IN an unusual move, the Referrals Committee published a 4,000-word statement outlining the evidence and explaining the reasons for its decision to suspend Charles Byrnes from holding a trainer’s licence for six months.

Here we reproduce some key extracts from that statement. The full text of the Referrals Committee statement can be found on theirishfield.ie

PRIOR to running in a handicap hurdle at Tramore on October 18th, 2018, Viking Hoard drifted in price from 4/1 to 8/1. He ran “conspicuously badly”, according to the Referrals Committee’s case summary.

A post-race sample taken from the horse tested positive for a metabolite of acepromazine (ACP), a sedative and a banned substance.

Neither Byrnes nor his son Cathal, who accompanied his father to Tramore, could explain the presence of ACP in the sample.

Dr Lynn Hillyer, the IHRB’s chief veterinary officer told the Referrals Committee that the veterinary officer on the day of the race found Viking Hoard to have a slow heart rate, “consistent with the presence of ACP in clinically significant concentrations in the gelding.”

She said the test result “was strongly indicative of administration of ACP on the day of the race” and that the detected level in the urine sample was 100 times the international screening or detection limit.

Dr Hillyer said the evidence showed that Viking Hoard was subject to a dangerous degree of sedation during the race, which was masked until the rider was required to ask the gelding for an early effort in the race. In her opinion, the betting patterns were not co-incidental, and Dr Hillyer concluded that the evidence demonstrated that Viking Hoard had been “nobbled” prior to the race. This conclusion was not challenged. The Committee accepted that this inference is correct and fully justified by the evidence.

Betting trends

Declan Buckley of the IHRB’s security team told the hearing that the IHRB had received alerts from the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) relating to betting patterns on Viking Hoard.

This information indicated that the there was a substantial lay bet on the Tramore race, with one Betfair account staking €34,889 to win €3,200 on Viking Hoard to lose.

The same Betfair account won €12,000 on the same horse just two weeks earlier by staking €30,279 that Viking Hoard would not win at Sedgefield. Having drifted from 3/1 to 10/1, the horse’s saddle slipped on that occasion and he finished fourth.

Three months earlier the same Betfair account had won another €12,000 by betting €55,000 that Viking Hoard would not win at Galway. The horse (4/1 - 8/1) ran a lifeless race and was pulled up. Samples taken returned negative for any prohibited substance.

However, tracing the identity of the account holder had proven impossible as the bets were placed with a limited liability company, or ‘white label’ exchange, which placed them in turn with Betfair, on what appeared to be a combined basis with other such bets.

Buckley identified an individual known to be associated with the combined account. He is based in a distant part of the world and was said to be associated with match fixing and associated betting in connection with other sports.

The Committee noted there was no evidence to connect Byrnes with these betting patterns, “but they are part of the full and relevant context to the events at Tramore and informed the subsequent investigation into those events.”

No knowledge

Byrnes told the Committee he had nothing to do with the administration of the ACP to Viking Hoard or the various betting activities set out above and has no knowledge of any of these matters.

The trainer accepted that the gelding had been left unattended in the stable yard on two occasions prior to the race. The first was when he met Cathal who had left the gelding to look for a rug. The second was when he and his son went for something to eat. He estimated that the gelding was left unattended for a total of between 20 and 25 minutes as a result.

Byrnes told the Committee that he knew stabled horses should not be left unsupervised but he said the reality was that horses were frequently left alone for short periods. He stated that he assumed that whoever had administered ACP would have known of this reality.

Arriving at its decision, the Committee “approached the case on the interpretation of the evidence that was reasonably open and most favourable to Mr Byrnes, that being that Viking Hoard was “nobbled” by an unidentified third party at a time when the gelding was left unaccompanied by him or his son.”

The Committee said that while Byrnes was not alleged to be involved directly in the administration of ACP, his neglect in supervising the gelding facilitated what was clearly organised pre-race doping of his charge. The deliberate doping of Viking Hoard close to race time in this case could not conceivably have been a casual or opportunistic event.

“Seriously negligent”

The Committee concluded that Byrnes was “seriously negligent” in the supervision of Viking Hoard of the day of the Tramore race.

They did not accept the argument that it was “custom and practice” to leave horses unattended. In any case, while brief absences may be unavoidable at times, in this case there were two separate instances where the gelding was left unattended. Both were avoidable, given that two persons were available to share the duties.

The Committee also said that, in accepting the interpretation of the evidence that a third party planned and executed the doping of Viking Hoard, “it follows as a matter of probability that Mr Byrnes’ general mode of operation permitted such a strategy to be viable.”

Significant actual damage flowed from the neglect of the trainer, the Committee said. “The damage was financial in the case of affected punters, and reputational in the case of the racing industry.

“This case illustrates the specific and additional challenges and dangers to the integrity of racing posed by the widespread ability to back horses to lose races for significant returns.

“The desirability of this practice or how it might be better controlled within the available regulatory resources is worthy of further, constant review. That issue is beyond the remit of this Committee.”