GRNZ Request for Review – Written Decision dated 26 April 2022 – Bob Pringle

BACKGROUND:

1. Following the running of Race 1, The Fitz Sports Bar Sprint C1-295 metres, at the meeting of Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club held at Addington Raceway, Christchurch, on 5 April 2022, the Greyhound, GRANDE VUE ACE, trained by the Applicant, Bob Pringle, was stood down for 28 days by Stewards for failing to pursue the lure and required to complete a satisfactory trial prior to resuming.

2. The Applicant has filed a Request for Review of the finding and penalty citing as his reasons for the request as “because of mitigating factors towards an inappropriate decision”.

3.  It was agreed that the procedure to be followed for the hearing of the review would be for the Respondent to produce the video evidence and explain the reasons for the Stewards’ decision on the day to stand GRANDE VUE ACE down for failing to pursue the lure. The Applicant would then be given the opportunity to present grounds to support his contention that the decision of the Stewards was “inappropriate” or wrong.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:

1. Mr Wallis said that, in opening, he would deal with the facts:

• GRANDE VUE ACE is 18 months old and was having its second start.
• GRAND VUE ACE won its first race when also drawing Box 8.
• GRANDE VUE ACE was correctly nominated and drawn into Race 1 at the above meeting.
• GRANDE VUE ACE was essentially bred for one purpose only and that is to chase – or pursue a lure.
• It is in its physical and mental make up to do this and she was programmed to do so from an early stage of her life.
• Greyhounds which Fail to Pursue the Lure with due commitment throughout the entirety of the race are deemed to not be committed to their sole purpose for racing.

2.  What has to be decided by the Adjudicative Committee is whether the correct opinion was formed by the Stewards that GRANDE VUE ACE had failed to pursue the lure.

3.  The applicable Rules used to stand down a greyhound for Failing to Pursue the Lure reads…

Rule 55.1 (b) –  Fails to Pursue The Lure in a Race:

That is when a Greyhound fails to pursue the lure with due commitment throughout the entirety of the race.

It 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”.

The online Cambridge dictionary defines “turn” as –

“To change the direction in which you are facing or moving”

Rule 55.2 – Where a Greyhound fails to pursue the Lure as provided under Rule 55.1, the Greyhound shall be examined by the officiating Veterinarian or Authorised Person 

 This was carried out and GRANDE VUE ACE was found to have a minor laceration to a toe on its left hind foot requiring a 10-day stand down. Notwithstanding this Stewards continued with the  charge of Failing to Pursue as Rules 55.3 – 55.5 don’t apply.

 55.3 For the purposes of this Rule, “seriously injured” means an injury which the Veterinarian or Authorised Person concludes will result in a period of incapacitation of 21 days or more.

55.4 Where a Greyhound is found not to be seriously injured upon an examination pursuant to Rule 55.2, the Owner or Trainer of the Greyhound may, within 72 hours after the completion of the Meeting at which the Greyhound failed to pursue the Lure, apply to the Stewards seeking a re-examination at a time to be agreed by the Stewards.

55.5 Where a Greyhound is found to be seriously injured upon an examination pursuant to Rule 55.2 or re-examination pursuant to Rule 55.4, a certificate shall be produced to the Stewards by the Veterinarian or Authorised Person detailing the injury. The Stewards shall not endorse the Greyhound’s Certificate of Registration and shall not impose a Suspension pursuant to Rule 55.1 but shall order the Greyhound to undergo a Satisfactory Trial before it is eligible to compete in any Race

4. Mr Wallis then showed head-on and side-on video replays of the start of the Race. He pointed out GRANDE VUE ACE jump from Box 8, gallop for approximately 10 strides before, he alleged, turning its head inwards, free of interference, for six strides towards the shoulder area of BALDRICK, which had jumped from Box 7. After turning its head inwards free of interference towards BALDRICK, the two greyhounds shouldered briefly before coming to the bend, he said.

5.  Referring to the head-on video replay, Mr Wallis said that GRAND VUE ACE had jumped cleanly. He pointed to a distinct gap between it and BALDRICK on its inside. It was running straight with its head forward. After approximately 10 strides, it turned its head inwards, looking inwards. Using the synchronised side-on replay, Mr Wallis showed that the head of GRANDE VUE ACE was roughly at the shoulder of BALDRICK. This carried on for approximately six strides with GRANDE VUE ACE still at the shoulder of BALDRICK, with its head turned in, before it shouldered with BALDRICK and straightened up. Stewards had no issues from that point, Mr Wallis said.

6.  Mr Wallis stressed that GRANDE VUE ACE had turned its head inwards,  free of interference. There had been no contact whatsoever from BALDRICK when GRANDE VUE ACE proceeded to turn its head inwards, he said.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT:

1. The Applicant said that he did not have “too many issues” with what Mr Wallis had shown. However, it is acceptable for dogs to shoulder briefly and furthermore, he submitted, BALDRICK had contributed to it by slightly running out.

2.  The Applicant submitted that there were “mitigating circumstances”. He submitted that the matter could have been dealt with differently by Stewards.

3. Mr Pringle then stated that he wished to use this hearing as a platform for bringing about a Rule change in which he has been unsuccessful by other means in the past.

4.  He submitted that it was unduly harsh to invoke the Rule, that it was “extremely harsh” and, in his opinion, “not totally necessary”. GRANDE VUE ACE had won her first start from the same Box after jumping clear of the other six runners and immediately railing and racing away to win. There was no question that she had not pursued on that occasion, he said. In the race in question, the dog had turned her head inwards in search of the rail and the lure but had not failed to pursue the lure. She had pursued it and chased hard, he submitted.

5.  The Applicant then stated that, at the time, he had suggested to Mr Wallis that he should exercise discretion given (in his view) the minor nature of the alleged offence and the fact it was only the dog’ s second start. Mr Wallis had replied that it was not a matter in which he had any discretion.

6.  The Applicant then went on, at some length, to criticise Mr Wallis’ failing to exercise discretion and issue a warning to the Greyhound. The details are not given here for reasons of relevancy and that some of the Applicant’s submissions involved an unwarranted personal attack on Mr Wallis.

7.  The Applicant submitted that a juvenile dog having its second start has been penalised for a “minor incident” in which no other dog or punter was affected. He believed that Mr Wallis ought to have had regard to GRANDE VUE ACE’s first race. The decision on raceday to stand down the dog was a fait accompli despite his being given the opportunity to have input, he said.

8.  Rule 55.1.b uses the word “may” which means that the Stewards do have a discretion as to whether to stand a Greyhound down, the Applicant  submitted. The offence by GRANDE VUE ACE was at a very low level, he said, but the penalty is the same as that for a high-level offence, such as marring another dog. There should be graduated penalties, he submitted.

9.  GRANDE VUE ACE had not disadvantaged punters, the Applicant said.  Although it finished last, it was only 5.4 lengths, or approximately 38/100ths of a second behind the winner, he submitted. The dog had chased the lure hard. It had been forced to race wide, unlike in its first start when it got to the rail.

10.  In conclusion, the Applicant submitted that this matter did not need to have resulted in a charge. The actions of GRANDE VUE ACE did come within the definition of “failing to pursue”, he said. However, discretion could have been used. He then referred to the “squeaker” which has been added to the lure, which makes a sound which is very audible to dogs. Therefore, a dog can both see and hear the lure, he said, and can follow either the lure or the sound of the “squeaker”. A Greyhound does not have to look straight ahead because there is an audio feature to indicate the whereabouts of the lure.

11. Finally, the Applicant stated that he has no problem with the action taken by Mr Wallis in standing GRANDE VUE ACE down but his objection was to other factors that led him to make that decision. Exercise of a discretion to issue a warning would have been more appropriate and perfectly adequate, he said.

12. It was his hope, the Applicant said, that this case be the catalyst for a change to the Rules by way of introducing a graduated scale of  offending and a graduated scale of penalties. One penalty does not fit all, he said.

RESPONDENT’S  SUMMING UP:

Mr Wallis said that when Stewards, on a raceday, have to make a decision  as to whether a Greyhound has breached Rule 55 it is not a consideration whether it is the dog’s first race at the track, first time starting from a particular Box or the degree to which it has turned its head. It is the act of the greyhound turning its head free of interference. There is, effectively, no discretion notwithstanding that the Rule uses the word “may”.

The Adjudicative Committee needs to consider two matters – firstly, did GRANDE VUE ACE voluntarily turn its head and, secondly, did it do so free of interference? These are the questions that Stewards ask themselves on raceday. If the answers to both of those question is “yes”, then the correct decision was made by Stewards on the day.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

1. The Applicant, Trainer Bob Pringle, has sought this review of the Stewards’ decision “because of mitigating factors towards an inappropriate decision”.

2. The hearing was shown video replays of the alleged failing to pursue followed by Mr Wallis’ interpretation of it. Somewhat surprisingly, Mr Pringle said that he did not dispute the finding of Stewards that the actions of his Greyhound, GRANDE VUE ACE, came within the definition of “failing to pursue” in the Rule. Neither did he dispute the Veterinarian’s report.

3.  His case for review of that decision, as it unfolded, was based on his assertion that the Rule was unfair and required amendment. He had been unsuccessful in bringing about such change through other avenues and the point of this review, he said, was to provide a forum for airing his views.

4. This was an abuse of the review process and the Adjudicative Committee did not entertain this although, throughout  the hearing, he did express his views very forcefully. It was unfortunate, and it did the Applicant no credit, that expressing his views involved casting doubts on Mr Wallis’ professionalism. This was not relevant to his application for review and, accordingly, much of  his submissions have not been detailed in this decision.

5.  The Applicant’s only submission with any merit or relevance, in the Adjudicative Committee’s view, was that Mr Wallis had a discretion not to stand down GRANDE VUE ACE, after having found that it had failed to pursue the lure. The Adjudicative Committee agrees that the Rule does state that the Stewards may impose a penalty. Mr Wallis answered this by saying that it is a discretion that is never exercised to not stand an offending Greyhound down. Consistency in this area is, clearly, desirable.

6.  Despite the Applicant’s urging that Mr Wallis ought to have exercised a discretion in this case to not stand down GRANDE VUE ACE, for the reasons given in his submissions, the Adjudicative Committee is clearly satisfied that the steps taken by Mr Wallis (or the exercise of his discretion) were justified and appropriate.

7.  A discretion exists when the decision maker, in this case Mr Wallis, has the power to make a choice about whether to act or not. Accepting, for the purposes of the Applicant’s argument, that Mr Wallis did have a discretion, Mr Wallis has, clearly, exercised that discretion in good faith, acting reasonably and on reasonable grounds and making his decision based on supporting evidence after giving proper consideration to the circumstances.

8.  To address the issue of whether the decision of the Stewards on the raceday finding that GRANDE VUE ACE  had failed to pursue the lure and to impose the mandatory 28 days stand down, the Adjudicative Committee finds that this was a clear-cut case of that Greyhound failing to pursue. This was not even disputed by the Applicant, which made this application different from the usual application where that is the only issue.

9. The Adjudicative Committee finds that GRANDE VUE ACE had jumped from Box 8, galloped for approximately ten strides before turning its head inwards free of interference towards the shoulder area of BALDRICK, and focussing on that Greyhound, for six strides – a clear case of failing to pursue the lure. This was the sole matter that the Adjudicative Committee was required to determine. The Applicant had seen fit to cloud this issue with items on a personal agenda that had little or no relevance to the central issue. At the end of the day, the application for review was verging on frivolous.

DECISION:

10.  The decision of the raceday Stewards to stand down the Applicant’s Greyhound, GRANDE VUE ACE, for 28 days for failing to pursue the lure is upheld. The application by Mr Pringle for review of that decision is dismissed.