1. The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry on 12 January 2017 to consider whether or not Philip Kirby, a licensed trainer, had committed a breach of Rule (C)17 of the Rules of Racing, in respect of his failure to notify the Racing Calendar Office, by noon 5 days before the horse鈥檚 next run, that GOOD TIME AHEAD (IRE) had been gelded. The matter was drawn to the BHA鈥檚 attention when the horse ran at Newcastle on 16 December 2016.

2. Prior to the enquiry, Mr Kirby had agreed that the matter could be heard in his absence. 聽Also, Mr Kirby and the BHA had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting. The BHA鈥檚 case was presented by Lauren Robinson.

3. Having considered the evidence, the Panel found Mr Kirby in breach of Rule (C)17 and fined him 拢200.

Mark McNiff

1. On 12 January 2017, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry to consider whether Mark McNiff, a licensed trainer, had committed a breach of Rule (A)29 of the Rules of Racing in that he ran CORSKEAGH EXPRESS (IRE) at Ayr in the Betfred TV Conditional Jockeys鈥� Novices鈥� Hurdle Race on 29 October 2016 when it was not qualified to race under Schedule (B)3. Specifically, Paragraph 10.2 which stated that a horse must not have been given any vaccination on the day of the race or on any of the six days before the day of the race in which the horse was declared to run.

2.Prior to the enquiry, Mr McNiff had agreed that the matter could be heard in his absence.聽 Also, Mr McNiff and the BHA had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting.聽 The BHA鈥檚 case was presented by Lauren Robinson.

3.Miss Robinson stated that when CORSKEAGH EXPRESS (IRE) was due to run at Sedgefield on 22 November 2016 the vet who inspected its passport noted that the passport stated that CORSKEAGH EXPRESS (IRE) had been given a vaccination on 25 October 2016, within 6 days before it ran at Ayr on 29 October 2016. The horse was therefore not qualified to race at Ayr.

4.The Panel accepted Mr McNiff鈥檚 admission that he was in breach of Rule (A)29. Taking into account that the horse had run only four days after receiving a vaccination, the Panel imposed a fine of 拢1,250.

Charlie Fellowes

1. On 12 January 2017, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) heard an appeal against the decision by the Wolverhampton Stewards, following an inquiry on 27 December 2016, to leave unaltered the placings of the first two horses home in the 32Red.com EBF Fillies鈥� Handicap Stakes. 聽DAISY BERE (FR), ridden by Joey Haynes, beat CAROLINAE, ridden by Stevie Donohoe, by approximately 戮 of a length. The Stewards held an inquiry in which they found that DAISY BERE (FR), placed first, ducked quickly right-handed and caused CAROLINAE, placed second, to briefly stumble before rallying to be beaten by 戮 of a length. They found that the interference was accidental and had not improved DAISY BERE (FR)鈥檚 placing as the interference had taken place outside the final furlong marker.

2. Prior to the enquiry, both parties had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting.聽 Mr Charlie Fellowes presented his appeal and Lyn Williams represented the BHA.聽 Evidence was given by Mr Haynes and Mr Donohoe.聽 Recordings of the race were shown.

3. Mr Williams stated that the incident occurred a furlong out with both horses travelling well and CAROLINAE about 戮 length down. DAISY BERE (FR) ducked sharply right bumping CAROLINAE causing her to stumble and Mr Donohoe to be unbalanced. The filly was unbalanced for 7 strides and then had 戮 furlong to go on and win the race. At the line DAISY BERE (FR) won readily with her ears pricked idling in front by 戮 length.聽 On the balance of probability he concluded CAROLINAE would not have finished in front of DAISY BERE (FR).

4. Mr Fellowes accepted the incident occurred a furlong out, but he believed that CAROLINAE was going significantly better than DAISY BERE (FR) when the interference took place and was poised to go and win her race. He stated that CAROLINAE had been matched at 5-1 on in running before the interference took place. He further stated that the interference was significant and caused both the filly and her jockey to become seriously unbalanced. The interference had caused CAROLINAE to drift across the track and Mr Donohoe was unable to ride her out until 6-7 strides before the line. He showed the Panel a photograph of the horse鈥檚 leg which was cut and a vet鈥檚 report from his own vet dated the day after the race. He stated that DAISY BERE (FR) was hard ridden all the way to the line whilst his jockey was unable to ride a proper finish due to CAROLINAE being unbalanced and drifting right.

5. He showed the Panel sectional times of the race and pointed out CAROLINAE had run the last 2 furlongs more quickly than DAISY BERE (FR).

6. The Panel found that when the accidental interference took place a furlong out that both fillies were going well. The interference caused CAROLINAE to stumble and lose momentum, but 戮 of a furlong out, when both fillies were balanced, CAROLINAE was 陆 length behind.聽 On the run to the line CAROLINAE made up no significant ground, was beaten 戮 length and was slowing which was confirmed by the sectional times.

4. The Panel dismissed the appeal and confirmed the placings as DAISY BERE (FR) first and CAROLINAE second. The Panel directed that the deposit be returned.

Notes to Editors:

1. The Panel for the enquiries was:聽William Barlow (Chair), Lucinda Cavendish, Diana Powles.

Introduction

1. The matters the subject of the enquiry are

(a) Whether the horse DUBAWI PHANTOM which won a race at Uttoxeter on 29 June 2014 should be disqualified under Rule (A)74 Ground 4 of the Rules of Racing as it had previously run at an unrecognised meeting in Ireland (contrary to paragraph 13 of Schedule B(2) of the Rules); and
(b) Whether the trainer, Paul John Gilligan, had been in breach of Rule (A)29 of the Rules of Racing by entering DUBAWI PHANTOM in a race at Uttoxeter on 29 June 2014 when he knew the horse was not qualified as it had run at an unrecognised meeting in Ireland.

2. The members of the Disciplinary Panel which conducted the re-hearing are Patrick Milmo QC (chair), Lucinda Cavendish and Jeremy Barlow.

3. The BHA were represented by Tim Naylor, counsel. Mr Gilligan was present and represented by Mr Michael Keane.

The respective cases

4. The BHA鈥檚 case put broadly is that DUBAWI PHANTOM ran at a flapping meeting held at Dingle, Ireland on 10 August 2013, under the name AYRES ROCK, and in the same month under the same name at four other similar meetings in Ireland. And the horse also ran under the name AYRES ROCK on 27 April 2014 at a flapping meeting at Athenry in Ireland. The BHA contend that in the circumstances which will be described in detail later, Mr Gilligan must have known at all material times that AYRES ROCK was the same horse as DUBAWI PHANTOM.

5. Mr Gilligan鈥檚 case put simply is that AYRES ROCK is not the same horse as DUBAWI PHANTOM, albeit that it may have looked like DUBAWI PHANTOM. He maintains that he acquired DUBAWI PHANTOM in a barter deal in November 2013, put him out to grass for most of the winter and then brought him back into training in the spring 2014. AYRES ROCK, claims Mr Gilligan, was owned by Mr Joe McNamara whose hobby was pony racing and training horses for pony racing and who lived some distance from Mr Gilligan. Accordingly DUBAWI PHANTOM was qualified to be entered for the race at Uttoxeter on 29 June 2014.

Narrative and background

6. We will endeavour to describe some of the background which is not disputed. DUBAWI PHANTOM is a thoroughbred gelding, born in 2007, and raced as a 2yo and 3yo in England. Its highest rating was 104. In the early months of 2011 the horse raced in Dubai, and later that year it returned to England to be trained by John Ferguson who ran it over hurdles, obtaining its highest rating of 120. Its last race over hurdles when trained by Mr Ferguson was in August 2012. It seems probable that it then changed ownership, reappearing on the 鈥榓ll weather鈥� in February 2013 and thereafter running without distinction on English courses on six occasions. Its last appearance was on 1 July 2013 at Wolverhampton, when its rating had been reduced to 76. Thereafter the owner gave the trainer, Mr Alan McCabe, instructions to sell the horse which he did. Mr McCabe told Mr Stuart Williams, a former BHA investigator, that he could not recall where the horse went after it left his yard. The owner, Mr Buckingham, told Mr Williams that he had no idea where the horse went other than it went to Ireland.

7. There is no record of the horse AYRES ROCK participating in races at meetings carried on under the auspices of Irish Horse and Pony Racing prior to 28 July 2013 when it ran 2nd in a race at Omey Beach. It then ran again on 4 August 2013 at a meeting at Ballyconneely, and then on three further occasions in August at meetings at Dingle (10 August), Geesala (18 August) and Louisburgh (24 August). On each of these occasions the rider was Liam Gilligan, Paul Gilligan鈥檚 12 year old son. Paul Gilligan attended the meetings at which his son was riding. At Dingle Christopher Gordon, Turf Club Head of Security was also there and was standing close by Mr Gilligan on the outside of the parade ring, when he heard the man leading round AYRES ROCK say to Mr Gilligan, 鈥渄id you give him his instructions鈥�. The race card for the races at Dingle on 10 August 2013 recorded AYRES ROCK as entered for a race in which it did not run. The owner was stated to be 鈥淛oe McNamara, Galway鈥�. AYRES ROCK won its race. Liam was interviewed by the commentator after the race. He was asked, 鈥渉ad you ridden this filly [sic] before, Liam?鈥�. He replied, 鈥淚 was riding him mostly at home on the gallops. I hadn鈥檛 ridden him in a race though鈥�. There is no record of AYRES ROCK running in 2013 at any other horse and pony racing meeting after 24 August. However AYRES ROCK did run once more on 27 April 2014 at a meeting at Athenry, which is close to where Mr Gilligan lives. Liam again rode; the horse was 2nd; Mr Gilligan was present. That appears to be the last time AYRES ROCK ran at a horse and pony racing meeting.

8. It is not disputed that an Irish Horse and Pony meeting is an unrecognised meeting within the meaning of that term as used in paragraph 13 of Schedule B(2) of the Rules.

9. On 8 May 2014 Mr Gilligan made a return to the Turf Club that DUBAWI PHANTOM was in training with him. On 16 May and 1 June 2014 the horse ran in hurdle races at Kilbeggan. On 29 June 2014 it ran in and won the Bet 365 Handicap Hurdle Race at Uttoxeter. It ran at Sligo on 13 July 2014. It was entered to run at Galway on 30 July 2014, but was withdrawn by order of the Stewards. It has not run since.

Racing careers never coinciding

10. On the issue whether DUBAWI PHANTOM and AYRES ROCK were the same horse Mr Naylor points out that their racing careers in 2013 and 2014 never coincided. DUBAWI PHANTOM was never even recorded as being in training at a time when AYRES ROCK was competing in horse and pony racing; and it was only after AYRES ROCK ceased to race that DUBAWI PHANTOM commenced hurdle racing in Ireland.

Expert evidence

11. However, on the issue of identity the BHA relies principally on expert evidence as to what conclusions can be drawn from photographs and DVD footage taken of AYRES ROCK at Dingle on 10 August 2013, and of DUBAWI PHANTOM at Uttoxeter on 29 June 2014, and from the markings recorded in the passport of DUBAWI PHANTOM.

12. The expert evidence was given by Nick Bowen a veterinary officer of some 29 years experience employed by the BHA. He produced a statement dated 15 April 2015 in which he averred that the horse depicted in four photographs taken at Dingle had markings which were entirely consistent with the markings recorded in DUBAWI PHANTOM鈥檚 passport. He expressed the same opinion in respect of the markings apparent in the photographs of DUBAWI PHANTOM taken at Uttoxeter.

13. The markings were:
(a) On the head – 鈥� a large white star with a conjoined stripe extending to a tapered point just above nostril level . . . . Within the star there are paired whorls, the whorl on the right side of the midline is higher than the whorl on the left side of the midline鈥�
(b) On left fore leg: 鈥渨hole colour [chestnut] left fore limb with a pigmented hoof鈥�
(c) on right fore leg: 鈥渨hite to mid cannon, higher inside with a predominantly white hoof with some dark pigment on the inside鈥�
(d) left hind leg: 鈥渨hite to one third cannon, higher outside with a non-pigmented hoof.鈥�
(e) Right hind leg: 鈥渨hole colour [chestnut] right hind limb with a pigmented hoof.鈥�

14. Mr Bowen confirmed the contents of the statement save for the markings of right hind leg (e): he had seen another photograph taken at Dingle which showed that the right hind foot was not pigmented, which was how it appeared in photographs he had seen earlier. He also conceded that in a newer photograph 鈥� tab 19 photo 7 鈥� there was some white hair on the coronary band at the front of the right hind foot.

15. Mr Bowen did not accept that there were any differences in the position of the whorls on the horse鈥檚 forehead shown in the photographs taken at Dingle and Uttoxeter. 鈥淚n my opinion they are at the very least very similar, if not identical鈥�. As for differences in the level of white on the right forelimb, he said there was none at all. As for colour differences in the photos taken at Dingle and Uttoxeter, Mr Bowen remarked that the appearance of a horse in a photograph depends on the time of year, the length of its coat, the sunlight, the type of camera that is being used, a myriad of other factors. 鈥淚n terms of . . . trying to make the decision whether they are the same horse, any slight differentiation in colour between two sets of photographs is irrelevant. I mean clearly they are both chestnut and very similar.鈥�

16. Mr Bowen stated that his conclusion was that the horse depicted in the DVD and photographs taken at Dingle on 10 August 2013 is the same horse as that depicted in the DVD and photographs taken at Uttoxeter on 29 June 2014.

17. Mr Bowen rejected suggestions that in order to make a judgment as to whether DUBAWI PHANTOM is or could be the same horse as AYRES ROCK it was necessary to physically examine DUBAWI PHANTOM in the flesh. The photos were of sufficient clarity and quality to enable him to reach the conclusion that he had. If he was making a comparison between two existing horses Mr Bowen accepted that it may be desirable to examine them both. But in this case there was only one horse that could be examined, namely DUBAWI PHANTOM, and the task of deciding whether he was the same horse as one shown in the Dingle photographs could be effectively undertaken, without inspecting the horse in the flesh if there were clear photos and the passport available. (In this context we were referred to the decision in an appeal against the decision of the Referrals Committee of the Turf Club where the issue was whether a horse had run at an unregulated meeting. The Appeals Body was critical of identification, based on a comparison of photographs rather than direct inspection of all the animals at issue. This decision is neither binding, nor mandatory guidance. Whether identification by photographic comparison is sufficiently probative will depend on the material, particularly the clarity of the photos, in each case. It is necessary to add that if the second horse, if it ever existed, is not available for inspection reliance will have to be placed on photographs).

18. In response to further questioning by Mr Keane, Mr Bowen stated that he did not measure horses when identifying them: 鈥渕easuring them is not part of the identification process鈥�. Nor would he use teeth as a means of confirming the identity of the horse. Mr Bowen was asked to comment on a report of Ben Brain, a veterinary surgeon, in which he expressed the opinion that it was not possible for a vet to rely solely on third party photographic evidence to make a definite statement of identity. Mr Bowen pointed out that Mr Brain was sent only black and white photographs of 鈥渕oderate quality鈥�, whereas he (Mr Bowen) had [colour] photographs of 鈥減retty high quality鈥�. He (Mr Bowen) was able to say 鈥渢hat the horse at Uttoxeter was DUBAWI PHANTOM and the horse at Dingle was identical to the horse at Uttoxeter.

19. Mr Keane further questioned Mr Bowen about the age of the horse at Dingle, i.e. AYRES ROCK, which it was suggested was no older than 4 and significantly younger than DUBAWI PHANTOM who would have been 6陆 in August 2013. That was on the basis of what was shown of AYRES ROCK鈥檚 teeth in a photo taken at Dingle. Mr Bowen鈥檚 estimation of the horse鈥檚 age from what could be seen of the horse鈥檚 teeth in the photos was between five and nine. He added that ageing horses on their teeth is an unreliable science, and that he did not consider that the photographs were good enough for anybody 鈥渢o hang their hat on鈥�.

Mr Gilligan鈥檚 expert

20. Mr Gilligan鈥檚 expert was called immediately after Mr Bowen had completed his evidence. He was Philip McManus, an experienced veterinary surgeon practising in Galway. He gave evidence in person, producing two reports, the first dated 23 February 2016, and the second 11 March 2016. In the first report the opening paragraphs are in these terms:
鈥淭his is to certify that I have examined all the photographs in connection with two horses at Dingle races and Uttoxeter races. I have read the comparisons and descriptions given by Mr Nick Bowen.

I have also clinically examined the Dubai Phantom [sic] at Paul Gilligan鈥檚 yard over the last few days. I agree completely that these horses are indistinguishable on photographs at these racecourses due to the similarity of the markings. These horses are essentially almost completely identical in photos at this range. In my opinion the only way to distinguish them is by DNA or by reading the microchips of each animal.鈥�
The report then noted three differences apparent on 鈥渃lose inspection鈥�. The first of these was no pigmentation of DUBAWI PHANTOM鈥檚 right hind hoof. But it is now accepted that a photo of AYRES ROCK shows no pigmentation of this hoof. The second difference was a spot of white on the anterior cornet of the right hind limb of DUBAWI PHANTOM. But it is now also accepted that a spot of white can be seen in the Dingle photos. The third difference related to the left front hoof which Mr Bowen stated was pigmented in the Dingle photos and Mr McManus claimed on his inspection of DUBAWI PHANTOM was 鈥渂roken pigmented鈥�. When Mr Naylor in cross-examination suggested, 鈥渢here isn鈥檛 any difference in pigmentation?鈥� Mr McManus鈥檚 response was 鈥淰ery little, if any鈥�

21. Mr McManus鈥檚 second report written apparently after Mr McManus had met with Mr Gilligan鈥檚 鈥渓egal team鈥� compared the markings found on a clinical examination of DUBAWI PHANTOM with those on his passport and with those apparent on the photographs taken at Dingle and Uttoxeter. The markings are listed under head markings and markings on the four legs. It is claimed that the horse in the Dingle photos has a large star and stripe on its head the precise area of which does not match the diagram of the passport of DUBAWI PHANTOM and some photos of the horse. Particular attention is given to the position of the whorls on the head of the horse at Dingle and the horse at Uttoxeter. It is said that if a line is drawn through the centre of these whorls extending to 鈥渕eet line horizontal at centre eye level鈥� the lines would meet 3鈥� outside the left eye in respect of DUBAWI PHANTOM and inside left eye orbit in respect of the horse photographed at Dingle. This was one of the differences specifically recorded in this second report. The others were: white anterior cornet on right hind limb of DUBAWI PHANTOM; difference in level of white on limb of DUBAWI PHANTOM; and colour of DUBAWI PHANTOM i.e. liver chestnut.

22. Additional differences were claimed by Mr McManus in the course of his oral evidence, namely, the height and build of DUBAWI PHANTOM was considerably larger than AYRES ROCK, and the age of the latter assessed on what could be seen of his teeth, namely about four; Some two years younger than DUBAWI PHANTOM.

Analysis of expert evidence

23. The evidence of the experts is obviously of crucial importance in relation to the issues that arise in this case but is not necessarily conclusive. In summary Mr Bowen鈥檚 position is that by virtue of the similarity of the idiosyncratic markings on the head and legs of the horse that ran at Dingle and the horse that ran at Uttoxeter he has no doubt that they are the same horse. Mr McManus鈥檚 opinion is that there are sufficient differences not only in the markings but in the height, shape and colour of the horses as to make it at the very least improbable that AYRES ROCK is the same horse as DUBAWI PHANTOM. In our assessment the evidence of Mr Bowen is more convincing and to be preferred. It will have been noted that most, if not all, of Mr McManus鈥檚 鈥渄ifferences鈥� were not mentioned in his first report, and one was raised for the first time when he gave evidence. Further Mr McManus was at times confused, muddled and inconsistent. There could be no better example than his answers to questions in cross-examination about whether he had been sent by Mr McNamara photos of AYRES ROCK. His initial response was 鈥淎s far as I remember he didn鈥檛 send me any鈥�. But he soon conceded, having been referred to his evidence at the first enquiry, that he must have been sent some, but they were not relevant. This led to this question from Mr Naylor: 鈥淭herefore you examined these photographs, did you?鈥� Mr McManus鈥檚 answer was, 鈥淚 looked at them but, as I said to you, they weren鈥檛 very clear. You couldn鈥檛 really see anything but a horse鈥�. He repeated this evidence a few moments later: 鈥�. . . what I鈥檓 stating now is what I remember. I鈥檓 sorry but I didn鈥檛 remember if he [McNamara] had sent it but I certainly knew they were not relevant and they weren鈥檛 useful to anything. I couldn鈥檛 see them clearly鈥�. Another subject covered in the course of cross-examination was the number of photographs he had of AYRES ROCK at Dingle when he wrote his first report. His answer was 鈥淚 haven鈥檛 a clue鈥�, notwithstanding that he had 鈥渃ertified鈥� in the report that he had seen all the photographs in connection with two horses at Dingle races and Uttoxeter races. He also confirmed in the report that he had 鈥渞ead the comparisons and descriptions鈥� given by Mr Bowen, but in evidence this was downgraded to taking a 鈥渇leeting look鈥� at Mr Bowen鈥檚 comparisons. As regards the colour of DUBAWI PHANTOM, upon which Mr McManus placed strong reliance, at one stage describing the horse as 鈥渧ery dark liver chestnut鈥�, we did note that in some of the Dingle photographs the horse appeared to be a light chestnut whereas the horse at Uttoxeter seemed of a darker hue. However, having seen other photos taken at Dingle when the whole or part of the body of the horse was in the shade we accept the view of Mr Bowen that photos are not a reliable basis for judging the colour of a horse. As for the height and shape of DUBAWI PHANTOM it became apparent that Mr McManus regarded this as a strong point as he was under the impression that the horse called AYRES ROCK had been running at Dingle in a pony race. That was not so. The race was an “Open Horse Race鈥�.

24. As already stated the evidence of the experts on identity is not necessarily conclusive. We must consider the remainder of the evidence, particularly that put forward by and on behalf of Mr Gilligan, to assess whether it displaces any conclusions that might otherwise be reached on the basis of the expert evidence, bearing in mind of course that the burden of proving any allegations made against Mr Gilligan is on the BHA.

The evidence of Mr Gordon

25. One other witness was called by the BHA, namely Christopher Gordon, Turf Club Head of Security, whom we have already mentioned in paragraph 7 above. In addition to stating what he heard the man leading AYRES ROCK in the parade ring (apparently Mr McNamara) say to Mr Gilligan about instructions, he explained that he made notes of that horse鈥檚 markings on his race card as they were so pronounced and he had some suspicions. He said that every horse running at a flapping meeting would be microchipped, but the organisers do not cooperate with the Turf Club and would not disclose the results of any microchip scanning carried out at a flapping meeting. Mr Gordon agreed with Mr Keane that there had been an official inspection of Mr Gilligan鈥檚 yard 9 days after Dingle and DUBAWI PHANTOM was not there.

The 鈥榙efence鈥� evidence

26. In addition to Mr McManus, Mr Gilligan and Mr McNamara, the alleged owner of AYRES ROCK gave oral evidence.

27. Mr Gilligan did not produce a written statement. He first of all stated that he was a small trainer and he and his family attended Dingle races in August 2013. He was not involved in horse and pony racing but he did bring over in his lorry a pony who might have run in the 15 hand race, although not entered. His interest in pony racing was because his son, Liam, then aged 12 was riding. And he had two rides at the meeting. Though a licensed trainer he understood he could help his son with his riding. He was always concerned about Liam鈥檚 safety, and he understood the question from the man leading round AYRES ROCK about whether he had given his son instructions was seeking confirmation that he had told Liam to ride safely. He knew about the arrangement for AYRES ROCK to be brought over from Clifden, (where the owner Mr McNamara lived) to his gallops to be ridden by Liam before the Dingle race as he wanted Liam to be confident that he could manage the horse. But he was not there at the time. He was aware that at Dingle winners had their microchip tested. 9 days after the Dingle race there was an official inspection of his whole yard.

Mr Gilligan explained how he had acquired DUBAWI PHANTOM. In November 2013 he happened to meet a neighbour, Finbar Ryan, at a local filling station who told him that he had a thoroughbred gelding to sell as he was not suitable for him. (Mr Ryan has made a statement that he had bought the horse at Tallow horse fair for 鈧�600). Mr Gilligan went to see the horse and eventually a deal was made whereby the thoroughbred was swapped for a hunter Mr Gilligan owned. Mr Gilligan, when the horse was delivered, acquired its passport, and then only found out its name, and was able to ascertain its racing record. The horse was immediately sent away to be looked after by one of Mr Gilligan鈥檚 owners, Tony Kilkenny, and was returned to Mr Gilligan鈥檚 yard on 27 February 2014 (confirmed by the evidence of Mr Kilkenny whose evidence at the first enquiry, it was agreed, should stand as his evidence at this enquiry). Mr Gilligan asserted that the first he heard of the allegation that DUBAWI PHANTOM had run as AYRES ROCK at Dingle on 10 August 2013 was at the enquiry at Galway on 30 July 2014.

28. In cross-examination Mr Gilligan confirmed that as far as he was concerned DUBAWI PHANTOM and AYRES ROCK were two different horses. He was probably present at other [flapping] meetings in August 2013 where his son was riding including Omey Reach and Ballyconneely. He was also present at Athenry at the meeting on 27 April 2014. He did not arrange Liam鈥檚 rides. That would be done by Mr McNamara or his daughter. The reason why he took his horse box to Dingle was because he brought a pony called Patsy Shine who might have run in a pony race though it had not been entered. Liam did ride a horse called Buddy Holly for Mr McNamara on 4 August 2013. AYRES ROCK was the only horse ridden by Liam which had been brought to his stables (to be galloped). He denied that this had been invented on account of what Liam had said at Dingle in the post-race interview. Mr Gilligan was asked whether he made inquiries about the results from the checking of the microchip of AYRES ROCK after it had won at Dingle. He first responded that it was not for him to do this, to obtain or produce the microchip number. Later he claimed that he would have asked Mr McNamara to make the request and Mr McNamara said that he would. He had heard that they (the horse and pony racing authorities) had refused to disclose the microchip number. Mr Gilligan agreed that AYRES ROCK and DUBAWI PHANTOM were 鈥渞emarkably similar horses鈥�, but he had never said to anyone that AYRES ROCK was almost identical to a horse that he had at home,

29. Joe McNamara was the author of a statement in the case bundle (tab 8 p.137) and he gave oral evidence. He said that he was involved in pony racing and had four ponies in training. He said that he was the owner of AYRES ROCK which he had purchased for 鈧�700 in 2013. He had no idea whom he had bought it from. There was no passport which was not unusual as trainers often did not want the record of the horse to be known. He had been told that the horse had run as a two year old and was probably 3 or 4 when he bought him. He was not big, about 15 hands. He had been brought to and tried out on Mr Gilligan鈥檚 gallop as Liam was just breaking into riding horses at races (previously only ponies) and his daughter wanted Liam to get the feel of the horse. The trip to Mr Gilligan鈥檚 yard from where he lived was about 70 miles each way. Mr McNamara said that he brought the horse down to Dingle, saddled him and gave instructions to Liam. As he was leading AYRES ROCK around he did ask Mr Gilligan, 鈥渄id you give him (meaning Liam) any instructions鈥�, as he thought he (Mr Gilligan) had said don鈥檛 do this and don鈥檛 do that. The horse would have had a microchip. He had never seen a horse being scanned (for the microchip number), but he could make an objection and force a horse to be scanned. The following season AYRES ROCK had leg trouble so after one run he sold him on to Mathew Noonan, and he hasn鈥檛 seen him since. Mr Noonan was an elusive person and he had tried (unsuccessfully) to phone him.

30. In cross-examination Mr McNamara said that he had not asked, and no one had asked him to get the microchip number of AYRES ROCK. He was referred to his written statement (tab 9 p. 137) in which he had stated that he purchased AYRES ROCK at the end of August 2012, and he did not seek to change that date. He said that the horse was not entered for any race in 2012 as he had a leg problem. Mr Gilligan did not train the horse. It came out of the race (at Athenry on 27 April 2014) badly and so was sold to Martin Needham, who was hoping to race him again. Mr McNamara said he did not remember writing the statement at p.137.

31. In answer to questions from the Panel, Mr McNamara said that AYRES ROCK had an implanted microchip when he got him. He also said that there were no documents relating to the sale to Mr Needham, and no veterinary reports concerning the condition of the horse after the race at Athenry.

32. During the course of Mr McNamara鈥檚 evidence there was an incident during the course of the luncheon adjournment. It was witnessed by Danielle Sharkey, solicitor for the BHA, who prepared a written statement in which she averred that she had heard Mr McNamara (in the witness waiting room) answer his phone and speak to a woman who started to give him instructions as to what he should say in the course of his evidence. Ms Sharkey then walked into the room and told Mr McNamara to end the call, which he did, and she then said this was a very serious matter 鈥渂ecause Mr Gilligan or his legal representative have just caused for a call to be made to you in an attempt to try and interfere with your evidence.鈥� Mr McNamara was questioned about this by Mr Naylor in the course of cross-examination. He said that he didn鈥檛 recall what was said or hear anything that was said. He had not discussed with Mr Gilligan what he was going to say. Though the BHA obtained the number from which the call was made, the Panel was given no information about who might have access to the phone with that number and there was no sufficient evidence to draw an inference that either Mr Gilligan or Mr Keane were responsible for causing the call to be made. The Panel decided that in the circumstances in the consideration of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses they would take no account of this incident.

Analysis of evidence

33. However, any analysis of the evidence of Mr Gilligan and to a lesser extent that of Mr McNamara stretches credibility beyond breaking point.

34. Let us start with Mr Gilligan. He is an experienced racehorse trainer, albeit operating on a small scale. He was apparently prepared to acquire a potential racehorse which had recently been traded at a horse fair without inspecting the horse鈥檚 passport, or knowing its name or what if any had been its racing record. That in itself is unlikely. Add to that that the horse, DUBAWI PHANTOM, was well bred, was in 2013 only 6, had a reasonable racing record, easily accessible, with two wins over hurdles and a current flat rating of 76, it is implausible that within about 4 months of arriving in Ireland it was being bought and sold at the bottom end of the horse market. And what is impossible to believe is that when Mr Gilligan first saw DUBAWI PHANTOM he did not immediately notice that the horse was remarkably similar to the one his son Liam had been riding at various flapping meetings in August, but three months previous, meetings which he, Mr Gilligan, had attended. If there was any truth in Mr Gilligan鈥檚 account of how he acquired DUBAWI PHANTOM one would have expected him to make immediate inquiries to verify the identity of the horse Liam had been riding, called AYRES ROCK. On the accounts given by Mr Gilligan, in November 2013 until after April 2014 AYRES ROCK was stabled with and being trained by Mr McNamara and checks could have been easily undertaken. Then from March 2014 DUBAWI PHANTOM was in Mr Gilligan鈥檚 stable being trained to race. On 27 April 2014 in the presence of Mr Gilligan the 鈥渋ndistinguishable鈥� (Mr McManus鈥檚 word) AYRES ROCK was racing at a local flapping meeting at Athenry, ridden by Liam Gilligan. If AYRES ROCK was a different horse Mr Gilligan would surely have taken steps to ensure that this could be proved. Liam has not been called as a witness nor has he provided a statement. It is perhaps understandable that his father did not want to involve his young son in this matter. But given that he rode AYRES ROCK in races on four occasions, and is likely to have ridden DUBAWI PHANTOM in the course of training, we wonder what were his thoughts about the remarkable similarities between the two horses? We have also to comment that what he said on the tannoy at Dingle on 10 August 2013 (鈥淚 was riding him mostly at home on the gallops鈥�) is not satisfactorily explained by evidence (even if it be true which the BHA do not accept) that once the horse had been taken over from Clifden to be exercised and ridden by Liam on Mr Gilligan鈥檚 gallops. The language used by Liam was not appropriate to describe a one-off event. The final point concerns Mr Gilligan鈥檚 inactivity and indifference in relation to establishing the true identity of the horse running under the name AYRES ROCK by ascertaining the results of microchip scanning undertaken at flapping meetings where he had run. Mr Gilligan鈥檚 initial attitude seemed to be this was not a matter for him, but he later said that he had asked Mr McNamara to make these inquiries. Mr McNamara鈥檚 evidence was that he had never been asked, and on this point we accept his evidence. What conclusions can be drawn? The fact that Mr Gilligan did not take steps that might have proved the true identity of AYRES ROCK does not prove and is not evidence from which it can be inferred that AYRES ROCK was DUBAWI PHANTOM. But it does reflect significantly on the credibility of his account that these were two different horses and that is what he believed. If that was so, in our view Mr Gilligan would have taken every possible measure to obtain the results of scanning checks of the microchip implanted in AYRES ROCK conducted at flapping meetings. On our findings he did nothing.

35. Turning to the evidence of Mr McNamara, on the BHA case he was an accomplice with Mr Gilligan in what might be described as a rigging conspiracy. And if, as we have found, Mr Gilligan鈥檚 account does not 鈥榮tack up鈥�, that must inevitably tarnish the credibility of Mr McNamara鈥檚 story. Put briefly it was that he purchased AYRES ROCK in 2012 or 2013 from he does not know whom, raced him at pony meetings in August 2013 and once in April 2014, and then sold him to a person he was able to identify, as he had gone wrong with tendon trouble. He could produce no supporting documents for the purchase and sale transactions, or any statement from the person who allegedly bought the horse. There was no record of AYRES ROCK having raced at any kind of meeting prior to 28 July 2013, and in his last race on 27 April 2014 in the course of, or after which he went wrong, he was second. There were no veterinary records or invoices to support or confirm the injury. There was not a scrap of evidence as to what had happened to AYRES ROCK after he was allegedly sold by Mr McNamara, though there were vague suggestions that he had been or might have been put down. Like Mr Gilligan, Mr McNamara took no steps to obtain the results of microchip scanning checks carried out at meetings at which AYRES ROCK had run. We cannot accept Mr McNamara鈥檚 evidence as true or even possibly true.

36. Our conclusion is that the evidence of Mr Gilligan and his witnesses neither displaces nor indeed raises any doubts about the reliability of the evidence given by Mr Bowen. That evidence proves the identity of the horse that ran at Dingle and other flapping meetings in July and August 2013, and April 2014. The evidence that Mr Gilligan had knowledge that DUBAWI PHANTOM had been running at unrecognised meetings is overwhelming.

37. Accordingly our findings are as follows:

(a) That DUBAWI PHANTOM ran under the name AYERS ROCK at an unrecognised meeting at Dingle in Ireland on 10 August 2013 and at other unrecognised meetings in Ireland;
(b) That in consequence DUBAWI PHANTOM was not qualified to be entered to run in the Bet 365 Handicap Hurdle race at Uttoxeter on 29 June 2014;
(c) That by reason of the foregoing DUBAWI PHANTOM should be disqualified under Rule (A)74 of the Rules of Racing;
(d) That the trainer Paul Gilligan knew that DUBAWI PHANTOM was not qualified to be entered or to run in the said race at Uttoxeter;
(e) That accordingly Mr Gilligan was in breach of Rule (A)29.1 of the Rules of Racing

PENALTY

The BHA booklet 鈥淕uide to Procedures and Penalties 2016鈥� recommends for breaches of Rule (A)29 an entry point in respect of a fine of 拢1,000 and for disqualification/exclusion an entry point of 3 months and a range of 1 month 鈥� 3 years.

Mr Naylor has argued for a penalty in the upper range, given, he said, there were aggravating factors which included the manner in which Mr Gilligan, through his representative, has conducted his case, which included attacking the conduct or truthfulness of witnesses and the authorities in Ireland and here. Certainly there were no admissions made by Mr Gilligan and limited, if any, cooperation with the investigators. And had there been these factors they could have been put forward as mitigating features. On the other hand we feel that some caution should be exercised before treating the manner in which a respondent conducts his defence of challenging the allegations as amounting to aggravation.

Mr Naylor also invited us to take into account as meriting a more severe penalty the incident which we have detailed in paragraph 32 of our Reasons. We do not think that we can take this course. If the BHA wish to pursue this matter, it should be fully investigated, and if considered appropriate be the subject of a separate inquiry at which the BHA and Mr Gilligan could call witnesses and make representations.

Mr Keane on behalf of Mr Gilligan pointed out that this matter had been hanging over his client for over 3 陆 years and seriously affected his business for the last 2 陆 years. He also submitted that the infringement was at the lower end of the scale.

We have learnt that at the first enquiry the penalty imposed was disqualification for 6 months which is an indication that the breach was not regarded as a trivial, and with that approach we are in agreement. This is of course a rehearing, but given that the original hearing was abortive through no fault of Mr Gilligan, we do not think it would be right or justified to increase the period of disqualification. But nor do we think there are any new mitigating factors which would make it appropriate and fair to reduce the period of disqualification.

Accordingly we impose the penalty of disqualification for a period of 6 months from 19 December 2016 until 18 June 2017 inclusive.

We also order that there be returned to Weatherbys or the BHA that proportion of the prize money that was received by the owners of DUBAWI PHANTOM for winning at Uttoxeter on 29 June 2014.

1. On 10 November 2016, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) heard an appeal against the decision by the Doncaster Stewards, following an inquiry on 22 October 2016, to leave unaltered the placings of the first two horses home in the Sunbets.co.uk Download the App Handicap Stakes. LAURENCE, ridden by Ryan Moore, beat BANDITRY (IRE), ridden by William Buick, by a head. The Stewards held an inquiry in which they found that LAURENCE had ducked sharply right to carry BANDITRY (IRE) off its intended line and the interference had not improved LAURENCE鈥檚 placing. They ordered the placings to remain unaltered as the interference caused by LAURENCE was minimal and did not affect the result.

2. Prior to the enquiry, both parties had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting. Mr Ian Williams presented his appeal and Lyn Williams represented the BHA. Evidence was given by Mr Moore and Mr Buick via telephone as both were overseas.

3. At the appeal, there was no dispute about the bare facts of what happened in the race. Two furlongs out, LAURENCE began to deliver a challenge on the outside, and was about three lengths adrift of the then leader and a number of other horses on his inside. Mr Buick on BANDITRY (IRE) was tracking Mr Moore on LAURENCE at this point, and positioned directly behind him, a little more than 1陆 lengths adrift of LAURENCE.

4. By the furlong marker, BANDITRY (IRE) was still about 1陆 lengths adrift of LAURENCE, who had moved into a share of the lead. Both horses were under strong pressure from their riders. But BANDITRY (IRE) then began to make ground on LAURENCE, and in the next 50 yards the distance between them was just under one length. At this stage, Mr Moore鈥檚 horse LAURENCE ducked sharply right and carried BANDITRY (IRE) off his line. (Mr Moore attributed this manoeuvre to his horse being distracted by the route to the stables, and it was accepted on all sides that this was accidental interference). The manoeuvre, though accidental, was pronounced and LAURENCE moved about four horses width to his right. Mr Buick had to take back and check his mount.

5. The immediate effect on BANDITRY (IRE) was a loss of momentum and a loss of position relative to LAURENCE. From having been just under a length down on LAURENCE, BANDITRY (IRE) found himself about 1录 lengths adrift. Furthermore, the recordings of the race showed to the Panel that Buick on BANDITRY (IRE) was checked and had to take a pull for two strides, and then took some further four or five strides to rebalance and deliver a renewed challenge. These were, in the Panel鈥檚 view, consequences of the accidental interference.

6. For the remainder of the race to the finishing post, BANDITRY (IRE) made up ground on LAURENCE and was beaten by a diminishing head 鈥� i.e. about 12 inches. Just 10 yards past the post, BANDITRY (IRE) was well past LAURENCE.

7. When evaluating the effect of the interference on BANDITRY (IRE), the Panel was persuaded that it cost BANDITRY (IRE) the race. The incident not only cost BANDITRY (IRE) a quarter of length at a crucial juncture of the race but also momentum and balance. And the eventual margin of defeat was some 12 inches, with BANDITRY (IRE) finishing notably the stronger.

8. The Panel therefore upheld the appeal and ordered the placings to be reversed, placing BANDITRY (IRE) first and LAURENCE second.

9. The deposit posted by Mr Williams was of course returned to him in light of his success.

Sylvester Kirk

1. On 10 November 2016, the Disciplinary Panel of the BHA heard an appeal brought by the trainer Sylvester Kirk against a fine of 拢140 imposed upon him by the Windsor Stewards for late notification of the withdrawal of his filly HARMONY BAY (IRE) from the 2.20p.m. race at Windsor on 17 October 2016.

2. Prior to the enquiry, both parties had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting. Mr Kirk presented his appeal in person, and Lyn Williams represented the BHA.

3. The relevant Rules are found in Schedule (F)7. In brief they require trainers to make immediate notification that a horse declared to run will be a non-runner. Where a horse has not reached the racecourse, the trainer must without delay inform the Racing Calendar Office if his horse is withdrawn.

4. Mr Kirk鈥檚 appeal seemed to have been motivated largely by a sense of annoyance with the Stipendiary Steward, Chris Rutter, following some exchanges they had about this matter on 17 October. The Panel did not feel that this had any relevance for the question it had to decide 鈥� i.e. did Mr Kirk give immediate notice of his withdrawal of HARMONY BAY (IRE).

5. But it was important to recall that the appeal operates as a rehearing, at which the BHA must prove its case against Mr Kirk.

6. Whatever evidence may have been before the Stewards at Windsor, this Panel was not presented with a clear picture by anybody of just when Mr Kirk decided to withdraw the filly. Notice of the withdrawal was given at 13.03 hours by email. He withdrew her, he said, because she was found to be sore when she came to be boxed up to go to Windsor. When was that? On one view of the travel time from his stables to Windsor (which was accepted by the BHA), this could have been as late as 12.55 hours on 17 October (i.e. 8 minutes before the time of the email notifying withdrawal). If the time gap was 8 minutes, the Panel did not interpret that as a breach by Mr Kirk.

7. Though the Panel was told by Mr Williams that Mr Rutter and Mr Kirk had spoken on the day and that Mr Rutter was informed that the decision to withdraw had been taken earlier, there was no actual evidence from Mr Rutter or anyone else on this. So the BHA did not establish a time gap between the decision to withdraw and notice of this which amounted to a breach of the Schedule (F)7 requirements.

8. The Panel therefore allowed Mr Kirk鈥檚 appeal and ordered the return of his deposit.

Rule (C)17 breaches:

The Disciplinary Panel of the BHA held an enquiry on 10 November 2016 to consider whether or not a number of trainers had committed breaches of Rule (C)17 of the Rules of Racing, in respect of their failure to notify the Racing Calendar Office, by noon 5 days before the horse鈥檚 next run, that their horses had been gelded.

Prior to the enquiry, all the trainers had agreed that the matters could be heard in their absence as all of them either admitted the breach or did not contest it. Also, the BHA and the trainers agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting. The BHA鈥檚 cases were presented by Lauren Robinson and Lyn Williams.

Having considered the evidence, the Panel found the trainers in breach of Rule (C)17 and fined the following:

Keith Dalgleish 鈥� TAXMEIFYOUCAN (IRE) – 拢200
Edward Dunlop 鈥� SPORTING TIMES – 拢200
Nigel Hawke 鈥� LAKE PLACID – 拢200
Peter Hedger 鈥� MR MAC – 拢100
Philip McBride 鈥� FOUR CANDLES – 拢100
Gary Moore 鈥� KEIBA (IRE) – 拢100
Paul Nicholls 鈥� PILANSBERG – 拢200
Brendan Powell 鈥� PHOENIX DAWN – 拢200
Nigel Twiston-Davies 鈥� UNBLINKING – 拢200

The Panel noted that Messrs Mr Hedger, Mr McBride and Mr Moore had made notifications before their horses had reached the racecourse, but after declarations, and it was for this reason that a lower fine was imposed in their cases.

Notes to Editors:

1. The Panel for the enquiries was: Tim Charlton QC (Chair), William Barlow and Roger Bellamy

1. On 28 July 2016, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) heard an appeal brought by the jockey Marc Monaghan, the rider of ACCENTO, against the decision by the Doncaster Stewards to find him in breach of Rule (B)54.1 and to suspend him for 3 days for careless riding in the Saint Gobain Weber Maiden Stakes on 21 July 2016.

2. Prior to the enquiry, both parties had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting.

3. As always, the Disciplinary Panel approached this type of appeal as a re-hearing. Mr Monaghan was represented by Rory Mac Neice and the BHA’s case was presented by Lyn Williams. Mr Williams and Mr Mac Neice prior to the enquiry had agreed that Mr Hamilton, the rider of YARMOUK (FR), that had suffered the interference, need not attend as both parties had agreed that interference had taken place.

4. Mr Williams, on behalf of the BHA, stated that inside the final furlong Mr Monaghan had manoeuvred ACCENTO to the outside for a run. He used his whip in the backhand position and his horse had drifted right. Mr Williams accepted that Mr Monaghan had correctly straightened his horse but he should have expected it to drift right again when he took his hand off the rein to聽use his whip聽and he had therefore not taken reasonable steps to prevent interference taking place.

5. Mr Mac Neice, on behalf of Mr Monaghan, stated that having drifted right Mr Monaghan had correctly straightened his horse but that he could not reasonably have expected the horse to drift right when he took his hand off the rein to ask the horse to improve its position.

6. The Panel accepted that Mr Monaghan had taken all reasonable steps to correct the initial drift to the right, and having straightened his horse, Mr Monaghan correctly encouraged his horse forward to obtain the best possible placing. He could not have expected or prevented the sudden and slight move right which resulted in interference to YARMOUK (FR). The Panel also took into account ACCENTO was a two year old having his first run. The Panel found that the interference was accidental.

7. The Panel therefore upheld the appeal and quashed the 3 day suspension and returned his deposit.

Notes to Editors:

1. The Panel for the appeal was: William Barlow (Chair), Philip Curl, Ian Stark

1. On 21 July 2016, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) heard an appeal brought by Sylvester Kirk, the trainer of WOODUKHELEYFIT, against the decision of the Stewards at Wolverhampton on 5 July 2016 to reverse the placings of the first and second home in the Visit attheraces.com Maiden Auction Stakes. They demoted WOODUKHELEYFIT, ridden by George Baker to second place, and in consequence promoted BAYSTON HILL, ridden by Luke Morris, to first place. They found that BAYSTON HILL had been making progress to challenge the leader when suffering interference, which cost him both ground and momentum and despite this he got to within a head of the winner at the line.

2. Prior to the enquiry, both parties had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting.

3. As always, the Disciplinary Panel approached this type of appeal as a re-hearing. The appeal was presented by Miss S Farr, the owner, on behalf of Mr Kirk, who was in attendance and the BHA’s case was presented by Lyn Williams. Mr Morris, the rider and Mark Usher the trainer of BAYSTON HILL and Mr Baker, the rider of WOODUKHELEYFIT, were in attendance.

4. Mr Williams stated that in the final 陆 furlong WOODUKHELEYFIT hung right handed away from the whip intimidating BAYSTON HILL causing him to become unbalanced and taking him two 鈥� three horses width off his intended line. After re balancing his horse Mr Morris had only seven 鈥� eight strides to make up the lost ground, yet he reduced the deficit from 陆 length to a head. He stated that in the BHA鈥檚 opinion, but for this interference, BAYSTON HILL would have got up to win the race.

5. Miss Farr, whilst accepting there was interference, said that there had been no contact between the horses and at no time did Mr Morris have to stop riding. She said that WOODUKHELEYFIT, a two year old having only its second run, was idling in front, but always holding his position.

6. The Panel having viewed all the views of the race concluded that despite BAYSTON HILL being taken off his intended line, there was no contact between the horses and BAYSTON HILL did not lose any momentum. Although making ground towards the line when hard ridden, BAYSTON HILL was always held by WOODUKHELEYFIT who was running on under a hands and heel ride.

7. The Panel upheld Mr Kirk鈥檚 appeal and confirmed the placings as WOODUKHELEYFIT first and BAYSTON HILL second.

Notes to Editors:

1. The Panel for the appeal was: Lucinda Cavendish (Chair), Diana Powles, Philip Curl

The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority on Wednesday 2 March 2016 considered an appeal lodged by Andrew Thornton, the rider of BARTON GIFT, the winner of the Bathwick Tyres Bridgwater Handicap Steeple Chase on 20 February 2016, against the decision of the Stewards at Wincanton, to find him in breach of Schedule (B)6 Part 2 of the Rules of Racing in that he had used his whip above the permitted level and to suspend him from riding for 7 days.

The BHA鈥檚 case was presented by Lyn Williams. Thornton attended and gave submissions to the Panel. 聽The Panel also viewed recordings of the race.

The Panel found that Thornton had used his whip 14 times throughout the race. 聽The Panel used its discretion to disregard 3 hits bearing in mind the distance over which the whip was used, that the gelding was given a reminder after it made a mistake down the back straight and that the gelding was impeded at the third last when TIKKAPICK (IRE), ridden by Paddy Brennan, fell. 聽The Panel considered Thornton鈥檚 submission that the race should be considered as two races due to the fact that the whole complexity of the race had changed after TIKKAPICK (IRE) fell. 聽The Panel did not accept this interpretation.

The Panel dismissed the appeal and confirmed the 7 day suspension on Saturday 5 March 2016 to Friday 11 March 2016 inclusive.

The Panel noted that Thornton had expected his appeal to be heard on Thursday 3 March 2016 and had booked rides at Bangor accordingly, however, due to the unavoidable rescheduling of another case, the BHA had moved the appeal at short notice to be heard today. 聽Taking this into account the Panel ordered that the deposit be returned.

Notes to Editors:
1. The Panel for the enquiry was:聽William Barlow (Chairman), Edward Dorrell, Ian Stark

Cathy Gannon

1. On 21 January 2016, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) heard an appeal brought by the jockey Cathy Gannon against the decision by the Wolverhampton Stewards to find her in breach of Rule (B)54.1 and to suspend her for 2 days for careless riding in the 拢10 Free at 32Red.com Handicap Stakes on 8 January 2016.

2. As always, the Disciplinary Panel approached this type of appeal as a re-hearing. Cathy Gannon was represented by Rory Mac Neice and the BHA’s case was presented by Lyn Williams. Saleem Golam, the rider of CAPPY BROWN was also in attendance and represented by Mark Edmondson.

3. Mr Williams, on behalf of the BHA, stated that Miss Gannon, the rider of THE BIG GUY, having broken slowly tried to regain ground that she had lost. In doing so she pushed into a gap that was sure to close due to the nature of the course.

4. Mr Mac Neice, on behalf of Miss Gannon, stated that she was within her rights to regain the lost ground and having reached CAPPY BROWN鈥檚 quarters by the marker pole had every right to maintain her position on the inside around the bend.

5. The Panel concluded that Miss Gannon, having reached CAPPY BROWN鈥檚 quarters, was entitled to hold her position. It was agreed that the interference had been caused by Golam鈥檚 horse suddenly dropping in at the apex of the bend, however, the interference was accidental.

6. The Panel upheld the appeal and quashed the 2 day suspension.

Kieren Fox

1. The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) on 21 January 2016 held an enquiry to establish whether or not Kieren Fox, the rider of LUPO D鈥橭RO (IRE), placed second, had committed a breach of Schedule (B)6 Part 2 of the Rules of Racing concerning his use of the whip in the Racing UK Profits Returned to Racing Handicap Stakes at Kempton Park on 17 January 2016. The matter was referred to the BHA head office by the Kempton Park Stewards following an enquiry on the same day because this was Fox鈥檚 fifth offence of mis-use of the whip, warranting a suspension of between 2 to 6 days, in the last 6 months.

2. The BHA鈥檚 case was presented by Lyn Williams and Fox was represented by Rory Mac Neice. The Panel also viewed recordings of the race.

3. The Panel accepted Fox鈥檚 admission that he was guilty of misuse of the whip in that he had used his whip above the permitted level. It was considered that the breach would have warranted a suspension of 4 days.

4. Taking into account that Fox:
i) had committed 5 whip breaches (3 x 2 days & 2 x 4 days), since 23 July 2015; and
ii) had had 156 rides over this period the Panel suspended him from riding for 33 days, of which 11 days will be deferred for 2 months until 24 April 2016. The suspension will run from Friday 29 January 2016 until Thursday 24 February 2016 inclusive, on days that Flat Racing is scheduled to take place.

5. In deciding on the length of suspension, the Panel noted that this was the second time in 7 months that Fox had been referred to the Disciplinary Panel concerning his use of the whip.

Paul Harley

1.The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry on 21 January 2016 to consider whether or not German licensed trainer Paul Harley, had committed a breach of Rule (C)33 of the Rules of Racing, in respect of the administration of a substance, other than normal feed and water by mouth, to KALDERA (GER) on 29 July 2015 the day before the filly ran in the Markel Insurance Fillies鈥� Stakes (Registered as the Lillie Langtry Stakes) at Goodwood on 30 July 2015.

2. Harley was represented by Rory Mac Neice and the BHA鈥檚 case was presented by Danielle Sharkey.

3. The Panel noted that on 29 July 2015, Harley had arrived at Goodwood Racecourse with KALDERA (GER) as the horse was entered and ran in the Markel Insurance Fillies鈥� Stakes (Registered as the Lillie Langtry Stakes) on 30 July 2015. Harley and the filly had travelled over to Great Britain from Germany, where Harley was training at the time.

4. On 29 July 2015, during a routine inspection of the racecourse stable yard, an Equine Welfare Integrity Officer (EWIO) had noticed that there was a used syringe on top of the kit that was situated outside of the box where KALDERA (GER) was stabled. On questioning, Harley had stated that it had been used to administer post-travel electrolytes to the filly following the long journey from Germany.

5. When asked by the EWIO to see the electrolyte that had been administered, Harley produced an unlabelled beer bottle that he used for travelling purposes. A sample was taken to verify that the liquid administered was an electrolyte. A sample was also taken from the syringe that had been used.

6. The sample taken from the bottle had been sent to LGC and the result was consistent with the substance containing 鈥榓dditives鈥� such as those that would be found in an electrolyte. However, there was not enough of the substance left in the syringe to determine a result and therefore was returned as negative. Both results had been reviewed by the BHA鈥檚 Veterinary Department and the BHA was satisfied that the results from the samples were consistent with Harley鈥檚 statement.

7. Harley had expressed his embarrassment about falling foul of the Rules of Racing and the BHA was satisfied that there was no skulduggery involved in this case. Nonetheless, the Rules were clear and unambiguous and there is clear signage that is situated around the stabling yards reminding trainers of the restrictions in relation to what can be brought into racecourse stables and what can be administered.

8. Mr Mac Neice on behalf of Harley admitted the breach and stated that his client appreciated that he should have obtained dispensation.

9. The Panel accepted Harley鈥檚 admission to a breach of Rule (C)33 and fined him 拢1,000.

Notes to Editors:

1. The Panel for the hearings were: William Barlow (Chair), Hopper Cavendish, Didi Powles.

1. On 7 January 2016, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) heard an appeal brought by Jonathan Portman, the trainer of CLASSIC MISSION, against the decision of the Stewards at Lingfield Park on 20 December 2015 to reverse the placings of the first and second home in the Download the Coral App Handicap Stakes. They demoted CLASSIC MISSION, ridden by Charlie Bennett, to second place, and in consequence promoted ALSHAN FAJER, ridden by Adam Kirby, to first place. They found that interference from a furlong out caused by CLASSIC MISSION continuously edging left taking ALSHAN FAJER off his intended line had caused him to lose more ground than the head by which he was beaten.

2. As always, the Disciplinary Panel approached this type of appeal as a re-hearing. The appeal was presented by CLASSIC MISSION鈥檚 trainer, Jonathan Portman and the BHA’s case was presented by Lyn Williams. Charlie Bennett, the rider of CLASSIC MISSION, and Adam Kirby, the rider of ALSHAN FAJER, were in attendance.

3. Mr Williams stated that both the horses concerned were hard ridden from 1 furlong out when CLASSIC MISSION hung left and made contact with ALSHAN FAJER. Bennett straightened his horse but then picked up his whip again causing CLASSIC MISSION to drift left handed taking ALSHAN FAJER off his intended line, all the way to the post. Six strides before the post CLASSIC MISSION gave ALSHAN FAJER a further bump.

4. Kirby, in giving evidence, said that CLASSIC MISSION was leaning on him and that he felt his mount was intimidated throughout the final furlong which was borne out by the films which showed that having been 4 鈥� 5 widths from the rail turning in, he was only 1 width from it at the line.

5. Portman, whilst agreeing that his horse had caused ALSHAN FAJER interference, said that he felt it was minimal and that Kirby鈥檚 horse was well held all the way to the line and beaten by a head. Bennett in giving evidence said that he felt that CLASSIC MISSION was always going the better despite that he was hanging left and was never more than a head in front.

6. The Panel dismissed Portman鈥檚 appeal and confirmed the placings as it felt that the interference caused by CLASSIC MISSION had improved its placing and that had ALSHAN FAJER had an uninterrupted run to the line it would have won the race. It ordered the deposit to be returned as the Panel understood Portman鈥檚 reasons for lodging his appeal.
James Fanshawe

1. On Thursday 7 January 2016 the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry on 7 January 2016 into the analysis of the urine ordered to be taken from HE鈥橲 MY BOY (IRE), trained by James Fanshawe, by the Stewards at Newmarket after the gelding had won the Mead Construction Handicap Stakes on 17 July 2015. The sample tested positive for a prohibited substance, in breach of Rule (G) 2.1 of the Rules of Racing. The Panel also considered whether or not to take action under Rule (A) 74.2 Ground 3 of the Rules of Racing in respect of the possible disqualification of the gelding

2. The urine taken from HE鈥橲 MY BOY (IRE) was found to contain Acepromazine, which is a prohibited substance. The trainer exercised his right to have the B sample analysed at LGC which confirmed the original finding.

3. The BHA鈥檚 case was presented by Shruti Sharma and James Fanshawe, who was in attendance, was represented by Dawn Bacchus from the National Trainers Federation.

4. Following the positive analysis, BHA Investigating Officers interviewed Fanshawe at his stables on 14 August 2015. After considering the evidence, including submissions from Ms Bacchus, the Panel was unable to establish the source of the substance, and could not therefore be satisfied that the administration of the substance was accidental and that the trainer had taken all reasonable care.

5. The Panel further considered an alleged breach of Rule (C) 37.1 in that, as part of the yard visit on 14 August 2015, Fanshawe provided his computerised yardman medication records and these records were reviewed and showed that FRESH KINGDOM (IRE) had received an intra-articular corticosteroid injection, Adcortyl, on 18 May 2015 and KNIGHT OWL had received an intra-articular corticosteroid injection, Adcortyl, on 1 June 2015. FRESH KINGDOM (IRE) ran in the Smart Forfour Engineered by Mercedes-Benz Handicap at Haydock on 29 May 2015, eleven days after the administration of Adcortyl, and KNIGHT OWL ran in the Winners Sports Handicap at Sandown on 13 June 2015, twelve days after the administration of Adcortyl.

6. On 27 August, 2015 Fanshawe was again interviewed by BHA Investigating Officers and confirmed that he was aware of Schedule (B)3 Paragraph 11A, namely, that his horses should not have been administered any intra-articular corticosteroid on the 14 days before a race for which they are declared to run in and that he always set out to adhere to a clear 14 days before racing a horse. However, on these occasions he had not recorded the administration in his own paper records (they had been recorded on his computerised records), which he consulted when working out suitable race entries for his horses.

7. The Panel accepted an admission from Fanshawe that he was in breach of Rule (G)2.1 and imposed a fine of 拢1,000.

8. Under Rule (A)74.2 Ground 3 the Panel disqualified HE鈥橲 MY BOY (IRE) from the race placing ZESHOV (IRE) first, LE LAITIER (FR) second, DREAM TUNE third, LOUD fourth, INTREPID (IRE) fifth and KALON BRAMA (IRE) sixth.

9. The Panel found Fanshawe in breach of Schedule (B)3 paragraph 11A and imposed a fine of 拢1,000. Under Rule (A)74.2 Ground 4, the Panel disqualified FRESH KINGDOM (IRE) from its race, placing LIGHT OF ASIA (IRE) third, JOHN LOUIS fourth, YUL FINEGOLD (IRE) fifth and THE CHARACTER (IRE) sixth. It also disqualified KNIGHT OWL from its race, placing MIRACLE OF MEDINAH sixth, SANTEFISIO seventh and WEE JEAN eighth. The Panel directed that any prize money paid out in any of the above races be returned.
Richard Woollacott

1. On 7 January 2016, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry into the analysis of the urine ordered to be taken from SEACON BEG (IRE), trained by Richard Woollacott, by the Stewards at Newton Abbot after the gelding won the Play the New Scoop6soccer Today Handicap Hurdle on 22 August 2015. The sample tested positive for a prohibited substance, in breach of Rule (G)2.1 of the Rules of Racing. The Panel also considered whether or not to take action under Rule (A)74.2 Ground 3 in respect of the possible disqualification of the gelding.

2. The Panel noted that Woollacott requested that the matter be heard in his absence. The BHA鈥檚 case was presented by Shruti Sharma.

3. The urine taken from SEACON BEG (IRE) was found to contain Triamcinolone acetonide, a prohibited substance as defined in Schedule (G)1 paragraph 7.

4. The Panel noted that Woollacott had stated that Ray Dilliway, his Veterinary Surgeon, had examined the gelding on 4 August 2015 and found that it was lame on his left hind. Mr Dilliway had injected by intra articular injection into the medial compartment of the stifle 2cc of Adcortyl, a licensed preparation of Triamcinolone, and 2ml of Amikin and had advised a 16 day withdrawal period.

5. Having considered the evidence, the Panel agreed that on the balance of probability, the source of the positive was the injection administered by Woollacott鈥檚 Veterinary Surgeon on 4 August 2015. The Panel found Woollacott in breach of Rule (G)2.1 and imposed a fine of 拢750.

6. Under Rule (A)74.2 the Panel disqualified SEACON BEG (IRE) from the race, placing CRUISE IN STYLE (IRE) first, MIX N MATCH second, WATCHMETAIL (IRE) third, BOHER LAD (IRE) fourth, TENBY JEWEL (IRE) fifth and THEIONLADY (IRE) sixth. The Panel directed that any prize money paid be returned.

Kieren Fox

1. On 7 January 2016, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) heard an appeal lodged by Kieren Fox, the rider of STATE OF THE UNION (IRE), in the Daily Price Boosts at Unibet Handicap Stakes at Lingfield Park on 28 December 2015. The appeal challenged the findings of the Lingfield Park Stewards that both Fox and Lee Carter, the trainer of STATE OF THE UNION (IRE) were in breach of Rule (B)67.4.4 in that Fox had weighed in at 8st 11lb having weighed out at 9st 0lb. The Stewards suspended Fox for 2 days and fined Carter 拢500. Carter did not appeal the findings and the disqualification of STATE OF THE UNION (IRE) was mandatory under Rule (B)67.10 and was not subject to appeal.

2. The hearing before this Panel operated as a rehearing. Rory Mac Neice represented Fox, who was not in attendance and Carter was represented by Dawn Bacchus, National Trainers Federation. Lyn Williams presented the facts on behalf of the BHA and showed CCTV footage of Fox weighing out and immediately handing his tack to Carter, where the weight cloth was clearly visible.

3. Fox returned to the scales after finishing second and weighed in 3lb light. Having identified that the weight cloth was missing he retraced his steps to the unsaddling enclosure accompanied by a Stipendiary Steward William Hudson, but the weight cloth was not to be found. There was also no evidence of the weight cloth being lost during the race.

4. The Panel therefore found Fox not to be in breach of Rule (B)67.4.4 and allowed his appeal and quashed the 2 day suspension.

5. Ms Bacchus gave evidence on behalf of Carter who could offer no further information on the missing weight cloth. He accepted this had been with the saddle when it was given to him by Fox immediately after weighing out.

6. The Panel decided that Carter was solely responsible and found him to be in breach of Rule (B)67.4.4 and imposed a penalty of 拢1,000.
Notes to Editors:

1. The Panel for the hearings was: Lucinda Cavendish (Chair), Diana Powles, Jeremy Barlow.

1. On 19 November 2015, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) heard an appeal lodged by Dan Skelton the trainer and David England the rider of ARTHAMINT in the titanbet.co.uk Novices鈥� Handicap Steeple Chase at Lingfield Park on 10 November 2015. The appeal challenged the findings of the Lingfield Park Stewards that both Skelton and England were in breach of Rule (B)67.4.4 in that England had weighed in at 11st 7lb having weighed out at 11st 9lb. They suspended England for 3 days and fined Skelton 拢750. The disqualification of ARTHAMINT was mandatory under Rule (B)67.10 and was not subject to appeal.
2. The hearing before this Panel operated as a rehearing. Rory Mac Neice represented England and Skelton. The BHA’s case was presented by Lyn Williams.
3. The BHA submitted that the decision of the Steward鈥檚 on the day should be upheld, and that there were not sufficiently unusual circumstances to explain a loss of weight in excess of the 1lb allowed. The BHA accepted that the Panel has a discretion where the allowance is exceeded under Rule (B)67.11, and submitted that that discretion should only be exercised in favour of jockey and/or trainer where the explanation was likely to explain the loss of weight in its entirety.
4. The BHA contended that sweating could not explain the weight loss on its own, and that in any event, clothing would absorb much of the sweat. The BHA also pointed out that whilst two other jockeys in the same race lost weight of up to 0.5lbs, England was the only jockey to have lost up to 1.5lbs.
5. England informed the Panel that it was an unusually warm and humid day and that he was wearing his heavier winter equipment. The horse was very difficult, and indeed had bolted through the rails on a previous occasion when ridden by Harry Skelton.
6. England said he took ARTHAMINT down to the start early with permission of the Stewards, and the horse was agitated and felt ready to 鈥渆xplode鈥� and take off. At the start another horse unseated its jockey and galloped at least once round the track and this caused ARTHAMINT to get more wound up, and the start to be delayed for 5 minutes.聽 England stated that from mounting ARTHAMINT in the paddock to dismounting at the end of the race, he was on the horse for not less than 30 minutes, and prior to the race he was having to work exceptionally hard to control the horse and was sweating profusely, followed by completing a 2陆 mile chase.聽 He said his loss of weight of 1.2lb was only 0.2lbs over the allowance, and was explained by the above unusual circumstances.聽 England confirmed that there had been no equipment changes of any sort between weighing out and weighing in.
7. Skelton, who was at Huntingdon races on the day, was represented at Lingfield by Mr Guerriero. Skelton confirmed the problems they had had with ARTHAMINT as outlined by England, and told the Panel that Mr Guerriero had confirmed to him there had been no equipment change between weighing out and weighing in, as Mr Guerriero had told the Stewards on the day.
8. The Panel found, having considered all the evidence before it, including the transcript of the enquiry, that they accepted that England had weighed in 1.2lbs lighter than weighing out.
9. The Panel also noted that whilst all other jockeys bar one weighed in light, albeit within the allowance, none had experienced as much weight loss as England.
10. However, the Panel considered that there were a number of highly unusual circumstances which warranted careful scrutiny, for example, the fact that England was on his horse in total for not less than 陆 hour, that ARTHAMINT was very difficult to restrain for much of that time, that it was an unseasonally warm day, and he was wearing his winter riding equipment.
11. The Panel considered that England and Skelton had both been forthright and honest in their evidence to the Panel. The BHA in fact, made no suggestion of any improper behaviour.
12. The Panel concluded that there was no evidence to suggest any other reason for the loss of weight. Accepting, as they did, the evidence of England and Skelton, the Panel concluded that England鈥檚 explanation was likely to be correct.聽 In the circumstances, the Panel allowed the Appeal of both England and Skelton.聽 The Panel聽 would however, wish to emphasis that it is only in wholly unusual circumstance, such as prevailed here, that a loss of weight in excess of 1lb will be found to be excusable.

Notes to Editors

1. The Panel for the hearing was:聽Philip Curl (Chair),聽Diana Powles and聽Edward Dorrell.

2. The hearing before this Panel operated as a rehearing. Rory Mac Neice represented Ennis while Miss Pickard was represented by Roderick Moore. The BHA’s case was presented by Lyn Williams.

3. PRIVATE JONES is a six-year-old gelding, and was having its second ever outing over fences. On the first race, a novice handicap at Sedgefield on 29 September 2015, he unseated Robert Dunne (who had ridden him six times before) at the fifth fence. The Worcester race was a step up in class from the Sedgefield outing, PRIVATE JONES was 1lb out of the handicap and due to compete against much more seasoned performers. Though Miss Pickard said she had hopes of beating some in the field of six, the Panel saw this as a surprising race to enter a second-time performer over fences which had unseated his rider early in his only previous attempt. It was selected, the Panel concluded, because her main focus was upon giving PRIVATE JONES another experience over fences on suitable ground and on a track that, as she told the Worcester Stewards, “is flat and easy, nice.”

4. Ennis (a 5lb claimer) had never ridden the horse before, and this was his first ride in a chase in the 2015-16 season. His instructions from Miss Pickard were to “drop the horse out, take my time, give him plenty of light and get him jumping”, as he told the Worcester Stewards. Miss Pickard agreed those were the instructions during the Steward鈥檚 enquiry, and added that she told him to tuck in between fences and round the bends. But before the Panel, she said that she had not told him to take his time or get the horse jumping. The Panel did not accept this subsequent revision of her earlier evidence. The suggestion that she was somewhat overawed when attending her first ever running and riding enquiry was inconsistent with her confidence before the Panel also with the transcript of the Worcester enquiry, which shows she spoke at length and intervened whenever she felt she had something to say.

5. The race presented a striking spectacle from the outset. After the starter dropped the flag, the field remained stationary for 62 seconds as nobody wished to make the pace. They then set off at little more than a canter for the first four fences in the straight. PRIVATE JONES was not the back marker, but, like one or two other runners, was fighting for his head and jumped awkwardly. He maintained his position round the first bend and in the back straight until the seventh fence, which he ballooned. This cost ground and by the eighth he was three lengths adrift. After the eighth the field quickened, though not dramatically, and in the long run round the bottom bend he lost further ground. Ennis made no effort at all around that bend and he was about 10 lengths down on the next-to-last horse when jumping the ninth. He jumped that fence poorly, with Ennis causing him to slow and put in extra strides as he approached it. Thereafter, he hack cantered to the finish, jumping the three remaining fences slowly, deliberately and awkwardly. PRIVATE JONES was 28 lengths adrift of the fifth horse and 43 lengths behind the winner.

6. All in all, there was never at any stage a semblance of the “timely, real and substantial effort” that the Rules require. The Panel reached that view without reference to the evidence of Yogi Breisner criticising the ride, which Mr Moore for Miss Pickard sought to introduce. This was excluded by the Panel in exercise of its discretion because Mr Breisner was not available for cross-examination; because his analysis could easily enough be deployed by Mr Moore in cross-examination of Ennis; and because in a straightforward running and riding appeal such as this, the proportionate approach was for the Panel to take its own view of the quality of the ride from the other evidence and arguments presented.

7. At the outset of his case on behalf of Ennis, Mr Mac Neice accepted that his client had not made any timely real or substantial effort. Ennis’s evidence was to the same effect. But it was said that this did not establish breach in this case because PRIVATE JONES achieved his best possible placing, which was last, and that the reason for not making the effort required by the Rules was that if Ennis had ridden with any vigour and sought to jump fences at a competitive pace after the eighth, he would have fallen.

8. Mr Williams for the BHA suggested to Ennis in cross-examination and argued that Ennis only had two options from the eighth: either put in the effort the Rules require or pull up. In the vast majority of cases, (and in fact in this one), the Panel accepted that those are the only two courses open to a rider. Mr Mac Neice’s retort was that there can be acceptable reasons for not making the usual necessary effort, yet still riding to the finish. Though initially sceptical of this proposition, the Panel did recognise that this might happen when a rider is actually prevented from making an effort, for instance because his horse is hemmed in and unable to deliver a challenge. (Such a situation might raise other issues about how and why he got hemmed in, and why he was unable to extricate himself). But that is quite different from the present case. Ennis could have put in an appropriate challenge, but did not do so because he felt that he risked falling. Of course, if any welfare reason had supported that view, his obligation was to pull up at once. But nobody suggested that there was any welfare problem, least of all Ennis. Similarly, if a jockey finds himself riding a horse whose jumping is so bad that he legitimately judges it to be a danger to itself, to him or perhaps to others if it competes properly in a race, then again he should pull up rather than complete the race distance at his leisure. In the present case, PRIVATE JONES put in some awkward jumps, but was by no means causing danger. And there was no excuse for the failure to try in the long run (almost 3 furlongs on the flat) between the eighth and ninth.

9. So the Panel concluded that Ennis was in breach of his obligation to ride PRIVATE JONES on his merits. This was a breach which fell within Class 1 described in Rule (B)59.2 鈥� an intentional breach. Ennis was not prevented from making timely real and substantial efforts: he chose not to. He lost sight of his basic obligation to compete and concentrated upon getting PRIVATE JONES to complete the race safely. To say, as he did, that his best possible placing was last, which he achieved by finishing the race, and thus fulfilled his obligation to compete ignores that part of Rule (D)45.1 which requires effort to be made, and be seen to be made. Nobody is entitled to settle for last (or for any other placing) without making an effort to compete, unless some external factor prevents that effort being made.

10. Having concluded that Ennis intentionally failed to ensure that PRIVATE JONES was run on his merits, the next question is whether Miss Pickard was also deemed to be in breach by Rule (C)45.4. That depended upon whether she could satisfy the Panel that she gave appropriate riding instructions but that Ennis failed to comply with them (see Rule (C)45.5). In front of the Worcester Stewards, Miss Pickard did not attempt to prove this. On the contrary, she repeatedly expressed her satisfaction with the ride and with Ennis’s compliance with her instructions. But before the Panel, her approach changed. She became highly critical of the ride, especially of Ennis’s restraint of PRIVATE JONES before fences and of the lack of effort after the eighth fence. As already noted, the Panel rejected her revised evidence about the instructions she gave. So did she persuade the Panel that she gave instructions which Ennis did not follow? The Panel accepted in principle Mr Moore’s argument that a trainer’s instructions can be express or implicit, so that it is not necessary for example for a trainer to say, in every case 鈥� “of course you must at some stage make a timely real and substantial effort”. But it is equally the case that express instructions can give a jockey a different impression of what is really required of him, and that is what happened here. Her emphasis upon the need for the gelding to be moved out for a clear sight of the fences, to take time and to get him jumping all fitted in with a schooling run, as did her immediate, less calculated, responses to questions from the Worcester Stewards. She told them more than once that Ennis had done well to get the horse round. Though Miss Pickard explained that she became critical of the ride after having more time to study recordings at home than she had in the enquiry room, the Panel took her answers before the Worcester Stewards as a more reliable guide to what she wanted above all else for PRIVATE JONES from the race 鈥� a safe round of jumping. This was a classic instance of using the racecourse as a training ground for a schooling run. The Panel did however accept her case that factors other than her instructions may have contributed to Ennis’s performance. This was Ennis’s first ride in a chase for the season and his mind was in part on an important flat ride he was due to have three days later at Ascot on Champions Day. But Miss Pickard’s allegation that Ennis was scared was rejected 鈥� he was justifiably uncertain about PRIVATE JONES’s abilities, and inconvenienced by the very slow early pace.

Penalties

11. The lack of even a semblance of effort from the eighth, when in an adequate position to challenge and to see what PRIVATE JONES could produce, was a serious breach of Ennis’s obligations. In principle, that justified increasing the suspension above the 14 day entry point. But the difficulties of the ride experienced by Ennis in the early part of the race lead the Panel to leave his suspension at the 14 day level.

12. For Miss Pickard, the Panel recognised that her instructions were a substantial cause, but not the only cause, of the excessive caution of Ennis’s ride. The fine was therefore reduced below the entry point to 拢2,500. It follows from this decision that, having been partially successful in her appeal, her deposit is returned.

13. The admission by Ennis, at the outset of his appeal, that he had not made any “timely real and substantial effort” made it initially difficult to understand why an appeal was being pursued. Nor did the excuse offered for this 鈥� that the horse’s jumping was too untrustworthy to be attempted at racing pace 鈥� find any favour. Nevertheless, the Panel decided to return his deposit because the appeal did raise arguable points about the circumstances in which a jockey might in principle excuse a failure to make appropriate effort.

14. The Panel found Ennis in breach of Rule (B)59.2 and confirmed his suspension of 14 days from Wednesday 28 October 2015 to Tuesday 10 November 2015 inclusive.

15. The Panel also confirmed the 40 day suspension from running of PRIVATE JONES from Saturday 17 October 2015 to Wednesday 25 November 2015 inclusive.

Notes to editors:

1. The Panel for the appeal was: Philip Curl (Chair),聽Diana Powles,聽Timothy Charlton.