TRAINER JOHN ‘SHARK’ Hanlon has been partially successful in an appeal against the severity of his recent suspension, seeing it reduced from 10 months to six, with the possibility it could be further reduced to three months.
Hanlon, who trains last year’s King George VI Chase hero Hewick, was found by the Referrals Committee of the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board (IHRB) to have acted in a manner that “caused significant prejudice to the integrity, proper conduct and good reputation of the sport of racing” in the removal of a dead horse from his yard earlier this year.
The horse was carried on an open trailer which was towed by Hanlon’s branded horsebox, with the body left on display to the public after a tarpaulin became displaced during the journey.
A member of the public videoed the incident and it was widely circulated on social media, which attracted further media attention and led to the IHRB bringing charges against Hanlon, saying the conduct “attracted significant public opprobrium and adverse comment” both for the trainer personally and racing in general.
Hanlon appealed the severity of the sanction – due to begin on 1 December – and had already been unsuccessful in attempting to delay the beginning of the ban until April to give him time to prepare a legal case and make specific business arrangements.
Hanlon felt the punishment could have been a monetary fine, but the appeals panel rejected this, saying Hanlon’s conduct “passed the threshold of attracting only a financial penalty”.
The second criticism by the trainer was the length of the suspension, given in his view it had failed to take into account the differences between this and similar other cases, namely those of trainer Gordon Elliott and jockey Rob James, banned for 12 months each with six and eight months suspended respectively.
In giving its verdict on the appeal, the panel said: “Having considered all of the evidence and arguments we have come to the conclusion that the Referrals Committee ought to have fixed a shorter headline sanction of six months in this case in order to take account of a major difference between Mr Hanlon’s conduct and that of Messrs. Elliott and James.
“In their cases, the lack of respect demonstrated to the carcass of the deceased animal in each case was deliberate and wilful. Mr Hanlon’s was not. He was negligent albeit to a high degree. We do not think that the reduction of the headline penalty from one of 12 months withdrawal of licence to 10 months adequately addresses that major difference.
“It also has to be borne in mind that the negligence of Mr Hanlon occurred in a single activity of relatively short duration. We are not to be taken as holding that negligence as distinct from a deliberate act might not attract a 10- or even 12-month withdrawal of licence in appropriate circumstances. Had there been continuing acts of negligence here, then the 10-month figure might well be justified.
“However, that was not the case and so we are of opinion that the headline figure of six months withdrawal is the correct one.”
Hanlon’s licence to train will be withdrawn for a period of six months from December 1 and the Referrals Committee may consider an application to conditionally suspend the last three months of the six-month withdrawal sanction.
