NZGRA Request for Review C Roberts v RIU – Written Decision dated 15 May 2018 – Chair, Prof G Hall
ID: JCA17095
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF
THE JCA AT CHRISTCHURCH
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (Incorporated)
BETWEEN
CRAIG ROBERTS, Licensed Trainer
Applicant
AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Respondent
Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman
Mr A Smith, Committee Member
Appearing: The Applicant in person
Mr R Quirk, Stipendiary Steward, for the Respondent
Venue: Addington Raceway, Christchurch
Date of Hearing and
Oral Decision: 9 May 2018
Date of written Decision: 15 May 2018
WRITTEN DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] On 27 April 2018 the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held its race meeting at Addington Raceway. The Chairman of Stewards at the meeting was Mr Quirk and his deputy on the day was Mr Wallis.
[2] The dog in question, DYNA MONTY is trained by Licensed Public Trainer Mr Roberts of Christchurch. DYNA MONTY was correctly nominated and started from Box 8 (the dog was number 9) in Race 2, the MURRAY @ RAY WHITE Ph 021 480250 MAIDEN, which was a Class 0 race over 520 metres.
[3] This was DYNA MONTY’s first totalisator start in New Zealand. The dog had three starts in Australia. DYNA MONTY had completed a satisfactory trial at Addington on 20 April 2018, having been stood down for failing to pursue the lure at The Meadows on 7 February 2018.
[4] The relevant rule that the dog was suspended under on 27 April reads as follows:
55.1 Where a Greyhound: (b) Fails to pursue the Lure in a Race; the Stewards may impose the following periods of suspension: (d) in the case of a second offence, 3 months and until the completion of a Satisfactory Trial.
[5] Following the event, the Stewards conducted an inquiry into the racing conduct of DYNA MONTY. Of particular concern to the Stewards were the greyhound’s manners when turning its head inwards towards greyhounds on its inside immediately after the start of the race. As part of this investigation Stewards directed that DYNA MONTY be subjected to a post-race veterinary examination as per r 55.2. There were no apparent findings reported by the on-course veterinarian after this examination took place.
[6] Stewards viewed the films and heard submissions from Mr Bob Blackburn, an employee of the applicant, regarding the racing conduct of DYNA MONTY at this stage of the race. After taking into account Mr Blackburn’s submission that the dog was looking at the lure, the veterinary report, and their own observations from video replays, the Stewards were satisfied that DYNA MONTY had breached r 55.1(b) and that it had failed to pursue the lure as defined under r 1, which reads:
Fails to Pursue The Lure: means the action of the Greyhound voluntarily turning the head without making contact with another Greyhound, or voluntarily easing up, or stopping during a Race while free of interference.
[7] On 30 April Mr Roberts applied for a review of the decision of the Stipendiary Stewards in accordance with rr 55.11 and 66.20. His reason for disagreeing with the decision of the Stewards was that DYNA MONTY did not fail to pursue the lure.
[8] After discussing the issue with the parties, we decided that Mr Quirk would present the RIU’s case first.
The RIU’s case
[9] Mr Quirk demonstrated on the films that DYNA MONTY had turned its head inwards for 1 to 2 strides while free of interference in the initial stages of the race. DYNA MONTY then straightened up and pursued the lure. DYNA MONTY went on to run 3rd. The Stewards alleged that it was apparent from the video that after the initial stride the dog was intent on concentrating on the inside dogs and not the lure.
[10] Mr Quirk said that the point of concern for the Stewards was immediately after the start when the angle of the neck of DYNA MONTY was stretched to the inside towards other runners. DYNA MONTY then re-focused, straightened up and chased the lure as required.
[11] Rule 55.1 did not provide for the level of offending to be a mitigating factor for the Stewards when determining whether a greyhound should be charged. Nor did it allow the finishing place of a greyhound to be a mitigating factor. Simply put, the Stewards submitted, under the provisions of r 55.1 a greyhound had either breached the rule to any degree or it had not.
[12] Mr Quirk submitted that greyhound racing carried with it the weight of public money and the Stewards had to be seen to be appropriately protecting this. Stewards also had to take into account the potential loss of confidence of any other runner as a consequence of the dog’s actions. They were charged with the responsibility of enhancing public confidence and integrity within greyhound racing by imposing the right penalties/stand downs on greyhounds when required to do so by the Rules.
[13] Mr Quirk was satisfied that it was open to the Stewards on the day to form the opinion that the greyhound had failed to pursue the lure and thus that the review be dismissed and the stand down imposed on the day stand.
[14] When questioned by the Committee as to how far forward of the boxes was the lure when the incident occurred, Mr Quirk replied that it was not clear, as no video angle showed the position of the lure. However, Mr Quirk also said that the Stewards were satisfied that DYNA MONTY’s head was turned inwards looking for the other dogs rather than looking for the lure. He believed the dog had lost a fraction of momentum through looking inwards. He believed the angle of the head of DYNA MONTY was different to the angle of its body but he acknowledged the fact that the 7 dog had missed the jump had made it easier for DYNA MONTY to take an angled run to the rail. He emphasised that the Stewards had no issues with the run of DYNA MONTY after this time.
Mr Roberts’ case
[15] Mr Roberts first stated that the three month stand down was in error as DYNA MONTY had not been stood down in Victoria, but had merely been required to complete a satisfactory trial. The GRNZ information was thus incorrect. (After viewing the Victorian website, Mr Quirk stated that Mr Roberts’ submission appeared to be correct.)
[16] Mr Roberts stated that the 520 metre boxes were set back from the bend and the dogs were jumping away before the rail in the home straight. The dogs’ first steps were thus sharply inwards, and this was especially true of the dogs in the wide boxes. DYNA MONTY was in box 8.
[17] Mr Roberts believed the lure was approaching the boxes at a slower rate than was the norm. He said one or two trainers had said to him on the day that the lure was approaching slowly and then accelerating away once it was past the boxes. When questioned by the Committee, he said he did not have sworn statements from these trainers nor were they present to give evidence before us.
[18] Mr Roberts emphasised that this was the dog’s first start at Addington and it was from the widest of the 520 metre boxes. He believed when the boxes opened the lure was still on the bend and angled infield from where DYNA MONTY was boxed. Thus Mr Roberts believed DYNA MONTY was looking for the lure. He said it was impossible to tell from the videos where either the eye or the lure was and, if the lure was going slower, the dog would see it further back on the bend than it would otherwise.
[19] Mr Roberts asked that the Committee take into account that DYNA MONTY had received interference later in the race and yet had run past two other dogs without difficulty. He believed if DYNA MONTY had been looking at the other dogs it would have had “a play”. It had not fought the other dogs and, it would have, if it was interested in or worried by them. DYNA MONTY was interested in the lure and was “chasing the hardest”.
[20] In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Roberts said DYNA MONTY had not trialled from the 520 metre boxes.
[21] Mr Quirk asked Mr Roberts if the lure was as far back as he alleged, why were the other 6 dogs not looking inwards. Mr Roberts replied he was only interested in the actions of his dog.
[22] The position of lure, Mr Roberts reiterated, was extremely important.
Summing up
[23] Mr Quirk said it was the first 2 or 3 strides that were of concern. The head of DYNA MONTY at this time was pointed to the dogs on its inside and not the lure.
[24] Mr Roberts replied that when the lids opened, where was the lure. This was not evident from the videos. DYNA MONTY was looking to run to the rail and was chasing the lure. DYNA MONTY was not interested in the other dogs. The dog had drawn the widest box and was looking for the lure. The dog had made an angled run to the rail where the lure was and had never failed to pursue.
Decision
[25] We have found the head-on angle to be helpful. We agree with Mr Quirk that after the first half stride DYNA MONTY, when jumping from box 8, commences an angled run across the field towards the rail and its head is clearly turned inwards momentarily.
[26] The other dogs have all started more slowly than DYNA MONTY and none have their head turned inwards, as does DYNA MONTY. That the 7 dog was the slowest away has allowed DYNA MONTY to commence an immediate angled inwards run towards the rail without interference.
[27] DYNA MONTY is an inexperienced dog. This is its first start at the 520 metres and the dog drew the outside box. It is not a prolonged turn of the head. It is only for one stride and is whilst the dog is making an angled run towards the rail which commenced immediately upon the dog exiting the box and continued after the stride that is in contention.
[28] DYNA MONTY has jumped out of the boxes clearly before the other dogs and the issue is whether DYNA MONTY was looking to the other dogs or to the lure.
[29] DYNA MONTY appears to be looking past the other dogs and not at the other dogs, which, as we have observed, had jumped more slowly and were to his inside and slightly behind him. Without video evidence as to the position of the lure at this time, we are unable to determine that the dog’s head is not towards the lure.
[30] Significantly, with respect to the wording of the rule, while it is our belief that the head of DYNA MONTY is turned inwards for a stride or stride and a half immediately after the dog jumped, we are not satisfied to the standard of the balance of probabilities that the head is turned away from the lure and thus that the dog has failed to pursue the lure. We note that on the dog’s second to third stride its head has straightened, as DYNA MONTY appears to have spotted the lure. There are no issues from this point in the race.
[31] Mr Roberts’ application for a review is successful and the suspension on 27 April 2018 of DYNA MONTY for three months and the requirement to complete a satisfactory trial, pursuant to r 55.1(b) for failing to pursue the lure, is quashed.
Dated at Dunedin this 15th day of May 2018.
Geoff Hall, Chairman
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 15/05/2018
Publish Date: 15/05/2018
JCA Decision Fields (raw)
Dmitry: This section contains all JCA fields migrated from the raw data.
Data from these fields should be mapped appropriately to display amongst the standard fields above; please make note of any values below that are missing in the above standard fields but should be there.
hearingid: cb58c28ce1e4a4b0f024a6763e9ff461
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 15/05/2018
hearing_title: NZGRA Request for Review C Roberts v RIU - Written Decision dated 15 May 2018 - Chair, Prof G Hall
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF
THE JCA AT CHRISTCHURCH
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (Incorporated)
BETWEEN
CRAIG ROBERTS, Licensed Trainer
Applicant
AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Respondent
Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman
Mr A Smith, Committee Member
Appearing: The Applicant in person
Mr R Quirk, Stipendiary Steward, for the Respondent
Venue: Addington Raceway, Christchurch
Date of Hearing and
Oral Decision: 9 May 2018
Date of written Decision: 15 May 2018
WRITTEN DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] On 27 April 2018 the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held its race meeting at Addington Raceway. The Chairman of Stewards at the meeting was Mr Quirk and his deputy on the day was Mr Wallis.
[2] The dog in question, DYNA MONTY is trained by Licensed Public Trainer Mr Roberts of Christchurch. DYNA MONTY was correctly nominated and started from Box 8 (the dog was number 9) in Race 2, the MURRAY @ RAY WHITE Ph 021 480250 MAIDEN, which was a Class 0 race over 520 metres.
[3] This was DYNA MONTY’s first totalisator start in New Zealand. The dog had three starts in Australia. DYNA MONTY had completed a satisfactory trial at Addington on 20 April 2018, having been stood down for failing to pursue the lure at The Meadows on 7 February 2018.
[4] The relevant rule that the dog was suspended under on 27 April reads as follows:
55.1 Where a Greyhound: (b) Fails to pursue the Lure in a Race; the Stewards may impose the following periods of suspension: (d) in the case of a second offence, 3 months and until the completion of a Satisfactory Trial.
[5] Following the event, the Stewards conducted an inquiry into the racing conduct of DYNA MONTY. Of particular concern to the Stewards were the greyhound’s manners when turning its head inwards towards greyhounds on its inside immediately after the start of the race. As part of this investigation Stewards directed that DYNA MONTY be subjected to a post-race veterinary examination as per r 55.2. There were no apparent findings reported by the on-course veterinarian after this examination took place.
[6] Stewards viewed the films and heard submissions from Mr Bob Blackburn, an employee of the applicant, regarding the racing conduct of DYNA MONTY at this stage of the race. After taking into account Mr Blackburn’s submission that the dog was looking at the lure, the veterinary report, and their own observations from video replays, the Stewards were satisfied that DYNA MONTY had breached r 55.1(b) and that it had failed to pursue the lure as defined under r 1, which reads:
Fails to Pursue The Lure: means the action of the Greyhound voluntarily turning the head without making contact with another Greyhound, or voluntarily easing up, or stopping during a Race while free of interference.
[7] On 30 April Mr Roberts applied for a review of the decision of the Stipendiary Stewards in accordance with rr 55.11 and 66.20. His reason for disagreeing with the decision of the Stewards was that DYNA MONTY did not fail to pursue the lure.
[8] After discussing the issue with the parties, we decided that Mr Quirk would present the RIU’s case first.
The RIU’s case
[9] Mr Quirk demonstrated on the films that DYNA MONTY had turned its head inwards for 1 to 2 strides while free of interference in the initial stages of the race. DYNA MONTY then straightened up and pursued the lure. DYNA MONTY went on to run 3rd. The Stewards alleged that it was apparent from the video that after the initial stride the dog was intent on concentrating on the inside dogs and not the lure.
[10] Mr Quirk said that the point of concern for the Stewards was immediately after the start when the angle of the neck of DYNA MONTY was stretched to the inside towards other runners. DYNA MONTY then re-focused, straightened up and chased the lure as required.
[11] Rule 55.1 did not provide for the level of offending to be a mitigating factor for the Stewards when determining whether a greyhound should be charged. Nor did it allow the finishing place of a greyhound to be a mitigating factor. Simply put, the Stewards submitted, under the provisions of r 55.1 a greyhound had either breached the rule to any degree or it had not.
[12] Mr Quirk submitted that greyhound racing carried with it the weight of public money and the Stewards had to be seen to be appropriately protecting this. Stewards also had to take into account the potential loss of confidence of any other runner as a consequence of the dog’s actions. They were charged with the responsibility of enhancing public confidence and integrity within greyhound racing by imposing the right penalties/stand downs on greyhounds when required to do so by the Rules.
[13] Mr Quirk was satisfied that it was open to the Stewards on the day to form the opinion that the greyhound had failed to pursue the lure and thus that the review be dismissed and the stand down imposed on the day stand.
[14] When questioned by the Committee as to how far forward of the boxes was the lure when the incident occurred, Mr Quirk replied that it was not clear, as no video angle showed the position of the lure. However, Mr Quirk also said that the Stewards were satisfied that DYNA MONTY’s head was turned inwards looking for the other dogs rather than looking for the lure. He believed the dog had lost a fraction of momentum through looking inwards. He believed the angle of the head of DYNA MONTY was different to the angle of its body but he acknowledged the fact that the 7 dog had missed the jump had made it easier for DYNA MONTY to take an angled run to the rail. He emphasised that the Stewards had no issues with the run of DYNA MONTY after this time.
Mr Roberts’ case
[15] Mr Roberts first stated that the three month stand down was in error as DYNA MONTY had not been stood down in Victoria, but had merely been required to complete a satisfactory trial. The GRNZ information was thus incorrect. (After viewing the Victorian website, Mr Quirk stated that Mr Roberts’ submission appeared to be correct.)
[16] Mr Roberts stated that the 520 metre boxes were set back from the bend and the dogs were jumping away before the rail in the home straight. The dogs’ first steps were thus sharply inwards, and this was especially true of the dogs in the wide boxes. DYNA MONTY was in box 8.
[17] Mr Roberts believed the lure was approaching the boxes at a slower rate than was the norm. He said one or two trainers had said to him on the day that the lure was approaching slowly and then accelerating away once it was past the boxes. When questioned by the Committee, he said he did not have sworn statements from these trainers nor were they present to give evidence before us.
[18] Mr Roberts emphasised that this was the dog’s first start at Addington and it was from the widest of the 520 metre boxes. He believed when the boxes opened the lure was still on the bend and angled infield from where DYNA MONTY was boxed. Thus Mr Roberts believed DYNA MONTY was looking for the lure. He said it was impossible to tell from the videos where either the eye or the lure was and, if the lure was going slower, the dog would see it further back on the bend than it would otherwise.
[19] Mr Roberts asked that the Committee take into account that DYNA MONTY had received interference later in the race and yet had run past two other dogs without difficulty. He believed if DYNA MONTY had been looking at the other dogs it would have had “a play”. It had not fought the other dogs and, it would have, if it was interested in or worried by them. DYNA MONTY was interested in the lure and was “chasing the hardest”.
[20] In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Roberts said DYNA MONTY had not trialled from the 520 metre boxes.
[21] Mr Quirk asked Mr Roberts if the lure was as far back as he alleged, why were the other 6 dogs not looking inwards. Mr Roberts replied he was only interested in the actions of his dog.
[22] The position of lure, Mr Roberts reiterated, was extremely important.
Summing up
[23] Mr Quirk said it was the first 2 or 3 strides that were of concern. The head of DYNA MONTY at this time was pointed to the dogs on its inside and not the lure.
[24] Mr Roberts replied that when the lids opened, where was the lure. This was not evident from the videos. DYNA MONTY was looking to run to the rail and was chasing the lure. DYNA MONTY was not interested in the other dogs. The dog had drawn the widest box and was looking for the lure. The dog had made an angled run to the rail where the lure was and had never failed to pursue.
Decision
[25] We have found the head-on angle to be helpful. We agree with Mr Quirk that after the first half stride DYNA MONTY, when jumping from box 8, commences an angled run across the field towards the rail and its head is clearly turned inwards momentarily.
[26] The other dogs have all started more slowly than DYNA MONTY and none have their head turned inwards, as does DYNA MONTY. That the 7 dog was the slowest away has allowed DYNA MONTY to commence an immediate angled inwards run towards the rail without interference.
[27] DYNA MONTY is an inexperienced dog. This is its first start at the 520 metres and the dog drew the outside box. It is not a prolonged turn of the head. It is only for one stride and is whilst the dog is making an angled run towards the rail which commenced immediately upon the dog exiting the box and continued after the stride that is in contention.
[28] DYNA MONTY has jumped out of the boxes clearly before the other dogs and the issue is whether DYNA MONTY was looking to the other dogs or to the lure.
[29] DYNA MONTY appears to be looking past the other dogs and not at the other dogs, which, as we have observed, had jumped more slowly and were to his inside and slightly behind him. Without video evidence as to the position of the lure at this time, we are unable to determine that the dog’s head is not towards the lure.
[30] Significantly, with respect to the wording of the rule, while it is our belief that the head of DYNA MONTY is turned inwards for a stride or stride and a half immediately after the dog jumped, we are not satisfied to the standard of the balance of probabilities that the head is turned away from the lure and thus that the dog has failed to pursue the lure. We note that on the dog’s second to third stride its head has straightened, as DYNA MONTY appears to have spotted the lure. There are no issues from this point in the race.
[31] Mr Roberts’ application for a review is successful and the suspension on 27 April 2018 of DYNA MONTY for three months and the requirement to complete a satisfactory trial, pursuant to r 55.1(b) for failing to pursue the lure, is quashed.
Dated at Dunedin this 15th day of May 2018.
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: