Stewards’ decision regarding Wexford unseat is hard to fathom

Shortly after finishing my day’s work last Wednesday I received a WhatsApp message from a friend that included a short head-on video clip of a jockey falling from a horse and a question asking me what I thought of that?

Without having any context, I watched this isolated video clip several times and arrived at the opinion that the rider may have actually jumped off the horse for some reason, which I twigged was presumably the same conclusion my friend had come to and the reason for his question in the first place.

At that stage I didn’t know the name of the horse, the name of the rider or other details, such as where the horse had been in relation to the rest of the field or at what stage of a race it had occurred, but it seemed obvious that this was potentially a very controversial incident.

Soon enough I found the result of the race in question - a Claiming Hurdle race at Wexford (of course it would be a Claiming Race). The horse I had watched the rider come off was leading at that time and the incident had taken place jumping the final hurdle in the race. Jesus.

On top of that, it turns out that there had been unusual betting patterns on the race. The horse that unseated the rider while leading had been a significant drifter in the betting, while the horse that benefitted from her exit had been punted off the boards. Not a good look.

The stewards on duty at Wexford understandably decided to review the incident that had taken place at the final hurdle.

On paper you couldn’t have hand-picked a better set of stewards to look at this incident. The chair of the panel was none other than former professional jockey Tom Rudd and the stipendiary steward advising the panel was the vastly experienced former point-to-point rider Colman Sweeney.

What is most remarkable about their investigation is that they didn’t appear to interview the rider in question, surely that is the logical starting point for any review of this incident. They don’t seem to have checked the horse’s equipment and It also appears as if they didn’t take into account the betting activity on the race or consider the previous performances of Redwood Queen.

All we know for definite is the following short statement that was released:

“The Raceday Stewards reviewed the unseating of P. Byrnes, rider of Redwood Queen, at the last hurdle when leading. Having viewed the recording of the race and considered the matter, the Raceday Stewards took no further action.”

Without any indication that they were in possession of potentially critical data relating to the betting patterns on the race and possibly even stride patterns and speed of horses approaching the final hurdle, it is difficult to fathom why they didn’t simply refer the matter on for further investigation by a senior racing official of the IHRB.

Perhaps, with two former jockeys among their number, the stewards’ panel deemed it inconceivable that anyone would risk their own safety by making such a manoeuvre deliberately and that is why they ‘took no further action’ without having firstly carried out a detailed investigation.

IHRB Senior Racing Official to Review Incident

By the following morning a spokesperson for the IHRB announced that: “We note the position of the raceday stewards following their review of the incident. I can confirm the matter is down for review by an IHRB senior racing official.”

This review by a senior racing official may already have been compromised by the initial decision of the Wexford stewards. While I’d expect this second review of the incident to take into account every conceivable aspect surrounding both the incident and the race, I’m not confident any sanctions against the rider, that might arise from that review, could stick.

While he wasn’t actually charged with any offence on the day at Wexford, the fact that the stewards did examine the incident where Philip Byrnes parted company from Redwood Queen and took no further action, would suggest that there could be an element of ‘double jeopardy’ at play if the IHRB subsequently found him guilty of any offence relating to his riding of the horse. A person cannot be tried again for an offence for which they have already been acquitted or convicted.

It is worth mentioning that Redwood Queen is trained by Charles Byrnes. The Limerick trainer and the IHRB (as well as its precursor the Turf Club) have a long and chequered history. Horses trained by Byrnes have been at the centre of some of the most controversial cases the authorities have dealt with over the past two decades.

Redwood Queen herself has been the subject of numerous performance related enquiries since switching to the care of Byrnes two years ago. Following 7 of her previous 16 races when trained by Charles Byrnes, the mare has had her performance questioned by the raceday stewards, but on none of those occasions has Byrnes been found to have done anything wrong.

Claiming Races

On a broader note, I really do hope this latest incident involving a Claiming Race, prompts the authorities to look at their suitability as betting mediums for punters.

In my view these races are minefields for unsuspecting punters. The sport is letting down its patrons by continuing to run these races as part of the normal race programme.

Imagine going to the poker room of one of the major casinos on the Las Vegas strip to play a game. Hundreds of tables to choose from and they all look the same, but one is using a marked deck. That’s the Claiming Race equivalent.

Here is an extract from a blog I wrote last September on the subject of Claiming Races:

“On more than one occasion in this blog I have expressed my view that Claiming races should not be part of the mainstream horse racing schedule.

“It is not fair that punters are presented with these races and expected to decipher them in the same way as any other contest. Time and again we see that you cannot rely on prior form or the official ratings of the contenders as these tend to bear little resemblance to the outcomes.

“The core problem with Claimers is that many, but not all, of the runners have underlying issues which preclude them from achieving a level of performance close to their current official rating.

“The most common reason for this is that when a horse’s ability to perform is on the wane it tends to decline at a much faster rate than is reflected by its handicap rating.

Because of this it becomes a complete guessing game from a betting perspective unless you are privy to insider knowledge.”

Ta Na La Case

Sticking with stewarding matters, the recent Appeal Hearing held into the case of Ta Na La, coincidently also involving a race that took place at Wexford, makes for interesting reading.

The original sanctions imposed by the raceday stewards on Ta Na La and her connections were as follows: the horse was banned from racing for 60 days, her jockey suspended from riding for 14 days and ordered to forfeit his riding fee and her trainer fined €3,000.

These were the minimum sanctions available to the raceday stewards in a case where a horse is deemed to have not been permitted to run on its merits.

Subsequently, the trainer, Ted Walsh, lodged an Appeal. His grounds for the Appeal were that “he believed he was not afforded the opportunity to state his case on the day through his Authorised Representative and that under no circumstances was Shane O'Callaghan instructed not to obtain from Ta Na La a timely, real and substantial effort to achieve the best possible placing.”

At the Appeal Hearing Walsh confirmed that he was satisfied with the ride Ta Na La had been given until the final fence, but went on to say: “that he had instructed Shane O’Callaghan not to use his whip in the event that Ta Na La was going to be well beaten and he didn’t want her to fall on her chasing debut but stated that she had outrun expectations given the ratings of the other two horses and while he was delighted with the career best performance of Ta Na La, he felt from the last fence O’Callaghan, although achieving his best possible position, didn’t make enough effort to show the racing public that he was achieving his best possible position.”

The Appeal Body stated that: “Clearly, in his opinion, he (Ted Walsh) was dissatisfied with the ride. He accepts a breach of the rules in respect of Mr O’Callaghan.”

They went on to say: “We accept Mr Walsh’s evidence today and find that the Trainer in this circumstance is not in breach of the rule and therefore we are going to remove the fine on Mr Walsh, which was the minimum fine of €3,000.”

To sum up what has happened here, the trainer in this case has been deemed to have had nothing to do with a horse in his care not running on its merits, but his rider remains in breach of the Rules and remarkably so does his horse.

If the trainer of a horse is ‘clearly dissatisfied with a ride’ his horse has been given, why should the owners of that horse be penalised? Ta Na La cannot race for a period of 60 days.

The owners of horses are never afforded the opportunity to attend raceday enquiries to give evidence. I presume it is assumed that the trainer is acting on their behalf and will represent their best interests at the enquiry.

But this Appeal Body decision suggests that owners may need to fight their own corner separately in future.

I certainly wouldn’t be happy if I owned Ta Na La and saw that the rider, which my trainer had booked, was ordered to forfeit his riding fee and suspended for 14 days for the ride he gave my horse and, despite there being no sanction against my trainer, my horse is banned from racing for 60 days.