Appeal K Mudhoo v RIU – Decision of Appeals Tribunal dated 18 November 2016 – Chair, Prof G Hall

hearingid: 5b7e88a9f98c729526bed6be202264f8

informantnumber:

horsename:

hearing_racingtype:

startdate: no date provided

newcharge:

plea:

penaltyrequired:

decisiondate: 21/11/2016

hearing_title: Appeal K Mudhoo v RIU - Decision of Appeals Tribunal dated 18 November 2016 - Chair, Prof G Hall

charge:

facts:

appealdecision: NO LINKED APPEAL DECISION

isappeal:

submissionsfordecision:

reasonsfordecision:

Decision:

BEFORE AN APPEALS TRIBUNAL OF THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY

UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003

AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Racing

BETWEEN MR KRISHNA MUDHOO

Licensed Apprentice Jockey (Class B)

Appellant

AND RACING INTEGRITY UNIT (RIU)

Respondent

INFORMATION NO. A6984

TRIBUNAL: Prof G Hall (Chairman)

Mr G Thompson (Member)

APPEARING: Mr W Harnett, Apprentice Jockey Mentor, for the appellant

Mr J Oatham, Chief Stipendiary Steward, for the RIU

DATE OF ORAL DECISION: 12 November 2016

DATE OF WRITTEN DECISION: 18 November 2016

DECISION OF APPEALS TRIBUNAL

[1] The appellant, Mr Mudhoo, has appealed against the penalty decision of the raceday Judicial Committee of 5 November 2016 at the Canterbury Jockey Club race meeting at Riccarton where in Race 8 he was found to be in breach of r 638(1)(d) of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Rules of Racing (careless riding) and was suspended for four South Island days.

[2] We asked Mr Oatham to demonstrate the incident on the videos without comment other than to identify the horses concerned.

[3] Mr Oatham showed four video angles. These demonstrated that Ms Williams (ELUSIVE BOXERS) was racing to the outside of the appellant’s mount (MOREIRA). Mr Mudhoo moved into her running line and she had to take hold of her horse.

[4] We also observed that prior to the incident in question Mr Johnson had moved wider on the track and had taken Mr Mudhoo wider as a consequence. The appellant ended up racing behind Mr Grylls. Mr Oatham explained that Mr Johnson’s actions had been found by the raceday Committee to be in breach of r 638(1)(d).

Appellant’s submissions

[5] Mr Harnett presented oral submissions on behalf of Mr Mudhoo. He stated that the four-day suspension was manifestly excessive and that a two-day suspension was appropriate.

[6] Mr Harnett described the appellant’s culpability as “low to mid range”. He stated that the matter could not be separated from an earlier incident in which Mr Johnson had been found to be in breach of the careless riding rule. Mr Harnett believed the appellant’s actions flowed on from the previous interference he had received from Mr Johnson, when he had been pushed wider on the track. He said Mr Mudhoo had been bumped sideways and as a consequence had had to look for a run outside Mr Grylls.

[7] Mr Harnett stated that he believed Mr Mudhoo had become unbalanced and was in an awkward spot and had done the best he could in the circumstances. With reference to the fact that MOREIRA’s head was turned outwards, he believed this may have been as a consequence of the contact with Ms Williams’ mount, and that Mr Mudhoo’s actions merely constituted competitive riding.

[8] Mr Harnett demonstrated on the videos that CARMENISE (Mr McNab), which was racing to the outside of Ms Williams had rolled in and had contributed to the interference received by Ms Williams. This was a further reason why the period of suspension was excessive.

[9] Mr Harnett emphasised that the period of suspension was in effect 25 calendar days. He said this was excessive when compared to suspensions imposed on other riders for careless riding, especially with those cases where there had been falls and thus rider culpability was higher.

[10] Mr Harnett pointed out that the South Island had lost seven meetings in the restructuring of racedays by NZTR and that this was severely limiting the riding opportunities of southern riders.

[11] Mr Mudhoo had had 313 rides in the past 12 calendar months. All these rides had been in the South Island. He had ridden horses for North Island trainers, such as Mr Myers, but he had never ridden in the North Island. Mr Harnett emphasised that the appellant’s licence entitled him to ride anywhere in New Zealand, and thus the opportunity to ride in the North Island had been denied to Mr Mudhoo as a consequence of his suspension.

Respondent’s submissions

[12] Mr Oatham demonstrated on the rear-on video that as a result of being shifted sideways by Mr Johnson, Mr Mudhoo had ended up behind Mr Grylls, with no run to the outside of him. He showed that the appellant was riding MOREIRA out into Ms Williams’ racing line for some distance. He believed there was minimal movement from CARMENISE and that that horse had made only a minor contribution to the interference that Ms Williams suffered.

[13] Mr Oatham stated there had been no run for MOREIRA and that Mr Mudhoo was attempting to force one. He demonstrated on the side-on video that MOREIRA was at best a head in front of ELUSIVE BOXERS (Ms Williams) when Mr Mudhoo was looking to push her wider. He believed that Mr Mudhoo should have taken hold of MOREIRA after he had been shifted wider by Mr Johnson, but instead he had ridden his mount forward.

[14] Mr Oatham stated the Stipendiary Stewards believed the breach was mid range. This took into account the mitigating effect of the interference Mr Mudhoo had received from Mr Johnson.

[15] In supporting the raceday decision Mr Oatham said the RIU had submitted on the day that a three to four day suspension was appropriate. He observed no weight had been given to the fact this was a Premier meeting and the stake for the race was $30,000, which was large in context of South Island racing. The one day uplift by the raceday Committee for the appellant’s record was “not unreasonable”.

[16] Mr Oatham submitted when regard was had to the gravity of the breach and the appellant’s record, which he described as “below average for a South Island jockey” with this being a fourth breach in 12 months, a four-day suspension was the appropriate penalty.

Decision

[17] The videos evidence that Mr Mudhoo was shifted wider on the track when Mr Johnson shifted outwards in breach of the rules. We agree with the finding of the Judicial Committee that Mr Mudhoo had rebalanced his mount following the interference from Mr Johnson and the incident in which he rode carelessly was separate and distinct.

[18] In addition, we agree with the Committee that there was no gap for the appellant to improve into between Mr Grylls and Ms Williams. He forced Miss Williams outwards and out of her rightful line of running in order to make a run for himself.

[19] The Committee in finding the careless riding charge proved succinctly summarised the breach by stating 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.

[20] We differ, however, in our assessment of the seriousness of the breach. The Committee found it to be mid-high range. We accept Mr Oatham’s description of the breach as mid range. That being the case, we would not lower or raise the three-day South Island starting point for the gravity of the breach or for Mr Mudhoo’s degree of culpability.

[21] That leads us to the issue of the one-day uplift for Mr Mudhoo’s record. The raceday Committee said in this regard:

“[A]n 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.”

[22] We required that further information be placed before us as to the appellant’s record. This showed that he had had 336 career rides. He had had four suspensions since 9 December 2015. His last suspension was 17 September last, which was two days. Since that time he had had 45 rides up to and including the ride in which he received the suspension under appeal. This is clearly not a good riding record. While a Judicial Committee might perhaps regard this record as neutral, we are not of the view that by increasing the three-day starting point by one day for Mr Mudhoo’s record that the Committee in question was in error.

[23] Having found the starting point to be correct and the uplift for record to be within the discretion of the Judicial Committee, we conclude the penalty is not manifestly excessive (r 1007(2)(b)).

[24] We confirm the penalty and dismiss the appeal in accordance with r 1007(2)(a).

Costs

[25] Mr Oatham accepted that as the matter had been heard on raceday, a costs award in favour of the RIU was not appropriate in this case.

[26] Mr Oatham stated that as the appellant had been unsuccessful, we might consider a costs award in favour of the JCA.

[27] We do not order costs to the JCA but note that the filing fee of $250 has been paid and we order that this be retained by the JCA.

Dated at Dunedin this 18th day of November 2016.

Geoff Hall, Chairman

sumissionsforpenalty:

reasonsforpenalty:

penalty:

hearing_type: Non-race day

Rules:

Informant:

JockeysandTrainer:

Otherperson:

PersonPresent:

Respondent:

StipendSteward:

raceid:

race_expapproval:

racecancelled:

race_noreport:

race_emailed1:

race_emailed2:

race_title:

submittochair:

race_expappcomment:

race_km:

race_otherexp:

race_chair:

race_pm1:

race_pm2:

meetid:

meet_expapproval:

meet_noreport:

waitingforpublication:

meet_emailed1:

meet_emailed2:

meetdate: no date provided

meet_title:

meet_expappcomment:

meet_km:

meet_otherexp:

tracklocation:

meet_racingtype:

meet_chair:

meet_pm1:

meet_pm2:

name: