'What we have now is a case that is utterly demoralising' - Johnny Ward on Redwood Queen case

After a lengthy investigation and a formal hearing before an Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board (IHRB) referrals committee, the controversy over jockey Philip Byrnes’s unseating from Redwood Queen in a claiming hurdle at Wexford last May has now been resolved.

Byrnes was accused of deliberately jumping off his mount at the final flight - with some critics and social media commentators questioning whether the fall had been intentional, especially given the betting patterns in the race.

However, after reviewing evidence and expert testimony, the IHRB panel cleared him of any wrongdoing, finding no compelling proof that the fall was deliberate.

Instead, the committee essentially judged the incident to be the result of poor horsemanship rather than a deliberate act to influence the outcome.

The referral also encompassed charges against his father, trainer Charles Byrnes, but all charges against both Philip and Charles Byrnes were dismissed at the hearing.

Inadequate evidence

The panel did not find adequate evidence linking the unseat to intentional misconduct under the racing rules, and there is no indication the IHRB will pursue an appeal.

The decision ends one of the more talked-about disciplinary cases in Irish racing from the 2025 season.

Philip and Charles Byrnes were both cleared of any wrongdoing by the referrals committee over the incident which happened back in May.

They came to the conclusion that Philip Byrnes dismount from Redwood Queen was an example of poor horsemanship on the part of the jockey, and Charles Burns was also cleared of any wrongdoing based on a statement that he made to the IHRB with the charges that were brought against them.

A low for the IHRB

Speaking on this week's irishracing.com’s Irish Angle Johnny Ward shares his thoughts on the case: “I think the problems in this case began right after the race.

“What we have now is a case that is utterly demoralising.

“I would imagine morale in the IHRB is extremely low and probably never lower than after this, because the organisation is getting nothing but negative publicity.

“To arrive at this conclusion after seven or eight months, and to have a situation where prior to the hearing the IHRB gave notice that it intended to call evidence pertinent to betting patterns, only for that position to change on the day of the hearing, is deeply troubling.

“The fact that stewards on the night weren’t alarmed by what they were told in relation to betting patterns also raises serious questions.”

Should betting patterns have been questioned?

Short answer: yes, they should have been questioned - but carefully and in the right way.

Given that the BHA alerted the IHRB before the race to suspicious betting patterns, it was reasonable - and arguably essential - that those patterns were examined as part of the process.

Betting intelligence doesn’t, on its own, prove wrongdoing, but it is a recognised trigger for regulatory scrutiny in racing jurisdictions worldwide.

When you combine unusual betting with a visually odd on-track incident, the minimum expectation is that stewards ask questions on the day and fully document their reasoning.

That said, betting patterns are supporting evidence, not proof. They should never be used to infer intent unless backed up by strong, independent evidence from the ride itself or from communications, instructions, or behaviour.

In the Byrnes case, the core problem wasn’t that betting patterns existed, but that they weren’t interrogated transparently or consistently.

Stewards didn’t act on them at the time, and the IHRB’s later, somewhat muddled handling of betting evidence at the hearing undermined confidence in the whole process.

So the issue isn’t that betting patterns would have convicted Philip Byrnes - they almost certainly wouldn’t have - but that failing to properly question them damaged trust.

In integrity-led sports, perception matters. Asking the questions early, recording the answers, and ruling things out clearly would have protected both the rider and the regulator. Instead, the lack of visible scrutiny left a vacuum that speculation and criticism inevitably filled.

Johnny Ward speaks on the patterns: “Betting patterns in racing need to be discussed more. Everyone has experienced races where the betting makes little sense beforehand.

“That doesn’t mean wrongdoing, but it does mean it deserves scrutiny. For me, this is the lowest point in the history of the IHRB in my lifetime.

“This whole story shows that the stewarding situation doesn’t do its job properly. The reputational damage for Irish racing should not be underestimated.”

Below standard Stewards

Irish race-day stewards are often experienced, well-intentioned people, and many do a solid job within the limits of what they’re asked to do.

The problem isn’t individual competence so much as structure, resourcing, and authority.

Ireland still relies heavily on part-time and volunteer stewards, with limited investigative powers on the day and a culture that tends toward minimal intervention unless something is blatant.

In a sport driven by betting integrity, that model is increasingly out of step with international best practice.

Ireland lagging behind other jurisdictions

Compared with jurisdictions like Australia, Hong Kong, or even Britain, Irish stewarding looks underpowered.

Elsewhere you see full-time professional stewards, automatic post-race inquiries into suspicious rides, immediate access to betting intelligence, and a willingness to act decisively - even if no charge ultimately follows.

In Ireland, incidents are more likely to be deferred, handled quietly, or escalated long after the fact, which creates exactly the kind of credibility gap exposed by the Philip Byrnes case.

So it’s not accurate to say Irish stewards are “bad,” but it is accurate to say the system is outdated and under-equipped.

That leaves stewards exposed, regulators on the back foot, and the sport vulnerable to reputational damage. Most critics aren’t calling for blame - they’re calling for professionalisation, clearer protocols, and more transparency, so that both jockeys and the betting public can have confidence in what they’re watching.

Johnny Ward’s thoughts on the current stewarding system: “I feel that the stewarding system, as it is, is inadequate.

“If we had professional stewards, I don't think they even need to be at the races as long as they have access to the closed circuit TV and they can make judgments on that, but a lot more scrutiny on jockeys (is needed) than is the case now, because it's too lax.

“This was deeply unsatisfactory, deeply, deeply unsatisfactory.”

Watch the full Irish Angle Show