Request for Review R Wales v RIU – Written Decision dated 22 August 2016 – Chair, Prof G Hall

hearingid: 75af68d8f31e9b1597c09b4b09f18195

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 22/08/2016

hearing_title: Request for Review R Wales v RIU - Written Decision dated 22 August 2016 - Chair, Prof G Hall

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

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

BETWEEN

ROBIN WALES, Licensed Trainer

Applicant

AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)

Respondent

Judicial Committee: Prof G Hall, Chairman

Mr R McKenzie, Member

Hearing: 16 August 2016 at Addington Raceway

Present: Mr R Wales, Applicant

Mr S Wallis, Stipendiary Steward, for the Respondent

Date of oral decision: 16 August 2016

DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

[1] The Applicant, Mr Wales, the co-trainer of OPAWA CHEVIOT, has filed a Notice for Review of the penalty of a stand down for 28 days ordered by the Stipendiary Stewards on 5 August last with respect to a breach of r 79.1.b.a by the dog OPAWA CHEVIOT in Race 6 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 r 91.20. Mr Wales’ reason for disagreeing with the decision of the Stewards was that OPAWA CHEVIOT had never failed to pursue.

[3] The matter was heard at Addington Raceway on 16 August 2016. After discussing the issue with the parties, this Committee decided that Mr Wallis would present the RIU case first.

[4] Rule 79.1 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.

[5] 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.

[6] Mr Wallis stated that following the event the Stipendiary Stewards conducted an inquiry into the racing conduct of OPAWA CHEVIOT. Of particular concern was its manners when racing into the first bend where it was observed to turn its head outwards and race up the track. As part of this investigation Stewards viewed the films and heard submissions from Mr Wales regarding the racing conduct of OPAWA CHEVIOT. After taking into account Mr Wales submissions, Stewards were still satisfied that OPAWA CHEVIOT had failed to pursue the lure pursuant to 79.1.b of the NZGRA Rules of Racing and the dog was subsequently stood down for the mandatory 28 days and required to complete a satisfactory trial.

[7] OPAWA CHEVIOT was subjected to a veterinary examination pursuant to r 79.2 which reads:

Where a Greyhound fails to pursue the Lure as provided under r 79.1, the Greyhound shall be examined by the officiating Veterinarian or Authorised Person.

[8] This examination revealed no injury to OPAWA CHEVIOT.

[9] Mr Wallis said the RIU were alleging that OPAWA CHEVIOT had voluntarily turned its head.

[10] Mr Wallis demonstrated that OPAWA CHEVIOT started from Box 5, in race 6, the GARRARDS HORSE AND HOUND CANTERBURY OTB MAIDEN, which was heat 3 of 4 for maiden dogs, and was raced over 520 metres.

[11] Mr Wallis accepted that OPAWA CHEVIOT had become awkwardly placed on the heels of WAIMAK SHEFF, the number 1 dog, when entering the first bend and had been tightened for racing room. WAIMAK SHEFF had shifted out slightly at this time. He alleged that shortly after this OPAWA CHEVIOT had turned its head outwards and shifted up the track running into the path of NARITI (4), checking that dog, and pushing FLOKIE (6) wider on the track.

[12] Mr Wallis froze the various angles of the videos and said this demonstrated that at the time OPAWA CHEVIOT had turned its head it was not suffering interference. He emphasised the gait of the dog had not changed, which suggested it had not been checked by the number 3 dog, NEW BROOM.

[13] Mr Wales stated that Mr Wallis had failed to recognise there had been contact between OPAWA CHEVIOT and NEW BROOM.

[14] Mr Wales demonstrated on the videos that WAIMAK SHEFF had come out half a dog width on the first bend, crowding OPAWA CHEVIOT. He alleged the dog had then had its back legs clipped by NEW BROOM. Mr Wales said this had caused OPAWA CHEVIOT to become unbalanced and this was why the dog had run out. When OPAWA CHEVIOT ran out, it had hit NARITI, and OPAWA CHEVIOT had then come out further on the track.

[15] Mr Wales said this was the first time OPAWA CHEVIOT had come to the races and had raced in an 8-dog field. This was “a new ball game” from qualifying when there had only been 4 or 5 other dogs. OPAWA CHEVIOT had qualified at the first time of asking.

[16] Mr Wales demonstrated on the videos that OPAWA CHEVIOT had dogs around it and was trying to go through the small gap between WAIMAK SHEFF and NARITI. OPAWA CHEVIOT had been touched and had lost its balance as a consequence.

[17] Mr Wales emphasised that when running with other dogs at home OPAWA CHEVIOT had shown no tendency not to pursue. If he had believed OPAWA CHEVIOT was a “bad dog” he would not have wasted this Committee’s time by bringing a review.

[18] Mr Wales accepted that the veterinarian check on the day had found nothing but he emphasised if there were cuts and bruises on OPAWA CHEVIOT these would not have been found, as the check concentrated on muscular injuries.

[19] When questioned by this Committee, Mr Wales said he had not found any cuts and bruises on OPAWA CHEVIOT but he had not specifically looked for these.

[20] When asked to demonstrate to this Committee where NEW BROOM had come into contact with the heels of OPAWA CHEVIOT, Mr Wales said it was not obvious on the videos as the angles were wrong. Were there an overhead shot, he believed it would have shown it.

[21] Mr Wales concluded his case by stating in his opinion OPAWA CHEVIOT had chased the lure the whole time. From the time OPAWA CHEVIOT was touched until the dog settled down, it was pursuing. He said after OPAWA CHEVIOT was touched by NEW BROOM it never had the time to get balanced as it was cornering at real speed and had been pushed out by WAIMAK SHEFF. The dog had chased “as good as gold” once it was balanced and was getting “hard done by” with the Stewards stand down.

[22] Mr Wallis summed up by stating the nature of the veterinarian’s check was irrelevant in that no serious injury had been found to OPAWA CHEVIOT, as was required by the Rules.

[23] Mr Wallis said he did not believe NEW BROOM had clipped the heels of OPAWA CHEVIOT. He agreed that WAIMAK SHEFF had come out on the bend. He then believed OPAWA CHEVIOT was pushing out onto NARITI and that dog ran into OPAWA CHEVIOT.

[24] Mr Wallis concluded by saying OPAWA CHEVIOT had its head turned out when clear of WAIMAK SHEFF and NEW BROOM and was running out on the track at this time. He emphasised the RIU case revolved around the actions of OPAWA CHEVIOT leading up to the contact with NARITI.

[25] Mr Wales summed up by stating he agreed that OPAWA CHEVIOT had run out onto NARITI but this was because NEW BROOM had unsettled OPAWA CHEVIOT. OPAWA CHEVIOT had been “whacked” its first time at the races and had become unsettled and lost its balance.

Decision

[26] There is no video evidence of OPAWA CHEVIOT clipping heels with NEW BROOM. Mr Wales has acknowledged this. Mr Wallis is correct when he stated there was no discernible change in the stride of OPAWA CHEVIOT at the relevant time.

[27] We find that WAIMAK SHEFF did shift out on the track on entering the bend and that OPAWA CHEVIOT was tightened for racing room at this time. However, when OPAWA CHEVIOT was clear of WAIMAK SHEFF and NEW BROOM, it has turned its head outwards and run outwards for some distance and, in so doing, has taken the running line of NARITI and the two dogs have come into contact. We are satisfied that OPAWA CHEVIOT has turned its head out and run out of its own volition, not because the dog continued to be unbalanced.

[28] The actions of OPAWA CHEVIOT in voluntarily turning its head outwards away from the lure constitute a failure to pursue.

[29] Mr Wales’ application for review is unsuccessful and the suspension on 5 August 2016 at Addington of OPAWA CHEVIOT for 28 days and a satisfactory trial pursuant to r 79.1.b.a for failing to pursue the lure is confirmed.

Dated at Dunedin this 22nd day of August 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: