You are here: Home / Non race day hearings / Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v T Music - Penalty Decision dated 17 June 2021 - Chair, Mr S Ching

Non Raceday Inquiry RIU v T Music - Penalty Decision dated 17 June 2021 - Chair, Mr S Ching

Created on 18 June 2021


IN THE MATTER of the Rules of Greyhound Racing New Zealand

IN THE MATTER of Information No. A09914

BETWEEN MR R QUIRK Stipendiary Steward for the Racing Integrity Unit



Secretary/ Manager


Date of Hearing: 17 June 2021

Venue: Addington Raceway

Judicial Committee: S Ching (Chair)

Present: Mr R Quirk, the Informant

Date of Decision: 17 June 2021


The Charge:

[1] Information No. A 09914 alleges that:

On the 14th of June 2021, Mr Music, Secretary/Manager of the Christchurch Greyhound Racing Club, failed to scratch ROSIE’S CHOICE from Race 12 after being notified by the trainer, thus causing the runner to be late scratched (no runners were denied a start).

The Plea:

[2] The Information was served on Mr Music, on the day of the meeting. Mr Music had signed the Statement by the Respondent at the foot of the Information indicating that he did admit the breach of the Rule. Mr Music had also endorsed the Information that he did not wish to be present at the hearing.

[3] The charge was heard prior to the scheduled start of the meeting of the NZMTC race meeting at Addington on Thursday 17 September 2021.

[4] A letter was provided from General Manager, Mr M Godber, authorising Mr Quirk to lodge an Information pursuant to Rule 66.2(a).

The Rule:

[5] Rule 62.1.o reads as follows:

Any person (including an Official) commits an offence if he/she:

(o) has, in relation to a Greyhound or Greyhound racing, done a thing, or omitted to do a thing which is negligent, dishonest, corrupt, fraudulent, or improper, or constitutes misconduct.

Submissions of the Informant:

Mr Quirk provided written submissions to the hearing as follows:

[6] On Monday 14 June 2021 the Christchurch GRC conducted a meeting at Addington Raceway.

I was Steward in Charge of this meeting.

At 1.48pm Trainer N Wanhalla rang me asking why his dog, ROSIE’S CHOICE, was still shown in the fields as he said he had scratched the runner on Saturday by sending a text to Tony Music.

I rang Mr Music who confirmed that he had received the text while he was away from home and had forgotten to enter the scratching in his book when he got home.

I then scratched ROSIE’S CHOICE from her race. It should be noted that no runner was denied a start as a result of this error.


[7] As Mr Music had admitted the breach, the charge was found proved.

Penalty Submissions:

[8] Mr Quirk provided written submissions as follows:

Mr Music has a clear record under the Negligence Rule and is a very efficient and capable Administrator. This offence would normally be dealt with as a Minor Infringement, if a Trainer forgot to scratch in time, however the Rule does not refer to Officials, so this must be done by way of an Information.

The penalty for Trainers where no dog is denied a start is a fine of $150 and the RIU sees no reason why this penalty should be different from that situation.

Reasons for Penalty:

[9] The Penalty Guide for an offence under Rule 40.1, where a Trainer fails to scratch in time, under the Minor Infringement Schedule, results in a $150 being imposed in a situation where no dog is denied a start. Where a dog has been denied a start, due to a Trainer omitting to scratch in time, a $300 fine is imposed under the Minor Infringement Schedule.

This Committee finds that there are no aggravating factors to consider and agrees with Mr Quirk that this breach can be compared with similar breaches where a Trainer has omitted to scratch on time.

The Committee therefore determined that an appropriate penalty in this case was a fine equivalent to what a Trainer would be fined for a breach where a dog was not scratched in time and no dog denied a start, that being a fine of $150.


[10] Accordingly, Mr Music is fined the sum of $150.

S Ching


Document Actions