property. She was asked where it said that in the Rules but she was not sure.
EVIDENCE OF MR A MUNCASTER:
I, Allan Russell Muncaster (known as Russell), retired, of Whakatane say –
1.-I have known Shirley Ross for many years, since approximately the 1980s when I was a top public trainer for greyhounds.
2.-I held a Trainer’s Licence for many years, but retire
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: