Jockey Club suspends Brett Doyle for 3 months for failing to provide sample
The Jockey Club Disciplinary Panel last night found jockey Brett Doyle in breach of Rule 66(vi) of the Rules of Racing for failing to provide a urine sample when selected.
The Disciplinary Panel of the Jockey Club held an Enquiry on 14 March 2005 to consider whether or not Brett Doyle, a licensed jockey, had committed a breach of Rule 66(vi) of the Rules of Racing, in the light of paragraphs 1.11 and 3.4 of the June 2003 Jockey Club Protocol and Rules for the Testing of Riders for Banned Substances and Procedures for Notifiable Medications. Rule 66(vi) requires licensed jockeys to comply with the Banned Substances Protocol. Paragraph 3.4 of the Protocol requires jockeys selected for sampling to provide samples for analysis prior to leaving the racecourse. It was alleged against Brett Doyle that, having been selected for both breath and urine sampling at a race meeting held at Newmarket on 18 June 2004, he had failed to provide the required urine sample.
The Disciplinary Panel, which consisted of Lord Rathcreedan (Chairman), John Wallinger and Timothy Charlton QC, heard evidence about the events of 18 June 2004 and detailed submissions about the proper construction of Rule 66(vi) and the Banned Substances Protocol. The Panel concluded that Mr Doyle had breached Rule 66(vi) by leaving the racecourse without providing a urine sample as required of him. The Panel noted that Mr Doyle’s current licence to ride was due to expire on 17 March 2005 and ordered that he should not be issued with a further licence for a period of 3 months until 21 June 2005. This period of suspension was stated by the Panel to reflect its view that it is critical to the integrity of horseracing that jockeys comply with the Banned Substances Protocol, and that forgetfulness (which the Panel accepted was the probable reason for Doyle’s failure to provide a sample) did not excuse that failure. The Panel also observed that it would have imposed a longer period of suspension had it not been for the fact that Mr Doyle had already lost a contract to ride in Hong Kong while the Enquiry against him was pending and the fact that ‘although the primary responsibility for the failure to provide a sample rested with Doyle, there were shortcomings in the operation of the Protocol by some of those at the racecourse who were involved in the testing procedure.’ The Panel also informed Mr Doyle that the issue of a new licence would be dependent upon his obtaining a satisfactory Medical Report from the Jockey Club Chief Medical Advisor.
The Jockey Club was represented at the Enquiry by 5RB’s Godwin Busuttil.