NZGRA Request for Review S Evans v RIU – Decision dated 3 August 2017 – Chair Prof G Hall

hearingid: 64e11790241cd308465e4816b8f12169

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 03/08/2017

hearing_title: NZGRA Request for Review S Evans v RIU - Decision dated 3 August 2017 - Chair Prof G Hall

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF

THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY

FOR RACING

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

BETWEEN

STEVE EVANS, Licensed Trainer

Applicant

AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)

Respondent

Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman

Mr A Smith, Committee Member

Hearing: 27 July 2017 at Addington Raceway

Present: Mr S Evans, Applicant

Mr R Quirk, Stipendiary Steward, for the Respondent

Date of oral decision: 27 July 2017

DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

[1] The applicant, Mr Evans, the trainer of GOLDSTAR LINKIN, has filed a Notice for Review of the penalty of a stand down for 28 days ordered by the Stipendiary Stewards on 21 July last with respect to a breach of r 55.1.b. by the dog GOLDSTAR LINKIN in Race 7 at the meeting of the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club at Addington.

[2] The review of the decision of the Stipendiary Stewards is in accordance with rr 55.11 and 62.20. Mr Evans’ reason for disagreeing with the decision of the Stewards was that GOLDSTAR LINKIN had never failed to pursue.

[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:

(a) in the case of a first offence, twenty-eight (28) days and until the completion of a Satisfactory Trial.

[4] The matter was heard at Addington Raceway on 27 July 2017. After discussing the issue with the parties, this Committee decided that Mr Quirk would present the RIU’s case first.

Respondent’s case

[5] Mr Quirk identified the definition of “fails to pursue the lure” as set out in cl 1 of 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.

[6] Mr Quirk showed a video of the race in question. GOLDSTAR LINKIN was the number 1 dog and won the race, which was over the sprint distance of 295 metres. The winning margin was half a head and the time was 17.63. This time was consistent with other races on the day.

[7] Mr Quirk stated the stage of the race that was of concern to the Stewards was the entrance to the turn where GOLDSTAR LINKIN had gone out slightly and voluntarily eased for 3 strides.

[8] Mr Quirk demonstrated that just prior to the entrance to the turn GOLDSTAR LINKIN was 2 to 2 1/2 lengths clear and was racing some 3 dog widths out from the fence. He said GOLDSTAR LINKIN eased as it started to run outwards. There had been no interference or contact at this time.

[9] Mr Quirk emphasised it was only the 3 strides that were of concern as after this time GOLDSTAR LINKIN had got going again, had kept trying, and had won the race. He demonstrated that GOLDSTAR LINKIN had lost ground when compared to the dogs 2 (HOTDOG SHANNON), 7 (FABRE’S LASS) and 8 (CEE ASH) that were racing in the dog’s near vicinity. The gap to the 2 dog, in particular, had considerably narrowed.

[10] Mr Quirk said there might have been contact with the 5 dog (INKY LORD) but this was after the 3 strides that the Stewards were questioning.

[11] Mr Quirk demonstrated on the video in slow motion the 3 strides as GOLDSTAR LINKIN was entering the bend. He alleged that the dog’s head came up, and that there was a different bounding action.

[12] Mr Quirk stated that after the race GOLDSTAR LINKIN was subjected to a veterinary examination pursuant to r 55.2 and no injury was found. Mr Evans confirmed the dog had not suffered any injury.

[13] GOLDSTAR LINKIN’s statistics were produced. The dog had had 17 starts, for 4 wins, 6 2nds and 4 3rds. The dog had failed to pursue previously. This was on 7 April 2017 when it had raced over a middle distance. The dog had been clear since and as it had had 10 starts, the stand down period had been reset.

Applicant’s case

[14] Mr Evans stated the video showed not the 1 dog, GOLDSTAR LINKIN, easing but the 5 dog (INKY LORD) showing more speed at the point in the race that the Stewards were questioning. He demonstrated that the number 2 dog (HOTDOG SHANNON) had lost a length over the 5 dog at this time. This supported his contention that it was the 5 dog pulling away from the other dogs rather than GOLDSTAR LINKIN easing.

[15] Mr Evans said GOLDSTAR LINKIN had run off the fence and there was contact with the 5 dog, and the 2 dog had made ground and raced through on GOLDSTAR LINKIN’s inside before GOLDSTAR LINKIN found its feet and got going again.

[16] Mr Evans referred to the time of the race. GOLDSTAR LINKIN’s previous best was 17.60 on a good track, so the dog had run very close to its personal best on a rain-affected track.

[17] Mr McLaughlin, who was the Stipendiary Steward officiating on the day, had said to the trainers that it was a 50/50 call whether there would be racing, as there was concern with the state of the track because the rain had been very heavy. Mr Evans demonstrated on the video the pooling of water to the inside of the track. He said it was likely that GOLDSTAR LINKIN would have felt unsure of its footing as it entered the bend. He put this proposition to Mr Quirk who said the Stewards could not discount this possibility. However, he said to his knowledge no other dogs had had problems with the bend on that day.

[18] Mr Evans reiterated that the 3 strides that were of concern were where the 5 dog had pulled away from the 2. He emphasised GOLDSTAR LINKIN did not cheat, had not pulled up, nor had the dog put its head in the air. GOLDSTAR LINKIN had won the race and thus the bettors had not lost out.

[19] Mr Quirk replied by stating there was a definite change in the action of GOLDSTAR LINKIN for 3 strides. The dog’s speed and galloping style were different. The 2, 7 and 8 dogs had all made ground on GOLDSTAR LINKIN before there had been contact. In his view, GOLDSTAR LINKIN had voluntarily eased and thus the charge was proved.

[20] Mr Evans replied that the 5 dog was simply a quicker dog than GOLDSTAR LINKIN. When GOLDSTAR LINKIN was alleged to have eased, the 5 dog was going faster and had pulled away from the other dogs.

Decision

[21] We believe there is a discernible change in the racing action of GOLDSTAR LINKIN for 2 rather than the 3 strides, as alleged. This is when the dog is entering the bend.

[22] While the 5 dog is faster at this stage in the race, as Mr Evans has alleged, it is also clear that GOLDSTAR LINKIN has shifted wider and shortened stride for 2 strides. However, the speed of the 5 dog accentuates this. The head of GOLDSTAR LINKIN does not come up.

[23] There is contact between GOLDSTAR LINKIN and INKY LORD very soon after these 2 strides, and whilst the video is far from determinative, there may in fact be brief contact on 2 occasions.

[24] GOLDSTAR LINKIN’s shortening of stride may have been because the dog was unsure of the corner, as Mr Evans has alleged. While there is no evidence of the dog slipping, the nature of the track has to be considered. It is evident conditions were far from ideal and there is casual water to the inside of the track. In addition, the video demonstrates that GOLDSTAR LINKIN changes its leading leg just prior to the alleged easing.

[25] When regard is had to the adverse track conditions, the fact that the incident occurred at the start of the turn, the very brief nature of the alleged easing, which is accentuated by the 5 dog rushing at speed towards GOLDSTAR LINKIN who was shifting wider on the track, and that the dog changed leg, we believe there is sufficient doubt that GOLDSTAR LINKIN has voluntarily eased and therefore that the dog has failed to pursue the lure.

[26] The review is successful.

[27] There was no application for costs and no award is made.

Dated at Auckland this 3rd day of August 2017.

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: