NZGRA Request for Review E Potts v RIU – Written Decision dated 8 September 2020 – Chair, Mr G R Jones
ID: JCA14696
Decision:
BEFORE A COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association Incorporated, of an Application for a Review pursuant to Rule 55.11
BETWEEN
Ms E Potts, Licensed Trainer
Applicant
AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU) Ms P Kinsey, Stipendiary Steward
Respondent
Judicial Committee: Mr G R Jones (Chairman)
Hearing: 7 September 2020 at the Manukau Stadium
Present: Ms E Potts (Applicant) and Ms P Kinsey, (for the Respondent)
Date of oral decision: 7 September 2020
Date of written decision: 8 September 2020
WRITTEN DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] This is a hearing convened pursuant to Rule 55.11 of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing (“the rules”). This rule enables:
An Owner or Trainer of a Greyhound may seek a review of any decision under Rule 55.1, by the Judicial Committee, in accordance with Rule 66.20.
[2] This Request for Review arises from the running of Race 4, at the race meeting of the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club, at Cambridge Raceway on Sunday, 23 August 2020. The winner of the race was DUNDEE GLITTER who is trained by the Applicant, Ms E Potts.
[3] Following the running of the race, Stewards conducted a post-race investigation and concluded that DUNDEE GLITTER was in breach of Rule 55.1 (b) in that it failed to pursue the lure. As a consequence, DUNDEE GLITTER was stood-down for 28-days.
[4] In her written Request for Review, the Applicant, Ms Potts outlined her reasons for disagreeing with the Stewards decision to stand down DUNDEE GLITTER. Those grounds are:
“I believe the dog did not fail to pursue the lure during the race; and she raced true to her racing style”.
The Relevant Rules
[5] Rule 55.1 provides that:
Where a Greyhound, (b). Fails to pursue the Lure in a Race; the Stewards may impose the following periods of suspension; and (a) in the case of a first offence, twenty-eight (28) days and until the completion of Satisfactory Trial.
[6] In addition, Rule 55.2 provides that:
Where a Greyhound fails to pursue the Lure as provided under Rule 55.1, the Greyhound shall be examined by the officiating Veterinarian or Authorised Person.
[7] Fails to Pursue the Lure is defined within Clause 1 of the Rules. It 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.
The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, which simply means more probable or more likely than not. Therefore, in the context of this review the Committee is required to determine whether or not it was more probable than not, DUNDEE GLITTER failed to pursue the lure.
[8] This matter was heard at the Manukau Greyhound Stadium on 7 September 2020.
Preliminary Matters
[9] On the morning of the hearing Ms Potts contacted the office of the Judicial Control Authority seeking permission “to bring someone along” to the hearing, namely Greyhound Trainer, Mr Norman Philip Green.
[10] Mr Green was present at the commencement of the hearing and the Committee asked him what role he intended to play in the hearing. Rule 49.1 of the NZGA Rules and procedures set out in the 7th Schedule, permit a lay advocate, on approval, to assist during a hearing. After some discussion on this point it was determined that Mr Green’s primary purpose for attending the hearing was to give evidence based on his considerable experience in the greyhound industry, as opposed to assuming the role of lay advocate or what is more generally known as a ‘McKenzie friend’. Following the discussion, the Committee ruled that Mr Green was therefore principally a witness for the Applicant and on that basis rather than he sit in as a lay advocate, he waits in an adjourning room pending being called to give witness testimony. Following his evidence Mr Green was then permitted to sit in on the remainder of the hearing.
[11] Ms Kinsey on behalf of the Racing Integrity Unit (“the RIU”) opposed the ruling enabling Mr Green to give evidence on the basis that the Applicant should have disclosed, in advance of the hearing, the nature of his proposed evidence. The Committee accepted the RIU had a valid grievance relating to the non-disclosure but proceeded to allow Mr Green given evidence on the basis that the potential probative value of his proposed evidence may outweigh any resultant prejudice to the Respondent’s case. In any event, the Committee took the view that the Rules provide Judicial Committees in cases of this nature, with considerable discretion and flexibility as to what evidence may or may not be given during the course of a hearing (ref. NZGRA rules 66.5 (b) and 72.2).
Respondent’s case
[12] In opening the case on behalf of the RIU, Ms Kinsey advised the Committee of her experience as a Stipendiary Steward, which includes regularly attending and running greyhound race meetings. She said that, as a Steward her job requires that she ensures the NZGRA Rules Racing are upheld and that any breach of the Rules is dealt with; and of relevance to this case, should a stand down be imposed they are done so within the boundaries set out in the Rules.
[13] Ms Kinsey outlined the provisions of Rule 55.1 (b) which relate to Fails to Pursue the Lure in a Race, adding that a “failure is when a Greyhound fails to pursue the lure with due commitment throughout the entirety of the race”. Ms Kinsey also referred to the definition of Fails to Pursue the Lure as set out in Clause 1 of the Rules, as has been highlighted earlier in this decision.
[14] Ms Kinsey said that the online Cambridge Dictionary defines ‘turn’ as - to change the direction in which you are facing or moving, and she asked the Committee to consider this in the context of a greyhound turning its head during a race.
[15] Ms Kinsey said that after reviewing footage on the day Stewards are satisfied standing DUNDEE GLITTER down for failing to pursue the lure with due commitment throughout the entirety of the event was the correct decision. She emphasised that as a Steward she has an obligation to impose stand downs on greyhounds which breach the relevant Rules.
[16] Ms Kinsey said greyhounds that fail to pursue the lure with due commitment throughout the entirety of the race are deemed to not be committed to their sole purpose for racing. She said Stewards decisions, such as in this case, are not made lightly. She said that on this occasion another runner, AUDRETTE had its chance of filling a better position extinguished due to the racing manners or actions of DUNDEE GLITTER.
[17] In further consideration of the raceday decision, Ms Kinsey said it is the practice of Stewards, who when viewing race replay footage in relation to a non-pursuit charge, there is no consideration afforded to the ultimate finishing position of a greyhound in a race. She then highlighted the following points in this regard:
a)-The fact that a greyhound did or did not cost itself the opportunity of filling a better placing by not pursuing the lure is ‘completely irrelevant’.
b)-It is also irrelevant that it was the greyhound’s first time on the track or the first time from a particular box.
c)-Also irrelevant is the degree in which the Greyhound has turned its head, as a greyhound’s sole purpose is for racing, and to chase a lure with due commitment.
[18] Ms Kinsey said that pursuant to Rule 55.1b DUNDEE GLITTER was examined by the Officiating Veterinarian, Dr Joan Hessell following the event and was found to be free of injury.
[19] Prior to referring to the race films, Ms Kinsey encouraged the Committee to consider two key questions relating to an allegation of a greyhound failing to purse. First, did this dog turn its head; and second, was it free of interference.
[20] Using available video footage, namely back straight and the home turn into the straight, Ms Kinsey demonstrated the alleged breach. She identified DUNDEE GLITTER in the green rug jumping from box number 6. She pointed out that when DUNDEE GLITTER was improving around the final bend to the inside of AUDRETTE and, racing free of interference, it voluntarily turned its head outwards and directed itself out towards. this runner then made contact and continued to shift out wider. As a result, said Ms Kinsey, AUDRETTE was shifted to the outside confines of the track. She added that that AUDRETTE sustained an injury and a 10-day stand down imposed. When later queried on this point by Ms Potts, it was accepted the actual injury to AUDRETTE could not be solely attributed to the actions of DUNDEE GLITTER.
[21] Ms Kinsey, using the films as an aid, said that DUNDEE GLITTER raced on the inside of AUDRETTE for the majority of the race and was one off the rail rounding the turn. She said, the films show that at that point it turned its head outward, then ran at least 5-dog widths out on to AUDRETTE. She said that DUNDEE GLITTER turned its head for a second time and then forced AUDRETTE to the outside of the track. Also, at this point the number 8 dog, QUARA’S YOSHI, who was trailing was hampered and had to take abrupt evasive action.
[22] Ms Kinsey said that DUNDEE GLITTER had raced “true” until the final bend, when it turned its head for a clear 2 strides. She added that when it was forcing AUDRETTE wider on the track it was not pursuing the lure, rather it was focusing on AUDRETTE. Ms Kinsey said that as the dogs straightened up in the run to the line, they came together, and after that AUDRETTE was forced even wider.
Applicant’s case
[23] In her opening remarks Ms Potts said that she has trained DUNDEE GLITTER for all of her 12 New Zealand race starts, which have resulted in 3 wins, 6 placings and 2 fourths. She said that in her only other start she was unplaced due to interference in the running. She said that when she first started training the dog, she noted her running style was to run wide on the bends and this was confirmed during subsequent races.
[24] Ms Potts produced 2 video films of DUNDEE GLITTERS previous races. The first on 20 August 2020 at Cambridge and the second on 28 June 20 at Maunukau. Using these films, Ms Potts demonstrated that DUNDEE GLITTER”S racing style was to run wider on the track. She pointed out on the Cambridge race film that DUNDEE GLITTER raced on the rail and then drifted wide on the track with no other dogs nearby.
[25] Ms Potts said that AUDRETTE is known as a wide runner and in her opinion, would have run wide even if DUNDEE GLITTER was not in the race.
[26] Referring to the race films, Ms Potts pointed out that as the dogs rounded the bend DUNDEE GLITTER’S heads was at the same angle as other runners including AUDRETTE, QUARA’S YOSHI and the number 1 dog on the rails, WAITERIMU RIPPER. She said that DUNDEE GLITTER ran wide which is consistent with her racing style. And that after there was contact with AUDRETTE, DUNDEE GLITTER balanced up and went on to win the race without further issue.
[27] In conclusion, Ms Potts said that all of DUNDEE GLITTER’S 3 wins have been by a length or more and there has never been an issue with her chasing ability. She said that the head-on (home straight) film was inconclusive and the side on film, where it is said that DUNDEE GLITTER turned her head, shows that she was racing half a length behind AUDRETTE.
[28] In response Ms Kinsey asked Ms Potts a number of questions concerning the interference to QUARA’S YOSHI (who was checked) and also the films that were produced in support of DUNDEE GLITTER’S racing style. Although some considerable time was spent discussing these points, it was clear that both parties had different interpretations as to their relevance. On one hand Ms Potts was emphasising the relevance of DUNDEE GLITTER’S tendency to run wide and on the other hand, Ms Kinsey argued the fact that because she ran wide on previous occasions, it was not necessarily relevant to the present case. Ultimately, nothing turned on the discussion, and there remained a divergence in terms of their respective views.
Witness – Mr N P Green
[29] Greyhound Trainer Mr Norman Philip Green, was called by the Applicant as a witness. Mr Green advised the Committee that he has been involved in the greyhound industry for over 50 years, in three different countries. He said that he has held a number of key administrative roles including that of past President of the Manukau Club.
[30] As was highlighted earlier in this hearing (refer paragraph 12), Ms Kinsey objected to Mr Green giving evidence due to the late notice and non-disclosure. The Committee determined that Mr Green, after forfeiting his right to act as a lay advocate, could give evidence notwithstanding the concerns raised by Ms Kinsey.
[31] Referring to the race films Mr Green said that both dogs, AUDRETTE and DUNDEE GLITTER are pushed to run wider because of the track camber.
[32] He said that in his opinion neither of the dogs turned their heads and that any movement was because the dogs need to look where they are going. Referring to the head-on, home straight films he said the footage was inconclusive due to the camera being positioned 300 metres away. He described the quality of the footage as being “amateurish” when compared to other sporting codes such as rugby and soccer. He said that the film could not be relied on.
[33] Mr Green reiterated that it was due to the camber of the track that the dogs were forced to race wider and since that particular meeting at Cambridge raceway the club track curator has changed the camber of the track by up to 10 degrees.
[34] Mr Green said that AUDRETTE is known as a wide runner and every dog has its own style of racing.
[35] In cross examination Ms Kinsey queried Mr Green about his claim the camera was positioned some 300 metres away. There was some debate about this, but ultimately was left unresolved. The Committees position on is that the quality of the head-on film is compromised by not having ‘zoom in’ capability and Mr Greens point does have merit, particularly so if it was the only film available. However, in this case other more reliable films were available.
[36] In response to a question from the Committee, Ms Kinsey advised that the camber can be changed as part of regular routine track maintenance and, on this particular day, no other dogs ran off due to the camber of the track.
At the conclusion of Mr Green’s evidence, the hearing adjourned for a short break to enable parties the opportunity to prepare their closing submissions.
Summing up
In summing up the case for the Respondent, Ms Kinsey submitted that:
[37] The films demonstrate DUNDEE GLITTER turning its head and shifting out onto another runner which is defined under the Rules as ‘Failing to Pursue’.
[38] ‘Failing to Pursue’ means the action of a greyhound voluntarily turning the head without making muzzle contact with another greyhound, or voluntarily easing up, or stopping during a race while free of interference.
[39] With an emphasis on the elements within the definition she submitted that:
-Failing to pursue the lure is when a greyhound fails to pursue the lure with due commitment throughout the entirety of the race.
-Greyhounds which mar or do not chase the lure with due commitment throughout effectively negate the only “protection” mechanism the wagering public has over their investment.
-When viewing race replay footage in relation to a non-pursuit charge it is essential that there is no consideration afforded to the ultimate finishing position of a greyhound in a race. This of course conflicts with what can transpire or is the basis for equine racing inquiries, but in reality, the fact that a greyhound did or did not cost itself the opportunity of filling a better placing by not pursuing the lure is completely irrelevant.
[40] Greyhounds which fail to pursue the lure with due commitment throughout the entirety of the race are deemed to not be committed to their sole purpose for racing.
[41] DUNDEE GLITTER has voluntarily turned her head out and shifted out onto another runner which is a breach of rule 55.1b and why DUNDEE GLITTER was subsequently stood down for failing to pursue the lure with due commitment for the entirety of the event. If the Stewards had doubt that this runner had turned its head but were not happy with the performance, the alternative option would have been to stand the dog down for a satisfactory trial. These are not decisions are not made lightly.
[42] In conclusion, Stewards are satisfied that DUNDEE GLITTER did not chase the lure with due commitment throughout the entirety of the event and the appropriate penalty was imposed.
In summing up the case for the Applicant, Ms Potts submitted that:
[43] DUNDEE GLITTER was racing true to her racing style and the evidence of the Respondent was not clear.
[44] The act in which a greyhound leaves a bend, regardless of how many dogs are around it, gives the illusion of a turned head, when this is in fact how they gallop.
[45] In saying that dogs are entitled to run wide and excusing one for it, and punishing another, isn’t reasonable.
[46] The tapes shown of DUNDEE GLITTER’S previous starts clearly show on more than one occasion her style of racing is to run wide.
[47] Saying it’s the fast dogs with indiscretions (with reference to a comment made by the Respondent during the hearing), unless this can be proven is neither here, nor there, and given DUNDEE GLITTER’S success rate and the fact that she has never turned her head before is relevant.
[48] The camber of the track is very relevant as it is designed to hold the dogs, so AUDRETTE may not have run off, but as the witness Mr Green explained, due to the track being altered by 10 degrees makes it harder for a dog to come back down.
[49] In conclusion, Ms Potts said that in the past she has “held her hand up” (owned up) to any wrong doing when the evidence has been clear and concise, but in this case she believes the evidence is not clear and it comes down to a matter of opinion whether or not DUNDEE GLITTER failed to pursue.
Reasons for Decision
[50] The Committee has considered the totality of the evidence including the submissions of the Applicant, the Respondent, the witness Mr Green; and their respective interpretations of the video films as well the Committee’s own analysis of the race films.
[51] In reaching its decision the Committee gave careful consideration to the definition of failing to pursue, as set out in Clause 1 of the NZGRA Incorporated Rules of Racing. The key elements of the definition being (1) the action of the Greyhound voluntarily turning the head; (2) without making contact with another Greyhound, or (3) voluntarily easing up; (4) or stopping during a Race while free of interference. In respect of this matter elements 1 and 2 are of particular relevance. In addition, of importance is that, Where a Greyhound fails to pursue the Lure as provided under Rule 55.1, the Greyhound shall be examined by the officiating Veterinarian or Authorised Person.
[52] The case put forward by Ms Kinsey on behalf of the RIU is simply that a failure to pursue by definition includes that as set out in clause 1 of the Rules and in this case, she submits the films clearly demonstrate that DUNDEE GLITTER did turn its head on two occasions and did not pursue with the necessary commitment for the entire race.
[53] On the other hand the Applicant’s case is that DUNDEE GLITTER did not turn its head, voluntarily or otherwise. The Applicant argued that DUNDEE GLITTER raced true to its normal style of racing and similarly AUDRETTE, a known wide runner, raced according to its usual pattern, i.e. wide on the track.
[54] On the very contentious point of whether or not DUNDEE GLITTER turned her head, there was no compromise and each party held diametrically opposing views.
[55] When reflecting on the elements of the Rules and definition relating to failing to pursue and after carefully reviewing, in some considerable detail, all angles of the race video footage in real-time, slow motion and frame by frame, the Committee formed a definitive view. The Committee determined that after the dogs left their respective boxes AUDRETTE led. DUNDEE GLITTER worked to a one-off position near the rail with QUARA’S YOSHI slightly in front and on its outer, and WAITERIMU RIPPER was racing back on the rails. As the field approached and was about to round the bend the films indicate that DUNDEE GLITTER turned its head outwards for at least a stride or two. This turn was voluntary and free of interference.
[56] Further, DUNDEE GLITTER appeared to turn its heads again, for a second time, shortly after and although the films are not absolutely decisive on the second turn, they are sufficiently clear and do support the notion that it is more probable than not, there was a second turn. In any event, it is evident that DUNDEE GLITTER did turn its head at least once; the turn was a voluntary action and free of interference. It is also clear that DUNDEE GLITTER has dictated AUDRETTE wider on the track and continued to do so for some distance, with its racing concentration for that moment in time being preoccupied with this manoeuvre, rather than on chasing the lure. In terms of timing, the video counter, when the film is freeze framed indicates from approximately 13:33:11:18 to approximately 12:33:12:20 DUNDEE GLITTER did continue to dictate AUDRETTE wider on the track.
[57] In the run into the home straight, and after DUNDEE GLITTER has turned her head, it appears that AUDRETTE has tried to straighten up and head towards the rail. This resulted in some bumping between the two dogs, but it is apparent DUNDEE GLITTER continued to dictate.
[58] With respect to Mr Green’s evidence concerning the home straight films, the Committee agrees that the quality of the head-on films is not perfect, nor does it provide a conclusive picture given the inability to ‘zoom in’. However, the Respondent did not rely on the head-on film to demonstrate the breach, rather the films showing the dogs rounding the bend were used and these are sufficiently clear. Similarly, the Committee has relied on films showing the dogs rounding the bend. Despite its deficiencies, the head-on film does, demonstrate adequately well the width of the track and the extra ground that AUDRETTE was forced over. Also, the Committee is not convinced it was solely due to the camber of the track that caused DUNDEE GLITTER to race so wide out into the home straight. There may well be some ongoing issue with the track camber, but the Committee was told it was not a factor in respect of other races on the day and it is therefore difficult, on the evidence, to establish a causal link between the state of the track and the manner in which DUNDEE GLITTER raced, in this particular race on the day.
Decision
[59] In conclusion, the Committee finds, on balance, it is more probable than not, DUNDEE GLITTER did voluntarily turn its head at least once without making contact with another greyhound. It therefore failed to pursue the lure and as required under Rule 55.1, it was examined by the officiating Veterinarian and not found to be suffering an injury.
[60] Accordingly, the application review is unsuccessful, and the decision made by the raceday Stipendiary Steward stands.
[61] There was no application for costs and in such circumstances the Committee makes no order for any costs.
Decision dated at Auckland this 8th day of September 2020.
Gavin Jones
Chair
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 10/09/2020
Publish Date: 10/09/2020
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: 71d8d226b9c1d2ebab37e831baeb2b45
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 10/09/2020
hearing_title: NZGRA Request for Review E Potts v RIU - Written Decision dated 8 September 2020 - Chair, Mr G R Jones
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE A COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association Incorporated, of an Application for a Review pursuant to Rule 55.11
BETWEEN
Ms E Potts, Licensed Trainer
Applicant
AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU) Ms P Kinsey, Stipendiary Steward
Respondent
Judicial Committee: Mr G R Jones (Chairman)
Hearing: 7 September 2020 at the Manukau Stadium
Present: Ms E Potts (Applicant) and Ms P Kinsey, (for the Respondent)
Date of oral decision: 7 September 2020
Date of written decision: 8 September 2020
WRITTEN DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1] This is a hearing convened pursuant to Rule 55.11 of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing (“the rules”). This rule enables:
An Owner or Trainer of a Greyhound may seek a review of any decision under Rule 55.1, by the Judicial Committee, in accordance with Rule 66.20.
[2] This Request for Review arises from the running of Race 4, at the race meeting of the Waikato Greyhound Racing Club, at Cambridge Raceway on Sunday, 23 August 2020. The winner of the race was DUNDEE GLITTER who is trained by the Applicant, Ms E Potts.
[3] Following the running of the race, Stewards conducted a post-race investigation and concluded that DUNDEE GLITTER was in breach of Rule 55.1 (b) in that it failed to pursue the lure. As a consequence, DUNDEE GLITTER was stood-down for 28-days.
[4] In her written Request for Review, the Applicant, Ms Potts outlined her reasons for disagreeing with the Stewards decision to stand down DUNDEE GLITTER. Those grounds are:
“I believe the dog did not fail to pursue the lure during the race; and she raced true to her racing style”.
The Relevant Rules
[5] Rule 55.1 provides that:
Where a Greyhound, (b). Fails to pursue the Lure in a Race; the Stewards may impose the following periods of suspension; and (a) in the case of a first offence, twenty-eight (28) days and until the completion of Satisfactory Trial.
[6] In addition, Rule 55.2 provides that:
Where a Greyhound fails to pursue the Lure as provided under Rule 55.1, the Greyhound shall be examined by the officiating Veterinarian or Authorised Person.
[7] Fails to Pursue the Lure is defined within Clause 1 of the Rules. It 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.
The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, which simply means more probable or more likely than not. Therefore, in the context of this review the Committee is required to determine whether or not it was more probable than not, DUNDEE GLITTER failed to pursue the lure.
[8] This matter was heard at the Manukau Greyhound Stadium on 7 September 2020.
Preliminary Matters
[9] On the morning of the hearing Ms Potts contacted the office of the Judicial Control Authority seeking permission “to bring someone along” to the hearing, namely Greyhound Trainer, Mr Norman Philip Green.
[10] Mr Green was present at the commencement of the hearing and the Committee asked him what role he intended to play in the hearing. Rule 49.1 of the NZGA Rules and procedures set out in the 7th Schedule, permit a lay advocate, on approval, to assist during a hearing. After some discussion on this point it was determined that Mr Green’s primary purpose for attending the hearing was to give evidence based on his considerable experience in the greyhound industry, as opposed to assuming the role of lay advocate or what is more generally known as a ‘McKenzie friend’. Following the discussion, the Committee ruled that Mr Green was therefore principally a witness for the Applicant and on that basis rather than he sit in as a lay advocate, he waits in an adjourning room pending being called to give witness testimony. Following his evidence Mr Green was then permitted to sit in on the remainder of the hearing.
[11] Ms Kinsey on behalf of the Racing Integrity Unit (“the RIU”) opposed the ruling enabling Mr Green to give evidence on the basis that the Applicant should have disclosed, in advance of the hearing, the nature of his proposed evidence. The Committee accepted the RIU had a valid grievance relating to the non-disclosure but proceeded to allow Mr Green given evidence on the basis that the potential probative value of his proposed evidence may outweigh any resultant prejudice to the Respondent’s case. In any event, the Committee took the view that the Rules provide Judicial Committees in cases of this nature, with considerable discretion and flexibility as to what evidence may or may not be given during the course of a hearing (ref. NZGRA rules 66.5 (b) and 72.2).
Respondent’s case
[12] In opening the case on behalf of the RIU, Ms Kinsey advised the Committee of her experience as a Stipendiary Steward, which includes regularly attending and running greyhound race meetings. She said that, as a Steward her job requires that she ensures the NZGRA Rules Racing are upheld and that any breach of the Rules is dealt with; and of relevance to this case, should a stand down be imposed they are done so within the boundaries set out in the Rules.
[13] Ms Kinsey outlined the provisions of Rule 55.1 (b) which relate to Fails to Pursue the Lure in a Race, adding that a “failure is when a Greyhound fails to pursue the lure with due commitment throughout the entirety of the race”. Ms Kinsey also referred to the definition of Fails to Pursue the Lure as set out in Clause 1 of the Rules, as has been highlighted earlier in this decision.
[14] Ms Kinsey said that the online Cambridge Dictionary defines ‘turn’ as - to change the direction in which you are facing or moving, and she asked the Committee to consider this in the context of a greyhound turning its head during a race.
[15] Ms Kinsey said that after reviewing footage on the day Stewards are satisfied standing DUNDEE GLITTER down for failing to pursue the lure with due commitment throughout the entirety of the event was the correct decision. She emphasised that as a Steward she has an obligation to impose stand downs on greyhounds which breach the relevant Rules.
[16] Ms Kinsey said greyhounds that fail to pursue the lure with due commitment throughout the entirety of the race are deemed to not be committed to their sole purpose for racing. She said Stewards decisions, such as in this case, are not made lightly. She said that on this occasion another runner, AUDRETTE had its chance of filling a better position extinguished due to the racing manners or actions of DUNDEE GLITTER.
[17] In further consideration of the raceday decision, Ms Kinsey said it is the practice of Stewards, who when viewing race replay footage in relation to a non-pursuit charge, there is no consideration afforded to the ultimate finishing position of a greyhound in a race. She then highlighted the following points in this regard:
a)-The fact that a greyhound did or did not cost itself the opportunity of filling a better placing by not pursuing the lure is ‘completely irrelevant’.
b)-It is also irrelevant that it was the greyhound’s first time on the track or the first time from a particular box.
c)-Also irrelevant is the degree in which the Greyhound has turned its head, as a greyhound’s sole purpose is for racing, and to chase a lure with due commitment.
[18] Ms Kinsey said that pursuant to Rule 55.1b DUNDEE GLITTER was examined by the Officiating Veterinarian, Dr Joan Hessell following the event and was found to be free of injury.
[19] Prior to referring to the race films, Ms Kinsey encouraged the Committee to consider two key questions relating to an allegation of a greyhound failing to purse. First, did this dog turn its head; and second, was it free of interference.
[20] Using available video footage, namely back straight and the home turn into the straight, Ms Kinsey demonstrated the alleged breach. She identified DUNDEE GLITTER in the green rug jumping from box number 6. She pointed out that when DUNDEE GLITTER was improving around the final bend to the inside of AUDRETTE and, racing free of interference, it voluntarily turned its head outwards and directed itself out towards. this runner then made contact and continued to shift out wider. As a result, said Ms Kinsey, AUDRETTE was shifted to the outside confines of the track. She added that that AUDRETTE sustained an injury and a 10-day stand down imposed. When later queried on this point by Ms Potts, it was accepted the actual injury to AUDRETTE could not be solely attributed to the actions of DUNDEE GLITTER.
[21] Ms Kinsey, using the films as an aid, said that DUNDEE GLITTER raced on the inside of AUDRETTE for the majority of the race and was one off the rail rounding the turn. She said, the films show that at that point it turned its head outward, then ran at least 5-dog widths out on to AUDRETTE. She said that DUNDEE GLITTER turned its head for a second time and then forced AUDRETTE to the outside of the track. Also, at this point the number 8 dog, QUARA’S YOSHI, who was trailing was hampered and had to take abrupt evasive action.
[22] Ms Kinsey said that DUNDEE GLITTER had raced “true” until the final bend, when it turned its head for a clear 2 strides. She added that when it was forcing AUDRETTE wider on the track it was not pursuing the lure, rather it was focusing on AUDRETTE. Ms Kinsey said that as the dogs straightened up in the run to the line, they came together, and after that AUDRETTE was forced even wider.
Applicant’s case
[23] In her opening remarks Ms Potts said that she has trained DUNDEE GLITTER for all of her 12 New Zealand race starts, which have resulted in 3 wins, 6 placings and 2 fourths. She said that in her only other start she was unplaced due to interference in the running. She said that when she first started training the dog, she noted her running style was to run wide on the bends and this was confirmed during subsequent races.
[24] Ms Potts produced 2 video films of DUNDEE GLITTERS previous races. The first on 20 August 2020 at Cambridge and the second on 28 June 20 at Maunukau. Using these films, Ms Potts demonstrated that DUNDEE GLITTER”S racing style was to run wider on the track. She pointed out on the Cambridge race film that DUNDEE GLITTER raced on the rail and then drifted wide on the track with no other dogs nearby.
[25] Ms Potts said that AUDRETTE is known as a wide runner and in her opinion, would have run wide even if DUNDEE GLITTER was not in the race.
[26] Referring to the race films, Ms Potts pointed out that as the dogs rounded the bend DUNDEE GLITTER’S heads was at the same angle as other runners including AUDRETTE, QUARA’S YOSHI and the number 1 dog on the rails, WAITERIMU RIPPER. She said that DUNDEE GLITTER ran wide which is consistent with her racing style. And that after there was contact with AUDRETTE, DUNDEE GLITTER balanced up and went on to win the race without further issue.
[27] In conclusion, Ms Potts said that all of DUNDEE GLITTER’S 3 wins have been by a length or more and there has never been an issue with her chasing ability. She said that the head-on (home straight) film was inconclusive and the side on film, where it is said that DUNDEE GLITTER turned her head, shows that she was racing half a length behind AUDRETTE.
[28] In response Ms Kinsey asked Ms Potts a number of questions concerning the interference to QUARA’S YOSHI (who was checked) and also the films that were produced in support of DUNDEE GLITTER’S racing style. Although some considerable time was spent discussing these points, it was clear that both parties had different interpretations as to their relevance. On one hand Ms Potts was emphasising the relevance of DUNDEE GLITTER’S tendency to run wide and on the other hand, Ms Kinsey argued the fact that because she ran wide on previous occasions, it was not necessarily relevant to the present case. Ultimately, nothing turned on the discussion, and there remained a divergence in terms of their respective views.
Witness – Mr N P Green
[29] Greyhound Trainer Mr Norman Philip Green, was called by the Applicant as a witness. Mr Green advised the Committee that he has been involved in the greyhound industry for over 50 years, in three different countries. He said that he has held a number of key administrative roles including that of past President of the Manukau Club.
[30] As was highlighted earlier in this hearing (refer paragraph 12), Ms Kinsey objected to Mr Green giving evidence due to the late notice and non-disclosure. The Committee determined that Mr Green, after forfeiting his right to act as a lay advocate, could give evidence notwithstanding the concerns raised by Ms Kinsey.
[31] Referring to the race films Mr Green said that both dogs, AUDRETTE and DUNDEE GLITTER are pushed to run wider because of the track camber.
[32] He said that in his opinion neither of the dogs turned their heads and that any movement was because the dogs need to look where they are going. Referring to the head-on, home straight films he said the footage was inconclusive due to the camera being positioned 300 metres away. He described the quality of the footage as being “amateurish” when compared to other sporting codes such as rugby and soccer. He said that the film could not be relied on.
[33] Mr Green reiterated that it was due to the camber of the track that the dogs were forced to race wider and since that particular meeting at Cambridge raceway the club track curator has changed the camber of the track by up to 10 degrees.
[34] Mr Green said that AUDRETTE is known as a wide runner and every dog has its own style of racing.
[35] In cross examination Ms Kinsey queried Mr Green about his claim the camera was positioned some 300 metres away. There was some debate about this, but ultimately was left unresolved. The Committees position on is that the quality of the head-on film is compromised by not having ‘zoom in’ capability and Mr Greens point does have merit, particularly so if it was the only film available. However, in this case other more reliable films were available.
[36] In response to a question from the Committee, Ms Kinsey advised that the camber can be changed as part of regular routine track maintenance and, on this particular day, no other dogs ran off due to the camber of the track.
At the conclusion of Mr Green’s evidence, the hearing adjourned for a short break to enable parties the opportunity to prepare their closing submissions.
Summing up
In summing up the case for the Respondent, Ms Kinsey submitted that:
[37] The films demonstrate DUNDEE GLITTER turning its head and shifting out onto another runner which is defined under the Rules as ‘Failing to Pursue’.
[38] ‘Failing to Pursue’ means the action of a greyhound voluntarily turning the head without making muzzle contact with another greyhound, or voluntarily easing up, or stopping during a race while free of interference.
[39] With an emphasis on the elements within the definition she submitted that:
-Failing to pursue the lure is when a greyhound fails to pursue the lure with due commitment throughout the entirety of the race.
-Greyhounds which mar or do not chase the lure with due commitment throughout effectively negate the only “protection” mechanism the wagering public has over their investment.
-When viewing race replay footage in relation to a non-pursuit charge it is essential that there is no consideration afforded to the ultimate finishing position of a greyhound in a race. This of course conflicts with what can transpire or is the basis for equine racing inquiries, but in reality, the fact that a greyhound did or did not cost itself the opportunity of filling a better placing by not pursuing the lure is completely irrelevant.
[40] Greyhounds which fail to pursue the lure with due commitment throughout the entirety of the race are deemed to not be committed to their sole purpose for racing.
[41] DUNDEE GLITTER has voluntarily turned her head out and shifted out onto another runner which is a breach of rule 55.1b and why DUNDEE GLITTER was subsequently stood down for failing to pursue the lure with due commitment for the entirety of the event. If the Stewards had doubt that this runner had turned its head but were not happy with the performance, the alternative option would have been to stand the dog down for a satisfactory trial. These are not decisions are not made lightly.
[42] In conclusion, Stewards are satisfied that DUNDEE GLITTER did not chase the lure with due commitment throughout the entirety of the event and the appropriate penalty was imposed.
In summing up the case for the Applicant, Ms Potts submitted that:
[43] DUNDEE GLITTER was racing true to her racing style and the evidence of the Respondent was not clear.
[44] The act in which a greyhound leaves a bend, regardless of how many dogs are around it, gives the illusion of a turned head, when this is in fact how they gallop.
[45] In saying that dogs are entitled to run wide and excusing one for it, and punishing another, isn’t reasonable.
[46] The tapes shown of DUNDEE GLITTER’S previous starts clearly show on more than one occasion her style of racing is to run wide.
[47] Saying it’s the fast dogs with indiscretions (with reference to a comment made by the Respondent during the hearing), unless this can be proven is neither here, nor there, and given DUNDEE GLITTER’S success rate and the fact that she has never turned her head before is relevant.
[48] The camber of the track is very relevant as it is designed to hold the dogs, so AUDRETTE may not have run off, but as the witness Mr Green explained, due to the track being altered by 10 degrees makes it harder for a dog to come back down.
[49] In conclusion, Ms Potts said that in the past she has “held her hand up” (owned up) to any wrong doing when the evidence has been clear and concise, but in this case she believes the evidence is not clear and it comes down to a matter of opinion whether or not DUNDEE GLITTER failed to pursue.
Reasons for Decision
[50] The Committee has considered the totality of the evidence including the submissions of the Applicant, the Respondent, the witness Mr Green; and their respective interpretations of the video films as well the Committee’s own analysis of the race films.
[51] In reaching its decision the Committee gave careful consideration to the definition of failing to pursue, as set out in Clause 1 of the NZGRA Incorporated Rules of Racing. The key elements of the definition being (1) the action of the Greyhound voluntarily turning the head; (2) without making contact with another Greyhound, or (3) voluntarily easing up; (4) or stopping during a Race while free of interference. In respect of this matter elements 1 and 2 are of particular relevance. In addition, of importance is that, Where a Greyhound fails to pursue the Lure as provided under Rule 55.1, the Greyhound shall be examined by the officiating Veterinarian or Authorised Person.
[52] The case put forward by Ms Kinsey on behalf of the RIU is simply that a failure to pursue by definition includes that as set out in clause 1 of the Rules and in this case, she submits the films clearly demonstrate that DUNDEE GLITTER did turn its head on two occasions and did not pursue with the necessary commitment for the entire race.
[53] On the other hand the Applicant’s case is that DUNDEE GLITTER did not turn its head, voluntarily or otherwise. The Applicant argued that DUNDEE GLITTER raced true to its normal style of racing and similarly AUDRETTE, a known wide runner, raced according to its usual pattern, i.e. wide on the track.
[54] On the very contentious point of whether or not DUNDEE GLITTER turned her head, there was no compromise and each party held diametrically opposing views.
[55] When reflecting on the elements of the Rules and definition relating to failing to pursue and after carefully reviewing, in some considerable detail, all angles of the race video footage in real-time, slow motion and frame by frame, the Committee formed a definitive view. The Committee determined that after the dogs left their respective boxes AUDRETTE led. DUNDEE GLITTER worked to a one-off position near the rail with QUARA’S YOSHI slightly in front and on its outer, and WAITERIMU RIPPER was racing back on the rails. As the field approached and was about to round the bend the films indicate that DUNDEE GLITTER turned its head outwards for at least a stride or two. This turn was voluntary and free of interference.
[56] Further, DUNDEE GLITTER appeared to turn its heads again, for a second time, shortly after and although the films are not absolutely decisive on the second turn, they are sufficiently clear and do support the notion that it is more probable than not, there was a second turn. In any event, it is evident that DUNDEE GLITTER did turn its head at least once; the turn was a voluntary action and free of interference. It is also clear that DUNDEE GLITTER has dictated AUDRETTE wider on the track and continued to do so for some distance, with its racing concentration for that moment in time being preoccupied with this manoeuvre, rather than on chasing the lure. In terms of timing, the video counter, when the film is freeze framed indicates from approximately 13:33:11:18 to approximately 12:33:12:20 DUNDEE GLITTER did continue to dictate AUDRETTE wider on the track.
[57] In the run into the home straight, and after DUNDEE GLITTER has turned her head, it appears that AUDRETTE has tried to straighten up and head towards the rail. This resulted in some bumping between the two dogs, but it is apparent DUNDEE GLITTER continued to dictate.
[58] With respect to Mr Green’s evidence concerning the home straight films, the Committee agrees that the quality of the head-on films is not perfect, nor does it provide a conclusive picture given the inability to ‘zoom in’. However, the Respondent did not rely on the head-on film to demonstrate the breach, rather the films showing the dogs rounding the bend were used and these are sufficiently clear. Similarly, the Committee has relied on films showing the dogs rounding the bend. Despite its deficiencies, the head-on film does, demonstrate adequately well the width of the track and the extra ground that AUDRETTE was forced over. Also, the Committee is not convinced it was solely due to the camber of the track that caused DUNDEE GLITTER to race so wide out into the home straight. There may well be some ongoing issue with the track camber, but the Committee was told it was not a factor in respect of other races on the day and it is therefore difficult, on the evidence, to establish a causal link between the state of the track and the manner in which DUNDEE GLITTER raced, in this particular race on the day.
Decision
[59] In conclusion, the Committee finds, on balance, it is more probable than not, DUNDEE GLITTER did voluntarily turn its head at least once without making contact with another greyhound. It therefore failed to pursue the lure and as required under Rule 55.1, it was examined by the officiating Veterinarian and not found to be suffering an injury.
[60] Accordingly, the application review is unsuccessful, and the decision made by the raceday Stipendiary Steward stands.
[61] There was no application for costs and in such circumstances the Committee makes no order for any costs.
Decision dated at Auckland this 8th day of September 2020.
Gavin Jones
Chair
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: