Robert Splaine: Bertram Allen the victim of very rigid rule
The 20-year-old Wexford rider demolished a star-studded field at the festive show with a display that saw him cross the finish line two seconds ahead of British legend Michael Whitaker.
However, when leaving the arena, a steward saw some blood and reported it to the ground jury, who instead awarded the win to Whitaker, citing a rule that calls for mandatory disqualification for the presence of any blood on the flanks, mouth, or nose.
Corkman Splaine said: “Bertram has a large string of horses and he does an exemplary job.
"His horses are always in immaculate shape and are a credit to him and his staff.
"He has fallen foul of a very rigid rule which is most unfortunate as, for anyone who watched the GP at Olympia, it’s clear that his performance was world class and [he] deserved to win.”
Mhairi Alexender, the barrister who represented Allen and Emma Phillips, the owner of Quiet Easy, during an appeal at Olympia has also made her views public on how the appeal was handled.
She said Allen and Phillips “argued that the rule demands that the blood or marks are indicative of excessive spur use.
"The mere presence of blood and or a mark alone is not enough to result in disqualification.
"There was nothing to indicate that there was excessive spur use (two experts provided statements to that effect which were lodged along with the appeal).
"The ground jury had therefore erred in their interpretation and application of the rule”.
Alexander outlined three hurdles:
1. There is only 30 minutes from the start of the prize-giving ceremony (not, as I would have imagined, the time at which the decision is conveyed to the rider) in which to mark the appeal.
Clearly, anyone not familiar with the FEI rules is at a disadvantage, and being unaware of this rule in particular would leave a potential appellant time barred from being able to challenge the original decision at all.
2. An appeal committee is then convened approximately one hour later in order for parties to make submissions.
Most curiously, parties make submissions in private, in consequence of which, while I addressed the panel for around 40 minutes, I had to do so without the benefit of having specifically heard what the ground jury’s position actually was.
3. Finally, it is worth noting that the committee categorically declined to provide any explanation for the basis upon which they reached their decision.
I urged them to do so in the interests of transparency, but yet they still declined. Further, they were unable to provide us with any information regarding further appeal procedure; they didn’t know.
Clearly, this makes it extremely difficult to take the process much further. It can be done, however, again, the appellants are fighting an uphill battle.
She found nothing wrong with the actual blood rule.
She said: “I don’t think there is anything wrong with the rule as it stands. It is clearly designed to protect against abusive riding and that should be applauded.
“However, I do not think that it has been applied with that purpose in mind. It should therefore be redrafted to provide clarity, or the FEI should issue formal guidance as to how it wishes the rule to be interpreted.”
