Riccarton Park – Canterbury JC 10 March 2022 – R7 – Kavish Chowdhoory

BACKGROUND:

Following the running of Race 7, Martin Collins Rating 65, the Respondent denied a charge of careless riding that was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d). The Information alleged that, as the Rider of CEDDY SMITH, he permitted his mount to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear crowding CLOONEY (Krishna Mudhoo) which was checked passing the 250 metres.

The Respondent acknowledged that he understood the Rule and confirmed that he denied the breach. Class A Trainer, Matthew Pitman, was present to assist.

Rule 638(1)(d) provides:

A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Adjudicative Committee considers to be careless.

Using the available video replays (head-on,  side-on and rear-on), Stipendiary Steward, Veronica Algar, had Chief Stipendiary Steward, John Oatham, demonstrate the incident and identify the horses and Riders concerned. CEDDY SMITH was the widest runner as the field entered the home straight. CLOONEY was to its immediate inside. The other runner involved was O’JUDE (Tina Comignaghi) which was to the inside of CLOONEY.

As the field entered the home straight, there was plenty of room for CLOONEY, Mr Oatham said. There was probably two horse-widths between it and  O’JUDE, he said. CEDDY SMITH commenced to lay in and, Mr Oatham alleged, had shifted 1 to 1 1/2 horse widths and had placed CLOONEY in restricted room. He submitted that O’JUDE had not shifted to any discernible degree at that stage. CEDDY SMITH continued to shift in, forcing CLOONEY to check and give up its run and shift across the heels of O’JUDE. Mr Oatham submitted that CEDDY SMITH had shifted in a total of two horse-widths. Mr Oatham submitted that there may have been a slight outwards movement from O’JUDE but the significant move had been from CEDDY SMITH on the outside. It had been laying in quite badly and Mr Chowdhoory had been making some effort to correct it but, at the same time, had continued to ride it forward, when it was his obligation to stop riding, Mr Oatham said. He had also lost some control when he shifted the whip into his left hand and had only one hand on  the outside rein. After CLOONEY was checked, Mr Chowdhoory had continued to allow his mount to shift in and make contact with O’JUDE, he said.

Mr Mudhoo, Rider of CLOONEY, said that he had received pressure from the outside and, at the same time, they horse on his inside (O’JUDE) came out. However, the main shift had come from CEDDY SMITH on his outside, he said.

Mr Pitman said that mown lines on the track could be misleading. He submitted that the Riders of the inside horses had continued to ride their mounts while Mr Chowdhoory was attempting to keep his mount running straight. He submitted that, at the point at which CLOONEY was checked, the inside runners had equally, if not more, contributed to that. Mr Chowdhoory had shifted his whip to his left hand in a further attempt to correct it. The horse is inclined to run in at times and Mr Chowdhoory had done a good job trying to keep it straight, he said. He conceded that the initial pressure had come from Mr Chowdhoory, but he submitted that he had corrected it and, at the point of contact, it was the shift from the inside horses that had caused the interference.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

After carefully viewing the available video replays and considering the evidence and submissions of the parties, the Adjudicative Committee was satisfied that the charge of careless riding had been proved.

Mr Chowdhoory had allowed his mount to shift in some two horse-widths, from a position widest on the track at the home turn, eventually into the rightful running line of CLOONEY causing that runner to check and lose its position near the 250 metres. The Adjudicative Committee accepts that his mount was laying in, but it was apparent that Mr Chowdhoory had continued to ride it forward when it was incumbent on him to stop riding and endeavour to keep it straight.

The defence presented on behalf of Mr Chowdhoory centred largely on an alleged contribution by the inside runners, O’JUDE and, to a lesser extent, HONEY HONEY. Mr Pitman submitted that this was the major factor in the interference to CLOONEY. The Adjudicative Committee does not agree. Any contribution by those runners was minimal. The Adjudicative Committee was satisfied that, as alleged in the Information, Mr Chowdhoory had permitted his mount to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear resulting in crowding to CLOONEY, which was checked, and has thereby ridden carelessly.

Mr Mudhoo gave evidence to the effect that most of the pressure had come from the Respondent’s mount, CEDDY SMITH. That was significant.

DECISION:

The Adjudicative Committee finds the charge proved.

SUBMISSIONS FOR PENALTY:

Stipendiary Steward, Ms Algar, referred to the Respondent’s riding record which indicated three previous breaches of the Careless Riding Rule in the last 12 months, namely:

20 May 2021 at Timaru – suspended 6 days and fined $600 (mid-range)

21 October 2021 at Otago – suspended 5 days (low-range)

11 December 2021 at Southland – suspended 7 days (low-mid range).

Stewards viewed this breach as being in in the low-to-mid range, Ms Algar said. The Respondent is a very busy Rider who travels all over the South Island and is respected by many South Island Trainers. He has had 380 rides in the last 12 months so his record is not a bad one.

The Adjudicative Committee indicated a likely period of suspension of 5 days to assist the Respondent in deciding whether he required a deferment. On that basis, Mr Chowdhoory indicated that he did not require a deferment beyond the Gore meeting on 11 March, at which he had rides that had been notified.

REASONS FOR PENALTY:

After considering all submissions, the Adjudicative Committee determined Mr Chowdhoory’s carelessness to be in the low range, having regard to the fact that O’JUDE did move out fractionally and, also, that CEDDY SMITH was inclined to lay in. Rather than mitigating factors, these are factors that place the breach in the low rather than mid-range. The Respondent’s record is treated as a neutral factor.

The NZTR Revised Penalty Guidelines (effective 1 March 2022) provides for a starting point for a low-range breach of a 5 national riding days suspension. There are no relevant factors warranting a departure from that starting point.

CONCLUSION:

The Respondent’s licence to ride in races is suspended for a period of 5 national riding days commencing on 12 March 2022 and concluding after racing on 23 March 2022.