Auckland TR 25 November 2023 – R7- Ashvin Goindasamy

Introduction

Following the running of Race 7, Senior Stipendiary Steward Mr B Jones filed an Information pursuant to Rule 340 against Rider Mr A Goindasamy.  The charge alleged that Ashvin Goindasamy (GWEN’S DAUGHTER) struck his mount once in the vicinity of the head, on one occasion, when in the barrier prior to the start of this race.

Mr Goindasamy admitted the breach of the Rule.

The NZTR Directive provides that the whip should not be used inappropriately on a horse at any time. And that…unnecessary or improper use …may be regard as misconduct under Rule 340 of the Rules. 

Evidence

Mr Jones referred to race films that were shown on Trackside TV at the time of the incident.  A rear/side-on view was the only useful film available to assess the incident.  He pointed out that when GWENS DAUGHTER was being loaded into the barrier stall, she was fractious and turned her head to the right, partly into the next stall.  He said that Mr Goindasamy reacted and struck his whip once in the vicinity of his mount’s head.

Mr Goindasamy stated that GWEN’S DAUGHTER is normally last to be placed into her barrier.  On this occasion, she went in early and was ‘naughty’ (fractious).  He said that she turned her head right, towards the next stall, and in doing so, his leg got slightly jammed against the side of the barrier.  He said that he quickly reacted, and his whip hit the side of his mount’s head.  He emphasised there was no malice on his part, but accepted it was an overreaction.

Decision

As Mr Goindasamy admitted the breach, the Adjudicative Committee found the charge proved.

Submissions for Penalty

Mr Jones said that Mr Goindasamy has a clear record under the Rule.  He said that the only comparable case that he could identify related to a similar charge filed again Rider M Du Plessis (2013), who kicked his horse and received a $500 fine. He said Stewards accepted that Mr Goindasamy’s response was not a deliberate or an intentional act as such, but his reaction did have animal welfare implications. He suggested a fine in the vicinity of that imposed on Mr Du Plessis may be appropriate, but pointed out that there is now a much stronger emphasis on animal welfare related issues that were in place in 2013, when the Du Plessis charge was dealt with.

Mr Goindasamy advised that he had nothing to add in terms of any proposed penalty.

Reasons for Penalty

Mr Goindasamy admitted the charge of Misconduct on the basis that he struck his mount’s head once with his whip, as a reaction to having his leg jammed into the side of the barrier because his mount was fractious.  The penalty for such a breach is fact dependent.

On the basis of the available evidence, the Adjudicative Committee adopted a fine of $900 as the starting.  This reflects the Adjudicative Committee’s assessment of circumstances of the breach and Mr Goindasamy’s level of culpability.

The evidence is based on the available Trackside film which is limited to a rear / side-on view and Mr Goindasamy’s explanation.  No other footage is available.  Mr Goindasamy’s description of the incident could not be confirmed or negated by the films, but it was not challenged or disputed by Stewards.  On that basis, there are no compelling reasons to doubt his veracity.  Mr Goindasamy accepted that striking his horse in the vicinity of its head was not an acceptable reaction.  With the benefit of hindsight, he should have sought help from the Barrier Assistants who were nearby.

Mitigating factors therefore include the fact that his leg was momentarily jammed between the side of the barrier stall, his admission of the breach and his clear record. Accordingly, in recognition of these factors, a $150 reduction is applied to the $900 starting point and a fine of $750 is imposed.

Conclusion

Mr Goindasamy is fined $750.