NZGRA Request for Review P Green v RIU – Written Decision dated 17 February 2021 – Chair, Prof G Hall

hearingid: 99fee23cb62eb2b5e0022308705d8f69

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 17/02/2021

hearing_title: NZGRA Request for Review P Green v RIU - Written Decision dated 17 February 2021 - Chair, Prof G Hall

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF

THE JCA AT CAMBRIDGE

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

BETWEEN

PHIL GREEN, Public Trainer

Applicant

AND-RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)

Respondent

Judicial Committee: --Prof G Hall, Chairman

Mr S Wimsett, Member

Present:--The Applicant in person

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

Hearing date: --11 February 2021

Date of oral decision: -11 February 2021

Date of written decision: -17 February 2021

WRITTEN DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

[1]-The Applicant, Mr Green, requested a Review of the decision from Race 6 at the race meeting of the Auckland Greyhound Racing Club held on 10 January 2021 at Manukau Raceway where LITTLE LEAF was stood down for 12 months for failing to pursue the lure. This is an alleged breach of r 55.1(b) of the Greyhound Racing New Zealand Rules of Racing.

[2]-The Review was held on 11 February 2021 at the Cambridge Raceway.

[3]-Rule 55.1 provides:

Where a Greyhound:

(b) Fails to pursue the Lure in a Race the Stewards may impose the following periods of suspension:

(e) in the case of a third or subsequent offence offence under r 55.1 (which for clarity need not be the same offence as the first offence under that subsection), twelve (12) months and until the completion of a Satisfactory Trial.

Background

[4]-LITTLE LEAF is trained by Public Trainer, Mr Phil Green.

[5]-Mr Green correctly nominated LITTLE LEAF to race in Race 6 at the Auckland Greyhound Racing Club’s meeting on 10 January 2021.

[6]-Prior to the day in question LITTLE LEAF had raced 14 times for three wins and three thirds.

[7]-On 8 December 2019 at Auckland, the dog was stood down for 28 days and pending a satisfactory trial for failing to pursue the lure in what was his fourth raceday start.

[8]-LITTLE LEAF completed a satisfactory trial in blinkers on 15 March 2020.

[9]-On 19 July 2020 again at Auckland, he was stood down for three months and a satisfactory trial for marring. That was his thirteenth start.

[10]-The dog completed a trial on 27 December 2020.

[11]-LITTLE LEAF was stood down for 12 months on 10 January 2021 for failing to pursue the lure.

[12]-The Chairperson on the day in question was Ms Philippa Kinsey. She had concerns about LITTLE LEAF’s conduct during the initial stages of the race where the greyhound turned his head outwards shortly after jumping.

[13]-LITTLE LEAF was subjected to a post-race veterinary examination as per r 55.2 and cleared of injury.

[14]-Mr Green was afforded the opportunity to view the films and make comment on the conduct of LITTLE LEAF.

[15]-After taking into account Mr Green’s comments, Ms Kinsey formed the opinion that LITTLE LEAF had breached r 55 for a third time and stood down the greyhound for 12 months and pending a satisfactory trial.

[16]-At 9.41am on the 11 January 2021 GRNZ received from Mr Green a de-registration form for LITTLE LEAF to be de-registered.

[17]-This form gave the reason for de-registering the greyhound as “doesn’t want to race” and stated that the dog was entering a rehoming programme with GRNZ.

[18]-Mr Green’s ground for Review is that the dog has not failed to pursue the lure.

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

The RIU’s case

[20]-Mr Wallis identified 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.

[21]-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.

[22]-Mr Wallis stated that LITTLE LEAF was bred in Australia, and like all greyhounds was essentially bred for one purpose only, and that is to chase, or pursue a lure for the entirety of the race.

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

[24]- LITTLE LEAF jumped from box number 1.

[25]-Mr Wallis alleged that the dog voluntarily turned his head outwards for approximately 3 to 3½ strides after initially jumping straight on to the mat from the box, his attention clearly not on the lure.

[26]-This was done while free of interference, before LITTLE LEAF took a small shoulder from his outside by the number 3 dog (HURRY FLURRY) which was coming down the track. He pointed out there was a clear gap to the 3 dog when LITTLE LEAF turned his head away from the lure.

[27]-Mr Wallis said that as a trained greyhound LITTLE LEAF knew the lure was going to be to the inside of him when he left the box. The dog could hear it and initially had the best view of it when jumping from box 1. However, he believed LITTLE LEAF had made a conscious decision to divert his attention away from the lure, turning his head outwards, while free of interference.

[28]-Mr Wallis emphasised that a greyhound had to pursue the lure for the entirety of the race. In his view, LITTLE LEAF had failed to do so, despite the dog going on to win the race.

Applicant’s submissions

[29]-Mr Green, who has 50 years’ experience as a greyhound trainer and has held executive positions in the industry, presented oral submissions.

[30]-Mr Green said LITTLE LEAF had never failed to pursue at any stage of the race. He said that as the dog came off the mat the track dropped away and LITTLE LEAF had become unbalanced as a consequence, and lost ground.

[31]-Mr Green demonstrated on the films that the 3 dog was boring in on LITTLE LEAF. He said LITTLE LEAF was aware of this and he had pushed up as a consequence so that the 3 dog did not get to him. He said LITTLE LEAF turned his head away because the 3 dog was bearing down on him and the dog was aware that if he did not take evasive action he would be put over the rail and possibly hurt. He commented that dogs had 240 degree peripheral vision and the dog turning his head was a reflex movement. Rather than it being a voluntary turn of the head, it was involuntary.

[32]-Mr Green emphasised that in his opinion LITTLE LEAF had been forced to turn his head to protect himself because he could see the other dog coming down on to him. LITTLE LEAF was bracing himself for an impact.

[33]-Mr Green acknowledged the head of LITTLE LEAF was pointed out slightly. He questioned whether this was failing to pursue. He said LITTLE LEAF had chased all the way through the race and had won the race. There was no doubt that for the rest of the race LITTLE LEAF had not failed to pursue.

[34]-When questioned by Mr Wallis, Mr Green said he had disagreed with Ms Kinsey on the day when she said that she would put the dog out.

[35]-Mr Green explained that one of the co-owners had decided the next day that LITTLE LEAF should be deregistered. The comment at that time that the dog did not want to race was Mr Green being facetious as he was still angry with the Stewards’ decision from the previous day.

[36]-When summing up, Mr Wallis disputed Mr Green’s statement that LITTLE LEAF had become unbalanced on leaving the mat. He said he could not see any change in the dog’s gait at that time.

[37]-With respect to LITTLE LEAF seeing the other dogs bearing down on him, Mr Wallis pointed out that the dog was wearing blinkers and when his head was first turned, he believed LITTLE LEAF could not see the other dogs because there was too big a gap. He believed LITTLE LEAF was looking in front of the 3 dog. He added that LITTLE LEAF would expect there to be dogs to his outside and that bumping between dogs was not uncommon, even had the 2 and 3 dogs come down and squeezed LITTLE LEAF.

[38]-Mr Wallis submitted that the Review bordered on being frivolous.

[39]-Mr Green responded that LITTLE LEAF could see the 3 dog and disputed that the Review was frivolous. He said he had disagreed with the decision on the day and still did. LITTLE LEAF had not voluntarily turned his head and had stopped himself from going over the rail. LITTLE LEAF had been forced to turn his head. The dog then took evasive action by pushing on.

Decision

[40]-We have viewed side-on and head-on films of the race in both full screen and split screen synchronised mode.

[41]-LITTLE LEAF has jumped away with his head focused on the lure. During his stride after the mat he turns his head towards the dogs to his outside and thus away from the lure. This turn of the head persists for a further 3 strides. LITTLE LEAF is free of interference. There is a clear gap to his outside to the 3 dog, which is bearing down towards the rail and thus towards him. Later the two dogs make contact through a touching of their shoulders.

[42]-We do not believe LITTLE LEAF has become unbalanced when leaving the mat. We can see no evidence of this on the films, such as a change in the dog’s gait. It appears that LITTLE LEAF sensed the dogs to his outside were running in his direction and he had a look. This was not momentary. As we have said, it was for 3½ strides.

[43]-Mr Green states that had LITTLE LEAF not looked and progressed ahead of the 3 dog he might have ended up over the rail. This is conjecture and, in any event, the Rules do not provide that a dog may look away from the lure to see what the other dogs might be doing and which ones might be running in its direction. The significant fact is LITTLE LEAF did look away and the dog was not focused on the lure. We do not need to determine whether or not LITTLE LEAF, who was wearing blinkers, could see the other dogs, although the films would suggest to us that when the dog’s head was first turned towards the dogs to his outside, he could not see them.

[44]-That LITTLE LEAF won the race is irrelevant. For 3½ strides the dog’s head was focused away from the lure.

[45]-LITTLE LEAF has thus “failed to pursue” as provided in the Rules. The Review is unsuccessful. We add we do not believe the Review was completely devoid of merit and thus we do not accept Mr Wallis’s submission that it was frivolous.

[46]-The RIU seeks costs of $130 being the cost of a change in travel arrangements to accommodate the hearing of the Review prior to kennelling on raceday.

[47]-We do not believe a costs award to either the RIU or the JCA is appropriate in the circumstances of this case.

Dated at Dunedin this 17th day of February 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: