Bryony Frost bullying case: BHA shares concerns over Robbie Dunne appeal hearing

The British Horseracing Authority says it has concerns over the handling of Robbie Dunne's appeal against a ban for bullying fellow rider Bryony Frost.

It plans to review the structure of the independent appeals board.

Dunne's ban was cut on appeal from 18 to 10 months, but there was criticism of how the case was handled.

One report said the tone of the appeal hearing was "more suited to a London gentlemen's members' club."

Another described the conduct of some of those involved in the hearing as "inappropriate and out of date".

The BHA said it required "considerable courage" for Frost to bring the case and felt the initial punishment was appropriate, although it accepted the reduced penalty.

It added: "While it is fair to point out that both sides received an opportunity to articulate their arguments before the independent appeal board, the BHA is aware of the criticisms of the tone and management of the appeal board hearing, and recognises and shares these concerns.

"A review of the appeal board structure was discussed some time prior to this hearing and the BHA will be working with the independent judicial panel chair on a review of the appeal board framework in the coming months.

"It is the BHA's view that such panels, as well as having the appropriate legal skills and experience, ought also to be appropriately diverse and inclusive at all times."

The appeal board said the behaviour of 37-year-old Dunne towards Frost, 27, had been "reprehensible and disgraceful" but reduced his ban from 18 months, with three months suspended, to 10 months.

In its written reasons, published on Thursday, it said the impact of his bullying and harassment on the wider public and the racing community was overstated by the original disciplinary panel.

Dunne had initially been found in breach of four charges of rule J19 between 13 February and 3 September 2020.

His appeal against being found guilty of conduct prejudicial to racing's integrity, proper conduct and good reputation was broadly dismissed.

But the appeal panel felt the punishment was "very severe" and that one breach of the rule, rather than the previous four, covered all the offences.