NZGRA Request for Review J McInerney v RIU – Written Decision dated 19 February 2019 – Chair, Prof G Hall
ID: JCA14215
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF
THE JCA IN DUNEDIN
-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
BETWEEN
RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Informant
AND-
JOHN MCINERNEY, Licensed Trainer
Respondent
Information No.--11155
Judicial Committee: --Prof G Hall, Chairman
Mr P Knowles, Member
Appearing:--The Applicant in person
Mr K Coppins, Stipendiary Steward, for the Respondent
Date of oral decision: -12 February 2019
WRITTEN DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1]-On Tuesday 5 February 2019 the Southland Greyhound Racing Club held a race meeting at Ascot Park Raceway. The Chairman of Stewards at the meeting was Mr K Coppins.
[2]-The dog in question, HOMEBUSH HUNDY, is trained by Licensed Public Trainer, Mr John McInerney of Christchurch. HOMEBUSH HUNDY competed in Race 10, 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 HOMEBUSH HUNDY’s 70th raceday start. The dog finished first. This was its 7th win and it has had 28 placings.
[6]-On the day in question HOMEBUSH HUNDY was referred to the official veterinarian post-race and cleared of any injury. Mr Coppins produced the report of the veterinarian examination. This had not been given to Mr McInerney on the day as he had already left the track.
[7]-Mr McInerney filed an application for a review. This application was heard on 12 February and in an oral decision that day we determined that the review was unsuccessful and a written decision would follow.
[8]-We viewed the race at normal speed on split screens. HOMEBUSH HUNDY was slow away and raced around the outside of the field to be in 2nd position nearing the 1st bend. The dog held this position until some 70 metres from the line when it challenged successfully 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 Coppins alleged that HOMEBUSH HUNDY had voluntarily eased up over the final 6 or 7 strides of the race.
[11]-Mr Coppins demonstrated on the films that HOMEBUSH HUNDY was ¾ to 1 length in front with some 25 metres to run. He believed HOMEBUSH HUNDY had eased at this point as the dog’s momentum would have suggested that the margin would have increased. The winning margin was ½ a length.
[12]-Mr Coppins noted that race time was 23.19 which was the fourth slowest 390 m time on the day. The track was in good order but there were strong wind gusts, which had got worse as the meeting progressed. However, at the time of HOMEBUSH HUNDY’s race there were no issues with the wind.
[13]-Mr Coppins replayed the conclusion of the race. He believed it was clear that HOMEBUSH HUNDY had markedly shortened stride as it passed the dog to its inside. This was evident, he said, from viewing the race in real time, rather than by slowing it down.
[14]-We inquired of Mr Coppins what the dog’s record was on the track. He said HOMEBUSH HUNDY had been stood down by the Stewards in September but this had been the subject of a successful review. The dog had not had issues at other tracks.
[15]-Mr Coppins said HOMEBUSH HUNDY had had 26 starts on the track for 5 1sts and 10 placings. This was the fifth time HOMEBUSH HUNDY had raced on the track subsequent to the successful review. It had won 2 of these races. He was not aware of there being any other issues with the dog easing at that time. However, the history of the dog showed that at its first start the Stewards had noted it had possibly eased on a bend but no action was taken.
Applicant’s case
[16]-Mr McInerney opened his case by stating that HOMEBUSH HUNDY had raced around the field and did not interfere with any other dog. The dog had won the race. It had done what it had to do. The straight at Invercargill was the longest in the country.
[17]- Mr McInerney said it was a hot day and the wind was really strong. This was a contributing factor. He emphasised a dog in full stride would have all feet off the ground. Sand was flying everywhere.
[18]-Mr McInerney questioned whether the dog had changed stride and had cramped up. He believed if the veterinarian had checked the dog immediately after the race the veterinarian would have found whether the dog had tied up. The examination had been an hour after the race and this was too late, as the dog would have cooled down.
[19]-Mr McInerney emphasised HOMEBUSH HUNDY had done its best to win and did win. The time and margin had to be viewed in the context of the wind factor. The dog had come to the end of its run. It had gone further than any other dog in the race. There was no turning of the head or marring. The dog had chased.
[20]-Mr McInerney highlighted the time between the end of the race and the veterinarian check. He had not been told immediately after the race that there was an issue. Had he been so aware he would have checked the dog himself and would have known whether it had tied up.
[21]-Mr McInerney concluded his submission by stating that taking into account the hot weather, the extreme wind, and the dog having travelled some distance to the meeting, the benefit of the doubt should be given to HOMEBUSH HUNDY if it had shortened stride. The possibility of the dog suffering cramping, tie up or exhaustion could not be excluded.
Summing up
[22]-Mr Coppins stated that even had the veterinarian found cramping this would not be likely to have been regarded as a significant injury such that it would have averted the imposition of stand down.
[23]-Mr Coppins reiterated that straight after the race the dog was swabbed by the veterinarian. He had told Mr McInerney that he was looking at a failing to pursue charge. The examination of HOMEBUSH HUNDY was after the swabbing, which he accepted would have been about an hour after the race.
Decision
[24]-HOMEBUSH HUNDY was slow away, raced around the field, challenged for the lead in the home straight and went on the win the race. The videos evidence that over the concluding stages HOMEBUSH HUNDY had got to the front and, upon so doing, has eased. The dog appeared to be doing just enough to remain ahead of the dog to its inside.
[25]-We have considered the matters that Mr McInerney has highlighted in his submissions: the very hot day, the strong wind gusts, flying sand (although this was not evident on the videos), that HOMEBUSH HUNDY may have tied up, that the veterinarian examination was an hour after the finish of the race as it was after the dog was swabbed, and the fact that HOMEBUSH HUNDY won the race.
[26]-We accept Mr McInerney’s submission that no one who invested on HOMEBUSH HUNDY or indeed any other runner would have been affected in that HOMEBUSH HUNDY did not interfere with any other dog. However, this is not a requirement in order for there to be a breach of r 55.1(b). The definition of “failing to pursue” includes “the action of the Greyhound … voluntarily easing up … during a Race while free of interference.”
[27]-We are satisfied that the dog has voluntarily eased for 6 or 7 strides. In so doing, HOMEBUSH HUNDY has failed to pursue with due commitment throughout the entirety of the race and thus is in breach of r 55.1(b).
[28]-The review is thus not successful. The stand down is confirmed.
[29]-Information 1155 was not considered on the day due to time constraints. The parties are to confer and inform the Executive Officer of the JCA of a date for a teleconference to hear this matter.
Dated at Dunedin this 19th day of February 2019.
Geoff Hall, Chairman
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 19/02/2019
Publish Date: 19/02/2019
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: a8707f4e8bc56e0d769d1e37a36c99a3
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 19/02/2019
hearing_title: NZGRA Request for Review J McInerney v RIU - Written Decision dated 19 February 2019 - Chair, Prof G Hall
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF
THE JCA IN DUNEDIN
-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
BETWEEN
RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Informant
AND-
JOHN MCINERNEY, Licensed Trainer
Respondent
Information No.--11155
Judicial Committee: --Prof G Hall, Chairman
Mr P Knowles, Member
Appearing:--The Applicant in person
Mr K Coppins, Stipendiary Steward, for the Respondent
Date of oral decision: -12 February 2019
WRITTEN DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1]-On Tuesday 5 February 2019 the Southland Greyhound Racing Club held a race meeting at Ascot Park Raceway. The Chairman of Stewards at the meeting was Mr K Coppins.
[2]-The dog in question, HOMEBUSH HUNDY, is trained by Licensed Public Trainer, Mr John McInerney of Christchurch. HOMEBUSH HUNDY competed in Race 10, 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 HOMEBUSH HUNDY’s 70th raceday start. The dog finished first. This was its 7th win and it has had 28 placings.
[6]-On the day in question HOMEBUSH HUNDY was referred to the official veterinarian post-race and cleared of any injury. Mr Coppins produced the report of the veterinarian examination. This had not been given to Mr McInerney on the day as he had already left the track.
[7]-Mr McInerney filed an application for a review. This application was heard on 12 February and in an oral decision that day we determined that the review was unsuccessful and a written decision would follow.
[8]-We viewed the race at normal speed on split screens. HOMEBUSH HUNDY was slow away and raced around the outside of the field to be in 2nd position nearing the 1st bend. The dog held this position until some 70 metres from the line when it challenged successfully 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 Coppins alleged that HOMEBUSH HUNDY had voluntarily eased up over the final 6 or 7 strides of the race.
[11]-Mr Coppins demonstrated on the films that HOMEBUSH HUNDY was ¾ to 1 length in front with some 25 metres to run. He believed HOMEBUSH HUNDY had eased at this point as the dog’s momentum would have suggested that the margin would have increased. The winning margin was ½ a length.
[12]-Mr Coppins noted that race time was 23.19 which was the fourth slowest 390 m time on the day. The track was in good order but there were strong wind gusts, which had got worse as the meeting progressed. However, at the time of HOMEBUSH HUNDY’s race there were no issues with the wind.
[13]-Mr Coppins replayed the conclusion of the race. He believed it was clear that HOMEBUSH HUNDY had markedly shortened stride as it passed the dog to its inside. This was evident, he said, from viewing the race in real time, rather than by slowing it down.
[14]-We inquired of Mr Coppins what the dog’s record was on the track. He said HOMEBUSH HUNDY had been stood down by the Stewards in September but this had been the subject of a successful review. The dog had not had issues at other tracks.
[15]-Mr Coppins said HOMEBUSH HUNDY had had 26 starts on the track for 5 1sts and 10 placings. This was the fifth time HOMEBUSH HUNDY had raced on the track subsequent to the successful review. It had won 2 of these races. He was not aware of there being any other issues with the dog easing at that time. However, the history of the dog showed that at its first start the Stewards had noted it had possibly eased on a bend but no action was taken.
Applicant’s case
[16]-Mr McInerney opened his case by stating that HOMEBUSH HUNDY had raced around the field and did not interfere with any other dog. The dog had won the race. It had done what it had to do. The straight at Invercargill was the longest in the country.
[17]- Mr McInerney said it was a hot day and the wind was really strong. This was a contributing factor. He emphasised a dog in full stride would have all feet off the ground. Sand was flying everywhere.
[18]-Mr McInerney questioned whether the dog had changed stride and had cramped up. He believed if the veterinarian had checked the dog immediately after the race the veterinarian would have found whether the dog had tied up. The examination had been an hour after the race and this was too late, as the dog would have cooled down.
[19]-Mr McInerney emphasised HOMEBUSH HUNDY had done its best to win and did win. The time and margin had to be viewed in the context of the wind factor. The dog had come to the end of its run. It had gone further than any other dog in the race. There was no turning of the head or marring. The dog had chased.
[20]-Mr McInerney highlighted the time between the end of the race and the veterinarian check. He had not been told immediately after the race that there was an issue. Had he been so aware he would have checked the dog himself and would have known whether it had tied up.
[21]-Mr McInerney concluded his submission by stating that taking into account the hot weather, the extreme wind, and the dog having travelled some distance to the meeting, the benefit of the doubt should be given to HOMEBUSH HUNDY if it had shortened stride. The possibility of the dog suffering cramping, tie up or exhaustion could not be excluded.
Summing up
[22]-Mr Coppins stated that even had the veterinarian found cramping this would not be likely to have been regarded as a significant injury such that it would have averted the imposition of stand down.
[23]-Mr Coppins reiterated that straight after the race the dog was swabbed by the veterinarian. He had told Mr McInerney that he was looking at a failing to pursue charge. The examination of HOMEBUSH HUNDY was after the swabbing, which he accepted would have been about an hour after the race.
Decision
[24]-HOMEBUSH HUNDY was slow away, raced around the field, challenged for the lead in the home straight and went on the win the race. The videos evidence that over the concluding stages HOMEBUSH HUNDY had got to the front and, upon so doing, has eased. The dog appeared to be doing just enough to remain ahead of the dog to its inside.
[25]-We have considered the matters that Mr McInerney has highlighted in his submissions: the very hot day, the strong wind gusts, flying sand (although this was not evident on the videos), that HOMEBUSH HUNDY may have tied up, that the veterinarian examination was an hour after the finish of the race as it was after the dog was swabbed, and the fact that HOMEBUSH HUNDY won the race.
[26]-We accept Mr McInerney’s submission that no one who invested on HOMEBUSH HUNDY or indeed any other runner would have been affected in that HOMEBUSH HUNDY did not interfere with any other dog. However, this is not a requirement in order for there to be a breach of r 55.1(b). The definition of “failing to pursue” includes “the action of the Greyhound … voluntarily easing up … during a Race while free of interference.”
[27]-We are satisfied that the dog has voluntarily eased for 6 or 7 strides. In so doing, HOMEBUSH HUNDY has failed to pursue with due commitment throughout the entirety of the race and thus is in breach of r 55.1(b).
[28]-The review is thus not successful. The stand down is confirmed.
[29]-Information 1155 was not considered on the day due to time constraints. The parties are to confer and inform the Executive Officer of the JCA of a date for a teleconference to hear this matter.
Dated at Dunedin this 19th day of February 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: