Soumillon ruled to aided Gstaad at Royal Ascot but ban reduced on appeal

Christophe Soumillon described the 'team tactics' claims as "nonsense" during his evidence; the Belgian rider, aboard Puerto Rico in the St James's Palace Stakes, had made contact with Power Blue before Gstaad and Ryan Moore came down the inside

>Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

>Christophe Soumillon has been partially successful in his appeal against the eight-day suspension handed out by the stewards at Royal Ascot following his ride on Puerto Rico in the St James’s Palace Stakes, having it reduced to five.

>An independent disciplinary panel chaired by Clement Goldstone KC and including Aidan Coleman and Grace Cheng sat last week and reconvened for final submissions and deliberations on Thursday morning. It ultimately found Soumillon's ride had benefitted a stablemate, but that he had not intended it to do so.

>The Belgian was riding one of two Aidan O'Brien-trained runners in the Group One event alongside eventual runner-up Gstaad, who was ridden by Ryan Moore. Puerto Rico was prominent through the early stages before ultimately finishing last of the six starters.

>Puerto Rico drifted left off the bend, causing some interference to Power Blue, who was fourth, and the on-course officials held an inquiry to consider whether Soumillon had ridden "in a manner to benefit Gstaad".

>After viewing recordings and hearing evidence, including interviewing O'Brien by telephone, the stewards on the day suspended Soumillon for eight days, ruling he had ridden his mount "in such a way that intended to give an advantage to another horse from the same stable, in that he moved his mount away from the rail thereby ensuring a clear run for Gstaad on his inside".

>In announcing its reasoning for reducing the sanction to five days, the panel said: "The disciplinary panel is satisfied that there was a breach of Rule (F)46 on the basis that the appellant rode Puerto Rico in such a way which gave an advantage to Gstaad, a horse from the same stable. For the avoidance of doubt, we are not satisfied that the appellant intended so to do.

>Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

>"Accordingly, the appellant's appeal against the stewards' finding that he was in breach of Rule (F)46 is dismissed.

>Loughnane reflects on a successful week at Royal Ascot

>"For reasons which we will set out in our detailed decision, we do not consider that the facts of this case sit easily with any of the situations set out in the table of penalties for a breach of Rule (F)46, each of which implies an element of intent, either in relation to the interference caused or the advantage given.

>"We consider that, absent any intention on the part of the appellant to benefit his stablemate, this breach of Rule (F)46 should be dealt with as what is in effect a case of interference, significantly aggravated by the fact that it had the consequence of benefitting a stablemate.

>"In those circumstances, we consider that an appropriate sanction is a suspension of five days. Accordingly, the disciplinary panel allows the appellant's appeal against sanction by reducing the period of suspension from eight days to five days."

>In his closing arguments, Soumillon's solicitor Rory Mac Neice had argued that there was always room along the rail for a horse to come up the inside of Puerto Rico so Soumillon moving away from the rail did not benefit Gstaad, who could have come through the gap.

>During his evidence last week, the Belgian - who described the accusation that he had ridden to benefit Gstaad as "nonsense" - said that he moved away from the rail to find better ground.

>He also mentioned Puerto Rico has a history of hanging to his left and that he turned his head to assess what was happening behind him for safety reasons after he heard the clipping of heels and not to look for Gstaad.

>Mac Neice argued that TurfTrax data backed up the opinion that the ground was better wide of the rail.

>Mac Neice told the hearing: "The difficulty for the BHA is that it has failed to deal with the facts that there was always room for a horse to go between Puerto Rico and the inside rail.

>"The BHA failed to confront the inescapable fact that there was a significant ground disadvantage on the inside rail for any horse that took that route. You have the TurfTrax data that establishes the ground was slower by the rail when compared with the rest of the course. You have Mr Soumillon's evidence to the same. You have no evidence, nothing from the BHA that contradicts either."