Riccarton Park – Canterbury JC 6 May 2023 – R5 – Brett Murray

BACKGROUND:

Information Nos. A21231 and A21233 were filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, John Oatham, against Class A Jockey, Brett Murray, alleging as follows:

Information A21231

That he misconducted himself by using inappropriate language in the weigh-in area.

Information A21233

That he misconducted himself in the Jockeys’ Room when confronting Kavish Chowdhoory and punching him in the head area.

Rule 340 provides as follows:

A Licensed Person, Owner, lessee, Racing Manager, Official or other person bound by these Rules must not misconduct himself in any matter relating to the conduct of Races or racing.

EVIDENCE:

The events followed the running of Race 5, Berkley Stud Champagne Stakes, in which the Respondent had ridden SEMPER SUPRA and Mr Chowdhoory had ridden PENVOSE LAD.

Racing Investigator, Simon Irving, represented the Applicant at the hearing. In relation to Information A21231, he said that it involved language that involved use of the “f***” and “c***” words, as a result of the Respondent’s frustration over what had occurred in the race. It was in a public area of the weighing room within earshot of two Trainers, a Stipendiary Steward, the Clerk of Scales and the Racing Secretary of the Club. One of the Trainers made a formal complaint to the Stewards. The threshold for such language, nowadays, is relatively high but that threshold was crossed on this occasion, Mr Irving said.

The Respondent said that he had been frustrated following the race as, Mr Chowdhoory had kept bumping his runner, during the race, for no reason. He could have moved in. His mount had a cut leg on returning to the birdcage after the race. He admitted using the language alleged.

In relation to Information No. A21233, Mr Irving said that he had been called in by Mr Oatham to interview Mr Chowdhoory and two witnesses, Ashvin Mudhoo and Krishna Mudhoo. Their evidence was that Mr Murray had entered the Jockeys’ Room and went straight up to Mr Chowdhoory’s locker, confronted him, accused him of bumping him during the race and threatened him if he did it again.

Mr Chowdhoory responded verbally as the Respondent was walking away. The Respondent threw his saddle on the floor in the direction of Mr Chowdhoory and threw a punch at Mr Chowdhoory, striking him somewhere in the head area. An ensuing scuffle was quickly broken up by other Jockeys in the room. No injury was sustained by either the Respondent or Mr Chowdhoory.

The Respondent did not wish to comment.

DECISION:

The charges are admitted and are therefore deemed proved.

ORAL SUBMISSIONS FOR PENALTY ON RACEDAY:

Mr Irving said that there was a paucity of precedents for penalty for breaches such as these. He understood that previous breaches involving obscene language had resulted in monetary penalties of around $500. He was not aware of any precedent for a physical altercation in the Jockeys’ Room but expected that there had been a similar case in the past. He submitted that a fine of $1,000-$1,500 might be appropriate for the second breach in the Jockeys’ Room.

FURTHER PENALTY SUBMISSIONS OF APPLICANT:

Mr Irving has now filed the following written penalty submissions:

1. Penalty: Purpose and Principles

1.1 The principles of sentencing relevant to this charge can be summarised briefly:

▪ Penalties are designed to punish the offender for his/her wrongdoing. They are not meant to be retributive in the sense the punishment is disproportionate to the offence, but the offender must be met with a punishment.
▪ In a racing context it is extremely important that a penalty has the effect of deterring others from committing similar offences.
▪ A penalty should also reflect the disapproval of the Adjudicative Committee for the type of offending in question.
▪ The need to rehabilitate the offender should be considered.

2. Penalty: RIB’s position

2.1 An indication was given at the raceday hearing that the RIB would be seeking a $500 fine for the first charge and a fine in the vicinity of $1500 on the second charge. In relation to the second charge, it was explained to the Adjudicative Committee at this stage of the proceedings, that the RIB did not have access to the case history database, but two known cases involving Trainers and punches (Rauhihi and Crozier / Rudkin) had resulted in fines of $1300 and $2000 respectively and that there was a case of a Jockey who had punched a fellow Jockey in Cambridge a few years ago but details were unknown. Mr Murray indicated to the Adjudicative Committee that he would prefer a suspension over a fine.

2.2 Mr Murray’s charge history was also unavailable to be presented to the Adjudicative Committee at the race-day hearing.

3. Comparable Misconduct Cases

RIU v McNab (2016)

Following a perceived wrongdoing the previous day at the races, Jockey McNab confronted Jockey Phelan in the carpark at the Cambridge trials and, after a heated conversation, McNab punched Phelan twice in the face and a struggle ensued before being broken up by associates. Phelan suffered two minor lacerations to his inside lip. McNab received a one-month disqualification.

The Committee noted:

“Even with the provocation already mentioned, such aggravating behaviour cannot be condoned nor can it be tolerated. It has no place amongst licensed persons within the racing industry”.

NZTR v Bothamley (2008)

The specific circumstances of this case are unknown, other than Jockey Bothamley assaulted Apprentice Jockey Hooper in the Jockeys’ Room following a race, in response to an incident during the running of that race. Bothamley received a one-month disqualification.

NZTR v Thornton (2008)

When returning to scale following the running of a race at Te Rapa, a verbal altercation occurred between Jockey, Thornton, and Apprentice Jockey, Parish. After returning to their respective Jockeys’ Rooms, Thornton called Parish out of his room and, when he came to the entrance, she grabbed him with both hands either side of his neck and started swearing and abusing him, while pushing him back inside the room and up against a locker. Thornton denied the charge and following a defended hearing, received a two-month disqualification.

3.4 The two cases referred to in the race-day hearing involved Trainers and are less relevant to the present case:

RIU v Rauhihi (2019)

After a dispute over a perceived debt, Trainer Rauhihi punched owner, Georgetti, once in the face after the Levin jumpouts. The strike caused a cut lip and bruising. Rauhihi was fined $1300.

RIU v Rudkin and RIU V Crozier (2016)

Both Trainers were involved in a physical fight on race-day following an argument over stalls. Twice the parties exchanged punches in the stabling and float park areas, witnessed by other Licence Holders. One party received a chipped tooth and the other a black eye. Both were fined $2000.

The Committee noted:

“Misconduct can take any one of a number of forms. However, in assessing the level of seriousness of misconduct any physical violence must be considered as being serious misconduct”.

4. Mitigating Factors:

4.1 Mr Murray admitted both charges, accepted responsibility for his actions and has been cooperative with the process.

4.2 Following the adjournment of the hearing, he apologised to Mr Chowdhoory and showed some remorse.

4.3 Mr Murray did receive some degree of interference at the start and during the running of the race. He clearly felt aggrieved and frustrated with the actions of Mr Chowdhoory and Ms Comignaghi during the race. The Stewards’ Report from the race detailed:

SEMPER SUPRA (B Murray) – Contacted at the start. Contacted by PENVOSE LAD (K Chowdhoory) passing the 1000 metres with those two runners continuing to come together on a number of occasions. Checked near the 450 metres. Received post-race veterinary attention for minor lacerations to the left- front pastern and fetlock.

T Comignaghi (GET FUNKY) – Admitted a charge of careless riding in that she permitted her mount GET FUNKY to shift outwards near the 450 metres when not sufficiently clear of SEMPER SUPRA which was checked.

5. Aggravating Factors

5.1 Mr Murray has three previous Misconduct Offences listed in his Rider history, two of which are similar in fact to his current charges:

• 08.10.2021 – South Canterbury RC – $350 fine. Struck his mount twice in the birdcage after the race.
• 13.02.2020 – Canterbury JC – Warning. Altercation in Jockeys’ Room with fellow Rider post-race.
• 14.10.2018 – Winton JC – $200 fine. Used loud offensive language at the scales when weighing in after his ride.

5.2 In February 2023, NZTR published a Code of Conduct applicable to all persons to whom the Rules apply. The Code establishes a set of standards of behaviour aimed at protecting the values of Thoroughbred Racing by ensuring that Industry participants enjoy a safe, supportive and respectful environment. The overarching principle of the Code is that each person must maintain the highest standards of behaviour at all times towards other participants.

The behaviour Mr Murray demonstrated is in breach of the Code, it is detrimental to the reputation of Thoroughbred Racing and physical violence must be denounced as a serious breach.

5.3 In relation to the first charge, a number of participants were present in the weighing room and heard Mr Murray’s use of the ‘f…’ and ‘c…’ word. While not directed at anyone in particular, the language was concerning enough for a female Trainer to make an official complaint.

6. Conclusion:

6.1 The RIB submits the penalty in this case should be a $500 fine on the first charge and a one-month period of disqualification on the second charge.

FURTHER PENALTY SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT:

The following written submissions have been received from the Respondent:

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the charges found against me at Riccarton on Saturday 6th May. With regard to the charges themselves, I take full responsibility that my actions towards Mr Chowdhoory were both wrong and inappropriate and should not have happened. For this I am sorry and I have apologised to Mr Chowdhoory and to my fellow riders. Mr Chowdhoory and I have subsequently ridden together at Riverton and are now on good terms. Having reflected on my actions, there were a few factors, which I reacted to, leading up the altercation with Mr Chowdhoory. Just to be clear, I see these factors as reasons for my actions, but definitely not as excuses for my actions.

Firstly, I took exception to Mr Chowdhoory’s style of riding in the race in question. For me, it was a bullying style of riding. [part redacted]. I was also genuinely concerned for my mount, which was getting quite knocked about and angry that my chances in the race were significantly undermined (in my opinion). I was very heated when I returned to scale. Once in the Jockey’s Room, I angrily expressed my frustrations to Mr Chowdhoory. At this point, I had no intention of hitting Mr Chowdhoory, but he fired back at me verbally. I then lost my cool completely and swung at Mr Chowdhoory. That is when the physical altercation ensued. Also, upon reflection, I can also see that I have been carrying a lot of grief and unresolved feelings around Megan’s fall and death, which spilled out this particular day.

Considering my actions, I am putting things in place to ensure I address my underlying struggles. I have started to engage with Vitae counselling to work through Megan’s death and its effect on me. I also intend using that counselling to find tools and strategies to better control my emotions going forward.

I also have the support of Andrew McKerrow (Racing Chaplain), who is meeting with me on a regular basis in a support role to me.

With regard to my charges, understanding that a disqualification is being sought, I am asking that a suspension be imposed instead, as a disqualification would impact me negatively on the following levels:

• Financially – Apart from riding work and raceday riding, my finances come primarily through working for, Trainer, Meg Cunneen. A disqualification would mean that I could not maintain my employment role with Meg, who has 12 horses in work. This would in turn affect my ability to pay my living costs, as I am not in the position of having savings behind me to carry me through a disqualification period.

• Mentally and physically – I rely on my trackwork routines and patterns for both my mental health and for regulating my weight but, bigger than that, being at the track provides my socialisation as well. I don’t do well when isolated. If suspended, rather than disqualified, I will still have my track interactions which are really important for me for the abovementioned reasons.

As a side note, while I understand that my charges are guided by similar cases, I would also point out that were differences in those cases. For example, in Mr McNabb’s case, there was an aspect of premeditation, he having had an altercation with the rider the day before and then retaliating the next day. I do see my case as being different in nature to this, as our altercation was not a deliberate attack on Mr Chowdhoory, but rather a poor response in the heat of a moment. I am not sure if this would be a consideration, but I thought it could be worth mentioning.

CHARACTER REFERENCES:

Reference from Class B Trainer, Meg Cunneen

I am writing to you in support of Mr Brett Murray and to provide that Mr Murray is of good character in the workplace following the ongoing investigation surrounding the offences made at Riccarton Park Racecourse on Saturday 6 May.

As Mr Murray’s employer, his two offences came as a shock, but as a lot of us would in that situation be frustrated, I believe in the heat of the moment he has overreacted and approached the issue the wrong way.

Mr Murray has done a lot of work at my stables with the filly, Semper Supra, and felt based on her work she was a good chance leading into that race, the Listed Berkeley Stud Champagne Stakes. She isn’t an easy filly to ride, she is small, and when she gets knocked around, she does panic and doesn’t breathe which occurred in this event, diminishing any chance Mr Murray had of reaping the rewards for his hard work he has put in to this filly.

Mr Murray then later apologised to Mr Chowdhoory and they both rode at the races together yesterday at Riverton in good spirits yesterday.

I don’t believe in this case that Mr Murray should be put through disqualification, but understand for his actions that he must face penalty. I feel a suspension would be appropriate in this case, as Mr Murray has displayed remorse for his actions, and as a young man trying to resurrect his career, $1500 and a month’s disqualification has severe negative effect on Mr Murray’s livelihood.

Mr Murray left school at the age of 15, from Palmerston North Boys High School, with no qualifications behind him, to pursue a career as a Jockey. Without any qualifications behind him, apart from completing his jockey apprenticeship, he has no other skillset for him to acquire another job for a one-month period, which his income that he earns working for my stable is detrimental to his livelihood and to my own business and welfare of my horses, where we have 12 horses in work, with Brett Murray riding at least 8 of them each morning and assisting with stable ground work too.

Mr Murray is of good character in the workplace, he is kind with the horses, has good work ethic and treats owners, staff and visitors with respect. It is out of character for him to react this way.

I feel a contributing factor to Mr Murray’s actions towards Mr Chowdhoory, was the loss of his partner Megan Taylor, in a race fall at Ashburton before Christmas. Although they had separated, Mr Murray and Ms Taylor had been in contact on rekindling terms before the tragic accident, where Mr Murray also had to experience being trackside and was at the scene where this occurred, and provided contact details to ambulance staff of Ms Taylor’s parents. [part redacted]

My opinion on the matter is that we have failed to provide Mr Murray the correct support needed following the death of Ms Taylor, and although all participants were offered support following this tragic event, I felt Mr Murray never received that on a more personal level that losing his partner required.

Following the loss of Ms Taylor, Mr Murray has been highly dedicated to get his career back on track, as Ms Taylor was constantly trying to drive him to put more effort into succeeding in his career, and I feel a disqualification would be a significant step back for Mr Murray, both financially and for his career, in which especially in the South Island we are limited in the numbers in our Jockey ranks.

I am more than happy, if during this one-month period Mr Murray is allowed to continue working at my stable, to provide him with a counsellor and support out of my own pocket. I believe he is an asset not only to my business but also to our riding ranks, and I would be devastated to see him leave our industry, or for this to have a negative effect on his mental health or drive to succeed in his career path.

Reference from Katie Readings:

I have been working with Brett Murray for just under a year. He has always been a delight to work with, he is also very easy to get along with, always cracking jokes and making everyone feel welcome. As I journey into wanting a career as a jockey, any questions I have about the job, he is willing to answer and he has been a massive help growing my riding ability, giving me any tips and tricks he knows to help me get better.

REASONS FOR PENALTY:

The Respondent has been charged with two charges of misconducting himself following Race 5 at the race meeting at Riccarton on 6 May 2023.

The first charge involved using “inappropriate language” in the weighing room. The second charge involved a physical confrontation with Jockey, Kavish Chowdhoory, in the Jockeys’ Room.

He admitted both charges on the day, the Adjudicative Committee heard the evidence and the matter of penalty was reserved by this Adjudicative Committee to enable both parties to file written submissions, which have now been received.

The Adjudicative Committee, in reaching its decision on penalty, is treating the two breaches as being part of the same course of conduct. The incident in the Jockeys’ Room took place immediately following the incident in the weighing room, when both Jockeys had returned to the Jockeys’ Room. It is appropriate, in the circumstances, to impose one penalty for the two breaches.

Mitigating factors are the Respondent’s admission of both breaches, his previous good record as far as like breaches are concerned and his subsequent apology, the Adjudicative Committee is told, to Mr Chowdhoory. The Adjudicative Committee has not ignored the effect on the Respondent of the tragic loss in a race accident of his former partner and good friend, Megan Taylor. It is easy to see how this would have affected him.

A further important factor is the existence of an element of provocation. The Respondent claimed that Mr Chowdhoory had jostled his mount during the running of the race, a claim that has some support from the Stewards’ Report on the race (see above). That would account for his frame of mind upon returning to scale. Then, shortly thereafter, Mr Chowdhoory said words to the Respondent which, possibly, provoked the physical altercation in the Jockeys’ Room. Having said that, of course, neither of those factors justified the Respondent’s responses.

The verbal outburst of four-letter words in the weighing room, in the presence of other participants including females, was totally unacceptable and cannot be condoned. As for the incident in the Jockeys’ Room, it was short-lived and relatively minor. The evidence was that only one punch was thrown, and that no injury was sustained by Mr Chowdhoory. That was also unacceptable, and neither can that conduct be condoned.

These breaches could have been dealt with by way of fines, but it was the Respondent’s request that the Adjudicative Committee considers a suspension. The Adjudicative Committee has been made aware of his financial circumstances and deems a suspension to be appropriate. Any period of disqualification would be unduly harsh.

In deciding the period of suspension, the Adjudicative Committee has taken into account the principles of sentencing referred to by Mr Irving in his submissions, all of which have relevance in this case:

▪ to punish the Respondent for his wrongdoing.
▪ to deter others from committing similar offences.
▪ to reflect the disapproval of the Adjudicative Committee for the type of offending in question.
▪ the need to rehabilitate the Respondent.

The need for deterrence is of particular importance in this case, and the Adjudicative Committee has also given particular emphasis to the need to rehabilitate.

CONCLUSION:

In respect of Informations Nos. A21231 and A21233, the Respondent, Class A Jockey, Brett Murray, is suspended from after racing on 14 May 2023, up to and including 11 June 2023 – 4 weeks.