Results of enquiries (P. Kirby, M. McNiff) and an appeal (C. Fellowes) heard by the Disciplinary Panel on Thursday 12 January
1. The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry on 12 January 2017 to consider whether or not Philip Kirby, a licensed trainer, had committed a breach of Rule (C)17 of the Rules of Racing, in respect of his failure to notify the Racing Calendar Office, by noon 5 days before the horse’s next run, that GOOD TIME AHEAD (IRE) had been gelded. The matter was drawn to the BHA’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 BHA had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting. The BHA’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.
1. On 12 January 2017, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry to consider whether Mark McNiff, a licensed trainer, had committed a breach of Rule (A)29 of the Rules of Racing in that he ran CORSKEAGH EXPRESS (IRE) at Ayr in the Betfred TV Conditional Jockeys’ 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 BHA had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting. The BHA’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.
1. On 12 January 2017, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) heard an appeal against the decision by the Wolverhampton Stewards, following an inquiry on 27 December 2016, to leave unaltered the placings of the first two horses home in the 32Red.com EBF Fillies’ 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 BHA. 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.