Keane has suspension reduced from seven days down to four

Six-time champion jockey Colin Keane had a partial success in his appeal against a seven-day ban at Gowran Park last week with the suspension reduced to four days after a hearing this morning.

The appeal hearing is detailed below:

The Appeals Body, Mr Justice Frank Clarke (Chair), Mr Michael Hickey and Mr Noel McCaffrey convened at the offices of the Irish Horseracing regulatory Board on Thursday, 30 April 2026 to consider the appeal of Colin Keane (Rider) against the decision of the Raceday Stewards at Gowran Park on 22 April 2026.

On the day following the running of the Gowran Park Golf Club Maiden, the Raceday Stewards found Mr Keane, rider of Sindagan, in breach of Rule 212A(iv)(a) in that he failed to obtain the best possible placing as a result of misjudgement and having considered his record in this regard (first offence), they suspended him for seven racedays and ordered him to forfeit his riding fee.

The grounds of appeal lodged by Mr Keane were that the Raceday Stewards erred in their decision.

At the appeal hearing, evidence was heard from Mr Keane and submissions were made on made on behalf of the IHRB. The Appeals Body also watched a recording of the race.

In his evidence, Mr Keane explained that it was his first time riding the horse and his instructions were to try and come with one run late on to win his race. Mr Keane said the race developed as he had hoped but when he mounted a challenge he couldn’t stay with the eventual winner who won easily at the finish. Mr Keane stated that he was unaware of the eventual second placed horse until just at the line but felt his mount had achieved its best possible place and if the race was run again that the second placed horse would have finished further in front of him.

Having considered the evidence, Justice Frank Clarke delivered the following decision on behalf of the Appeals Body.

“Mr Keane’s horse, Sindagan, finished third and the first question is, on the balance of probabilities, whether or not the horse obtained its best possible placing. Having viewed the video and considering the evidence the panel is of the view that had Mr Keane been more vigorous in his riding it is likely that his horse would have held on to second place, perhaps by a diminishing margin, rather than being caught on the line. Therefore, as a matter of fact on the probabilities we find that the third horse failed to obtain its best possible placing.

The second question is whether the failure of the horse to achieve its best possible placing was as a result of a misjudgement. It is important to note that the text in Rule 212A(iv)(a) in brackets after the word misjudgement gives only examples of the types of cases of misjudgement because it starts with the word including. This panel is of the view that there was a misjudgement in that without checking there wasn’t another horse coming late and fast, the Rider did decrease the level of vigour with which he was riding the horse, which must have made admittedly a small difference to the horses ultimate performance but one which in the circumstances of this case led to the difference between the horse finishing second and finishing third. In those circumstances the panel is of the view that Mr Keane was in breach of Rule 212A(iv)(a).

This Appeals Body has considered the question of sanction and would ordinarily be loath to depart from any guidelines which seem to be applicable, however, the Appeals Body is of the view that there is a distinction to be made between a case where a Rider actually stops riding and a case whereby a Rider caused a failure to achieve a best possible placing by not being as vigorous as might otherwise be the case. The Appeals Body is of the view that the guidelines don’t make that distinction clear given that they only specifically refer to a case where the rider concerned actually stopped riding which is not the case here. The Appeal body does not therefore consider that the guidelines actually apply to the circumstances of this case. In the circumstances the Appeals Body is of the view that the appropriate suspension is for four racedays and Mr Keane should forfeit 50% of his appeal deposit.”

The case was presented by Mr Kevin Power, Maurice Power Solicitors. The IHRB was represented by Ms Christine Traynor, IHRB Head of Racing Regulation and Integrity.

Suspension Dates: 8, 9, 10 and 11 May