The Appeals Body, Justice Siobhan Keegan (in the chair), Mr John Murphy and Mr Nick Wachman convened at the Offices of the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board on Monday, 26 May 2025 to consider the appeal of T M Walsh (Trainer) against the decision of the Raceday Stewards at Wexford on 17 May 2025 following the T.C. Cullen Memorial Novice Steeplechase.

On the day the stewards enquired into the running and riding of Ta Na La (USA), ridden by S. O'Callaghan, and trained by T M Walsh. The Stewards found Mr Walsh and Mr O'Callaghan in breach of Rule 212A(ii), in that the rider was not seen to have attempted to obtain from his mount timely, real and substantial efforts to achieve the best possible place. Having considered their records in this regard, the Raceday Stewards fined Mr Walsh €3,000 and suspended Ta Na La from running for 60 days under the provisions of Rule 212C(D). 

The grounds of appeal lodged by Mr Walsh were that he believed he was not afforded the opportunity to state his case on the day through his Authorised Representative and that under no circumstances was Shane O'Callaghan instructed not to obtain from Ta Na La a timely, real and substantial effort to achieve the best possible placing.

At the appeal hearing, evidence was heard from Mr Walsh on a de novo basis and the panel viewed a recording of the race.

In his evidence, Mr Walsh confirmed that he was unable to attend the races on the day and that Mr Brendan Brady had travelled with Ta Na La as his Authorised Representative. Mr Walsh explained that he had opted to run in this race at Wexford instead of running in a bigger field and felt it would suit for her first start over fences. Mr Walsh stated that the ownership of Ta Na La had been taken over from the previous owner and that the mare has won one race from 28 starts with her level of ability being clear from those runs. He added that he hoped Ta Na La would put in a clear round of jumping and settle and if she did that would pick up some prize money. This was her first start since returning from a break as she prefers summer ground conditions and Mr Walsh added that his instructions to Mr O’Callaghan were to settle her behind runners as she can run freely and to give her confidence jumping. Mr Walsh confirmed he was satisfied with the ride his mount had got until they reached the final fence. Mr Walsh stated that he had instructed Mr O’Callaghan not to use his whip in the event that Ta Na La was going to be well beaten and he didn’t want her to fall on her chasing debut but stated that she had outrun expectations given the ratings of the other two horses and while he was delighted with the career best performance of Ta Na La, he felt from the last fence Mr O’Callaghan, although achieving his best possible position, didn’t make enough effort to show the racing public that he was achieving his best possible position. Mr Walsh accepted that Mr Brady was his Authorised Representative on the day, but he hadn’t spoken to him at length about the race in particular as Mr Brady provides raceday help as a lifelong friend and is not an employee.

Having considered the evidence, Justice Siobhan Keegan read out the following decision on behalf of the Appeals Body.

“We have considered what was put to us by Mr Power, on behalf of Mr Walsh, we have considered Mr Walsh’s evidence and we have considered what Ms Traynor has said on behalf of the IHRB. 

In considering whether the Raceday Stewards have erred in applying, what are the minimum penalties for a breach of Rule 212A, a fine to the Trainer of €3,000, a minimum suspension of the Horse for 60 days and a minimum restriction on the Rider for 14 days, we bear in mind that there is no appeal pursued in relation to the Rider. 

Secondly, we bear in mind the terms of Rule 212A(ii), which is a rule in relation to non-trying and it is obviously an important rule for that reason. 

Just to be clear, the rule states: Any Rider or other person who either rides a Horse in a Race or causes, contributes to or permits the running and/or riding of a Horse in a Race in such a way that the Horse cannot be seen to have been the subject of a genuine attempt to obtain from the Horse timely, real and substantial efforts to achieve the best possible place shall be guilty of an offence under this sub-rule.

There has been no issue taken by the Rider’s and indeed Mr Walsh’s position that that rule has been breached. Therefore, the Raceday Stewards on the day were correct in relation to that. 

The next rule that needs to be looked at is Rule 212C(d) which states: Where the Raceday Stewards, having considered the performance of a Horse in a Race and any other relevant circumstances, find that the Horse was run and/or ridden in breach of any sub-rules set out in Rule 212A… may consider that the horse concerned should be restricted from participating.

The minimum sanction here is 60 days suspension. We can’t see that the Raceday Stewards have erred in their application of a restriction on the horse having found that the Rider is in breach, so we uphold the suspension of the horse involved.

Now, the final aspect of the case, however, is the issue of Mr Walsh’s position. We have listened carefully and reflected on what he has said to us. Clearly, in his opinion, he was dissatisfied with the ride. He accepts a breach of the rules in respect of Mr O’Callaghan. 

We have had the benefit of hearing from Mr Walsh, which the Raceday Stewards on the day did not have. In this case, we acknowledge that the Authorised Representative was not asked whether they were satisfied with the ride accordingly we accept Mr Walsh’s evidence today and find that the Trainer in this circumstance is not in breach of the rule and therefore we are going to remove the fine on Mr Walsh, which was the minimum fine of €3,000. 

It’s accepted by Mr Walsh that the provision of instructions given to his Authorised Representative were not of a standard that, on the face of it, were in within the rules. While no formal charges were put to Mr Walsh under rule 147(v) the Appeals Body reminds Mr Walsh of his obligations in this regard, and it serves as a clear reminder that appropriate instructions must be given in future cases.

Mr Walsh’s appeal succeeds, and he should have his deposit returned.

The appeal was presented by Mr Kevin Power of Maurice Power Solicitors, Kilmallock, County Limerick on behalf of Mr Walsh. The IHRB was represented by Ms Christine Traynor, BL.