Canterbury R 5 November 2016 – R 8 – Chair, Mr R McKenzie
ID: JCA12620
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Canterbury Racing - 5 November 2016
Meet Chair:
RMcKenzie
Meet Committee Member 1:
SChing
Race Date:
2016/11/05
Race Number:
R8
Decision:
The charge was found proved.
Penalty:
Mr Mudhoo’s Apprentice Jockey (Class B) licence is suspended from after the close of racing on 12th November 2016 up to and including 7 December 2016 – 4 riding days.
The race meetings intended to be encompassed by that period of suspension are Southland on 17 November, Otago at Cromwell on 27 November, Canterbury Racing on 2 December 2016 and Otago on 7 December 2016.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 8, New Zealand Bloodstock Insurance Premier, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr J P Oatham, against Licensed Apprentice Jockey (Class B), Mr K Mudhoo, alleging that Mr Mudhoo, as the rider of MOREIRA in the race, “permitted his mount to shift outward near the 350 metres when not clear of ELUSIVE BOXERS (K Williams) which was checked”.
Mr Mudhoo was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he denied the breach. He was assisted at the hearing by Apprentice Jockey Mentor, Mr W Harnett.
Rule 638 provides as follows:
(1) A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be:
(d) careless
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Oatham had Stipendiary Steward, Mr J W McLaughlin, show video replays of the incident in the home straight, approximately 350 metres from the finish of the race. He pointed out Mr Mudhoo, riding MOREIRA, and the other runner referred to in the information, ELUSIVE BOXERS, ridden by K Williams, which was racing on the outside of MOREIRA. Referring to the rear-on video replay, Mr McLaughlin alleged that there was no run for Mr Mudhoo. At all times, Miss Williams was tight to his outside but was checked when Mr Mudhoo forced a run to his outside. At no time was Mr Mudhoo clear of Miss Williams who was in tight quarters and unable to relieve the pressure and was eventually checked. Mr Mudhoo rode carelessly in forcing a run as he did, Mr McLaughlin alleged. Mr Mudhoo had himself received some interference just prior to this incident but, Mr McLaughlin, alleged this was a completely separate incident.
Mr Oatham called jockey, Miss K Williams to give evidence to the hearing. She told the hearing that she had received interference for almost the length of the straight. She said that her mount had been travelling “pretty good” following HUGO THE BOSS (C J Grylls). She then began to receive pressure that got progressively worse until she was eventually “squeezed out of it”. Upon being showed the video replay, Miss Williams said that the pressure was coming from her inside.
In response to a question from Mr Harnett, Miss Williams said that she did not believe that there had been any pressure from her outside. She demonstrated on the video replay that she had been following Mr Grylls, but Mr Mudhoo had finished up behind Mr Grylls and was pushing her out.
Mr Mudhoo used the video replays to show that he had himself received interference early in the run home. He alleged that he was “going straight pretty much” and that there had been a gap for him. He did not believe that he had shifted into Miss Williams’ line.
Mr Oatham questioned Mr Mudhoo and asked him to show where a run was available to him. Mr Harnett responded on Mr Mudhoo’s behalf that it had not been through any fault on Mr Mudhoo’s part that he ended up where he did. It had been tight, Mr Harnett said, but Mr Mudhoo had not ridden through the gap. The riders of the two horses to the outside of Miss Williams were both riding their mounts out and had contributed to the tightening, which caused Miss Williams to have to check her mount. Mr Mudhoo had not ridden out to get into that position. He had been pushed into that position and, thereafter, had ridden competitively but not carelessly, Mr Harnett submitted.
Mr Oatham summed up. He acknowledged that Mr Mudhoo had been bumped out, one bump, to a position directly behind Mr Grylls. It was his obligation to take a hold of his mount at that point where there was no run available to him to the outside of Mr Grylls. Notwithstanding, Mr Mudhoo continued to ride forward the whole time, turning his mount’s head out and continuing to pursue a run that was not there, Mr Oatham said. He acknowledged that the outside horse, CARMENIZE (M J McNab) had rolled in “marginally” contributing, in only a minor way, to the check received by Miss Williams which was caused by Mr Mudhoo pursuing a run that was not there.
Mr Harnett submitted, in closing, that Mr Mudhoo’s momentum had not been stopped from the interference that he had received – he had been taken out further by that interference and put in the position he was. He repeated that Mr Mudhoo was alleging that Mr McNab’s mount had contributed to the interference received by Miss Williams.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee had listened carefully to the evidence and submissions of the parties and had carefully viewed and reviewed the various video replays that were available.
In the end, the Committee was comfortably satisfied that it had been proved that Mr Mudhoo had ridden carelessly.
The first point that the Committee addressed was whether the earlier interference suffered by Mr Mudhoo had any bearing on this charge against him. We do not believe that it did. We were satisfied that Mr Mudhoo had rebalanced his mount following that interference and the incident in which it was alleged that he rode carelessly was a separate one and we viewed it as such.
Having so found, it was necessary to determine whether there was a gap for him to improve into between Mr Grylls and Miss Williams or had he forced Miss Williams’ mount outwards to make a run for himself, thereby riding carelessly. The Committee found that Mr Mudhoo had continued to ride his mount forward and had angled it outwards to secure a run which was not there to the outside of Mr Grylls and, in doing so, had placed significant pressure on Miss Williams’ mount to the extent that Miss Williams was forced to check her mount. He had forced Miss Williams out of her rightful line of running.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Oatham gave the Committee details of Mr Mudhoo’s record which involved three breaches of the careless riding Rule in the last 12 months – on 9 December 2015 at Otago, 11 March 2016 at Ashburton and 17 September 2016 at Riccarton – each charge incurring a suspension for 2 days. He submitted that a fourth suspension in 11 months, for a South Island rider, was a record “a little bit worse than average”.
Mr Oatham said the Stewards saw the carelessness as being mid-range and there were a couple of factors in this incident that were in Mr Mudhoo’s favour – the initial interference and that matters then developed quickly. However, Mr Mudhoo was required to take a hold of his mount rather than pass the problem onto another rider. Mr McNab’s had rolled in “late in the piece” and may have added to the precarious situation in which Miss Williams had already found herself.
Mr Oatham referred to the starting point of a 3 days’ suspension in the case of a South Island rider, a suspension being appropriate in this case, Mr Oatham submitted that a suspension of 3-4 South Island days should be considered.
Mr Mudhoo was asked by the Committee if he wished to seek a deferment to enable him to ride on the 2nd and 3rd days of the meeting. Mr Mudhoo told the Committee that he did have rides on the 2nd day on 9 November. After a consultation with Mr Harnett, Mr Mudhoo told the Committee that he was unlikely to have rides on the 3rd day and, accordingly, wished to have a deferment only until after 9 November.
Mr Harnett submitted that Mr Mudhoo was not entirely responsible for the interference to Miss Williams’ mount. He also submitted that a 3 or 4 days’ suspension would, in Mr Mudhoo’s case, involve a lengthy penalty in terms of time suspended.
Reasons for Penalty:
In arriving at penalty, the Committee had regard to the Penalty Guide starting point for a South Island rider of a 3 days’ suspension. It was agreed that Mr Mudhoo is a South Island rider. In the Committee’s view, an uplift in that starting point was warranted for Mr Mudhoo’s record under the Rule, which is not a good one, this being his 4th suspension since December 2015. The most recent suspension was only 7 weeks ago. The 2 days’ suspension imposed for each of the previous three careless riding charges do not appear to have served as a deterrent to Mr Mudhoo and, for that reason, the Committee is of the view that an uplift is called for. We assessed that uplift at 1 day.
In the Committee’s view, the breach was in the mid-high range but, taking into account the minor contributing factors acknowledged by Mr Oatham in his penalty submissions, with which the Committee does not necessarily agree, we are prepared to regard it as mid-range. Therefore, the degree of carelessness is a neutral factor in this case and is neither an aggravating factor nor a mitigating factor.
There being no mitigating factor or factors warranting a discount from the 4 days arrived at, the penalty shall be a suspension for 4 South Island riding days.
Subsequent to delivering its penalty decision, the Committee was approached by Mr Oatham on behalf of Mr Mudhoo’s employer, Mrs K G Parsons, and advised that Mr Mudhoo has at least four riding engagements for the 3rd day of the meeting on 12 November, with the possibility of more. Mr Mudhoo and Mr Harnett, had been unaware of that fact at the time of penalty submissions. Mrs Parsons had asked if the Committee could revisit the days included in the suspension imposed to permit Mr Mudhoo to fulfil those engagements. Mr Oatham said that the RIU had no objection to an amendment of the term of suspension.
JCA Decision Fields (raw)
Dmitry: This section contains all JCA fields migrated from the raw data.
Data from these fields should be mapped appropriately to display amongst the standard fields above; please make note of any values below that are missing in the above standard fields but should be there.
hearingid: 404be532e0fb00d1936c73778987b64e
informantnumber: A6984
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless Riding
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 08/11/2016
hearing_title: Canterbury R 5 November 2016 - R 8 - Chair, Mr R McKenzie
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 8, New Zealand Bloodstock Insurance Premier, an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr J P Oatham, against Licensed Apprentice Jockey (Class B), Mr K Mudhoo, alleging that Mr Mudhoo, as the rider of MOREIRA in the race, “permitted his mount to shift outward near the 350 metres when not clear of ELUSIVE BOXERS (K Williams) which was checked”.
Mr Mudhoo was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he denied the breach. He was assisted at the hearing by Apprentice Jockey Mentor, Mr W Harnett.
Rule 638 provides as follows:
(1) A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be:
(d) careless
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Oatham had Stipendiary Steward, Mr J W McLaughlin, show video replays of the incident in the home straight, approximately 350 metres from the finish of the race. He pointed out Mr Mudhoo, riding MOREIRA, and the other runner referred to in the information, ELUSIVE BOXERS, ridden by K Williams, which was racing on the outside of MOREIRA. Referring to the rear-on video replay, Mr McLaughlin alleged that there was no run for Mr Mudhoo. At all times, Miss Williams was tight to his outside but was checked when Mr Mudhoo forced a run to his outside. At no time was Mr Mudhoo clear of Miss Williams who was in tight quarters and unable to relieve the pressure and was eventually checked. Mr Mudhoo rode carelessly in forcing a run as he did, Mr McLaughlin alleged. Mr Mudhoo had himself received some interference just prior to this incident but, Mr McLaughlin, alleged this was a completely separate incident.
Mr Oatham called jockey, Miss K Williams to give evidence to the hearing. She told the hearing that she had received interference for almost the length of the straight. She said that her mount had been travelling “pretty good” following HUGO THE BOSS (C J Grylls). She then began to receive pressure that got progressively worse until she was eventually “squeezed out of it”. Upon being showed the video replay, Miss Williams said that the pressure was coming from her inside.
In response to a question from Mr Harnett, Miss Williams said that she did not believe that there had been any pressure from her outside. She demonstrated on the video replay that she had been following Mr Grylls, but Mr Mudhoo had finished up behind Mr Grylls and was pushing her out.
Mr Mudhoo used the video replays to show that he had himself received interference early in the run home. He alleged that he was “going straight pretty much” and that there had been a gap for him. He did not believe that he had shifted into Miss Williams’ line.
Mr Oatham questioned Mr Mudhoo and asked him to show where a run was available to him. Mr Harnett responded on Mr Mudhoo’s behalf that it had not been through any fault on Mr Mudhoo’s part that he ended up where he did. It had been tight, Mr Harnett said, but Mr Mudhoo had not ridden through the gap. The riders of the two horses to the outside of Miss Williams were both riding their mounts out and had contributed to the tightening, which caused Miss Williams to have to check her mount. Mr Mudhoo had not ridden out to get into that position. He had been pushed into that position and, thereafter, had ridden competitively but not carelessly, Mr Harnett submitted.
Mr Oatham summed up. He acknowledged that Mr Mudhoo had been bumped out, one bump, to a position directly behind Mr Grylls. It was his obligation to take a hold of his mount at that point where there was no run available to him to the outside of Mr Grylls. Notwithstanding, Mr Mudhoo continued to ride forward the whole time, turning his mount’s head out and continuing to pursue a run that was not there, Mr Oatham said. He acknowledged that the outside horse, CARMENIZE (M J McNab) had rolled in “marginally” contributing, in only a minor way, to the check received by Miss Williams which was caused by Mr Mudhoo pursuing a run that was not there.
Mr Harnett submitted, in closing, that Mr Mudhoo’s momentum had not been stopped from the interference that he had received – he had been taken out further by that interference and put in the position he was. He repeated that Mr Mudhoo was alleging that Mr McNab’s mount had contributed to the interference received by Miss Williams.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee had listened carefully to the evidence and submissions of the parties and had carefully viewed and reviewed the various video replays that were available.
In the end, the Committee was comfortably satisfied that it had been proved that Mr Mudhoo had ridden carelessly.
The first point that the Committee addressed was whether the earlier interference suffered by Mr Mudhoo had any bearing on this charge against him. We do not believe that it did. We were satisfied that Mr Mudhoo had rebalanced his mount following that interference and the incident in which it was alleged that he rode carelessly was a separate one and we viewed it as such.
Having so found, it was necessary to determine whether there was a gap for him to improve into between Mr Grylls and Miss Williams or had he forced Miss Williams’ mount outwards to make a run for himself, thereby riding carelessly. The Committee found that Mr Mudhoo had continued to ride his mount forward and had angled it outwards to secure a run which was not there to the outside of Mr Grylls and, in doing so, had placed significant pressure on Miss Williams’ mount to the extent that Miss Williams was forced to check her mount. He had forced Miss Williams out of her rightful line of running.
Decision:
The charge was found proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Oatham gave the Committee details of Mr Mudhoo’s record which involved three breaches of the careless riding Rule in the last 12 months – on 9 December 2015 at Otago, 11 March 2016 at Ashburton and 17 September 2016 at Riccarton – each charge incurring a suspension for 2 days. He submitted that a fourth suspension in 11 months, for a South Island rider, was a record “a little bit worse than average”.
Mr Oatham said the Stewards saw the carelessness as being mid-range and there were a couple of factors in this incident that were in Mr Mudhoo’s favour – the initial interference and that matters then developed quickly. However, Mr Mudhoo was required to take a hold of his mount rather than pass the problem onto another rider. Mr McNab’s had rolled in “late in the piece” and may have added to the precarious situation in which Miss Williams had already found herself.
Mr Oatham referred to the starting point of a 3 days’ suspension in the case of a South Island rider, a suspension being appropriate in this case, Mr Oatham submitted that a suspension of 3-4 South Island days should be considered.
Mr Mudhoo was asked by the Committee if he wished to seek a deferment to enable him to ride on the 2nd and 3rd days of the meeting. Mr Mudhoo told the Committee that he did have rides on the 2nd day on 9 November. After a consultation with Mr Harnett, Mr Mudhoo told the Committee that he was unlikely to have rides on the 3rd day and, accordingly, wished to have a deferment only until after 9 November.
Mr Harnett submitted that Mr Mudhoo was not entirely responsible for the interference to Miss Williams’ mount. He also submitted that a 3 or 4 days’ suspension would, in Mr Mudhoo’s case, involve a lengthy penalty in terms of time suspended.
reasonsforpenalty:
In arriving at penalty, the Committee had regard to the Penalty Guide starting point for a South Island rider of a 3 days’ suspension. It was agreed that Mr Mudhoo is a South Island rider. In the Committee’s view, an uplift in that starting point was warranted for Mr Mudhoo’s record under the Rule, which is not a good one, this being his 4th suspension since December 2015. The most recent suspension was only 7 weeks ago. The 2 days’ suspension imposed for each of the previous three careless riding charges do not appear to have served as a deterrent to Mr Mudhoo and, for that reason, the Committee is of the view that an uplift is called for. We assessed that uplift at 1 day.
In the Committee’s view, the breach was in the mid-high range but, taking into account the minor contributing factors acknowledged by Mr Oatham in his penalty submissions, with which the Committee does not necessarily agree, we are prepared to regard it as mid-range. Therefore, the degree of carelessness is a neutral factor in this case and is neither an aggravating factor nor a mitigating factor.
There being no mitigating factor or factors warranting a discount from the 4 days arrived at, the penalty shall be a suspension for 4 South Island riding days.
Subsequent to delivering its penalty decision, the Committee was approached by Mr Oatham on behalf of Mr Mudhoo’s employer, Mrs K G Parsons, and advised that Mr Mudhoo has at least four riding engagements for the 3rd day of the meeting on 12 November, with the possibility of more. Mr Mudhoo and Mr Harnett, had been unaware of that fact at the time of penalty submissions. Mrs Parsons had asked if the Committee could revisit the days included in the suspension imposed to permit Mr Mudhoo to fulfil those engagements. Mr Oatham said that the RIU had no objection to an amendment of the term of suspension.
penalty:
Mr Mudhoo’s Apprentice Jockey (Class B) licence is suspended from after the close of racing on 12th November 2016 up to and including 7 December 2016 – 4 riding days.
The race meetings intended to be encompassed by that period of suspension are Southland on 17 November, Otago at Cromwell on 27 November, Canterbury Racing on 2 December 2016 and Otago on 7 December 2016.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr JP Oatham - Chief Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Mr K Mudhoo - Licensed Apprentice Jockey (Class B)
Otherperson: Mr W Harnett - Apprentice Jockey Mentor assisting Mr Mudhoo, Mr JW McLaughlin - Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 6f05dd6ca54b940006e80f26cc417925
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R8
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: ce3cd3222c8526d14854dacc8bd80cd5
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 05/11/2016
meet_title: Canterbury Racing - 5 November 2016
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: canterbury-racing
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: RMcKenzie
meet_pm1: SChing
meet_pm2: none
name: Canterbury Racing