Robbie Dunne appeal: Racing Debate panel discuss jockey’s hearing, reduced ban and claims of ‘out of date’ language | Racing News

Robbie Dunne’s appeal hearing process has been met with widespread criticism and claims of “inappropriate and out of date” language.

On Wednesday, the jockey’s ban from racing for bullying and harassing fellow rider Bryony Frost was reduced from 18 months to 10 months, despite his appeal being formally rejected by an independent panel.

Despite agreeing that Dunne had been guilty of breaching rule J19 – conduct prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct and good reputation of horseracing – Appeal Board chair Anthony Boswood QC felt one breach of the rule, rather than the previous four, covered all the offences.

The hearing, which took place virtually last week, has since come under scrutiny, with a number of journalists present questioning its tone as well as the overall appeals system.

In an article for Sporting Life, Lydia Hislop described many elements of the conduct in the hearing “insensitive, inappropriate and out of date”, while Racing Post columnist Lee Mottershead called it a “depressing affair” and expressed his fears that British racing’s board of appeal is not fit for purpose.

The British Horseracing Authority (BHA) is due to publish the full written reasons for Dunne’s appeal rejection and reduced ban this week.

Discussing the issue on Racing Debate, Sky Sports Racing’s Josh Apiafi said: “A lot of the work that racing is trying to do is to make it more representative of society and open for everybody and yet here some of the wording that has come out is something like from Downton Abbey, like an old boys’ club.

“I think we took a significant step back last week.

“You’re talking about the bullying of a woman and there were nine males in the room [at the appeal hearing].

“I hope that the process can change so that it’s far more open in terms of the people we can have on those panels. I don’t believe it’s currently representative of the people in our sport.”

Racing Debate host Sean Boyce added: “My concern is how we arrived where we did because the appeal failed and yet they knocked a third off the penalty.

“The issue I have is that the original disciplinary panel went over all that.

“Robbie Dunne did make an apology but it was one of those: ‘I’m sorry it made you feel that way, that wasn’t my intention’ but of course the disciplinary panel found it was in fact his intention so I’m not sure how that counts as mitigation.

“These processes are important, and people’s livelihoods are at stake, so if things have been done wrong then of course it should be challenged, but on the face of it, it’s hard to see how they got from where they started to where they ended up.

“I expected Dunne’s team to come with a new argument with a new witness or a new argument and I waited all day but didn’t see it.”