In Absence – Michael Hammond
The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry on 30 June 2016 to consider whether or not Micky Hammond, 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 GRAN PARADISO (IRE) had been gelded.
Prior to the enquiry, Mr Hammond had agreed that the matter could be heard in his absence. Also, Mr Hammond and the BHA had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting.
Having considered the evidence, the Panel found Mr Hammond in breach of Rule (C)17 and fined him £200.
In Absence – Andrew Balding
The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry on 30 June 2016 to consider whether or not Andrew Balding, 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 SHONGOLOLO (IRE) had been gelded.
Prior to the enquiry, Mr Balding had agreed that the matter could be heard in his absence. Also, Mr Balding and the BHA had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting.
Having considered the evidence, the Panel found Mr Balding in breach of Rule (C)17 and fined him £200
In Absence – Marjorie Fife
The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry on 30 June 2016 to consider whether or not Mrs Marjorie Fife, a licensed trainer, had committed a breach of Rule (C)17 of the Rules of Racing, in respect of her failure to notify the Racing Calendar Office, by noon 5 days before the horse’s next run, that TOLEDO had been gelded.
Prior to the enquiry, Mrs Fife had agreed that the matter could be heard in her absence. Also, Mrs Fife and the BHA had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting.
Having considered the evidence, the Panel found Mrs Fife in breach of Rule (C)17 and fined her £200.
In Absence – Gay Kelleway
The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry on 30 June 2016 to consider whether or not Miss Gay Kelleway, a licensed trainer, had committed a breach of Rule (C)17 of the Rules of Racing, in respect of her failure to notify the Racing Calendar Office, by noon 5 days before the horse’s next run, that SID SWEENEY had been gelded.
Prior to the enquiry, Miss Kelleway had agreed that the matter could be heard in her absence. Also, Miss Kelleway and the BHA had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting.
Having considered the evidence, the Panel found Miss Kelleway in breach of Rule (C)17 and fined her £200.
In Absence – Michael Appleby
1. The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry on 30 June 2016 to consider whether or not Michael Appleby, a licensed trainer, had committed a breach of Rule (A)39 in respect of his ongoing record of breaches committed since 1 January 2016 relating to his failure to ensure that the correct sponsorship was carried by horses or worn by employees on the racecourse.
2. The Panel also considered whether or not Mr Appleby had committed a breach of Rule (E)18 of the Rules of Racing, in respect of the record of vaccinations in the passport of LULU THE ZULU (IRE), prior to the mare running in the Betway Handicap Stakes at Chester on 28 May 2016. The matter was referred to the Head Office of the BHA by the Chester Stewards, this being his fourth offence within the previous twelve months.
3. Prior to the enquiry, Mr Appleby had agreed that the matters could be heard in his absence. Also, Mr Appleby and the BHA had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting.
4. In respect of Rule (A)39, the Panel noted that Mr Appleby had received a number of letters warning him that failure to comply with the sponsorship guidelines constituted a breach of the Rules of Racing. Since the earlier warning letters four further cases had been referred. The Panel found Mr Appleby in breach of Rule (A)39 and fined him £450.
5. In respect of Rule (E)18, having considered the correspondence, including a statement from Mr Appleby’s Veterinary Surgeon, the Panel accepted an admission from Mr Appleby that he was in breach of Rule (E)18.
6. Taking into account that this was Mr Appleby’s fourth offence within the previous twelve months, the Panel imposed a fine of £1,000 upon him.
Notes to Editors:
1. The Panel for the hearings was: William Barlow (Chair), Celina Carter, Edward Dorrell
