Request for Review A Williams v RIU – Written Decision dated 31 July 2016 – Chair, Prof G Hall

hearingid: 7fd4c5f805f88a4e8128f430ec3e4887

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 02/08/2016

hearing_title: Request for Review A Williams v RIU - Written Decision dated 31 July 2016 - Chair, Prof G Hall

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

HELD AT CHRISTCHURCH

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

BETWEEN

ALAN WILLIAMS, Licensed Trainer

Applicant

AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)

Respondent

Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman - R McKenzie, Member

Present: Mr A Williams, Applicant

Mr S Wallis, Stipendiary Steward, Respondent

Date of Hearing: 29 July 2016

Venue: Addington Raceway, Christchurch

Date of oral decision: 29 July 2016

Date of written decision: 31 July 2016

DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

[1] At the meeting of the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held at Addington Raceway on 19 July 2016, the greyhound FLASH THE CASH, trained by Mr Williams started from Box 2 in Race 6, The Active Electrical Christchurch Dash for C1 dogs over 295 metres.

[2] Following the event the Stipendiary Stewards were satisfied that FLASH THE CASH had failed to pursue the lure as per r 79.1.b of the NZGRA Rules of Racing and the dog was stood down for the mandatory 28 days and was required to complete a satisfactory trial.

[3] FLASH THE CASH was subjected to a veterinary examination as per r 79.2. This examination revealed no injury to FLASH THE CASH.

[4] Rule 79.1.b provides:

“Where a Greyhound: 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.”

[5] The Rules define “fails to pursue the lure” 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.”

[6] On 25 July 2016 Mr Williams applied for a review of the decision of the Stipendiary Stewards in accordance with r 91.20.

[7] After discussing the issue with the parties, it was decided that Mr Wallis would present the RIU case first.

Respondent’s case

[8] Mr Wallis said the RIU were alleging that FLASH THE CASH had voluntarily eased up.

[9] Mr Wallis showed the Committee the videos of the incident. These were trackside and head-on. We viewed them in both real time and slow motion.

[10] FLASH THE CASH jumped quickly from box 2 and was soon in the lead by a few lengths.

[11] Mr Wallis demonstrated that as FLASH THE CASH ran into the first bend the dog commenced to give ground and came back on to the number 3 and 8 dogs. FLASH THE CASH was free of interference. He pointed out that FLASH THE CASH had rolled inwards slightly in front of the 3 dog before coming out, easing, and checking the 8 dog. FLASH THE CASH then received a bump.

[12] Mr Wallis stated that the Stipendiary Stewards on the day had initially thought FLASH THE CASH had suffered an injury, because the dog had eased up so quickly. But as the veterinarian inspection revealed no injury, the dog was stood down pursuant to r 79.1. He emphasised while there had been contact with FLASH THE CASH and another dog, this was as FLASH THE CASH was exiting the bend and was long after that dog had eased.

[13] When questioned by the Committee as to the dog’s previous performances, Mr Wallis stated FLASH THE CASH had had 9 starts, all sprints, for one win. The dog had not previously come to the attention of the Stewards with respect to this rule.

Applicant’s case

[14] Mr Williams first questioned why Mr Wallis had not contacted him in person on the day so they could view the videos together and he could comment on the performance of FLASH THE CASH. He said it was not until he was close to home that he received Mr Wallis’s message that FLASH THE CASH had been stood down. As he lived in Amberley it was too late and too far for him to return to the track.

[15] Mr Williams stated that FLASH THE CASH had eased because the dog had “felt something”. He said a dog would run away from pain and in this case FLASH THE CASH was moving away from the rail. He emphasised the dog had not waited until the other dogs caught up, as some dogs do, but had kept easing and had drifted out of the race.

[16] Mr Williams stated that 15 days prior to the race he had taken FLASH THE CASH to the veterinarian because he was not happy with the dog and he wondered whether it was sore behind.

[17] The veterinarian report on FLASH THE CASH stated that the dog had “mild soreness mid spine — and “more significantly right side especially sore in iliopsoas muscle and moderate to marked pain on full hip/pelvis stretch — more acute on right side.”

[18] Mr Williams said from this time to the race in question he had limited FLASH THE CASH’s preparation to walking rather than running.

[19] Mr Williams said Mr Dunn who assisted with his dogs had checked FLASH THE CASH the day before racing and the dog had been vetted before the race and had appeared to be fine.

[20] With reference to the veterinarian not finding any injury on raceday, he said the dog would still have been hot and any injury might not have been evident. He said once FLASH THE CASH was back home in the kennel he could see he was not walking right and was sore in behind. He believed the dog was sore in the inside of a back leg. The dog was reluctant to run around the paddock.

[21] Mr Williams stated that as the dog had been stood down, and because he believed it was sore, he took FLASH THE CASH to the veterinarian the next day. This was the same veterinarian that had examined the dog on raceday. The veterinarian agreed there was a bit of soreness in behind but it was not a serious enough injury to get the dog off the charge.

[22] Mr Williams asked us to compare the race in question with the race on 13 May last when FLASH THE CASH had again drawn box 2, had jumped to the lead and gone on to win the race. The dog had shifted out a little from the rail and had run true on this occasion. FLASH THE CASH was a strong chaser and was doing exactly the same thing in the race in question but had eased. Mr Williams believed this was evidence FLASH THE CASH had been feeling pain.

Summing up

[23] Mr Wallis summed up by stating that FLASH THE CASH free of interference had eased on the first bend.

[24] With reference to his leaving a message for Mr Williams, Mr Wallis stated he had endeavoured to contact Mr Williams as soon as he had heard from the veterinarian that there was no injury. By this time Mr Williams had left the course. He had left a message and Mr Williams had returned his call. He agreed it was desirable for the Stewards to view the video with the affected party on raceday but often that was not possible, as the trainer would have left the track, as Mr Williams had done on this occasion.

[25] Mr Williams had nothing further to add other than it was his belief that FLASH THE CASH was sore and that was why the dog had eased. He had not had the opportunity to view the video of the race with the Stewards and tell them this on raceday. He emphasised FLASH THE CASH would not be racing whatever our decision, as the dog was still sore. However, he did not want the stand down on the dog’s record.

Decision

[26] Both parties are in agreement that FLASH THE CASH has eased. Mr Williams is adamant that this was because FLASH THE CASH was sore and points to the fact that the dog was stiff the next day and he was sufficiently concerned to take the dog to the veterinarian.

[27] Unfortunately for Mr Williams, the Rules require that the veterinarian certify that the dog has an injury of such severity that it explains why there has been a breach of r 79. On this occasion the veterinarian did not so certify and nor did she on the previous day when she inspected the dog at the request of the Stipendiary Stewards. The clinical notes state: “Nothing significant on examination”.

[28] We accept that the occasion on which FLASH THE CASH won he was racing in a similar manner to the race in question and he did not ease at any stage of the race. The dog led from start to finish and has clearly chased the lure.

[29] However, that race is not at issue before us; rather it is the race on 19 July. On that occasion FLASH THE CASH has voluntarily eased free of interference and in so doing has fallen foul of r 79.1.b. That FLASH THE CASH had previously been found by the veterinarian to be sore is no defence under the Rules, nor is the fact that the dog was stiff and sore in behind the next day, in light of the fact there is no veterinarian certificate as required by the Rules.

[30] Mr Williams’ application for review is not successful and the stand down imposed by the Stipendiary Stewards on 19 July 2016 at Christchurch of FLASH THE CASH for 28 days pursuant to r 79.1.b for failing to pursue the lure is confirmed.

Dated at Dunedin this 31st day of July 2016.

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: