NZGRA Request for Review J McInerney v RIU – Written Decision dated 15 March 2019 – Chair, Prof G Hall

hearingid: c04695209eecbd28117a0ef731531108

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 19/03/2019

hearing_title: NZGRA Request for Review J McInerney v RIU - Written Decision dated 15 March 2019 - Chair, Prof G Hall

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF

THE JCA IN CHRISTCHURCH

-IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (Incorporated)

BETWEEN

JOHN MCINERNEY, Licensed Trainer

Applicant

AND-

RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)

Respondent

Judicial Committee: --Prof G Hall, Chairman

Mr R McKenzie, Member

Appearing:--Mr Jonathan McInerney for the Applicant

Mr R Quirk, Stipendiary Steward, for the Respondent

Date of oral decision: -5 March 2019

WRITTEN DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

[1]-On Friday 1 March 2019 the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held a race meeting at Addington Raceway. The Chairman of Stewards at the meeting was Mr R Quirk.

[2]-The dog in question, DOOMSDAY, is trained by Licensed Public Trainer, Mr John McInerney of Christchurch. DOOMSDAY competed in Race 5, and was stood down for 28 days and required to complete a satisfactory trial for failing to pursue the lure. This is an alleged breach of r 55.1(b) of the GRNZ Rules of Racing.

[3]-The relevant rule that the dog was suspended under 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: In the case of a first offence, 28 days and until the completion of a satisfactory trial.

[4]-“Fails to Pursue The Lure” is defined in the GRNZ rules as: “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.”

[5]-This was DOOMSDAY second raceday start. The dog finished first.

[6]-On the day in question DOOMSDAY was referred to the official veterinarian post-race and cleared of any injury.

[7]-Mr McInerney filed an application for a review. This application was heard on 5 March and in an oral decision that day we determined that the review was successful and a written decision would follow.

[8]-We viewed the race at normal and slow speed on a large and split screens. DOOMSDAY was away quickly and was in the lead from the start. The dog clearly held this position until the home straight when he fought off a strong challenge for the lead, and went on to win the race.

[9]-The parties agreed that the respondent would present their case first.

Respondent’s case

[10]-Mr Quirk alleged that DOOMSDAY had turned his head outwards on two occasions shortly after jumping.

[11]-Mr Quirk demonstrated on the films that he believed DOOMSDAY’s head was turned out for the first time after two strides. And then again after a further three or four strides.

[12]-When questioned by the Committee, Mr Quirk said the dog wore blinkers on both sides. He had worn blinkers when he qualified and at his first start.

[13]-Mr Quirk slowed and froze the video. On the second occasion he believed DOOMSDAY’s head was facing outwards while the other dogs were sighting the lure.

[14]-When questioned by the Committee, Mr Quirk said he believed the dog’s head was turned for two strides the first time and two and a half strides the second time. He believed it was just the head of the dog facing outwards, and not the body of the dog. It was the angle of the head that was of concern to the Stewards. He said on the second occasion the blinkers were turned outwards to the right.

15]-Mr Quirk then referred to the online Cambridge Dictionary which defines turn as: “To change the direction in which you are facing or moving.”

[16]-Mr Quirk said racing greyhounds were essentially bred for one purpose only and that was to chase or pursue a lure. It was in their physical and mental make-up to do this and they were programmed to do so from an early stage of their lives. Greyhounds which fail to pursue the lure with due commitment throughout the entirety of the race were deemed not to be committed to their sole purpose for racing.

[17]-Mr Quirk said that although DOOMSDAY went on to win the race, when viewing race replays in relation to a non-pursuit charge, it was essential that there was no consideration afforded to the finishing position of the greyhound. It was also irrelevant that it was the greyhound's first time on the track or the first time from a particular box, as stated before, a greyhound's sole purpose is for racing, and to chase a lure regardless of where that might be or the actions of any other greyhound. Rule 55.1 does not provide for these to be a mitigating factor when assessing a breach of this rule. The greyhound has either committed the offence or not.

Applicant’s case

[18]-Mr Jonathan McInerney opened his case by stating that this was DOOMSDAY’s first start on the track. The dog had come out and taken a step to the left. The boxes were high on the track and there was a camber down to the rail. He said the dog had jumped and gone down towards the lure and then straightened up and viewed the lure.

[19]-Mr McInerney emphasised that the dog was wearing blinkers and had stayed straight. He asked us to look carefully at the videos. He said the blinkers had not moved. They were straight at the lure. He said the dog had a loping stride and a gangly action. The dog had taken a step to the left as the lure was there and had then straightened and corrected himself when he realised the lure was straight in front of him. He believed the dog had had no difficulty in spotting where the lure was from that time.

[20]-Mr McInerney said the dog was in the boxes with his head down and turned towards the left. He believed the dog had raced sharply to the left as it jumped and as he came off the camber in the straight, the dog had straightened.

[21]-The second occasion Mr McInerney believed again the dog was correcting himself as he was finding his feet. This was due to the gangly nature of the dog and there still being some camber although it was gradually decreasing as the dog moved further away from the boxes.

[22]-Mr McInerney concluded his submission by stating the dog was racing greenly and was trying to find his feet. He was balancing himself up. He emphasised the dog had nothing to look at to his right. He was half a length in front of the field on the first occasion he had allegedly looked away and was a length in front on the second occasion.

Summing up

[23]-Mr Quirk said it was clear on the large screen that free of interference the head of DOOMSDAY was turned to the outside. This was especially so on the second occasion when he believed the dog’s head was turned outwards for two or three strides. He believed the dog was clear of other runners and had lost concentration for a couple of strides. He had diverted his attention away from the lure.

[24]-Mr McInerney replied the head of DOOMSDAY was not diverted away from the lure. The dog had originally stepped and raced to the left and it had balanced himself and gone on to win the race.

Decision

[25]-DOOMSDAY, which had drawn box 1, was fast away, and jumped to the lead. The Stipendiary Stewards allege that the dog diverted his head away from the lure on two occasions. The first was some two strides after the start. There is nothing in this first alleged breach. We believe Mr McInerney is correct when he states that DOOMSDAY jumped inwards immediately on leaving the boxes. The track is cambered at this point and we accept the dog quickly straightened and chased.

[26]-The second occasion is of more concern. There is some force in Mr McInerney’s contention that the dog was still getting balanced and finding his feet upon straightening after the first incident, although it is some four strides later. He is a young long-striding dog, wearing blinkers, and this is his first start on the track. These in themselves are not reasons to find the breach not to be proved, as Mr Quirk has emphasised, but they do explain why the dog momentarily in our view raced towards the centre of the track before straightening. This was for some two to three strides.

[27]-We are not satisfied that the head of the dog had changed the direction it was facing and was turned away from the lure, in other words that pursuant to the rule the dog was failing to pursue.

[28]-The review is successful. The stand down imposed by the Stipendiary Stewards on 1 March is removed.

Dated at Dunedin this 15th day of March 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: