SportHorse racingRoyal AscotThe BHA’s independent judicial panel ruled the jockey had broken the rules in the St James’s Palace Stakes but could not be satisfied he did it to deliberately help Gstaad13:47, 02 Jul 2026Christophe Soumillon has lost his Royal Ascot appeal but had his sentence cut..‌The ten-time French champion jockey was banned for eight days for his riding of the Aidan O’Brien-trainer Puerto Rico who was stable second string to Irish 2,000 Guineas winner Gstaad, in a contorversial running of the St James’s Palace Stakes.‌During the race Soumillon looked over his shoulder twice, notably when entering the straight where Puerto Rico was switched to the left, in the process leaving a golden highway on his inside along the rail through which Ryan Moore was able to make his challenge on Gstaad.‌Moore took up the invitation but the staying-on Gstaad could not quite reel in Bow Echo, failing by a short head. Puerto Rico finished last of the six runners.At the subsequent inquiry Soumillon was found guilty of riding Puerto Rico “in such a way that intended to give an advantage to another horse from the same stable, in that he moved his mount away from the rail thereby ensuring a clear run for Gstaad on his inside”.Soumillon lodged an appeal at which he denied he rode to the advantage of Gstaad and said he had decided before the race to stay away from the inside rail because he believed the ground was slower there and he wanted to avoid a point inside the track where he had seen noisy children earlier in the day.‌He also said Puerto Rico was known to hang to his left and said he had looked behind after hearing a horse clipping heels twice.In its verdict the panel, chaired by HH Clement Goldstone KC, said: “In the appeal of Christophe Soumillon, the Disciplinary Panel is satisfied that there was a breach of Rule (F)46 on the basis that the Appellant rode PUERTO RICO (IRE) in such away which gave an advantage to GSTAAD, a horse from the same stable. For the avoidance of doubt, we are not satisfied that the Appellant intended so to do.‌“Accordingly, the appellant’s appeal against the Stewards’ finding that he was in breach of Rule (F)46 is dismissed.“For reasons which we will set out in our detailed decision, we do not consider that the facts of this case sit easily with any of the situations set out in the Table of Penalties for a breach of Rule (F)46, each of which implies an element of intent, either in relation to the interference caused or the advantage given.“We consider that, absent any intention on the part of the Appellant to benefit his stablemate, this breach of Rule (F)46 should be dealt with as what is in effect a case of interference, significantly aggravated by the fact that it had the consequence of benefitting a stablemate.Article continues below“In those circumstances, we consider that an appropriate sanction is a suspension of 5 days. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Panel allows the Appellant’s appeal against sanction by reducing the period of suspension from 8 days to 5 days.“Choose Daily Mirror as a 'Preferred Source' on Google News for quick access to the news you value.‌Ryan MooreRoyal AscotHorsesAscot racecourse