ON Thursday the Appeals Body of the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board published a 25-page document explaining its decision to dismiss the appeal lodged by trainer Charles Byrnes against the severity of a six-month suspension imposed on his by the Referrals Committee over the doping of a horse at Tramore in 2018.
The Appeals Body (Division 1) consisted of Justice Nial Fennelly (in the chair), Justice Leonie Reynolds and John Powell.
Submissions were made by Frank Crean, BL, instructed by Patrick Kennedy, on behalf of Byrnes, and by Caoimhe Daly, BL, instructed by Cliodhna Guy, on behalf of the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board.
As well as dismissing the appeal, the Appeals Body also reaffirmed the €1,000 fine imposed on the trained by the Referrals Committee and awarded costs of €1,500 to the IHRB and ordered that the appeal deposit of €500 be forfeited.
Extracts from the Appeals Body ruling
The Referrals Committee found Mr Byrnes to have been “seriously negligent” in his supervision of Viking Hoard. It meant that the Committee considered Mr Byrnes to have been careless to a serious degree in leaving the horse entirely unattended for such significant periods of time.
It was reasonable for the Committee to reach the conclusion that, although it was not alleged that Mr Byrnes was involved directly in administering ACP to the horse, “his neglect in supervising the gelding facilitated what was clearly organised pre-race doping of his charge.”The Appeals Body proceeds, as it must, on the basis that no charge has been brought against Mr Byrnes of being involved either in the doping or the betting activity. Any such charges would be at a different level of seriousness. It remains the case that Mr Byrnes has committed a serious breach of the Rules regarding the supervision of the horse in his care which gave rise to what the Rule describes as an “obvious security risk.” Mr Byrnes’ acknowledgement of the Rule requiring that “horses are supposed to be attended at all times” means that he must be fixed with responsibility for running risks of that sort. There is not, it is true, any evidence that he was aware of the fact that Viking Hoard had been the subject of heavy betting. Mr Byrnes submits that the penalty imposed by the Referrals Committee was unduly severe and disproportionate. Reference was made to Mr Byrnes’ personal and financial circumstances and his success as an experienced and capable trainer for 26 years. It was said that the loss of his trainer’s licence would be ruinous for him, that his employees would have to be let go and that the horses currently under his charge would have to be sent elsewhere. The focus of the Appeals Body’s deliberations must be on the blameworthiness of Mr Byrnes’ conduct. In the judgement of the Appeals Body, Mr Byrnes failure to ensure any attendance on Viking Hoard at Tramore Racecourse stables for two significant periods prior to the race October 18th was, in the language of the Referrals Body, “seriously negligent.” Given Mr Byrnes’s explicit acceptance of his knowledge of his duty, his behaviour was inexcusable. He simply made no attempt to ensure that the horse was attended, in particular, while he and his son went for lunch. It would have been perfectly simple for one to attend the horse while the other had lunch. Mr Byrnes cannot have been unaware of what the Rule says is the “obvious risk.” Whilst the Appeals Body has given serious consideration to the exercise of its powers to increase the period of withdrawal of the trainer’s licence, due to the gravity of the misconduct, it is cognisant of the fact that these matters, culminating in this appeal, have been a source of considerable stress for Mr Byrnes for a protracted period of time. That factor, undoubtedly contributed to by pandemic-related difficulties, is of itself punitive in nature. The Appeals Body does, however, take this opportunity to stress that such a lenient view might not be taken in the future.