Ian Williams has been awarded the race at Doncaster last month in which his Banditry was narrowly beaten after suffering interference from the winner, a result that was controversially allowed to stand by the stewards on the day. The Worcestershire trainer represented himself at Thursday’s appeal hearing and persuaded a three-man panel to reject an argument by the sport’s ruling body that Banditry would not have won in any case.
The verdict was reached after a private 10-minute discussion among the panel, which announced it would reverse the placings and promised detailed reasons later in the day. On the face of it, their verdict counts as a rebuke to the conservative approach taken by both the Doncaster stewards and the British Horseracing Authority itself.
Lynn Williams, representing the regulator, had said the BHA considered “that the interference here was only slight. We do not consider it would have changed the outcome if the sufferer had had an uninterrupted passage”.
He quoted Ryan Moore, who won the race on Laurence, as telling the stewards he felt he had been on “by far the best horse” and that Laurence’s superiority was understated because he had idled after hitting the front. The BHA acknowledged that Laurence hung to his right and blocked Banditry’s path for several strides with half a furlong to run, but took the view that Banditry had only consented to make his effort in the final 50 yards, a delay that was not related to the interference.
“If the horse was good enough, it had time to pick up earlier,” Lynn Williams continued. “It had every opportunity to do so and we don’t consider the interference stopped the horse from winning the race.”
Moore, giving evidence by telephone from Japan, said he had expected to win “pretty easily” until his horse “ducked” to his right, causing the interference. “He knew where the stables were,” the jockey explained. “It happens quite a bit at Doncaster. I thought he did well to get going again and hold on.”
William Buick, Banditry’s rider, also joined in the hearing by telephone, from Norway, to describe the interference as “severe”. “It completely broke my momentum at a very, very crucial part of the race,” he said. “It changed the result. A stride after the line, I’m in front by a head.”
Lynn Williams accused Buick of exaggerating and said the jockey had not used the word “severe” when talking to the raceday stewards. Buick roundly rejected that charge and insisted there was no inconsistency between what he had said on the day and his evidence to this appeal.
Ian Williams exonerated Moore, saying there was nothing the jockey could have done to anticipate Laurence’s sudden shift to his right, but argued the effect was to prevent his horse from making ground at a crucial stage. He pointed out that, while Moore was able to use his whip nine times, Buick only had time to use his once after finding a clear run and getting Banditry balanced and extending once more.
“I thought it was a very fair hearing,” Ian Williams said later, “and I think the committee had a good bit longer to consider the verdict than the stewards on the day. These things are always tough but it’s refreshing to know that, if you feel something hasn’t been correctly deal with, there is an appeal procedure and, on this occasion, I feel it’s worked very well.”
The trainer added that Banditry would next be seen at Ascot a week on Friday for his hurdles debut. “He schooled nicely at home and he obviously has lots of Flat ability, so we’re going to give it a go.”
The panel’s decision to change the result may cause some grumpiness elsewhere, as Banditry won a race at Chelmsford four days after the Doncaster race. Had the Doncaster stewards awarded him the verdict on that day, he would have carried extra weight at Chelmsford, perhaps changing the result there.
Laurence, meanwhile, has since fetched £210,000 when sold at auction in Newmarket, a sum that may have been influenced by the fact of his having won when last seen. He was bought by Prince Sultan bin Mohammed to race in Saudi Arabia.
Williams noted during the hearing he was “a little concerned” that the stewards had changed the reason for their verdict after publishing it on the day. Having initially argued that Laurence “appeared to always be holding Banditry”, which did not fit very well with footage of the runner-up closing dramatically all the way to the line, the stewards deleted that wording and chose instead to describe the interference as “minimal”.
That possible source of controversy was defused by the fact that this appeal took the form of a from-scratch rehearing, the panel not being bound by the findings of the stewards. The BHA has acknowledged that stewards sometimes change the published version of their reasoning and will now consider whether there should be public acknowledgement when such changes have been made.
