Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Decision 19 May 2022 – Robin Wales

THE CHARGE

The Respondent, Trainer Robin Wales, was charged that, as the Trainer of OPAWA PICK, an acceptor for Race 5, Thursday Place Pick Stakes, he failed to present that Greyhound at the specified time resulting in that Greyhound being scratched.

A breach of the Rule is normally dealt with under the Minor Infringement Scheme but the Respondent did not admit the breach and Information No. A16951 was filed.

Rule 44.2 provides:

Unless otherwise specified,  a Greyhound competing at a meeting conducted by a Club shall be in the hands of the Stewards not later than sixty (60) minutes before the advertised starting time of the first Race of that meeting.

Rule 44.6 provides:

Where the Handler of a Greyhound fails to produce the Greyhound at or before the time specified in Rule 44.2, the Handler shall be guilty of an offence.

EVIDENCE:

The Applicant presented the following evidence;

1. On 21 April 2022, OPAWA  PICK was correctly entered for Race 5, at the meeting of the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club at Addington.

2. A Greyhound purporting to be OPAWA PICK went through the kennelling process and was retrieved from the kennels prior to Race 5. On checking the dog’s ear brand, it was established that it was actually OPAWA AMIEKAY that had been presented and kennelled. As a result, OPAWA PICK was a late scratching from the race.

3. Stewards acknowledge that the kennelling process should have noticed the error when the Greyhound was first presented. The mistake has been brought to the attention of the Management of the Club. However, it is the responsibility of the Trainer/Handler to present the correct dog as per Rule 44.1. Stewards believe that this is a Rule of strict liability.

4.  A prior breach of the Rule was committed by Trainer, J Dunn, on 8 August 2019 where the incorrect Greyhound was presented. On that occasion, the correct Greyhound was eventually presented and raced. However, a breach of the Rule was found to have been committed and Mr Dunn was charged.

5.  The onus is on the Handler/Trainer of the Greyhound to present the correct dog and, in this case, Mr Wales has clearly breached the Rule.

EVIDENCE OF THE RESPONDENT:

1  Mr Wales said that, at the Monday race meeting (18 April) the kennelhand P, asked him how his business partner was. He informed her that he thought he would die that day. He did. On Tuesday, P was not there. On Thursday, 21 April, when he went to kennel the Greyhound that he had taken to the meeting (5 minutes after kennelling had started) P, who had heard of the death of the Respondent’s business partner, consoled him and hugged him.

2  He then kennelled the Greyhound that, as far as he was concerned, was OPAWA PICK. If P had done her job of checking properly and told the him that it was the incorrect dog, the dog would not have been permitted into the kennels. P had checked the microchip but had not picked up the error, he said. Had he been told this, at that time, he would have had sufficient time to have OPAWA PICK brought in before kennelling finished.

3  The two dogs were similar in appearance, wore the same colour collar and there was only 0.7 kg difference in weight.

4  When the dog was brought out for the Race, the checking process picked up that it was the wrong dog.  He was shocked and immediately took the dog back to his van. Of course, OPAWA PICK had to be scratched. On previous occasions when a wrong dog has been brought to a meeting, the correct dog was able to be collected and brought in.

5  After that, he was presented with a Minor Infringement Notice to sign, accepting a $300 fine. He had been given no opportunity to give an explanation. He considered that it was strange that nobody had talked to him about it. He would have expected that.

6   The Respondent said that he understood that no action had been taken against against P. Mr Wallis then explained that such matters are now regarded as employment matters between the employee and the Club.

7  The Respondent then asked where the $300 fine came from. The Minor Infringement Scheme was explained to him. It is not necessary to do so here.

8  Mr Wales said that, if the employee of the Club had done her job properly, then no charge would have followed. An incorrect Greyhound should not get into the kennelling area and the Club should ensure that this does not happen.

DECISION:

The charge was found proved.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

The Club employee, whose job it was to verify the identity of the Greyhound that the Respondent had presented to race, was distracted while consoling him over the death of his business partner three days earlier, and has missed that the dog presented by the Respondent was, in fact, OPAWA AMIEKAY and not the correct dog, OPAWA PICK.

It is accepted by the Stewards and by the Committee that this should not have happened, and it was a bad mistake by that kennel hand. Had the mistake been not made at that stage of the checking process then, according to the Respondent, he would have had sufficient time to have OPAWA PICK brought to the track for its race.

However, the Respondent cannot rely on the mistake of the Club’s employee, however unfortunate, to relieve him of his obligation to present the correct Greyhound for kennelling. On this occasion, he failed to do so.

The Respondent has failed to produce OPAWA PICK at or before the time specified in Rule 44.2 and, accordingly, has committed an offence pursuant to Rule 44.6.

SUBMISSIONS FOR PENALTY:

1  Mr Wadley said that in 2019 Trainer, Jason Dunn, had admitted a breach of the Rule and was fined $300. On 19 April 2022, another trainer, Bruce Dann, was fined $300 for admitting a breach of failing to present a dog to race.

2  Those cases were similar to the present case and, on that basis, Stewards were submitting that a fine of $300 was appropriate in this case. Both were dealt with under the Minor Infringement Scheme.

3  The Respondent submitted that the Dann case was different, in that Mr Dann had failed to bring the dog to the track.

REASONS FOR PENALTY:

Had the Respondent signed the Minor Infringement Notice on  the raceday, he would have accepted a fine, in terms of that Scheme, of $300. The Committee believe that it is appropriate to impose a fine of that amount.

CONCLUSION – PENALTY:

The Respondent, Trainer Robin Wales, is fined $300.