NZGRA Request for Review C Roberts v RIU – Written Decision dated 8 August 2019 – Chair, Prof G Hall
ID: JCA16186
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 S Ching, Member
Appearing:--The Applicant in person
Mr R Quirk, Stipendiary Steward, for the Respondent
Date of oral decision:-1 August 2019
Date of written decision:-8 August 2019
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1]-Mr Roberts has applied for a review of the decision from Race 11 at a race meeting of the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held on 25 July at Addington where BERTIE ALLEN was stood down for three months (second offence) for marring. This is an alleged breach of r 55.1(a) of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing.
[2]-Rule 55.1 provides:
Where a Greyhound:
(a) Mars the running of any other Greyhound during a Race the Stewards may impose the following periods of suspension:
(d) in the case of a second offence under r 55.1 (which for clarity need not be the same offence as the first offence under that subsection), three (3) months and until the completion of a Satisfactory Trial….
[3]-Mr Roberts’ ground for review is that the dog had not marred.
[4]-BERTIE ALLEN has had 40 starts for 8 wins, 8 seconds and 6 thirds. The breach on 25 July constituted a second offence as the dog had previously been stood down under this rule on 9 May 2018 at Ballarat and on 24 February 2019 at Manukau. In between these charges BERTIE ALLEN completed 10 clear runs, with one endorsement being cancelled.
[5]-With the agreement of Mr Roberts, Mr Quirk presented the RIU’s case first.
Respondent’s submissions
[6]-Mr Quirk stated that he was Chairman of Stewards on the day and had made the decision that BERTIE ALLEN had marred.
[7]-Marring is defined in r 1 of the GRNZ Rules as: “the action of the greyhound in voluntarily turning the head so as to make head or muzzle contact with another greyhound.”
[8]-Mr Quirk submitted that it could be seen from the head-on view of the home straight that BERTIE ALLEN had taken its eyes off the lure and was solely focused on the outside runner KNOW SHAME (the #1 dog). He said the video showed that the head of BERTIE ALLEN was turned outwards and made contact with KNOW SHAME, with that runner becoming unbalanced as a consequence and losing momentum. He believed the contact was to KNOW SHAME’s shoulder.
[9]-Mr Quirk believed, on the balance of probabilities, that the first part of the body of BERTIE ALLEN that made contact with KNOW SHAME was the head. There was no evidence of KNOW SHAME angling down the track and contributing to the incident nor was there any sign of interference to BERTIE ALLEN before the contact.
[10]-Mr Quirk believed that on the home turn BERTIE ALLEN had lost concentration on the lure and was only attempting to reach the runner to its outside, KNOW SHAME. BERTIE ALLEN made head or muzzle contact, with no other runner contributing to the incident. BERTIE ALLEN then refocused on the lure and ran in a straight line to the finish.
[11]-Mr Quirk submitted that greyhound racing carries with it the weight of public money and the Stewards had to be seen to be appropriately protecting this. They were charged with the responsibility of enhancing public confidence and integrity within greyhound racing by imposing the appropriate penalties/stand downs on greyhounds when required to do so.
[12]-Mr Quirk concluded the respondent’s case by stating in the Stewards’ opinion BERTIE ALLEN had marred the running of KNOW SHAME by voluntarily making head or muzzle contact and therefore had contravened r 55.1(a).
Applicant’s submissions
[13]-Mr Roberts commenced his case by stating that this Committee needed to have clear evidence that BERTIE ALLEN had marred KNOW SHAME. He believed there was no clear evidence whatsoever.
[14]-Mr Roberts submitted that some dogs run off around bends. BERTIE ALLEN was tracking KNOW SHAME and had followed its line.
[15]-Mr Roberts accepted that there had been contact shoulder to shoulder. He demonstrated on the video that KNOW SHAME was drifting out and he believed BERTIE ALLEN had followed that dog out and had then decided to go to its inside rather than run up behind. The head of BERTIE ALLEN was slightly angled out because of the need for the dog to balance up. The head of BERTIE ALLEN was just following the dog’s body, rather than being turned away from the lure. The head was in line with the body, which was angling out. There was no evidence of muzzle contact.
Summing up
[16]-Mr Quirk responded that while BERTIE ALLEN and KNOW SHAME may have been racing shoulder to shoulder, the first point of contact was with the head of BERTIE ALLEN. He added the dog may have followed through with the shoulder. He emphasised BERTIE ALLEN was chasing the #1 dog (KNOW SHAME) and not the lure and had had its eye off the lure for one or two strides.
[17]-Mr Quirk said in the Stewards’ opinion BERTIE ALLEN had lost concentration on the lure and was focused on the outside dog, KNOW SHAME. There was muzzle contact and there had been no interference.
[18]-Mr Roberts reiterated his belief that the videos were inconclusive. He emphasised that BERTIE ALLEN had never altered stride. The dog had never voluntarily turned its head away from the lure. The muzzle of BERTIE ALLEN in the home straight was in a forward position following the body of the dog. He questioned whether KNOW SHAME was in fact ahead of BERTIE ALLEN at the time. He thought BERTIE ALLEN might have been ahead of or at least racing on equal terms with KNOW SHAME.
[19]-Mr Quirk replied that KNOW SHAME was ahead of BERTIE ALLEN when the contact was made.
Decision
[20]-The videos evidence that BERTIE ALLEN settled at the rear of the field and improved near the rail to be in third position on the home turn before racing wider on the track and making a run to the inside of KNOW SHAME and to the outside of BAHAMA QUEEN in the home straight. The dog finished second in the race.
[21]-We viewed the side and head-on videos at normal speed and the head-on at slow speed. We found the full screen head-on view to be the more helpful. It demonstrates that BERTIE ALLEN had turned its head towards KNOW SHAME before the contact between the dogs. The direction of the head of BERTIE ALLEN clearly changed a stride to a stride and a half before the contact. The head was pointed outwards.
[22]-Significantly, in our view, BERTIE ALLEN’s head was voluntarily turned away from the lure and towards KNOW SHAME at the time the dog was commencing to take a run on the track to the inside of KNOW SHAME. We do not believe that this was simply because BERTIE ALLEN was attempting to balance up.
[23]-We do not accept Mr Roberts’ contention that KNOW SHAME was level with or behind BERTIE ALLEN at this time. BERTIE ALLEN had followed KNOW SHAME wider on the track and was making up ground to that dog’s inside at the top of the straight before eventually running past. KNOW SHAME had also become unbalanced as a result of the contact.
[24]-BERTIE ALLEN had clearly lost concentration on the lure. Its head was turned outwards towards KNOW SHAME and it came into contact with the neck or shoulder area of that dog. The body of BERTIE ALLEN followed the head and there appears to be shoulder to shoulder contact at that point. But this is after the head of BERTIE ALLEN made contact with KNOW SHAME.
[25]-We are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that while free of interference BERTIE ALLEN has marred the running of KNOW SHAME and thus is in breach of r 55.1(a).
[26]-The review is unsuccessful and the raceday stand down is confirmed.
Dated at Dunedin this 8th day of August 2019.
Geoff Hall, Chairman
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 09/08/2019
Publish Date: 09/08/2019
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: c79ab66127ee235085662c86146bd1fe
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 09/08/2019
hearing_title: NZGRA Request for Review C Roberts v RIU - Written Decision dated 8 August 2019 - 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 S Ching, Member
Appearing:--The Applicant in person
Mr R Quirk, Stipendiary Steward, for the Respondent
Date of oral decision:-1 August 2019
Date of written decision:-8 August 2019
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1]-Mr Roberts has applied for a review of the decision from Race 11 at a race meeting of the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held on 25 July at Addington where BERTIE ALLEN was stood down for three months (second offence) for marring. This is an alleged breach of r 55.1(a) of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing.
[2]-Rule 55.1 provides:
Where a Greyhound:
(a) Mars the running of any other Greyhound during a Race the Stewards may impose the following periods of suspension:
(d) in the case of a second offence under r 55.1 (which for clarity need not be the same offence as the first offence under that subsection), three (3) months and until the completion of a Satisfactory Trial….
[3]-Mr Roberts’ ground for review is that the dog had not marred.
[4]-BERTIE ALLEN has had 40 starts for 8 wins, 8 seconds and 6 thirds. The breach on 25 July constituted a second offence as the dog had previously been stood down under this rule on 9 May 2018 at Ballarat and on 24 February 2019 at Manukau. In between these charges BERTIE ALLEN completed 10 clear runs, with one endorsement being cancelled.
[5]-With the agreement of Mr Roberts, Mr Quirk presented the RIU’s case first.
Respondent’s submissions
[6]-Mr Quirk stated that he was Chairman of Stewards on the day and had made the decision that BERTIE ALLEN had marred.
[7]-Marring is defined in r 1 of the GRNZ Rules as: “the action of the greyhound in voluntarily turning the head so as to make head or muzzle contact with another greyhound.”
[8]-Mr Quirk submitted that it could be seen from the head-on view of the home straight that BERTIE ALLEN had taken its eyes off the lure and was solely focused on the outside runner KNOW SHAME (the #1 dog). He said the video showed that the head of BERTIE ALLEN was turned outwards and made contact with KNOW SHAME, with that runner becoming unbalanced as a consequence and losing momentum. He believed the contact was to KNOW SHAME’s shoulder.
[9]-Mr Quirk believed, on the balance of probabilities, that the first part of the body of BERTIE ALLEN that made contact with KNOW SHAME was the head. There was no evidence of KNOW SHAME angling down the track and contributing to the incident nor was there any sign of interference to BERTIE ALLEN before the contact.
[10]-Mr Quirk believed that on the home turn BERTIE ALLEN had lost concentration on the lure and was only attempting to reach the runner to its outside, KNOW SHAME. BERTIE ALLEN made head or muzzle contact, with no other runner contributing to the incident. BERTIE ALLEN then refocused on the lure and ran in a straight line to the finish.
[11]-Mr Quirk submitted that greyhound racing carries with it the weight of public money and the Stewards had to be seen to be appropriately protecting this. They were charged with the responsibility of enhancing public confidence and integrity within greyhound racing by imposing the appropriate penalties/stand downs on greyhounds when required to do so.
[12]-Mr Quirk concluded the respondent’s case by stating in the Stewards’ opinion BERTIE ALLEN had marred the running of KNOW SHAME by voluntarily making head or muzzle contact and therefore had contravened r 55.1(a).
Applicant’s submissions
[13]-Mr Roberts commenced his case by stating that this Committee needed to have clear evidence that BERTIE ALLEN had marred KNOW SHAME. He believed there was no clear evidence whatsoever.
[14]-Mr Roberts submitted that some dogs run off around bends. BERTIE ALLEN was tracking KNOW SHAME and had followed its line.
[15]-Mr Roberts accepted that there had been contact shoulder to shoulder. He demonstrated on the video that KNOW SHAME was drifting out and he believed BERTIE ALLEN had followed that dog out and had then decided to go to its inside rather than run up behind. The head of BERTIE ALLEN was slightly angled out because of the need for the dog to balance up. The head of BERTIE ALLEN was just following the dog’s body, rather than being turned away from the lure. The head was in line with the body, which was angling out. There was no evidence of muzzle contact.
Summing up
[16]-Mr Quirk responded that while BERTIE ALLEN and KNOW SHAME may have been racing shoulder to shoulder, the first point of contact was with the head of BERTIE ALLEN. He added the dog may have followed through with the shoulder. He emphasised BERTIE ALLEN was chasing the #1 dog (KNOW SHAME) and not the lure and had had its eye off the lure for one or two strides.
[17]-Mr Quirk said in the Stewards’ opinion BERTIE ALLEN had lost concentration on the lure and was focused on the outside dog, KNOW SHAME. There was muzzle contact and there had been no interference.
[18]-Mr Roberts reiterated his belief that the videos were inconclusive. He emphasised that BERTIE ALLEN had never altered stride. The dog had never voluntarily turned its head away from the lure. The muzzle of BERTIE ALLEN in the home straight was in a forward position following the body of the dog. He questioned whether KNOW SHAME was in fact ahead of BERTIE ALLEN at the time. He thought BERTIE ALLEN might have been ahead of or at least racing on equal terms with KNOW SHAME.
[19]-Mr Quirk replied that KNOW SHAME was ahead of BERTIE ALLEN when the contact was made.
Decision
[20]-The videos evidence that BERTIE ALLEN settled at the rear of the field and improved near the rail to be in third position on the home turn before racing wider on the track and making a run to the inside of KNOW SHAME and to the outside of BAHAMA QUEEN in the home straight. The dog finished second in the race.
[21]-We viewed the side and head-on videos at normal speed and the head-on at slow speed. We found the full screen head-on view to be the more helpful. It demonstrates that BERTIE ALLEN had turned its head towards KNOW SHAME before the contact between the dogs. The direction of the head of BERTIE ALLEN clearly changed a stride to a stride and a half before the contact. The head was pointed outwards.
[22]-Significantly, in our view, BERTIE ALLEN’s head was voluntarily turned away from the lure and towards KNOW SHAME at the time the dog was commencing to take a run on the track to the inside of KNOW SHAME. We do not believe that this was simply because BERTIE ALLEN was attempting to balance up.
[23]-We do not accept Mr Roberts’ contention that KNOW SHAME was level with or behind BERTIE ALLEN at this time. BERTIE ALLEN had followed KNOW SHAME wider on the track and was making up ground to that dog’s inside at the top of the straight before eventually running past. KNOW SHAME had also become unbalanced as a result of the contact.
[24]-BERTIE ALLEN had clearly lost concentration on the lure. Its head was turned outwards towards KNOW SHAME and it came into contact with the neck or shoulder area of that dog. The body of BERTIE ALLEN followed the head and there appears to be shoulder to shoulder contact at that point. But this is after the head of BERTIE ALLEN made contact with KNOW SHAME.
[25]-We are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that while free of interference BERTIE ALLEN has marred the running of KNOW SHAME and thus is in breach of r 55.1(a).
[26]-The review is unsuccessful and the raceday stand down is confirmed.
Dated at Dunedin this 8th day of August 2019.
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: