NZGRA Request for Review J Dunn v RIU – decision dated 5 November 2015
ID: JCA13402
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
HELD AT RANGIORA
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing
Association (Incorporated)
IN THE MATTER of an Application
for Review
pursuant to Rule 79.11
BETWEEN JASON E DUNN of Hawarden, Licensed Trainer
Applicant
AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT
Respondent
Judicial Committee: Mr R G McKenzie (Chairman), Mr K G Hales (Committee Member)
Present: Mr J E Dunn, the Applicant - Mr R A Quirk, Stipendiary (for the Racing Integrity Unit)
Date of Hearing: 5 November 2015
Venue: Rangiora Racecourse, Rangiora
Date of Decision: 5 November 2015
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE AND RESERVED REASONS
Background
[1] At the meeting of Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held at Addington Raceway on 4 November 2015, the greyhound ECKLES, trained by the Applicant, was the winner of Race 6, Super Pets Galaxy Semi-Final 2.
[2] In winning the race, ECKLES qualified for the Super Pets Galaxy Sprint Final to be raced at Addington Raceway on Thursday, 12th November next (a Group 1 race for a stake of $30,000).
[3] Following the race, ECKLES was stood down by the Stipendiary Stewards for 28 days under Rule 79.1.b for failing to pursue the lure.
[4] Mr Dunn seeks to have the decision of the Stipendiary Stewards reviewed by this Committee in accordance with Rule 91.20.
[5] In his Application to Review, Mr Dunn submitted:
I believe the dog did pursue the lure. The dog was distracted by shadows caused by the lighting at that time of day. The distance of the lure away from the field was undistinguishable.
I believe that it is unfair to rule a dog out of a G1 race, which it is now qualified for, when it has done nothing wrong.
The Rules
[6] The relevant Rules are as follows:
79.1 Where a Greyhound:
b. Fails to pursue the Lure in a Race the Stewards may impose the following periods of suspension:
a. In the case of a first offence, twenty-eight (28) days and until the completion of a Satisfactory Trial.
79.11 An Owner or Trainer of a Greyhound may seek a review of any decision under Rule 79.1, by a Judicial Committee in accordance with Rule 91.20.
91.20 The Judicial Committee may review any decisions made under Rules 21.2(x), 64.7, 90.3, 137.2 and 139.1 or as expressly provided for in these Rules.
Procedure
[7] It was agreed that the procedure to be followed was for Mr Quirk to show the video replays and outline the grounds on which the Stewards had made the decision, following the race, to stand down ECKLES for 28 days for failing to pursue the lure. Mr Dunn would then present the grounds on which he seeks a review of that decision of the Stewards.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondent
[8] Mr Quirk read to the hearing the definition of “fails to pursue the lure” as set out in the Rules:
“FAILS TO PURSUE THE LURE” means the action of a Greyhound voluntarily turning the head without making contact with another Greyhound, or voluntarily easing up, or stopping during a Race while free of interference."
[9] Mr Quirk stated that the Committee would be shown video replays from three different angles. He began by showing the entire race from each of those three angles.
[10] He pointed out ECKLES, clear in the lead as the field turned for home, and submitted that, approximately 30-40 metres from the finishing line, it had eased and “glanced” to the right, free of interference, and carried on to win the race by a nose. It had not concentrated on the lure, Mr Quirk submitted.
[11] Mr Quirk said that ECKLES had a lead of 2½-3 lengths turning for home. After it had eased, the gaps to the 2nd and 3rd dogs had closed. The easing was free of interference and the dog had turned its head, Mr Quirk submitted.
[12] ECKLES was checked by the Veterinary Surgeon after the race and was found to be injury-free.
[13] In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Quirk said that it was ECKLES’ 42nd start and its 13th win. It had had 10 2nds and 5 3rds in its career. The Stewards had no record of any “indiscretion” by the dog in the past.
Submissions of the Applicant
[14] Mr Dunn said that he held a trainer’s licence since 1998. He had trained in Sydney for 9 years and for another 8 years in New Zealand. During all of that time, he had not once had to defend a dog for marring or failing to pursue the lure, he said. If a greyhound shows any signs of that behaviour, it does not last in his kennel, he said.
[15] ECKLES is a “high quality chaser” and was racing against the best dogs in the country, Mr Dunn said. The dog tends to play up in the boxes and had not been worked or galloped all week in an attempt by Mr Dunn to get it to begin in this race. Not once in his 42 starts has he shown any tendency to mar or fail to pursue and had not come to the attention of the Stewards for any reason. The dog has raced on tracks all over the country and performed at the highest level. Mr Dunn said that the dog will chase “anything that moves”.
[16] Mr Dunn submitted that there were a number of distractions on the track, which could be seen on the head-on video – marquees and shadows of the winning post, the infield big screen and even the photographer, Mr Dunn said. He said greyhounds are “sight animals” and he suggested that something had taken the dog’s eye. Played at normal speed, the video showed that the dog had been distracted for “less than a tenth of a second”. He submitted that, had the dog failed to pursue, it would not have won the race. It had not lost any ground, Mr Dunn submitted. ECKLES was not looking at the other dog as it was behind him and he could not have seen it.
[17] Mr Quirk, when asked by the Committee, agreed that the actions of ECKLES were only a momentary lapse but he pointed out the strict terms of the definition of “failing to pursue the lure”. He further accepted that there were degrees of “failing to pursue”, and this was not an obvious case, but the Stewards believed that ECKLES had failed to pursue on this occasion.
[18] Finally, Mr Dunn said that it would be an injustice to deprive the dog of the opportunity to start in what would be the biggest race of his life and he strongly believed that the dog had not failed to pursue the lure on this occasion.
Reasons for Decision
[19] The Committee carefully viewed the video replays of the part of the race in which the Stewards found, following the race, that ECKLES had failed to pursue the lure as a result of which the greyhound was stood down for the mandatory 28 days period.
[20] Mr Quirk alleged that ECKLES, some 30-40 metres from the finishing line, had eased and glanced to its right. He referred to the definition of “fails to pursue the lure” in the Rules. He did concede that the lapse was a momentary one and, of course, that ECKLES had gone on to win the race.
[21] Mr Quirk told the Committee that, in its previous 42 starts, ECKLES had not once come to the attention of the Stewards for its racing manners.
[22] Mr Dunn was at something of a loss to explain the dog’s indiscretion on this occasion, given its previous excellent record. He suggested that it was momentarily distracted by one or more of a number of factors – trackside marquees in place for Cup Day, shadows of the winning post, the large infield television screen and/or, possibly, the photographer. The video replays did show a number of shadows across the track.
[23] Mr Dunn was emphatic that, whilst ECKLES, did turn its head, it was only for “a tenth of a second” and it did not lose ground. If it had failed to pursue, it would not have won the race, he submitted.
[24] The Committee was satisfied, after having viewed the replays and heard the submissions of the parties, that considerable uncertainty does clearly exist in this particular case and, that being the case, the greyhound should receive the benefit of the doubt. We cannot read the dog’s mind and know whether it is chasing or not. We must be comfortably satisfied that there has been a breach and, on the evidence presented to us, we are not so satisfied.
[25] We accept that ECKLES has looked momentarily to his right but we believe that, at that point, he would not have able to see the dog to his outside as that dog was behind it. There was no real discernible easing and the dog went on to win the race. These actions were for a split-second only and not for a sufficient time to constitute the offence of failing to pursue in the Committee’s view. Moreover, Mr Dunn had put forward a plausible explanation for the dog’s actions.
[26] The consequences of ECKLES being stood down would be, in this particular case, quite severe. The dog had won its semi-final and had, therefore, qualified for the final of a $30,000 Group 1 event. The Committee took the view that, because the consequences of being stood down would be so serious in this case, the standard to which the Stewards are required to prove their case is somewhat higher than on a balance of probabilities, and they have failed to do so.
Decision
[27] The application by Mr Dunn for review of the Stewards’ decision is successful. The order of the Stewards that ECKLES had failed to pursue the lure and that it be stood down for 28 days is quashed and ECKLES is reinstated.
R G McKENZIE K G HALES
Chair Committee Member
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 18/11/2015
Publish Date: 18/11/2015
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: 6da7f2f9b2b24f62b4350f398d113176
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 18/11/2015
hearing_title: NZGRA Request for Review J Dunn v RIU - decision dated 5 November 2015
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
HELD AT RANGIORA
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing
Association (Incorporated)
IN THE MATTER of an Application
for Review
pursuant to Rule 79.11
BETWEEN JASON E DUNN of Hawarden, Licensed Trainer
Applicant
AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT
Respondent
Judicial Committee: Mr R G McKenzie (Chairman), Mr K G Hales (Committee Member)
Present: Mr J E Dunn, the Applicant - Mr R A Quirk, Stipendiary (for the Racing Integrity Unit)
Date of Hearing: 5 November 2015
Venue: Rangiora Racecourse, Rangiora
Date of Decision: 5 November 2015
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE AND RESERVED REASONS
Background
[1] At the meeting of Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held at Addington Raceway on 4 November 2015, the greyhound ECKLES, trained by the Applicant, was the winner of Race 6, Super Pets Galaxy Semi-Final 2.
[2] In winning the race, ECKLES qualified for the Super Pets Galaxy Sprint Final to be raced at Addington Raceway on Thursday, 12th November next (a Group 1 race for a stake of $30,000).
[3] Following the race, ECKLES was stood down by the Stipendiary Stewards for 28 days under Rule 79.1.b for failing to pursue the lure.
[4] Mr Dunn seeks to have the decision of the Stipendiary Stewards reviewed by this Committee in accordance with Rule 91.20.
[5] In his Application to Review, Mr Dunn submitted:
I believe the dog did pursue the lure. The dog was distracted by shadows caused by the lighting at that time of day. The distance of the lure away from the field was undistinguishable.
I believe that it is unfair to rule a dog out of a G1 race, which it is now qualified for, when it has done nothing wrong.
The Rules
[6] The relevant Rules are as follows:
79.1 Where a Greyhound:
b. Fails to pursue the Lure in a Race the Stewards may impose the following periods of suspension:
a. In the case of a first offence, twenty-eight (28) days and until the completion of a Satisfactory Trial.
79.11 An Owner or Trainer of a Greyhound may seek a review of any decision under Rule 79.1, by a Judicial Committee in accordance with Rule 91.20.
91.20 The Judicial Committee may review any decisions made under Rules 21.2(x), 64.7, 90.3, 137.2 and 139.1 or as expressly provided for in these Rules.
Procedure
[7] It was agreed that the procedure to be followed was for Mr Quirk to show the video replays and outline the grounds on which the Stewards had made the decision, following the race, to stand down ECKLES for 28 days for failing to pursue the lure. Mr Dunn would then present the grounds on which he seeks a review of that decision of the Stewards.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondent
[8] Mr Quirk read to the hearing the definition of “fails to pursue the lure” as set out in the Rules:
“FAILS TO PURSUE THE LURE” means the action of a Greyhound voluntarily turning the head without making contact with another Greyhound, or voluntarily easing up, or stopping during a Race while free of interference."
[9] Mr Quirk stated that the Committee would be shown video replays from three different angles. He began by showing the entire race from each of those three angles.
[10] He pointed out ECKLES, clear in the lead as the field turned for home, and submitted that, approximately 30-40 metres from the finishing line, it had eased and “glanced” to the right, free of interference, and carried on to win the race by a nose. It had not concentrated on the lure, Mr Quirk submitted.
[11] Mr Quirk said that ECKLES had a lead of 2½-3 lengths turning for home. After it had eased, the gaps to the 2nd and 3rd dogs had closed. The easing was free of interference and the dog had turned its head, Mr Quirk submitted.
[12] ECKLES was checked by the Veterinary Surgeon after the race and was found to be injury-free.
[13] In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Quirk said that it was ECKLES’ 42nd start and its 13th win. It had had 10 2nds and 5 3rds in its career. The Stewards had no record of any “indiscretion” by the dog in the past.
Submissions of the Applicant
[14] Mr Dunn said that he held a trainer’s licence since 1998. He had trained in Sydney for 9 years and for another 8 years in New Zealand. During all of that time, he had not once had to defend a dog for marring or failing to pursue the lure, he said. If a greyhound shows any signs of that behaviour, it does not last in his kennel, he said.
[15] ECKLES is a “high quality chaser” and was racing against the best dogs in the country, Mr Dunn said. The dog tends to play up in the boxes and had not been worked or galloped all week in an attempt by Mr Dunn to get it to begin in this race. Not once in his 42 starts has he shown any tendency to mar or fail to pursue and had not come to the attention of the Stewards for any reason. The dog has raced on tracks all over the country and performed at the highest level. Mr Dunn said that the dog will chase “anything that moves”.
[16] Mr Dunn submitted that there were a number of distractions on the track, which could be seen on the head-on video – marquees and shadows of the winning post, the infield big screen and even the photographer, Mr Dunn said. He said greyhounds are “sight animals” and he suggested that something had taken the dog’s eye. Played at normal speed, the video showed that the dog had been distracted for “less than a tenth of a second”. He submitted that, had the dog failed to pursue, it would not have won the race. It had not lost any ground, Mr Dunn submitted. ECKLES was not looking at the other dog as it was behind him and he could not have seen it.
[17] Mr Quirk, when asked by the Committee, agreed that the actions of ECKLES were only a momentary lapse but he pointed out the strict terms of the definition of “failing to pursue the lure”. He further accepted that there were degrees of “failing to pursue”, and this was not an obvious case, but the Stewards believed that ECKLES had failed to pursue on this occasion.
[18] Finally, Mr Dunn said that it would be an injustice to deprive the dog of the opportunity to start in what would be the biggest race of his life and he strongly believed that the dog had not failed to pursue the lure on this occasion.
Reasons for Decision
[19] The Committee carefully viewed the video replays of the part of the race in which the Stewards found, following the race, that ECKLES had failed to pursue the lure as a result of which the greyhound was stood down for the mandatory 28 days period.
[20] Mr Quirk alleged that ECKLES, some 30-40 metres from the finishing line, had eased and glanced to its right. He referred to the definition of “fails to pursue the lure” in the Rules. He did concede that the lapse was a momentary one and, of course, that ECKLES had gone on to win the race.
[21] Mr Quirk told the Committee that, in its previous 42 starts, ECKLES had not once come to the attention of the Stewards for its racing manners.
[22] Mr Dunn was at something of a loss to explain the dog’s indiscretion on this occasion, given its previous excellent record. He suggested that it was momentarily distracted by one or more of a number of factors – trackside marquees in place for Cup Day, shadows of the winning post, the large infield television screen and/or, possibly, the photographer. The video replays did show a number of shadows across the track.
[23] Mr Dunn was emphatic that, whilst ECKLES, did turn its head, it was only for “a tenth of a second” and it did not lose ground. If it had failed to pursue, it would not have won the race, he submitted.
[24] The Committee was satisfied, after having viewed the replays and heard the submissions of the parties, that considerable uncertainty does clearly exist in this particular case and, that being the case, the greyhound should receive the benefit of the doubt. We cannot read the dog’s mind and know whether it is chasing or not. We must be comfortably satisfied that there has been a breach and, on the evidence presented to us, we are not so satisfied.
[25] We accept that ECKLES has looked momentarily to his right but we believe that, at that point, he would not have able to see the dog to his outside as that dog was behind it. There was no real discernible easing and the dog went on to win the race. These actions were for a split-second only and not for a sufficient time to constitute the offence of failing to pursue in the Committee’s view. Moreover, Mr Dunn had put forward a plausible explanation for the dog’s actions.
[26] The consequences of ECKLES being stood down would be, in this particular case, quite severe. The dog had won its semi-final and had, therefore, qualified for the final of a $30,000 Group 1 event. The Committee took the view that, because the consequences of being stood down would be so serious in this case, the standard to which the Stewards are required to prove their case is somewhat higher than on a balance of probabilities, and they have failed to do so.
Decision
[27] The application by Mr Dunn for review of the Stewards’ decision is successful. The order of the Stewards that ECKLES had failed to pursue the lure and that it be stood down for 28 days is quashed and ECKLES is reinstated.
R G McKENZIE K G HALES
Chair Committee Member
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: