GRNZ Request for Review – Decision dated 25 May 2023 – Bonnie Evans

BACKGROUND:

This is an Application pursuant to Rule 128A by Mrs Bonnie Evans on behalf of Owner, Goldstar Racing, for review of the decision of Stewards following Race 12, Racing Again Monday 22 May Dash, at the meeting of Christchurch GRC at Addington Raceway on 19 May 2023, to stand down the Greyhound, GOLDSTAR BENNETT, trained by Riley Evans, for marring.

The Greyhound was stood down by Stewards for 28 days and until completion of a satisfactory trial.

The Application seeks a review of the finding and penalty. The ground stated in the application is “no clear proof of marring”.

EVIDENCE OF STEWARDS:

1.  Mr Wadley said that this was an Application for a review of the decision of the Stewards at the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club’s meeting at Addington on the 19 May 2023, in which Stewards formed the opinion that GOLDSTAR BENNETT had marred GOLDSTAR TOBY.

2. Mr Wadley submitted that the Adjudicative Committee must decide whether the Stewards were correct to form the opinion that GOLDSTAR BENNETT had marred the inside runner, GOLDSTAR TOBY. Both Greyhounds are trained by Mr Riley Evans.

3. The applicable Rules used to stand down a Greyhound for Marring read:

Rule 123 – Marring by a Greyhound 

Where, in the opinion of the Stewards, a Greyhound is found to have marred during an Event, the Stewards must impose a Period of suspension in respect of the Greyhound pursuant to Rule 127, which is to be recorded by them as part of the identification record.

Rule 127 – Period of suspension to be imposed for marring or failing to pursue

. . . where in the opinion of the Stewards a Greyhound is found to have marred or failed to pursue the lure during an Event, the Stewards must impose a period of suspension in respect of the Greyhound . . .

• in the case of a first offence, 28 days at all tracks and until the completion of a satisfactory trial.

4. Mr Wadley said that he intended to show GOLDSTAR BENNETT shifting inwards, then turning its head inwards towards GOLDSTAR TOBY and opening its mouth, and making muzzle contact with GOLDSTAR TOBY, prior to leaving the back straight.

5. Mr Wadley then showed a video replay of the 6-dog, 520 metres race. He pointed out some interference on the first bend when a dog fell and four runners, including GOLDSTAR BENNETT and GOLDSTAR TOBY, received significant checks. Those two Greyhounds lost a lot of ground, as the two leaders opened up a large gap on the field.

6. Mr Wadley then showed video replays of the incident, the subject of the review, as the two runners, GOLDSTAR BENNETT and GOLDSTAR TOBY, neared the bend out of the back straight.

7. He pointed out GOLDSTAR BENNETT, allegedly, turn its head inwards, shift in and make muzzle contact and marr, mouth open, GOLDSTART TOBY on its inside. He showed GOLDSTAR TOBY turn its head out, towards GOLDSTAR BENNETT, because of the impact. On a still image, Mr Wadley submitted, there was clearly no separation between the muzzles of the two dogs.

EVIDENCE OF THE APPLICANT:

1. Mr Steve Evans, on behalf of the Applicant, said that it was accepted that GOLDSTAR BENNETT had turned its head. However, he submitted, at that point, the camera angle was no longer a “true head-on”, and there was no clear evidence of muzzle contact, even though it had come very close, he acknowledged. The angle was more a side-on angle, as the dogs were “into the corner”, he submitted. It was possible that even a millimetre of separation could mean that there had been no muzzle contact.

2. Mr Evans referred to an earlier review decision in which a Judicial Committee had found that the available head-on video replay of the incident was inconclusive and, as a result, the Greyhound was given the benefit of the doubt which, he submitted, had set a precedent. He further submitted that GOLDSTAR BENNETT should be given the benefit of the doubt on this occasion, the video replay being inconclusive. If there was a chance that there was a gap between the muzzles, the evidence that contact had been made is inconclusive, Mr Evans submitted. Any muzzle contact was only a “slight brush”, he said.

CLOSING SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:

1. Greyhound Racing carries with it the weight of public money and the Stewards must be seen to be appropriately protecting this. Stewards 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.

2. Finally, the Adjudicative Committee, when making a determination regarding this matter, only has to satisfy itself on the following two points, everything else being irrelevant. Firstly, did GOLDSTAR BENNETT turn its head inwards and, secondly, did GOLDSTAR BENNETT make muzzle contact with GOLDSTAR TOBY?

3. If the answer to those questions is “yes”, then it is respectfully submitted that this review should be dismissed.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

1. Rule 123 provides:

 Marring by a Greyhound

Where, in the opinion of the Stewards, a Geyhound is found to have marred during an Event, the Stewards must impose a period of suspension in respect of the Greyhound pursuant to Rule 127, which is to be recorded by them as part of the identification record.

2. The definition Rule, Rule 9, defines “marr or marring” as:

“the act of a Greyhound which turns its head and makes head or muzzle contact with another Greyhound”.

3. The breach is said to have occurred in Race 12 at Addington on 19 May 2023.

4. Mr Wadley was Head of Stewards at the race meeting. He showed a video replay of the 520 metres R/A race. On the first turn, an incident took place in which one of the six runners fell and another received severe interference. The two Greyhounds, GOLDSTAR BENNETT and GOLDSTAR TOBY, also received significant interference and lost considerable ground. The two dogs unaffected by the interference established a big lead over those two Greyhounds.

5. As the two Greyhounds reached the end of the back straight, the incident of marring is said to have occurred.

6. This is an opinion-of-the-Stewards case and, as the Tribunal said in an Australian Harness Racing case, in such a case it is necessary for the Stewards to show and for the Tribunal to determine whether that opinion is reasonably held.

7. The evidence before this Adjudicative Committee was criticised by Mr Evans on the basis of the video evidence which, he submitted, did not prove that GOLDSTAR BENNETT had marred GOLDSTAR TOBY. Mr Wadley argued that marring had clearly occurred.

8. This Adjudicative Committee has to be comfortably satisfied as to the matters to be established. Those matters are very brief. GOLDSTAR BENNETT was required to have done two things. Firstly, to have turned its head and, secondly, made head or muzzle contact with GOLDSTAR TOBY.

9. Mr Wadley formed the opinion on the raceday that GOLDSTAR BENNETT had turned its head and made contact with the Greyhound, GOLDSTAR TOBY. The Adjudicative Committee has to be satisfied that the opinion remains a reasonable one.

10. The Adjudicative Committee is comfortably satisfied that the opinion formed by Mr Wadley, as expressed in his submissions to the Adjudicative Committee, was reasonably formed – that is to say, it accepts Mr Wadley’s assessment of the video replay, played to the hearing, as showing the head contact which he has alleged. The Adjudicative Committee is satisfied that the video replay does in fact show the necessary head contact by GOLDSTAR BENNETT to GOLDSTAR TOBY.

11. The Adjudicative Committee finds that the marring, as defined in the Rule, alleged by the Stewards did, in fact, occur.

CONCLUSION:

The Application for review of the finding that GOLDSTAR BENNETT had marred is dismissed.