Waikato TR 31 January 2024 – R1 – Niranjan Parmar

Evidence:

This charge arises from the running of Race 1, the Waikato Draught Mile. Stipendiary Steward, Mrs Selvakumaran filed an Information pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d) alleging the Rider of KEALOHA (N Parmar), “allowed his mount to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear of PEACHY KEEN which was crowded inward onto TALENTOSO which was placed in restricted room dislodging its Rider”.

Rule 638(1)(d) provides: A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Adjudicative Committee considers to be careless.

Apprentice Rider Mr Parmar admitted the breach and was supported at the hearing by Northern Rider Mentor, Mr N Harris.

Using all available video footage, Senior Stipendiary Steward B Jones demonstrated the incident and identified the horses named in the Information: namely KEALOHA (N Parmar), PEACHY KEEN (M McNab) and TALENTOSO (W Kennedy).

With the support of the head and side-on race films, Mr Jones told the Adjudicative Committee that after starting from the 1600 metres, approaching the crossing on to the course proper, KEALOHA shifted in behind SUAVETTA (J Doyle). In doing so, he shifted across PEACHY KEEN whose Rider (M McNab), had to take a hold and was crowded onto TALENTOSO, who was checked, and its Rider (Mr Kennedy) dislodged after becoming unbalanced.   He said that when Mr Parmar crossed PEACHY KEEN, his mount was no more than a bare length clear. Mr Jones added that when interviewed post-race, Mr McNab described Mr Parmar’s shift inward as akin to ‘reverse parking’ in that he eased in and then slowed.

As a result of the fall, Mr Kennedy was treated by on-course paramedics and although he did not suffer any serious injuries, he was stood down for the remaining races on the card.

In response, Mr Parmar stated that he slowed down to get in and Mr McNab’s horse overacted.

In support of Mr Parmar, Mr Harris said that PEACHY KEEN did overreact, and the incident was unfortunate.

Decision:

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

Submissions for Penalty:

Mrs Selvakumaran produced Mr Parmar’s riding record which indicated two previous breaches under the Careless Riding Rule in the last 12 months, namely:

23/09/23  Marton – 8 days

11/03/23  Wellington – 10 days suspension

Mr Parmar has had 381 mounts in the past 12 months. She said Mr Parmar’s record is a neutral factor.

Mrs Selvakumaran placed Mr Parmar’s level of carelessness in the mid-range.  She submitted that the Penalty Guide has a 4 week (suspension) starting point.

Mr Parmar offered no submissions as to penalty and sought a deferment to any proposed suspension until after racing on 10 February 2024.

Mr Harris added that Mr Parmar is an improving Apprentice Rider who is currently in second place on the Apprentice Riders Premiership Table.

Reasons for Penalty:

After considering the submissions and reviewing the race film, the Adjudicative Committee assessed Mr Parmar’s level of carelessness to be in the mid-range, due to the nature of the shift; the resultant consequences to two runners and most notably, the fact that Mr Kennedy was dislodged from his mount.

The RIB Penalty Guide recommends a 4-week suspension as the starting point in circumstances of carelessness riding resulting in a fall.

The Adjudicative Committee’s analysis of the race films alongside its consideration of the submissions, indicates that although the inward shift was not abrupt, the Adjudicative Committee agrees with the apt description provided by Mr McNab, suggesting that it was akin to ‘reverse parking’. When the shift was almost complete, Mr Parmar slowed too quickly, denying the trailing runners the opportunity to react and avoid interference. It is accepted that Mr McNab’s mount, PEACHY KEEN, did overreact by skying its head in the air and it did lay in slightly, but this was more a consequence of Mr Parmar’s actions.

Accordingly, in assessing penalty, the Adjudicative Committee has factored into its decision-making, Mr Parmar’s admission of the breach; his relatively good record; his culpability and the consequences of his carelessness, i.e., Mr Kennedy being dislodged. The fact that Mr Parmar is currently in second place on the Apprentice Riders Premiership Table, is not a factor that was taken into account, as there is an expectation that all Riders must, at all times, exercise a high level of care irrespective of their standing on the Premiership Table.

Fortunately, careless riding involving a fall are relatively rare. The Adjudicative Committee has considered, and taken some guidance from some of the precedent cases. For example:

RIU v Cooksley (2018) – suspended 3 weeks

RIU v Innes (2019) – suspended 5 weeks (upheld on appeal)

RIU v Fawcett (2020) – suspended 4 weeks

RIU v Spratt (2021) – suspended 3 weeks

With regards to these cases, it is evident that they are fact dependent and culpability has been a determinative factor in each case when assessing penalty.

After considering all the above factors, the Adjudicative Committee deemed that an appropriate penalty is a 3½ week suspension.

The Adjudicative Committee noted that Mr Parmar’s mount won the race.  However, the incident giving rise to the charge was not necessarily a determinative factor in the outcome, albeit Mr Kennedy’s mount was the race favourite and Mr McNab’s mount was hampered and checked.

Conclusion:

Mr Parmar’s Licence to ride in races is suspended for 3½ weeks, commencing after racing on 10 February and concluding after racing on 7 March 2024.  3½ weeks equates to 15 national days.