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

3.聽聽 聽Miss Robinson informed the Panel that it would have to decide whether Mr O鈥橲hea failed to check the identity of CHAMPAGNE FREDDIE, and was in breach of Rule (C)12.1, or if Mr O鈥橲hea checked the identity of the gelding but failed to report the discrepancies to the Racing Calendar Office and was in breach of Rule (C)12.2.

4.聽聽 聽Having considered the evidence, the Panel accepted Mr O鈥橲hea鈥檚 admission that he was in breach of Rule (C)12.1 and fined him 拢300.

In Absence聽– James Osborne

1.聽聽 聽The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry on 2 February 2017 to consider whether or not James Osborne, 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 CEYHAN had been gelded. 聽The matter was drawn to the BHA鈥檚 attention when the horse was entered and run at Lingfield on 21 January 2017.

2.聽聽 聽Prior to the enquiry, Mr Osborne had agreed that the matter could be heard in his absence. 聽Also, Mr Osborne 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.聽聽 聽The Panel noted that Mr Osborne had informed the Racing Calendar Office the day before the race so the correct details were published in the Racing Press and Racecard on the day.

4.聽聽 聽Having considered the evidence, the Panel accepted Mr Osborne鈥檚 admission to a breach of Rule (C)17 and fined him 拢100.

In Absence – Luca Cumani

1.聽聽聽聽On 2 February 2017, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry into the allegation that Mr Luca Cumani, a licensed trainer, was in breach of Rule (C)37.1 of the Rules of Racing by virtue of the fact that he declared CUTTY SARK to run in the Tilbrooks Landscape & Tuddenham Nurseries Handicap race at Newmarket on 12 August 2016 for which it was not qualified. 聽This was due to the absence of a Certificate of Analysis from a BHA approved laboratory reporting no presence or use of a prohibited substance or prohibited method in accordance with Rule (E)17.5. 聽Also, whether CUTTY SARK should be disqualified from the race it ran pursuant to Rule (A)74.2 Ground 4.

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

3.聽聽聽聽Mr Howell informed the Panel that CUTTY SARK, owned by Aston House Stud Limited, had been permanently imported from Italy into Great Britain on 3 June 2016 and entered into training with Mr Cumani on 22 June 2016. 聽An Export Certificate for the filly had been lodged with Weatherbys on 22 July 2016. 聽On 12 August 2016 the filly ran in the Tilbrooks Landscape & Tuddenham Nurseries Handicap race at Newmarket.

4.聽聽聽聽Pursuant to Schedule (G)2 paragraph 4.5, the owners were required to file the whereabouts of the filly within seven business days of its arrival in Great Britain, i.e. by 14 June 2016, so that a sample could be collected from it. 聽The owners failed to provide the BHA with the filly鈥檚 whereabouts within the specified timeframes. 聽Whereabouts documentation for the filly was provided to the BHA on 18 August 2016, by which time the filly had already run at Newmarket.

5.聽聽聽聽Aston House Stud Limited鈥檚 failure to provide the required whereabouts information of the filly within the specified period resulted in a Filing Failure being issued against it, pursuant to Rule (G)5.7 and Schedule (G)2 paragraph 5. 聽The owners did not dispute the Filing Failure, which was confirmed on 14 December 2016. 聽Due to this failure, the BHA had been unable to collect a sample from the filly prior to its run and therefore no Certificate of Analysis was available to the BHA before the filly was declared to run, as required by Rule (E)17.5. 聽A sample had been collected from the filly on 24 August 2016 and analysed. 聽The sample showed no evidence of the presence or use of a prohibited substance or a prohibited method prohibited at all times.

6.聽聽聽聽The Panel noted that Mr Cumani, in a written submission, stated that the filly had been imported from Italy by Aston House Stud Limited and sent to a pre-training yard before coming to Mr Cumani. 聽Mr Spencer Chapman, representing Aston House Stud Limited, had accepted failure to provide the required whereabouts information of the filly within the specified period resulting in a Filing Failure being issued against it. 聽Mr Cumani fully accepted his office鈥檚 oversight and administration failure. 聽His racing secretary confirmed that measures had now been put in place to prevent a similar situation in the future.

7.聽聽聽聽Having considered the evidence, the Panel accepted Mr Cumani鈥檚 admission to a breach of Rule (C)37.1 and fined him 拢1,000. 聽The Panel also disqualified CUTTY SARK from the race.

Notes to Editors:

1. The case involving Mick Easterby has been deferred to another date, to be confirmed.

2. The Panel for the enquires was:聽William Barlow (Chair), Edward Dorrell and Peter Reynolds

1.聽聽 聽The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority on 19 January 2017 held an enquiry to establish whether or not Neil Mulholland, a licensed trainer, had committed a breach of Rule (C)12 of the Rules of Racing concerning his failure to check the identity of RUNASIMI RIVER from the markings shown in the horse鈥檚 passport as soon as it came into his care. 聽The matter was reported to the Authority by the Veterinary Officer on duty at Warwick on 16 November 2016 who identified a number of significant discrepancies between the filly and the markings in its passport. 聽Also, the microchip number did not match the one recorded in the passport, but in fact matched that of the un-named 2013 ch.f. by Generous (IRE) Ex Zaffaranni (IRE). 聽The Veterinary Officer was satisfied that it was the incorrect horse and it was prevented from running.

2.聽聽 聽Prior to the enquiry, Mr Mulholland had agreed that the matter could be heard in his absence. 聽Also, Mr Mulholland and the BHA had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting.

3.聽聽 聽The Panel noted that Mr Mulholland had stated that on 15 October 2016 he had runners at Ffos Las and he had agreed with the owner, Mrs G Davies, that she could bring the 2013 sister to a filly that he trained called INDIAN STREAM to Ffos Las and he would take the filly home to train.

4.聽聽 聽The racecourse had agreed that the filly could be stabled until Mr Mulholland鈥檚 other horses had run so the horse was collected by his staff from the lorry park and put into the stables. 聽The passport was looked at by the stable staff.

5.聽聽 聽The passport stated that the horse was a chestnut filly called RUNASIMI RIVER by Generous x Retro鈥檚 Lady. 聽Mr Mulholland checked the passport and the vaccinations at the racecourse to see that they were up to date and had a look at the filly which looked like a typical Generous (IRE) filly and not unlike INDIAN STREAM. 聽Following the races the lorry would not start and as a consequence the filly arrived at Mr Mulholland鈥檚 stables after dark and was put into a stable. 聽Mr Mulholland continued to train her and it was only after he took her to the races for her first run that he realised that there was a problem.

6.聽聽 聽Having considered the evidence, the Panel accepted Mr Mulholland鈥檚 admission that he was in breach of Rule (C)12 and fined him 拢750.

John Jenkins

1.聽聽 聽The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry on 19 January 2017 to consider whether or not John Jenkins, 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 RUBY LOOKER had been gelded. 聽The matter was drawn to the BHA鈥檚 attention when the horse ran at Southwell on 2 January 2017.

2.聽聽 聽Prior to the enquiry, Mr Jenkins had agreed that the matter could be heard in his absence. 聽Also, Mr Jenkins 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.聽聽 聽Having considered the evidence, the Panel accepted Mr Jenkins鈥� admission to a breach of Rule (C)17 and fined him 拢200.

Notes to Editors:

1. The Panel for the enquiries was:聽Philip Curl (Chair), Roger Bellamy and Peter Reynolds

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.

The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry on 15 December 2016 to consider whether or not Gary Hanmer, 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 ORO REBELDE had been gelded. The matter was first identified by an official at Doncaster Racecourse on 26 November 2016 prior to the horse running.

Prior to the enquiry, Mr Hanmer had agreed that the matter could be heard in his absence. Also, Mr Hanmer 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.

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

Notes to Editors:

1. The Panel for the enquiry was: William Barlow (Chair), Lucinda Cavendish, Edward Dorrell

The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry on 1 December 2016 to consider whether or not Keith Dalgleish, 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 DIRTY RANDY (IRE) had been gelded. The matter was first identified by an official at Musselburgh Racecourse on 11 October 2016 prior to the horse running.

Prior to the enquiry, Mr Dalgleish had agreed that the matter could be heard in his absence. Also, Mr Dalgleish 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.

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

Sylvester Kirk聽

The Disciplinary Panel of the BHA held an enquiry on 1 December 2016 to consider whether or not Sylvester Kirk, 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 STAR MAKER had been gelded. The matter was first identified by an official at Newmarket Racecourse on 19 October 2016 prior to the horse running.

Prior to the enquiry, Mr Kirk had agreed that the matter could be heard in his absence. 聽Also, Mr Kirk 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.

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

Rebecca Curtis

1. On 1 December 2016, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry into the analysis of the urine ordered to be taken from WILD ROVER (IRE), trained by Miss Rebecca Curtis, by the Stewards at Ludlow after the gelding won the Totepool Betting On All UK Racing Novices鈥� Limited Handicap Steeplechase on 8 May 2016. The sample tested positive for Triamcinolone acetonide (TCA), a prohibited substance as defined in Schedule (G)1 paragraph 7, 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. Prior to the enquiry, both parties had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting and Miss Curtis had requested that the matter be heard in her absence. The BHA had no objection and its case was presented by Andrew Howell.

3. The Panel noted that Miss Curtis suspected that the reason TCA was found in the gelding鈥檚 sample was the result of injections to the gelding鈥檚 knees administered by her regular Veterinary Surgeon, Mr Graham Fowke of Cotts Farm Equine, on 2 April 2016. Miss Curtis explained that the gelding had been slightly pottery while cantering downhill on the gallops. Mr Fowke advised treatment for swollen joints after examining the horse. Miss Curtis stated that withdrawal periods of medication administered to her horses in her care were regularly discussed with Mr Fowke. In this instance 15 days was thought to have been recommended, however, Mr Fowke was often overly cautious and so he may have advised 22 days, allowing for an extra week.

4. The Panel also noted that Miss Curtis had not challenged the finding, and did not elect for analysis of the 鈥楤鈥� sample.

5. The veterinary clinical notes recorded that WILD ROVER (IRE) had received 50mg Adcortyl via intra articular injection, 1ml Dororex via intravenous injection, 0.55ml Domosedan via intravenous injection and 10ml Intraepicane via subcutaneous injection. Mr Fowke had administered and authorised the medication.

6. Amanda Piggot, BHA Veterinary Adviser, had considered the likelihood of cross contamination on the basis of the evidence compiled. 聽She confirmed that it was entirely possible that the administration of Adcortyl on 2 April 2016 was the source of the Adverse Analytical Finding. 聽This was based on the variable factors that could have had an effect on the excretion rate of TCA which included the dose administered, concurrent administration of other medicines and the size and complexity of the joint or site into which it was administered.

7. The Panel noted Miss Curtis鈥� written submission had stated that whilst she did not dispute the breach and therefore accepted the disqualification; she believed that trainers (and vets) would in general benefit from clarification on this subject. She was informed by her vet that there was a 14 day stand down period TCA. The horse had run well beyond this period and the possibility of a breach was not in her consideration, given the information she had received.

8. Mr Howell explained that the BHA has a mandatory 14 day stand-down period from racing following the administration of the intra-articular corticosteroid, which on the facts of this case would have meant that the gelding was technically eligible to run on 8 May 2016. However, despite the fact that Miss Curtis adhered to the Rule, the BHA guidance states that the Withdrawal Time may be longer than the minimum stand-down period and that if she had any doubt she should have contacted the BHA for advice and/or had Elective Testing. Therefore it was entirely possible that the substance remained in the gelding鈥檚 system when the Sample was collected after the race.

9. The BHA accepted that there was no suggestion that Miss Curtis had been involved in any dishonesty or cheating. Mr Howell also submitted that where the source could not be identified, the trainer, as the responsible person had strict liability.

10. Having considered the evidence, including the submission from Miss Curtis, the Panel agreed that on the balance of probability, the source of the positive was the injections administered by Mr Fowke on 2 April 2016. The Panel found Miss Curtis in breach of Rule (G)2.1 and imposed a fine of 拢1,000.

11. Under Rule (A)74.2 Ground 3 the Panel disqualified WILD ROVER (IRE) from the race placing ROYALRAISE (IRE) first and UNDER THE PHONE (IRE) second.

Notes to Editors:

1. The Panel for the enquiries was: Philip Curl (Chair), Jeremy Barlow and Roger Bellamy

2. Triamcinolone acetonide (TCA) is a synthetic corticosteroid with anti-inflammatory and analgesic action. It is a substance which may be legitimately used in equine practice and horses in training for various therapeutic purposes, but it is a prohibited substance on raceday which means it must not be present in a horse鈥檚 system on a raceday.

1. The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry on 17 November 2016 into the analysis of the urine ordered to be taken from WHO TOLD JO JO (IRE), trained by William Turner, by the Stewards at Ripon after the colt was placed second in the SIS Trading Services Novice Auction Stakes on 6 May 2016. The sample tested positive for a prohibited substance, in breach of Rule (G)2.1 of the Rules of Racing.

Also, whether Mr Turner was in breach of Rule (C)37 by virtue of the fact that WHO TOLD JO JO (IRE) ran in the race when not qualified to do so, having been administered a substance other than normal feed and water contrary to Schedule (B)3 paragraph 7 of the Rules of Racing. Finally, the Panel considered whether or not to take action under Rule (A)74.2 Ground 3 in respect of the possible disqualification of the colt.

2. Prior to the enquiry, both parties had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting and Mr Turner had requested that the matter be heard in his absence. The BHA had no objection and its case was presented by Andrew Howell.

3. The Panel noted that the urine sample taken from WHO TOLD JO JO (IRE) was found to contain Minoxidil which is a prohibited substance. The trainer did not exercise his right to have the 鈥楤鈥� sample analysed. Minoxidil is an antihypertensive drug, used to lower blood pressure, acting mainly by causing the arterioles to increase in diameter. It is used in humans to treat severe hypertension when administered orally. When applied topically to the scalp, Minoxidil may also act to stimulate hair growth to a limited extent. There are no licensed preparations of Minoxidil for use in animals but numerous preparations containing Minoxidil are available in the UK for use in humans. Human preparations prescribed to lower blood pressure in the UK are sold under the brand name Loniten, and hair products that are used to stimulate hair growth are sold under a number of brand names, including Regaine. There was the possibility of either cross contamination from use in a person in contact with the colt or direct administration of the human product to the colt. The BHA considered it difficult to justify the use of the substance for use under the cascade, for horses.

Alleged breach of Rule (G)2.1

4. Mr Howell submitted that following the positive analysis, on 13 June, 2016, BHA Investigating Officers attended Mr Turner鈥檚 yard to interview him. Also in attendance was his daughter and Head Lass, Ms Kathy Turner. It was established from the outset of the interview that Ms Turner was using the hair produce Regaine on her hair on a daily basis. Mr Turner suspected that the contamination was via Ms Turner鈥檚 hands when tending to the colt after using Regaine. It was also established that Ms Turner had been using the product for approximately two months prior to the race. Ms Turner explained that she applied the product once a day at no specific time and confirmed that she would always wash her hands after use. She did not wear gloves during the application.

5. On the occasion of the race, Mr Turner and Ms Turner travelled to Ripon with the colt the day before the race due to the distance from the yard. They had stayed in overnight stable staff accommodation. Ms Turner confirmed that she had used the product in the usual fashion on the day of the race approximately two hours before and she would then have gone to the stables to prepare WHO TOLD JO JO (IRE) for the race.

6. In preparing the colt Ms Turner applied Green Ice Gel to the colt鈥檚 front legs in the racecourse stable which she had explained was instead of applying cold bandages as the horse was a colt and would have kicked off the bandages. This was done approximately an hour before the race and Ms Turner confirmed that she would not have worn gloves when applying the Green Ice Gel. At interview she was asked whether the colt may have nuzzled her hair when she was applying the gel which she was unable to confirm as she was not thinking of this at the time and did not notice.

7. Mr Turner saddled WHO TOLD JO JO (IRE) and Ms Turner led the horse up, neither had noticed anything unusual with him during this time. Mr Turner had confirmed that he did not directly apply Regaine to the colt and had never done this to any horse in his care. He also did not know of anyone else in his yard using Regaine. He had never heard of Loniten and was not using any blood pressure tablets and nor did he know of anyone else in his yard using such tablets.

8. Examination of the NTF Veterinary Records for WHO TOLD JO JO (IRE) from 18 August 2015 to 27 April 2016 confirmed that there were no entries for Regaine, Loniten or Minoxidil and Minoxidil was not found anywhere on the yard. 聽The only product identified during the visit that contained Minoxidil was the Regaine product that had been presented by Ms Turner. Alistair Lees, Mr Turner鈥檚 Veterinary Surgeon from the Shavehill Equine Clinic, later confirmed in writing that up until 16 June 2016 when the horse was castrated, Shavehill Equine Clinic had not treated WHO TOLD JO JO (IRE). Further enquiries with Richard Holmes, Mr Turner鈥檚 farrier, had confirmed that he had shod the horse two or three days before the race but had confirmed that he had not been taking blood pressure tablets and was not using any hair regrowth products.

9. The BHA鈥檚 Veterinary Advisor for Anti-Doping and Medication Control at the time, Dr Lynn Hillyer, had considered that the likelihood of cross contamination on the basis of the explanation provided by Mr Turner and Ms Turner. She had confirmed that it was a possibility but not necessarily a likelihood that the cause of the Adverse Analytical Finding was as a result of the Regaine used by Ms Turner, however, if this had been the case then it was more likely that the colt had directly contracted the product from Ms Turner鈥檚 head via the 鈥榤ucous membranes of his mouth and/or nose than via her hands contacting his legs during his preparation for the race鈥�.

10. The BHA accepted that there was no suggestion that Mr Turner had been involved in any dishonesty or cheating. Mr Howell also submitted that where the source could not be identified, the trainer, as the responsible person had strict liability.

11. After considering the evidence, 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.

12. The Panel found Mr Turner in breach of Rule (G)2.1 and imposed a fine of 拢1,000.

Alleged breach of Rule (C)37

13. During the investigation it had become apparent that Ms Turner had applied the produce Green Ice Gel to the colt whilst in the racecourse stables prior to the race. The Veterinary Officer on duty at the race, Robin White, had confirmed that he had never been asked by a trainer to allow the use of Green Ice Gel in the racecourse stables pre-race. Green Ice Gel is plainly a substance other than normal feed or water. Therefore, Mr Turner was in breach of Rule (C)37.1 on the basis that as the Responsible Person, he had run a horse in a race which was not qualified to do so under the provision of Schedule (B)3 paragraph 7.1.

14. The Panel found Mr Turner in breach of Rule (C)37.1 and imposed a fine of 拢1,000.

15. Under Rule (A)74.2 Ground 3, the Panel disqualified WHO TOLD JO JO (IRE) from the race, placing KROV second, PULSATING (IRE) third and POWERLESS (IRE) fourth. 聽The Panel directed that any prize money paid out in relation to the above race be returned.

Ryan Clark

1. The Disciplinary Panel of the BHA held an enquiry on 17 November 2016 to consider whether or not Ryan Clark, a licensed jockey, had committed a breach of Rule (D)65 of the Rules of Racing in that a urine sample taken from him on 20 September 2016 at Lingfield Park racecourse tested positive for benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine, which is, pursuant to Rule (D)58 and Schedule (D)3 Part 1, a Banned Substance.

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

3. The BHA鈥檚 case was presented by Danielle Sharkey and Mr Clark, who was in attendance, was represented by Rory Mac Neice.

4. Miss Sharkey submitted that Alere Toxicology testing services were present at Lingfield Park racecourse on 20 September 2016 and pursuant to Rule (D)61.2.3 and Schedule (D)4 paragraph 6.1, Mr Clark was required to provide a urine sample for analysis. The sample was sent for analysis and the result confirmed that benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine, at a level of 550ng/ml was present. On 30 September 2016 Mr Clark鈥檚 licence was suspended.

5. Mr Clark was interviewed by BHA Investigating Officers on 13 October 2016 and he stated that he recalled that on the night of Saturday 17 September he had gone out with friends and had become intoxicated. He explained that he could not remember much about the evening due to the amount of alcohol that he had consumed, and explained that because he did not drink often, it did not long for him to become drunk. Mr Clark stated that he could not remember taking cocaine, but following the positive result he had made enquiries with his friends who had confirmed that he had taken cocaine that evening.

6. Miss Sharkey further submitted that the recommended penalty for such a breach, when the Banned Substance identified was cocaine, was to withdraw a licence for a period at the top of the recommended range, which was 6 months. The BHA submitted that this penalty should be imposed accordingly, however pursuant to Schedule (D)4 paragraph 9, the period of suspension already served by Mr Clark should be credited against any penalty the Disciplinary Panel imposed.

7. Mr Mac Neice submitted that Mr Clark accepted full responsibility for his mistake and was determined to get his career back on track. He stated that should the BHA require it, Mr Clark would make himself available for interim drug testing during the period of the suspension imposed.

8. Taking all the submissions into account the Panel suspended Mr Clark from riding for 6 months from 30 September 2016 to 29 March 2017 inclusive.

9. The Panel hoped that during his period of suspension Mr Clark would receive professional advice and guidance.

Jason Ward

1. The Disciplinary Panel of the BHA held an enquiry on 17 November 2016 to consider whether or not Jason Ward had committed a breach of Rule (A)30 of the Rules of Racing by virtue of the fact that he acted in a manner which was prejudicial to the good reputation of horseracing in Great Britain.

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

3. The BHA鈥檚 case was presented by Sheena Wynn and Mr Ward, who was in attendance, was represented by Roderick Moore.

4. Mrs Wynn submitted that on 1 November 2016 MONTE CINQ (IRE), trained by Mr Ward, was placed first in the 32Red.com Maiden Stakes at Wolverhampton. Following the race Mr Ward was interviewed live by At The Races (ATR) and asked to comment on the performance of the horse. It was the BHA鈥檚 case that his response involved a comment which referenced an offensive and inappropriate racial connotation. The comment subsequently led to adverse publicity for the sport, including reporting of the comment on social media, by the BBC and the Racing Post and brought British Horseracing into disrepute.

5. Mrs Wynn also submitted that the BHA had had sight of the apology which Mr Ward posted on his website following the race and noted that he deemed the matter sufficiently serious to issue such an apology.

6. Mr Moore submitted that during the interview Mr Ward was momentarily unguarded and showed a serious lack of judgement, and accepted that his remarks were lewd and unprofessional. Mr Ward had immediately apologised to ATR, on his website and in the Racing Post and stated that there was no intention to offend viewers of ATR or any of the wider racing public.

7. The Disciplinary Panel found Mr Ward to be in breach of Rule (A)30 and fined him 拢1,200.

Notes to Editors:

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

1. The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry on 27 October 2016 to consider whether or not Tom George, a licensed trainer, had committed a breach of Rule (C)33.3 of the Rules of Racing, in that prior to racing at Perth on 22 April 2016 a member of his staff on racecourse property, on his instruction, administered an unallowable substance other than normal feed and water to PARSNIP PETE.

2. Prior to the enquiry, both parties had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting and Mr George had requested that the matter be heard in his absence. The BHA had no objection and its case was presented by Lauren Robinson.

3. Miss Robinson informed the Panel that a member of Mr George鈥檚 staff, on his instruction, had administered PARSNIP PETE, trained by Mr George, SilvaPlex, a brand of chelated silver, which had been administered by nebuliser to the horse because he coughed. The Stewards on the day ordered PARSNIP PETE to be tested and to be withdrawn from the race. Confirmation has since been received from the laboratory that the samples that were taken had been reported negative for any prohibited substance, and having no wider integrity concerns, the breach of Rule (C)33.3 had been referred to the Panel.

4. The Panel noted a statement from Mr George that PARSNIP PETE was due to run at Perth on the Friday and his horses were all travelling together to the races on the previous Tuesday. Prior to his horses travelling to Perth his secretary had emailed and telephoned the Clerk of the Course to ask if a nebulizer with a sterile solution could be used in the stable yard. The yard were under the impression that they could use the nebulizer as long as it was not a prohibited substance, not realising that without the permission of the BHA Veterinary Officer, nothing other than normal food and water given by mouth could be administered on the day of the race.

5. The Panel accepted Mr George鈥檚 admission and found him in breach of Rule (C)33.3 and imposed a fine of 拢1,000. The Panel had taken into account that under no circumstances would permission have been granted by the BHA Veterinary Officer for the nebulizer to be used on the day of the race.

Susan Corbett

1. The Disciplinary Panel of the BHA held an enquiry on 27 October 2016 to consider whether or not Susan Corbett, a licensed trainer, had committed a breach of Rule (C)33.3 of the Rules of Racing, in that prior to racing at Perth on 30 June 2016 a member of her staff on racecourse property, on her instruction, administered an unallowable substance other than normal feed and water to STAY IN MY HEART (IRE) and BEAUTIFUL STORM.

2. Prior to the enquiry, both parties had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting and Mrs Corbett had requested that the matter be heard in her absence. The BHA had no objection and its case was presented by Lyn Williams.

3. Mr Williams informed the Panel that a member of Mrs Corbett鈥檚 staff, on her instruction, had administered STAY IN MY HEART (IRE) and BEAUTIFUL STORM, trained by Mrs Corbett, Restore-Lyte, a brand of electrolytes, which had been administered by syringe to both horses. The Stewards on the day ordered STAY IN MY HEART (IRE) and BEAUTIFUL STORM to be tested and to be withdrawn from their respective races. Confirmation has since been received from the laboratory that the samples that were taken had been reported negative for any prohibited substance, and having no wider integrity concerns, the breach of Rule (C)33.3 had been referred to the Panel.

4. The Panel noted that Mrs Corbett had stated that on arrival at the racecourse she had instructed her staff to give both horses a syringe of electrolytes as one horse was very nervous and had travelled badly and the other was sweating up after a difficult journey. She had been unaware that electrolytes could not be administered prior to the race.

5. The Panel accepted Mrs Corbett鈥檚 admission and found her in breach of Rule (C)33.3. The Panel took into account that it was electrolytes that were used, they were administered openly, they were administered for welfare concerns and permission would have been granted to use electrolytes after the race. The Panel imposed a fine of 拢750 upon her.

Notes to Editors:

1. The Panel for the enquiry was:聽Lucinda Cavendish (Chair), Jeremy Barlow and Edward Dorrell

1. The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry on 15 September 2016 to consider whether or not Miss Gay Kelleway, a licensed trainer, had committed a breach of Rule (C)19 of the Rules of Racing, in respect of her late notification to the Racing Calendar Office that LORD OF THE NORTH (IRE) had run in a race outside Great Britain and Ireland.

2. Prior to the enquiry, both parties had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting and Miss Kelleway had requested that the matter be heard in her absence. The BHA had no objection and its case was presented by Lauren Robinson.

3. Miss Robinson informed the Panel that the Rules of Racing required trainers to notify the Racing Calendar Office of the details of a horse鈥檚 performance on each occasion that it ran outside Great Britain and Ireland, and such notification had to be made no later than 48 hours after the horse returned to Great Britain, or if sooner, before the horse next ran in a race in Great Britain. LORD OF THE NORTH (IRE) had run at Clairefontaine in France on 12 August 2016 where it finished third. The gelding had been entered into a maiden race at Newmarket on 26 August 2016 but no notification of foreign performance form had been received at Weatherbys at the time of entry or declaration. The form was not received until 25 August 2016. The Panel noted that it was Miss Kelleway鈥檚 second offence.

4. Having considered the evidence, the Panel found Miss Kelleway in breach of Rule (C)19 and fined her 拢300.

Richard Fahey

1. The Disciplinary Panel of the BHA held an enquiry on 15 September 2016 to consider whether or not Richard Fahey, a licensed trainer, had committed a breach of Rule (C)31.4 of the Rules of Racing, in respect of the skin scrapings taken from GABRIAL THE DUKE (IRE) and HIDDEN TREASURES at Haydock on 4 August 2016 subsequently being reported by the Animal Health Trust as positive for ringworm.

2. Prior to the enquiry, both parties had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting and Mr Fahey had requested that the matter be heard in his absence. The BHA had no objection and its case was presented by Lauren Robinson.

3. Miss Robinson informed the Panel that the skin scrapings had been ordered to be taken from GABRIAL THE DUKE (IRE) and HIDDEN TREASURES by the Stewards at Haydock was because Mr Fahey鈥檚 representative had failed to produce Certificates of Non-Contagiousness from Mr Fahey鈥檚 Veterinary Surgeon on the day. Mr Fahey had been found in breach of Rule (C)31.1 on the day and fined 拢280, this being his second offence in 12 months. In any case where a Veterinary Officer raises concerns over a skin condition scrapings will be taken and sent for analysis.

4. The Panel noted a written statement from Mr Fahey that stated that GABRIAL THE DUKE (IRE) had started treatment for ringworm on 23 June 2016 and was treated every four days with Imaverol up to the time of the race on 4 August 2016. HIDDEN TREASURES started treatment on 7 July 2016 and received the same treatment as GABRIAL THE DUKE (IRE). When they left the yard for Haydock, Mr Fahey had felt that the ringworm was dead, however, this subsequently proved to be incorrect. In light of these positives Mr Fahey had undertaken a major review on the treatment of ringworm at his yard and had not had any new cases since. The Panel also noted that Mr Fahey had stated that it was nearly impossible for the yard to test if the treatment for ringworm was working as it took two weeks to culture and he was heavily reliant on the treatment that was recommended by the BHA.

5. Having considered the evidence, the Panel found Mr Fahey to be in breach of Rule (C)31.4 and imposed a fine of 拢1,000 upon him.

Notes to Editors:

1. The Panel for the enquiries was: Lucinda Cavendish (Chair), Diana Powles, Edward Dorrell

1. The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) on 25 August 2016 held an enquiry to establish whether or not Godolphin Management Company Ltd (鈥楪odolphin), the owners of SKIFFLE, are in breach of Rule (A)39 of the Rules of Racing in that, being fully aware of and conversant with the Code of Conduct for Racehorse Owners鈥� Sponsorship (the 鈥楥ode鈥�) and the exclusivity arrangement in place for Investec across both days of the Derby Meeting, prior to the Investec Oaks at Epsom on 3 June 2016 the Chief Executive of Godolphin knowingly and deliberately breached the Code by:
(i) Instructing the attendant leading up SKIFFLE to wear a jacket carrying Godolphin鈥檚 own sponsor鈥檚 logo; and
(ii) prior to the rider mounting SKIFFLE in the parade ring, instructing the rider to remove the tape that had been put over Godolphin鈥檚 own sponsor鈥檚 logo by a BHA Official so as to ensure compliance with Investec鈥檚 exclusivity arrangements.

2. The Panel noted that the BHA have, on this occasion, decided against taking any disciplinary action against the trainer, Charlie Appleby and the rider, William Buick.

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

4. The BHA case was presented by Lyn Williams. Hugh Anderson, Managing Director (UK and Dubai) from Godolphin Management Co Ltd was in attendance.

5. Mr Williams stated that under the Racehorse Owners Sponsorship Code of Conduct, the Derby meeting at Epsom had exclusivity for the main sponsor on all branding sites. Notices were published in the Racing Calendar on 12 May 2016 and 26 May 2016 reminding owners that Investec had exercised their rights to exclusivity for the Investec Oaks, the Investec Coronation Cup and the Investec Derby. A further reminder was sent to owners on 31 May 2016 by Andrew Cooper, Director of Racing and Clerk of the Course at Epsom.

6. Mr Anderson admitted to Godolphin being in breach of Rule (A)39 and said that the action was not taken lightly but to raise a matter of legitimate concern to Godolphin. It is a matter of regret that this resulted in a disciplinary hearing but Godolphin fully respects and understands the position of the BHA. He hoped that the matter would lead to a change in approach with regard to sponsorship for racing but accepted that breaching the Rules of Racing was not necessarily the best way to effect change

7. The Panel accepted an admission from Godolphin Management Co Ltd that it was in breach of Rule (A)39. The Panel imposed a 拢15,000 fine as it was a pre-meditated and deliberate breach of the Rules.

Notes to Editors:

1. The Panel for the enquiry was: William Barlow (Chair), Diana Powles, Roger Bellamy

1. The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry on 25 August 2016 into the analysis of the urine ordered to be taken from ANY CURRENCY (IRE), trained by Martin Keighley, by the Stewards at Cheltenham after the gelding was placed first in the Glenfarclas Steeple Chase on 16 March 2016. The samples tested positive for a prohibited substance, in breach of Rule (G)2.1 of the Rules of Racing. 聽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. Prior to the enquiry, both parties had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting.

3. The BHA鈥檚 case was presented by Danielle Sharkey. 聽Jacqueline Brown represented Martin Keighley who was also in attendance.

4. The urine sample taken from ANY CURRENCY (IRE) was found to contain triamcinolone acetonide (鈥淭CA鈥�) and its hydroxylated metabolite, both prohibited substances. 聽The trainer exercised his right to have the 鈥楤鈥� sample analysed, which confirmed the original finding.

5. TCA is a synthetic corticosteroid with anti-inflammatory and analgesic action. 聽There are a number of licensed preparations containing TCA available for use in humans, but there are no licensed veterinary preparations of TCA. 聽The human preparation of TCA, sold under the brand name Adcortyl庐, can be prescribed for use in animals under the prescribing cascade as set out by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and there are no welfare concerns with its use.

6. Ms Sharkey stated that on 14 April 2016, following the positive analysis, BHA Investigating Officers interviewed Mr Keighley, Jamie Goldstein, his assistant trainer, and Mrs Belinda Keighley. 聽Mr Keighley explained that it was standard practice for his equine physiotherapist, Maggie Turner, to check over any of his horses that were due to run in the future. 聽As such, Ms Turner visited the yard on 1 February 2016 and examined ANY CURRENCY (IRE). 聽After trotting the gelding, Ms Turner reported that the horse was 鈥榙efinitely stiff through hocks鈥� and as a result, she had raised the question whether or not to 鈥榠nject hocks鈥�.

7. Mr Keighley reported Ms Turner鈥檚 observations to his Veterinary Surgeon, Mr Jeremy Swan of Bourton Vale Equine Clinic, who visited the yard 2 days later. 聽Mr Goldstein was present when Mr Swan visited the yard. 聽Mr Swan agreed with Ms Turner鈥檚 observations and as a result medicated the hocks. 聽Mr Swan was aware of the intention to run ANY CURRENCY (IRE) mid-March at the Cheltenham Festival and indicated that the proximity of the treatment to the race would not be an issue. 聽The NTF medication record for ANY CURRENCY (IRE) on 3 February 2016 records the administration of Adcortyl into the gelding鈥檚 hock along with Amikin, an antibiotic, and sedatives, Domidine庐 and Torbugesic庐.

8. Pursuant to Schedule (B)3 paragraph 11A, the BHA has a mandatory 14 day stand-down period from racing following the administration of the intra-articular corticosteroid, which on the facts of the case would have meant that ANY CURRENCY (IRE) was technically eligible to run on 18 February 2016. 聽Despite the fact that Mr Keighley adhered to the Rule, the BHA guidance states that the Withdrawal Time may be longer than the minimum stand-down period. 聽From the date of the administration to the gelding to the date of the race there were 41 clear days.

9. Ms Brown stated that Mr Keighley admitted a breach of (G)2.1. 聽Mr Keighley had allowed 41 days for the drug to leave the horse鈥檚 system against a mandatory 14 day stand-down period. 聽She stated that Mr Keighley had met all his obligations as a trainer but despite all such efforts the horse had tested positive. 聽On the matter of disqualification she stated that the Panel had discretion. 聽She also suggested that the Panel had discretion over whether the prize money could be reallocated should ANY CURRENCY (IRE) be disqualified. 聽The Panel disagreed and felt that Under Rule (G)2.1 there was strict liability with the horse testing positive and therefore the horse must be disqualified and the prize money should be allocated as per the revised result.

After considering the evidence, the Panel was satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the administration of Adcortyl to ANY CURRENCY (IRE) on 3 February 2016 was the source of the positive finding.

10. The Panel found Mr Keighley in breach of Rule (G)2.1 but did not impose a fine. 聽The Panel felt that Mr Keighley had taken all reasonable measures and that the presence of TCA in the horse after 41 days was exceptional and, therefore, a fine should not be imposed.聽It did not order that a contribution be made towards the cost of the B Sample analysis.

11. Under Rule (A)74.2 Ground 3, the Panel disqualified ANY CURRENCY (IRE) from the race, placing JOSIES ORDERS (IRE) first, BLESS THE WINGS (IRE) second, QUANTITATIVEEASING (IRE) third, THIRD INTENTION (IRE) fourth, BALLYBOKER BRIDGE (IRE) fifth, VALADOM (FR) sixth, SIRE COLLONGES (FR) seventh and DOLATULO (FR) eighth.

12. The Panel directed that any prize money paid out in relation to the above race be returned.

Notes to Editors:
1. The Panel for the enquiry was:聽William Barlow (Chair), Diana Powles, Roger Bellamy

2. The Disciplinary Panels reasons for their finding from today鈥檚 enquiry involving Godolphin鈥檚 breach of Rule (A)39 will be published tomorrow. Their finding was to impose a fine of 拢15,000 on Godolphin.