JOCKEY Philip Byrnes has explained his actions and admitted to being “deeply embarrassed” by his controversial unseat from Redwood Queen in a Wexford claiming hurdle - an incident the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board allege was a “deliberate act” during a close-to-10-hour hearing on Monday.

Debate has raged around the race in question from May 28th this year, when Byrnes approached the final hurdle with the race at his mercy aboard Redwood Queen, a mare trained by his father Charles and owned by his brother Cathal. However, horse and rider dramatically parted company on the landing side of the hurdle, leaving 1/3 favourite Beacon Edge to come home a clear winner. Redwood Queen had been extremely easy to back beforehand, returning at 13/2 (from a morning price of 6/4 and an opening ring price of 7/2).

On Monday, the IHRB alleged that Philip Byrnes, 22, “deliberately left the saddle immediately after the horse jumped the hurdle”, and they are pursuing three rule breaches in relation to the rider ensuring the mare did not run on her merits, as well as acting in a manner prejudicial to the good conduct of racing.

There is only one charge pursued by the IHRB in relation to Charles Byrnes, and that is linked to comments he made to The Irish Field on the week of the incident. They suggested that Byrnes’ remarks, where he indicated that it was “a sad day if the Turf Club has to hold an investigation to please these faceless people on social media” - adding that he and his son had “nothing to answer to” but would fully cooperate - amounted to Byrnes acting in a manner prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct or good reputation of the sport.

Legal representation for the IHRB stated that those comments “sought to undermine” the investigation.

The three-person panel of Justice Peter Kelly (independent chair), Mr Martin O'Donnell and Mr John McGuire heard evidence from several parties into the dramatic case throughout the marathon sitting at IHRB headquarters on Monday. The committee retired to consider the matter at 7.45pm and hope to deliver their outcome in January, though Justice Kelly did not want to set out any expectations for a timeframe.

Philip Byrnes, who had won on five of his previous eight starts aboard Redwood Queen, told the committee of how he “knew I had the race in the bag” before the controversial exit, which “happened so quick” and “was over in a second”.

There appeared to be two key elements to his reasoning for how the unusual unseat arose. Firstly, he suggested that he had been bumped on his backside by the mare as she was in the process of jumping the last, and that she had arched her back over the obstacle “not like at the rest of the hurdles” where she was particularly slick.

Secondly, he said that he felt Redwood Queen “was looking at something”, either the groundstaff, the hurdles or something else, adding that “her head is to the left.”

Caught off guard

Byrnes said he thought the eight-year-old might take an extra stride, but he ended up losing his irons after the contact he received, and he had been “caught off guard”.

“I’m deeply, deeply embarrassed by what happened,” Byrnes explained, while adding that he wasn’t happy with his position and that the mare’s body was “slightly going right”. The latter point was questioned by the IHRB’s legal team.

Remy Farrell SC, representing the regulatory body, took issue with the Grade 2-winning rider bringing up his theory that Redwood Queen had been distracted by something on her inner at today’s hearing - given the rider had never mentioned it in August when interviewed by Paul Murtagh, the IHRB’s head of raceday operations.

Byrnes said he “hadn’t reviewed the incident enough” at the time of his interview but had come to the realisation in recent weeks that horse distraction could have been a factor. It was reported that the jockey said in the interview that any betting or market elements hadn’t registered with him at the time of the incident, and that “it was people thinking I exited the horse on purpose that hurt me the most.”

Byrnes accepted the unseat “didn’t look great” or “feel great”, but disagreed that it looked like he jumped off the mare.

IHRB stipendiary steward Leighton Aspell, a former dual Grand National-winning rider, was called to deliver expert testimony surrounding the incident, having drafted a report and statement as part of the IHRB’s case. Standing alongside multiple screens with footage of the race on a loop, he said that he thought it was “very hard to explain” how Byrnes had been unseated from Redwood Queen “judged on her overall approach to the jump” and “how without any deviation from the mare” the rider’s body weight ends up on one side before his unseat.

When pressed by Farrell on whether he believed the late departure was deliberate or accidental, Aspell said: “Without error from the mare, I can’t understand how the rider would lose his stirrups and I can only view it as a deliberate act.” He added that he felt the six-time winning hurdler had “taken off at the perfect stride”.

The details of Aspell’s written statement and evidence were strongly probed by Frank Crean SC (on behalf of the Byrnes team), and there were strong exchanges between the pair.

Contact behind

After lengthy questioning over how Aspell’s statement had come to be prepared, the consistency of the views he expressed and some of the specific wording used, Crean pored over the rear-view camera angle, insisting that Byrnes had been bumped from behind by his mount.

“It’s plain to see,” Crean said of Redwood Queen shifting Byrnes upwards out of the saddle. “I fail to see it,” Aspell responded, adding that the contact shouldn’t have led to “any sort of dislodgement”.

The Byrnes legal team went on to physically present the committee with the small saddle and boots belonging to the rider from the race in question, highlighting how little grip there could be for him to cling to in an incident where he loses balance.

Davy Russell was called to give expert testimony on behalf of the Byrnes legal team and said being unseated was “the most embarrassing thing as a jockey… Something hard to explain to a trainer or owner.”

On the IHRB’s claim that Byrnes had deliberately parted ways with his mount, Russell said: “I disagree wholeheartedly for a number of different reasons. There’s an unwritten rule, a code. You don’t cross the line [to jump off]. Jockeys have a difficult job, but there is no doubt, that is worst fall you will get. It’s the worst one because you have no control where your face is going to land.

“I’ve done that as a child and I learned my lesson. Whether it’s a car, a ditch, a main road… It’s a lesson I’ve taught my kids - you do not bail out. It’s for the simple reason, you will get hurt. Your face, your head, will get affected. Philip is lucky he landed on his knees.”

Indecision factor

On what he believes was the cause of the incident, he added: “Indecision from the rider, and maybe a little bit of having too much time to think, which created the indecision. I don’t like criticising riders, I have to as part of my job as a pundit on RTÉ, but it is a rider error… He upsets the equilibrium between him and the filly.”

Before any evidence was heard, there was actually considerable discussion over whether Aspell would be allowed to share his insight at all, as Crean contested that he could not offer a truly independent view due to the nature of his work with the IHRB. After retiring to discuss the matter, the referrals committee allowed Aspell to give his evidence.

On the topic of independence, IHRB barrister Louise Troy took exception with Russell being called on as a witness towards the end of the sitting for the Byrnes team, in an expert role.

“It’s quite a stretch to say you’re an independent witness in the truest sense of the word before the committee today, because of your deep relationship with the Byrnes’,” said Troy.

Russell appeared disgruntled with that suggestion and matters got tense with Troy for a few moments when he asked “what are you accusing me of?” in response to her continued comments. The former three-time champion jockey said he had a strong professional relationship with Charles Byrnes but it was not the same as one in a personal capacity.

Troy was also dissatisfied that he hadn’t lodged a written statement to be circulated in advance.

An application from Byrnes’ legal representatives to make betting patterns evidence inadmissible was also rejected by the referrals committee. The basis for the application was that in October, there was reference made to the market weakness of Redwood Queen in the written charges against Philip Byrnes, but it was no longer a part of the charges come this hearing.

Betting patterns

Noting that it was “no longer alleged that betting had anything to do with” the charges against Byrnes, Crean argued that it should be irrelevant. The panel didn’t agree, even though the IHRB legal challenge didn’t place great weight on the major drift in their arguments.

Perhaps that might have been linked to the nature of the betting evidence that was shared in the hearing. With the IHRB’s collaboration ending earlier this year with the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) in terms of monitoring of betting trends for integrity purposes, a data analytics company called Idiro produced reports for the regulator on Betfair Exchange patterns regarding the Wexford claimer.

The firm has qualifications in computer science, and its CEO Aidan Connolly spoke via digital link, describing a sharp surge of support for Beacon Edge approximately 20 to 30 minutes before the off as ‘definitely unusual’ and “atypical to normal market dynamics”.

After some confusion identifying his own reports and which of them was in use in the IHRB’s evidence, Connolly stated that there are “regularly unusual patterns but this one stands out”.

However, he accepted that Idiro could provide “no insight at all as to who put the money on”, and total amounts traded on Beacon Edge weren’t made entirely clear, nor were any possible patterns regarding if Redwood Queen had been backed to lose to any alarming level.

Crean, in his closing remarks, again asked for the panel to dismiss this betting evidence, citing that Connolly wasn’t suitably placed to give his findings (primarily due to his lack of gambling qualifications, as well as an ongoing possible business agreement between Idiro and the IHRB).

Earlier in the session, Paul Murtagh indicated that as per Horse Racing Ireland’s statistics in recent years, Byrnes is in the “upper band” of falls and unseats among riders. He suggested that raised a question over a pattern of instability or control in the saddle without being critical of him.

Rider style

Byrnes later acknowledged that he has had some “heavy falls” and “soft unseats”, and that it is something he probably needs to address, while still noting it is “part of racing”. His style of riding was dubbed as “very much the modern style” by the Byrnes’ expert witness John Watson, who demonstrated photos from other rides of the same jockey with a high knee while over an obstacle. They deeply inspected Healy Racing images around the unseat and further footage.

Watson felt that elevation had caught Byrnes out because his knee was high, and summed up that the partnership had separated due to “a lack of balance”.

He added that earlier in Byrnes’ career, the young jockey “had a very nearly life-changing fall”. With that in mind, he believed Byrnes would have been “pushing his luck if he came to the pearly gates and had to explain if he’d done it twice” regarding any suggestion he may have jumped off Redwood Queen deliberately.

Russell added: “Philip has rode the very thin line of walking or not walking in our sport. He has danced it. I’ve been there. Trust me, you don’t want to cross it. To cross it intentionally on fast ground, on a summer track, no.”

There were also contributions on the IHRB’s behalf from senior stipendiary steward/racing official Liam Walsh and David Cleary, well known for his media work and handicapping ombudsman roles with the BHA and IHRB.

Regarding Charles Byrnes’ media comments, there was very little mention of the charge until the final moments of the hearing. It was pointed out by his legal team that his comments around not having a case to answer to was indeed proven right - in that no running-and-riding charges were brought before him at this hearing regarding Redwood Queen - and that he was fully cooperative with the investigation.

The referrals committee requested a transcript of the hearing and felt it was a two-day referral that had been condensed into one to satisfy some of the parties involved. No decision on the charges will be made until the new year.