British Horseracing Authority Disciplinary

David Rees / RIMINI - 23/08/2010

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 00:00:00 GMT

David Rees / RIMINI (FR)

The Disciplinary Panel held an enquiry into the analysis of the urine ordered to be taken from RIMINI (FR), trained by D Rees, by the Stewards at Worcester after the gelding had finished third in the Bet in Running � Betdaq Maiden Hurdle ( Div II) on 16 June 2010.

The urine of the horse was found to contain methylprednisolone, which is a prohibited substance. After considering the evidence, including statements from Rees and his Veterinary Surgeon, the Panel was satisfied that the source of the substance was a 40mg intramuscular injection of Depo-Medrone administered by Rees� Veterinary Surgeon to the gelding on 12 May 2010. Rees� Veterinary Surgeon recommended a withdrawal period of 7 days.

The Panel accepted an admission from Rees that he was in breach of Rule (C)53 of the Rules of Racing and imposed a fine of �750 upon him. In addition, under Rule (A)74, the Panel disqualified RIMINI (FR) from the race, placing STUDY TROUBLES (IRE) third.

The Panel also informed Rees that the horses in his care will be the subject of examination and the taking of samples for analysis provided for in Rule (A)49 within the next twelve months.

Notes for Editors:

� The Panel was: Patrick Hibbert Foy (Chair), Lord Rathcreedan and the Hon Mrs J Cavendish

Brian Ellison TILT - 23/08/2010

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 00:00:00 GMT

Brian Ellison / TILT

The Disciplinary Panel held an enquiry into a report that TILT, trained by B Ellison, had been very reluctant to race before running out at the 2nd hurdle in the Ladies Night Is Next 14th August Handicap Hurdle Race at Market Rasen on 1 August 2010. The matter was referred to the Authority by the Market Rasen Stewards following their enquiry of the same day because this was the 4th occasion on which the gelding had been reported for similar conduct in the last 12 months.

The Panel noted that the gelding had refused to race on the flat at Southwell on 27 October 2009 and at Doncaster on 7 November 2009, and had also been reluctant to race before pulling up in a hurdle race at Sedgefield on 9 February 2010. Having considered the evidence, including a written statement from Ellison confirming that the gelding had been retired from racing, the Panel declared that with immediate effect no further entries would be accepted for the gelding to run under the Rules of Racing. The Panel also indicated that it would not accept an application to lift the restriction for 12 months.

Notes for Editors:

� The Panel was: Patrick Hibbert Foy (Chair), Lord Rathcreedan and the Hon Mrs J Cavendish

Phillip Makin - 23/08/2010

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 00:00:00 GMT

In absence:

Phillip Makin

The Disciplinary Panel considered an appeal lodged by Phillip Makin, the rider of SADLER�S MARK in the Coopers Chemist Prescriptions Delivery Maiden Handicap Stakes, against the decision of the Stewards at Redcar to suspend him for three days, following an enquiry on 8 August 2010. The suspension was as a result of a finding of a breach of Rule (B)67.7 of the Rules of Racing in that he had weighed in at 2lb or more over the weight at which he had weighed out.

Having considered the evidence, including written representation on Makin�s behalf, the Panel accepted that the trainer�s representative had changed the girth without informing Makin and that if this had not occurred he would not have weighed in 2lb over and would not therefore have been reported by the Clerk of Scales to the Stewards. Accordingly, the Panel upheld Makin�s appeal and quashed the suspension imposed upon him.

Notes for Editors:

� Thursday�s Panel was: Patrick Hibbert Foy (Chair), Lord Rathcreedan and the Hon Mrs J Cavendish

Robert Mills - 23/08/2010

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 00:00:00 GMT

RESULTS OF ENQUIRIES HEARD BY THE DISCIPLINARY PANEL ON THURSDAY 19TH AUGUST 2010

Robert Mills

The Disciplinary Panel held an enquiry to consider whether or not R A Mills, a licensed trainer, had committed a breach of Rule (C)33.3 of the Rules of Racing, in respect of the administration of a substance, other than normal feed and water by mouth, to SEPTEMBERINTHERAIN in the official racecourse stables at Market Rasen on 25 June 2010 prior to the gelding running in the PD Ports Juvenile Hurdle Race. The gelding was withdrawn from the race and the matter was referred to the Authority by the Stewards at Market Rasen following an enquiry.

Having considered the evidence, including a statement from Mills, the Panel accepted an admission from him that he was in breach of Rule (C)33.3 in that his representative, Mr C Harrison, in ignorance of the Rules, had administered arnica and witch hazel gel to the gelding�s shoulder.

Accepting that it was a mistake, the Panel imposed a fine of �750 upon him.

Notes for Editors:

� The Panel was: Patrick Hibbert Foy (Chair), Lord Rathcreedan and the Hon Mrs J Cavendish

Royston Ffrench - appeal reason - 27/08/2010

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 00:00:00 GMT

ROYSTON FFRENCH

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

Royston Ffrench, a licensed flat-race jockey, appeals against a decision of the Disciplinary Panel (the Panel) of the British Horseracing Authority (the Authority) made on Tuesday 8 July 2010. By its decision the Panel found Ffrench in breach of Rule (A)31.1.1 of the Rules of Racing and imposed on him a seven day suspension from race riding.

The facts are simple and can be shortly summarised. We make it clear that in the course of the hearing they were fully explored by Mr Mac Neice acting for Ffrench and Mr Williams acting for the Authority.

On being granted a jockey�s licence by the Authority, each jockey undertakes that he or she �� will attend a one-day training seminar for professional jockeys � if such seminar is held during the period this licence is valid�. Ffrench holds such a licence and gave that undertaking.

By a letter dated 22 January 2010 the Authority wrote to all licensed flat-race jockeys requiring each to attend one of three seminars for flat-race jockeys. The dates and locations for the seminars were 14 April at Newmarket, 16 April at Newbury and 12 May at York. The letter contained the following paragraph:

�Please remember that these seminars are mandatory and a condition of your licence; you MUST attend one of them in full. Late arrivals and non-attendees will be required to submit their reasons in writing to the Disciplinary Department. A decision will then be made by the British Horseracing Authority as to whether an appearance before the Disciplinary Panel is required. For the avoidance of doubt, this means anyone who has arrived after the introduction has begun, which will be at 09.15 am. Moreover requests to leave early will not be granted.�

A further letter dated 12 March 2010 was sent to all jockeys reminding them that they must attend one of these seminars. It contained a similar warning.

Towards the end of April 2010, Ffrench had not attended either of the first two seminars. There followed an exchange of e-mails between the Professional Jockeys Association (PJA), on behalf of Ffrench, and the Authority. It is unnecessary in these written reasons to set out the whole correspondence. The following summary of the e-mails is sufficient.

On 28 April the PJA wrote to the Authority explaining that Ffrench had been unable to attend the Newmarket seminar as he intended due to a late booking to ride at Beverley. He intended to attend the York seminar in May but had been booked to ride a horse in a Group race in Singapore on the same day as the York seminar. The e-mail ended with the sentence �We would request that Royston is excused from attending the Flat mandatory seminars in 2010 without penalty�.

There followed approximately seven e-mails, in the course of which the PJA enclosed a letter from the trainer of the horse for which Ffrench was booked to ride and an e-mail stating that the race was to be held on 16 May, but Ffrench was required to attend from 10 May in order to prepare the horse for the race.

In an e-mail dated 29 April 2010 sent at 09.34, the Authority stated:

�Please inform Royston that if he fails to attend the seminar then consideration will be made whether or not to refer his non-attendance to the Disciplinary Panel. If he is referred and the Panel find him in breach, the penalty range is 5-10 days with an entry point of seven days�.

This e-mail was followed by a letter from the PJA providing copies of the letter from the trainer to Ffrench and confirming the booking of business class tickets for his flight to Singapore.

Ffrench did not attend the seminar and by a letter dated 19 May 2010 from the Authority to Ffrench, in person, the Authority required Ffrench to give a written explanation of his failure to attend one of the three seminars. Ffrench replied by e-mail on 25 May 2010 as follows:

�Although I had intended to attend the Newmarket seminar, I was unable to do so due to a late booking to ride at Beverley. After this, I fully intended to attend the York seminar in May. However, towards the end of April I was booked to ride Al Shemali in a Group race in Singapore on 16 May. I have a long-standing relationship with the horse, having ridden it to win in the Dubai Duty Free Stakes (Group One). Upon being booked for the ride, the Professional Jockeys Association, on my behalf, immediately requested that I be excused from attending the York seminar.

�I am aware that the BHA are already in possession of supporting documentation from the Trainer of Al Shemali requesting my presence on 10 May to prepare the horse for the race and would request that they do not impose a penalty on this occasion.�

The Panel�s enquiry took place on 8 July 2010. It involved eight other jockeys as well as Ffrench. The relevant part of its decision was communicated to Ffrench in the following terms:

�Carson, Ffrench, Miss Manser, Mathers and Slattery � the Panel did not accept their respective explanations for not attending a seminar, found each of them to be in breach of Rule (A)31.1.1 and suspended each of them from riding for seven days from Friday, 16 July to Thursday 22 July 2010 inclusive.�

There are four grounds of appeal against the finding of a breach of Rule (A)31.1.1. First, it is submitted that the Panel gave no or no sufficient reasons for its decision. The second ground challenges the fairness of the hearing before the Panel. This ground is based on the admitted fact that the Authority did not place the full trail of e-mails before the Panel. In the third ground it is submitted that no reasonable decision-maker could have made the decision which the Panel made. Finally and fourthly, the appellant submits that the Panel wrongly construed and applied Rule (A)31.1.1.

It seems logical to deal with the fourth ground first. Rule 31.1 under the heading �Conduct of obstructing the proper administration or control of racing provides:

�31.1 A Person must not, in relation to the administration or control of racing

31.1.1 breach any declaration or undertaking given to the Authority �

31.3 The Authority may decide not to take Disciplinary action for a contravention of this Rule if the Person satisfies the Authority that the circumstances were exceptional and that he had a satisfactory reason for his conduct.�

It is submitted that a failure to attend a seminar cannot be described as an obstruction or obstacle to the administration of racing. Nor, it is submitted, can a failure to attend a seminar interfere with the control of racing.

In our opinion this ground fails. The purpose of these seminars is, as Mr Mac Neice, acting for Ffrench, conceded, to provide a training refresher course for jockeys. The letter from the Authority dated 12 March 2010 states:

�These seminars are for your benefit. Every year jockeys get suspended, or lose appeals, because they may not fully understand the rules. Hopefully, these seminars will go some way to preventing this, and may save you days of suspension and unnecessary loss of earnings.�

It seems to the Board that it is obvious that such courses do assist in both the proper administration and control of racing. The whole object is to ensure that jockeys know the rules and abide by them. Failure to attend such a course is a failure to be trained in such a way as to assist the smooth and proper running of race riding.

Next we take ground 3. This ground is best explained by Mr Mac Neice�s central submission, which is that on a proper construction of the e-mails and other documents, Ffrench was seeking guidance from the Authority upon which he could make a decision as to whether to attend the seminar and lose the ride on a favoured horse for an important trainer and influential owner, or keep the ride.

Mr Mac Neice argued that the e-mails demonstrate Ffrench was seeking guidance from the Authority as to whether it regarded his reason for being excused attendance at the seminar a sufficient reason to avoid a charge under (A)31.1.1. It is submitted that the Authority�s response in the e-mails was a passive one, neither sanctioning nor rejecting the reasons put forward by Ffrench to be excused. It is further submitted that the Authority ought to have decided at that stage whether it would refer Ffrench to the Panel if he failed to attend the seminar. Ffrench would then know, as a matter of certainty, whether he could keep the ride in Singapore without being referred to the Panel; or whether he must reject the ride and attend the seminar.

In our opinion this argument is based on a false premise. Ffrench was not asking for guidance. The first e-mail dated 28.4.2010 specifically requested that he be excused (see the final sentence). At no stage in the e-mails was there a request for guidance. In his letter of explanation of 25 May 2010, to which we have already referred, Ffrench stated that he requested to be excused attendance.

Ffrench was never given any intimation that he would be excused, and so far from being letters of comfort, the e-mails of 29 April 2010 from the Authority to the PJA made clear that if he did not attend the seminar he would risk a charge being referred to the Panel.

In our view it would have been inappropriate and premature for the Authority to give any such intimation before the date of the seminar. It was for Ffrench to decide whether to accept or reject the ride in Singapore in the knowledge that if he failed to attend the seminar he might be referred to the Panel and might be suspended. We find that the correspondence shows that Ffrench was clearly warned of the potential consequences if he did not attend the seminar.

We add that at the hearing of the appeal, Ffrench informed the Board that if he had been told he would be referred to the Panel if he failed to attend the seminar, he would have jettisoned this ride. This explanation had not been given before and, in any event, in our view it was not a matter which was put before the Authority before it made its decision nor in his explanation to the Panel.

This ground of appeal also encompassed an argument that on the known facts the Panel ought to have accepted that Ffrench�s explanation for not attending the seminar was exceptional and satisfactory. It was, it is submitted, not open to the Panel to find the reverse.

We disagree. In our view not only was it open to the Panel to find that Ffrench�s explanation was not exceptional or satisfactory, it was on the facts a conclusion which they were bound to make. Ffrench, as any jockey, or self-employed person in another profession, has a duty to run his affairs in such a way as to comply with his professional duties and obligations. The letter requiring attendance at one of three seminars gave ample opportunity for all jockeys concerned to arrange their professional commitments in such a way as to attend one of these seminars. To have left it until the last seminar, as Ffrench did, was to run the risk of losing some lucrative rides. This was the sort of decision with which all jockeys have to cope. In our view the Panel was right to reject the explanation as neither exceptional nor satisfactory.

We can deal with the other two grounds shortly. The Panel�s reasons for its findings were tersely stated. We have already cited the relevant paragraph of the Decision.

Mr Mac Neice argued that it is not possible to discern what the Panel�s reasons were for rejecting Ffrench�s explanation. In our view, it might have been better if the Panel had given fuller reasons but it is clear that it reached its decision on the basis that the explanation provided by Ffrench for his non-attendance was not exceptional and not satisfactory. As we have said, in our opinion that decision was correct. This was a simple matter which did not require any lengthy exposition by the Panel of its reasons.

Finally, it is argued in the fourth ground that the Panel was not provided with all the material which it ought to have had, in particular the full trail of e-mails. We agree that the full correspondence ought to have been placed before the Panel. It is in our view important, particularly where a respondent to a charge is neither represented nor present, that the Authority scrupulously places before the Panel the full material. However, in this instance, in our opinion, if the full trail of e-mails had been before the Panel, the decision would have been bound to be the same. We reject the submission that the Panel, if it had seen all the e-mails, would have found that Ffrench was seeking guidance from the Authority and, in turn, giving him some comfort.

As to the penalty, it is clear from its decision that the Panel differentiated between jockeys who gave no explanation and those who gave some explanation which was not accepted. The former were suspended for ten days, the latter for seven days. Mr Mac Neice invited the Board to take into account all the facts as set out above, as substantial mitigation sufficient for the Board to reduce the penalty.

Seven days is the entry point in the Guide to Procedures and Penalties 2010. We appreciate Ffrench�s anxiety to take the ride on a good horse in a Group 1 race in Singapore. No doubt it was an attractive booking which he did not wish to lose. However, in our opinion, his fault was, as we have set out above, a failure to organise his professional commitments in such a way that he could attend one of the three seminars. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the penalty was appropriate.

For these reasons we dismiss the appeal both against the finding of breach and the penalty.

Since we announced our decision at the end of the hearing, Mr Mac Neice has asked that we do not forfeit Ffrench's deposit. We have considered the submissions made by Mr Mac Neice in his letter of 25 August. We regret that we cannot accede to them. We accept that Ffrench has a good disciplinary record but in our view that of itself is no reason for his deposit not to be forfeited. As appears from our written reasons above for dismissing his appeal, in our view the appeal involved no important point of principle and had little merit. In the circumstances Ffrench's deposit will be forfeited.

Notes for Editors:

- The Appeal Board was: Sir William Gage (Chair), Christopher Hall and John Wallinger.
- His seven day suspension runs from Saturday 21 August to Friday 27 August inclusive.
- The original Disciplinary Result can be found online here: https://www.britishhorseracing.presscentre.com/Disciplinary-Results/RESULTS-OF-ENQUIRIES-HEARD-BY-THE-DISCIPLINARY-PANEL-ON-THURSDAY-8TH-JULY-2010-jockeys-training-seminar-and-John-Egan-13e.aspx

jason maguire reasons - 13/05/2010

Thu, 13 May 2010 00:00:00 GMT

DISCIPLINARY PANEL REASONS FOLLOWING ENQUIRY HEARD ON THURSDAY 13TH MAY 2010

Jason Maguire

1. The Disciplinary Panel held an enquiry on 13th May 2010 to consider Jason Maguire�s appeal against the decision of the Kelso Stewards to find him in breach of Schedule (B)6 Paragraph 6.1.1 when he rode ROSIE ALL OVER in the Fleet Bar, Eyemouth Handicap Steeplechase on Wednesday 5th May 2010 and to suspend him for 5 days.

The Panel heard submissions from Maguire�s legal representative and Mr Duncan Macdonald MRCVS, the Veterinary Officer on duty at Kelso.

2. The Appeal was considered on technical grounds relating to paragraph 2(g) which had only recently been added to Annex 10 � �Aspects of the Use of the Whip� of the Guidance Notes for Veterinary Officers� - Raceday Duties, dated April 2010.

Background

3. After the race at Kelso (4-20pm) Mr Macdonald MRCVS was requested by the Stewards to examine the mare, ROSIE ALL OVER, with particular reference to the possible presence of any whip weals. Mr Macdonald MRCVS followed the horse off the course and carried out an examination at the racecourse stables. He told Mr Gillon Crow, the Assistant Trainer, that he was going to report to the Stewards that there were weals present and that he would be returning to take photographs. In the meantime he requested that the mare should not be washed down. He returned and took photographs at 4-42pm � 4-43pm. As Mr Macdonald MRCVS had been requested to provide a second set of photographs at a previous enquiry he sought to cover himself and requested that the Racecourse Veterinary Surgeon, Mr I Gibson MRCVS, should look at the horse as per paragraph 2(e) of the Annex which states that where a photograph does not accurately reflect weals or if the circumstances are exceptional, obtain a consultation from a Racecourse Veterinary Surgeon and record this on the Veterinary Report Form.

4. The Veterinary Report Form stated that there were weals present and that they were minor. The Form had been duly signed by Mr Macdonald MRCVS and Mr Gibson MRCVS.

5. At the Stewards� enquiry, Mr Macdonald MRCVS presented his report and evidence to the Stewards and Maguire�s whip was also inspected by the Stewards and found to be in good condition.

6. From the reports and evidence provided at the Stewards� enquiry, Maguire was suspended for 5 days for wealing his horse.

7. It was subsequently brought to Mr Macdonald MRCVS�s attention that under the latest issue of Annex 10, paragraph 2(g) had been added to read �That in some cases weals are very small and very transient and care is needed in any reporting. Such weals should be re-examined, and even another photograph taken, at least 30 minutes after the initial examinations ��.�.

The Hearing before the Panel

8. At the Appeal written statements were received from D McCain, the trainer of ROSIE ALL OVER, and.Mr Crow. The latter referred to remarks made by Mr Gibson MRCVS to Mr Crow privately, saying that �he would not be too concerned by the marks as they were minimal and may not have been made by a whip�. Mr Crow also stated that when he saw the mare, approximately 1� hours after the race there was nothing to be seen.

9. In reference to McCain�s written statement that the stable staff were unable to wash down the mare immediately after the race, Mr Macdonald MRCVS assured the Panel that, in his opinion, whether or not the mare was washed down would not have affected the presence of the weals.

10. Mr Macdonald MRCVS stated that the weals he found post race on ROSIE ALL OVER were not, in his opinion, transient. There was a single large weal and multiple small ones, covering an area of approximately a saucer on the off-side hindquarter.

He was satisfied that, even if he had been aware of the new guidance, he would not have returned and re-examined the mare at least 30 minutes after his initial examination.

11. It was suggested that Mr Gibson MRCVS was only called in on account of doubts in the mind of Mr Macdonald MRCVS over the presence of weals.

The Panel�s Findings

12. In coming to its decision the Panel paid scant regard to Mr Crow�s statement and decided that it invited more questions than answers. Mr Gibson MRCVS had agreed, in his private conversation with Mr Crow, that there were weals. The fact that Mr Crow had said that no weals were apparent approximately 1� hours later was considered irrelevant. Furthermore Mr Gibson MRCVS had put his signature to the Veterinary Report Form concerning the presence of minor weals. The photographs shown to the Panel were sufficient evidence in themselves. The Panel did not feel that the decision of Mr Macdonald MRCVS to delay the washing down of the mare had any bearing on the outcome of the case. The Panel was not persuaded by the argument that Mr Gibson MRCVS was only called in on account of doubts in Mr Macdonald MRCVS�s mind.

13. The Appeal was based on a technicality over the influence the fact that Mr

Macdonald MRCVS was unaware of the latest guidance may have had on the case. As stated in Para 10 Mr Macdonald MRCVS has clearly stated that it would have had no effect.

14. The Panel, having considered the photographs and the evidence given by Mr Macdonald MRCVS, reached the conclusion that the Guidance existed to give advice and was not in any way mandatory. It accepted the word of Mr Macdonald MRCVS that, even if he had been aware of the additional guidance, he would not have acted upon it. In its opinion Maguire would still have been in breach of Schedule (B)6 Paragraph 6.1.1.

15. The Panel dismissed Maguire�s appeal and confirmed the suspension of 5 days on Thursday 27th May to Monday 31st May 2010 inclusive. It ordered that the deposit be returned.

Notes for Editors:

1.The Panel for the hearing was: Charles Warde-Aldam (Chair), Mrs P. Arkwright and Mrs D. Powles.

Paul Murphy - 12/08/2010

Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:00:00 GMT

In absence:

Paul Murphy / ON THE RIGHT PATH

The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry on 12 August 2010 into a report that ON THE RIGHT PATH, trained by P Murphy, during the racinguk.com Handicap Stakes that appeared to run out on the final bend. The matter was referred to the Authority by the Catterick Stewards following their enquiry of the same day because this was the 3rd occasion on which the gelding had been reported for similar conduct in the last 12 months.

Having considered the evidence, and noting that the trainer intended trying the gelding out over hurdles, the Panel decided not to exercise its powers under Rule (F)66 of the Rules of Racing and directed that if ON THE RIGHT PATH was reported for unruly behaviour on a future occasion the matter should be referred back to the BHA.

Notes for Editors:

� The Panel was: Lord Rathcreedan (Chair), Richard Gould and Mrs D Powles

John Quinn - 12/08/2010

Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:00:00 GMT

In absence:

John Quinn / BALLYBRIGGAN (IRE)

The Disciplinary Panel held an enquiry into the analysis of the urine ordered to be taken from BALLYBRIGGAN (IRE), trained by J J Quinn, by the Stewards at Doncaster after the gelding had been placed first in the Sportingbet Novices� Hurdle on 6 March 2010. The Panel also considered whether or not to take action under Rule (C)13 of the Rules of Racing in that he failed to keep full and detailed medication records. Also whether or not to take action under Rule (A)74 of the Rules of Racing in respect of the possible disqualification of the gelding.

The urine taken from BALLYBRIGGAN (IRE) was found to contain heptaminol, which is a prohibited substance. After considering the evidence, including a statement from Quinn, the Panel was satisfied that the source of the heptaminol was a 20ml injection of Kynoselen administered by Quinn�s Veterinary Surgeon on 5 March 2010.

The Panel accepted an admission from Quinn that he was in breach of Rule (C)53 and fined him �1,500. The Panel also found him in breach of Rule (C)13 and fined him �700 in that the yard�s medication records did not detail the administration of Kynoselen on 2 February and 5 March 2010 and engemycin and bute on 10 February 2010. Under Rule (A)74 the Panel disqualified BALLYBRIGGAN (IRE) from the race placing PEARLYSTEPS first, LASKARI (FR) second, PAPA CARUSO third and L�ELDORADO (FR) fourth.

The Panel informed Quinn over that all the horses in his care will be the subject of examination and the taking of samples for analysis provided for in Rule (A)49 within the next 12 months.

Notes for Editors:

� The Panel was: Lord Rathcreedan (Chair), Richard Gould and Mrs D Powles

George Prodromou - 12/08/2010

Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:00:00 GMT

George Prodromou

The Disciplinary Panel considered an appeal lodged by G Prodromou, the trainer of TOWER, placed second in the vinesofredhillbmw.co.uk Handicap Stakes, against the decision of the Stewards at Lingfield on 24 July 2010 to find that the winner, CORR POINT (IRE), ridden by Fergus Sweeney, had interfered with TOWER, ridden by Saleem Golam, but that the interference had not improved CORR POINT (IRE)�s placing.

The Panel heard evidence from Prodromou, Golam and Sweeney. It also viewed video recordings of the race and the photo-finish print.

The Panel found that inside the final furlong Sweeney had allowed CORR POINT (IRE) to drift left handed towards the rail causing interference to TOWER. The Panel felt that prior to the interference CORR POINT (IRE) had been travelling marginally the better of the two. Although TOWER suffered loss of momentum and ground due to the interference, it did not feel that on the balance of probability that TOWER would have won the race.

Being satisfied that the interference had not improved CORR POINT (IRE)�s placing, the Panel dismissed the appeal and ordered the placings to remain unaltered. It ordered the deposit to be returned.

Notes for Editors:

� The Panel was: Lord Rathcreedan (Chair), Richard Gould and Mrs D Powles

Robert Winston - 12/08/2010

Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:00:00 GMT

Robert Winston

The Disciplinary Panel considered an appeal lodged by Robert Winston, the rider of the winner, PISCO SOUR (USA), in the European Breeders� Fund Maiden Stakes, against the decision of the Stewards at Southwell to find him guilty of careless riding and to suspend him from riding for 1 day, following an enquiry on 3 August 2010.

The Panel heard submissions from Winston, who was legally represented and it also viewed the video recordings of the race.

The Panel found that in the final furlong Winston allowed his horse to drift right taking JACOBS SON, ridden by Eddie Ahern, off his intended line. PISCO SOUR (USA) continued to drift right handed and the Panel felt that Winston should have used both hands on the reins to straighten the gelding rather than continue to use his whip in his right hand. The Panel noted that following the interference Winston put both hands back on the reins and the gelding ran straight to the line.

The Panel dismissed Winston�s appeal and confirmed the suspension of 1 day on Tuesday 17 August 2010 and ordered the deposit to be forfeited.

Notes for Editors:

� The Panel was: Lord Rathcreedan (Chair), Richard Gould and Mrs D Powles