Share to
The Referrals Committee, Justice Siobhan Keegan (Chair), Mr Laurence McFerran and Mr Anthony Byrne, convened at the Offices of the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board on Tuesday, 16 June 2026 to consider an application by the IHRB pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Racing for a review of the sanction imposed on Mr John Joseph Hanlon at Listowel on 1 June 2026.
On the day, following the running of the Southern Waste Management Mares Handicap Hurdle, the Raceday Stewards found Mr Hanlon, in breach of Rule 272(iii), in that he was verbally abusive towards an Official. Having considered Mr Hanlon’s clean disciplinary record in this regard, the Raceday Stewards imposed a fine of €250.
The IHRB subsequently referred the matter to the Referrals Committee pursuant to Rule 27(i)(a) on the basis that the sanction imposed by the Raceday Stewards was unduly lenient.
At the referral hearing, evidence was heard from Mr Hanlon, Ms Jennifer Walsh, IHRB Raceday Operations Manager, Mr Colman Sweeney, IHRB Stipendiary Steward, Mr Michael Doyle, IHRB Assistant Clerk of the Scales and Mr Paul Moloney, IHRB Clerk of the Course.
In her evidence, Ms Walsh outlined the role of the Clerk of the Course and the procedures by which ground conditions are assessed and communicated to stakeholders on a daily basis from each racecourse.
Mr Sweeney gave evidence regarding the incident he witnessed while carrying out his duties as a Stipendiary Steward. He described hearing raised voices from the adjoining Stewards’ Room before observing Mr Hanlon verbally abusing Mr Moloney regarding the ground conditions. Mr Sweeney confirmed that he made a contemporaneous note of the interaction and described the conduct as involving repeated verbal abuse, aggressive, demeaning, crude and profane language, and humiliation of an IHRB Official in a public setting.
In his evidence, Mr Doyle provided details of his recollection of the incident which he witnessed while carrying out his duty as Assistant Clerk of the Scales. He described the interaction as loud, aggressive, crude and highly demeaning towards Mr Moloney. He further confirmed that it was protracted and occurred in full view and earshot of others present in and around the weigh room. Mr Doyle further confirmed that Mr Moloney remained calm throughout the interaction and was not discourteous towards Mr Hanlon.
Mr Moloney gave evidence regarding the incident and its impact upon him. He described the encounter as a horrific, humiliating and demeaning experience which occurred in a public setting while he was carrying out his duties as an IHRB Official. Mr Moloney outlined the significant effect the incident had upon him.
In his evidence, although he disputed his use of a particular slur, Mr Hanlon accepted the breach and apologised for his conduct. He stated that he had become angry regarding the watering of the racecourse and accepted that he had behaved inappropriately towards Mr Moloney. Mr Hanlon acknowledged that such conduct would not be acceptable in his own workplace, expressed regret for the incident and gave an undertaking that there would be no repetition of this type of behaviour.
Having considered the evidence and submissions Justice Keegan delivered the following decision on behalf of the committee.
“What we are dealing with is a referral of a sanction for an admitted breach of Rule 272. That rule prohibits acting in a manner prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct or good reputation of horseracing, and relates to the actions of Mr Hanlon towards an IHRB official, Mr Moloney.
In truth, there is very little argument about the background facts. At Listowel on the day in question, there was a disagreement about the issue of the going, which is not necessarily unusual in the summer, but this led to an altercation between Mr Hanlon and Mr Moloney, which was witnessed by a number of people, and involved language and behaviour which was extremely unsavoury.
The best record of the behaviour of Mr Hanlon on the day is a contemporaneous account set out by Mr Sweeney and largely accepted by Mr Hanlon. This records verbal abuse, aggressive behaviour and humiliation of an IHRB official. Even on Mr Hanlon’s own case that he may not have said two of the words that are referred to by Mr Sweeney, this is at a high level of abuse. It has also, we are quite convinced, had quite a significant impact on Mr Moloney. That would not be unexpected, because he is a professional doing his job, who has been approached in a totally unacceptable way in front of colleagues. This behaviour also occurred in public at the racetrack. We have heard some of the witnesses in relation to this, including Mr Doyle, and that adds to the severity of the behaviour. Mr Hanlon, unsurprisingly, acknowledges the above through Mr Kennedy.
Ultimately, the questions we must decide are firstly, whether the referral is appropriate in that the sanction imposed by the Raceday Stewards on the day in question was unduly lenient. The sanction imposed after an enquiry was an entry level at €250. We are quite convinced that this was unduly lenient, given the factual circumstances.
The next question is, if this was unduly lenient, using our powers, what is the correct sanction? As to that we have, unlike the Raceday Stewards, been able to consider a number of precedent cases (O’Mara, Mahon and Dunne), none of which are exactly on point, but they give us some flavour of the potential parameters of sanction in this area.
The case of Mr O’Mara, is at a different level, as Ms Traynor herself accepts, because there had been a run up of harassment and there was also physical abuse involved. The previous case of Mr Mahon is also distinguishable because there were clearly medical issues that mitigated the behaviour which occurred in a broader context. The case of Mr Dunne is perhaps most on point, as Mr Kennedy accepted. It comprised two incidents, but involved someone who is not a licensed trainer with the consequent obligations. We can draw some assistance from these precedents but none of them are exactly on point.
The aggravation in this case is clear: the repeated nature of the abusive behaviour is one factor, it was in public, and the impact on Mr Moloney is a third factor.
The mitigation is Mr Hanlon’s apology, which he said he gave in the Stewards Room, although it is regrettable that he did not pick that up as a personal apology to Mr Moloney thereafter.
We have heard conflicting evidence about the ground issue. We are working on the basis that, even if Mr Hanlon has a valid belief in what was said to him – erroneously as he perceived it – by Mr Moloney, that does not detract from his reaction and the abusive behaviour that he thereafter directed towards Mr Moloney.
Another mitigation is that this is the first time that Mr Hanlon has come before the IHRB for this type of offence. We are taking it from what he has said that he is contrite about his behaviour. Based on the undertaking given here today by Mr Hanlon that there will be no repeat of this type of behaviour to IHRB officials, we have considered the level of sanction appropriate in this case. Given the severity of the behaviour, we increase the fine to €2,500 for the breach of Rule 272(iii). We also warn, that if there is a repeat of this behaviour, what is likely is a suspension of licence.”
The case was presented by Ms Christine Traynor BL, IHRB Head of Racing Regulation and Integrity. Mr Hanlon was represented by Mr Patrick Kennedy, Patrick J O’Meara & Co Solicitors.