Result of an appeal (R Guest) and enquiries (D Barron, Sedgefield Racecourse) heard by the Disciplinary Panel on Thursday 3 December

03 Dec 2015 Disciplinary Panel - Other decisions

Richard Guest

The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) on Thursday 3 December 2015 considered an appeal lodged by Richard Guest, the trainer of LADY BACCHUS, DOMINEENO and MISS MOZAICO, against the decision of the Stewards at Leicester racecourse on 26 October, 2015 to find him in breach of Rule (B)27.5 of the Rules of Racing in that the above horses had failed to enter the Parade Ring before the Haymarket Nursery Handicap.

Lyn Williams appeared for the BHA. Guest was not present nor represented, but it was agreed by him that the matter should be dealt with in his absence. The Panel considered the contents of the detailed letter from Guest dated 2 November 2015.

Before the Panel, the BHA agreed that given the late jockey change, a new girth and a broken armband, there was a reasonable excuse for LADY BACCHUS not being in the Parade Ring when the signal to mount was given. The Panel noted that permission had been given for all three horses to be saddled in the stables and for them to go to post early. However, the BHA contended that there was no reasonable excuse for DOMINEENO and MISS MOZAICO not being in the Parade Ring at the required time.

The Panel found that neither DOMINEENO nor MISS MOZAICO were in the Parade Ring at the time that the signal to mount was given, and that no permission had been given at that stage for their absence, and in the circumstances in relation to DOMINEENO and MISS MOZAICO, Guest was in breach of Rule (B)27.5.

The Panel dismissed the appeal in relation to DOMINEENO and MISS MOZAICO and confirmed the £280 fine. It ordered that the deposit be returned.


David Barron

The Disciplinary Panel of the BHA held an enquiry on Thursday 3 December 2015 into the analysis of the urine ordered to be taken from ZAC BROWN (IRE), trained by Licensed trainer David Barron, by the Stewards at Chelmsford City after the gelding had finished eighth in the #Million totescoop6 Handicap Stakes on 28 March 2015. The sample tested positive for a prohibited substance, in breach of Rule (G)2.1 of the Rules of Racing. The Panel also considered whether or not to take action under Rule (A)74.2 of the Rules of Racing in respect of the possible disqualification of the gelding.

The urine taken from ZAC BROWN (IRE) was found to contain desmethyltramadol, a metabolite of tramadol, which is a prohibited substance on a raceday. The trainer did not exercise his right to have the ‘B’ sample analysed.

After considering the evidence, including a written submission from Barron, 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.

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

Under Rule (A)74.2 the Panel disqualified ZAC BROWN (IRE) from the race placing ORIENTAL RELATION (IRE) eighth. The Panel directed that any prize money paid be returned.


Sedgefield Racecourse

The Disciplinary Panel of the BHA on Thursday 3 December 2015 held an enquiry to consider whether or not Arena Racing Company, in its capacity as the Managing Executive of Sedgefield Racecourse, had committed a breach of Rule (F)15.2.3 of the Rules of Racing, in the light of BHA General Instruction 12.1 paragraph 8j, headed “Senior Veterinary Surgeon – Duties”, in that screens were not deployed when the Senior Veterinary Surgeon was treating SO BAZAAR (IRE) during the Seymour Civil Engineering Contractors Novices’ Handicap on 12 October 2015.

The Panel heard submissions from Lyn Williams, BHA Case Manager and Charles Moore representing Sedgefield Racecourse and Arena Racing Company.

The Panel noted that during the race SO BAZAAR (IRE) suffered a fracture to the right foreleg, and in this emergency situation was euthanased by the Senior Veterinary Surgeon approximately half way between the third and fourth fences. Screens had not been erected as required and part of the horse’s body was visible on the television coverage. The Arena Racing Company admitted a breach of the Rules from the outset, which admission the Panel accepted.

The Panel concluded that there were insufficient personnel present to enable screens to be erected, and whilst recognising it was an emergency situation and the incident could not be seen from the Grandstands, nevertheless screens should have been erected.

The Panel were grateful for the realistic and constructive matters placed before them by Mr Moore, including the fact that a new Senior Veterinary Surgeon had been appointed and Veterinary Standing Orders have been discussed with her, and have been upgraded. In addition extra personnel have been positioned around the course and in the Head Groundsman’s vehicle, and a second Veterinary vehicle will follow each race. The Panel also noted that throughout the incident, equine welfare had been the priority.

Nevertheless, the Panel took into account that this was the third breach of the Rules by Sedgefield Racecourse within a 12 month period, which the Panel found an aggravating factor justifying a significant increase above the entry point, and therefore imposed a fine of £5,500.


Notes to editors:

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