Share to
The Appeals Body, Mrs Justice Siobhan Keegan (Chairperson), Mr Nick Wachman and Dr Paddy Molony convened at the Offices of the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board on Wednesday, 13 August 2025 to consider the appeal of Noel Meade (Trainer) against the decision of the Raceday Stewards at Galway on 31 July 2025 following the running of the Guinness Galway Hurdle Handicap.
On the day, the Raceday Stewards enquired into possible interference in the closing stages of the race involving Ndaawi (GB) ridden by J W Kennedy and trained by Gordon Elliott, placed second and Helvic Dream, ridden by D Meyler and trained by Noel Meade, placed first where it appeared that interference may have occurred. Having viewed a recording of the race and considered the evidence, the Raceday Stewards were of the opinion that Helvic Dream caused interference to Ndaawi and as a result of this interference had improved its finishing position. As a consequence, the Raceday Stewards reversed the placings of the first and second placed horses.
The grounds of the appeal lodged by Mr Meade was that there was minor contact between the two horses in the closing stages, there was sufficient space between Helvic Dream and the rail to allow Ndaawi racing room, that Mr Kennedy and Ndaawi never suffered a break in momentum, that it was a racing incident that did not warrant a reversal and that the result reflected the true performance.
Following an application on behalf of the appellant in relation to the drone footage, Mr Hugh Ryan, Architect, explained that, in his opinion drone footage can alter perceptions of space and should be supplementary to the other raceday footage. Mr Ryan accepted the IHRB position that drone footage was an important tool but stated that fixed cameras in head on and side on angles are more reliable at determining distances between horses. Mr Ryan also accepted that the IHRB Raceday Stewards are experienced race readers
Evidence was heard from Mr Meyler, Mr Kennedy, Mr Meade and Mr Elliott. The Appeals Body also viewed a recording of the race from all integrity cameras including the drone footage.
In his evidence, Mr Meade, Trainer of Helvic Dream, explained that in his opinion the best horse won, and it was impossible to say that Mr Kennedy was ever going to pass Helvic Dream. Mr Meade accepted he wasn’t sitting on either horse but from the video evidence felt that Mr Kennedy’s body language was that he was leaning out to meet Mr Meyler and Helvic Dream and he never had to stop riding at any point
In his evidence, Donagh Meyler, Rider of Helvic Dream, said that his horse travelled very well into the race and winged the last hurdle. Mr Meyler stated that he felt he got an initial bump from Mr Kennedy’s mount, and he felt that both horses were leaning on each other from the last hurdle. Mr Meyler added that he hit the line well and was always holding the runner-up. Mr Meyler explained that Mr Kennedy’s horse was leaning out the whole way and had sufficient room at all times and at no point did Mr Kennedy’s mount get any closer than a head down on him. Mr Meyler explained that Helvic Dream is a quirky horse who only does enough in front and has won all his races by short distances. Mr Meyler concluded that Mr Kennedy had plenty of chances to pass him but never felt Ndaawi was able to pass Helvic Dream and Helvic Dream won because he was the best horse on the day.
In his evidence Jack Kennedy, Rider of Ndaawi, stated that he had ridden Ndaawi in all his previous starts and was familiar with the horse. Mr Kennedy said that he was happy with how the race developed and jumped the last hurdle well but started to feel contact between 200 and 150 yards from the finish. Mr Kennedy explained that he switched his whip from his left hand to his right hand because he was tight for room on his left side. Mr Kennedy added that his horse was in full flow 100 yards out but at that point the interference becomes increasingly worse, and he was receiving a lot of pressure from his outside. Mr Kennedy recalled that he told Mr Elliott on returning to the parade ring that it was like two cars locked together. Mr Kennedy suggested that the movement of both horses going left after the winning post shows the pressure that was being applied prior to the winning post. Mr Kennedy concluded that he felt very hard done by passing the line as his horse didn’t get a fair crack at the race despite being very tough throughout and he didn’t feel he could ride his horse at his strongest due to the pressure he was receiving.
In his evidence Gordon Elliott, Trainer of Ndaawi, said that prior to the Stewards Enquiry being called that Mr Kennedy told him immediately that he felt the result could be reversed as a result of the interference. Mr Elliott added that he was in no doubt his horse would have won with a clear run, but he was obstructed and fouled from 150 to 100 yards all the way through to the line.
Having considered the evidence, Mrs Justice Siobhan Keegan gave the following decision on behalf of the Appeals Body.
“This is an appeal against the decision of the Raceday Stewards taken at Galway on 31 July 2025, whereby in the Guinness Galway Hurdle Handicap, the first and second placings were reversed.
The appeal lodged by Mr Noel Meade, trainer of Helvic Dream who was demoted to second place, is comprehensively set out in a letter of the 8 August 2025 and raised five points as summarised below.
There was minor contact
The second always had racing room
There was no break in momentum
This was a racing incident which wasn’t grounds for a reversal
That the initial result reflected the true performances of the horses
The relevant rule that we are considering is Rule 214(i)(b) and in relation to that there are two limbs to it. Clearly, there must be interference and that is clearly established in this case in our view. Interference is defined on page six of the Rulebook and in this case that interference is attributed to the rider of Helvic Dream, Mr Meyler. There is a second part to the rule in that the Raceday Stewards have to be satisfied that the interference had improved the placing in relation to the horse or horses with which it interfered. If they are not so satisfied they should overrule the objection and the places remain unaltered.
In this case, we have to look at the evaluation made as to the second part of the rule, most notably the likely effect of the interference caused in this case and whether a horse lost a winning chance. In this case whether Helvic Dream’s interference resulted in Ndaawi losing a winning chance in a race where he was beaten by a distance of a head.
We have viewed the recording of the race from various different angles. We have heard evidence, and we’ve heard submissions. We must add that we have been greatly assisted by the evidence and the submissions in this case. We do reflect that all of the participants in this appeal are experienced professionals, and we understand the positions that they respectively hold.
The ultimate decision that we have to reach is whether the Stewards erred in their decision on the day and whether we should uphold the decision or reach a different view on this.
Having viewed all the recordings of the race and considered all of the evidence we have to come to our decision, mindful that these determinations are on the balance of probabilities. We also want to say that we can well see why an appeal has been brought in this case. Why we say that is, we are dealing with experienced professionals but also dealing with a case where each side has made some valid points and there are points to be made on each side of the argument.
Looking at the notice of appeal in summary, we think it is an underestimate to say that there was minor contact in this race. In relation to point two, we think it is an oversimplification to say that the second horse always had racing room. Why we say that is that the second horse was forced to go off his racing line and was pressed close to the rail. In relation to point three, we cannot discern a break of momentum of the horse, but we do accept Mr Kennedy’s evidence that he could not ride to his strongest in the circumstances he faced. In relation to point four, we consider that this was not simply a racing incident because there was interference established. In coming to our conclusion, which touches on point five, we cannot be satisfied that the stewards erred in their decision to reverse the placings.
In summary that is because interference has occurred, and it was caused by Mr Meyler. Whilst Mr Kennedy’s horse may not have obviously lost its own momentum, he was clearly significantly pressed for space so near the rail and he was not able to ride his strongest race. We must therefore dismiss the appeal.
In the particular circumstances, given what we have said, we are minded to refund the deposit to Mr Meade on this occasion.
Guinness Galway Hurdle
First: Ndaawi (GB)
Second: Helvic Dream
Third: Casheldale Lad
Fourth: Tounsivator (FR)
Fifth: Gaucher (GB)
Sixth: Jalila Moriviere (FR)
The appeal was presented by Mr Patrick Kennedy, Patrick J O’Meara & Co Solicitors on behalf of Mr Meade. Mr Elliott and Mr Kennedy were represented by Mr Kevin Power, Maurice Power Solicitors LLP. The IHRB was represented by Ms Christine Traynor BL, IHRB Head of Racing Regulation and Integrity and Mr Andrew Ring, IHRB Stipendiary Steward.