Non Raceday Request for a Ruling – Written Decision dated 2 August 2023 – Peter Ferguson

1. Mr Ferguson is the Owner and Public Trainer of the Greyhound “CHASE ME DOWN” which he nominated to compete in a C0d (Class 0 Distance) Race at Palmerston North Greyhound Meeting on 12 June 2023.  The basis of his Objection is that the final field of 8 Greyhounds was drawn to include to C1d dogs which he contends was in contravention of the Racing and Grading Guidelines.

2. Mr Ferguson relies on Guideline 17.7 which reads:

“C0/C0d Races shall not be combined with any other classes, although C0d Greyhounds may Nominate for C1d and C2d Races”.

3. Pursuant to GRNZ Rule LR135A:

(a) “An Objection may be made against any Greyhound in respect of any race”, or

(b) “By reason of any breach of these Rules, the race should be declared void”.

4. Clause (2) provides that an Objection “can be lodged verbally by the Owner, Trainer or Handler of some other Greyhound engaged in the race or the Racing Integrity Board”.

Objections in writing may be lodged with the Secretary of the Racing Club withing 14 days upon a number of grounds, one of which (Rule LR135A(b)(c)) is that “the Greyhound was not qualified under the conditions of the race”.

5. Mr Ferguson at first verbally challenged the composition of the field including two C1 Greyhounds, and scratched “CHASE ME DOWN” from competing.  He since provided a formal written notice of his Objection, complying with the time requirements.

6. He claims that:

(a)  The “race should be voided” as it contravened the GRNZ Guidelines by combining C0 dogs with other (Class 1) dogs.  Alternatively

(b)  The two C1d Greyhounds that were incorporated into the field should be disqualified.  Alternatively

(c)  As the race contravened the GRNZ Guidelines by combining C0 dogs with other classes, and the race was a Class 1 Race (as illustrated by the stake of $4,500), the six C0d dogs were ineligible as none were nominated for a C1d Grade Race, and should be disqualified.

7. The field for the race, placings, and graded Classes of Greyhounds was:

1st       BIG TIME HUGO         Grade 2 sprint and middle, C0 distance – Trainer, L Cole

2nd      BIG TIME BUMPER    C2 sprint and middle C0 distance – Trainer, L Cole

3rd      OPAWA  ANDY             C4 sprint and middle C0 distance – Trainer, C D Steele

4th      I’M NO PRINCESS       C1 sprint middle and distance – Trainer, A Turnwald

5th      BIG TIME SPLASH       C1 sprint middle C0 distance – Trainer, L Cole

6th      HE’S ICONIC                C1 sprint middle and distance – Trainer, A Turnwald

7th      BIG TIME BRUTAL       C1 sprint middle C0 distance – T Trainer, L Cole

As stated, Mr Ferguson scratched “CHASE ME DOWN” on Sunday 11 June 2023, the day prior to the meeting.

8. The Adjudicative Committee required that the Objection made to the Club be communicated to the three connections of the seven starters to enable them to make any written submissions before 28 July 2023.  None have been received.  They have earned stakes ranging from $50 for 6th place to $2,490 for the winner.

9. Comprehensive written submissions and information has been received from Palmerston North Greyhound Racing Club and Greyhound Racing New Zealand, as well as from Mr Ferguson.

Mr Ferguson’s Contentions

10. As recorded, he says that the race contravened GRNZ Guidelines by combining C0 dogs with other classes so that the race was void, or the 2 C1 dogs put in the field being “I’M NO PRINCESS” (4th) and “HE’S ICONIC” (6TH), should be disqualified or as the race was then described as a C1d race, all the six C0 dogs were ineligible and should be disqualifed.

11. He says that if his objection is upheld he wishes to have the opportunity to seek costs reimbursement for the expenses he and his Owners incurred.

12. He contends that the GRNZ “Rules/Guidelines/Policies” are to protect all participants because “otherwise Clubs would just call for nominations and put the dogs wherever it suits them”.

Summary of Responses from Palmerston North Greyhound Racing Club

13. The Club advised that GRNZ informed it that under the present Rules, Clubs are permitted to combine C0 distance Greyhounds with C1 distance graded Greyhounds when insufficient (less than 8) nominations are received for a single class race.  This was the second occasion it had combined C0 distance and C1 distance graded nominations to make up a field of 8.  On several other occasions there have been carded C0 distance with C1/C2 distance Greyhounds.

14. The Club relied upon the direction from GRNZ that under Guideline 17.5 (which parallels an earlier Rule), that it was permitted to combine any two consecutive classes, except C0 sprint/middle distance.  C0 Distance Races were not included in that exemption.  So, it asserts, the GRNZ gave the Club to make up a field, if insufficient nominations were received, to combine nominated C0 Graded Distance Greyhounds with nominated C1 Graded Greyhounds.

15. The Club relied upon the advice of GRNZ that Guideline 17.7 (“C0/C0d Races shall not be combined with any other classes”) affords Clubs the opportunity to call for nominations for a distance race from Greyhounds that hold gradings of C0 in Sprint, Middle Distance and Distance Races.

16. The Club calls for nominations for all grades and distances in a non-specific sense so that there is no advertised status of an individual race.  In order to form a field of 8 runners, it was able under R17.5 to combine nominations received for a C0 distance and C1 Distance Race.

17. Nominations and Acceptance Fees are not subject to charge in Greyhound Racing.

DISCUSSION

18. At the outset, the Adjudicative Committee has some reservations over whether the application of the “Objection Provisions” of Rule LR135A enables an Objection to be legitimately pursued by Mr Ferguson.  His Greyhound, in the end, was not “engaged” in the race.  Although it was nominated,  and included by the Club in the field, it did not take part.  In the context of racing events, “engaged” must mean “involved in”.  Whilst an Objection may be made on the basis of any “breach of these Rules”, that may relate to the Racing Integrity Board Objection, although an Owner/Trainer/Handler of “some other Greyhound engaged [i.e. involved] in the race may object against another Greyhound.  But it is questionable whether a non-participant, apart from the RIB, may object.

19. As none of the connections of other Greyhounds have expressed any Objection, and those from 1st to 6th who have earned stakes would have their entitlements challenged, it would appear incongruous if the non competitor could seek disqualification of some of them – unless, of course the race should never have taken place as being outside the jurisdiction of the Code.  But that situation rests upon the Racing Integrity Board objecting.

20. Further, if there is to be a race being “voided” there has to be a clear breach of the Rules under R.135A(7)(b).  The Guidelines are just that, and although declared to supplement the GRNZ Rules of Racing, with their purpose being declared to be “read in conjunction with the Rules”, the field selections as provided in Clause 17 of the Guidelines states that it “MUST” comply with Rule 75G which states:

“GRNZ may specify the procedures GRNZ or a Club may use to select the field to compete in an Event from nominations received, including but not limited to:

….

(g)  the combining of races of different classes where insufficient nominations are received.

….”

21. This Guideline Clause 17, permits GRNZ to specify procedures for selecting fields and it specifically permits procedures which GRNZ may specify to Clubs for combining races of different classes where nominations received are insufficient. That is what Guideline Clause 17.5 provides.  It permits the combining of any 2 consecutive classes, excepting C0 Sprint/Middle/Distance classes. So a combination of a C0/d with a higher grade for a distance race is approved under the Guidelines. It is also approved under the further advice given by GRNZ to this Club.  Rule 75G in its terms is not limited only to the written Guidelines but of course, it is best if the written Guidelines, known to all Clubs and Competitors, are clear.

22. There may well be a disconnect between Clause 17.5 and 17.7 of the Guidelines, but if there is, that is a matter for GRNZ to address.

23. For the present purposes, Rule 75G (which predominates over any “Guide”) enables GRNZ to specify procedures to Clubs. If GRNZ wishes to amend the requirement in the Guide, it is a matter for it. Guideline 17.7, when viewed against Guideline 17.5, may be capable of being confusing which has occurred here with Mr Ferguson’s understanding.  But it is a matter for the Board of GRNZ to dictate what should occur within its powers conveyed by the Rules.

24. In conclusion, the Adjudicative Committee determines that:

(a)  There is no jurisdiction under the Rules for connections of a non participant in the race to pursue this Objection.

(b)  Such, would also infringe the entitlements of those connections who chose to completely participate in the race.

(c)  Despite that, and assuming the Applicant has standing to pursue an Objection, it must be dismissed.  This is because a purposive and proper interpretation and application of Rule 75G (which as a Rule predominates if a “Guideline” appears to conflict with it), in conjunction with Clause 17.5 as well as directions of GRNZ to the Club, requires such an outcome.

25. Although dismissing the Objection, the Adjudicative Committee understands and is sympathetic to Mr Ferguson for his beliefs as to the position and his feelings of apprehension.  But the sport/Code is governed by the GRNZ, being the body authorised to determine and apply Rules, systems and procedures that it considers necessary for the proper functioning of the Code.  It might well reflect upon, and perhaps consider, the precise wording of some Guideline Provisions so as to enable all participants to be fully cognisant of the impact and meaning of them.