Taranaki RI 6 June 2024 – R5 – Niranjan Parmar

Background:

Following the running of Race 5, the ‘Robbie Patterson Regal Lodge Maiden’, an Information was lodged alleging a breach of Rule 636(1)(d). Details are as follows:

‘failed to ride his mount out to the end of the Race when a reasonable chance of finishing in third place’.

Rule 636(1)(d) provides:

‘A person … being the Rider of a horse in a Race, must ride his horse out to the end of the Race if there is a reasonable chance of it running into a position for which there is prizemoney to be awarded or a dividend to be declared;’

Details in respect of the alleged breach, along with Rule, were read to the Respondent (assisted by Apprentice Jockey Mentor – Ms Kim Clapperton). He confirmed that he understood both and advised the Adjudicative Committee that he sought to defend the charge. This was endorsed by Ms Clapperton.

Evidence:

Using available film, Stewards identified the horse and incident. CHAMPAGNE LINDA finished 4th in the event, with the margin between this horse and the 3rd place horse – BELLES BEAU, being a head. Stewards were of the view that Mr Parmar had displayed vigor in his ride up until the last 2 strides, at which point they contended, he had changed style, stood up in the saddle and effectively stopped riding. Stewards referred to the wording of the Rule, in that it was not necessary to satisfy the Committee, that the Respondent would have otherwise finished in a higher placing, simply that his actions or inaction, prevented a reasonable chance of doing so.

Mr Parmar contended that his mount was tying up and was hanging under pressure. He had shown his mount the whip, had not stopped riding and was looking to keep his mount balanced. He was aware of the finishing run of BELLES BEAU to his outside. Ms Clapperton supported this, adding that Mr Parmar had shown his horse the whip and only in the last stride, had put his hands back to the reins.

Reasons for Decision:

For the charge to be upheld, the Adjudicative Committee must be satisfied that the ride of the Respondent amounted to a breach of the Rule, ie in essence the Rider did not ride his horse out to the end of the race where there was a reasonable chance of the horse running into a higher placing.

The Adjudicative Committee viewed the video several times, both during the hearing and in deliberation. Certainly, the Respondent displayed vigor in his ride, with the horse struck by the whip on 6 occasions, between the top of the straight and the 50 metre mark. The Adjudicative Committee concurs with the Respondent’s comments that the horse was difficult, noting he changed whip hand in the straight. To the assertion that the Respondent had stopped riding in the last 2-3 strides, the Adjudicative Committee could not be satisfied that film demonstrated this to a level (if at all), as to represent a breach of the Rule. As such, the charge was dismissed.

Decision:

The charge was dismissed.