The owners of Irish-trained Aintree Grand National second favourite David's Lad yesterday lost a High Court battle to enable him run in the race on April 5th.
Any hope of the horse running at Aintree now rests on the Supreme Court and whether it can be persuaded to overturn yesterday's decision.
Lawyers for the owners indicated after yesterday's High Court judgment of Ms Justice Carroll that they were considering bringing an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Ms Justice Carroll also ordered the owners to pay the costs of the High Court proceedings, which could total tens of thousands of euro, but put a 21-day stay on the costs order in the event of the appeal.
David's Lad was suspended for 42 days over his running at Naas races on February 23rd last. The trainer, Mr A.J. Martin, was fined €1,000 and the jockey, Mr Timmy Murphy, was suspended for seven race days.
The owners of the horse are: Mr Edward Moran, Templemore, Co Tipperary; his brother, Mr James Moran, Mullingar, Co Westmeath; Mr Nicholas Butterly, Rush, Co Dublin and Mr Matthew Lynch, Trim, Co Meath.
In their High Court challenge to the suspension, they argued the Turf Club was not entitled to impose any sanction on the owners because they were not guilty of any wrongdoing.
Dismissing their challenge yesterday, Ms Justice Carroll said it must not be forgotten that racing was a sport, even though for many involved it was a professional sport. There was, however, no question of the applicants' livelihoods being involved here.
It was central to the sport of racing that a horse should be run on its merits in a race. If not, as submitted by the Turf Club, the competitive element essential to the sport was lost.
Those who backed a horse lose their money. If a horse was recorded as having performed poorly in its most recent race, it may be ignored by the public with consequential impact on betting odds. It could be an advantage for a horse to have a training run in a competitive setting as part of its build-up to a major event.
If a horse gained an unfair advantage over other horses, it was unfair to permit the horse to benefit. All owners agreed to be bound by the rules of national hunt racing. It was provided in the rules that if a horse was the subject of an inquiry, the horse might be disqualified for up to 60 days. Every owner knew, or was supposed to know that rule.
Ms Justice Carroll said the disqualification of a horse under rule 14 (3) was not a punishment imposed on the owner but was a consequence arising out of the actions of the trainer and/or jockey which necessarily arose in the interests of ensuring that races were run fairly and properly.
It would make nonsense of a rule designed to keep racing fair if a horse could not be suspended unless the owner had been at fault in some way.
Every owner should know that the risk existed of suspensions if, for some reason out of their control, their horse was the subject of a stewards' inquiry.