Share to
The Referrals Committee, Mr Justice Tony Hunt convened on Friday, 29 August 2025 at the offices of the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board to consider the referral of Ben Harvey (Rider), Alex Harvey (Rider) and Tom Harney (Rider) following the running of the O’Driscolls Irish Whiskey Handicap at Leopardstown on Wednesday, 9 April 2025.
On the day, the IHRB became aware of a television interview on RacingTV in which it was suggested that Ben Harvey, Alex Harvey and Tom Harney were amongst a wider syndicate of owners of the winner, Harbanaker, which as professional jockeys would constitute a breach of Rule 124. Furthermore, the owner of Harbanaker is published as Ms Niamh Harvey and not a partnership or syndicate of owners as suggested in the television interview.
As part of an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the ownership of Harbanaker, submissions were received from Mrs Niamh Harvey, Mr Tom Harney, Mr Alex Harvey, Mr Ben Harvey, Mr Charlie Mullins, Mr Finian Maguire, Mr Harry Swan and Mr John Gleeson.
At the referral hearing, submissions were heard from Mr Andrew Coonan, solicitor, on behalf of Ben Harvey, Alex Harvey and Tom Harney.
Mr Coonan outlined the background to a group of friends uniting in their grief following the untimely passing of Michael O’Sullivan and using this horse as an outlet to come together. Mr Coonan accepted that their actions which led to a perception that they were part owners of the horse were not appropriate as licensees but insisted that Niamh Harvey is the sole owner of the horse in question.
Having considered the evidence and submissions put forward, Justice Hunt delivered his written decision, as set out below, on Monday 8 September 2025.
“This referrals in this matter originated in a televised interview broadcast on Racing TV from Leopardstown Racecourse on 9 April 2025, after Race 8 (the O’Driscolls Irish Whiskey Handicap). In essence, footage and statements arising from the interview in question suggested that the three licensed professional Riders listed above may have held or claimed an interest in the winner of this race (Harbanaker, owned by Niamh Harvey and trained by William Harvey). If these statements were true, these riders would have been in breach of Rule 124 of the Rules of Racing, which clearly prohibits such a situation.
Subsequent investigation by and correspondence with the IHRB established that the Riders did not have the interest claimed by them in the interview, and that there was therefore no breach of the prohibition on professional jockeys owning or having an interest in a horse running in the race.
In the course of that correspondence, the three Riders accepted that “such inaccurate claims cause or potentially cause a significant problem for the IHRB and have raised a legitimate concern. For this, they are deeply apologetic. It was never the intention that the interview or holding themselves out (incorrectly) as a horse owing syndicate would create a significant issue for the IHRB.”
Thereafter, the IHRB referred to the Committee the matter of whether the conduct and statements of the Riders in the course of the interview constituted a breach of Rule 272, which prohibits any person involved in horseracing acting, whether verbally or by conduct or behaviour, in a manner prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct, or good reputation of horseracing.
Submissions
The referral was heard by the Committee (sole member Mr Justice Tony Hunt) on 29 August 2025, on the basis of the IHRB investigation, the correspondence arising in the course of that investigation and the agreed facts that thereby emerged.
Andrew Coonan (solicitor on behalf of the three Riders) submitted that the three Riders should not be found in breach in breach of Rule 272, because the facts did not pass a minimum threshold of gravity, and/or the conduct in question was not intentional or premeditated, and that a breach of this Rule required a deliberate attempt or contrivance.
In response, Christine Traynor (on behalf of the IHRB) referred to the correspondence that had previously passed between the parties, and submitted that the conduct in question did not have to be intentional or premeditated to attract the operation of the Rule, and that the conduct in question was of sufficient concern and gravity to cause a breach of Rule 272, warranting the imposition of a fine above the entry level (€250) referred to in the relevant guideline. Ms Traynor suggested that the appropriate range in these cases was between €500 and €1000.
In reply, Mr Coonan suggested that the fine ought to be lower than the entry level, or that the matter be disposed of by a method other than the imposition of a fine.
Decision
The conduct of the riders in wrongly stating in public either expressly or by obvious implication that they had an ownership interest in the winning horse is sufficiently serious to justify a finding of breach of Rule 272(i). Rule 124 of the Rules contains a clear prohibition of the ownership arrangement situation asserted by or on behalf of the three riders, to the effect that they were part of a group who had “thrown a few quid” into the horse after it came up for sale.
The statements of fact expressing or implying a breach of this Rule by them were made in the context of a post-race interview on the Racing TV channel, the audience of which includes many of those who are most interested in and knowledgeable about Irish racing matters. The IHRB would have been remiss if it was not concerned by media statements suggesting breach of a significant general prohibition on professional riders being involved in horse ownership in any circumstances.
The Riders themselves have rightly accepted the legitimacy of the concerns caused by their incorrect statements. Therefore, the making of incorrect statements by licensees suggesting that they were in breach of the Rules of Racing on a significant media platform is, in principle, clearly sufficient to constitute a breach of Rule 272(i) by each of the three Riders, resulting in the imposition of a sanction specified by the Rules.
It is not necessary that a breach of Rule 272(i) be founded on deliberate or intentional conduct, or that there be premeditation. Many recent cases show that the Rule may be breached carelessly, negligently, or by inadvertence.
The words or conduct in this case were plainly prejudicial to the integrity and proper conduct of horse racing, and each of the riders were in breach of Rule 272(i).
The sanction imposed in respect of the breaches must be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct and reflect any relevant personal or other circumstances. All licensees have a duty to take reasonable care in making statements of fact to media outlets regarding their horse racing activities. This is especially so where, as in this case, to take the statement of fact at face value would suggest to the informed listener that the licensees were engaging in conduct otherwise prohibited by the Rules of Racing.
On the other hand, it is accepted by all parties that the statements were inaccurate and made against the particularly tragic and emotional background referred to in the interview. Ultimately, there was significant co-operation with the investigation, as seen in the correspondence quoted above.
Having regard to the weight of this unusual mitigation, a fine at the lower end of the scale is warranted in each case. In other circumstances, a significantly more severe sanction would be justified by such careless public statements, the investigation of which necessarily but needlessly consumed the time and resources of the IHRB.
It is not considered that the breaches or the circumstances otherwise justify a disposal outside the formal sanctions or guidelines available to the Referrals Committee. Each rider is therefore fined the sum of €400.”
The case was presented by Ms Christine Traynor, BL, IHRB Head of Racing Regulation and Integrity. Mr Ben Harvey, Mr Alex Harvey and Mr Tom Harney were represented by Mr Andrew Coonan, Solicitor, of Coonan Cawley Solicitors, Naas, County Kildare.