海角大神

As of 3 November, the Rules of Racing have been amended聽to give the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) the right to appeal decisions made by the Disciplinary Panel. 聽Previously, only individuals charged with a breach of the Rules had the right to appeal such decisions.聽The amendment聽was recommended聽by the Rules Committee, and聽approved by the聽BHA Board聽at its meeting on 1 October on the understanding that the right would only be invoked in 鈥榚xceptional circumstances鈥�.

In contrast to other major British sports such as Football, Rugby and Tennis,聽Horseracing鈥檚 regulatory body聽did聽not聽previously聽have the right to appeal decisions of the Disciplinary Panel.聽The new聽provision聽has聽been added to the Rules of Racing in order to ensure that BHA is better placed to聽protect the sport鈥檚 integrity by having the ability to appeal decisions which could negatively impact on the聽effective聽regulation of Racing.

The right聽for BHA聽to appeal聽will be聽on similar, but narrower, grounds to those available to any other party.聽However, in the case of a BHA appeal, any聽decision to appeal must聽first be approved by at least the Chief Executive, a Regulatory Director and the Disciplinary Officer.聽It is envisaged that the lodging of an appeal would only be approved in exceptional circumstances.

BHA will indemnify the respondent聽for all reasonable costs incurred in responding to the appeal聽in the event that the respondent is successful. The Appeal Board will make the final decision on what constitutes reasonable costs.

Adam Brickell, Director of Integrity, Legal and Risk for BHA,聽explained the development:

鈥淚t is a sensible and forward-thinking step for BHA, as a modern regulator, to have the ability to appeal decisions of the Disciplinary Panel.

鈥淲hilst we consider it unlikely, it is possible that the Panel might come to a decision which may threaten BHA鈥檚 ability to regulate the sport聽effectively.聽It is correct, and in the best interests of the sport, that we should have the right to ask an Appeal Board to review such decisions.

鈥淚t is true that some regulatory bodies聽do not have this capability, but that is not a reason for BHA not to bring itself into line with those that do. Those bodies聽who聽do have such a聽right聽are better聽equipped聽to regulate their sport or industry,聽and BHA should always aim to have the most appropriate tools in its armoury in order to protect the sport鈥檚 integrity.

鈥淭his review聽has not in any way聽been driven by聽any recent聽decisions. 聽The聽lack of previous cases in relation to which聽we might have utilised a right to appeal聽should provide comfort to the sport’s participants聽that BHA will only be exercising this right in the most exceptional of circumstances.聽However, I would much rather be in the position of having an appeal right which we never use, than encounter a potentially damaging decision which we can do nothing about.

鈥淲ith the introduction of this ability comes a responsibility that it is used correctly and fairly. The fact that we will indemnify any reasonable costs incurred by the respondent, should they be successful, shows that we take聽this responsibility聽seriously.聽However, we do not think it is appropriate that we cover the costs of the respondent whatever the result of an appeal brought by BHA. 聽The聽Disciplinary Review Group聽will聽consider the financial circumstances of an individual, amongst other factors, when considering whether to appeal a decision of the Disciplinary Panel.

鈥淥verall, this should be seen as a positive and proactive step to put BHA in a better position to defend the integrity and reputation of British Racing.鈥�

The grounds for bringing an appeal would be:

1. That the reasons given are insufficient to support the decision;
2. That there was insufficient material on the basis of which a reasonable decision maker could have made the decision in question;
3. That the decision maker

a. Misconstrued,

b. Failed to apply, or

c. Wrongly applied these Rules, General Instructions or regulations which are relevant to the decision;

4. That any Disciplinary Penalty or any award, order or other sanction is so disproportionate that no reasonable decision maker could have decided upon it; or
5. That there is evidence available for the appeal which had it been available at the original hearing, would have caused the decision maker to reach a materially different decision.