Calls for 'broad review' into interference after Amo Racing lose Norfolk appeal

The appeals panel which dismissed Amo Racing's bid to overturn the result of the Norfolk Stakes has called for a review into interference rules in British racing.

In a lengthy written explanation for its findings in keeping The Ridler as winner of the controversial Royal Ascot race, the panel suggested any review should go further than being "merely confined to the matter of penalties".

Dave Loughnane, trainer of the Amo-owned Norfolk runner-up Walbank, backed the panel's recommendation and hoped the incident would prompt change in the interference rules, the subject of controversy throughout the summer.

In response, the BHA reiterated a commitment to consider the guidance on penalties and procedures in a consultation set to take place later this year. However, the governing body stopped short of what the panel, headed by chair Bruce Blair QC, suggested should be a "broad review" of interference, which it said would be "desirable and could be very beneficial".

The Ridler interfered with the second and third in the Norfolk, Walbank and Crispy Cat, both of whom are owned by Kia Joorabchian's Amo operation. The appeals panel was highly critical of winning jockey Paul Hanagan's ride, saying it "was poor, reprehensible and self-evidently culpable".

Walbank's trainer Loughnane, who was frustrated but not surprised the owner's appeal was unsuccessful, hopes the incident, which he likened to a "professional foul", might prompt change.

Loughnane said: "If what we've gone through is for the greater good of racing and makes them sit down and have a look at the rules and the way people ride then there'll be some good to come out of it.

"It might change something in the long run – you wouldn't be allowed to commit a professional foul in any other sport. It needs looking at and hopefully this all brings something better for the sport."

The Ridler (red) hangs badly to his left and starts to come across his Royal Ascot rivalsCredit: Sky Sports Racing

The Norfolk, a saga which featured a two-month wait for the appeal and then a six-hour hearing last week before a verdict was eventually announced on Wednesday, has not been the only high-profile interference case this summer.

In July it was again a hot topic when Robert Havlin had his five-day ban for careless riding aboard Free Wind in the Lancashire Oaks cancelled. The case did not even reach appeal after the BHA reviewed the decision made by the stewards.

Additionally, there was an appeal over a three-day ban for careless riding for Tom Marquand, picked up following victory in a Group 3 at Goodwood, which was rejected last month.

Responding to the Norfolk Stakes verdict, the BHA also pointed to the international harmonisation of interference rules and that other nations such as France have moved more "into line with the British model in recent years".

A BHA spokesperson said: "The rules were rewritten in 2019 following a broad industry consultation and the BHA agreed with the view of members and stakeholders at that time that the substance of the rules should not be changed through that process.

"Indeed, interference rules are slowly becoming harmonised globally, and the model applied in Britain is the same as in all other major racing nations other than the US and Canada, with other nations such as France coming into line with the British model in recent years.

"The BHA has however, as previously stated, committed to review the guidance on penalties and procedures, including but not limited to sanctions, the categorisation of offences, and guidance related to riding offences, and will be carrying out this work in the coming months.

"It's important for the sport and its customers that the regulatory process provides effective decision-making on a raceday, in a timely and professional manner, just as the BHA stewards did at Royal Ascot following the Norfolk Stakes."

The Ridler and Paul Hanagan win the Norfolk Stakes, but the pair drifted across the trackCredit: Ryan Pierse (Getty Images)

Although the panel rejected the appeal brought forward by Joorabchian's Amo operation, Hanagan's ride on The Ridler in the Norfolk, which received a ten-day ban, was censured even if it did not, in their view, amount to being dangerous.

The panel said: "His inattention and misjudgement were not defensible. He is a jockey of huge experience (with approaching 17,000 rides and 2,200 winners behind him) and should have done much better. It was a bad, high-level instance of careless riding and he entirely deserved a suspension of real substance."

Amo argued that The Ridler should be disqualified or demoted for veering sharply across the track under Hanagan and causing interference to the placed horses, with the runner-up beaten a length and three-quarters and the third two lengths.

Rory Mac Neice, representing Joorabchian, said the jockey rode dangerously and his mount should therefore be disqualified, while barristers Roderick Moore, for Hanagan, and Louis Weston, for the BHA, argued against the claim of dangerous riding, and stressed the interference came for a "very short bit of time".

However, the claim that the winning ride should be deemed dangerous was rejected. "We cannot possibly hold that what happened by way of interference either to Crispy Cat or to [fourth] Brave Nation amounted to interference which was severe," the panel wrote.

A second ground for appeal suggesting Crispy Cat would have won the race in the absence of interference was also rejected. In the panel's view, this chance was described as "slim".

Comment: The system is flawed if a 'reprehensible' ride can be a winning one (£)

Read these next:

'The jockeys call him a machine' – small yard dreaming big with Bear Ghylls

From 71 to a Group 1: Nicholls plotting audacious Abbaye bid with big improver

Sign up to receive On The Nose, our essential daily newsletter, from the Racing Post. Your unmissable morning feed, direct to your email inbox every morning.