NZGRA Request for Review S Codlin v RIU – Reserved Decision dated 17 December 2018 – Chair, Mr T Utikere
ID: JCA13209
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE
JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of Greyhound Racing
BETWEEN S CODLIN
Applicant
AND-RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Respondent
Judicial Committee:-Mr T Utikere (Chairman)
Mr P Williams (Member)
Parties:--Mr S Codlin (as the Applicant)
Messrs G Whiterod and M Austin (for the RIU)
RESERVED WRITTEN DECISION ON REVIEW APPLICATION DATED 17 DECEMBER 2018
FACTS
[1] The Applicant has requested a Review into the decision of Stipendiary Stewards to order the late scratching of his greyhound MAD HARRY from Race 4 at the Wanganui GRC Meeting on Friday 30 November 2018. Mr Codlin believed that the action taken by the Stewards, in scratching his dog, was outside of the Rules of Racing.
[2] A Teleconference was convened with all parties on Tuesday 11 December to hear submissions on the Applicant’s Request.
[3] In Mr Codlin’s written request for the review he identified a number of points (content has been paraphrased rather than applied verbatim) which are identified in the paragraphs that follow:
[4] He had presented the greyhound MAD HARRY to the Wanganui greyhound track on Friday 30th November. He had travelled the dog down from Auckland and to his knowledge the dog was presented in good condition and ready to race. MAD HARRY was kennelled as normal, and there were no problems going over the vet table.
[5] Mr Codlin then went to collect the dog from the kennel block pre-race as MAD HARRY was strapping, so he was the first trainer in and out. The dog had pooped in his kennel, on his kennel mat, which he had not denied. He was not concerned about that as generally that was his normal behaviour on race day due to the hype of excitement and anxiety. Mr Codlin then continued as normal, waiting in the parade area with the dog. He observed MAD HARRY to be very happy, jumping around and not off colour as this was how he was every day in his kennels
[6] When the ‘stirr ups’ were called, MAD HARRY was very over the top and excited, as he knew what he was there for. The vet then told Mr Codlin that the dog had pooped in the kennel, and that generally with signs of Diarrhea they tend to late scratch the dog. With his dog beside him, he told the vet that MAD HARRY did not have Diarrhea, but rather than he was just excited and that it was normal for him to do that on race day. The vet then replied, "okay I will need to take his temperature before going further”. Mr Codlin accepted that and the vet then went off to get a temperature stick.
[7] Fellow Trainer, Steve Clark was also in the kennel area at the same time and heard what was happening. He was shocked that they were looking at scratching him because he used to train MAD HARRY prior to him going to Mr Codlin’s kennels. Mr Clark also informed the vet that MAD HARRY often pooped prior to racing on race day.
[8] Mr Codlin was standing with MAD HARRY, waiting for the vet to come back to take his temperature. When she returned, she advised Mr Codlin that the dog had already been scratched, but that she would still take the dog’s temperature.
At this point his greyhound had not been seen by any vet personnel; he did not get his temperature taken, gums checked, nor was he checked for any signs of dehydration. Mr Codlin believed that he simply did not receive a vet check before the dog was withdrawn which he was entitled to under the Rules of Racing.
[9] As the trainer, he was not spoken to or informed that his runner was being withdrawn, until the vet had told him. He could not believe it when he saw on TV that MAD HARRY had been withdrawn so he took him back to his trailer and went up to speak with the Stipendiary Stewards. He sat down with Mike Austin and asked him who made the decision to scratch MAD HARRY and for what reason.
[10] The response he received from Mr Austin was that he had made the decision to scratch the dog due to vet’s advice. Mr Codlin then told Mr Austin that the dog did not receive a vet check or get looked over by any vet, so he questioned how the dog could have been scratched without doing so. Mr Codlin identified that the only explanation he received was that the vet and Stipe saw the poop in the kennel, and that that was the reason they scratched him. He had asked both Stipes Mr Austin and Mr Whiterod for an inquiry into the reasoning behind the scratching of MAD HARRY, but that they both refused.
[11] In Mr Codlin’s defence he submitted that 'any' greyhound could not be scratched by any person or Stipe without a vet check under the Rules of Racing, which he did not fairly receive. He had then requested for a temperature test to be re-taken later that night when the dog was back in a calm environment away from stirr up conditions, and they were happy to do so.
[12] Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr Whiterod was present when this was taken. The temperature test was re-taken and the dog was 100% normal and fine to race. Mr Whiterod then made the vet do the test again to make sure and the result was still the same, with a 100% safe reading level.
[13] In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Whiterod confirmed that while temperatures can vary, the reading of 39.4C taken by the vet to confirm that her original diagnosis was correct, and that the result had vindicated her decision. He identified that a temperature of 38.2C was an acceptable temperature for a dog prior to racing, but he did accept that variables did exist.
[14] Due to the scratching occurring outside of the Rules of Racing, Mr Codlin pointed out that this race was a Heat for a Group 2 race, and that there was a Futures Betting market open where punters had an opportunity to bet on this market on MAD HARRY. As a result of the scratching, Mr Codlin believed that those punters that placed bets were disadvantaged as no money was refunded in the event of a scratching.
[15] Mr Codlin also identified that he had travelled six hours to Wanganui to contest his first ever Group 2 Heat, only to then be unfairly scratched, and then travel six hours back home. He stated that it was only fair, due to the incorrect scratching of my runner outside of the Rules, for him to seek compensation for his travel expenses and time.
[16] In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Codlin identified that the relevant rule was Rule 11.3(k). When asked by the Chairman as to whether Rule 11.3(l) was more applicable, he confirmed his position that Rule 11.3(k) was appropriate. It states:
Subject to these Rules, and in particular Rule 11.1, the Stewards shall have the power to control and regulate the Meeting and without prejudice to the generality of that power shall have further powers to: ...
(k) acting on veterinary advice order the withdrawal of a Greyhound from a Meeting at any time before the start if in their opinion the Greyhound is unfit to run;”
[17] Mr Codlin confirmed his belief that Rule 11.3(k) was engaged by the Stewards, but that the correct process was not followed. While he understood that Stewards could direct the late scratching of a runner, no vet check had been undertaken, so they were unable to adequately determine if the dog was unfit to run.
[18] Mr Austin was rostered to work the Meeting on that day, and due to Mr Whiterod being delayed in making it to the track, Mr Austin was designated as Chairman of Stewards for the Meeting, prior to the running of Race 1.
[19] He was in the Parade Ring when MAD HARRY was presented. Mr Austin then made his way to the kennelling area where the vet had told him that MAD HARRY was unable to run due to diarrhea in the kennel, and the vet wanting to have a look at the dog and take its temperature.
[20] Mr Austin told the Committee that the vet had advised him that the dog was unable to run in such a condition; having symptoms of diarrhea. More specifically, that the vet had clearly made the recommendation that in her opinion MAD HARRY was not fit to compete. Mr Austin also produced a Vet Certificate (No. 22704) for the Committee’s consideration. This confirmed the raised temperature reading of 39.4C and a three day stand down. Mr Austin confirmed that the vet had expressed her views to him, that she had made a decision, and that he had simply relayed that to the Club Secretary.
[21] To supplement his written Request, during the teleconference, Mr Codlin submitted that he had travelled from Auckland to Wanganui on the day in question and that there was no sign of diarrhea. The dog appeared to be eating, drinking and toileting properly. After being advised that his dog had pooped in the kennel, he explained to the vet that it was a normal occurrence.
[22] He did not think the threshold in Rule 11.3(k) had been met by the Stewards and that if a visual vet check had occurred on the day, the vet would have seen that the dog was not off colour, but the dog was not looked at by the vet at all. MAD HARRY had been scratched for being unfit, but this had only taken place as a result of what had been visually seen on the kennel bed.
[23] In relation to the temperature reading of 39.4C, he said that he had spoken to northern vet Joan Hessell and in her opinion, raceday temperatures of greyhounds could fluctuate significantly and that readings needed to be adjusted for excitement and individual circumstances. The Applicant also pointed out that the temperature reading had been taken after the decision to scratch the dog had already been made.
[24] Mr Codlin believed that an ‘inspection’ required a physical check, rather than a visual check of the kennel or the greyhound itself. He advocated that was the case when it concerned a serious decision such as a dog being late scratched, and that needed to be taken into consideration. He confirmed that MAD HARRY had more than 60 starts, including a previous start at Wanganui and that it was in the dog’s nature to be over excited and anxious.
[25] Mr Whiterod advised the Committee different vets had different ways of interpreting different injuries or illnesses to greyhounds; if a vet recommended that a dog be scratched, that would be accepted by the Stipendiary Stewards. He said it was not his role to second guess somebody who had completed veterinary studies at tertiary level.
[26] Mr Codlin also queried why, if his dog had been stood down for three days, it had not been for 10 days, as was usually the case for dogs found to have diarrhea.
[27] Mr Whiterod explained that at the Wanganui track, there was a list on display that provided an estimate of stand down periods for various injuries. That list recommended 10 days stand down for diarrhea, yet the vet had recommended three days. When Mr Whiterod asked the vet why that was the case, her explanation was that the trainer was extremely upset by the decision to scratch the dog and she had decided to settle on three days as the diarrhea was not over the top. He reiterated that this was totally her interpretation to apply as the expert.
[28] Mr Codlin confirmed that he was seeking compensation for travel expenses and the time spent in transporting MAD HARRY to the races. He also reiterated that the race from which his dog was scratched was a Heat for a Group 2 Race that was a Futures Betting race, with financial implications for the betting public who had invested on MAD HARRY.
[29] Mr Whiterod identified that MAD HARRY was not the only dog that Mr Codlin had brought to the races, and that his other dog had raced at the Meeting on 30 November.
REASONS FOR DECISION
[30] The Committee considered all of the submissions that had been placed before it. It is clear that Mr Codlin’s dog was late scratched after it had defecated in its kennel prior to racing. Mr Codlin contests that such behaviour by his dog is a natural and regular occurrence. He has cited that MAD HARRY is usually over-excited and anxious on raceday.
[31] Mr Codlin has provided a detailed written Request for a Review, which is appreciated by the Committee. His main issue is that the vet did not undertake a physical examination of his dog, prior to the decision for his dog to be scratched being made. He has confirmed for us his belief that his request relates to the inappropriate engagement of Rule 11.3(k).
[32] For completeness, Rule 11.3 at a broader level gives additional, but specified, powers to Stipendiary Stewards during a raceday. The issue for this Committee to determine, is whether the decision to late scratch MAD HARRY was made in accordance with the Rules. If it was, then that is the end of this matter. Alternatively, if we determine that the decision was not made in accordance with the Rules, then we must consider if there is an appropriate course of action to address such a failure.
[33] Our analysis of Rule 11.3(k) indicates that a Steward may order the withdrawal of a greyhound upon receipt of veterinary advice that relates to the fitness of a greyhound to run. The Rules provide a distinction between a greyhound being withdrawn and being scratched.
[34] The Official Steward’s Report from the Wanganui GRC Meeting on 30 November identifies: “MAD HARRY was a late scratching at pre-race parade on vet’s advice due to having Dihorrea (sic) a 3 day stand down was recommended”.
[35] A strict interpretation of Rule 11.3(k) would indicate that a scratching would not be actioned under the provisions of that Rule. The Committee did put Rule 11.3(l) to the Applicant, who confirmed that, in his opinion, Rule 11.3(k) was more appropriate for the purposes of his Review.
[36] Rule 11.3(l) states:
“Subject to these Rules, and in particular Rule 11.1, the Stewards shall have the power to control and regulate the Meeting and without prejudice to the generality of that power shall have further powers to: ...(l) order the scratching or withdrawal of a Greyhound from a Race;”
[37] This Rule clearly gives Stewards the power to order the scratching of a Greyhound from a Race. While this may be the more appropriate Rule to engage, while the process for which Stewards make their decision to order the scratching may appear to be discretionary, there is nonetheless, in our view, a requirement for the power to be exercised in good faith.
[38] On that basis, if we review the steps taken immediately prior to Mr Austin exercising the power to scratch MAD HARRY under the provision of Rule 11.3(l), we can make some observations.
[39] The vet, who is an appropriately qualified practitioner, observed that the kennel that MAD HARRY was in, had faeces in it post the dog’s placement in the kennel. Based on her observations she determined that it was consistent with symptoms of diarrhea. We must accept that she reached that determination based on the application of her veterinarian skillset. In this sense, while Mr Codlin may have preferred that the vet undertake a physical examination of his dog, this may not be a strict requirement.
[40] The course of action that then followed (that is, the late scratching of MAD HARRY), was as a result of the vet providing professional advice to Mr Austin that the dog was not fit to compete. It was on this basis that Mr Austin made the decision to scratch the dog.
[41] Having considered all submissions, we are satisfied that Mr Austin was entitled to exercise the power conferred on him by the provision of Rule 11.3(l) and that the exercise of such power was done in good faith.
[42] As the review will be unsuccessful, it is not necessary for us to make a determination regarding any reimbursement for costs incurred by Mr Codlin.
DECISION
[43] The Review is unsuccessful. The decision to late scratch MAD HARRY from Race 4 of the Wanganui GRC’s Meeting on 30 November is confirmed.
COSTS
[44] There is no costs order for either party, nor for the JCA.
Signed at Palmerston North this 17th day of December 2018.
Mr Tangi Utikere
Chairman
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 18/12/2018
Publish Date: 18/12/2018
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: 52c79dd622b58012c12bf927b7e10a44
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 18/12/2018
hearing_title: NZGRA Request for Review S Codlin v RIU - Reserved Decision dated 17 December 2018 - Chair, Mr T Utikere
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE
JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of Greyhound Racing
BETWEEN S CODLIN
Applicant
AND-RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Respondent
Judicial Committee:-Mr T Utikere (Chairman)
Mr P Williams (Member)
Parties:--Mr S Codlin (as the Applicant)
Messrs G Whiterod and M Austin (for the RIU)
RESERVED WRITTEN DECISION ON REVIEW APPLICATION DATED 17 DECEMBER 2018
FACTS
[1] The Applicant has requested a Review into the decision of Stipendiary Stewards to order the late scratching of his greyhound MAD HARRY from Race 4 at the Wanganui GRC Meeting on Friday 30 November 2018. Mr Codlin believed that the action taken by the Stewards, in scratching his dog, was outside of the Rules of Racing.
[2] A Teleconference was convened with all parties on Tuesday 11 December to hear submissions on the Applicant’s Request.
[3] In Mr Codlin’s written request for the review he identified a number of points (content has been paraphrased rather than applied verbatim) which are identified in the paragraphs that follow:
[4] He had presented the greyhound MAD HARRY to the Wanganui greyhound track on Friday 30th November. He had travelled the dog down from Auckland and to his knowledge the dog was presented in good condition and ready to race. MAD HARRY was kennelled as normal, and there were no problems going over the vet table.
[5] Mr Codlin then went to collect the dog from the kennel block pre-race as MAD HARRY was strapping, so he was the first trainer in and out. The dog had pooped in his kennel, on his kennel mat, which he had not denied. He was not concerned about that as generally that was his normal behaviour on race day due to the hype of excitement and anxiety. Mr Codlin then continued as normal, waiting in the parade area with the dog. He observed MAD HARRY to be very happy, jumping around and not off colour as this was how he was every day in his kennels
[6] When the ‘stirr ups’ were called, MAD HARRY was very over the top and excited, as he knew what he was there for. The vet then told Mr Codlin that the dog had pooped in the kennel, and that generally with signs of Diarrhea they tend to late scratch the dog. With his dog beside him, he told the vet that MAD HARRY did not have Diarrhea, but rather than he was just excited and that it was normal for him to do that on race day. The vet then replied, "okay I will need to take his temperature before going further”. Mr Codlin accepted that and the vet then went off to get a temperature stick.
[7] Fellow Trainer, Steve Clark was also in the kennel area at the same time and heard what was happening. He was shocked that they were looking at scratching him because he used to train MAD HARRY prior to him going to Mr Codlin’s kennels. Mr Clark also informed the vet that MAD HARRY often pooped prior to racing on race day.
[8] Mr Codlin was standing with MAD HARRY, waiting for the vet to come back to take his temperature. When she returned, she advised Mr Codlin that the dog had already been scratched, but that she would still take the dog’s temperature.
At this point his greyhound had not been seen by any vet personnel; he did not get his temperature taken, gums checked, nor was he checked for any signs of dehydration. Mr Codlin believed that he simply did not receive a vet check before the dog was withdrawn which he was entitled to under the Rules of Racing.
[9] As the trainer, he was not spoken to or informed that his runner was being withdrawn, until the vet had told him. He could not believe it when he saw on TV that MAD HARRY had been withdrawn so he took him back to his trailer and went up to speak with the Stipendiary Stewards. He sat down with Mike Austin and asked him who made the decision to scratch MAD HARRY and for what reason.
[10] The response he received from Mr Austin was that he had made the decision to scratch the dog due to vet’s advice. Mr Codlin then told Mr Austin that the dog did not receive a vet check or get looked over by any vet, so he questioned how the dog could have been scratched without doing so. Mr Codlin identified that the only explanation he received was that the vet and Stipe saw the poop in the kennel, and that that was the reason they scratched him. He had asked both Stipes Mr Austin and Mr Whiterod for an inquiry into the reasoning behind the scratching of MAD HARRY, but that they both refused.
[11] In Mr Codlin’s defence he submitted that 'any' greyhound could not be scratched by any person or Stipe without a vet check under the Rules of Racing, which he did not fairly receive. He had then requested for a temperature test to be re-taken later that night when the dog was back in a calm environment away from stirr up conditions, and they were happy to do so.
[12] Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr Whiterod was present when this was taken. The temperature test was re-taken and the dog was 100% normal and fine to race. Mr Whiterod then made the vet do the test again to make sure and the result was still the same, with a 100% safe reading level.
[13] In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Whiterod confirmed that while temperatures can vary, the reading of 39.4C taken by the vet to confirm that her original diagnosis was correct, and that the result had vindicated her decision. He identified that a temperature of 38.2C was an acceptable temperature for a dog prior to racing, but he did accept that variables did exist.
[14] Due to the scratching occurring outside of the Rules of Racing, Mr Codlin pointed out that this race was a Heat for a Group 2 race, and that there was a Futures Betting market open where punters had an opportunity to bet on this market on MAD HARRY. As a result of the scratching, Mr Codlin believed that those punters that placed bets were disadvantaged as no money was refunded in the event of a scratching.
[15] Mr Codlin also identified that he had travelled six hours to Wanganui to contest his first ever Group 2 Heat, only to then be unfairly scratched, and then travel six hours back home. He stated that it was only fair, due to the incorrect scratching of my runner outside of the Rules, for him to seek compensation for his travel expenses and time.
[16] In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Codlin identified that the relevant rule was Rule 11.3(k). When asked by the Chairman as to whether Rule 11.3(l) was more applicable, he confirmed his position that Rule 11.3(k) was appropriate. It states:
Subject to these Rules, and in particular Rule 11.1, the Stewards shall have the power to control and regulate the Meeting and without prejudice to the generality of that power shall have further powers to: ...
(k) acting on veterinary advice order the withdrawal of a Greyhound from a Meeting at any time before the start if in their opinion the Greyhound is unfit to run;”
[17] Mr Codlin confirmed his belief that Rule 11.3(k) was engaged by the Stewards, but that the correct process was not followed. While he understood that Stewards could direct the late scratching of a runner, no vet check had been undertaken, so they were unable to adequately determine if the dog was unfit to run.
[18] Mr Austin was rostered to work the Meeting on that day, and due to Mr Whiterod being delayed in making it to the track, Mr Austin was designated as Chairman of Stewards for the Meeting, prior to the running of Race 1.
[19] He was in the Parade Ring when MAD HARRY was presented. Mr Austin then made his way to the kennelling area where the vet had told him that MAD HARRY was unable to run due to diarrhea in the kennel, and the vet wanting to have a look at the dog and take its temperature.
[20] Mr Austin told the Committee that the vet had advised him that the dog was unable to run in such a condition; having symptoms of diarrhea. More specifically, that the vet had clearly made the recommendation that in her opinion MAD HARRY was not fit to compete. Mr Austin also produced a Vet Certificate (No. 22704) for the Committee’s consideration. This confirmed the raised temperature reading of 39.4C and a three day stand down. Mr Austin confirmed that the vet had expressed her views to him, that she had made a decision, and that he had simply relayed that to the Club Secretary.
[21] To supplement his written Request, during the teleconference, Mr Codlin submitted that he had travelled from Auckland to Wanganui on the day in question and that there was no sign of diarrhea. The dog appeared to be eating, drinking and toileting properly. After being advised that his dog had pooped in the kennel, he explained to the vet that it was a normal occurrence.
[22] He did not think the threshold in Rule 11.3(k) had been met by the Stewards and that if a visual vet check had occurred on the day, the vet would have seen that the dog was not off colour, but the dog was not looked at by the vet at all. MAD HARRY had been scratched for being unfit, but this had only taken place as a result of what had been visually seen on the kennel bed.
[23] In relation to the temperature reading of 39.4C, he said that he had spoken to northern vet Joan Hessell and in her opinion, raceday temperatures of greyhounds could fluctuate significantly and that readings needed to be adjusted for excitement and individual circumstances. The Applicant also pointed out that the temperature reading had been taken after the decision to scratch the dog had already been made.
[24] Mr Codlin believed that an ‘inspection’ required a physical check, rather than a visual check of the kennel or the greyhound itself. He advocated that was the case when it concerned a serious decision such as a dog being late scratched, and that needed to be taken into consideration. He confirmed that MAD HARRY had more than 60 starts, including a previous start at Wanganui and that it was in the dog’s nature to be over excited and anxious.
[25] Mr Whiterod advised the Committee different vets had different ways of interpreting different injuries or illnesses to greyhounds; if a vet recommended that a dog be scratched, that would be accepted by the Stipendiary Stewards. He said it was not his role to second guess somebody who had completed veterinary studies at tertiary level.
[26] Mr Codlin also queried why, if his dog had been stood down for three days, it had not been for 10 days, as was usually the case for dogs found to have diarrhea.
[27] Mr Whiterod explained that at the Wanganui track, there was a list on display that provided an estimate of stand down periods for various injuries. That list recommended 10 days stand down for diarrhea, yet the vet had recommended three days. When Mr Whiterod asked the vet why that was the case, her explanation was that the trainer was extremely upset by the decision to scratch the dog and she had decided to settle on three days as the diarrhea was not over the top. He reiterated that this was totally her interpretation to apply as the expert.
[28] Mr Codlin confirmed that he was seeking compensation for travel expenses and the time spent in transporting MAD HARRY to the races. He also reiterated that the race from which his dog was scratched was a Heat for a Group 2 Race that was a Futures Betting race, with financial implications for the betting public who had invested on MAD HARRY.
[29] Mr Whiterod identified that MAD HARRY was not the only dog that Mr Codlin had brought to the races, and that his other dog had raced at the Meeting on 30 November.
REASONS FOR DECISION
[30] The Committee considered all of the submissions that had been placed before it. It is clear that Mr Codlin’s dog was late scratched after it had defecated in its kennel prior to racing. Mr Codlin contests that such behaviour by his dog is a natural and regular occurrence. He has cited that MAD HARRY is usually over-excited and anxious on raceday.
[31] Mr Codlin has provided a detailed written Request for a Review, which is appreciated by the Committee. His main issue is that the vet did not undertake a physical examination of his dog, prior to the decision for his dog to be scratched being made. He has confirmed for us his belief that his request relates to the inappropriate engagement of Rule 11.3(k).
[32] For completeness, Rule 11.3 at a broader level gives additional, but specified, powers to Stipendiary Stewards during a raceday. The issue for this Committee to determine, is whether the decision to late scratch MAD HARRY was made in accordance with the Rules. If it was, then that is the end of this matter. Alternatively, if we determine that the decision was not made in accordance with the Rules, then we must consider if there is an appropriate course of action to address such a failure.
[33] Our analysis of Rule 11.3(k) indicates that a Steward may order the withdrawal of a greyhound upon receipt of veterinary advice that relates to the fitness of a greyhound to run. The Rules provide a distinction between a greyhound being withdrawn and being scratched.
[34] The Official Steward’s Report from the Wanganui GRC Meeting on 30 November identifies: “MAD HARRY was a late scratching at pre-race parade on vet’s advice due to having Dihorrea (sic) a 3 day stand down was recommended”.
[35] A strict interpretation of Rule 11.3(k) would indicate that a scratching would not be actioned under the provisions of that Rule. The Committee did put Rule 11.3(l) to the Applicant, who confirmed that, in his opinion, Rule 11.3(k) was more appropriate for the purposes of his Review.
[36] Rule 11.3(l) states:
“Subject to these Rules, and in particular Rule 11.1, the Stewards shall have the power to control and regulate the Meeting and without prejudice to the generality of that power shall have further powers to: ...(l) order the scratching or withdrawal of a Greyhound from a Race;”
[37] This Rule clearly gives Stewards the power to order the scratching of a Greyhound from a Race. While this may be the more appropriate Rule to engage, while the process for which Stewards make their decision to order the scratching may appear to be discretionary, there is nonetheless, in our view, a requirement for the power to be exercised in good faith.
[38] On that basis, if we review the steps taken immediately prior to Mr Austin exercising the power to scratch MAD HARRY under the provision of Rule 11.3(l), we can make some observations.
[39] The vet, who is an appropriately qualified practitioner, observed that the kennel that MAD HARRY was in, had faeces in it post the dog’s placement in the kennel. Based on her observations she determined that it was consistent with symptoms of diarrhea. We must accept that she reached that determination based on the application of her veterinarian skillset. In this sense, while Mr Codlin may have preferred that the vet undertake a physical examination of his dog, this may not be a strict requirement.
[40] The course of action that then followed (that is, the late scratching of MAD HARRY), was as a result of the vet providing professional advice to Mr Austin that the dog was not fit to compete. It was on this basis that Mr Austin made the decision to scratch the dog.
[41] Having considered all submissions, we are satisfied that Mr Austin was entitled to exercise the power conferred on him by the provision of Rule 11.3(l) and that the exercise of such power was done in good faith.
[42] As the review will be unsuccessful, it is not necessary for us to make a determination regarding any reimbursement for costs incurred by Mr Codlin.
DECISION
[43] The Review is unsuccessful. The decision to late scratch MAD HARRY from Race 4 of the Wanganui GRC’s Meeting on 30 November is confirmed.
COSTS
[44] There is no costs order for either party, nor for the JCA.
Signed at Palmerston North this 17th day of December 2018.
Mr Tangi Utikere
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: