IRELAND’S stewarding of interference has been a major talking point since a controversial finish to the Royal Bahrain Irish Champion Stakes, but one of the sport’s top officials insists that leading racing jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong, Great Britain, Australia and Japan, would have treated the riding offence very similarly, had the race taken place under their rules.

Shane Foley was handed an 11-day ban for his third careless riding offence in recent times, after Hotazhell prevailed in the €1.25 million feature at Leopardstown. The margin of victory was a nose from British raider Wimbledon Hawkeye, but there was drama earlier in the straight, when eventual fifth A Boy Named Susie suffered costly interference from the winner. That led to Hawk Mountain and Lambourn having to take evasive action to avoid further incident on the inner.

A Boy Named Susie’s trainer Donnacha O’Brien pulled no punches a day later, when describing Foley’s riding as “brutal”, adding: “If a claimer did that, you’d give them a bollocking”.

This week, Foley opted not to appeal against the raceday decision and the stewards have come under fire from some quarters over not taking stronger action. Paul Murtagh, one of Ireland’s most experienced administrators, as registrar of the Irish National Hunt Steeplechase CLG and the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board’s head of raceday operations, has provided context on how decisions like these are made.

“I’m happy to clarify some points on our rules around interference,” Murtagh told The Irish Field. “Since 2003, we have had three types of riding offences as a result of interference in Ireland and Britain: careless, improper and dangerous.

Ruling difference

“To be deemed to have committed dangerous riding, you must meet any one of two criteria. The first element is a rider intentionally interfering with another horse or rider, with the outcome being serious interference. Serious interference can be a slightly subjective term, but it can involve a horse being run off the track or where a horse almost comes down, for example.

“For the second element, a jockey is riding way below that of a competent and careful rider, whereby it would be obvious that riding in such a way endangers the safety of another horse or rider. Using Hotazhell as an example, did his rider intentionally ride in that manner? I don’t believe you can say he did. Could he do more to prevent interference? 100% - but that falls much more into careless riding.

“Then there is the question of whether there was riding way below the level of a competent and careful rider, whereby it would be obvious that riding in such a way endangers the safety of another horse or rider. I think that if we class this specific type of riding as dangerous, there is the potential to have a considerable amount of results amended quite frequently.

“Some may argue the potential for that approach to tidy up certain aspects of riding, but you have to be balanced and proportionate - if we start disqualifying lots and lots of horses, there will be a significant amount of disgruntled owners, connections and punters. I would argue that there simply has to be a threshold to be reached for something to be considered dangerous in any given race, and the stewards have to be satisfied with that. That requires a really poor piece of riding to have taken place.”

According to the IHRB’s annual report for 2025, riders were found in breach of careless riding 139 times last year, compared to four improper riding and zero dangerous riding sanctions. It’s understood Philip Byrnes became the first jockey in Irish racing since 2021 to be found guilty of dangerous riding, when suspended for 21 days at Limerick in May after another rival was carried out in a hurdle race.

Careless rulings

Murtagh continued: “As for the term improper, that is riding that would be classed as dangerous, only that it didn’t cause serious interference. Anything else is careless riding, really. Without going too deep into definitions, careless can basically be three things: if the rider makes a misjudgement, if they cause interference by inattention or if they fail to take reasonable steps to avoid causing interference.

“Treating the Irish Champion Stakes as you would any other race in the year, I think you would say that Shane Foley was in a right-hand drive, the horse shifted a little left and he brushed off A Boy Named Susie. He straightened up, albeit just about, and from there on he failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing the second part of the interference. To me, that is classic careless riding.

“It would have been expected for him to straighten his mount up, pull his whip through, stop using his whip or switch it to his left hand for use, or pull more off A Boy Named Susie. He could have done more to show he did his best to avoid subsequent interference. On that basis, I would have to agree with the stewards at Leopardstown on it being careless riding.”

Speaking to The Irish Times this week, Foley explained: “In a way it was [a] very good ride, [but] I could have corrected him. It was a little bit careless on my behalf, but I don’t think it was as bad as they’re making out.”

The IHRB is part of the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities, and Murtagh sits on both the Technical Advisory Committee and the International Harmonisation of Rules Committee. Through those connections, feedback has been sought on the key Group 1 call made at the Irish Champions Festival.

“We continuously look at rules and processes across the jurisdictions, and I reached out to our international counterparts this week,” Murtagh said. “At the moment, I’ve heard back from our counterparts in jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong, Australia and Japan, as well as Britain, Germany and South America, on their interpretation of the race. None of them would have amended the Leopardstown result and none would have found Shane guilty of dangerous riding. All jurisdictions have different guideline penalties, but none are overly different from where we are, or the sanction handed out on the day by the Leopardstown stewards.

International comparison

“There will naturally be an element of subjectivity when making decisions like these, but - on balance - I do feel it was the correct result to leave the race with the winner. That is the message we have been receiving internationally too. As I understand it, the only jurisdiction in which Hotazhell would have been thrown out is in most states in America, where a different category of interference rules to the rest of the world are used.”

Penalties for whip and interference rule breaches were increased by the IHRB in July 2023 and Murtagh notes how Foley’s trio of riding offences this season have been treated much differently than under the old system.

“Shane was given an 11-day ban, having picked up six days for his previous offence in this window at Naas and a two-day suspension earlier in the year. When weighing up how busy a rider like Shane is, missing out on rides - and the income related to those rides - it is not an insignificant penalty,” Murtagh said.

“I’m not suggesting that this is necessarily the end point regarding penalties - and maybe this will be the catalyst for us to look further into that point - but it is a much larger penalty compared to what would have been the case a short time ago. For example, a first run-of-the-mill careless riding case previously would have seen a rider get a caution, followed by a one-day suspension on their second breach, and a two-day suspension on their third breach.

“Our counterparts in Hong Kong tell us that an incident like the one we saw in the Irish Champion Stakes would have likely attracted a suspension of six to seven race meetings, considering the jockey’s record and that it was in a Group 1 race. I’m told that equates to approximately three weeks in Hong Kong racing. In Japan, I’ve been informed that he would have been suspended for six days.

“We are very much committed to continuous development on all our stewarding processes in Ireland. Our stewarding committee meets regularly and we frequently review all our rules and guidelines, but we are not out of line with other jurisdictions.”