NZGRA Request for Review C Roberts v RIU – decision dated 29 April 2015
ID: JCA18161
Decision:
BEFORE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY AT CHRISTCHURCH
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Greyhound Racing
BETWEEN Mr Craig Roberts
Applicant
AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT
Respondent
Appeals Tribunal: Prof G Hall, Chairman - Mr R McKenzie, Member of Committee
Appearing: The appellant in person
Mr R Quirk, for the respondent
Date of hearing: 20 April 2015
Date of oral decision: 20 April 2015
WRITTEN DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] Mr Roberts seeks a review of the decision of the raceday stewards at Addington Raceway at the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club’s meeting on 2 April 2015, where the greyhound BERRIDALE LAD was stood down for 12 months pursuant to r 79.1(a)(c) of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association Rules.
[2] The relevant rule provides:
79.1 Where a Greyhound:
a. Mars the running of any other Greyhound during a Race … the Stewards may impose the following periods of suspension:
c. in the case of a third or subsequent offence, under Rule 79.1(which for clarity need not be the same offence as the first offence under that subsection), twelve (12) months and until the completion of a Satisfactory Trial.
Factual background
[3] BERRIDALE LAD started from box 4 in race 7, which was over a distance of 520 metres. The dog finished third 9 lengths and a head from the winner.
[4] BERRIDALE LAD had been imported from Australia. The dog had twice been found to have marred other dogs when racing in NSW and the race in question was his first start in New Zealand, since being stood down after his second offence in Australia. BERRIDALE LAD had trialled satisfactorily in a field of 4 in New Zealand and had been allowed to race.
[5] The race record of BERRIDALE LAD is 14 starts for 4 wins, 4 seconds, and 3 thirds.
[6] Mr Quirk showed both the head-on and the trackside videos. The latter was the only useful angle.
[7] BERRIDALE LAD was slow away and settled last. The dog was checked by OPAWA DIESEL early in the race. BERRIDALE LAD recovered well and after some 100 metres improved to the inside of BOTANY SEATON on the first bend. At that point BERRIDALE LAD turned his head to the outside in the direction of BOTANY SEATON. BERRIDALE LAD was free of interference at this time. Both the body and the head of BERRIDALE LAD then came into contact with that of BOTANY SEATON. It is difficult to determine from the video whether the muzzles also came into contact. It is highly likely that they did, but we proceed on the basis that it was the heads of the 2 dogs came into contact.
[8] The head of BERRIDALE LAD is still turned outwards towards BOTANY SEATON when the contact is made with the head of that dog. The head of BOTANY SEATON is pointed towards the lure. BERRIDALE LAD has also run wider on the track in the direction of BOTANY SEATON for some 3 or 4 strides.
[9] BERRIDALE LAD ran on and finished 3rd.
[10] Mr Quirk stated that the contact between BERRIDALE LAD and BOTANY SEATON was not caused by any other dog and he alleged that the intention of BERRIDALE LAD at this point in the race was to come into contact with BOTANY SEATON. He said BOTANY SEATON was badly interfered with and was pushed wider on the track. As a consequence BOTANY SEATON lost momentum and ground.
[11] Mr Roberts demonstrated on the videos that BERRIDALE LAD tended to run around bends with his head pointed out to the right or tucked to the outside. He said the dog had trouble getting around bends. Once BERRIDALE LAD was balanced in the run home, his head was straight.
[12] Mr Roberts alleged that BOTANY SEATON had run in slightly on BERRIDALE LAD. He said that BERRIDALE LAD had not slowed down and had never missed or changed stride. There had been no need for BOTANY SEATON to drop out of the race. In his opinion BOTANY SEATON was already beaten before the incident and BERRIDALE LAD had received a worse check from OPAWA DIESEL than BOTANY SEATON had from BERRIDALE LAD.
[13] BERRIDALE LAD, Mr Roberts emphasised, had brushed GOLD VIPA which was racing to his inner and this had not worried him at all. The dog had ignored the contact.
[14] Mr Roberts said that if the stewards believed there was intent by BERRIDALE LAD for some 5 strides, then the dog should have been charged with failing to pursue the lure rather than marring. He emphasised in his opinion BERRIDALE LAD had done neither.
[15] Mr Roberts questioned whether there had been muzzle or head contact and expressed the view that the bodies of the two dogs had come into contact and BERRIDALE LAD’s head was level with the neck of BOTANY SEATON at that time.
[16] With respect to the dog’s history Mr Roberts said he had had BERRIDALE LAD for some 2½ months and he had had 6 or 7 trials at Addington, which were uneventful. The ownership of the dog had not changed when he came to this country and it was thought that the “dog on the lure” system here in New Zealand would prove beneficial. BERRIDALE LAD was very keen on the arm and looked for a reward at the end of the race.
[17] He showed videos of the 2 previous breaches by BERRIDALE LAD. Each was a clear case of marring. Mr Roberts submitted the present case was far less clear-cut.
[18] Mr Roberts concluded his case by saying that BERRIDALE LAD had had a look at BOTANY SEATON but had not changed stride or purposefully run off BOTANY SEATON. The head of BERRIDALE LAD was no different on this occasion than when he ran around the final bend. He disputed Mr Quirk’s statement that the head of BERRIDALE LAD was at a right angle towards BOTANY SEATON.
[19] Mr Quirk in summing up said BOTANY SEATON was maintaining its line at the time of contact although it was angling inwards, whereas the head of BERRIDALE LAD was angled out for some time before contact. In his estimation, some 3 to 5 strides.
[20] Mr Quirk believed BERRIDALE LAD was not worried by dogs on his inside but those to his outer. He said there was no exaggerated movement of the head by BERRIDALE LAD on the other bends as there had been with respect to the incident in question. He repeated his contention that BERRIDALE LAD voluntarily turned his head and looked at BOTANY SEATON. BERRIDALE LAD had only a small advantage over BOTANY SEATON at that time and the head of BERRIDALE LAD made contact with the head of that dog, which was making up ground and coming into the race.
[21] Mr Quirk believed the contact between BERRIDALE LAD and BOTANY SEATON had knocked both dogs off balance but BERRIDALE LAD had had more momentum and had continued to run on. BERRIDALE LAD had probably failed to pursue but in the stipendiary stewards’ opinion the marring was obvious and that was why that charge had been laid. He said where a charge would result in a one year stand down the stipendiary stewards would not lay the charge if they believed it was 50/50 call.
[22] Mr Quirk concluded his case by stating this was a clear case of marring. BERRIDALE LAD, when free of interference, had turned his head outwards for 3 bounds, moved outwards some 2 dog widths, and his head had come into contact with that of BOTANY SEATON.
[23] Mr Roberts replied that BERRIDALE LAD turned his outwards on the bends and that it was less marked on the final bend as the dog was slowing by this time. Any contact between BERRIDALE LAD and BOTANY SEATON was involuntary and was due to BERRIDALE LAD’s body action. BERRIDALE LAD did not run BOTANY SEATON off, and did not change stride. BOTANY SEATON had only received a minor check.
Decision
[24] We are satisfied that BERRIDALE LAD has turned his head towards BOTANY SEATON for some 3 or 4 strides and has moved wider on the track at this time. As a consequence the head of BERRIDALE LAD has come into contact with that of BOTANY SEATON. BOTANY SEATON has not noticeably shifted down on the track. At worst, it could be said the dog has made an angled run on the bend.
[25] We note the fact that BERRIDALE LAD has run past GOLD VIPA, which was racing very close on his inside, as Mr Roberts has emphasised, but that may demonstrate that BERRIDALE LAD merely has no issue with dogs to his inner in contrast to those running to his outside.
[26] BERRIDALE LAD does tend to race with his head turned to the outside on the bends and this may be why he has an issue with dogs to his outside. But the head carriage at the point of the race that we are considering is very different. BERRIDALE LAD’s head is turned at right angles towards BOTANY SEATON and he has clearly has shifted out in order to make contact with that dog. We are satisfied contact is head to head.
[27] We accept that the 2 previous occasions that BERRIDALE LAD has marred other dogs are more clear-cut examples of a breach of the Rules than the one currently before us, but nevertheless we are satisfied that BERRIDALE LAD is in breach of r 79.1(a)(c) as determined by the stipendiary stewards.
[28] Accordingly the application for review is not successful.
[29] The RIU have not sought costs.
[30] A small contribution by Mr Roberts to the costs of the JCA is appropriate. We award costs in the sum of $250.
Dated at Dunedin this 29th day of April 2015.
Geoff Hall, Chairman
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 18/04/2015
Publish Date: 18/04/2015
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: f514a5a8bf1c06525500779aaefe3180
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 18/04/2015
hearing_title: NZGRA Request for Review C Roberts v RIU - decision dated 29 April 2015
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY AT CHRISTCHURCH
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Greyhound Racing
BETWEEN Mr Craig Roberts
Applicant
AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT
Respondent
Appeals Tribunal: Prof G Hall, Chairman - Mr R McKenzie, Member of Committee
Appearing: The appellant in person
Mr R Quirk, for the respondent
Date of hearing: 20 April 2015
Date of oral decision: 20 April 2015
WRITTEN DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] Mr Roberts seeks a review of the decision of the raceday stewards at Addington Raceway at the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club’s meeting on 2 April 2015, where the greyhound BERRIDALE LAD was stood down for 12 months pursuant to r 79.1(a)(c) of the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association Rules.
[2] The relevant rule provides:
79.1 Where a Greyhound:
a. Mars the running of any other Greyhound during a Race … the Stewards may impose the following periods of suspension:
c. in the case of a third or subsequent offence, under Rule 79.1(which for clarity need not be the same offence as the first offence under that subsection), twelve (12) months and until the completion of a Satisfactory Trial.
Factual background
[3] BERRIDALE LAD started from box 4 in race 7, which was over a distance of 520 metres. The dog finished third 9 lengths and a head from the winner.
[4] BERRIDALE LAD had been imported from Australia. The dog had twice been found to have marred other dogs when racing in NSW and the race in question was his first start in New Zealand, since being stood down after his second offence in Australia. BERRIDALE LAD had trialled satisfactorily in a field of 4 in New Zealand and had been allowed to race.
[5] The race record of BERRIDALE LAD is 14 starts for 4 wins, 4 seconds, and 3 thirds.
[6] Mr Quirk showed both the head-on and the trackside videos. The latter was the only useful angle.
[7] BERRIDALE LAD was slow away and settled last. The dog was checked by OPAWA DIESEL early in the race. BERRIDALE LAD recovered well and after some 100 metres improved to the inside of BOTANY SEATON on the first bend. At that point BERRIDALE LAD turned his head to the outside in the direction of BOTANY SEATON. BERRIDALE LAD was free of interference at this time. Both the body and the head of BERRIDALE LAD then came into contact with that of BOTANY SEATON. It is difficult to determine from the video whether the muzzles also came into contact. It is highly likely that they did, but we proceed on the basis that it was the heads of the 2 dogs came into contact.
[8] The head of BERRIDALE LAD is still turned outwards towards BOTANY SEATON when the contact is made with the head of that dog. The head of BOTANY SEATON is pointed towards the lure. BERRIDALE LAD has also run wider on the track in the direction of BOTANY SEATON for some 3 or 4 strides.
[9] BERRIDALE LAD ran on and finished 3rd.
[10] Mr Quirk stated that the contact between BERRIDALE LAD and BOTANY SEATON was not caused by any other dog and he alleged that the intention of BERRIDALE LAD at this point in the race was to come into contact with BOTANY SEATON. He said BOTANY SEATON was badly interfered with and was pushed wider on the track. As a consequence BOTANY SEATON lost momentum and ground.
[11] Mr Roberts demonstrated on the videos that BERRIDALE LAD tended to run around bends with his head pointed out to the right or tucked to the outside. He said the dog had trouble getting around bends. Once BERRIDALE LAD was balanced in the run home, his head was straight.
[12] Mr Roberts alleged that BOTANY SEATON had run in slightly on BERRIDALE LAD. He said that BERRIDALE LAD had not slowed down and had never missed or changed stride. There had been no need for BOTANY SEATON to drop out of the race. In his opinion BOTANY SEATON was already beaten before the incident and BERRIDALE LAD had received a worse check from OPAWA DIESEL than BOTANY SEATON had from BERRIDALE LAD.
[13] BERRIDALE LAD, Mr Roberts emphasised, had brushed GOLD VIPA which was racing to his inner and this had not worried him at all. The dog had ignored the contact.
[14] Mr Roberts said that if the stewards believed there was intent by BERRIDALE LAD for some 5 strides, then the dog should have been charged with failing to pursue the lure rather than marring. He emphasised in his opinion BERRIDALE LAD had done neither.
[15] Mr Roberts questioned whether there had been muzzle or head contact and expressed the view that the bodies of the two dogs had come into contact and BERRIDALE LAD’s head was level with the neck of BOTANY SEATON at that time.
[16] With respect to the dog’s history Mr Roberts said he had had BERRIDALE LAD for some 2½ months and he had had 6 or 7 trials at Addington, which were uneventful. The ownership of the dog had not changed when he came to this country and it was thought that the “dog on the lure” system here in New Zealand would prove beneficial. BERRIDALE LAD was very keen on the arm and looked for a reward at the end of the race.
[17] He showed videos of the 2 previous breaches by BERRIDALE LAD. Each was a clear case of marring. Mr Roberts submitted the present case was far less clear-cut.
[18] Mr Roberts concluded his case by saying that BERRIDALE LAD had had a look at BOTANY SEATON but had not changed stride or purposefully run off BOTANY SEATON. The head of BERRIDALE LAD was no different on this occasion than when he ran around the final bend. He disputed Mr Quirk’s statement that the head of BERRIDALE LAD was at a right angle towards BOTANY SEATON.
[19] Mr Quirk in summing up said BOTANY SEATON was maintaining its line at the time of contact although it was angling inwards, whereas the head of BERRIDALE LAD was angled out for some time before contact. In his estimation, some 3 to 5 strides.
[20] Mr Quirk believed BERRIDALE LAD was not worried by dogs on his inside but those to his outer. He said there was no exaggerated movement of the head by BERRIDALE LAD on the other bends as there had been with respect to the incident in question. He repeated his contention that BERRIDALE LAD voluntarily turned his head and looked at BOTANY SEATON. BERRIDALE LAD had only a small advantage over BOTANY SEATON at that time and the head of BERRIDALE LAD made contact with the head of that dog, which was making up ground and coming into the race.
[21] Mr Quirk believed the contact between BERRIDALE LAD and BOTANY SEATON had knocked both dogs off balance but BERRIDALE LAD had had more momentum and had continued to run on. BERRIDALE LAD had probably failed to pursue but in the stipendiary stewards’ opinion the marring was obvious and that was why that charge had been laid. He said where a charge would result in a one year stand down the stipendiary stewards would not lay the charge if they believed it was 50/50 call.
[22] Mr Quirk concluded his case by stating this was a clear case of marring. BERRIDALE LAD, when free of interference, had turned his head outwards for 3 bounds, moved outwards some 2 dog widths, and his head had come into contact with that of BOTANY SEATON.
[23] Mr Roberts replied that BERRIDALE LAD turned his outwards on the bends and that it was less marked on the final bend as the dog was slowing by this time. Any contact between BERRIDALE LAD and BOTANY SEATON was involuntary and was due to BERRIDALE LAD’s body action. BERRIDALE LAD did not run BOTANY SEATON off, and did not change stride. BOTANY SEATON had only received a minor check.
Decision
[24] We are satisfied that BERRIDALE LAD has turned his head towards BOTANY SEATON for some 3 or 4 strides and has moved wider on the track at this time. As a consequence the head of BERRIDALE LAD has come into contact with that of BOTANY SEATON. BOTANY SEATON has not noticeably shifted down on the track. At worst, it could be said the dog has made an angled run on the bend.
[25] We note the fact that BERRIDALE LAD has run past GOLD VIPA, which was racing very close on his inside, as Mr Roberts has emphasised, but that may demonstrate that BERRIDALE LAD merely has no issue with dogs to his inner in contrast to those running to his outside.
[26] BERRIDALE LAD does tend to race with his head turned to the outside on the bends and this may be why he has an issue with dogs to his outside. But the head carriage at the point of the race that we are considering is very different. BERRIDALE LAD’s head is turned at right angles towards BOTANY SEATON and he has clearly has shifted out in order to make contact with that dog. We are satisfied contact is head to head.
[27] We accept that the 2 previous occasions that BERRIDALE LAD has marred other dogs are more clear-cut examples of a breach of the Rules than the one currently before us, but nevertheless we are satisfied that BERRIDALE LAD is in breach of r 79.1(a)(c) as determined by the stipendiary stewards.
[28] Accordingly the application for review is not successful.
[29] The RIU have not sought costs.
[30] A small contribution by Mr Roberts to the costs of the JCA is appropriate. We award costs in the sum of $250.
Dated at Dunedin this 29th day of April 2015.
Geoff Hall, Chairman
sumissionsforpenalty:
reasonsforpenalty:
penalty:
hearing_type: Non-race day
Rules:
Informant:
JockeysandTrainer:
Otherperson:
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid:
race_expapproval:
racecancelled:
race_noreport:
race_emailed1:
race_emailed2:
race_title:
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid:
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport:
waitingforpublication:
meet_emailed1:
meet_emailed2:
meetdate: no date provided
meet_title:
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation:
meet_racingtype:
meet_chair:
meet_pm1:
meet_pm2:
name: