SIR MICHAEL STOUTE / FLORIMUND
Published: Friday 04 Aug 2006
The Disciplinary Panel of the Horseracing Regulatory Authority (HRA), on 4 August 2006, considered an appeal lodged by Sir Michael Stoute, the trainer of FLORIMUND, against the decision of the Windsor Stewards on 24 July to deem him in breach of Rule 155(ii) and to fine him £6500. The Windsor Stewards had also found Mr Stephen Davies, the rider of FLORIMUND, to be in breach of Rule 157 and suspended him for 32 days, and suspended FLORIMUND from running for 40 days.
The Panel heard evidence from Sir Michael Stoute, Mr Stephen Davies and Mr Jimmy Scott, Sir Michael’s travelling head lad and representative. It also viewed video recordings of the race.
At the Windsor enquiry Mr Davies had said that his instructions came directly from Sir Michael. They were to the effect that in an ideal world FLORIMUND should be kept handy, up with the first four or five. Mr Davies also told the Windsor Stewards that in the event that the colt was slowly away (as it had been in its first two runs) Sir Michael told him “obviously you will just have to take it from there.” Mr Scott told the Windsor Stewards that those were the instructions and that he was satisfied that they had been carried out.
It was a noteworthy feature of this case that there was no appeal by the rider, Mr Davies, against the finding by the Windsor Stewards that he was in breach of Rule 157, or against a penalty that indicates that they concluded that this was a case where the colt was deliberately not asked for sufficient effort.
This Panel nevertheless viewed the various video recordings of the race with care, and formed its own view about the ride, as part of the necessary context for its evaluation of Sir Michael’s appeal.
In summary, the ride given by Mr Davies was a disgrace. Even though FLORIMUND was slowly away from the stalls, there was ample opportunity for the colt to be much better positioned when approaching the first part of the right hand bend. Instead he was last, and last by several lengths. After the bend, but without encouragement from Mr Davies, FLORIMUND gradually improved his position in the field up to about the two furlong marker. Mr Davies then made the briefest of efforts to push the colt forward. He then stopped and coasted home, beaten 7¾ lengths into 11th place.
Mr Davies’s explanation for this lack of effort towards the end of the race was that he was “tired”. The Panel does not accept that. He was quite deliberately failing to ask for any effort from a horse that plainly had the ability to improve his position.
In his evidence, Sir Michael described the ride as “very incompetent”. The Panel rejects that characterisation for the reasons given above – this was a case of a deliberate failure to ride the colt on its merits, particularly in the first few furlongs of the race and towards the finish.
It was in these circumstances that the Panel has had to evaluate Sir Michael’s case, made in his evidence for the first time, that Mr Davies had in fact failed to follow his instructions. He said that he had in fact told Mr Davies that, if FLORIMUND broke slowly, he should use his brain and push the colt into as reasonable a position as possible by the right hand bend.
In the light of the way that the video recordings show that FLORIMUND was ridden, the Panel concluded that Sir Michael was in breach of Rule 155 (ii). The instruction recounted by Mr Davies, both to the Windsor Stewards and before this Panel, was on its face completely inadequate. It amounts to nothing more than telling the rider to do what he felt like if the colt broke slowly. Even the slightly amended version of the instruction recounted by Sir Michael is similarly inadequate because it does nothing to explain Mr Davies’ riding towards the end of the race. Sir Michael told the Panel that he accepted Mr Davies’ explanation that he was “tired” at this stage. The Panel did not, and indeed regarded that explanation as ludicrous. So the Panel concluded that Sir Michael had failed to discharge the burden put upon him by Rule 155(iii), which is to prove that he gave instructions that were necessary to ensure that FLORIMUND ran on its merits, particularly as the jockey was having just his third ride of the season and had hardly ridden in public for several years before. He is therefore deemed to be in breach of Rule 155(ii). FLORIMUND was running its third race, and the video recordings show it was being ridden in a manner that appeared designed to achieve a highly advantageous handicap mark.
When considering penalty, the Panel decided that this was, as the Windsor Stewards decided, a bad case that deserved penalties more severe than the ‘entry points’ that are now prescribed. The Panel increased the fine upon Sir Michael to reflect its view that this was a particularly poor case of a non-trier.
The appeal against the finding of a breach of Rule 155(ii) was therefore dismissed, and the penalty varied to a fine of £8500. The deposit is forfeit. FLORIMUND is suspended from running for 40 days from Tuesday 8 August until Saturday 16 September 2006 inclusive.
Although this was not the subject of separate disciplinary proceedings, the Panel records that it was told, surprisingly, by Sir Michael’s experienced travelling head lad, Mr Scott, that he was unaware of the riding instructions given to Mr Davies until he heard them mentioned by Mr Davies during the Windsor enquiry. He later said he learned of them from Mr Davies in the paddock before the race. Indeed he said that he never knows what the riding instructions are, on any occasion when he acts as Sir Michael’s representative. Whatever the truth of this may be, the Panel draws attention to Instruction D5, which requires trainer’s representatives to know of riding instructions, and it is obviously preferable that these are communicated directly by the trainer to his representative.
Notes for Editors:
1. Stephen Davies, the rider of FLORIMUND, chose not to appeal against the Windsor Stewards’ findings. He is serving his 32 day ban from Friday 4th August to Friday 4th September.
2. The penalty range for the trainer for this offence is £3,000 - £12,000 with an entry point of £5,000.
3. The entry point system has been introduced this year and is the penalty to which the Stewards should look first before deciding whether to increase or reduce the level of penalty to take account of aggravating or mitigating factors.
4. The Windsor Stewards’ Notice read as follows:
The Stewards held an enquiry into the running and riding of FLORIMUND, ridden by STEPHEN DAVIES and trained by SIR MICHAEL STOUTE, which finished eleventh, beaten some seven and three quarter lengths, having been well behind early in the race before staying on from three furlongs out and was then eased in the final furlong. The Stewards interviewed the rider and MR J SCOTT, representing the trainer. The rider stated that his instructions were to be handy, but that the colt had been slowly away, which he had been in his two previous runs, and that he was unable to go the early pace. The trainer’s representative added that FLORIMUND has always had a problem with the starting stalls and probably wants softer ground. Having heard their evidence, viewed the recordings of the race, and taking into account a report from the Veterinary Officer, the Stewards found the rider in breach of Rule 157, and the trainer in breach of Rule 155(ii). They suspended DAVIES for 32 days, as follows: Friday 4th August to Monday 4th September inclusive. They fined SIR MICHAEL STOUTE £6,500, and suspended the colt from running for 40 days.
Sir Michael Stoute fine increased by HRA
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster
All these incidents bring the sport into disrepute, and I would have been harsher and fined him the full £12,000 (maximum) and put him on advice that his licence would be withdrawn if he offends within the next 12 months.
All persons caught cheating should face the maximum penalty.
It is a shame that the other obvious non-trier was not spotted by the stewards.
I keep toying with the idea of being a steward.....perhaps I would cause too much uproar
All persons caught cheating should face the maximum penalty.
It is a shame that the other obvious non-trier was not spotted by the stewards.
I keep toying with the idea of being a steward.....perhaps I would cause too much uproar