Timing of Shark Hanlon Appeal verdict ill judged

In 2018 the Turf Club rebranded its regulatory arm as the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board (IHRB), but in reality nothing changed. How could it? The new company had all the same rules, the same traditions, the same ethos and all the same personnel.

At the end of June 2022 the IHRB appointed a new CEO. He talks a good game, using phrases like transparency, accountability and corporate governance, but even if he is attempting to bring a new broom to the back office, the essence of the Turf Club remains. It is like putting a Volkswagen engine into a Skoda car, it might run more efficiently, but it is still a Skoda.

Last week once again brought into sharp focus for me how the Turf Club’s fingerprints are still visible in the actions of the IHRB.

The organisation tasked with regulating the industry continues to have a disconnect from both those within the industry it serves and the racing public. I suppose that is part of the requirement of a robust regulatory framework, but in this case it brings with it a detachment that often renders the organisation out of touch.

The timing of the IHRB’s publication of the verdict of Shark Hanlon’s Appeal Hearing, coming less than a day after a dispersal sale of 24 of the trainer’s horses, came across as cold, maybe even heartless, but most of all ill judged.

You would think the IHRB, which had put so much stead in the Social Media exposure Hanlon’s original faux pas garnered, would be cognisant of the bad will that could be generated by announcing the reduction to Hanlon’s ban a matter of hours after he had sold off many of his horses. But that didn’t seem to register with the IHRB.

There has been a groundswell of support for Hanlon on Social Media throughout the case, with most holding the opinion that the trainer has been very hard done by. The timing of the publication of the Appeal verdict has done nothing to diminish that sentiment among fans of the sport, despite the length of his ban being reduced.

The trainer himself is doing a fair job at playing the part of the victim in this affair, despite not totally convincing me with his tarpaulin story, yet he appears to be coming out of it in a far better light than those who sanctioned him in the first place.

Why couldn’t the Appeal Body have told Hanlon on the day of the Appeal whether or not they intended to reduce his sanction? Or at least done so before his horses went under the hammer at the Doncaster Sale seven days later. Afterall a 2,500 word document containing the verdict had been prepared and published by lunchtime the following day.

Both the IHRB and the Appeal Body must have been aware of the trainer’s intention to sell off a number of his horses in advance of his impending suspension. It would have been a common courtesy to let him know his fate before the sale, rather than immediately after.

Last week the IHRB also released an update on the controversial withdrawal of Petrol Head from the Galway Hurdle. The only previous official statement the IHRB had made on the matter was the briefest of explanations on the day as to the circumstances leading to the withdrawal: “At 11am on Thursday 1 August, the IHRB received confirmation from LGC Laboratories of the presence of a prohibited substance in the sample [taken from Petrol Head] at Bellewstown [on 6 July]. As a result of this confirmation and following the IHRB investigation into the matter, the directors of the IHRB have withdrawn Petrol Head from the Galway Hurdle under the provisions of the Rules of Racing.”

Now, over two and a half months later, we are finally told officially that the prohibited substance was Clenbuterol and that “Ahead of the Galway Festival, all trainers with entries in this year’s Galway Plate and Galway Hurdle were requested by the IHRB to submit detailed medication records for their horses in those races prior to declarations. The records provided in respect of Petrol Head contained no reference to clenbuterol. Following confirmation from LGC laboratories of the adverse analytical finding, the absence of veterinary medical records or any other evidence to explain the presence of clenbuterol in the sample led to the horse being prevented by the Directors of the IHRB from running in the Guinness Handicap Hurdle.”

It makes no sense that this additional information was not included in the original statement as it gives vital context to the unprecedented action of the stewards on the day.

It now transpires that Katy Brown “subsequently provided a copy of a prescription noting Ventipulmin®, which contains clenbuterol, indicating the administration of the product earlier in the year, when Petrol Head was reported to have been in the care of his owner.”

As a result of this new information and follow up investigations “the IHRB has been able to satisfy itself that the presence of clenbuterol in the hair samples taken from Petrol Head is consistent with therapeutic use, as documented and verified by the veterinary surgeon.” Case closed.

Overall the IHRB does a difficult job pretty well, but they could do themselves a real favour by engaging more openly with those already invested in the sport. Giving more context to the reasoning behind their actions (and non-actions) would certainly be a start.

It would also be nice to see a touch more humanity seeping into the system that polices the sport.