NZGRA Request for Review L Cole v RIU – Written Decision dated 5 May 2021 – Chair, Prof G Hall

hearingid: ebc3912ef262f7113de4e9840de8313d

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 05/05/2021

hearing_title: NZGRA Request for Review L Cole v RIU - Written Decision dated 5 May 2021 - Chair, Prof G Hall

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE JCA

IN PALMERSTON NORTH

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

BETWEEN

LISA COLE, Public Trainer

Applicant

AND-RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)

Respondent

Judicial Committee: --Prof G Hall, Chairman

Mrs N Moffatt, Member

Present:--Mr B Cole, for the Applicant

Mr S Wallis, Chief Stipendiary Steward (Greyhounds), -for the Respondent

Hearing date: --27 April 2021

Date of oral decision: -27 April 2021

WRITTEN DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

[1]-The applicant, Mrs Cole, has applied for a review of the decision of the Stewards at the Waikato GRC’s meeting on 15 April 2021 in which they stood down the greyhound MURMUR for marring (2nd offence – three months and pending a satisfactory trial) in race 8. This is an alleged breach of r 55.1(a) of the Greyhound Racing NZ Rules of Racing.

[2]-Rule 55.1 provides:

Where a Greyhound:

(a) Mars the running of any other Greyhound during a Race, the Stewards may impose the following periods of suspension:

(d) in the case of a second offence under r 55.1 (which for clarity need not be the same offence as the first offence under that subsection), three (3) months and until the completion of a Satisfactory Trial….

[3]-Mar or Marring is defined in the Rules of GRNZ as “the action of a Greyhound in voluntarily turning the head so as to make head or muzzle contact with another Greyhound.”

[4]-MURMUR is trained by Mrs Lisa Cole in Palmerston North.

[5]-MURMUR has had 18 starts for 7 wins 3 seconds and 2 thirds prior to the day in question.

[6]-On 9 June 2020 MURMUR marred at Geelong in Australia and was stood down for 28 days. This was the dog’s 5th start.

[7]-On 13 October 2020 and 14 January 2021 MURMUR was found to have failed to pursue the lure, however both times an injury was found and the greyhound was only subjected to a satisfactory trial. These were the greyhound’s 13th and 17th starts, respectively.

[8]-Mrs Cole’s ground for review is that the dog did not mar at any point of the race.

[9]-With the agreement of Mr Cole, Mr Wallis presented the RIU’s case first.

The RIU’s case

[10]-Mr Wallis played the films and described the race.

[11]- MURMUR jumped from box 6 from the 457 metre boxes.

[12]-MURMUR held its own ground in the run to the bend keeping a straight line to the lure.

[13]-MURMUR jostled with BEAU BEAU (4) rounding the bend before straightening into the home straight.

[14]-Mr Wallis stated that the Stewards had no issue with the racing conduct of MURMUR up to this point of the race.

[15]-MURMUR then turned its head inwards to make muzzle contact with BEAU BEAU in the run to the finish.

[16]-Mr Wallis demonstrated on the films where the Stewards believed MURMUR had moved inwards and made muzzle contact. He acknowledged there had been jostling between the 2 dogs and they had become unbalanced, but he demonstrated there was then a gap between the 2 dogs.

[17]-Mr Wallis stated that as MURMUR came down the track it was behind BEAU BEAU. He believed MURMUR was at the shoulder of BEAU BEAU.

[18]-Mr Wallis said that this was not the worst case of marring. MURMUR had not attacked BEAU BEAU. The contact was minimal; it was for 1 or 1 1/2 strides, but the Rule still applied.

[19]-We asked Mr Wallis to magnify on the film the point of contact between the dogs. He did, but acknowledged that the 8 dog prevented a clear view of the incident.

[20]-Mr Wallis explained that the Stewards were satisfied there was contact when regard was had to the running lines of the two dogs. BEAU BEAU had kept a straight line and MURMUR had come down to meet it and had made head or muzzle contact.

The Applicant’s submissions

[21]-Mr Cole commenced the Applicant’s case by stating that MURMUR had gone to improve around the outside of BEAU BEAU and the dogs had come together and jostled for a few strides. MURMUR then balanced up as the dogs straightened for the run to the line.

[22]-Mr Cole demonstrated that the lure was roughly a metre out from the rail and was flapping. He believed MURMUR had moved inwards to follow the lure as BEAU BEAU came out. The dogs had come together, but at no time had MURMUR turned its head inwards and there was no head or muzzle contact.

[23]-Mr Cole believed the fact the 8 dog was in the way meant it was unclear just what had occurred. It could not be said that it could be clearly seen on the films that MURMUR had turned its head towards BEAU BEAU or that there was muzzle contact. He added it was clear though that MURMUR had chased the lure all the way to the line and had finished 4th.

[24]-Mr Cole said he had 25 years’ experience as a trainer and he and his wife were currently leading Trainers and Breeders. He was of the view that BEAU BEAU was a wide runner and MURMUR was a “mad railer” and this was why they had jostled on the corner. He could not see where MURMUR had turned its head towards BEAU BEAU. In his opinion, once balanced up, MURMUR was simply angling down and just trying to get to the rail. MURMUR was angling across BEAU BEAU to get to the lure.

Summing up

[25]-Mr Wallis disagreed with Mr Cole that BEAU BEAU had shifted out. He believed at the time of the alleged breach BEAU BEAU was running straight. MURMUR had turned its head inwards and had changed direction in towards BEAU BEAU. It had shifted into BEAU BEAU’s line and there was muzzle contact.

[26]-Mr Wallis submitted that Greyhound Racing carries with it the weight of public money and the Stewards had to be seen to be appropriately protecting this. They were charged with the responsibility of enhancing public confidence and integrity within Greyhound Racing by imposing the appropriate penalties/stand downs on greyhounds when required to do so. The severity of contact was not a mitigating factor when assessing a breach of the marring Rule. A greyhound had either committed the breach, or it had not.

[27]-There were two questions for the Committee, he believed: did MURMUR turn and change its direction towards BEAU BEAU; and was head or muzzle contact made with BEAU BEAU?

[28]-Mr Cole reiterated he believed MURMUR was following the arm of the lure. There was no evidence on the films of MURMUR turning its head towards BEAU BEAU.

Decision

[29]-The principal issue with this review is that the films are far from clear. In what would be the most helpful angle, the head-on, the 8 dog (ZIPPING BARTY) obscures the head of MURMUR.

[30]-There is evidence that there was jostling between the dogs on the bend and that they balanced up and there was a gap between them. We agree with Mr Cole that MURMUR then makes an angled run towards the rail and in so doing comes into the running line of BEAU BEAU. We agree with Mr Wallis that the head of MURMUR would appear to be at about the shoulder of BEAU BEAU at this time.

[31]-We are satisfied there was contact between the dogs after they have straightened but that may simply be because the MURMUR was running in and BEAU BEAU, to a lesser extent, was wanting to run out.

[32]-As experienced readers of greyhound races we see merit in Mr Wallis’ comment that the Stewards believe marring occurred because of the positioning of the dogs on the track (MURMUR being at BEAU BEAU’s shoulder) and their respective running lines. On that basis we can understand why the Stewards reached the conclusion that they did on the day. But while MURMUR may have turned its head and made muzzle contact, there is not clear evidence on the films that MURMUR has marred by voluntarily turning its head inwards so as to make head or muzzle contact with BEAU BEAU.

[33]-We apply a standard of proof of, on the balance of probabilities with regard being had to the seriousness of the alleged breach. We are not satisfied that the breach is proved to this standard and, with the films being inconclusive, we give the benefit of the doubt to MURMUR.

[34]-The review is thus successful and our brief oral decision on the day of the hearing is confirmed. We rule that the stand down of MURMUR imposed by the Stewards on 15 April last at the Waikato GRC meeting be removed from its record.

Dated at Dunedin this 5th day of May 2021.

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: