‘If we can’t pass the pub test, we won’t have an industry’: Tyreek highlights welfare and penalty concerns

Cover image courtesy of Georgia Young Photography

When Tyreek, a promising 3-year-old trained by John O’Shea and Tom Charlton, crashed through the running rail at Rosehill on Saturday, the immediate loss was heartbreaking. The gelding, who had won impressively on debut just three weeks earlier, was euthanised after sustaining a fatal fracture. His jockey, Dylan Gibbons, escaped without serious injury.

But for Tyreek’s 19 groups of owners, many of them first-time participants, the heartbreak has since hardened into something else: disbelief that the jockey responsible, Tom Sherry, received only a one-month suspension for careless riding.

The case has raised profound questions not only about the adequacy of penalties for dangerous riding, but also about the broader credibility of racing’s disciplinary framework at a time when the sport’s social licence is under increasing public pressure.

The specific incident

The G3 Up & Coming Stakes is a springboard race for young colts and geldings. Tyreek, by Snitzel, lined up for just his second career start.

According to the steward’s report, Sherry shifted ground, forcing Tyreek into the rail. Gibbons was dislodged, though unharmed, while Tyreek suffered catastrophic injuries. He was transported to Randwick Equine Centre but could not be saved.

Stewards held their inquiry on Saturday evening, charged Sherry with careless riding, and suspended him for four weeks. The process was swift; for Tyreek’s connections, perhaps too swift.

“It wasn’t an incident where the horse is injured and it’s a zero fault situation. It’s a situation that should never have happened,” said Champion Thoroughbreds manager Jason Abrahams.

Distressing for the owners

Tyreek was syndicated by Champion Thoroughbreds and owned by 15 individuals and four syndicates, bringing together 19 different ownership groups. For many of these participants, Tyreek represented their first step into racing.

“It’s very distressing for everyone involved. We’ve got a lot of first time owners in Tyreek who aren’t overly familiar with racing, and the feedback at this stage is that many (of our owners) won’t return to horse ownership,” said Abrahams.

The nature of the incident has amplified the impact. A sudden breakdown through injury is a recognised risk in racing, but Tyreek’s death came from what stewards themselves deemed careless riding. For owners, that distinction matters.

“The steward’s inquiry was wrapped up quickly on Saturday night, and to hand out a four-week suspension to one jockey doesn’t seem like an appropriate outcome,” Abrahams said.

“These owners no longer have an extremely promising young horse and for the industry to say, the jockey should get a four week break while also taking home the prizemoney for the win, doesn’t balance out the loss of our horse. It doesn’t feel right.”

Are the penalties a deterrent?

The penalty handed to Sherry has reignited the debate over whether suspensions for careless riding provide an effective deterrent. Commentators have been quick to draw comparisons with other sports.

“Tommy Sherry got a month, he has caused a very bad fall and ruined the career and life of young horse Tyreek. He got a month’s suspension, I don’t think that’s strong enough,” said SEN’s Tom Haylock.

“People are calling people names and getting four or five weeks in other sports, and then you’ve got a jockey causing serious injuries and serious falls, I just don’t think it’s enough.”

There are numerous recent examples where suspensions for dangerous riding incidents have been in the four-to-six-week range. In 2020, Hugh Bowman received six weeks for causing Hot ’N’ Hazy to fall, resulting in the colt’s death and serious injuries to Andrew Adkins.

In the 2023 Perth Cup, Joseph Azzopardi was given six weeks for a fall that led to Chili Is Hot being euthanised. In Hong Kong, Zac Purton was suspended for seven meetings, effectively four weeks, for careless riding.

For Tyreek’s owners, these comparisons only highlight how little difference there is in penalty length regardless of the outcome.

“Are these suspensions deterring jockeys from taking these risks? It doesn’t look as though these suspensions are doing anything. If a jockey can get a careless riding charge on the Wednesday, then be given another four weeks on a Saturday and a horse is dead, it irks that he still gets his winning percentage. It really is salt into the wound for our owners,” Abrahams said.

Owners have also pointed to examples where far less serious breaches have attracted significantly longer suspensions.

On August 9 at Newcastle, trainer Andrew MacDonald allowed a licensed stablehand to briefly ride a pony bareback in a carpark. Stewards deemed this a breach of safety protocols. MacDonald was suspended for three months, reduced to two after a guilty plea. The stablehand was suspended for six weeks, reduced to four.

Abrahams sees the contrast with Tyreek’s case as indefensible.

“A trainer let a stablehand ride a pony at the Newcastle races last weekend, and the trainer got three months. It makes a mockery of the whole thing to get three months for that, and only four weeks for a dead horse,” he said.

There are other anomalies. Nash Rawiller was fined $40,000 and suspended for two weeks for overuse of the whip on Think It Over. Cieren Fallon was fined $100,000 and suspended for four weeks for his ride in the Golden Eagle.

“Four weeks for the loss of Tyreek seems like a wet lettuce leaf to our owners,” Abrahams said. “We are mystified as to how the careless riding charge results in this. It just doesn’t add up.”

The response in Australia contrasts with how similar incidents are handled abroad. In the United States, the horse responsible for interference is often disqualified. In the United Kingdom, relegation of the horse to last place is common.

“These penalties don’t make sense. If you look overseas, if this had been America the horse would be disqualified. In England, the horse would be relegated to last,” Abrahams said.

In July in New Zealand, Ribkraka ran second but was disqualified after jockey Yuga Okubo caused a four-horse fall. Fortunately, none of the horses were seriously injured, though one jockey, Ace Lawson-Carroll, suffered a broken femur. Okubo was suspended for five weeks.

For Tyreek’s owners, the fact that Sherry’s horse kept the win and prizemoney while Tyreek was lost has been particularly hard to accept.

“There was no regard for the safety of horse or rider, and our owners feel like the industry have rewarded that jockey for the win because he took home his percentage of the prizemoney,” Abrahams said. “We’ve lost a million-dollar horse and have nothing, and he got the winning prizemoney.”

Steward processes under scrutiny

The swiftness of steward inquiries has also come under fire. Decisions are made on race day, often within hours of an incident, and without the opportunity for thorough review of precedents or broader consultation.

“When a trainer wins a race, they’ll say we never make a decision on raceday about what to do next. But (the stewards) can make a decision on an accident that day. They aren’t spending enough time to work out what is acceptable and what’s not,” Abrahams said.

Other sports operate differently. In the NRL, players placed on report are reviewed by a committee on Monday, with charges laid on Tuesday and hearings scheduled later in the week. The AFL follows a similar tribunal system. Both codes publish clear frameworks that guide penalties and provide transparency.

“Maybe the answer is to defer serious incidents to the Monday where stewards can have more time to deliberate and consider the outcome,” Abrahams said.

The lack of such a system in racing leaves owners feeling excluded.

“If there was a hearing, we weren’t invited. At the end of the day, we are the ones who have the biggest loss here and we weren’t consulted at all.”

Currently, only jockeys and trainers have appeal rights against steward decisions. Owners, even when directly impacted, have no standing.

Welfare and social licence

Racing’s social licence increasingly depends on its ability to prove it takes welfare seriously. When a horse dies on track and the rider responsible is suspended for only four weeks, it arguably undermines a strong welfare stance. The public sees the outcome and concludes that leniency, not accountability, is the standard.

Tyreek’s death is incontrovertible evidence of an animal welfare failure - a horse died as the result of on-track conduct. Yet the regulatory emphasis in New South Wales has been elsewhere.

Recently, Racing NSW required trainers to submit detailed financial records, including ATO assessments and statutory declarations, on the grounds of protecting animal welfare. The justification was that financially secure trainers are better placed to provide proper feed, staffing, and veterinary care.

Racing NSW COO Graeme Hinton explained the requirement at the time:

“We are requiring trainers to illustrate much greater financial resources as part of the licensing process, as animal welfare is our top priority. This is to ensure horses are provided with the proper nutrition and feed, and importantly have access to a vet if in pain.”

The contrast is difficult to ignore. When it comes to extracting financial records, welfare is invoked as the guiding principle. But when Tyreek was killed in a preventable incident, the penalty imposed arguably shows a lesser welfare stance.

Could this be a matter of misaligned priorities? Welfare used as a rationale for administrative measures, but not consistently enforced where it matters most - on race day, in the stewards’ room, when a horse dies from 'careless' human error.

“How can someone get three weeks for whip use and four weeks for killing a horse? Leading into the carnival… the stewards should’ve been harder on the issue,” Abrahams said.

“If we can’t pass the pub test of our social licence, we won’t have an industry.”

There are examples where decisive action has worked. The Melbourne Cup faced intense global criticism after a series of international fatalities. Racing Victoria and the VRC responded with stringent veterinary requirements, including pre-travel and pre-race scans. The measures were unpopular in some quarters but they addressed the issue: serious injuries in the Cup have since fallen sharply.

For Tyreek’s owners, the lack of an equivalent response in stewarding shows the industry has not matched words with action.

The impact on owners also raises questions about how racing manages the human side of welfare. In racing, owners are emotionally invested in the horses they own and yet when an accident or injury happens, for any reason, there is nowhere for them to go, no one to talk to, no options at all.

How are we to keep owners in racing if we can’t show that we care about them in their worst moment?

“It feels like they’ve been chewed up and spat out and the industry has moved on,” Abrahams said. “The headlines today are all about who is going to win next week. As an industry we do a poor job in discussing the negatives and how we can improve.”

For first-time owners who watched their horse die, without explanation or follow-up, the impression is lasting. Retaining participants in the sport requires more than celebrating winners.

“He was a beautiful animal, a magnificent horse. An amazing specimen with a massive engine,” Abrahams said. “We knew we had a horse with great potential… He had untapped potential. He was special, and we’ve been robbed of that now.”