Canterbury R 6 December 2019 – R 2 – Chair, Mr R McKenzie
ID: JCA16720
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Canterbury Racing - 6 December 2019
Meet Chair:
RMcKenzie
Meet Committee Member 1:
DAnderson
Race Date:
2019/12/06
Race Number:
R2
Decision:
The charge was found proved.
Penalty:
Mr Chowdhoory’s Apprentice Jockey’s (Class B) licence is suspended from 18 December 2019 to 27 December 2109 – 7 national riding days.
Facts:
Following the running of Race 2, Racecourse Hotel and Motor Lodge Maiden, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr M R Davidson, against Licensed Apprentice Jockey (Class B), Mr K Chowdhoory, alleging that Mr Chowdhoory, as the rider of CADMAN in the race, “permitted his mount to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear of QUELLA RAGAZZA (D Prastiyou), which was checked near the 1100 metres”.
Mr Chowdhoory was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he denied the breach. He was assisted at the hearing by Licensed Trainer (Class A), Mr M M Pitman.
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 Davidson had Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr J P Oatham, show video replays of the incident, approximately 100 metres after the start of the 1200 metres event. He pointed out on the head-on video replay Mr Chowdhoory’s mount, CADMAN, which had drawn barrier 7, and QUELLA RAGAZZA, ridden by Mr Prastiyou, which had drawn inside it at barrier 3.
After the start, Mr Chowdhoory shifted in and interference to Mr Prastiyou occurred, Mr Oatham said. Mr Prastiyou had to take quite a strong hold of his mount. He showed the incident on the back straight camera from which, Mr Oatham alleged, it could be seen that Mr Prastiyou had to check his mount back, losing considerable ground, as Mr Chowdhoory shifted in.
Mr Chowdhoory was receiving no pressure from anywhere and shifted in, Mr Oatham said, forcing Mr Prastiyou to take a hold as Mr Chowdhoory got into his line. Mr Oatham estimated that Mr Chowdhoory was barely a length clear at the time.
Mr Prastiyou was called to give evidence. He told the hearing that his horse had “jumped nicely” to the outside of HEAPZAHOPE (T R Moseley), which had drawn barrier 2. He was improving as Mr Chowdhoory “shifted in too soon”, he had no room and had to take a “massive hold” of his mount. Asked by Mr Davidson, Mr Prastiyou said that Mr Chowdhoory would have been 1½ lengths clear. All of the pressure had come from his outside, he said.
Mr Pitman asked Mr Prastiyou if there had been any pressure from Mr Moseley’s mount on his inside. Mr Prastiyou answered that there had not. All inside runners were maintaining their lines, he said. Mr Moseley’s mount, after jumping, had gone down to the fence and then come out, Mr Pitman submitted. That horse had never been on the fence, Mr Davidson submitted.
Mr Pitman asked Mr Prastiyou what his riding instructions had been. He had been told to “take a sit”, Mr Prastiyou said. It is normally a front runner.
Mr Chowdhoory said that it could be seen that Mr Moseley’s mount had contributed and the interference was caused equally by that runner and his own mount. His own horse was very erratic, he said. It was put to Mr Chowdhoory what Mr Prastiyou had said but the video showed something else, he said. Mr Moseley had been pulling on his right rein, Mr Chowdhoory said.
Mr Pitman said that CADMAN had been in training for 12 months and was still very green. It was not the easiest horse to ride, he submitted. He submitted that the video evidence clearly showed Mr Moseley pulling his mount off the fence to be one-off. Mr Chowdhoory had done a “fantastic job” to keep his horse in a straight line, he said. Mr Prastiyou had been looking not to be on the fence, but to stay out. Mr Chowdhoory had not been at fault, Mr Pitman said.
Mr Davidson summed up by saying that Mr Moseley had always been two-out, with another runner on his inside. His mount’s head may have been turned out, but the horse did not move out. Mr Chowdhoory’s mount had come from wider out on an inwards line. When it got to Mr Prastiyou’s mount, it was not clear. There was no pressure from Mr Moseley’s mount on the inside, Mr Davidson submitted.
Reasons for Decision:
The Committee has listened to the evidence and submissions of the parties and has carefully viewed the video replays shown to the hearing.
The defence advanced on behalf of Mr Chowdhoory was based, essentially, on the argument that the interference to Mr Prastiyou’s mount 100 metres after the start was caused, or at least significantly contributed to, by an outwards movement by HEAPZAHOPE, ridden by Mr Moseley.
Mr Prastiyou was unshaken in his evidence that he received no pressure from his inside but that all the pressure had come from his outside which, he identified, was from Mr Chowdhoory’s mount, which had come across from wider out and crossed him when only 1½ lengths clear. In the Committee’s view, that was generous and we are inclined to agree with Mr Oatham that the margin was more like a bare length.
We find the evidence of Mr Prastiyou to be compelling and, furthermore, we find that it was amply supported by the video evidence. We do not accept the submission of Mr Pitman that Mr Moseley’s mount had shifted out and caused the interference. Mr Moseley’s mount was always one off the rail and, we are satisfied, had always maintained a straight line, notwithstanding that its head may have been turned out.
Mr Prastiyou’s mount received a significant check the sole cause of which, we are satisfied, was Mr Chowdhoory crossing when, clearly, not the required his own length and another length clear. We find that in doing so, Mr Chowdhoory has ridden carelessly.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Davidson told the hearing that Mr Chowdhoory has received two suspensions in the last 12 months – on 19 January 2019 (5 days) and, recently, on 1 December 2019 at Cromwell (8 days). Prior to the most recent suspension, Mr Chowdhoory had almost 500 rides since the previous suspension. This is now two suspensions in quick suspension but, overall, his record is not a bad one and should be considered as a neutral factor, Mr Davidson submitted.
The level of carelessness is in the mid-range and, on that basis, the Penalty Guide starting point of an 8-days suspension is appropriate, Mr Davidson submitted.
Mr Davidson advised that Mr Chowdhoory is currently suspended up to and including 17 December 2019.
Mr Pitman stressed that, up until recently, Mr Chowdhoory’s record has been a very good one. He asked the Committee to consider that this is a particularly busy period of the year with many meetings on the calendar. Mr Chowdhoory has some big meetings coming up and any suspension will impact him, Mr Pitman said.
Reasons for Penalty:
The Committee considered that level of carelessness to be in the low-mid range. We therefore adopted the Penalty Guide starting point for a breach in that range of a 7 national riding days suspension. There are no aggravating or mitigating factors to warrant an uplift from that starting point or a discount. We are not treating Mr Chowdhoory’s recent suspension as an aggravating factor, as 500 rides between that suspension and his previous one represents a very good record.
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: d847fb8668007410b4d5faeaf774875b
informantnumber: A12806
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge: Careless Riding
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 10/12/2019
hearing_title: Canterbury R 6 December 2019 - R 2 - Chair, Mr R McKenzie
charge:
facts:
Following the running of Race 2, Racecourse Hotel and Motor Lodge Maiden, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr M R Davidson, against Licensed Apprentice Jockey (Class B), Mr K Chowdhoory, alleging that Mr Chowdhoory, as the rider of CADMAN in the race, “permitted his mount to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear of QUELLA RAGAZZA (D Prastiyou), which was checked near the 1100 metres”.
Mr Chowdhoory was present at the hearing of the information and he indicated that he denied the breach. He was assisted at the hearing by Licensed Trainer (Class A), Mr M M Pitman.
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 Davidson had Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr J P Oatham, show video replays of the incident, approximately 100 metres after the start of the 1200 metres event. He pointed out on the head-on video replay Mr Chowdhoory’s mount, CADMAN, which had drawn barrier 7, and QUELLA RAGAZZA, ridden by Mr Prastiyou, which had drawn inside it at barrier 3.
After the start, Mr Chowdhoory shifted in and interference to Mr Prastiyou occurred, Mr Oatham said. Mr Prastiyou had to take quite a strong hold of his mount. He showed the incident on the back straight camera from which, Mr Oatham alleged, it could be seen that Mr Prastiyou had to check his mount back, losing considerable ground, as Mr Chowdhoory shifted in.
Mr Chowdhoory was receiving no pressure from anywhere and shifted in, Mr Oatham said, forcing Mr Prastiyou to take a hold as Mr Chowdhoory got into his line. Mr Oatham estimated that Mr Chowdhoory was barely a length clear at the time.
Mr Prastiyou was called to give evidence. He told the hearing that his horse had “jumped nicely” to the outside of HEAPZAHOPE (T R Moseley), which had drawn barrier 2. He was improving as Mr Chowdhoory “shifted in too soon”, he had no room and had to take a “massive hold” of his mount. Asked by Mr Davidson, Mr Prastiyou said that Mr Chowdhoory would have been 1½ lengths clear. All of the pressure had come from his outside, he said.
Mr Pitman asked Mr Prastiyou if there had been any pressure from Mr Moseley’s mount on his inside. Mr Prastiyou answered that there had not. All inside runners were maintaining their lines, he said. Mr Moseley’s mount, after jumping, had gone down to the fence and then come out, Mr Pitman submitted. That horse had never been on the fence, Mr Davidson submitted.
Mr Pitman asked Mr Prastiyou what his riding instructions had been. He had been told to “take a sit”, Mr Prastiyou said. It is normally a front runner.
Mr Chowdhoory said that it could be seen that Mr Moseley’s mount had contributed and the interference was caused equally by that runner and his own mount. His own horse was very erratic, he said. It was put to Mr Chowdhoory what Mr Prastiyou had said but the video showed something else, he said. Mr Moseley had been pulling on his right rein, Mr Chowdhoory said.
Mr Pitman said that CADMAN had been in training for 12 months and was still very green. It was not the easiest horse to ride, he submitted. He submitted that the video evidence clearly showed Mr Moseley pulling his mount off the fence to be one-off. Mr Chowdhoory had done a “fantastic job” to keep his horse in a straight line, he said. Mr Prastiyou had been looking not to be on the fence, but to stay out. Mr Chowdhoory had not been at fault, Mr Pitman said.
Mr Davidson summed up by saying that Mr Moseley had always been two-out, with another runner on his inside. His mount’s head may have been turned out, but the horse did not move out. Mr Chowdhoory’s mount had come from wider out on an inwards line. When it got to Mr Prastiyou’s mount, it was not clear. There was no pressure from Mr Moseley’s mount on the inside, Mr Davidson submitted.
reasonsfordecision:
The Committee has listened to the evidence and submissions of the parties and has carefully viewed the video replays shown to the hearing.
The defence advanced on behalf of Mr Chowdhoory was based, essentially, on the argument that the interference to Mr Prastiyou’s mount 100 metres after the start was caused, or at least significantly contributed to, by an outwards movement by HEAPZAHOPE, ridden by Mr Moseley.
Mr Prastiyou was unshaken in his evidence that he received no pressure from his inside but that all the pressure had come from his outside which, he identified, was from Mr Chowdhoory’s mount, which had come across from wider out and crossed him when only 1½ lengths clear. In the Committee’s view, that was generous and we are inclined to agree with Mr Oatham that the margin was more like a bare length.
We find the evidence of Mr Prastiyou to be compelling and, furthermore, we find that it was amply supported by the video evidence. We do not accept the submission of Mr Pitman that Mr Moseley’s mount had shifted out and caused the interference. Mr Moseley’s mount was always one off the rail and, we are satisfied, had always maintained a straight line, notwithstanding that its head may have been turned out.
Mr Prastiyou’s mount received a significant check the sole cause of which, we are satisfied, was Mr Chowdhoory crossing when, clearly, not the required his own length and another length clear. We find that in doing so, Mr Chowdhoory has ridden carelessly.
Decision:
The charge was found proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Davidson told the hearing that Mr Chowdhoory has received two suspensions in the last 12 months – on 19 January 2019 (5 days) and, recently, on 1 December 2019 at Cromwell (8 days). Prior to the most recent suspension, Mr Chowdhoory had almost 500 rides since the previous suspension. This is now two suspensions in quick suspension but, overall, his record is not a bad one and should be considered as a neutral factor, Mr Davidson submitted.
The level of carelessness is in the mid-range and, on that basis, the Penalty Guide starting point of an 8-days suspension is appropriate, Mr Davidson submitted.
Mr Davidson advised that Mr Chowdhoory is currently suspended up to and including 17 December 2019.
Mr Pitman stressed that, up until recently, Mr Chowdhoory’s record has been a very good one. He asked the Committee to consider that this is a particularly busy period of the year with many meetings on the calendar. Mr Chowdhoory has some big meetings coming up and any suspension will impact him, Mr Pitman said.
reasonsforpenalty:
The Committee considered that level of carelessness to be in the low-mid range. We therefore adopted the Penalty Guide starting point for a breach in that range of a 7 national riding days suspension. There are no aggravating or mitigating factors to warrant an uplift from that starting point or a discount. We are not treating Mr Chowdhoory’s recent suspension as an aggravating factor, as 500 rides between that suspension and his previous one represents a very good record.
penalty:
Mr Chowdhoory’s Apprentice Jockey’s (Class B) licence is suspended from 18 December 2019 to 27 December 2109 – 7 national riding days.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1)(d)
Informant: M R Davidson, Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: K Chowdhoory, Licensed Apprentice Jockey (Class B)
Otherperson: J P Oatham, Chief Stipendiary Steward, M M Pitman, Licensed Trainer (Class A), D Prastiyou, Licensed Jockey (Class A)
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: c68a4989e136475090870c6755bed610
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R2
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 921ac5a5568c9a14ee0f3e2bd9bff924
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 06/12/2019
meet_title: Canterbury Racing - 6 December 2019
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: canterbury-racing
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: RMcKenzie
meet_pm1: DAnderson
meet_pm2: none
name: Canterbury Racing