NZGRA Request for Review S Evans v RIU – Written decision dated 2 September 2019 – Chair, Prof G Hall
ID: JCA17464
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF
THE JCA IN CHRISTCHURCH
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (Incorporated)
BETWEEN
MR STEVE EVANS, Licensed Trainer
Applicant
AND-RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Respondent
Judicial Committee: --Prof G Hall, Chairman
Mr R McKenzie, Member
Appearing:--The applicant in person
Mr R Quirk, Stipendiary Steward, for the respondent
Date of oral decision:-29 August 2019
Date of written decision: -2 September 2019
WRITTEN DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1]-The applicant, Mr Evans, has requested a review of the decision from Race 2, at a race meeting of the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held on Tuesday 27 August 2019 at Addington where GOLDSTAR TAWNY was stood down for 3 months, plus one satisfactory trial, 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]-“Fails to Pursue the Lure” is defined in the GRNZ rule book 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.”
[3]-The matter was heard Addington raceway on Thursday 29 August and an oral decision was given to the effect that the review was not successful. We indicated that we would give our reasons in writing.
[4]-After hearing from the parties, we decided that Mr Quirk would present the RIU’s case first.
Factual background
[5]-On Tuesday 27 August 2019 the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held its race meeting at Addington Raceway. The Chairman of Stewards at the meeting was Mr Quirk.
[6]-The dog in question, GOLDSTAR TAWNY, is trained by Licensed Public Trainer, Mr S Evans of Christchurch.
[7]-GOLDSTAR TAWNY was correctly nominated and started from Box draw 5 in race 2 the HAPPY BIRTHDAY JOHN MCINERNEY DASH, for C0 greyhounds over 295 metres.
[8]-Prior to the race in question GOLDSTAR TAWNY had had 2 starts for two 8th placings. The Greyhound was stood down for marring on 16 July at Ascot Park, with the current indiscretion thereby constituting a second offence.
[9]-On the day in question GOLDSTAR TAWNY was referred to the Official Veterinarian post-race and cleared of any injury. Mr Quirk produced the relevant veterinary certificate. Mr Quirk then consulted with co-trainer Mr Steve Evans regarding the conduct of GOLDSTAR TAWNY in the home straight.
[10]-After hearing from Mr Evans, he then charged the greyhound with failing to pursue the lure.
Respondent’s submissions
[11]-Mr Quirk said that racing greyhounds are essentially bred for one purpose only and that is to chase or pursue a lure. It is in their physical and mental make-up to do this and they are programmed to do so from an early stage of their lives.
[12]-Greyhounds which fail to pursue the lure with due commitment throughout the entirety of the race are deemed not to be committed to their sole purpose for racing.
[13]-Although GOLDSTAR TAWNY went on to win the race, when viewing race replays in relation to a non-pursuit charge it is essential that there is no consideration afforded to the finishing position of the greyhound. It is also irrelevant that it was the greyhound’s first time on the track or the first time from a particular box. Rule 55.1 does not provide for these to be mitigating factors when assessing a breach of this rule. The greyhound has either committed the offence or not.
[14]-The Stewards were of the view that GOLDSTAR TAWNY had failed to pursue with due commitment by turning its head inwards in the home straight and diverting its attention away from the lure and towards the inside runner, ALEXIA.
[15]-Mr Quirk stated it was evident in the home straight that GOLDSTAR TAWNY has eased and turned its head inwards, and for 3 strides is looking at the inside dog, ALEXIA. This is when GOLDSTAR TAWNY has ranged up on its outside. He submitted that the action of GOLDSTAR TAWNY can be seen to change in these strides. The lure is directly in front of the greyhound and it is acutely aware of where it is on the track. It makes a conscious decision to divert its attention away from the lure when it draws alongside ALEXIA. GOLDSTAR TAWNY then refocuses its attention to the lure until the finish line and wins the race.
[16]-Mr Quirk concluded his submission by stating that greyhound racing carries with it the weight of public money and the Stewards had to be seen to be appropriately protecting this. They are charged with the responsibility of enhancing public confidence and integrity within greyhound racing by imposing the right penalties/stand downs on greyhounds when required to do so. It was the Stewards’ opinion that GOLDSTAR TAWNY has failed to pursue the lure by turning its head inwards in the home straight while free of interference. According to the Rules of Greyhound Racing the greyhound is not chasing the lure at this point of the race and the suspension was therefore justified.
Applicant’s case
[17]-Mr Evans stated there was only a minimal turning of the head. He did not believe GOLDSTAR TAWNY was looking at the other dog but rather was looking at the lure. He thought a shadow on the track that was coming up may have distracted the dog.
[18]- Mr Evans disputed Mr Quirk’s assertion that the stride of GOLDSTAR TAWNY had changed. He said when a lot of races were stopped, they showed a dog’s head turned in for a racing stride.
[19]-Mr Evans believed that the videos showed that the lure was very close to the inside dog. We looked at various angles to confirm this. Mr Evans believed the lure was 5 to 6 metres in front, Mr Quirk thought 6 to 7. The parties agreed on 6 metres.
[20]-Mr Evans did not believe GOLDSTAR TAWNY had looked at the other dog because GOLDSTAR TAWNY was all but clear of that dog at the time. He agreed the head of GOLDSTAR TAWNY was turned for 2 strides before straightening. He thought GOLDSTAR TAWNY was simply looking for the lure and when the dog had a clear sight of it, it pulled away and won the race.
[21]-He showed a video of race 5 at Forbury Park on 6 August to demonstrate a dog with its head turned that was not charged with failing to pursue. The head was turned for one stride on the home bend.
Summing up
[22]-Mr Quirk said there was a clear difference between the two races. In the Forbury Park race the dog’s head was turned only for one stride and it was on the bend as the dog, which was racing wide on the track, was balancing and straightening for the run home. GOLDSTAR TAWNY’s head was turned inwards for 2 strides in the home straight.
[23]-Mr Quirk submitted that GOLDSTAR TAWNY had the inside dog in its sight and not the lure. There was a clear change in stride.
[24]-Mr Evans reiterated his belief that GOLDSTAR TAWNY’s head was turned inwards because the dog was looking for the lure and not at the dog to its inside. The head was not angled 90 degrees; the turn was minimal. There was not a massive change in the dog’s stride.
Decision
[25]-We viewed the home straight, side-on and head-on videos. The home straight angle on the big screen was the most helpful view. This demonstrated that in the home straight GOLDSTAR TAWNY had turned its head inwards for some 2 to 3 strides. This was while the dog was racing to the outside of and just behind the 1 dog, ALEXIA. The dogs in question were some 6 metres behind the lure at this point in the race.
[26]-We find that GOLDSTAR TAWNY was close to being level with the other dog (ALEXIA) but was not quite, when it turned its head. It appeared to be at the rump or girth of that dog.
[27]-We are satisfied there is a discernible change in GOLDSTAR TAWNY’s stride at this time in that it shortens a little. Once GOLDSTAR TAWNY focuses on the lure, the dog’s stride noticeably lengthens again.
[28]-We did not obtain assistance from the Forbury Park race as the circumstances of the dog in that race were different from those of GOLDSTAR TAWNY. It was one stride on a bend whilst the dog was racing wide on the track and balancing for the run home.
[29]-We are satisfied that GOLDSTAR TAWNY has turned its head towards the dog on its inside and away from the lure for 2 to 3 strides when free of interference. It has thus failed to pursue the lure and is in breach of r 55.1(b). The review is not successful.
Dated at Dunedin this 2nd day of September 2019.
Geoff Hall, Chairman
Appeal Decision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
Decision Date: 02/09/2019
Publish Date: 02/09/2019
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: e6d1ef5aad8e2a6073ed808056f038ef
informantnumber:
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea:
penaltyrequired:
decisiondate: 02/09/2019
hearing_title: NZGRA Request for Review S Evans v RIU - Written decision dated 2 September 2019 - Chair, Prof G Hall
charge:
facts:
appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
reasonsfordecision:
Decision:
BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF
THE JCA IN CHRISTCHURCH
IN THE MATTER of the Rules of New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (Incorporated)
BETWEEN
MR STEVE EVANS, Licensed Trainer
Applicant
AND-RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)
Respondent
Judicial Committee: --Prof G Hall, Chairman
Mr R McKenzie, Member
Appearing:--The applicant in person
Mr R Quirk, Stipendiary Steward, for the respondent
Date of oral decision:-29 August 2019
Date of written decision: -2 September 2019
WRITTEN DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
[1]-The applicant, Mr Evans, has requested a review of the decision from Race 2, at a race meeting of the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held on Tuesday 27 August 2019 at Addington where GOLDSTAR TAWNY was stood down for 3 months, plus one satisfactory trial, 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]-“Fails to Pursue the Lure” is defined in the GRNZ rule book 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.”
[3]-The matter was heard Addington raceway on Thursday 29 August and an oral decision was given to the effect that the review was not successful. We indicated that we would give our reasons in writing.
[4]-After hearing from the parties, we decided that Mr Quirk would present the RIU’s case first.
Factual background
[5]-On Tuesday 27 August 2019 the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held its race meeting at Addington Raceway. The Chairman of Stewards at the meeting was Mr Quirk.
[6]-The dog in question, GOLDSTAR TAWNY, is trained by Licensed Public Trainer, Mr S Evans of Christchurch.
[7]-GOLDSTAR TAWNY was correctly nominated and started from Box draw 5 in race 2 the HAPPY BIRTHDAY JOHN MCINERNEY DASH, for C0 greyhounds over 295 metres.
[8]-Prior to the race in question GOLDSTAR TAWNY had had 2 starts for two 8th placings. The Greyhound was stood down for marring on 16 July at Ascot Park, with the current indiscretion thereby constituting a second offence.
[9]-On the day in question GOLDSTAR TAWNY was referred to the Official Veterinarian post-race and cleared of any injury. Mr Quirk produced the relevant veterinary certificate. Mr Quirk then consulted with co-trainer Mr Steve Evans regarding the conduct of GOLDSTAR TAWNY in the home straight.
[10]-After hearing from Mr Evans, he then charged the greyhound with failing to pursue the lure.
Respondent’s submissions
[11]-Mr Quirk said that racing greyhounds are essentially bred for one purpose only and that is to chase or pursue a lure. It is in their physical and mental make-up to do this and they are programmed to do so from an early stage of their lives.
[12]-Greyhounds which fail to pursue the lure with due commitment throughout the entirety of the race are deemed not to be committed to their sole purpose for racing.
[13]-Although GOLDSTAR TAWNY went on to win the race, when viewing race replays in relation to a non-pursuit charge it is essential that there is no consideration afforded to the finishing position of the greyhound. It is also irrelevant that it was the greyhound’s first time on the track or the first time from a particular box. Rule 55.1 does not provide for these to be mitigating factors when assessing a breach of this rule. The greyhound has either committed the offence or not.
[14]-The Stewards were of the view that GOLDSTAR TAWNY had failed to pursue with due commitment by turning its head inwards in the home straight and diverting its attention away from the lure and towards the inside runner, ALEXIA.
[15]-Mr Quirk stated it was evident in the home straight that GOLDSTAR TAWNY has eased and turned its head inwards, and for 3 strides is looking at the inside dog, ALEXIA. This is when GOLDSTAR TAWNY has ranged up on its outside. He submitted that the action of GOLDSTAR TAWNY can be seen to change in these strides. The lure is directly in front of the greyhound and it is acutely aware of where it is on the track. It makes a conscious decision to divert its attention away from the lure when it draws alongside ALEXIA. GOLDSTAR TAWNY then refocuses its attention to the lure until the finish line and wins the race.
[16]-Mr Quirk concluded his submission by stating that greyhound racing carries with it the weight of public money and the Stewards had to be seen to be appropriately protecting this. They are charged with the responsibility of enhancing public confidence and integrity within greyhound racing by imposing the right penalties/stand downs on greyhounds when required to do so. It was the Stewards’ opinion that GOLDSTAR TAWNY has failed to pursue the lure by turning its head inwards in the home straight while free of interference. According to the Rules of Greyhound Racing the greyhound is not chasing the lure at this point of the race and the suspension was therefore justified.
Applicant’s case
[17]-Mr Evans stated there was only a minimal turning of the head. He did not believe GOLDSTAR TAWNY was looking at the other dog but rather was looking at the lure. He thought a shadow on the track that was coming up may have distracted the dog.
[18]- Mr Evans disputed Mr Quirk’s assertion that the stride of GOLDSTAR TAWNY had changed. He said when a lot of races were stopped, they showed a dog’s head turned in for a racing stride.
[19]-Mr Evans believed that the videos showed that the lure was very close to the inside dog. We looked at various angles to confirm this. Mr Evans believed the lure was 5 to 6 metres in front, Mr Quirk thought 6 to 7. The parties agreed on 6 metres.
[20]-Mr Evans did not believe GOLDSTAR TAWNY had looked at the other dog because GOLDSTAR TAWNY was all but clear of that dog at the time. He agreed the head of GOLDSTAR TAWNY was turned for 2 strides before straightening. He thought GOLDSTAR TAWNY was simply looking for the lure and when the dog had a clear sight of it, it pulled away and won the race.
[21]-He showed a video of race 5 at Forbury Park on 6 August to demonstrate a dog with its head turned that was not charged with failing to pursue. The head was turned for one stride on the home bend.
Summing up
[22]-Mr Quirk said there was a clear difference between the two races. In the Forbury Park race the dog’s head was turned only for one stride and it was on the bend as the dog, which was racing wide on the track, was balancing and straightening for the run home. GOLDSTAR TAWNY’s head was turned inwards for 2 strides in the home straight.
[23]-Mr Quirk submitted that GOLDSTAR TAWNY had the inside dog in its sight and not the lure. There was a clear change in stride.
[24]-Mr Evans reiterated his belief that GOLDSTAR TAWNY’s head was turned inwards because the dog was looking for the lure and not at the dog to its inside. The head was not angled 90 degrees; the turn was minimal. There was not a massive change in the dog’s stride.
Decision
[25]-We viewed the home straight, side-on and head-on videos. The home straight angle on the big screen was the most helpful view. This demonstrated that in the home straight GOLDSTAR TAWNY had turned its head inwards for some 2 to 3 strides. This was while the dog was racing to the outside of and just behind the 1 dog, ALEXIA. The dogs in question were some 6 metres behind the lure at this point in the race.
[26]-We find that GOLDSTAR TAWNY was close to being level with the other dog (ALEXIA) but was not quite, when it turned its head. It appeared to be at the rump or girth of that dog.
[27]-We are satisfied there is a discernible change in GOLDSTAR TAWNY’s stride at this time in that it shortens a little. Once GOLDSTAR TAWNY focuses on the lure, the dog’s stride noticeably lengthens again.
[28]-We did not obtain assistance from the Forbury Park race as the circumstances of the dog in that race were different from those of GOLDSTAR TAWNY. It was one stride on a bend whilst the dog was racing wide on the track and balancing for the run home.
[29]-We are satisfied that GOLDSTAR TAWNY has turned its head towards the dog on its inside and away from the lure for 2 to 3 strides when free of interference. It has thus failed to pursue the lure and is in breach of r 55.1(b). The review is not successful.
Dated at Dunedin this 2nd day of September 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: