Norfolk Stakes still a cliffhanger as panel mulls verdict after six-hour hearing

Anyone still keen to find out who will be the ultimate winner of the Norfolk Stakes must wait a little longer after an appeals panel deferred its decision until next week or possibly the week after.

The 60-second race, staged at Royal Ascot back in the middle of June, resulted in a six-hour hearing on Wednesday as various parties argued over whether The Ridler, first past the post, should be disqualified or demoted for veering across the track and interfering with two rivals.

Even by the standards of British racing, a two-month gap before a hearing counts as an inordinate delay. Those listening in, at least to begin with, included the trainers Dave Loughnane and Michael O'Callaghan, whose Walbank and Crispy Cat finished second and third respectively. Perhaps they expected, as matters kicked off at 10am, to be free in time for evening stables but they were to be disappointed.

The early warning signs were there for all to see, as the three lawyers involved and the panel chairman Bruce Blair QC, seemed set on leaving no rabbit hole unexplored. Subjects covered in the first hour included the correct pronunciation of Kia Joorabchian's surname, the development of the interference rules since Nureyev was demoted in the 2,000 Guineas of 1980 and the definition of improper riding, even though no party to the case believed that to be a relevant factor.

Joorabchian, whose colours were carried by both placed horses, brought this appeal out of a sense of frustration that the winner could be allowed to keep the prize after causing so much interference in the crucial closing stages.

Rory Mac Neice, representing the owner, argued that Paul Hanagan, while very experienced and successful, had ridden dangerously and his mount should therefore be disqualified. Failing that, he should be demoted to third behind Crispy Cat, who would have prevailed with a clear run.

"This isn't a case of a rider doing something but not enough," Mac Neice said. "This is a case of a rider doing absolutely nothing to prevent his horse from going left, across others."

He accused Hanagan of "failing to take corrective action over a sustained period of time . . . over a period of at least eight seconds in a race that only took 60 seconds to run". He pointed in particular to the risk posed to James Doyle, who had to turn Brave Nation's head left as The Ridler passed directly in front of him.

Paul Hanagan celebrates after a controversial running of the Norfolk Stakes this yearCredit: Edward Whitaker

But Doyle told the panel: "I didn't find it dangerous. There were no cross words between myself and Mr Hanagan. He came and apologised and said it was a lack of concentration. I didn't for one second think it was a dangerous riding manoeuvre."

Hanagan and Mac Neice tangled at length, the solicitor insisting the jockey should have taken earlier action to correct his mount. "It was just a misjudgement," Hanagan replied. "I think if I'd realised he was going so far left, I probably would have put my stick down or pulled it through."

You should have realised that, Mac Neice told him. "I disagree," the jockey answered.

"Ascot is probably one of the widest tracks in the country and it's very hard to realise, when you're in front on a green two-year-old, that they're shifting that much left. When you're racing down the middle of the track, it's hard to get your bearings."

Hanagan was prepared to accept he should not have given The Ridler the final one of three smacks with the whip, at which point the horse collided with Brave Nation. But he believed he had been clear of his rivals until then and defended his riding up to that moment.

The barristers Roderick Moore, for Hanagan, and Louis Weston, for the BHA, were dismissive of Mac Neice's arguments. "This is plainly not a case of dangerous riding," Weston said. "He causes interference for a very short bit of time to Silvestre de Sousa and Mr Doyle, who both escape from that interference by moving to the side."

As the lengthy arguments finally closed at 4.45pm, Blair said he did not wish to rush out a judgement. Instead, the panel's verdict will be published at the same time as its full reasons, which will hopefully be before the horses in question become three-year-olds.

Read this next:

Hanagan over the moon at 50-1 Norfolk shock – but ten-day ban was 'deserved'

Kia Joorabchian and Amo team fuming as two runners 'wiped out' by wayward winner

Sign up to receive On The Nose, our essential daily newsletter, from the Racing Post. Your unmissable morning feed, direct to your email inbox every morning.