King George-winning trainer John ‘Shark’ Hanlon has seen a 10-month suspension reduced to six after an appeal.
Hanlon was handed the lengthy ban in September for “gross negligence” relating to the transportation of a deceased horse.
Hanlon, who trains last year’s Kempton hero Hewick, was initially found to have acted in a manner that “caused significant prejudice to the integrity, proper conduct and good reputation of the sport of racing” in the removal of a dead horse from his yard earlier this year.
The horse was carried on an open trailer which was towed by Hanlon’s branded horsebox, with the body left on display to the public after a tarpaulin became displaced during the journey.
A member of the public videoed the incident and it was widely circulated on social media, which attracted further media attention and led to the IHRB bringing charges against Hanlon.
Hanlon, who will have his license withdrawn from December 1 this year, announced he would be selling 28 of his horses at the Goffs UK October HIT & Yearling Sales taking place this week.
In giving its verdict on the appeal, the panel said: “Having considered all of the evidence and arguments we have come to the conclusion that the Referrals Committee ought to have fixed a shorter headline sanction of six months in this case in order to take account of a major difference between Mr Hanlon’s conduct and that of Messrs. Elliott and James.
“In their cases, the lack of respect demonstrated to the carcass of the deceased animal in each case was deliberate and wilful. Mr Hanlon’s was not. He was negligent albeit to a high degree. We do not think that the reduction of the headline penalty from one of 12 months withdrawal of licence to 10 months adequately addresses that major difference.
“It also has to be borne in mind that the negligence of Mr Hanlon occurred in a single activity of relatively short duration. We are not to be taken as holding that negligence as distinct from a deliberate act might not attract a 10- or even 12-month withdrawal of licence in appropriate circumstances. Had there been continuing acts of negligence here, then the 10-month figure might well be justified.
“However, that was not the case and so we are of opinion that the headline figure of six months withdrawal is the correct one.”
