Wanganui JC 14 June 2025 – R7 – Kavish Chowdhoory

Evidence:

Following the running of Race 7, the Respondent Mr Kavish Chowdhoory defended a charge of careless riding which was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d).  The Information alleged that he allowed his mount CARPE DIEM to shift inwards when not fully clear of LINCOLN STAR, which was crowded and checked near the 1750 metres.

The Respondent acknowledged he understood the Rule and confirmed he would be defending the charge.

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

Mrs Selvakumaran asked Mrs Fisher to show the films, identify the horses and Riders involved and explain what happened. CARPE DIEM (K Chowdhoory) began from barrier 10 (2 from the outside), LINCOLN STAR (S Mxothwa) barrier 5 and SUMMER BREEZE (M Hudson) barrier 3. She said Mr Chowdhoory came across quickly from his outside draw, but was not the required distance clear of LINCOLN STAR, who was crowded and checked. She acknowledged there was slight outward movement from SUMMER BREEZE, but maintained that the interference would not have occurred, if Mr Chowdhoory had been sufficiently clear when crossing.

Ms Hudson, appearing as a witness for the Stewards, maintained she held a straight line throughout, and that Mr Mxothwa was not in the gap between her and Mr Chowdhoory. Mr Mxothwa stated that the pressure came from his inside, from Ms Hudson. He explained that, before Ms Hudson moved outwards, he had sufficient room, but a bump from her mount pushed him in behind Mr Chowdhoory, where he was then crowded.

Mr Chowdhoory defended the charge, on the basis that Ms Hudson had moved outwards and started the incident, and he referred to the video evidence in support of his position.

Mrs Selvakumaran reiterated that Mr Chowdhoory was not the required 2 lengths clear when he came across and it was the opinion of the Stewards, that had he been clear, Mr Mxothwa would not have suffered interference.  She maintained that Ms Hudson held a straight line.

Decision:

After careful consideration of all the evidence, including the video footage and witness statements, the Adjudicative Committee finds that while Mr Chowdhoory may not have been the exact two lengths clear when shifting inwards, the evidence does not conclusively establish that this was the sole or decisive cause of the interference. There was credible evidence, particularly from Mr Mxothwa, indicating movement from Ms Hudson’s mount to his inside, which contributed to the incident and created doubt as to the sole responsibility of Mr Chowdhoory.

Given these conflicting accounts and the presence of movement from another runner, the Adjudicative Committee is not satisfied that the Stewards have proven the charge of careless riding against Mr Chowdhoory to the necessary standard.

Movement from Ms Hudson’s mount introduced sufficient doubt as to the cause of the interference, therefore the charge of careless riding against Mr Chowdhoory is dismissed.