Christophe Soumillon has lost his appeal against a Royal Ascot interference ruling but had his suspension cut from eight days to five after a British Horseracing Authority independent judicial panel found he did not deliberately intend to give an advantage to a stablemate.
Ride in St James's Palace Stakes
The ten-time French champion jockey was banned for eight days following his ride on Aidan O'Brien-trained Puerto Rico, the stable second string to Irish 2,000 Guineas winner Gstaad, in the St James's Palace Stakes on June 16. During the race, Soumillon looked over his shoulder twice and switched Puerto Rico to the left entering the straight, leaving a clear path along the inside rail through which Ryan Moore was able to challenge on Gstaad. Gstaad finished second, a short head behind winner Bow Echo, while Puerto Rico finished last of six.
Appeal and Verdict
Soumillon appealed the stewards' finding that he rode Puerto Rico “in such a way that intended to give an advantage to another horse from the same stable, in that he moved his mount away from the rail thereby ensuring a clear run for Gstaad on his inside.” He denied any intent and said he had decided before the race to avoid the inside rail because he believed the ground was slower there and wanted to avoid a point where he had seen noisy children earlier. He also said Puerto Rico tends to hang left and that he looked back after hearing a horse clip heels twice.
The panel, chaired by HH Clement Goldstone KC, ruled: “In the appeal of Christophe Soumillon, the Disciplinary Panel is satisfied that there was a breach of Rule (F)46 on the basis that the Appellant rode PUERTO RICO (IRE) in such a way which gave an advantage to GSTAAD, a horse from the same stable. For the avoidance of doubt, we are not satisfied that the Appellant intended so to do. Accordingly, the appellant’s appeal against the Stewards’ finding that he was in breach of Rule (F)46 is dismissed.”
Sanction Reduced
The panel noted that the facts did not fit easily with the Table of Penalties for Rule (F)46, which implies intent. They said: “We consider that, absent any intention on the part of the Appellant to benefit his stablemate, this breach of Rule (F)46 should be dealt with as what is in effect a case of interference, significantly aggravated by the fact that it had the consequence of benefitting a stablemate. In those circumstances, we consider that an appropriate sanction is a suspension of 5 days. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Panel allows the Appellant’s appeal against sanction by reducing the period of suspension from 8 days to 5 days.”
