2.    Prior to the enquiry, Mr O’Shea had agreed that the matter could be heard in his absence.  Also, Mr O’Shea and the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting.  The case was presented by Lauren Robinson.

3.    Miss Robinson informed the Panel that it would have to decide whether Mr O’Shea failed to check the identity of CHAMPAGNE FREDDIE, and was in breach of Rule (C)12.1, or if Mr O’Shea 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.    Having considered the evidence, the Panel accepted Mr O’Shea’s admission that he was in breach of Rule (C)12.1 and fined him £300.

In Absence – James Osborne

1.    The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½) 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’s next run, that CEYHAN had been gelded.  The matter was drawn to the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½â€™s attention when the horse was entered and run at Lingfield on 21 January 2017.

2.    Prior to the enquiry, Mr Osborne had agreed that the matter could be heard in his absence.  Also, Mr Osborne and the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting.  The ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½â€™s case was presented by Lauren Robinson.

3.    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.    Having considered the evidence, the Panel accepted Mr Osborne’s admission to a breach of Rule (C)17 and fined him £100.

In Absence – Luca Cumani

1.    On 2 February 2017, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½) 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.  This was due to the absence of a Certificate of Analysis from a ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ approved laboratory reporting no presence or use of a prohibited substance or prohibited method in accordance with Rule (E)17.5.  Also, whether CUTTY SARK should be disqualified from the race it ran pursuant to Rule (A)74.2 Ground 4.

2.    Prior to the enquiry, Mr Cumani had agreed that the matter could be heard in his absence.  Also, Mr Cumani and the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting.  The ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½â€™s case was presented by Andrew Howell.

3.    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.  An Export Certificate for the filly had been lodged with Weatherbys on 22 July 2016.  On 12 August 2016 the filly ran in the Tilbrooks Landscape & Tuddenham Nurseries Handicap race at Newmarket.

4.    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.  The owners failed to provide the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ with the filly’s whereabouts within the specified timeframes.  Whereabouts documentation for the filly was provided to the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ on 18 August 2016, by which time the filly had already run at Newmarket.

5.    Aston House Stud Limited’s 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.  The owners did not dispute the Filing Failure, which was confirmed on 14 December 2016.  Due to this failure, the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ had been unable to collect a sample from the filly prior to its run and therefore no Certificate of Analysis was available to the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ before the filly was declared to run, as required by Rule (E)17.5.  A sample had been collected from the filly on 24 August 2016 and analysed.  The sample showed no evidence of the presence or use of a prohibited substance or a prohibited method prohibited at all times.

6.    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.  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.  Mr Cumani fully accepted his office’s oversight and administration failure.  His racing secretary confirmed that measures had now been put in place to prevent a similar situation in the future.

7.    Having considered the evidence, the Panel accepted Mr Cumani’s admission to a breach of Rule (C)37.1 and fined him £1,000.  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: William Barlow (Chair), Edward Dorrell and Peter Reynolds

1.    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’s passport as soon as it came into his care.  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.  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).  The Veterinary Officer was satisfied that it was the incorrect horse and it was prevented from running.

2.    Prior to the enquiry, Mr Mulholland had agreed that the matter could be heard in his absence.  Also, Mr Mulholland and the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting.

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

5.    The passport stated that the horse was a chestnut filly called RUNASIMI RIVER by Generous x Retro’s Lady.  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.  Following the races the lorry would not start and as a consequence the filly arrived at Mr Mulholland’s stables after dark and was put into a stable.  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.    Having considered the evidence, the Panel accepted Mr Mulholland’s admission that he was in breach of Rule (C)12 and fined him £750.

John Jenkins

1.    The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½) 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’s next run, that RUBY LOOKER had been gelded.  The matter was drawn to the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½â€™s attention when the horse ran at Southwell on 2 January 2017.

2.    Prior to the enquiry, Mr Jenkins had agreed that the matter could be heard in his absence.  Also, Mr Jenkins and the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting.  The ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½â€™s case was presented by Lauren Robinson.

3.    Having considered the evidence, the Panel accepted Mr Jenkins’ admission to a breach of Rule (C)17 and fined him £200.

Notes to Editors:

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

1. The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½) 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’s next run, that GOOD TIME AHEAD (IRE) had been gelded. The matter was drawn to the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½â€™s 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.  Also, Mr Kirby and the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting. The ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½â€™s 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 £200.

Mark McNiff

1. On 12 January 2017, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½) 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’ Novices’ 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.  Also, Mr McNiff and the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting.  The ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½â€™s 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’s 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 £1,250.

Charlie Fellowes

1. On 12 January 2017, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½) 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’ Handicap Stakes.  DAISY BERE (FR), ridden by Joey Haynes, beat CAROLINAE, ridden by Stevie Donohoe, by approximately ¾ 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 ¾ of a length. They found that the interference was accidental and had not improved DAISY BERE (FR)’s 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.  Mr Charlie Fellowes presented his appeal and Lyn Williams represented the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½.  Evidence was given by Mr Haynes and Mr Donohoe.  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 ¾ 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 ¾ furlong to go on and win the race. At the line DAISY BERE (FR) won readily with her ears pricked idling in front by ¾ length.  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’s leg which was cut and a vet’s 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 ¾ of a furlong out, when both fillies were balanced, CAROLINAE was ½ length behind.  On the run to the line CAROLINAE made up no significant ground, was beaten ¾ 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: William Barlow (Chair), Lucinda Cavendish, Diana Powles.

1.  On 22 December 2016, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½) held an enquiry into the analysis of the blood sample ordered to be taken from POTTERS CORNER (IRE), trained by Paul Morgan, by the Stewards at Ffos Las after the gelding was placed second in the EBF Stallions ‘National Hunt’ Novices’ Hurdle race on 21 February 2016. The sample tested positive for omeprazole sulphide, 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.  Also, whether Mr Morgan was in breach of Rule (C)13 by virtue of his failure to keep an accurate record of Treatment administered to a horse under his care and control.

2.  Prior to the enquiry, both parties had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting and Mr Morgan had requested that the matter be heard in his absence. The ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ had no objection and its case was presented by Andrew Howell.

3.  The Panel noted that the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½â€™s former Veterinary Adviser (Equine and Welfare) Dr Lynn Hillyer had provided a Drug Brief regarding omeprazole.  Omeprazole is a proton pump inhibitor used to prevent and treat gastric ulceration in horses and is administered orally.  Omeprazole may be capable of having a pharmacological effect on multiple mammalian body systems and pursuant to Schedule (G)1 paragraph 7, is a Prohibited Substance prohibited on raceday only.

4.  There are three licensed products available for use in horses that contain omeprazole: Gastrogard®, Pepizole® and Ulcergold®.  There are various other preparations available in other countries and via the internet.  As well as direct administration of a licensed product to the horse, Dr Hillyer noted that as with any orally administered medication or drug, there is the potential for environmental contamination resulting in an Adverse Analytical finding.

5.  On 6 April 2016 ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ Stable Inspecting Officers attended Mr Morgan’s yard unannounced, however, Mr Morgan was not present due to having to travel to Newton Abbot for family reasons. Mr Morgan was contacted by telephone and raised no objection to the Inspecting Officers conducting an inspection of his yard.

6.  Inspection of the medication records present on the yard, namely the NTF Book and the Yard Diary it was noted that Mr Morgan had made no entries for medication to any of the horses in his care or control in the NTF Book since 29 October 2014. One of the Inspecting Officers recalled that Mr Morgan had been spoken to by a ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ Team Coordinator during a routine inspection of his yard on 16 February 2016 reminding him of the importance of maintaining a full and detailed record of any medication administered to horses in his yard.

7.  Mr Morgan employed the services of veterinary practice Summerhill Equine Veterinary Partnership and enquiries by the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ were responded to by Veterinary Surgeon, Kevin Bishop. Mr Bishop had stated that he had carried out a gastroscopic examination on another horse in Mr Morgan’s yard on 21 January 2016 and had prescribed a full month of Gastrogard® at a dose of one full tube per day.  He later had a telephone conversation with Mr Morgan who had informed him that he had decided to turn out that horse and would commence the treatment at a later date. During this conversation Mr Morgan had also asked whether it would be useful to administer the Gastrogard® to POTTERS CORNER as he had been unhappy with his coat, condition and how his work was going.  Mr Bishop had advised Mr Morgan that he could administer a full dose of Gastrogard without diagnosing ulcers.  He had advised monitoring for a response to treatment and that Mr Morgan should keep a record of the treatment so that Mr Bishop could sign the authorisation on the trainer’s medical record.  He had also advised an eight day withdrawal period before racing.

8.  On 12 April 2016 Mr Morgan was interviewed by the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ Stable Inspecting Officers. Mr Morgan had confirmed that he initially made entries into a diary before transferring them to the NTF Book, however, he had conceded that he had been somewhat lax in the process as there was nothing in his current NTF Book.

9.  Mr Morgan had stated that he had administered the Gastrogard® to POTTERS CORNER on roughly the 26 or 27 January with the final administration being the 13 February 2016. He had based this account on an entry in the Yard Diary, however, the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ submitted that the reliability of this source of reference was questionable. There was an entry in the Yard Diary on 26 January, however, no entry on 27 January.  There was another entry on 30 January that could also be interpreted as being the date on which treatment was started.  Mr Morgan had confirmed that he had administered one tube of Gastrogard® per day over the course of 14 – 18 days. No Gastrogard® had been found on the yard and therefore the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½â€™s conclusion was that there was excess Gastrogard® unaccounted for and that this had raised the question as to whether a further dosage may have been administered to POTTERS CORNER in the intervening days.

10.  The Panel also noted that Mr Morgan had not challenged the finding, and did not elect for analysis of the ‘B’ sample.

11.  The ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ accepted that there was no suggestion that Mr Morgan 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.

12.  Having considered the evidence, including the submission from Mr Morgan, 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.

13.  The Panel found Mr Morgan in breach of Rule (G)2.1 and imposed a fine of £1,000.  The Panel also found Mr Morgan in breach of Rule (C)13 in failing to accurately record treatment administered to horses under his care or control and fined him £800. In increasing the fine above the entry point, the Panel took into account that Mr Morgan had been reminded at a previous yard inspection of the importance of maintaining a full and detailed record of any medication administered to horses in his yard.

14.  Under Rule (A)74.2 Ground 3 the Panel disqualified POTTERS CORNER (IRE) from the race placing PRESELI ROCK (IRE) second, NEVER EQUALLED (IRE) third and APACHE OUTLAW (IRE) fourth.  It directed that any prize monies paid be returned.

Hugo Palmer

1.  The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½) held an enquiry on 22 December 2016 to consider whether or not Hugo Palmer, a licensed trainer, had committed a breach of Rule (G)2.6 of the Rules of Racing, in that prior to racing at Ascot on 15 October 2016 a member of his staff was found in possession of substances other than normal feed and water in the racecourse stables.  The substances in question were electrolytes and a sachet of Trimediazine Plain, a prescription-only antibiotic which would not have been given approval to be in the stables.

2.  Prior to the enquiry, both parties had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting and Mr Palmer had requested that the matter be heard in his absence. The ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ had no objection and its case was presented by Lyn Williams.

3.  Mr Williams informed the Panel that a member of Mr Palmer’s staff attending ARCHITECTURE (IRE) and GALILEO GOLD, trained by Mr Palmer, was in possession of prohibited substances in the racecourse stables, however, the Stewards allowed the horses to race but ordered that ARCHITECTURE (IRE) and GALILEO GOLD be tested after 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 (G)2.6 had been referred to the Panel.

4.  Mr Williams also informed the Panel that in respect of the electrolytes that were not considered a prohibited substance, no further action would be taken.

5.  The Panel noted that Mr Palmer had admitted a breach of Rule (G)2.6

6.  The Panel accepted Mr Palmer’s admission and found him in breach of Rule (G)2.6.  The Panel imposed a fine of £1,000 upon him.

Francois Rohaut

1.  The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½) held an enquiry on 22 December 2016 to consider whether or not Francois Rohaut, a licensed trainer, had committed a breach of Rule (G)2.6 of the Rules of Racing, in that prior to racing at Ascot on 15 October 2016 a member of his staff was found in possession of a substances other than normal feed and water in the racecourse stables. The substances in question were electrolytes and a sachet of Ekygard Flash, a complementary feeding stuff.

2.  Prior to the enquiry, both parties had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting and Mr Rohaut had requested that the matter be heard in his absence. The ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ had no objection and its case was presented by Lyn Williams.

3.  Mr Williams informed the Panel that a member of Mr Rohaut’s staff attending SIGNS OF BLESSING (IRE), trained by Mr Rohaut, was in possession of a prohibited substance in the racecourse stables, however, the Stewards allowed the horse to race but ordered that SIGNS OF BLESSING (IRE) be tested after the race. Confirmation has since been received from the laboratory that the sample that was taken had been reported negative for any prohibited substance, and having no wider integrity concerns, the breach of Rule (G)2.6 had been referred to the Panel.

4.  The Panel noted Mr Rohaut’s written submission that his travelling lad had been due to give SIGNS OF BLESSING (IRE) the Ekygard Flash when the horse arrived in Chantilly, the day after the race, to help him endure the long journey back to Pau (700 miles). Mr Rohaut had admitted a breach of Rule (G)2.6 and had since instructed his travelling lads to have a special box for these products and that this box must stay in the horsebox.

5.   Mr Williams also informed the Panel that in respect of the electrolytes that were not considered a prohibited substance, no further action would be taken.

6.  The Panel accepted Mr Rohaut’s admission and found him in breach of Rule (G)2.6.  The Panel imposed a fine of £750 upon him.

Notes to Editors:
1. The Panel for the enquiry was: Lucinda Cavendish (Chair), Philip Curl, Ian Stark

1. On 10 November 2016, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½) 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’s 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 ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½. 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 1½ lengths adrift of LAURENCE.

4. By the furlong marker, BANDITRY (IRE) was still about 1½ 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’s 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 1¼ 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’s 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 – 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 ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ heard an appeal brought by the trainer Sylvester Kirk against a fine of £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 ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½.

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’s 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 – 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 ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ 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 ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½), 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 ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ 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’s appeal and ordered the return of his deposit.

Rule (C)17 breaches:

The Disciplinary Panel of the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ 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’s 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 ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ and the trainers agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting. The ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½â€™s 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 – TAXMEIFYOUCAN (IRE) – £200
Edward Dunlop – SPORTING TIMES – £200
Nigel Hawke – LAKE PLACID – £200
Peter Hedger – MR MAC – £100
Philip McBride – FOUR CANDLES – £100
Gary Moore – KEIBA (IRE) – £100
Paul Nicholls – PILANSBERG – £200
Brendan Powell – PHOENIX DAWN – £200
Nigel Twiston-Davies – UNBLINKING – £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. The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½) on 8 September 2016 held an enquiry to establish whether or not David Nolan, the rider of DOLPHIN VISTA (IRE), the winner, had committed a breach of Schedule (B)6 Part 2 of the Rules of Racing concerning his use of the whip in the totepool Live Info Download the App Handicap Stakes at Beverley on 27 August 2016. The matter was referred to the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ Head Office by the Beverley Stewards following an enquiry on the same day because this was Mr Nolan’s fifth offence of mis-use of the whip, warranting a suspension of between 2 to 6 days, in the last 6 months.

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

3. The ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½â€™s case was presented by Lyn Williams and Mr Nolan was represented by Rory Mac Neice. The Panel also viewed recordings of the race.

4. The Panel accepted Mr Nolan’s admission that he was guilty of misuse of the whip in that he had used his whip above the permitted level. It considered that the breach would have warranted a suspension of 2 days.

5. Taking into account that Mr Nolan:
i) had committed 5 whip breaches (3 x 2 days & 2 x 4 days), since 3 April 2016; and
ii) had had 237 rides over this period
the Panel suspended him from riding for 23 days, of which 7 days will be deferred for 2 months until 3 December 2016. The suspension will run from Friday 16 September 2016 until Monday 3 October 2016 inclusive, on days when flat racing is scheduled to take place.

6. In deciding on the length of suspension, the Panel took into account the number of rides, the period of time and the nature of the offences. However, the Panel also noted that Mr Nolan had been referred to the Disciplinary Panel in September 2015 for a breach of Schedule (B)6 Part 2.

Jordan Nason

1. The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½) on 8 September 2016 held an enquiry to consider an objection, under Rule (A)74.2 Ground 2 of the Rules of Racing, to EUXTON, placed third in the Collingwood Short Term Learner Driver Insurance Handicap at Newcastle on 23 July 2016 on the grounds that the rider, Jordan Nason, did not hold a valid licence due to having left the employ of his trainer and therefore, in accordance with Rule (A)15 was not qualified to ride in this race.

2. Prior to the enquiry, both parties had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting and the Panel noted that Mr Nason had requested that the matter be heard in his absence. The ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ had no objection and its case was presented by Lyn Williams.

3. Mr Williams stated that Mr Nason had terminated his employment with Ronald Harris, a licensed trainer, on 22 July 2016 and rode on 23 July 2016. Concerns were raised by the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ Licensing Department as his Apprentice Jockey’s licence immediately ceased to be valid when he left Mr Harris’ yard.

4. Having considered the evidence, the Panel upheld the objection and under Rule (A)74.2 Ground 2 disqualified EUXTON from its race, placing HARPERS RUBY third and DREAM ALLY (IRE) fourth. The Panel directed that any prize money paid out in relation to the above race be returned.

5. The Panel also found Mr Nason in breach of Rule (A)15 and fined him £150.

Roger Varian

1. The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½) held an enquiry on 8 September 2016 into the analysis of the urine ordered to be taken from RECOGNITION (IRE), trained by Roger Varian, by the Stewards at Wolverhampton after the colt was placed first in the 32Redsport.com Handicap on 24 March 2016. 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 colt.

2. Prior to the enquiry, both parties had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting and Mr Varian had requested that the matter be heard in his absence. The ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ had no objection and its case was presented by Andrew Howell.

3. The urine sample taken from RECOGNITION (IRE) was found to contain Meptazinol, which is a prohibited substance. The trainer exercised his right to have the ‘B’ sample analysed, which confirmed the original finding. Meptazinol is a mixed agonist and antagonist with partial opioid agonist activity as well as having an effect on a horse’s nervous system. It is used to manage moderate to severe pain and trades under the name Meptid®. There are no licensed preparations of Meptazinol for use in animals but numerous preparations containing Meptazinol are available in the UK for use in humans.

4. Mr Howell stated that following the positive analysis, ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ Investigating Officers interviewed Mr Varian at his stables on 26 April 2016 and he had confirmed that he was not aware of any of his stable staff taking Meptazinol or Meptid®, having asked his stable staff and race day staff. Examination of Mr Varian’s medication records and veterinary practice records showed no entry for Meptazinol nor was Meptazinol found anywhere on the yard.

5. A ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ Investigating Officer returned to the stables on 26 May 2016 to make further enquiries. The Assistant Trainer, Will Johnson, confirmed that the farrier used was not on medication when he shod RECOGNITION (IRE), and no other service provider had seen or treated the colt. Mr Varian’s veterinary surgeon, Mr Simon Waterhouse, was on site at the time of this visit and he confirmed that he had not administered Meptazinol to any horses on Mr Varian’s yard.

6. 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.

7. The Panel accepted Mr Varian’s admission of a breach of Rule (G)2.1 and imposed a fine of £1,000. It was not asked by the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ to consider a contribution to the costs associated with the analysis of the ‘B’ sample.

8. Under Rule (A)74.2 Ground 3, the Panel disqualified RECOGNITION (IRE) from the race, placing FRIVOLOUS PRINCE (IRE) first, RAINBOW LAD (IRE) second, WHITECLIFF PARK (IRE) third and SCHOOLBOY ERROR (IRE) fourth. 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 enquiries was: William Barlow (Chair), Celina Carter, Ian Stark

1. The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½) on 4 August 2016 held an enquiry to establish whether or not Kieran O’Neill, the rider of PIROUETTE, 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 Woodford Reserve Handicap at Ascot on 23 July 2016.  The matter was referred to the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ Head Office by the Ascot Stewards following an enquiry on the same day because this was Mr O’Neill’s fifth offence of mis-use of the whip, warranting a suspension of between 2 to 6 days, in the last 6 months.

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

3. The ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½â€™s case was presented by Lyn Williams and Mr O’Neill was represented by Rory Mac Neice. The Panel also viewed recordings of the race.

4. The Panel accepted Mr O’Neill’s admission that he was guilty of misuse of the whip in that he had used his whip above the permitted level.  It considered that the breach would have warranted a suspension of 2 days.

5.    Taking into account that Mr O’Neill:
i)    had committed 5 whip breaches (4 x 2 days & 1 x 4 days), since 11 February 2016; and
ii)    had had 282 rides over this period
the Panel suspended him from riding for 16 days, of which 5 days will be deferred for 42 days until Monday 3 October 2016.  The suspension will run from Friday 12 August 2016 until Monday 22 August 2016 inclusive, on days when flat racing is scheduled to take place.

6. In deciding on the length of suspension, the Panel took into account the large number of rides and the 5½ month period over which the suspensions incurred.

Ian Brennan, Shirley Teasdale, Dale Swift, Matthew Cosham

1. The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½) held an enquiry on 4 August 2016 to consider whether or not Ian Brennan, Matthew Cosham, Dale Swift and Shirley Teasdale had committed a breach of Rule (A)31.1.1 of the Rules of Racing, in that, having agreed under the terms of their licence to attend a mandatory training seminar for professional jockeys if one was held during the period of their licence, they failed to attend one of the three Flat Jockeys’ Seminars that were held on Tuesday 12 April 2016 at Newmarket, Friday 15 April 2016 at Newbury and Wednesday 11 May 2016 at York.

2. Prior to the enquiry, all parties had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting. The cases were presented by Lyn Williams, ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ Case Manager.

3. The Panel noted that every Flat Jockey, including all 3lb and 5lb Apprentice Jockeys, had been written to by the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ on 26 January 2016 informing them of the dates and venues of the Seminars and a further letter was sent on 9 March 2016 giving timings and confirming venues, asking them to indicate their preference.  A notice and three further reminders regarding the Seminars were published in the PJA newsletter in February, March, April and May 2016.  Also, the PJA tweeted a reminder a day before each of the seminars.

4.  Having considered the evidence the Panel found Messrs Brennan, Cosham, Swift and Miss Teasdale were in breach of Rule (A)31.1.1.

Messrs Cosham & Brennan – The Panel imposed a suspension of 5 days from Friday 12 August 2016 to Tuesday 16 August 2016 inclusive, having provided no explanations as to their non-attendance.

Mr Swift was licenced from 11 April 2016 and would not have received earlier communications from the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½.  However, he had been riding regularly since 16 April and would have been aware of the seminar in May, 2016.  The Panel imposed a suspension of 3 days from Friday 12 August 2015 to Sunday 14 August 2016 inclusive.

Miss Teasdale – The Panel noted that she had given up her licence on 25 February 2016 and acquired a new licence on 6 May 2016.   She had also received the letters informing jockeys of the seminars.  The Panel imposed a suspension of 2 days from Friday 12 August 2016 to Saturday 13 August 2016 inclusive.

Notes to Editors:
1. The Panel for the enquiries was: Philip Curl (Chair), Edward Dorrell, Diana Powles

1. The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½) on 14 July 2016 held an enquiry to consider whether or not Jamie Thomas committed a breach of Regulation 126(iii) of the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ Regulations for Point-to-Point Steeple Chases in respect of him having taken the wrong course when riding PARKHAM JACK in the Volvo Ten-Year-Olds And Over PPORA Club Members Race at Trebudannon on 8 May 2016.

2. Prior to the enquiry, Mr Thomas and the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting. Also, Mr Thomas had agreed that the matter could be heard in his absence.

3. The Panel noted that at the Steward’s enquiry conducted on the day, it had been concluded that Mr Thomas had taken the wrong course and the Steward’s disqualified PARKHAM JACK from the race and referred the breach to the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ Head Office.

4. Mr Williams brought to the Panel’s attention Regulation 122(iii) which requires a rider to turn around or pull up if they have taken the wrong course.

5. Having viewed the recording of the race, the Panel concluded that Mr Thomas had taken the wrong course and neither turned around, nor pulled up. Mr Thomas had contended at the Steward’s enquiry on the day that he had taken the correct course.

6. Having considered the evidence, the Panel found Mr Thomas in breach of Regulation 126(iii) and fined him £125.

Notes to Editors:

1. The Panel for the enquiry was: Philip Curl (Chair), Jeremy Barlow, Celina Carter

Cathy Gannon

1. On 21 January 2016, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½) 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 £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 ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½’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 ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½, 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’s 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’s quarters, was entitled to hold her position. It was agreed that the interference had been caused by Golam’s 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 (ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½) on 21 January 2016 held an enquiry to establish whether or not Kieren Fox, the rider of LUPO D’ORO (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 ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ head office by the Kempton Park Stewards following an enquiry on the same day because this was Fox’s fifth offence of mis-use of the whip, warranting a suspension of between 2 to 6 days, in the last 6 months.

2. The ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½â€™s 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’s 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 (ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½) 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’ Stakes (Registered as the Lillie Langtry Stakes) at Goodwood on 30 July 2015.

2. Harley was represented by Rory Mac Neice and the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½â€™s 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’ 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 ‘additives’ 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 ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½â€™s Veterinary Department and the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ was satisfied that the results from the samples were consistent with Harley’s statement.

7. Harley had expressed his embarrassment about falling foul of the Rules of Racing and the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ 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’s admission to a breach of Rule (C)33 and fined him £1,000.

Notes to Editors:

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

The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½) held an enquiry on 26 November 2015 to consider whether or not Sam Thomas and Joseph Palmowski had committed a breach of Rule (A)31.1.1 of the Rules of Racing, in that, having agreed under the terms of their licence to attend a mandatory training seminar for professional jockeys if one was held during the period of their licence, they failed to attend one of the Jump Jockeys’ Seminars that were held on 17 September 2015 and 14 October 2015.

The Panel noted that every full Jump jockey and every 3lb & 5lb Conditional jockey had been written to by the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ on 18 June 2015 informing them of the dates and venues of the seminars and a further letter was sent on 11 August 2015 giving timings and confirming venues, asking them to indicate their preference. A notice and two further reminders regarding the seminars were published in the PJA newsletter in July 2015, August 2015 and September 2015.

Having considered the evidence the Panel found Thomas and Palmowski to be in breach of Rule (A)31.1.1 and suspended each of them from riding for five days from Friday 4 December 2015 until Tuesday 8 December 2015 inclusive.

Marco Botti

The Disciplinary Panel of the ÌÇÐÄ´«Ã½ held an enquiry on 26 November 2015 to consider whether or not Marco Botti, 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 five days before the horse’s next run, that SAMMY’S WARRIOR had been gelded.

The Panel noted that SAMMY’S WARRIOR had run in and been claimed out of a Claiming Race at Redcar on 3 November 2015. The fact that the gelding was still incorrectly described could have caused further complications, however, as there was only one claimant for SAMMY’S WARRIOR, Botti was able to take the horse back and agree to cover all the premiums payable to Redcar racecourse.

Acknowledging Botti’s actions in taking the horse back and covering the outstanding costs the Panel found Botti in breach of Rule (C)17 and fined him £200.

Notes to Editors:

1. The Panel for the hearings was: William Barlow (Chair), Celina Carter and Ian Stark