Disciplinary Panel – Integrity Issues – ��Ǵ��

Results of enquiries (Neil Mulholland and John Jenkins) heard by the Disciplinary Panel on 19 January

Lucy Tully — Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:54:47 +0000

Neil Mulholland

1.�� The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority on 19 January 2017 held an enquiry to establish whether or not Neil Mulholland, a licensed trainer, had committed a breach of Rule (C)12 of the Rules of Racing concerning his failure to check the identity of RUNASIMI RIVER from the markings shown in the horse’s passport as soon as it came into his care. ��The matter was reported to the Authority by the Veterinary Officer on duty at Warwick on 16 November 2016 who identified a number of significant discrepancies between the filly and the markings in its passport. ��Also, the microchip number did not match the one recorded in the passport, but in fact matched that of the un-named 2013 ch.f. by Generous (IRE) Ex Zaffaranni (IRE). ��The Veterinary Officer was satisfied that it was the incorrect horse and it was prevented from running.

2.�� Prior to the enquiry, Mr Mulholland had agreed that the matter could be heard in his absence. ��Also, Mr Mulholland and the BHA had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting.

3.�� The Panel noted that Mr Mulholland had stated that on 15 October 2016 he had runners at Ffos Las and he had agreed with the owner, Mrs G Davies, that she could bring the 2013 sister to a filly that he trained called INDIAN STREAM to Ffos Las and he would take the filly home to train.

4.�� The racecourse had agreed that the filly could be stabled until Mr Mulholland’s other horses had run so the horse was collected by his staff from the lorry park and put into the stables. ��The passport was looked at by the stable staff.

5.�� The passport stated that the horse was a chestnut filly called RUNASIMI RIVER by Generous x Retro’s Lady. ��Mr Mulholland checked the passport and the vaccinations at the racecourse to see that they were up to date and had a look at the filly which looked like a typical Generous (IRE) filly and not unlike INDIAN STREAM. ��Following the races the lorry would not start and as a consequence the filly arrived at Mr Mulholland’s stables after dark and was put into a stable. ��Mr Mulholland continued to train her and it was only after he took her to the races for her first run that he realised that there was a problem.

6.�� Having considered the evidence, the Panel accepted Mr Mulholland’s admission that he was in breach of Rule (C)12 and fined him £750.

John Jenkins

1.�� The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry on 19 January 2017 to consider whether or not John Jenkins, a licensed trainer, had committed a breach of Rule (C)17 of the Rules of Racing, in respect of his failure to notify the Racing Calendar Office, by noon 5 days before the horse’s next run, that RUBY LOOKER had been gelded. ��The matter was drawn to the BHA’s attention when the horse ran at Southwell on 2 January 2017.

2.�� Prior to the enquiry, Mr Jenkins had agreed that the matter could be heard in his absence. ��Also, Mr Jenkins and the BHA had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting. ��The BHA’s case was presented by Lauren Robinson.

3.�� Having considered the evidence, the Panel accepted Mr Jenkins’ admission to a breach of Rule (C)17 and fined him £200.

Notes to Editors:

1. The Panel for the enquiries was:��Philip Curl (Chair), Roger Bellamy and Peter Reynolds

Disciplinary Panel result and reasons (Jim Best)

Lucy Tully — Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:24:15 +0000

Introduction and background

1. This is the re-hearing of a Disciplinary Panel Inquiry into the running and riding of ECHO BRAVA at Plumpton on 14th December 2015 and of MISSILE MAN (IRE) at Towcester on 17th December 2015. Both horses were trained by James (Jim) Best at his yard in Lewes and both were ridden by Paul John, a Conditional Jockey attached to that yard.

2. Both rides were the subject of Stewards Enquiries. In the case of ECHO BRAVA, the Plumpton Stewards found Mr John to be in breach of Rule (B)59.4 on the basis that he had failed “to take all reasonable and permissible measures to obtain the best possible placing” [C/1]. He was suspended for 14 days from 28th December 2015 to Sunday 10th January 2016 inclusive.

3. The Stewards Enquiry into the running and riding of MISSILE MAN (IRE) at Towcester on 17th December 2015 held that the rider, Mr John, was in breach of Rule (B)59.2. This was a much more serious charge because it involved – and the local stewards so found – that Mr John had been “guilty of intentionally failing to ensure that his horse ran on its merits”. [C/2/25] They referred the matter to the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) head office because what the local stewards had found was, in ordinary language, that Mr John had been guilty of a ‘stopping’ offence: that is, they found that he had intentionally prevented it from running on its merits.

4. The BHA looked into the matter and in due course extended its investigation to include the trainer, Mr Best. Mr Best and Mr John were formally notified on 15th January 2016 that a Disciplinary Panel would consider the case [A/1/1-4]. Although there had been contact between Mr John and the BHA at least by 4th January 2016 [C/4/43A], it seems that it was somewhat later that he indicated that, despite what he had told the local stewards, he would admit that he had intentionally not ridden the horses on their merits and had done so on the instructions of Mr Best.

5. As a consequence, the hearing provisionally fixed before the Disciplinary Panel on 4th February 2016 was postponed. Mr Best was notified that he was charged with possible breaches of Rules (C)45 and (A)30 on the basis that, in each case, it was he who gave the instructions to Mr John to ride the horse as he did – that is, not on its merits. This was recorded in an email from the BHA to Mr Best, dated 4th February 2016 [A/3/28].

6. Mr Best responded to those allegations in an (A)6 response [A/3/17ff] prepared on his behalf by Jonathan Laidlaw QC, instructed by Stewart-Moore Solicitors.

7. A Disciplinary Panel of the BHA met to hear the case over 6 days between 20th February and 11th March 2016. On that occasion, as on this, Mr Laidlaw QC represented Mr Best. Mr John was separately represented (by his solicitor, Rory Mac Neice) and the BHA by Graeme McPherson QC.

8. That Disciplinary Panel comprised Matthew Lohn (Chair), Ian Stark and Roger Bellamy. At paragraph 29 of its decision [A/5/66], it recorded a finding that, in the case of each race, ECHO BRAVA and MISSILE MAN (IRE) had “intentionally not been asked for sufficient effort”. They found Mr John in breach on the basis of the admission that he made to the Panel. The Panel also found that Mr John had ridden in that way because those were Mr Best’s instructions – see paragraphs 32 to 37 of the decision. The Panel therefore found Mr Best in breach of the same charges that are the subject of this re-hearing.

9. Mr Best appealed the decision on five grounds. Only two are material to the history. The first was that Mr Lohn, Chairman of the Disciplinary Panel, had previously given advice to the BHA on unrelated matters. As such, it was contended (and conceded by the BHA at the appeal) that there was an “appearance of bias” in Mr Lohn’s role as Chairman of the Disciplinary Panel. It was also contended (Ground 2) that the Disciplinary Panel had given insufficient reasons for its decision and, in particular, had failed adequately to address the issue of Mr John’s and Mr Best’s respective credibility.

10. Both those contentions succeeded and, accordingly, the issue was whether the case should be remitted for a re-hearing under paragraph 30.2 of Schedule (A)7. The answer which the Appeal Board, chaired by Anthony Boswood QC, gave was that there should be a re-hearing which is how the matter comes to this Panel.

11. As a matter of record, Mr Best’s representatives have previously challenged the composition of the present Panel and, in particular, objected to the membership of Mr Norris QC and of Mr Nicholas Wachman, though not to that of Sir William Gage. That challenge was heard and determined by Sir William Gage sitting alone and it should suffice to say that Sir William rejected the challenges to Mr Norris QC and to Mr Wachman. There was no appeal against that decision.

This hearing: those involved and a brief summary of the evidence

12. Mr McPherson QC was initially instructed to represent the BHA at the rehearing but there were issues raised by Mr Best representatives as to Mr McPherson QC’s role generally and particularly in relation to the previous hearing. Accordingly, what we understand to be a pragmatic decision was taken by the BHA to invite Mr McPherson QC to stand down and instruct another barrister, Mr Louis Weston, to represent the BHA in his place. We record our gratitude to Mr Weston for coming into the case at a relatively late stage.

13. The Panel heard evidence over 5 days from 21st to 25th November 2016, with written and oral submissions on the last day (following which we reserved our decision). We wish also to record our thanks to all those who participated in the process.

14. The only witness that Mr Weston called in support of the BHA’s case was Mr John himself who gave evidence in person. He said that these were ‘stopping’ rides on the instructions of Mr Best. Otherwise, Mr Weston relied on the various films of the two races which he said spoke for themselves.

15. Mr Laidlaw QC began by calling Tom Morgan, a former Irish champion jockey, to give his expert opinion of the way in which ECHO BRAVA and MISSILE MAN (IRE) ran and were ridden. Essentially, Mr Morgan said that these were bad rides by an incompetent and/or unfit jockey and that, in the case of Missile Man, he said this was on a horse with an underlying physical problem which became progressively tired .

16. Mr Best gave evidence to like effect. He was critical of the jockey’s riding on each occasion and added (in the light of having heard subsequently about Mr John’s lack of sleep over the 48 hours before the Plumpton race) that he looked and must have been weak and tired (even to the extent that he could not breathe during and after the race). He said that, on each case, Mr John had failed to ride as instructed. He vehemently denied instructing the jockey to ride a ‘stopping’ race and denied that he had. Mr Best insisted he had given appropriate instructions which, had they been followed, should have enabled both horses to run on their merits.

17. We also heard oral evidence from Mr Jack Callaghan and from Mr Christopher Dillon, who were the joint owners of Missile Man. Both denied any knowledge of ‘stopping’ instructions and it is important to note that it was no part of the BHA’s case that either of them, as owners of the horses involved, had any knowledge of such instructions.

18. We heard evidence by telephone from Victor Dartnall, a racehorse trainer to whom Mr John had previously been attached as a conditional and from his Head Girl, Katie Essery. In addition, we heard oral evidence from Paul Cooley, Head Lad in Mr Best’s yard, and from Dan Carroll, a vet who had attended both horses at various times. We also accepted written evidence from Mr Jamie Moore (who had ridden MISSILE MAN (IRE) on its previous run) and from Yogi Breisner, who had schooled both ECHO BRAVA and MISSILE MAN (IRE)in accordance with Mr Best’s regular practice of sending horses that needed to learn how to jump to a man who is an acknowledged expert in that field.

The Issues, the credibility and character of Mr John and Mr Best and our decision in summary.

19. This is not a case about our interpretation or application of the Rules (though we shall set them out in full). Essentially, we consider that the case can be reduced to two issues.

20. First, we have to decide whether Mr John intentionally prevented either or both of these horses from running on their merits. In everyday language, the question in each case is whether he did or did not give them what we have called (and is known colloquially) as a ‘stopping’ ride . We unhesitatingly answer this question in the affirmative in each case: in the judgment of the Panel, these were both stopping rides.

21. The second issue follows from the first. If we decide that either or both was a ‘stopping’ ride, the question is whether Mr John did that on the instructions of Mr Best or for some other reason. In our judgment, the very strong probability is that he did so because those were Mr Best’s instructions.

22. We say more about the evidence and the factual history below. However, we make it clear at this stage that, if we had to resolve both issues solely on the evidence of Mr John, our doubts as to his credibility are such that we would be unlikely to have accepted his account absent compelling corroboration, by which we mean supporting evidence from an independent source.

23. We say that because we are satisfied that, in a number of respects, Mr John can be shown not to have told the truth and/or to be unreliable which is the general point made at paragraphs 30-73 of the helpful closing submissions of Mr Laidlaw QC on behalf of Mr Best.

24. We make allowances for the fact that Mr John’s mother was very ill for much of the period described by a previous employer, Mr Dartnall, and whilst he was with Mr Best, and that Mr John understandably wanted to help and be with her. But we accept that neither Mr Dartnall nor Ms Essery trusted him.

25. There are some conflicts of evidence between Mr John and Mr Best which we consider we need not resolve. For example, when they were first in contact, we think (without deciding this) that Mr Best could well have said something about ‘not stopping horses anymore’ when first they spoke if (for good reason or bad) Mr John understood that to be the yard’s reputation. We do not find that incredible. On the other hand, we think Mr John was not telling the truth when he told Mr Best that he did not realise he might have trouble with his licence or claimed that he was now a ‘freelance conditional’.

26. Mr John must also have lied to both sets of stewards if he is telling us the truth. It may also be that, in some respects, his memory is inaccurate or even that he has embellished parts of his account (such as in relation to the ‘stopping’ instructions as regards going short or running the horse into the bottom of the hurdles or to finish 33 lengths behind the winner ). He may also not be right about exactly when or where he was given the ‘stopping’ instructions.

27. We also accept that Mr John has been less than frank about his lifestyle and previous history of drinking. We note that Mr Cooley, like Mr Dartnall and Ms Essery, regarded him as someone whose word could not always be relied upon and we therefore treat his evidence with some caution. In fact, we consider that the reality is that Mr John was a difficult, argumentative employee who very often avoided the kind of chores which an enthusiastic conditional jockey, anxious to make his way, would have undertaken without complaint.

28. We heard about his riding history and ability. Whatever reservations one might have as to his attitude, with the exception of the ride on KARL MARX (IRE) at Wincanton on 14th February 2015 (when, as we accept and Mr John admits, he simply fell off having tried to lose a ridiculous amount of weight in a very short time), we consider that he was a very competent jockey . Further, we saw no sign that he was weak or unfit in the rides of which we have seen film. Nor do we accept that it has been established that he failed to familiarise himself with courses before a race. We certainly find no support for that assertion in the ride he gave MOTHER MELDRUM (IRE)at Exeter on 1st January 2015 when he nearly took the wrong course as he rounded the last bend.

29. Notwithstanding what has been said about Mr John in an attempt to undermine his credibility, Mr Best must, however, recognise that he continued to support Mr John until the latter left his yard on the night of 21st December 2015. Whatever reservations he may have had about Mr John’s character, attitude, fitness and ability did not prevent him putting up Mr John in the two races which are the subject of this hearing as well as on two other horses in two further races at Lingfield on 21st December, INCH WING (IRE) (which did run) and KIAMA BAY (IRE) (which was withdrawn).

30. In each case, these were horses owned by important supporters of the yard and it seems to us fundamentally unlikely that Mr Best would have chosen Mr John to ride them if, at that stage, he honestly regarded Mr John as incompetent, weak, dishonest and unfit to be a jockey. We make every allowance for Mr Best’s apparent generosity of spirit in ‘wanting to give the lad every chance’ (we paraphrase) but, even so, the fact that Mr Best continued to use Mr John throughout this period and that it was Mr John not Mr Best who broke off the relationship is, we think, telling.

31. Dealing as we are with our assessment of the only two witnesses who can actually know the whole truth as the instructions given by the trainer to the jockey, we also record that Mr John was not alone in being a witness about whom we were cautious. In our view, Mr Best was also unpersuasive at various times. A vivid example was when he claimed to see evidence of Mr John’s weakness and tiredness in the Plumpton ride. In our judgment, the films entirely contradict that contention.

32. Another was Mr Best’s attempt to explain what he did after the decision of the Towcester Stewards. As we have already recorded, he not only declared Mr John to ride 2 horses for the yard on the following Monday (21st December) but, in one case, he put Mr John up on KIAMA BAY (IRE) for one of the very same owners (Mr Dillon) who was the co-owner of the very horse (Missile Man) that the Towcester Stewards had found Mr John to have stopped: yet, according to the evidence of both Mr Best and Mr Dillon, not a word had been said by the trainer to the owner about that very serious finding.

33. In short, however, we resolve this case not by a comparison of the competing qualities of Mr John and Mr Best as witnesses – noting that each was articulate and persuasive as well as resolute in sticking to the accounts diametrically opposed to each other as they are. Instead, for reasons we have already explained, we look to see whose account of the race is supported by the evidence of the films (and opinions as to what those films show).

34. Once we have decided if either or both were ‘stopping’ rides, we shall consider where the inherent probabilities lie as regards whether Mr John rode like that for his own reasons or because of instructions from some unidentified third party or whether those instructions came from Mr Best.

35. As we explained earlier in this section, our decision on the two main issues is, first, that these were both ‘stopping’ rides and, second, that it was Mr Best who gave the instructions to stop the horses as Mr John did. The remainder of this decision is intended to explain further how we came to those conclusions.

The Burden and Standard of Proof

36. The Rules of Racing provide at Schedule (A)6, paragraph 16, that:
“Where any fact or matter is required to be established to the satisfaction of the Authority, the standard of proof shall be the civil standard, which is to say the standard applied in the civil courts of England in a dispute between private Persons concerning a matter of comparative seriousness to the subject matter of the enquiry.”

37. That provision was considered by an Appeal Board of the BHA in the appeals of Maurice Sines and Others and we have a copy of the decision of that Panel, which comprised Sir William Gage, Lord Rathcreedan and Anthony Mildmay-White on 10th April 2012.

38. We follow the approach of the Appeal Board in the Sines case as per paragraphs 38 to 48 of that Decision. It derives from the well-known case of Re B (children) [2008] UKHL 35 and has been followed in subsequent cases, including Re L (children) [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam), Re D (children) [2012] EWCA Civ 1584 and Re X (children) [2015] EWHC 3651 (Fam).

39. From the submissions of counsel in the present case, we understand the approach of the Appeal Board in the Sines case to be accepted so the foregoing is also uncontroversial. We turn, therefore, to applying that test of the balance of probabilities to the issues in this case.

40. Taking what we regard as the first key issue, namely whether the horse or horses were intentionally stopped, we doubt that applying a “balance of probabilities” helps us very much at all although that is the test which we would certainly have to apply if we had any doubt on the issue. Essentially, we judge this on the basis of our own experience and in light of all the evidence that we have heard. That includes what we see in the films (to which we have paid very close attention) and taking account of the descriptions and opinions of those who have given evidence to us.

41. It is in relation to the second issue, namely, if the horse or horses were stopped, whether this was done on the instructions of Mr Best, that the assessment of probabilities becomes rather more important.

The Relevant Rules

42. “Rule (B) 58. General requirement for a horse to be run on its merits and obtain best possible placing

58.1 Every horse which runs in a race shall be run and be seen to be run on its merits (see Rule (D) 45 (riding to achieve the best possible placing)).
58.2 No owner, Registered Agent of a Recognised Company or Trainer may

58.2.1 give any instructions which if obeyed could or would prevent a horse from obtaining the best possible placing, or
58.2.2 prevent or try to prevent in any way any horse from obtaining the best possible placing.

58.3 No Rider or any other Person may in any way prevent or try to prevent any horse from obtaining the best possible placing.

Rule (B) 59. Failure to run a horse on its merits

59.1 A Rider of a horse shall be taken to have contravened the requirement imposed on him by Rule 58.1 in each of the following cases.
59.2 Case 1 is where the Stewards or the Authority consider that the Rider has intentionally failed to ensure that his horse is run on its merits.
59.3 Case 2 is where the Stewards or the Authority consider

59.3.1 that there was no intentional disregard of the requirement that the horse be run on its merits, but
59.3.2 that the horse has not achieved its best possible placing because the Rider
59.3.2.1 failed to ride out approaching the finish on a horse that would have been placed first, second, third, fourth or in any other placing for which there is prize money.
59.3.2.2 mistook the race distance and either began riding a finish too early or failed to ride a finish,
59.3.2.3 took the wrong course, or
59.3.2.4 asked for an effort or made some other permissible manoeuvre too late as a result of serious misjudgement or inattention.

59.4 Case 3 is where, in circumstances not falling within Case 1 or 2, the Stewards or the Authority consider that the Rider has failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure his horse is run on its merits.
59.5 For the purposes of this Rule

59.5.1 placing means any placing given to the horse by the Judge from and including first place to last place, and
59.5.2 if a dead-heat occurs as a result of any of the circumstances in Case 1, 2 or 3 it will be regarded as the equivalent of not achieving the best possible placing.

Rule (C) 45. Duty to secure the best possible placing

45.1 A Trainer must give, or cause to be given, to the Rider of any horse trained by him such instructions as are necessary to ensure the horse runs on its merits.
45.2 Instructions must, among other things, cover the use of the whip when employing an Apprentice Jockey or Conditional Jockey.
45.3 A Trainer must not send any horse to race with a view to schooling or conditioning the horse.
45.4 A Trainer shall be liable to Disciplinary Action

45.4.1 in the event of any failure to comply with Paragraph 45.1, 45.2 or 45.3;
45.4.2 in the event that an instruction is given to the Rider which, if obeyed could or would lead to a contravention of Rule (B)54 (careless or improper riding) with regard to misuse of the whip; or
45.4.3 in the event that the Rider is found to have intentionally failed to ensure that his horse is run on its merits, including any case where the Rider was found to have been schooling or conditioning the horse.

45.5 The Stewards or the Authority may decide not to take Disciplinary Action against a Trainer under Paragraph 45.4.3 where the Trainer satisfies the Authority

45.5.1 that the Rider was given appropriate instructions under Paragraph 45.1, but
45.5.2 that he failed to comply with them.

Rule (D) 45. Riding to achieve the best possible placing

45.1 A Rider must

45.1.1 ride his horse throughout the race in such a way that he can be seen to have made a genuine attempt to obtain from his horse timely, real and substantial efforts to achieve the best possible placing, and
45.1.2 take and be seen to take all other reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race, however it develops, to ensure the horse is given a full opportunity to achieve the best possible placing.

45.2 For the purposes of Paragraph 45.1, whilst it is not necessary for the Rider to use the whip, the Rider must give his horse at least a hands and heels ride.
45.3 But the Rider must pull up the horse where

45.3.1 it is lame or injured, or
45.3.2 it would be contrary to the horse’s welfare to continue riding out because the horse

45.3.2.1 has no more to give or is ‘tailed off’ through fatigue, or
45.3.2.2 has a problem which is materially affecting its performance.

45.4 Where the horse is lame or injured, the Rider must dismount immediately and must not ride to a finish.

Rule (A) 30. Conduct prejudicial to horseracing

30.1 A Person must not act in any manner which the Authority considers to be prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct or good reputation of horseracing in Great Britain.
30.2 For the purposes of Paragraph 30.1, any Person who

30.2.1 in Great Britain, engages in bloodstock transactions or deals in racehorses (including horses intended for racing), and
30.2.2 in so doing, fails to observe any provision of The Bloodstock Industry Code of Practice.

may be taken to have contravened a requirement imposed on him by Paragraph 30.1, whether or not he is otherwise subject to these Rules.

30.3 A Person must not in connection with horseracing in Great Britain associate with

30.3.1 a Disqualified Person; or
30.3.2 a Person who is excluded under Rule 64 from any premises licensed by the Authority

unless he obtains the prior permission of the Authority.

30.4 Paragraphs 30.1 to 30.3 apply whether or not a Person’s conduct constitutes a contravention of any other provision of these Rules.
30.5 The Bloodstock Industry Code of Practice for the time being in force is set out in Schedule 4.”

Race Details

43. ECHO BRAVA, owned by Mr Mark Benton, was a 5 year old grey gelding which ran in the 12.10 ( a Novices Hurdle over just under 2 miles) at Plumpton. The going was soft and Mr Best had another runner in the race, RED ORATOR ridden by Andrew Thornton.

44. The Racing Post [C/1/10] records the following in relation to that ECHO BRAVA which finished fifth, beaten 23 ½ lengths. The race reader writes that it was “well in touch, steadily lost place after fifth and in rear next, stayed on in quite taking style before two out, likely improver.” The notes also say that “Echo Brava, rated 85 in his last Flat race, stays 1m 6f on the level. This was a nice introduction to hurdling and he should make his mark, particularly if given a stiffer test of stamina. His rider was given a 14-day suspension for failing to take all reasonable and permissible measures to obtain the best possible placing”. It was ECHO BRAVA’s first run over hurdles.

45. The record of the Stewards Enquiry is at C1/1-9. Mr John told the stewards that the horse “hung and was very keen” and said that his instructions were to sit “third and fourth and ride the race from there” and that he asked his horse for an effort “halfway down the back and turning in for home”. Mr Best told the stewards that he was disappointed with the ride but he did not doubt the jockey’s account, said to have been given by Mr John when unsaddling, that the horse had been “keen” “hanging” and could not do anything. Mr Best went on to say [C/1/7] that he was not “satisfied because, look, look, Paul John says the horse is hanging badly and he’s clearly found it difficult to ride the horse but, no, I wanted the horse jumping off in about third, fourth, ridden handy and I was hoping he’d be bang there throughout and have a decent chance.” He concluded that the jockey had told him that he’d been “unable to keep in his position … it’s disappointing”.

46. At the end of the Enquiry, the Plumpton stewards found Mr John in breach of Rule (B) 59.4 in that he was guilty of “failing to take all reasonable and permissible measures to obtain the best possible placing.” He was, as we have noted earlier, suspended for 14 days.

47. MISSILE MAN (IRE) was one of two runners that Mr Best had in the 2:40 at Towcester on Thursday 17th December 2015 (a Maiden Hurdle over just under 2 miles). Again, the going was soft.

48. Both horses had a degree of common ownership. GENEROUS JACK (IRE), owned by Jack Callaghan, was ridden by Daryl Jacob. Missile Man, owned jointly by Mr Callaghan and Mr Dillon, was a 6 year old gelding and it was that which was ridden by Mr John. This was the horse’s second run over hurdles and its previous history is conveniently set out at C/2/29. On its previous outing, at Plumpton on 30th November 2015, MISSILE MAN (IRE) had been ridden by Jamie Moore.

49. MISSILE MAN (IRE) finished 13th of 14 at Towcester. The Racing Post noted [C/2/27] that the horse had been “prominent, lost place 5th, steadied before 2 out”. The more lengthy commentary said that “Missile Man, a stablemate of Generous Jack, was prominent early on but he lost his place and then wasn’t given a hard time to try and get back into it. The Stewards held an enquiry into his running because he appeared to be ridden tenderly throughout. The Stewards interviewed the rider and the trainer. They also received a report from the Veterinary Officer who stated that the gelding was lame on its off-hind on second examination. The rider stated that his instructions were to jump off and be handy and be on the outside on the better ground. He added that he had asked the gelding for an effort in the back straight, and that Missile Man had made a couple of minor mistakes when jumping the hurdles. He further added that he was pushing the gelding, which became tired in the ground. The trainer stated that he was dissatisfied with the ride and thought his jockey should have made the running as the gelding wants further. Having heard their evidence and viewed recordings of the race the Stewards found the rider in breach of Rule (B) 59.2 and guilty of intentionally failing to ensure that his horse ran on its merits. They referred the matter to the Head Office of the British Horseracing Authority”.

50. The record of the Stewards Enquiry is at C/2/16-25 and includes the following additional and potentially relevant note of what the Veterinary Officer actually said having examined the horse and joined the Enquiry. She (Ms Hall) said “I examined MISSILE MAN (IRE) at 2.50, so it’s immediately post-race. He had a heartrate of 90, respiratory rate of 72 and when I trotted him up he was quite just reluctant to trot. He could trot, he was sound but looked leg weary. He was then sampled, was washed off and recovered. Had a chance to recover, sampled and then I examined him again at 3.15 when he was just waiting in the sampling unit. He recovered so that his heartrate was 58, his respiratory rate was still 56 and when I trotted him up this time he was Grade 2 out of 5 lame on his off-hind. He could trot; he trotted better, he’s recovered but now he’s noticeably lame right hind.”

51. Having heard that explanation, Mr Best, who had previously been critical of his jockey, expressed relief that a lame horse had not been made to run harder or faster. Nevertheless, there was no suggestion that Mr John had been aware that the horse was lame and indeed said exactly the opposite. What Mr John actually said to the stewards, in answer to a question about whether he at any time felt the horse to be lame, was in the negative. Rather, he said that he “just thought he was getting tired … I was holding him together. He was a big, gangly horse. It’s his second run over hurdles. He’s only had 5 runs in his life. He was tired. He’s a big, old horse; he’s out on his feet. You can see he is out on his feet. I am holding him together. Now he’s lame, maybe that’s why he’s all over the place like that … no, I never felt like I [presumably he] was lame: never thought he was unsound”.

52. Immediately following the Inquiry, the Stewards told Mr John and Mr Best that they were finding Mr John in breach of Rule (B)59.2 and were therefore referring the running and riding of the horse to Head Office.

53. The following day, apparently at 11:02am, the BHA published the Towcester Stewards’ Report [C/2/15] which recorded that the Stewards had “found the rider in breach of Rule (B) 59.2 and guilty of intentionally failing to ensure that his horse ran on its merits”.

Factual background up until 13th December 2015

54. Although we have given some of these details already, we shall set out a little more of the relevant history now as the background to our findings of fact.
55. Paul John was born on 28th November 1991. He was a Conditional Jockey having been granted his licence in February 2014 after riding as an amateur with an ‘A’ and a ‘B’ permit in Point-to-Points. As we have already observed, everybody who participated in this Inquiry appears to agree (and that includes the members of the Panel) that Mr John was capable of riding well or very well. Indeed, he had ridden several winners and, from what we have seen in the various films we have looked at, we think he rides tidily and with good balance.

56. Nevertheless, there is no getting away from the fact that he has a record as a Conditional that is significantly more chequered than most. He was originally attached to the yard of Henry Daly in Ludlow and from there he moved to Mr Dartnall’s yard and, having fallen out with Mr Dartnall, he became attached to the yard of Mark Gillard and, as such, was granted a Conditional Licence from 5th February 2015 which was valid until 4th February 2016 [C/7/97].

57. We do not intend to devote any further attention to the history of Mr John’s time with any or all of those three trainers. We have already said we find he could be rude, difficult and uncooperative and that some of those who knew him felt he could not always be trusted to tell the truth. Even his riding record was not unblemished: as we say, he made a bad mistake at Wincanton and a lesser one at Exeter. It may be that there were times when he stayed up late, drank too much and generally did not keep himself fit for the job. We accept that even at Mr Best’s yard there were times when he would not do as he was told and did stupid things and, at least to more old-fashioned eyes, did not adequately ‘muck in’. Nevertheless, there is no escaping the fact that Mr Best must have thought sufficiently well of him to give him rides.

58. An important aspect of this part of the history is that, by the time Mr John joined Mr Best’s yard in August 2015, his Conditional Jockey’s licence was under real threat. When he joined his previous trainer, Mr Gillard, in February 2015 [C/7/97] he was told that he was expected “to stay licenced with Mr Gillard until at least February 2016 and that it [the BHA] would only consider a future application for a Conditional Jockey’s Licence prior to this date in the event of exceptional circumstances”.
59. But Mr John did leave Mr Gillard and, on the recommendation of his agent, Dave Roberts , joined Mr Best in August 2015 . We accept Mr Best’s evidence that Mr John was cavalier in his attitude to the terms of his Conditional Jockey’s Licence and said that he was a “freelance” Conditional when, as everybody knows, there is no such thing. We also accept that Mr Best made every effort to obtain the licence for him, as evidenced by [C/7/98ff].

60. On 30th October 2015, Mr John was told that he had his licence. The letter is at [C/7/116] and Mr John’s attention was drawn to his “licensing history” and he was again told that if he were to leave this new trainer (Mr Best) within 12 months, a further application would only be considered in the light of “exceptional circumstances”.

61. The effect of that history, which includes exchanges between Mr Best and Mr John and the BHA until the grant of his licence on the 30th October 2015, is that Mr John really was being given a last chance by Mr Best.

62. Despite the issues with Mr John’s conduct and attitude about which Mr Best and Mr Cooley gave evidence, the fact remains that Mr John continued to work in the yard and was put up in races for several of the yard’s owners. According to the Schedule (A) 6 form, at [A/2/6], Mr John had “seven of his 14 rides in the current season… from Mr Best”. In that case, two of the last three rides (and those with which this Panel is immediately concerned) were those on ECHO BRAVA and MISSILE MAN (IRE) on the 14th and 17th of December 2015 respectively.

The Riding Instructions for ECHO BRAVA on 14th December 2015

63. The events leading immediately up to the 17th December are very much in issue between Mr Best and Mr John. Mr John’s account, set out at paragraphs 17ff of his witness statement [A/2/10], is that it was on the Sunday that Mr Best called him into the office and was told to stop the horse: the actual words that Mr John says Mr Best used were that Mr Best wanted him to “jump off right up there, and when you pass the stands, start slowly coming back. Finish at least 33 lengths back”. We have made reference to the terms of that instruction already.

64. It was put to Mr John that not only is that account fundamentally incredible but also that it was contradicted by evidence from an owner, Mr Dillon who was at the yard that day. We do not think that Mr Dillon was doing anything other than telling the truth, but we find that there was an opportunity at some stage on the Sunday for Mr Best to have given those instructions to Mr John, had he wished to do so. We certainly do not accept Mr Best’s suggestion that it would be inherently unlikely that a Conditional Jockey would be given any sorts of instructions about how to ride the horse so long (plus or minus 24 hours) before the race.

65. We say that for two reasons. First, we would expect any Conditional Jockey to be interested in what he was riding in the near future and we cannot imagine that any sensible trainer might not want to give him some sort of warning in advance, whether for reasons of weight or for just general preparation. That the instructions might need to be reviewed the following day in the light of changed circumstances does not make that implausible. Second, whilst there is an obvious inconsistency between the instructions Mr John says he was given on the Sunday and those he was subsequently given on the Monday, that is precisely what one would expect if the ‘stopping’ instructions were given on the Sunday and carried the implication that a second set of apparently genuine instructions would be given on the following day, particularly if the owner was not in on the arrangement .

Events of 14th to 21st December 2015

66. There are very different accounts of the background facts surrounding the two races which we shall set out before we deal with the races themselves (by reference to the films and the description of the rides given to us by Mr John, Mr Morgan and Mr Best). We record this and later events as part of the history but observe that, whilst the investigation of these issues occupied some considerable time, in the end this is all peripheral because what really matters is our judgment of Mr John’s riding in the races themselves.

67. We do not hold it against Mr Best that he was not more critical of his jockey in front of the Stewards. We do not consider that there is anything sinister in that. Rather, we think it is entirely consistent with a trainer who did not wish to criticise his jockey too openly in public. We think it is equally consistent with what he said was his attitude to Mr John, which was to give a young man a chance.

68. There is disagreement as to what happened in the evening after the Plumpton race. According to Mr John, at paragraph 37 [A/2/12], he sat down with Mr Best and his brother Tom (Best) after evening stables and they took him through the race and showed him how he could have made a better job of stopping the horse – that is, by doing it less conspicuously. According to Mr Best, they engaged in no such analysis.

69. This kind of conflict of evidence is particularly difficult to resolve . There is some evidence to suggest that there was no opportunity for such a discussion which, if correct, would cast doubt on an element of Mr John’s account. However, we regard it as surprising that Tom Best was not called to support his brother’s version of events. In addition, we would be astonished if a conscientious employer – as Mr Best would portray himself – would not have wanted to take his Conditional Jockey carefully through a ride for which the Plumpton Stewards had suspended him for 14 days.

70. So, whilst there are competing analyses, we resolve this particular issue, like other issues of fact, by working back from whether we decide that the Plumpton race was indeed a stopping ride and, if so, whether we conclude that this must have been done with the knowledge, connivance or on the instructions of Mr Best.

71. As we know, Mr Best did in fact put Mr John up on MISSILE MAN (IRE) at Towcester on 17th December 2015 and we accept the evidence of Missile Man’s co-owner, Mr Callaghan, that he did so at Mr Callaghan’s suggestion.

72. Here too there is an issue between Mr John and Mr Best as to what, if any, ‘stopping’ instructions could have been given in relation to that ride. Mr John’s account is at paragraph 40ff of his witness statement [A/2/13]. It is said both that no opportunity can have arisen for giving such instructions and that the account Mr John actually gives of having been called in by Jim and Tom Best on the Wednesday cannot be true as he (Mr John) would never have had any reason to be pushing the feed cart.
73. Again, we note that Tom Best, the other person alleged (by Mr John) to have been present when these instructions were given, was not called to confirm or deny it. However, we think this issue is also best resolved by working back from whether in fact he stopped MISSILE MAN (IRE) and, if so, whether it is likely to have been done on Mr Best’s instructions.

74. We find nothing surprising about Mr Callaghan’s choice of Mr John as the jockey to ride MISSILE MAN (IRE) at Towcester on 17th December 2015. It does not indicate that he was complicit in the giving of ‘stopping’ instructions. Indeed, we repeat that we think he was not. Nor is the fact that Mr Best did not raise any objection to that suggestion indicative of anything. It is perfectly plausible that he might be given a further chance.

75. The fact that MISSILE MAN (IRE) had been lame after its previous run at Plumpton on 30th November 2015 and had only just finished a course of treatment is, in our view, nothing to the point notwithstanding the BHA’s arguments to the contrary. Equally, we see nothing sinister in the horse running “so soon” after that course of treatment had been concluded and we very much prefer Mr Best’s explanation that it was good to get another run into the horse sooner rather than later.

76. We can also understand why the Towcester race might well have been regarded as suitable for the horse, given that the ground was likely to be soft, it is a testing track and Missile Man’s stamina might well have come into play to advantage had it been running on its merits. But, on either view of the facts, it made sense to run it then and there.

77. We accept that Mr John, Mr Callaghan and Mr Best travelled up to Towcester together. We attach little attention to what was or was not said going up to the races in the car. What is, in our judgment, more significant is what was said (or not said) after the Stewards had found the jockey guilty of stopping the horse.

78. According to Mr Callaghan, he was unaware that there had been the Stewards’ finding on the way home. That may be true, unlikely as it sounds. However, Mr Callaghan accepts that he reads the Racing Post and it will have been, we have no doubt, a matter of very obvious interest to everybody concerned that the Towcester Stewards had found the rider of his horse “guilty of intentionally failing to ensure” that it ran on its merits. We are sure it would, similarly, have been a matter of considerable interest to him and to anybody else connected with the yard that the issue had been referred to the BHA. Yet he and Mr Best apparently said and did nothing about it.
79. We make some allowance for the fact that the racecourse vet had found MISSILE MAN (IRE) to be lame after the race, but we do not think that that can possibly explain that Mr Callaghan did not hear from Mr Best about what had happened in the Stewards’ Room before the end of that weekend and we are confident Mr Callaghan must have heard about it anyway. In so far as he says otherwise, we think his recollection is unreliable.

80. We also find it frankly incredible that Mr Dillon remained in ignorance of those same matters in circumstances where Mr John was due to ride his horse, KIAMA BAY (IRE) at Lingfield on Monday, 21st December. If Mr Dillon was telling us the truth about his unawareness of what had happened at Towcester, it is inexplicable that Mr Best did not speak to him about what had happened. We simply do not believe Mr Best when he says that he thought that the whole issue would blow over which is why he did not mention it. As far as we are concerned, any competent trainer would definitely have wanted to tell two important owners that a jockey had been found guilty of intentionally ‘stopping’ a horse, particularly when one of those owners actually owned the horse that had been stopped (MISSILE MAN (IRE)– Mr Callaghan) and the other, Mr Dillon was the co-owner of the same horse and was going to see Mr John jocked up on another of his horses, KIAMA BAY (IRE), at Lingfield on Monday 21st December.

81. Mr John did ride one of the two horses, INCH WING (IRE), on Monday, 21st December 2015 at Lingfield. Given the heavy ground, Mr Best withdrew the second horse, KIAMA BAY (IRE).

82. According to Mr John, after racing that night he went back to the yard and spoke to Paul Struthers (Chief Executive of the Professional Jockeys Association) and to his mother, saying that he was intending to leave the yard. We did not hear evidence from Mr Struthers but it seems to be common ground that Mr John did in fact leave the yard that night and decided to go home. He says (at paragraph 61 of his Witness Statement – [A/2/15]) that he called another trainer (Richard Woollacott) and asked if he had a job. He rode out there the next day and the following morning (we are now close to Christmas) says that he received a text from his agent, Dave Roberts, to the effect that Mr Best “desperately” wanted him back and that he would “back” him. According to Mr John, he declined that offer (in response to Mr Roberts) and he also declined to speak to Mr Best when the latter tried to call him.

83. We should note that we have no evidence to corroborate or to contradict that part of Mr John’s account and we do not think it appropriate (nor useful) to make any finding about it.

21st December 2015 to 31st January 2016

84. It is therefore common ground that Mr John left the yard three or four days before Christmas but, whereas Mr John said it was because he was appalled by what he had been asked to do and did not want to be put in the same situation again, Mr Best said he was just shirking his duties. Mr Best suggests that the real reason was that Mr John wanted to be away for Christmas and was unwilling to fit in with whatever arrangements the stable might wish to make for a busy period in racing even though opportunities often arise for a Conditional Jockey on Boxing Day.

85. We consider that Mr John’s account of the reasons for his actions is more likely to be true notwithstanding he did not share this explanation with the BHA until they contacted him in the New Year. We understand that the BHA’s investigation was proceeding during this period. At some stage, Mr John must have decided to change his story from what he had told the Plumpton and the Towcester Stewards to an acceptance that he had deliberately stopped both of those horses and he went so far as to say that he had done that on the instructions of Mr Best.

86. Notwithstanding our reservations about the terms of the negotiations between Mr John and the BHA and how the process was managed , we consider that Mr John is to be given credit for his willingness to admit his guilt and to identify the trainer as responsible for giving stopping instructions which he carried out. We also find that he is telling the truth when he said he wanted to ‘look himself in the mirror’ by acknowledging what he had done.

87. Mr Best’s case is that Mr John had left the yard just to go home for Christmas and that the later attempt to claim that he had in fact stopped the horses and had done so on Mr Best’s instructions was a strategy designed to curry favour with the BHA and constitute ‘exceptional circumstances’ that might enable him to keep his Conditional licence .

88. At first sight, this might seem fanciful. If, as Mr Best insists, these were not stopping rides, then Mr John’s admission of guilt would be likely to make things worse rather than better. But that has to be qualified by considering the possibility that Mr John made what (on Mr Best’s case) was an unnecessary admission of guilt because he knew that, if he did so and accused Mr Best, he would be favourably treated (notwithstanding the damage to his personal reputation).

89. The first relevant document in that sequence is an internal BHA email of 4th January 2016 [C/4/43A]. Mr John was represented by Rory Mac Neice (a Partner in Ashfords Solicitors) and by Paul Struthers of the PJA. It is apparent that by that stage Mr John had it in mind saying “something about his general experiences at the yard rather than specifically the Towcester race”.

90. By 19th January, we see from [C/4/43C]) that Mr John was evidently prepared to go further. We can also see that he wanted to know how he might be treated in relation to penalties: to quote the relevant section in the page, we see that the BHA record of a conversation (Without Prejudice) with Mr Mac Neice is that Mr Mac Neice wanted to know the “BHA’s position… re penalty” in circumstances where “evidence vs someone else [which] also incriminate[s] him”.

91. Mr Mac Neice wrote on 27th January 2016 [C/4/44A] saying it was “fundamental that we know the BHA’s clear position by the end of this week at the very latest”. That email follows another earlier the same day which we have at [C/4/44B].

92. A significant conversation evidently took place between Mr Mac Neice and Mr McPherson QC on Friday, 29th January 2016. The precise contents of the telephone conversation may not themselves be important and we have not heard what they were. However, we record in full Mr McPherson’s email of 31st January 2016 which refers to and confirms whatever had been discussed on the Friday.

“Subject: FW: Confirmation of Friday’s conversation
From: Graeme McPherson
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2016 11:09 AM
To: Mac Neice, Rory (R.MacNeice@ashfords.co.uk)
Subject: Confirmation of Friday’s conversation

Dear Rory

As I indicated I would at the end of Friday’s WP telephone conversation, I am emailing to confirm the position that the BHA intends to adopt as regards the appropriate penalty for Paul John on the basis that (1) he is intending to plead guilty to the 2 alleged breaches of Rule (B)59.2, and (2) his evidence as to why he rode the horses as he did at Plumpton and Towcester will be as you have previously indicated i.e. because Mr Best had instructed him to ride the horses other than on their merits.

On that basis the BHA would not be suggesting to the Panel that disqualification would be an appropriate penalty for Mr John. The BHA’s position would be (1) that the breaches should be categorised under d), e) or f) in the Guide to Procedures and Penalties (2) that in the ordinary course of events the appropriate penalty would be a suspension of a jockey’s licence, but (3) that since Mr John does not currently hold a licence, the appropriate period for any suspension (i.e. whatever suspension the Panel would otherwise have been imposed) should be replaced by a period of the same duration for which the Licensing Committee should not grant him a licence.

The BHA do not intend to be specific as to what actual period of suspension is/might be appropriate for each breach by Mr John or for the breaches viewed collectively. Instead, the Panel’s attention will be drawn to the entry point and range for the breaches and the guidance notes for dealing with a first and second offence. The BHA will submit that the gap of only 3 days between the two offences should be considered an aggravating feature. The BHA may also be able to be positively supportive of certain submissions that you might make in mitigation on behalf of Mr John (rather than simply neutral), although that is something that we can discuss closer to the time once you are in a position to identify more precisely what you might be saying in that regard.

I hope that accurately reflects our discussion. Do give me a call during the week if you want a word about anything.

Kind regards,

�Ұ��𳾱�”

93. Unsurprisingly, that email was the focus of considerable attention here as it was in the course of the hearing in front of Mr Lohn and at the appeal against his decision. Viewed from the perspective of Mr Best’s side, it is characterised as a “deal” whereby Mr John had the expectation that he would be favourably treated by the BHA in terms of their presentation of the case to the Disciplinary Panel in return for giving evidence implicating Mr Best. That, it is said, is a reason to doubt whether Mr John is telling the truth because it gives him a motive to lie.

Our View as to the “Deal”

94. We find that a ‘deal’ is the correct way to describe this arrangement, especially in context and consider it is relevant to our assessment of Mr John’s credibility. That is because it is open to the interpretation that, in giving evidence against Mr Best, Mr John was, in effect, keeping his side of a bargain, expecting to be favourably treated by the disciplinary authorities if he did so.

95. Moreover, we think it is also fair to suggest, as Mr Laidlaw QC does, that Mr John was in fact leniently treated since, as a consequence of that arrangement, he has been able to apply for and has been granted a Category B Amateur’s Licence. That is of value to him in his new role as someone running the family farm, breaking in a few horses, and probably running some of them in point-to-points with the option of riding them himself as an amateur under NH Rules. We also accept that the value and importance of the deal continued during the summer when Mr John obtained his B licence and may even have some value to him today in keeping him on the right side of Racing’s Regulator.

96. Whilst this ‘deal’ is clearly relevant to our assessment of his credibility, it does not necessarily do it substantial harm. Standing back from these arrangements, and whatever our view as to the appropriateness of the exchanges which took place, the fact remains that Mr John – notwithstanding that he was implicating Mr Best – was also acknowledging his guilt of a very much more serious offence than having ridden badly. Even though Mr John received what we regard as lenient treatment, he nevertheless exposed himself to the risk of harsh penalties as well as making an admission which was profoundly harmful to his reputation by admitting that he had actually stopped the horses.

97. It is not inconceivable that Mr John would be prepared to do that in the circumstances, even though he had really only ridden badly and/or when unfit, but we find that it is extremely unlikely that he would admit ‘stopping’ horses if he had not in fact done so . When we assess likelihoods, we cannot escape the conclusion that if, in fact, the jockey admitted ‘stopping’ the horses, that is probably because he had done so, at least in the absence of any other plausible motive.

98. We conclude this section by making two observations about the ‘deal’.

99. First, whether the BHA should make such an offer through its Disciplinary Officer and/or lawyers instructed to present its case is a question of policy on which we do not need nor do we intend to comment further not least because it has not been the subject of detailed argument in the present case.

100. However, our second observation is that this ‘deal’ was plainly very material to an important issue in the case, namely, Mr John’s credibility. We are aware that the Protocol at A/4/48 states that any “correspondence or communications between the parties shall be confidential between them” and not disclosed to the Disciplinary Panel/Appeal Board. Even if that provision is sensible as far as it goes (and we do not comment further), we are entirely clear that it must certainly be disclosed to any third party (here, Mr Best) who is subject to related disciplinary proceedings. That should be done, we consider, at the earliest practicable stage and well in advance of the hearing of any charge against that third party.

Concluding Comment on Mr John’s Credibility

101. We take into account all of the criticisms which Mr Laidlaw QC has drawn to our attention, some of which have more substance than others. We do not intend to say much more than is to be found elsewhere in this decision. We accept that Mr John’s credibility is open to question in a number of respects to the extent that, without corroboration, we would not have felt comfortable in accepting his word alone that he stopped the horses on Mr Best’s instructions. However, we hold that Mr John’s account is corroborated by the finding (based on the films and the analysis of them ) that these were in fact both ‘stopping’ rides and by Mr Best’s denial of that. It is also corroborated by what Mr Best did (and did not do) between the Plumpton race on 14th December and Mr John’s departure from the yard on 21st December .

102. Accordingly, we return to where we began. We consider that the decisive evidence as to whether or not these were ‘stopping’ rides is to be found in the films and in the analysis of them. If we decide that they were, we then have to decide if they were stopped on Mr Best’s instructions. As to that, it is not just a question of one witness’s word against another where credibility is in issue: here the question of balancing probabilities is a crucial consideration.

Our Analysis of the Films

103. Unlike in court proceedings, a feature of this inquisitorial process is that the members of the Disciplinary Panel, who are expected to have considerable experience of race analysis, bring that experience to bear in deciding what has happened in a race. Of course, we need to proceed cautiously in doing so given this goes beyond evaluating what witnesses say or write and includes material that we assess on our own account. Hence, to ensure fairness, we canvassed any such provisional thoughts or impressions with any factual or expert witness who might have offered a more expert or contrary opinion.

104. With that preamble, we record the fact that no member of this Panel had seen any film of the race at Plumpton on the 14th December or at Towcester on the 17th December until the first morning of this hearing, when Mr Weston played all the relevant films to the Panel without comment or description.

105. We saw the films on several further occasions. All the members of the Panel have reached exactly the same conclusions. Looking at the race at Towcester, even for the first time, we had not the slightest doubt that Mr John had ridden a ‘stopping’ race. We will therefore consider that race first. We reached our conclusion not on the basis that the jockey went wide – though he did – nor because the horse was not perfectly presented at various hurdles. Nor did we take much account of the fact that Mr John says he only waved the whip or used it as an ‘air whip’ or ‘air shot’ without actually striking the horse or whatever else he can be seen to be doing with the reins in what, according to him, is feigned and, according to Mr Morgan, is active encouragement to the horse to go forward. Rather, we concentrate on whether we saw signs that the horse was actively restrained throughout the race and particularly on the final circuit, and before and after the last two or three hurdles.

106. In our view, Mr John was actively (that is, deliberately) preventing the horse from going forward at Towcester throughout the race and this includes the final circuit and the period before and after the second last and the last hurdle. We see him pulling on the reins, applying pressure to the horse’s mouth through the bit and we think that was the cause of the horse’s head moving from side to side. We reject the explanation that what we see on the film is a horse that was just uncomfortable or awkward in this race. We take full account of the fact that, after the race, the horse “looked” leg weary to the vet who examined it and we are well aware of the fact that it was found to be lame afterwards. We consider that this latter factor is irrelevant as the jockey said afterwards that he was unaware that the horse was lame (though he did claim it was ‘tired’) [C/2/25].

107. We accept that in relation to Towcester, a rear view of the jockeys would not allow us to have reached that conclusion alone after the last two hurdles. But it is the head-on and other views of Mr John’s riding which lead us to conclude that the ride at Towcester was without doubt a ‘stopping’ ride.
108. When we first saw the film of the Plumpton race, we were not so convinced that it was a ‘stopping’ ride. Indeed, it was not until we saw the rear view of Mr John riding over the last two hurdles that we were able to reach the same conclusion but, in the end, that was exactly what we decided. In our view, what we see from behind is a jockey who was actively restraining the horse.

109. In relation to Plumpton, there is the further factor that, over the last two hurdles, Mr John, on ECHO BRAVA, appears to follow behind LAC LEMAN (GER), ridden by Sam Twiston-Davies, which jumps right over the last two hurdles. One explanation for the way in which ECHO BRAVA (to put it neutrally) followed Lac Leman over the last two hurdles is that a horse being a herd animal may well follow the leader. Whilst that is so and whilst we cannot be sure we saw Mr John actually pulling on the right rein, we do consider that Mr John actively directed his horse to follow Mr Twiston-Davies’s horse; that it was Mr John in control of the horse rather than vice versa is shown by the way he pulled the horse out from following Lac Leman. Then, as we see it, Mr John made an unconvincing attempt to ride some kind of a finish.

110. It will be apparent that in reaching those conclusions we have, in fact, come to the same conclusion as the Plumpton and Towcester Stewards and, in fact, to the same conclusion as did Mr Lohn’s Panel. As a matter of record, we attach very little weight to the conclusion of either set of Stewards or the conclusion of Mr Lohn’s Panel. Instead, we have made up our own minds.

111. In doing so, we take no account of some elements of the instructions that Mr John says he received from Mr Best. We cannot say whether Mr Best did suggest that Mr John should run his horse into the bottom of the hurdles so that it would jump less well. We think it is unlikely that such an instruction would have been given, but it may have been even though it might seem an odd thing for the trainer to say that when these were reasonably valuable horses starting out on their hurdling careers and the owners had gone to the trouble of paying for special schooling with Yogi Breisner.

112. We also take account of the fact that, in our view, ECHO BRAVA jumped reasonably well at Plumpton, bearing in mind that it was a horse off the flat having its first run over hurdles. Nevertheless, whilst it may be unlikely that the ‘stopping’ instructions included this detail about running it into the bottom of hurdles, we accept that they might have done.

113. A further factor that Mr Best relied on was the suggestion that it would be inconsistent with an instruction to give the horse a ‘stopping’ ride to go to the trouble of having the horse scoped the day before. Mr Carroll, a vet, gave evidence and looked at his records and confirmed that ECHO BRAVA was indeed scoped on Sunday, 13th December. The argument is that this would only be consistent with a trainer who wanted to be sure that the horse was in a fit condition to run well.

114. We disagree. It would not be inconsistent with having given instructions to ride the horse other than to its merits, particularly in circumstances where the vet was in the yard anyway to scope other horses that were also running at Plumpton that same day. Indeed, to have scoped all other runners without scoping ECHO BRAVA would, in our view, have drawn attention to any different plans for that horse. As a further comment, we note that MISSILE MAN (IRE) was in fact not scoped for the run at Towcester. Accordingly, we think the point about scoping is neutral.

115. We also heard evidence from Mr John and Mr Best which provided very different and clearly conflicting accounts of the rides. We know that Mr John, supported to an extent by Mr Best, gave accounts to the Plumpton and Towcester Stewards which are completely inconsistent with the description of those rides he now gives. Nevertheless, we find Mr John’s account of the way in which he rode those horses was convincing and entirely consistent with what we as a Panel saw for ourselves.

116. We reject Mr Best’s account to the opposite effect. His account of events was consistent with what he said to the Stewards at the time and what he wrote in his (A)6 response [A/3/17ff] and with what he said to Mr Lohn’s Panel on a previous occasion. However, we find he was not telling the truth and, in at least one instance, that he was denying the evidence of his own eyes. Generally, we consider he has tried to construct an account of the race which fits his own version of the facts and has done so by being selective in the material presented to us.

117. One example of this arises out of the fact that it emerged that, before the Plumpton ride, Mr John had very little sleep, perhaps over the previous 48 hours. If Mr Cooley is right, Mr John may have been out late on the Saturday night and it is common ground that he had driven back to Devon and then returned to Mr Best’s yard in Lewes in the early hours of the Monday morning before the race. Mr Best repeatedly relied on this to support his contention that Mr John must have been very tired to the extent that he gave ECHO BRAVA a “weak” ride and explains why he was breathless during and after the race .

118. It may be that Mr John was in fact tired but we say without any hesitation that we can see absolutely no sign in the film that it affected his riding nor do we see any sign that Mr John was, as Mr Best would have it, weak. We regard Mr Best’s emphasis on Mr John’s tiredness as purely opportunistic. We also consider that he demonstrated a one-eyed approach to the assessment of Mr John’s riding in the Plumpton race (and damaged his own credibility) when, in seeking to demonstrate that Mr John was weak and tired, Mr Best said that, in the manner of weak or tired jockeys, the jockey was standing up in the irons. We asked Mr Best to identify two points in the race, including one as Mr John was crossing the finishing line, where he says he could see the jockey was standing up in the irons. The answers he gave were completely unconvincing and demonstrated to the Panel that Mr Best was simply not telling the truth.

119. We turn now to the expert evidence that we heard from Tom Morgan. In fairness to Mr Morgan, it should be acknowledged that he came into the case relatively recently. Indeed, the only written material from him, with which we were provided, was a comparatively short report which is better described as a summary of his evidence. It is to be found at [A/3/43 (a) to (c)] and is headed “Expert Evidence of Tom Morgan 11/11/16”.

120. We will take the various points he makes in turn. He said, first, that the route taken by Echo Brave (i.e. on the outside) is consistent with a horse running on its merits. He explained that the horse in the position in which we see ECHO BRAVA was taking the racing line. We agree. It certainly is consistent with a horse being run on its merits, but it is also consistent with a horse under a ‘stopping’ ride where the trainer had told the jockey to go wide.

121. Mr Morgan also said that he can see no example of Mr John putting the horse “short” into any of the hurdles. We consider he is probably right about that, as we observed earlier on. But it is no more than one factor we take into account in our assessment of the issues of reliability and credibility of the witnesses.

122. He also referred to what Mr John has described as his air shots and “show nudges”. Mr Morgan told us he saw signs of the jockey actually striking the horse and that he was generally encouraging the horse to go forward. We find Mr Morgan was wrong and prefer Mr John’s evidence. As we see the film, Mr John is right when he said that he was trying to look as though he was hitting the horse and trying to look as though he was making an effort, whereas in fact he did no such thing and that if he did touch the horse it was all part of the ‘show’ and that any contact must have been light.

123. As to that, we recognise that waving the whip at all and shaking the reins (as Mr John can be seen to do at various times) may have the effect of encouraging the horse to go forward, when that is not what a jockey giving a ‘stopping’ ride would want. But, on the other hand, this has to be balanced against the fact that this jockey giving a ‘stopping’ ride would not want to make it too obvious. In short, we find that what we see is consistent with somebody making a show of riding the horse when, in fact, he was not doing so.

124. We therefore do not accept what Mr Morgan told us about what Mr John described as “air shots”. Again, we see him as someone arguing a case and not providing an objective and balanced assessment . For example, he identified an occasion when he said that the jockey must, in fact, have hit the horse because we see its tail move in an unnatural way. There are a number of difficulties with that. First of all, a view of this horse in other parts of the race and, indeed, in an earlier race, show that it does have an exaggeratedly high and somewhat unusual tail carriage. Second, it is not impossible that whilst Mr John was attempting to do an air shot, he actually touched the horse. As we said earlier, that is not inconsistent with the account of a ‘stopping’ ride which Mr John has given where the jockey is trying to give the appearance of effort when, in fact, he was making none. Yet Mr Morgan made no allowance for this possibility whereas a proper, independent expert, offering a balanced opinion in the light of all circumstances, would have done so.

125. Mr Morgan also sought to develop the argument that there was something physically wrong with MISSILE MAN (IRE) and that it was somehow “unhappy”, which explained the way in which it ran. Indeed, Mr Morgan went so far as to compare the run at Towcester with the previous run on the 30th November at Plumpton and told us he thought that it looked that the horse had an underlying problem that was getting worse.

126. There is, of course, some support for his contention in that the racecourse vet found the horse to be lame and, indeed, Mr Carroll found it to be lame the following day. In our judgment, however, that is neither here nor there, since the issue upon which we focussed and which Mr Morgan seemed strangely reluctant to address, was not so much the horse’s particular gait but whether we could see signs of active restraint by the jockey, as we suggested to him was what we saw on the film. In any case, as we have already said, the jockey told the Towcester Stewards that he had not felt the horse go wrong (just that it was tired). Mr Morgan’s thesis that MISSILE MAN (IRE) was an unhappy horse with an underlying problem that was apparent in its previous race on 30th November and getting worse was not supported either by the vet, Mr Carroll, or by Mr Best himself.

127. In relation to Mr Morgan’s other comments, it seems to be common ground between everyone that, in the case of both rides, Mr John was attempting to restrain a horse that was trying to run faster than he wanted in the earlier stages of the race. The difficulty for Mr Morgan, so far as we are concerned, and one that demonstrates to us that he was not an impartial and independent expert but, instead was a ‘hired gun’ here to argue a case, was perhaps most conspicuous in relation to Missile Man’s run at Towcester.

128. Although we could all see that the horse is pulling less hard during the later stages of the race, the Panel could see absolutely no signs of it having been actively encouraged to go forward at any stage. On the contrary, we see it as being actively restrained up to and after the last hurdle. Mr Morgan’s attempt to suggest otherwise was, we find, wholly unconvincing.

129. Some final points about the ride on Missile Man: Mr Morgan suggested that there was bumping before and after the third-last hurdle. He says that this was caused by the winner at the third-last and that, before and after the last, there is no apparent difference in the way MISSILE MAN (IRE) was ridden as compared with other horses. Whilst it is true that we can see some consequential interference with other horses at or after the third last, we could also see that the horse regained momentum quickly and that, thereafter, the jockey continued actively to restrain his horse. As for Mr Morgan’s comments about the view from behind before and after the last, that serves only to illustrate his partial approach: the view from behind is nothing like as illuminating as the one from the side and ahead.

Why stop these horses?

130. If there was absolutely no reason for the trainer (or owner) to have given either horse a ‘stopping’ ride, it might cause us to doubt whether either or both would have any interest in giving an instruction to that effect.

131. A point that Mr Morgan makes is that there would be no logic in getting ECHO BRAVA down to a mark of 85. We do not agree. It is true that Mr John accepts that he made a mistake in saying that he thought Mr Best had told him the horse had previously won off a mark of 85 on the flat, whereas in fact it had only won off 79 but had run off 85. But we fully understand the logic of someone wanting to get a handicap mark down. A trainer, and in many cases an owner, will be delighted if the horse has a handicap mark which does not reflect its true ability. That can happen perfectly legitimately if a horse runs moderately and then improves. But a dishonest trainer or owner has an obvious motive for lowering that handicap mark artificially. It follows that there is nothing inherently unlikely in a trainer wanting the horse to be run in such a way that it did not run on its merits to the benefit of its handicap on later occasions.

132. Mr Morgan also made a point (which Mr Best developed) to the effect that is was fundamentally incredible that he might have been told to get beaten by “33 lengths”. We have referred to this already. If that assertion were taken literally, then Mr Best and Mr Morgan have a fair point. But we do not think that is the right approach. We find this is more consistent with Mr Best having told Mr John to get the horse beaten by a long way and he may well have used an expression such as “33 lengths” . It was not to be taken literally.

133. Nor do we think it is inherently unlikely that MISSILE MAN (IRE)might be similarly advantaged by having a lower handicap mark nor that it might be run other than on its merits on at least 3 occasions so as to achieve that . Nor is it impossible that the horse might actually have ended up in a selling race if it had not won off a lower mark and/or if it proved to be ‘gutless’ (as Jamie Moore had described it) or turned out to have an underlying problem (as Mr Morgan argues).

134. We should make it clear that we do not think that either Mr Dillon or Mr Callaghan was privy to any such plan. A trainer may choose to involve the owner but he need not necessarily do so.

135. In the case of Mr Dillon, we disregard the equivocal evidence as to what was said in the paddock at Plumpton. We heard and accept what he told us in his oral evidence that he knew nothing to suggest that ECHO BRAVA would not run on its merits. The same applies to Mr Callaghan and MISSILE MAN (IRE) as regards the race at Towcester.

136. It is also true that Mr Callaghan said he would have had no interest in running what was a valuable horse, for which he had paid good money and which had subsequently won a bumper in a seller. We have dealt with that already: if the horse had got down to and then won off a low handicap mark, that option would probably never have materialised. And Mr Callaghan was not in on Mr Best’s plan anyway, as we have already acknowledged.

Did Mr Best give the instructions to stop these horses: the balance of probabilities

137. We have already said that we find that Mr John’s account that he deliberately stopped the horses was decisively corroborated by what we saw on the film, quite apart from the fact that it is inherently unlikely that he would admit to giving the horses ‘stopping’ rides when he had not, however badly disposed he may have been to the trainer.

138. We have already addressed the issue of a trainer’s (or owner’s) interest in giving ‘stopping’ instructions – that is, to improve its handicap mark. In the case of a horse that was unfancied in the betting, they would be the people most likely to benefit and so the overwhelming likelihood must be that one or other of them would be the source of the ‘stopping’ instructions.

139. In the course of the hearing we canvassed the possibility that the jockey might have been acting for some third party – an outside interest such as a bookmaker, for example. We realise that a short-priced favourite could be stopped by the jockey to the advantage of bookmakers without the trainer or owner knowing. As Mr Best’s solicitor, Mr Harry Stewart-Moore, helpfully pointed out in answer to a question from the Panel, there might also be a similar betting interest in ‘stopping’ a horse that had been backed each-way . Furthermore, in these days of betting exchanges in the UK and overseas markets and with what is known as spot-fixing, we take account of the fact that it is not impossible that there might be a third party interest in ensuring that an unfancied horse runs in a particular way.

140. These are, however, wholly theoretical possibilities which we discount. It has never formed any part of Mr Best’s case that either horse was in fact stopped . Nor has it been suggested to Mr John that he might have done that for such a reason and in the interests of some third party influence. On the contrary, Mr Best’s case throughout has been that these horses were just ridden badly and that Mr John must have said he stopped them on the trainer’s instructions to give himself an excuse to leave the yard when he did and to establish ‘exceptional circumstances’ as regards his licence and then to perform his side of the ‘deal’ for the BHA.

141. A further factor which weighs heavily in the balance of probabilities can be found in what Mr Best did or did not do after the two races. We bear in mind that, on Mr John’s account on the one hand, he had ridden 2 ‘stopping’ races as per instructions: on the other hand, according to Mr Best, Mr John, his conditional jockey had ridden 2 bad races and shown himself to be weak and to get tired and had not followed instruction. Worse still, he had 2 run-ins with the stewards, getting 14 days on the first occasion and was held to have deliberately stopped the horse on the second.

142. If Mr Best’s version were true, one would have expected him to have had a very strong word with his jockey and to have taken every step later (when they got back to the yard or the following day) to show him the error of his ways. Furthermore, we expect that the way he rode would have attracted considerable comment in and outside the yard and we cannot imagine that Mr Best would not at least have warned his owners that a large, dark, cloud was hanging over the jockey especially in circumstances where he might be going to ride one of their horses.

143. But, on Mr Best’s own account, and that of Mr Cooley and Messrs Callaghan and Dillon, the trainer apparently decided it was just ‘business as usual’, despite what the stewards had said: there was no discussion with his jockey, no attempt to explain, remonstrate or rehabilitate and no attempt to explain matters to these important owners. On the contrary, Mr John was put on INCH WING (IRE) at Lingfield on the Monday (21st December) and was down to ride KIAMA BAY (IRE) for Mr Dillon who (he says) had been told nothing about the dramatic events of the previous 7 days.

144. In our view, that account of events is either untrue or, if broadly accurate, it is far more consistent with Mr Best taking so relaxed an approach because, far from blaming the jockey for what he had done, he knew full well he had done his bidding.

The unanimous decision of the Disciplinary Panel

145. We find that Mr John did intentionally ride both horses other than on their merits: that is, these were ‘stopping’ rides. We also find that it is overwhelmingly likely that he rode in that way because those were Mr Best’s instructions.

146. That being so, the findings against Mr Best under Rule (C)45 in respect of both races necessarily follow because he did not give his jockey proper instructions. That leaves the issue of the alleged breach of Rule (A)30.1 which alleges Mr Best is guilty of conduct prejudicial to horse-racing.

147. As regards (A)30.1, this is not a duplicated or alternative charge and there is no question of double jeopardy (if that means being charged twice for the same offence). Rather, we consider Rule (A)30.1 is an additional and separate charge on the basis that not only is giving such instructions inherently prejudicial to the interests of racing but that it is particularly reprehensible if those instructions are given to a Conditional Jockey for whom the trainer has a general supervisory and advisory responsibility (and if the trainer then lies about what he has done and seeks to blame the jockey for having failed to carry out his instructions).

148. We will hand this decision down at a re-convened hearing on Monday 12th December 2016. The parties and their legal representatives will have had a draft well in advance of that hearing. However, they are invited to attend in person as we shall have to address the issue of the appropriate sanction(s) given that the earlier decision is, in effect, a nullity.

Penalty

149. On Monday 12th December the Panel met to consider the appropriate penalties following our findings that Mr Best was in breach of Rule (C)45 as regards as ECHO BRAVA and MISSILE MAN (IRE) on 14th and 17th December 2015 respectively and in breach of Rule (A)30.1. We heard and read submissions from Mr Weston and from Mr Laidlaw QC and also took account of a written statement by Mr Best (who could not be present in person) and a Note from his doctor. We gave a brief summary of our decision at the hearing. This is a fuller version of our reasons.

150. In their submissions, Mr Weston and Mr Laidlaw QC both drew our attention to the BHA’s current (2016) Guidelines to Procedures and Penalties. As regards the Rule (C)45 breaches, Mr Weston accepted that the case fell under categories (e), (f) and (g) on page 10 of the Guidelines where the ‘entry point’ sanction is a financial penalty of £7,500 and a ‘range’ is given of £5,000-£30,000 . The Notes also deal with second and third offences: this case involves a second offence but a financial penalty is still the recommended sanction. As regards Rule (A) 30, the recommended penalties are at page 46. Here the ‘entry point’ is said to be a fine of £2000 or suspension/withdrawal/disqualification for 3 months. The ‘range’ is a fine of £1000-£15,000 and suspension/withdrawal/disqualification for a period of 1 month to 3 years.

151. Our attention was also drawn by Mr Laidlaw QC to the 2008 decision as regards Michael Wigham and Jamie Mackay and the running and riding of GRANAKEY (IRE), a decision which is in our papers for this hearing [C/8/126]. We note that the sanction imposed in that case did not involve any period of suspension or disqualification. We accept that consistency of decision-making is important but it is also true that no two cases are alike. In particular, there is a very considerable difference between that case and this. There, the ‘stopping’ instructions were given to an experienced jockey. Here, the worst feature of the case is the fact that Mr Best, the trainer, suborned a young Conditional Jockey to do wrong when he should have been taking steps to guide him in the right direction as opposed to engaging in dishonest practices.

152. Mr Best has, we were told, no relevant disciplinary history. We also bear in mind that, but for the BHA’s errors of process and the inadequacy of the reasons given by the previous Panel, this case should have been concluded by the beginning of April this year (the original decision was dated 4th April 2016). We heard and we accept that, regardless of the expenses involved in legal representation, the case has already had serious consequences for Mr Best’s business and that the number of horses in his yard has reduced from over 30 to 13 during the course of the last 12 months.

153. Nevertheless, this is a serious case in all the circumstances. There is, in our judgment, no mitigation. The sort of dishonest practices involved here strike at the heart of racing’s integrity. In addition, Mr John was young and vulnerable and Mr Best took advantage of him. Far from acknowledging what he had done, Mr Best persisted in denying his wrongdoing and pursued a strategy of characterising Mr John as a liar who, for his own base reasons, had decided to blame the trainer whilst attempting to conceal his shortcomings as a character and as a jockey. That strategy has failed and we have found that Mr John rode as he did because those were Mr Best’s instructions.

154. In our judgment, a period of suspension is appropriate and we order that Mr Best’s licence is suspended for 6 months with effect from 20th December 2016 to 19th June 2017, 7 days grace being given so that Mr Best can consider whether he wishes to pursue an appeal against our decision and can have time to arrange his affairs appropriately if he decides not to – see Rule (A)85.5. In reaching that decision, we gained only limited assistance from the guidelines as to the length of that suspension. As a comment, we suggest that if the BHA regards suspension or disqualification for a longer period as appropriate for such a case as the present, then it would be wise were the Guidelines to reflect that policy directly and with clarity. Speaking for ourselves, we can see that might better reflect the gravity of the kind of misconduct we find here.

155. The penalty applies as a single, overall, sanction in respect of all three matters for which we have found Mr Best to be in breach of the Rules. In deciding on the length of the suspension, we also took account of the fact that the matter should have been resolved 8 months ago and that the delay since then is not his responsibility (apart from the obvious point that matters would have been resolved even sooner had he promptly admitted his guilt). We also decided that suspension rather than disqualification or withdrawal of the training licence was appropriate not least because of the adverse impact that those alternatives would have had on those who work for Mr Best and are innocent of wrongdoing. We do not impose any additional financial penalty. The adverse financial consequences that Mr Best has already faced and will face in the future are considerable and we do not regard it as appropriate to add further to them.

Notes to Editors

1. The Panel for the hearing was:��Sir William Gage (Chair), William Norris QC, Nicholas Wachman Esq

Result of an enquiry (John Ryan) heard by the Disciplinary Panel on Thursday 13 October

Robin Mounsey — Thu, 13 Oct 2016 15:33:37 +0000

1. The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry on 13 October 2016 into the analysis of the urine ordered to be taken from PLUCKY DIP, trained by John Ryan, by the Stewards at Kempton after the gelding was placed fourth in the Betfred Lotto Handicap Stakes on 2 April 2016. The sample tested positive for a prohibited substance, in breach of Rule (G)2.1 of the Rules of Racing.�� The Panel also considered whether or not to take action under Rule (A)74.2 Ground 3 in respect of the possible disqualification of the gelding.

2. Prior to the enquiry, both parties had agreed that they had no objection to the Panel members sitting.

3. The BHA’s case was presented by Andrew Howell and John Ryan was also in attendance.

4. The urine sample taken from PLUCKY DIP was found to contain Meptazinol, a mixed opioid agonist and antagonist, which is a prohibited substance. Meptazinol is used to manage moderate to severe pain and trades under the name Meptid®.�� There are no licensed preparations of Meptazinol for use in animals but numerous preparations containing Meptazinol are available in the UK for use in humans.�� The BHA did not know of any circumstances where the substance is used under the cascade, for horses.�� The trainer did not exercise his right to have the ‘B’ sample analysed.

5. Mr Howell stated that following the positive analysis, on 28 April, 2016, BHA Investigating Officers attended Mr Ryan’s yard. Mr Ryan was not present and was only available on the telephone approximately one hour after arriving at the yard.�� Mr Ryan had been shocked by the positive sample and confirmed that he had never heard of Meptazinol or Meptid®.�� After leaving the yard, the BHA Investigating Officers received a call from Mr Ryan who had informed them that he had spoken to his lad, Mr Robert Hull, who rides, travels with and cares for PLUCKY DIP on a day to day basis.�� Mr Hull had informed Mr Ryan that he had recently been prescribed some strong painkillers for a back problem and would provide Mr Ryan with the packaging the following day.�� Mr Ryan also confirmed that he had spoken with his Veterinary Surgeon, Mr Michael Shepherd at Rossdales who had reportedly informed Mr Ryan that he was not familiar with the substance and did not believe that his practice used it, nor had he used it to treat any of Mr Ryan’s horses.

6. Mr Hull was then interviewed by a BHA Investigating Officer and recounted that in or around September 2015, his back had flared up and caused pain due to a ruptured disc. In February 2016 he had been prescribed Meptid® tablets (200mg) 3 or 4 times a day.�� Mr Hull would take a double dose of Meptid® usually at home, however, he would take it at the races when he was travelling with a horse.�� He would not always wash his hands afterwards.�� He also had admitted that one of the first things he would do on arrival at the races with a horse would be to urinate whilst stood with the horse.�� He could not recall specifically whether he did this at Kempton on 2 April 2016, but given the long journey he “could well have done”.�� Mr Hull also stated that he would have given the horses that he dealt with Polos throughout the day.�� He was not aware of having his medication in his pocket causing him to accidently mix up the medication with the Polos, however he could not definitively discount this.�� He denied ever giving the gelding Meptid®, but could see how cross contamination could have occurred.�� The BHA accepted that there was no suggestion that Mr Ryan had been involved in any dishonesty or cheating.�� Mr Howell also submitted that where the source could not be identified, the trainer, as the responsible person had strict liability.

7. On 20 July 2016, Mr Hull telephoned to confirm that he had still been taking the medication at the time of the race at Kempton on 2 April 2016.

8. Amanda Piggot, BHA Veterinary Adviser, had considered the likelihood of cross contamination on the basis of the evidence that had been compiled and specifically the evidence that had been provided by Mr Hull. She had confirmed that it was a possibility, but not a likelihood, that the cause of the Adverse Analytical Finding was as a result of Mr Hull’s admission that he could have urinated in the gelding’s stables whilst either at home or at the racecourse.�� She stated that there was currently no reported data following administration or exposure of a horse to Meptazinol that could be referred to in order to evidence an opinion as to the likelihood of the possibility.

9. Mr Ryan stated that he was unaware at the time that Mr Hull was taking Meptid®. However, he confirmed that he had taken steps to avoid a similar occurrence in the future.

10. After considering the evidence, the Panel was unable to establish the source of the substance, and could not therefore be satisfied that the administration of the substance was accidental and that the trainer had taken all reasonable care.

11. The Panel found Mr Ryan in breach of Rule (G)2.1 and imposed a fine of £1,000.

12. Under Rule (A)74.2 Ground 3, the Panel disqualified PLUCKY DIP from the race, placing HARRY HURRICANE fourth, HOOFALONG fifth and LUCKY BEGGAR (IRE) sixth.�� The Panel directed that any prize money paid out in relation to the above race be returned.

Notes to Editors

1. The Panel for the hearing was:��Lucinda Cavendish (Chair),��Celina Carter and��Peter Reynolds.

Results of enquiries (J Fanshawe, R Woollacott) and appeals (J Portman, K Fox) heard by the Disciplinary Panel on Thursday 7 January

Lucy Tully — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 17:35:37 +0000

Jonathan Portman

1. On 7 January 2016, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) heard an appeal brought by Jonathan Portman, the trainer of CLASSIC MISSION, against the decision of the Stewards at Lingfield Park on 20 December 2015 to reverse the placings of the first and second home in the Download the Coral App Handicap Stakes. They demoted CLASSIC MISSION, ridden by Charlie Bennett, to second place, and in consequence promoted ALSHAN FAJER, ridden by Adam Kirby, to first place. They found that interference from a furlong out caused by CLASSIC MISSION continuously edging left taking ALSHAN FAJER off his intended line had caused him to lose more ground than the head by which he was beaten.

2. As always, the Disciplinary Panel approached this type of appeal as a re-hearing. The appeal was presented by CLASSIC MISSION’s trainer, Jonathan Portman and the BHA’s case was presented by Lyn Williams. Charlie Bennett, the rider of CLASSIC MISSION, and Adam Kirby, the rider of ALSHAN FAJER, were in attendance.

3. Mr Williams stated that both the horses concerned were hard ridden from 1 furlong out when CLASSIC MISSION hung left and made contact with ALSHAN FAJER. Bennett straightened his horse but then picked up his whip again causing CLASSIC MISSION to drift left handed taking ALSHAN FAJER off his intended line, all the way to the post. Six strides before the post CLASSIC MISSION gave ALSHAN FAJER a further bump.

4. Kirby, in giving evidence, said that CLASSIC MISSION was leaning on him and that he felt his mount was intimidated throughout the final furlong which was borne out by the films which showed that having been 4 – 5 widths from the rail turning in, he was only 1 width from it at the line.

5. Portman, whilst agreeing that his horse had caused ALSHAN FAJER interference, said that he felt it was minimal and that Kirby’s horse was well held all the way to the line and beaten by a head. Bennett in giving evidence said that he felt that CLASSIC MISSION was always going the better despite that he was hanging left and was never more than a head in front.

6. The Panel dismissed Portman’s appeal and confirmed the placings as it felt that the interference caused by CLASSIC MISSION had improved its placing and that had ALSHAN FAJER had an uninterrupted run to the line it would have won the race. It ordered the deposit to be returned as the Panel understood Portman’s reasons for lodging his appeal.
James Fanshawe

1. On Thursday 7 January 2016 the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry on 7 January 2016 into the analysis of the urine ordered to be taken from HE’S MY BOY (IRE), trained by James Fanshawe, by the Stewards at Newmarket after the gelding had won the Mead Construction Handicap Stakes on 17 July 2015. The sample tested positive for a prohibited substance, in breach of Rule (G) 2.1 of the Rules of Racing. The Panel also considered whether or not to take action under Rule (A) 74.2 Ground 3 of the Rules of Racing in respect of the possible disqualification of the gelding

2. The urine taken from HE’S MY BOY (IRE) was found to contain Acepromazine, which is a prohibited substance. The trainer exercised his right to have the B sample analysed at LGC which confirmed the original finding.

3. The BHA’s case was presented by Shruti Sharma and James Fanshawe, who was in attendance, was represented by Dawn Bacchus from the National Trainers Federation.

4. Following the positive analysis, BHA Investigating Officers interviewed Fanshawe at his stables on 14 August 2015. After considering the evidence, including submissions from Ms Bacchus, the Panel was unable to establish the source of the substance, and could not therefore be satisfied that the administration of the substance was accidental and that the trainer had taken all reasonable care.

5. The Panel further considered an alleged breach of Rule (C) 37.1 in that, as part of the yard visit on 14 August 2015, Fanshawe provided his computerised yardman medication records and these records were reviewed and showed that FRESH KINGDOM (IRE) had received an intra-articular corticosteroid injection, Adcortyl, on 18 May 2015 and KNIGHT OWL had received an intra-articular corticosteroid injection, Adcortyl, on 1 June 2015. FRESH KINGDOM (IRE) ran in the Smart Forfour Engineered by Mercedes-Benz Handicap at Haydock on 29 May 2015, eleven days after the administration of Adcortyl, and KNIGHT OWL ran in the Winners Sports Handicap at Sandown on 13 June 2015, twelve days after the administration of Adcortyl.

6. On 27 August, 2015 Fanshawe was again interviewed by BHA Investigating Officers and confirmed that he was aware of Schedule (B)3 Paragraph 11A, namely, that his horses should not have been administered any intra-articular corticosteroid on the 14 days before a race for which they are declared to run in and that he always set out to adhere to a clear 14 days before racing a horse. However, on these occasions he had not recorded the administration in his own paper records (they had been recorded on his computerised records), which he consulted when working out suitable race entries for his horses.

7. The Panel accepted an admission from Fanshawe that he was in breach of Rule (G)2.1 and imposed a fine of £1,000.

8. Under Rule (A)74.2 Ground 3 the Panel disqualified HE’S MY BOY (IRE) from the race placing ZESHOV (IRE) first, LE LAITIER (FR) second, DREAM TUNE third, LOUD fourth, INTREPID (IRE) fifth and KALON BRAMA (IRE) sixth.

9. The Panel found Fanshawe in breach of Schedule (B)3 paragraph 11A and imposed a fine of £1,000. Under Rule (A)74.2 Ground 4, the Panel disqualified FRESH KINGDOM (IRE) from its race, placing LIGHT OF ASIA (IRE) third, JOHN LOUIS fourth, YUL FINEGOLD (IRE) fifth and THE CHARACTER (IRE) sixth. It also disqualified KNIGHT OWL from its race, placing MIRACLE OF MEDINAH sixth, SANTEFISIO seventh and WEE JEAN eighth. The Panel directed that any prize money paid out in any of the above races be returned.
Richard Woollacott

1. On 7 January 2016, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry into the analysis of the urine ordered to be taken from SEACON BEG (IRE), trained by Richard Woollacott, by the Stewards at Newton Abbot after the gelding won the Play the New Scoop6soccer Today Handicap Hurdle on 22 August 2015. The sample tested positive for a prohibited substance, in breach of Rule (G)2.1 of the Rules of Racing. The Panel also considered whether or not to take action under Rule (A)74.2 Ground 3 in respect of the possible disqualification of the gelding.

2. The Panel noted that Woollacott requested that the matter be heard in his absence. The BHA’s case was presented by Shruti Sharma.

3. The urine taken from SEACON BEG (IRE) was found to contain Triamcinolone acetonide, a prohibited substance as defined in Schedule (G)1 paragraph 7.

4. The Panel noted that Woollacott had stated that Ray Dilliway, his Veterinary Surgeon, had examined the gelding on 4 August 2015 and found that it was lame on his left hind. Mr Dilliway had injected by intra articular injection into the medial compartment of the stifle 2cc of Adcortyl, a licensed preparation of Triamcinolone, and 2ml of Amikin and had advised a 16 day withdrawal period.

5. Having considered the evidence, the Panel agreed that on the balance of probability, the source of the positive was the injection administered by Woollacott’s Veterinary Surgeon on 4 August 2015. The Panel found Woollacott in breach of Rule (G)2.1 and imposed a fine of £750.

6. Under Rule (A)74.2 the Panel disqualified SEACON BEG (IRE) from the race, placing CRUISE IN STYLE (IRE) first, MIX N MATCH second, WATCHMETAIL (IRE) third, BOHER LAD (IRE) fourth, TENBY JEWEL (IRE) fifth and THEIONLADY (IRE) sixth. The Panel directed that any prize money paid be returned.

Kieren Fox

1. On 7 January 2016, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) heard an appeal lodged by Kieren Fox, the rider of STATE OF THE UNION (IRE), in the Daily Price Boosts at Unibet Handicap Stakes at Lingfield Park on 28 December 2015. The appeal challenged the findings of the Lingfield Park Stewards that both Fox and Lee Carter, the trainer of STATE OF THE UNION (IRE) were in breach of Rule (B)67.4.4 in that Fox had weighed in at 8st 11lb having weighed out at 9st 0lb. The Stewards suspended Fox for 2 days and fined Carter £500. Carter did not appeal the findings and the disqualification of STATE OF THE UNION (IRE) was mandatory under Rule (B)67.10 and was not subject to appeal.

2. The hearing before this Panel operated as a rehearing. Rory Mac Neice represented Fox, who was not in attendance and Carter was represented by Dawn Bacchus, National Trainers Federation. Lyn Williams presented the facts on behalf of the BHA and showed CCTV footage of Fox weighing out and immediately handing his tack to Carter, where the weight cloth was clearly visible.

3. Fox returned to the scales after finishing second and weighed in 3lb light. Having identified that the weight cloth was missing he retraced his steps to the unsaddling enclosure accompanied by a Stipendiary Steward William Hudson, but the weight cloth was not to be found. There was also no evidence of the weight cloth being lost during the race.

4. The Panel therefore found Fox not to be in breach of Rule (B)67.4.4 and allowed his appeal and quashed the 2 day suspension.

5. Ms Bacchus gave evidence on behalf of Carter who could offer no further information on the missing weight cloth. He accepted this had been with the saddle when it was given to him by Fox immediately after weighing out.

6. The Panel decided that Carter was solely responsible and found him to be in breach of Rule (B)67.4.4 and imposed a penalty of £1,000.
Notes to Editors:

1. The Panel for the hearings was: Lucinda Cavendish (Chair), Diana Powles, Jeremy Barlow.

Disciplinary Panel’s full written reasons regarding David M Greenwood, Michael Stainton, Claire Murray, Kevin Ackerman and Kenneth Mackay

Robin Mounsey — Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:23:27 +0000

The Disciplinary Panel’s full written reasons from this case are set out below. A penalties hearing is being held at 10am on Monday 12 October to consider and set out penalties. Written reasons for penalties will then follow in due course.

On 1 July 2015, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) began the hearing of an enquiry into allegations of corruption against five individuals that concerned seven races in which AD VITAM (IRE) participated between November 2011 and March 2012. The races in question are identified in the Notes to these Reasons. The hearing lasted six days, following which the Panel considered its decision which is now set out below.

The Charges

David Greenwood, a professional gambler and the owner of AD VITAM (IRE) between March 2011 and at least June 2012, was alleged to be the principal mover in a conspiracy with the other four to run the horse other than on its merits for lay betting purposes, contrary to Rule (A)41. He was also said to have given improper riding instructions – i.e. instructions which could or would prevent the horse from achieving its best possible placing – to Michael Stainton and Claire Murray, the jockeys, in the first six of the races, in breach of Rule (B)58.2. Thirdly, he was alleged to be in breach of Rule (A)36, which outlaws the giving of inside information to others for reward. Finally, he was said to be in breach of Rule (A)50.2 in that he did not supply his telephone billing records to the BHA and did not agree to attend an interview by BHA investigators looking into this and other matters.
Stainton was said to have conspired, contrary to Rule (A)41, with Mr Greenwood to ride the horse otherwise than on its merits in races 1, 4, 5 and 6, and actually to have done so in races 1 and 5. In respect of races 1 and 5, he was therefore also alleged to be in breach of Rule (B) 58.1.
Murray faced similar charges. She was alleged to have conspired with Mr Greenwood to ride AD VITAM (IRE) otherwise than on its merits in races 2 and 3, and actually to have done so in those races. Again, she was alleged to be in breach of Rule (B)58.1 in respect of those rides.
Kevin Ackerman was the fourth alleged conspirator. He was said to have acted in breach of Rule (A)41 by obtaining and using inside information from Mr Greenwood about AD VITAM (IRE) when placing the lay bets against that horse in some of the races. He faced a second allegation of breach of Rule (A)37 – that he provided reward to Mr Greenwood for inside information supplied to him.
Finally, Kenneth Mackay was said to have been another conspirator, in breach of Rule (A)41, who obtained and used inside information from Mr Greenwood about AD VITAM (IRE) when placing the lay bets against that horse. Like Mr Ackerman, he was also alleged to be in breach of Rule (A)37 by providing reward to Mr Greenwood for the inside information supplied to him.

Representation

The BHA’s case was presented by Louis Weston. Mr Greenwood and Mr Ackerman were both represented by Ian Winter QC, instructed by Stewart Moore Solicitors. The two jockeys, Stainton and Murray, were assisted by Paul Struthers of the Professional Jockeys Association (PJA). Though Mr Struthers is not a lawyer, the Panel gave permission for him to act on their behalf. The Panel was grateful for the help he gave and the thoughtfulness and expertise he brought to his task.

Abuse of process application

The first day of the hearing of the enquiry was occupied by the consideration of an application made by Mr Winter QC. He argued that the evidence to be relied upon by the BHA from Sophie Griffiths in particular and from her husband, the trainer David Griffiths, was so tainted and untrustworthy that it was not necessary to hear them to decide upon its reliability. Further, he contended that failures by the BHA to give disclosure of documentation compounded the problem and made a fair hearing impossible. In support of the first contention, he argued that the BHA had had no concerns with the questioned races until well over a year after they took place, and that the central plank of the case was an alleged confession by Murray to Mrs Griffiths before race 3 at Wolverhampton on 18 November 2011 to the effect that she was going to ride to lose the race on the instructions of Mr Greenwood. He relied upon the late emergence of this allegation together with what he said were other indications that Mrs Griffiths’s evidence was unreliable – in particular that she was the source of assertions about the true ownership of a number of horses which the BHA had either abandoned (in the case of Kate Walton) shortly before an enquiry, or had found to be too unreliable to support any case against Mr Greenwood. Mr Winter QC reinforced these observations by contending that the BHA ought to disclose all relevant material about how their investigation in this case developed.
The Panel dismissed the application. The threshold to be met when seeking to stop a hearing as an abuse of process is a high one – is the hearing incapable of being conducted fairly? None of the points argued by Mr Winter QC, taken individually or cumulatively, established that proposition. All the matters which he raised about the conduct of the BHA investigation and about the credibility of the evidence of Mrs Griffiths and Griffiths were capable of being explored by him in cross-examination. The BHA’s case that the betting of Mr Ackerman and Mr Mackay was in some way informed by knowledge of what was to happen in the questioned races was not so unreliable on its face as to justify a refusal to investigate it further. Mr Winter QC’s complaint about disclosure from the BHA was based on his submission that the materials he sought were relevant. That was not the correct test. The BHA’s obligation was to disclose material which (i) they positively relied upon and which (ii) might harm their case. That obligation had been recognised in correspondence before the enquiry began. It was the basis upon which the Chairman of this Panel proceeded when considering disclosure applications before the enquiry began. There was no ground for suspecting that the obligation had not been met before or after the enquiry began. The giving of disclosure in accordance with that obligation had been supervised by Mr Weston, the independent counsel who presented the BHA’s case.
Accordingly, the Panel decided to hear the case and the evidence to be put forward by both sides.

David Greenwood, AD VITAM (IRE) and the early races

Mr Greenwood told the Panel he was a professional gambler. After university, he said he began a graduate placement with William Hill in about 2002, doing various jobs with them until late 2004, including with William Hill radio. In 2005 he did some TV work for Sky and then worked with Timeform radio, but after that concentrated on gambling, principally on horse racing. He said that his profit since 2005 was just over £5 million, and that in 2010 he had won £865,000 and not far short of that in 2011. He estimated his betting turnover per week at about £1 million, with the aim of making a small percentage of that turnover. The Panel accepted that, in 2011 at least, Mr Greenwood was a high-stakes gambler who had had considerable success. That was confirmed by the evidence of others, notably Tom Chignell the BHA betting analyst.
The Panel’s caution in accepting what should have been largely uncontroversial material from Mr Greenwood about his history arose from its general approach to his evidence. When giving his evidence, he gave a detailed account of his involvement in the racing of AD VITAM (IRE), as well as of his contacts with the horse’s trainers and jockeys and with his various friends and associates in the racing world. For a variety of reasons, the Panel felt compelled to treat his account with great caution. Thus –

he failed, at any time before giving his evidence before the Panel, to commit himself to any detail of what he remembered of his contacts with trainers and jockeys or of his dealings with friends such as Mr Ackerman.
As will be seen from the Panel’s conclusions about the Rule (A)50 issue, he evaded giving an account in interview with investigators and failed to produce his telephone records.
His Schedule (A)6 form contained considerable detail of the nature of the legal arguments to be advanced, and general denials of wrongdoing, but set out next to nothing of Mr Greenwood’s own account of, for instance, what he discussed with the horse’s trainers or jockeys.
That deficiency in Mr Greenwood’s Schedule (A)6 form was pointed out before the hearing, and a direction from the Chairman of the Panel required Mr Greenwood to produce sufficient detail of his factual case in advance of the hearing.
His response (through his solicitor) was to repeat his earlier denials that he had given instructions to jockeys to stop AD VITAM (IRE) or had told Mr Ackerman or anyone else that this might happen. But again, nothing about what if anything he remembered he did say was disclosed.
When he came to give evidence before the Panel, he gave for the first time some detailed evidence of his exchanges and conversations with trainers and jockeys. The Panel gained the overriding impression that this evidence was the product of his calculation of what was to his advantage rather than genuine recollection, and this was consistent with his prior failure to commit himself, whether in an interview (which he evaded), or in his Schedule (A)6 form, or in his response to the Chairman’s direction of 23 June 2015.

These considerations persuaded the Panel that, basically, Mr Greenwood’s evidence could not be trusted unless it was corroborated by reliable evidence from others or by the Panel’s judgement of the probabilities.
Mr Greenwood acquired AD VITAM (IRE) in March 2011. He claimed it after it won at Kempton on 10 March, and sent it to Griffiths, whom he had known from their days on William Hill radio. Initially their efforts with the horse were collaborative. It was tried over a range of trips from 8 to 11½ furlongs in its eight races up to Ripon on 4 July, and with a variety of headgear. Mr Greenwood would generally choose the jockey and either choose or have a final say about what races to enter. In six of those eight early races, it was ridden by a female apprentice, chosen (Mr Greenwood accepted) because he liked to give rides to girls, especially if pretty. Note 4, which sets out the betting relevant for this enquiry, shows that Mr Greenwood did have some sizeable win or place bets on some of these races, but these were on the two occasions it was ridden by first Michael O’Connell and then by Martin Harley. Over the course of these races, AD VITAM (IRE)’s official handicap rating dropped from 64 to 56, and it finished in a place just once at Redcar. The overall picture, though one of general lack of success, gives credence to Mr Greenwood’s evidence that AD VITAM (IRE) was meant to be a “fun horse”.
After the Ripon race, the horse had a wind operation, though exactly what was never made clear. It returned to racing at Southwell on 30 August, when Murray rode it for the first time, finishing last and being dropped a further 4lbs to 52 in the handicap. A race at Wolverhampton on 29 September, when ridden by Julie Cumine, was followed by Stainton’s first two rides of AD VITAM (IRE): at Wolverhampton on 6 October and Brighton on 13 October. Stainton was selected for the ride by Mr Greenwood. Their relationship was much closer than the usual jockey/owner relationship and closer than Stainton was prepared to admit in interview and evidence. They had known each other well for some years by 2011. Each described the other as a “friend” and Mr Greenwood told Griffiths that Stainton was his “best friend”. On one occasion, but on an unknown date, Mr Greenwood gave a large amount of cash – perhaps £3500 to Stainton’s partner. Stainton and Mr Greenwood had from time to time gone together to assess horses for potential purchase. And Stainton was supplying information to Mr Greenwood about prospects for horses he rode. One example was LITTLE PERISHER, a horse which some people, Mrs Griffiths among them, thought Mr Greenwood owned though he later said he did not. A Facebook exchange on 15 November 2011 between Mrs Griffiths and Mr Greenwood records Mrs Griffiths asking “do u run Little Perisher on Fri as well”. Mr Greenwood answered “Stainton rode him in work last week and thinks he’s ready…”
For the 6 October race, a weak contest over 8½ furlongs at Wolverhampton, Mr Greenwood had win and place bets totalling £4186. Stainton rode the horse prominently, lead over 2 furlongs out but eventually finished 2nd. The horse was dropped a further 2lbs in the handicap to 50. At Brighton on 13 October over 8 furlongs, Mr Greenwood’s back bets totalled £7045. Stainton again gave the horse a strong ride, up with the leaders to challenge 2 furlongs out. Though 2^ndwith a furlong to go, AD VITAM (IRE) was eventually beaten into 4^th place. The handicapper raised the horse 2lbs to a mark of 52 for this run. The reason for noting these rides in some detail is because of the notable contrast they provide to Stainton’s rides in the races listed in Note 3. While the Panel is of course aware that a ride less strong than a jockey’s strongest effort does not automatically amount to a breach of the Rules, the contrast between the Brighton ride and the Kempton ride, to the ride in November (race 1) was so marked as to be damning.

Race 1

By the time of the Kempton race on 2 November 2011, therefore, AD VITAM (IRE) had achieved just two placed finishes in twelve runs for Mr Greenwood, and had been raised 2lbs for its last run. Mr Greenwood had just lost his largest bet on AD VITAM (IRE) since the Redcar race in May 2011. At Kempton, AD VITAM (IRE) was drawn on the outside – what the witnesses referred to as the “coffin draw”. But there were a number of startling aspects of the ride given by Stainton. First, he missed the break entirely. The recordings show that he did not make any effort to dip down to drive his horse forward just before the gates opened, as all the other jockeys did. When the gates did open, the horse’s head was facing left. While the recordings do not make it possible to say one way or the other whether Stainton caused this, it contributed to the slow start. The Panel eventually concluded that his failures of jockeyship at the start were deliberate. Shortly after the start, AD VITAM (IRE) had lost several lengths. This was remarkable given that he had been told by Griffiths to race handy as this was a shorter than usual trip for the horse of 7 furlongs. Stainton began to push AD VITAM (IRE) forward on the outside of the field, and by the 4 furlong marker was still on the outside and just back from mid-division. The field was by this stage racing on the turn. At the 4 furlong marker, Stainton took a hold of the horse. But this was not to drop into a position nearer the rail – he remained on the outside. Further, he continued to race wide, leaving a gap of more than a horse’s width between his mount and the nearest horses to him on his inside. The Panel could find no honest explanation for racing so wide, and Stainton could not supply one. AD VITAM (IRE) had lost ground by the 3 furlong marker. In the straight, he was initially carried marginally wider by another horse, but instead of continuing with a straight run, he switched inside and began a sharply rightward angled run to the finish. He did not begin serious effort till 2 furlongs out, by which time his chance was long lost. AD VITAM (IRE) finished 6th, staying on through beaten horses, and losing by a total of 6 lengths.
Taking this ride as a whole, therefore, the Panel concluded that it amounted to a breach of Rule (B)58 of the kind described in Rule (B)59.2 – a deliberate failure to ride the horse on its merits. There were simply too many startlingly poor features of the ride to permit a less serious conclusion. He plainly did not ride to the instructions from Griffiths. For reasons to be explained, the Panel considered that he was in fact riding to instructions from Mr Greenwood, who wanted the horse to finish down the field to try to get a more sympathetic handicap mark. Mr Greenwood did not back AD VITAM (IRE) in this race, but did back another runner on which he lost £1250 (see Note 4). The Panel did not accept his evidence that the position he took was just because of the poor outside draw for AD VITAM (IRE).

Races 2 and 3

The next two races both featured Murray as the jockey. They were 6 furlong races at Wolverhampton on 11 and 18 November 2011. Mr Greenwood gave her the rides because Stainton was unavailable owing to a suspension for misuse of the whip. Before describing these races, it is appropriate for the Panel to set out its findings upon an important central aspect of the BHA’s case – that before the race on 18 November, Murray told Mrs Griffiths that she had orders from Mr Greenwood not to finish in the first 4. The findings on this were bound to inform the view which the Panel took of the rides.
On 18 November, Mrs Griffiths saddled up AD VITAM (IRE) and led the horse out onto the racecourse. Her husband was not present that day. She said she asked Murray “whose instructions are you riding to today?”. According to Mrs Griffiths, Murray’s reply was that she had had different instructions, and that Mr Greenwood had told her to “jump out, stay wide and don’t finish in the first 4″. Mrs Griffiths then told her not to be so stupid and that she should ride to Griffiths’s instructions to jump out, be prominent and finish in the best place possible. Murray’s version was that she made no mention of any instructions from Mr Greenwood and that she was intending to ride to the instructions she recalled from Mrs Griffiths – “to jump out, make all and win as far as you can”.
In seeking to resolve this conflict, Mr Winter QC and Mr Struthers urged the Panel to approach Mrs Griffiths’s evidence on the basis that it was an invention by a dishonest witness. Mr Winter QC even called another witness, the trainer David Brown, on a collateral issue designed to persuade the Panel that Mrs Griffiths could not be trusted. His evidence was said to show that Mrs Griffiths had made a false claim for personal injury damages arising out of an accident during her earlier employment by Mr Brown. But in the Panel’s view it came nowhere near establishing this. Mr Brown’s hazy recollection of what was said in a solicitor’s letter he saw just once many years before did not demonstrate that she was putting forward a false claim, and even if what he did remember of the letter was an accurate recall of it, the Panel was in no position to decide that what it said was false or that Mrs Griffiths was responsible for any false statements in it. The Panel accepted her evidence that she did not persist with the claim after starting a new chapter in her life with Griffiths.
Nor was the Panel persuaded that Mrs Griffiths must have given false evidence to the BHA about horse ownerships. Mr Winter QC relied upon the fact that the BHA withdrew its case against Kate Walton in an earlier enquiry this year and upon the fact that the BHA did not pursue other enquiries based upon her information in this regard. The detail of Mrs Griffiths’s contributions on this topic is largely unknown, and in any event seems to have consisted of reporting what she thought or understood. Non-reliance upon this by the BHA falls miles short of showing that she was making dishonest allegations.
So, in resolving what was said at Wolverhampton on 18 November, the Panel proceeded on the basis of its assessments of the witnesses and the probabilities emerging from other relevant evidence. Mrs Griffiths impressed the Panel as an honest witness, though combative at times. There were errors of recall in her evidence, but that did not make her a liar. Murray was a quiet person, nervous of the enquiry proceedings, but she too impressed as basically straightforward. The Panel had very much in mind the testimonial from her employer, Mr Brown, that she was a reserved person, but entirely trustworthy.

An important part of the evidence on this issue was the record of Mrs Griffiths’s Facebook exchange with Mr Greenwood just an hour after the race, when she was preparing to return home with the horsebox. Mr Greenwood suggested this record was fabricated, but the Panel concluded it clearly was not. Mr Greenwood did not disclose his side of the record. This is the exchange:

5:12pm

Sophie Emma Griffiths

She told me on the way out ur orders she also said she had 3 different orders to ride to so she was going to stay wide fall back behind horses in the straight don’t finish in the first 4 and I was not nasty to her I told her she should have been sat more handy and it was nothing like daves orders it was an identical race to last week I know u don’t want him to win dave said that he never would without a tongue strap anyway I’m not stupid it would be nice to know what the hell your plan is for the horse hell knows what we have done wrong to you

5:25pm

David Greenwood

Sophie. I’ve spoken too Claire and according too her she said nothing of the sort too u. U really need too watch the race. Claire is flat out from the gate. The horse gave his all.”

The Panel decided that there had been a conversation between Mrs Griffiths and Murray along the lines described in that Facebook entry, but that crucially it did not include Murray saying she was instructed not to finish in the first 4. The Facebook entry appears to be a combination of recounting a pre-race conversation and a description of how the horse ran. It is more likely that Murray said something to the effect that she was told by Mr Greenwood to stay out of the first 4during the race – i.e. to hold the horse up. Mrs Griffiths, who was very angry about the ride afterwards and the departure from the instructions she and her husband had given, misunderstood this. The Panel was further influenced to conclude that on this occasion Mr Greenwood did not instruct the jockey to give AD VITAM (IRE) a stopping ride by these factors –

Murray was not nearly so well known to Mr Greenwood as was Stainton. He was much too sharp to try to make a corrupt bargain with a jockey he did not know well.
As Mr Winter QC submitted, if Murray had had such an instruction and was part of a conspiracy to stop AD VITAM (IRE), it is most improbable she would have revealed this so unguardedly to someone whom she knew full well was not part of the conspiracy.
Mrs Griffiths did not tell anyone in authority at Wolverhampton of this conversation, though she thought she told her husband of this when she got home. He did not remember that. He was uncertain when he learned of this, but recognised that such a conversation should have been reported promptly to the BHA. Yet there was no such report to the BHA until April 2013, when it was mentioned to Mark Beecroft during a stable inspection, triggering an investigation of this line of evidence. In the Panel’s view, this delay indicates Mrs Griffiths was much less clear about what she was told at the time than she later became. She later read her Facebook exchange in a way that led her to a mistaken (but honest) view that Murray had told her of an instruction to stop the horse from Mr Greenwood.

What of the rides in races 2 and 3? Both were remarkable spectacles. In race 2, the horse had an unfavourable draw. Murray did have instructions from Mr Greenwood to stay wide out of the kickback, off the pace, and to come through horses in the straight. By contrast, she had been told by Griffiths to jump out and race prominently. She rode a race much nearer to Mr Greenwood’s instructions. She remained almost extravagantly wide of the rest of the field after the break and before the turn for home. Coming to the straight, she did switch left and push, though weakly, into a gap between horses. AD VITAM (IRE) began to make serious progress and was moving better than any other runner when she was caught up in a complicated multi-horse event of interference. She was badly bumped a couple of times by other victims of the interference. This unbalanced her and nearly unseated her, causing her to stop riding. But for this incident, the Panel thought she would probably have won the race. In fact, she finished 4^th, beaten 2 ¾ lengths by the winner.
For race 3, the Panel again determined that she rode a race nearer to Mr Greenwood’s wish that the horse be held up, rather than complying with her instructions from Griffiths to jump out and race prominently. Again from a wide draw she kept wide initially and to the rear of the field. Though her effort in the straight did not match that of other more experienced apprentices in the race, she did use her whip four times. AD VITAM (IRE) ran on to finish 5^th.
The Panel’s overall conclusion on these two races was that she rode weakly, but that was all she was capable of, and hence she was not in breach of the Rules. She was inexperienced, and later came to recognise that she did not have the ability to ride professionally, and so she relinquished her licence.
That leaves for consideration Mr Greenwood’s instructions to her, which she was following rather than those from Griffiths. The Panel was left in no doubt that he gave them because he thought they would contribute to a poor run down the field. And he was concerned to conceal the contents of those instructions. In the Facebook exchange with Mrs Griffiths after the 18 November race, in passages following those already quoted, he kept repeating to Mrs Griffiths that the horse was not able to run to her husband’s instructions because it had been “flat out”. Mr Greenwood (who was a stranger to false modesty) described himself to the Panel as one of the best five race readers in the country, so this description of the race, which is patently false, was his device at the time to conceal that he had given Murray different instructions. There were undoubtedly other factors which he hoped would contribute to poor results as well – a distance shorter than the horse’s best; the use of an inexperienced and weak jockey not able to give a ride of the strength to which the horse was more likely to respond; and a poor draw in both races. But as those instructions, contrary to Mr Greenwood’s expectations, did not prevent AD VITAM (IRE) from delivering a challenge in race 2 which would have won the race but for the interference, the Panel did not find him in breach of Rule (B)58.2 in relation to them. The same applies for race 3.

Races 4, 5 and 6

After the row between Mrs Griffiths and Mr Greenwood following race 3 at Wolverhampton, which continued in the Facebook exchanges between them, part of which has been quoted above, Mr Greenwood decided to remove AD VITAM (IRE) from Griffiths’s yard. He arranged for it to go to the livery business run by Stainton’s father a few days after the race. There AD VITAM (IRE) remained until 7 January 2012, when it was returned to training with Micky Hammond. In the intervening 7 weeks, AD VITAM (IRE) appears to have been kept stabled, with minimal exercise. He had a bout of colic soon after arriving, but Stainton told the Panel it was not serious and that the horse recovered within a day or two.
Hammond took the horse in because he had empty boxes, but had no expectation of its abilities. He believed that it had come to him direct from Griffiths, which explains why he was prepared to race it on 20 January 2012, which was in fact within the 14 day period for which a horse must be in a licensed yard before running. His misapprehension must have been caused by Mr Greenwood.
In fact, Hammond took remarkably little interest in the horse. He left the selection of races and jockeys to Mr Greenwood. It was ridden in work by Stainton. When it arrived at the yard, Hammond had no concern about its general health but said it was carrying condition. The race at Wolverhampton on 20 January 2012 (race 4) was a poor run and the horse was never on terms. Stainton was its jockey. While there was no criticism of the ride, it showed the horse had a pronounced lack of race fitness, finishing 11^th of 12. It was dropped 2lbs in the handicap to a mark of 48.
In race 5, again at Wolverhampton on 2 February 2012 over 9 ½ furlongs, Stainton held the horse up. But just after the 3 furlong marker, when he was making some progress, he stopped riding for a few strides. He said this was because his horse was being intimidated from the outside. But the recordings show no such thing. He had ample room to continue to make a challenge. All the other riders were getting to work on their mounts at this time. Taken in isolation, one might regard this as an error of judgement. But given the wider context, the Panel decided that he was doing this as a precaution to ensure the horse ran down the field, as Mr Greenwood had required. That amounted to a breach of his obligation to ride the horse on its merits. He finished 8^th of 13.
Race 6 was again at Wolverhampton on 9 February, this time over 6 furlongs. Again, there was no criticism of the ride. The horse had a poor draw, never got on terms and remained always behind, finishing 10^th of 13. This produced a further drop in the handicap to 46. In each of races 4, 5 and 6 Stainton was prepared, in the Panel’s view, to ride to lose if necessary (at Mr Greenwood’s direction), and he actually did so in race 5.
The next race at Wolverhampton on 8 March, however, was instrumental in explaining to the Panel what the purpose of the previous six races really was. It was over 7 furlongs and AD VITAM (IRE) was off a mark of 46. It had a more favourable draw. From the outset Stainton rode with a vigour that was quite absent in races 1, 4, 5 and 6. This was the first race since Brighton in October 2011 in which Mr Greenwood backed AD VITAM (IRE). He staked a total of £15,659 in the win and place markets. Stainton raced prominently right up with the lead throughout but met with difficulty in running at the 1 furlong marker. Nevertheless he drove the horse into the lead inside the final furlong but was caught and headed at the finish by the winner, who had come late and from wider behind. Stainton’s effort on this occasion was, like in the October race at Brighton, a stark contrast with his rides in races 1, 4, 5 and 6. As Mr Greenwood’s betting shows, this was a race which he and Stainton were trying to win.
There was no direct evidence of any reward passing from Mr Greenwood to Stainton for his conduct in these races. However, the Panel concluded that there must have been some. Whether it took the form of continuing patronage with rides, a cash payoff or some other reward (or even a combination of all three), it is not possible to say.

The lay betting – Kevin Ackerman and Kenneth Mackay

It will be noted that the Panel has expressed its conclusions about the rides in races 1-6 and the associated conspiracy between Mr Greenwood and Stainton to ensure poor runs by AD VITAM (IRE) without reference to the lay betting by Mr Ackerman or Mr Mackay. That betting is detailed in Note 4. The reason for this is that the Panel came to the view that the activities and agreement of Mr Greenwood and Stainton were not related to this lay betting. Mr Greenwood and Stainton acted as they did to bring off back-betting coups for Mr Greenwood in the Wolverhampton race on 8 March, a scheme which was only partially successful, and in its next race, again at Wolverhampton, on 16 March, a scheme which failed. Nevertheless, the Panel also found that the lay betting by Mr Ackerman and Mr Mackay was inspired by information provided by Mr Greenwood.
Mr Ackerman was a close friend of Mr Greenwood, who for instance often stayed at his house. They were in regular phone contact. He accepted that his bets on or against AD VITAM (IRE) at least may have been influenced by Mr Greenwood’s view of its prospects, but denied getting any information from him that made him feel he was doing anything wrong. He was rather vague in his evidence about his betting in races 1 to 6. For race 1, for instance, he could not remember why he had placed lay bets against AD VITAM (IRE) for the first time, having previously backed it on some of the occasions when Mr Greenwood did. He said that the horse’s draw might have been a big factor. He offered no real explanation for his betting in races 2 and 3. In the Panel’s view, his back bet on LITTLE PERISHER in race 3 was clearly influenced by Mr Greenwood’s information from Stainton that the horse was ready to win (see the Facebook exchange referred to earlier in these reasons at paragraph 15). This showed a degree of detail passing from Mr Greenwood to Mr Ackerman which was much greater than either was prepared to admit. For races 4, 5 and 6, his explanations were vaguer still. He said that he knew the horse by that stage and had the confidence to lay big.
As Mr Chignell’s evidence established, these lay bets by Mr Ackerman fell outside his usual pattern. The lay bets for races 1 and 2 were his 2nd, 3rd and 9th largest lay bets of 2011, and the 2012 bets were also among his largest that year. The Panel felt bound to conclude that this level of confidence was influenced by information from Mr Greenwood that AD VITAM (IRE) was not going to perform in these races because Stainton would ride to lose if necessary. For the two Murray rides, his confidence was influenced by Mr Greenwood’s information that the horse would not win because his instructions to the jockey would help to provide a poor run. In the case of the Murray rides in races 2 and 3, however, the Panel has already found that those instructions did not include a requirement to stop the horse and were not otherwise a breach of the Rules by Mr Greenwood. So they cannot involve any breach by Mr Ackerman.
The Panel accepted the submission of Mr Winter QC that the Ackerman bets in races 1-6 were trivial in money terms from Mr Greenwood’s perspective. That contributed to the Panel’s conclusion that there was no conspiracy between Mr Greenwood and Mr Ackerman. Mr Greenwood was far too smart to place lay bets against AD VITAM (IRE), either personally or through others, and had no real interest in what Mr Ackerman would do with the information he provided. The Panel decided that Mr Greenwood did not know what Mr Ackerman was doing with the information provided. For this reason, it acquitted both Mr Greenwood and Mr Ackerman of breaches of Rule (A)36 and Rule (A)37. The BHA’s submission that the facility of an office which Mr Ackerman arranged for Mr Greenwood at Towcester (where Mr Ackerman was the Chief Executive) was some sort of payoff for the information was rejected. That arrangement had been in place for some time before the events with which this enquiry was concerned.
That leaves for consideration the allegation that Mr Ackerman’s betting amounted to a “corrupt practice” and therefore a breach of Rule (A)41.1. In the light of the findings of fact above, it is not necessary to go through the detailed submissions about the correct approach to the Rules following the High Court decision in McKeown v BHA in 2009, or the decisions of the BHA’s Appeal Board in Babbs and Celaschi (2013) or Knott (2015). It is enough to note simply the explanation given in Knott for the earlier decision in Babbs and Celaschi –

“the basis on which Babbs and Celaschi was decided was that the mere placing of a lay bet on the basis of Inside Information does not, without more, amount to a corrupt or fraudulent practice contrary to Rule (A)41; and that the provision of information to enable such a lay bet to be made does not, without more, put the provider of such information in breach of Rule (A)37 of assisting or encouraging or causing another person to act in contravention of the provision of that Rule. We agree with that, and we reject the BHA’s contention that the case was wrongly decided.”

Where, as here, the information from Mr Greenwood included an indication that Stainton was prepared to ride to lose if necessary, there is present the extra ingredient which makes corrupt at least lay betting influenced by it. The Panel therefore found that Mr Ackerman’s lay betting for races 1, 4, 5 and 6 amounted to a corrupt practice contrary to Rule (A)41.1.
Mr Mackay chose not to attend the enquiry. He therefore avoided questions about the explanation he gave to investigators in interview for his lay bets against AD VITAM (IRE) in races 1 and 2. This explanation was to the effect that he had lost a large amount of money through betting at the end of October 2011, and decided to change tactics to place large pre-race bets to try to recoup his position. Mr Mackay was a professional gambler concentrating very largely on in-running betting.
Prior to November 2011, he had in fact placed pre-race back bets on AD VITAM (IRE) on three occasions, on each of which Mr Greenwood was also a substantial backer. His change of tactics in November 2011 consisted of three pre-race lay bets of which two were against AD VITAM (IRE) in races 1 and 2. For race 1, the liability risked through his account with Betfair and Betdaq were the 7th largest he ever took. For race 2, the liability risked was the largest he ever took. He told the investigators in interview that these positions were based upon his judgements of the horse’s form, the draw, the lack of support in the early betting market, and in the case of the second race upon the booking of Murray to ride.
Mr Mackay admitted knowing Mr Greenwood, whom he would see at racecourses as both were in-running gamblers. He said he knew him to speak to, but had never really been involved with him. Mr Greenwood, however, disowned any real knowledge of Mr Mackay, and said he had to be shown a photograph of him to know who he was. While there was no evidence of phone contact from Mr Mackay’s phone to Mr Greenwood, the position with Mr Greenwood’s phone is unknown because he did not disclose his records. The Panel formed the view that they must have known each other to a much greater degree than either was prepared to admit, because of their frequent association at racecourses. Mr Mackay’s back betting on AD VITAM (IRE) before November 2011 on occasions when Mr Greenwood was also backing his horse was too much to be coincidence, and also showed contact between them and a flow of information from Mr Greenwood to Mr Mackay.
The Panel decided that information from Mr Greenwood influenced Mr Mackay’s lay bets in races 1 and 2. There was no obvious reason for him to try a new approach alongside his generally profitable in-play betting, particularly when the first of his so-called change of tactics bets, against GALLANTRY on 1 November 2011, had made him a substantial loss. The relative size of his lay bets for races 1 and 2 also contradicts his untested assertion that it was based on form and other judgements of publicly available information. He was placing those bets because he knew from Mr Greenwood that Stainton was prepared to ride to lose if necessary in race 1 and that Murray had been given instructions by Mr Greenwood which it was hoped would contribute to a poor run.
As in the case of Mr Ackerman, however, the Panel took the view that Mr Mackay was not party to any conspiracy – he was simply picking up on and using information from Mr Greenwood, in all probability without Mr Greenwood’s knowledge. But again similarly to the case of Mr Ackerman, his use of this information for race 1 was a corrupt practice and therefore a breach of Rule (A)41.1. For reasons already given, his use of the information provided for race 2 was not corrupt, because there was no breach of the rules by Murray or by Mr Greenwood in relation to his instructions for that race (more by luck than judgement in Mr Greenwood’s case). The Panel was not prepared to infer that any price was paid by Mr Mackay for this information: it was provided by Mr Greenwood to someone he evidently trusted and it was no part of Mr Greenwood’s purpose to make money from lay betting. Hence there was no breach by Mr Greenwood of Rule (A)36 or by Mr Mackay of Rule (A)37.

David Greenwood and the Rule (A)50 charge

On 25 July 2012, John Burgess, an investigating officer with the BHA, wrote to Mr Greenwood asking him to attend an interview about a number of matters, including matters relating to AD VITAM (IRE), his association with jockeys and trainers, his own betting activity, and his association with individuals whose betting exchange accounts were under investigation. That description was sufficient to enable Mr Greenwood to understand the areas to be covered in interview. He was asked to reply by 10 August 2012 to indicate whether he would agree.
He replied on that date, saying that he was considering his options including whether to take legal advice. Mr Burgess responded on 13 August, asking for a decision by 20 August. Again on the deadline day, Mr Greenwood wrote back asking for further detail about the nature of the investigation. That was detailed to which he was not entitled. On 28 August, Mr Burgess again responded to explain why further detail would not be provided and specifying that he should reply by 7 September to agree a date between 17 and 28 September 2012 for the interview. The response, once again sent on the deadline date of 7 September, was to the effect that the suggested dates were not convenient and that he was prepared to be interviewed in October. Mr Burgess e-mailed him on 18 September to say that he was prepared for the interview to take place on 9 October, one of the dates Mr Greenwood had suggested. On 4 October, Mr Greenwood replied to a message from Mr Burgess of the same date saying that he had not received the e-mail of 18 September, an untrue answer in the Panel’s view, and now said that the arrangement for 9 October was impossible. Mr Burgess’s response, again on 4 October, required Mr Greenwood to agree a day in either of the weeks commencing 15 or 22 October. Mr Greenwood did not respond substantively to this or a chasing message from Mr Burgess of 15 October until 25 October 2012. On this occasion he reverted to a demand for further information before agreeing to an interview. Once again, the BHA responded by letter of 16 November, on this occasion from Danielle Sharkey in the BHA’s compliance department, explaining why further information would not be provided and asking Mr Greenwood to make contact with Mr Burgess by no later than 23 November to finalise a date for an interview. She further enclosed a new request for production of telephone billings by 30 November. At this stage, Mr Greenwood resorted to the excuse of being unable to open e-mail attachments and to suggesting that the letter had gone astray. On 14 December, he professed to find this “a confusing matter” and was going to seek representation. He did not do this, on his own evidence until 9 January. On 31 January 2013, Miss Sharkey wrote to say that as he had failed to agree a time and place for interview and had failed to produce his telephone records, an application for exclusion would be made to the Disciplinary Officer. The letter contained a last gasp offer to agree to be interviewed and to provide the records by no later than 7 February 2013. On 7 February, solicitors acting for Mr Greenwood wrote professing his intention to cooperate, and saying that they hoped to be in a position to provide a substantive reply “shortly”. Nothing further was heard from Mr Greenwood or his solicitors by 19 February 2013, when he was made the subject of an exclusion order.
That history revealed, in the Panel’s view, a clear pattern of evasion by Mr Greenwood. It showed that he failed to agree a time and a place for interview on a number of occasions. A variety of dates was specified by the BHA during the correspondence, none of which he agreed. And the history also plainly showed that he failed to produce the telephone records required of him within the time specified. Subject to one further point the breach of Rule (A)50.2 was clearly made out.
The further point was the ingenious contention by Mr Winter QC that Mr Burgess was not an “Approved Person” for the purpose of making a request for information under Rule (A)50.1. He did not make the same argument in relation to Miss Sharkey’s request for telephone records as authorised by Ben Gunn, a Director of the BHA.
An “Approved Person” is defined in Rule (A)48 to be a person authorised by the Authority to exercise a variety of powers including the power to request information or records. Mr Weston on behalf of the BHA was unable to produce any internal record identifying which employees of the BHA were regarded as Approved Persons. He suggested that Mr Burgess could be regarded as such because he gave evidence that he was. In the Panel’s view that did not establish his case. However, the terms of his contract of employment and the very nature of the job he was employed to do as an Investigating Officer do show that he was properly to be treated as an Approved Person. The requirement for separate and additional authorisation for information such as telephone billings that is referred to in Rule (A)50.3 and Rule (A)50.4 is a distinct process that is not required to be followed in order to require an interview.
Hence Mr Winter QC’s point provided no defence to the charge, which the Panel found proved.

Conclusions

Mr Greenwood and Stainton engaged in a conspiracy contrary to Rule (A)41.1 and Rule (A)41.2 to seek to ensure that AD VITAM (IRE) ran down the field in races 1, 4, 5 and 6.
Mr Greenwood (the owner of AD VITAM (IRE)) gave instructions (contrary to Rule (B)58.2) to Stainton to ride in races 1, 4, 5 and 6 in a way which could, and in races 1 and 5 did, have the effect of preventing AD VITAM (IRE) from achieving its best possible placing.
In races 1 and 5, Stainton rode AD VITAM (IRE) in breach of his obligation by Rule (B)58.1 to ride the horse on its merits.
Mr Greenwood’s purpose in getting Stainton to ride in this manner was for handicapping reasons: it was done to try to reduce the horse’s Official Rating to a mark at which Mr Greenwood judged it would be more competitive.
Neither Mr Greenwood nor Stainton acted in breach of the Rules as above for the purpose of a lay-betting conspiracy.
Mr Greenwood was not in breach of Rule (A)36 by communicating inside information to betting exchange account holders for reward. Though he did communicate inside information to Mr Ackerman and Mr Mackay, he was unaware of its use and there was no reward involved.
Mr Greenwood was in breach of Rule (A)50.2 between 11 July 2012 and 31 January 2013 because he failed to agree a time and a place for interview by the BHA investigating officer, because he failed to attend any such interview, and because he failed to supply his telephone billing records to the BHA as requested.
Murray was not in breach of Rule (A)41 or Rule (B)58.1 in relation to races 2 and 3. In reaching this conclusion, the Panel did not accept the evidence of Mrs Griffiths that she was told by Murray before race 3 that she (Murray) had been instructed by Mr Greenwood to finish out of the first four in the race. However, the Panel emphasises that it concluded that Mrs Griffiths and her husband gave honest evidence to the Panel. The Panel’s eventual conclusion was that Mrs Griffiths misunderstood what was said to her about the riding instructions which Murray had been given by Mr Greenwood.
The Panel did not find that Mr Greenwood gave Murray instructions to ride AD VITAM (IRE) otherwise than on its merits.�� While he expected that his instructions would contribute to a poor run, in the event they did not do so, and he was not in breach of Rule (B)58.2.
Mr Ackerman was in breach of Rule (A)41.1, but not of Rule (A)41.2. He became aware from Mr Greenwood that AD VITAM (IRE) was likely to run down the field in races 1, 4, 5 and 6 because of the possible co-operation of Stainton in handicapping runs. He placed lay bets against AD VITAM (IRE) in those races. He was not in breach by virtue of his betting for races 2 and 3.
Mr Ackerman was not in breach of Rule (A)37 because he was not providing reward to Mr Greenwood for the information which informed his lay betting against AD VITAM (IRE) for races 1, 4, 5 and 6, and he did not otherwise assist, encourage or cause Mr Greenwood to act in contravention of the Rules.
Mr Mackay was in breach of Rule (A)41.1, but not of Rule (A)41.2. He became aware that AD VITAM (IRE) was likely to run down the field in race 1 because of the possible co-operation of Stainton in handicapping runs. He placed lay bets against AD VITAM (IRE) in that race. He was not in breach by virtue of his lay betting for race 2.
Mr Mackay was not in breach of Rule (A)37 because he was not providing reward to Mr Greenwood for the information which informed his lay betting against AD VITAM (IRE) in race 1, and he did not otherwise assist, encourage or cause Mr Greenwood to act in contravention of the Rules.

Penalties

For Stainton and Mr Greenwood the Panel started from the guidance appearing for breaches of Rule (B)58 and (A)41. The recent amendment of the Rule (A)41 guidance means that the Rule (B)58 guidance is relevant for both.�� This says that for cases of deliberately riding down the field for reward, or knowing it had been layed to lose, the penalty range is 5 – 25 years with an entry point of 8 years disqualification.

The Panel did accept that their conduct in this case was materially different and less serious than a lay betting conspiracy, as it was not designed to cheat bettors with a supply of “knowing” money to match their back bets. But it did nevertheless involve cheating those who may have chosen to back AD VITAM (IRE).

In the case of Stainton, the Panel did not accept the argument that a suspension only was appropriate, because that will ordinarily be the penalty for a “handicapping run”. That ignores the findings made by the Panel that Stainton was part of a conspiracy to do this over a number of rides, did so for two of them and must have been rewarded for this.�� However, the Panel did accept that he was the minor actor in this and very much under the influence of Mr Greenwood.

Having decided therefore that the guidance and range of penalty set out at paragraph a) on page 10 was not right for this case, the Panel settled upon a disqualification of 2 years as appropriate for Stainton’s breaches.

In Mr Greenwood’s case, it was necessary to reflect his much greater responsibility for what was done. He corrupted Stainton.�� He was doing this for his own hoped-for financial gain with a back betting coup.�� That merited, in the Panel’s view, a disqualification of 6 years.

Mr Greenwood was also separately in breach of Rule (A)50 through his failure to attend an interview and his failure to disclose telephone records. That was entirely distinct from the breaches already considered.�� The Guide suggests a penalty range of 1 – 3 years disqualification for this, with an entry point of 18 months.�� Mr Greenwood’s breach was a considered and prolonged one here, so the Panel imposed a disqualification of 2 years, to run consecutively with the 6 years penalty, making a total of 8 years in all.�� It rejected the submission that the period of the disqualification should run from February 2013, when Mr Greenwood was excluded for non-production of records.�� That exclusion and its continuation was in a sense his choice, because he did not produce records or come for an interview.�� It is necessary for him and others to appreciate that interviews and records disclosure are vital parts of the regulator’s resources for policing horseracing, and that failure to co-operate will lead to heavy penalties.

Turning to Mr Ackerman, the penalty guidance prescribed in his case was an exclusion (because he was not a registered person) of between 6 months and 10 years, with an entry point of 3 years. The Panel viewed his conduct as opportunistic, and accepted he took no part in the corrupt behaviour of Stainton and Greenwood.�� It was urged on his behalf that the consequences for him of an exclusion, endangering his continued employment as CEO of Towcester, should lead to a lesser penalty than exclusion.�� His co-operation in the investigation and the relatively small size of his lay betting were also relied upon.�� The Panel did not, however, feel that his status as CEO at Towcester provided any reason for a more lenient penalty.�� In fact, his position gave him all the more reason to behave with care and within the Rules.�� But a departure from the 3 years entry point certainly was called for, because his wrongdoing and that of Stainton and Mr Greenwood fell into different compartments.

The Panel eventually decided upon an exclusion of 6 months and a fine of £5,000 for Mr Ackerman.

The case of Mr Mackay was to be treated in much the same way as Mr Ackerman’s. His financial gains were similar, but he too was divorced from the conspiracy of Stainton and Mr Greenwood.�� He is however a registered owner, so in his case the penalty is a 6 month disqualification plus a fine of £5,000.

The penalties of disqualification or exclusion (as the case may be) take place with immediate effect from the date of the penalties hearing, 12 October 2015.

Notes to Editors

1. The Panel for the hearing was: Tim Charlton QC (Chair), Edward Dorrell and Ian Stark.

2. A summary of the findings is as follows:

David M Greenwood
In breach of Rules (A)41.2, (A)41.1, (A)50.2 and (B)58.2
Not in breach of Rule (A)36

Michael Stainton
In breach of Rules (A)41.2 and (A)41.1 and (B)58.1

Claire Murray
Not in breach of Rule (A)41 or Rule (B)58.1

Kevin Ackerman
In breach of Rule (A)41.1
Not in breach of Rule (A)41.2 or (A)37

Kenneth Mackay
In breach of Rule (A)41.1
Not in breach of Rule (A)41.2 or (A)37

3. The table of races is as follows

4. The betting activity was as follows:

5. Details and potential penalties for the Rules where breaches have been found are as follows:

(A)41 Involvement in corrupt or fraudulent practices in relation to racing

Where the corrupt or fraudulent practice included the actual or intended breach(es) of any other Rule(s) by other individuals involved in such practice, see penalty for such Rule(s) if the corresponding penalty exceeds the entry point and range below.

Where there is no such associated Rule(s):
Entry point: Disqualify/Exclude 3 years
Range: 6 months – 10 years

(B)58 General requirement for a horse to be run on its merits and obtain best possible placing

The range applied depends on the finding by the Panel as to the circumstances, and the full table can be found on pages 10 and 11 of the Guide to Procedures and Penalties.

Deliberately not riding a horse to obtain the best possible placing for personal reward or knowing that it had been layed to lose:
Entry point: Disqualify 8 years; Horse suspended
Range 5 – 25 years

(A)50 Requirement to provide information or records

Entry point: Disqualify/Exclude 18 months
Range: 1 year – 3 years

Result of an appeal (S Manana) heard by the Disciplinary Panel on Friday 29 May, and a finding regarding penalty (Richie McGrath)

Robin Mounsey — Fri, 29 May 2015 14:31:30 +0000

Saeed Manana

1. On Thursday 29 May 2015, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) heard an appeal against the decision of the Stewards at Newmarket on 14 May 2015 to reverse the placings of the first and second home in the Chassis Cab DAF Handicap. They demoted URBAN CASTLE (USA), ridden by Silvestre de Sousa to second place, and in consequence promoted EXCELLENT PUCK (IRE), ridden by Jamie Spencer, to first place. They found that accidental interference had occurred shortly before the finish, that this had caused a loss of momentum for EXCELLENT PUCK (IRE), who was beaten by just a nose at the line.

2. As always, the Disciplinary Panel approached this appeal as a re-hearing. The appeal was presented by URBAN CASTLE (USA)’s trainer, James Tate, on behalf of the owner Mr Saeed Manana. Tate argued the appeal both attractively and ably. The BHA’s position was represented by Lyn Williams.

3. In the race, which was a 12 furlong Class 4 handicap, the first relevant incident occurred at the one furlong marker. The favourite LUNASEA (IRE), ridden by Adam Kirby, was in the lead. Kirby asked his colt for an effort, but it ducked left and bumped EXCELLENT PUCK (IRE), which was beginning to challenge and nearly level with LUNASEA (IRE). This bump knocked EXCELLENT PUCK (IRE) left, and caused him to interfere in turn with URBAN CASTLE (USA). At this point, URBAN CASTLE (USA) was just under half a length down on EXCELLENT PUCK (IRE). Despite this incident, EXCELLENT PUCK (IRE) moved quickly ahead of Kirby’s mount, but within a few strides was caught and headed by URBAN CASTLE (USA). De Sousa’s filly was a head up on EXCELLENT PUCK (IRE) with 180 yards to run. At this stage, Spencer’s mount began to rally. He pulled his whip through into his right hand, and used it four times while gradually wearing down URBAN CASTLE (USA). Though there was daylight between EXCELLENT PUCK (IRE) and URBAN CASTLE (USA) in the initial stages of their duel from 180 yards out, they gradually came together and brushed against each other. Spencer continued to use his whip in his right hand, but de Sousa, who also had his whip in his right hand, gave URBAN CASTLE (USA) a couple of slaps on the shoulder. About five strides before the line, the two horses made more serious contact with each other. Both jockeys continued riding, and at the line there was the minimum margin of a nose between them. The official photograph shows that this was, if anything, a “short” nose – as Spencer said in evidence to the Panel, “there was only a pixel in it”.

4. At the Panel hearing, as before the Newmarket Stewards, Spencer and de Sousa both maintained that they had kept to a straight line in running, and that the incident five strides before the finishing line was caused by the actions of the other’s horse.

5. But before analysing what happened in the closing strides of the race, it was necessary for the Panel to confront an argument raised by Tate concerning the incident at the one furlong marker. He pointed out that not merely was URBAN CASTLE (USA) bumped by EXCELLENT PUCK (IRE) as a result of LUNASEA (IRE)’s duck to the left, but that URBAN CASTLE (USA) was struck on the top of her head by Spencer’s whip (which was at that stage of the race in his left hand). He argued that both this incident and the bump received by URBAN CASTLE (USA) should be brought into the analysis. The BHA, on the other hand, said that these should be left out of account because both the bump and the hit with the whip were caused by LUNASEA (IRE) and not by EXCELLENT PUCK (IRE). It was submitted that this could only have been relevant as a challenge to LUNASEA (IRE)’s placing, which was obviously immaterial because LUNASEA (IRE) finished fifth, behind the two horses with which it interfered.

6. This involved a consideration of Rule (B)55, and of that Rule’s effect on Rule (B)54.5.1. Given the view which the Panel eventually came to on the facts, it was not necessary to resolve the difficult questions raised by the wording.

7. The Panel was entirely persuaded that Spencer’s strike with his whip on the top of URBAN CASTLE (USA)’s head was an accident, which came about because of the knock by LUNASEA (IRE). He was raising his whip in his left hand to give encouragement to his mount at the moment he was bumped by LUNASEA (IRE). He was just beginning his downward stroke with the whip when he was knocked into URBAN CASTLE (USA), hence hitting that filly between the ears, though without any serious force. Remarkably perhaps, the filly did not show any ill-effects from this. The hit was not on her nose. She did not flinch. She continued, apparently unhindered, with her run from half a length down on EXCELLENT PUCK (IRE) to be a head up within 40 yards or so. It was revealing that de Sousa did not mention the hit with the whip at the Newmarket inquiry. As for the effect of the bump, that was bound to have cost her some momentum. But EXCELLENT PUCK (IRE) also suffered a loss of some momentum from the bump by LUNASEA (IRE) and from the contact with URBAN CASTLE (USA). The Panel’s eventual conclusion about this incident was that EXCELLENT PUCK (IRE) and URBAN CASTLE (USA) suffered equally, though neither suffered much.

8. That left for analysis the incident which occurred just before the finish. Tate deployed the Racing UK footage which showed with dotted lines the tracks followed by the two horses. He argued that this demonstrated that EXCELLENT PUCK (IRE) was the horse which veered off a straight line and caused interference to URBAN CASTLE (USA). The Panel did not agree. The horses raced with daylight between them until the final half furlong, when they both came in and raced in touch with each other. Again, Tate argued that there were in fact three bumps received by URBAN CASTLE (USA) in that last half furlong. But the Panel saw just the one when the horses were running neck and neck only five strides from the line. De Sousa had not mentioned these earlier bumps before the Newmarket Stewards. While Tate cautioned that English was not the jockey’s first language, de Sousa is perfectly capable of expressing himself well and clearly in English. The Panel concluded that the earlier contact in the last half furlong was no more than the horses brushing against each other. EXCELLENT PUCK (IRE) was keeping to a straight line, and URBAN CASTLE (USA) was offering to lean in on him. It was significant that de Sousa was seeking to keep URBAN CASTLE (USA) to a straight line with his left hand on the reins and by using his whip in his right hand, which was off the rein, to give her a couple of slaps down the shoulder. These actions were therefore, in the Panel’s view, attempts to exert control over URBAN CASTLE (USA)’s tendency to lean in rather than attempts to encourage her.

9. The critical bump just before the finish received different interpretations. Spencer, supported by the BHA, said that URBAN CASTLE (USA) moved suddenly in on him, and caused EXCELLENT PUCK (IRE) to become unbalanced. Tate and de Sousa argued that URBAN CASTLE (USA) was bumped by EXCELLENT PUCK (IRE)’s hind quarters and that this was the cause of the filly’s movement into the left shoulder of EXCELLENT PUCK (IRE). Having studied all the available recordings extensively, the Panel decided that the initial bump came from URBAN CASTLE (USA)’s sudden movement in on EXCELLENT PUCK (IRE)’s left shoulder. This caused EXCELLENT PUCK (IRE)’s hind quarters to swing out to his left, unbalancing him.

10. It was evident that this incident of accidental interference must have caused some loss of momentum to Spencer’s mount, even though he did not have to stop riding. The Panel was satisfied that the incident improved URBAN CASTLE (USA)’s placing at the winning post just a few yards later. This was not, therefore, a case where Guiding Principle c) – which gives the benefit of the doubt to the first horse home – could operate. On the contrary, Guiding Principle d) was decisive in the Panel’s mind – “interference is likely to have impeded the sufferer to some degree and therefore a reversal of placings is more likely to follow where there is only a nose between the horses”.

11. Accordingly, the Panel dismissed this appeal against the decision of the Newmarket Stewards (who reached their decision in a small fraction of the time taken by the Panel to wrestle with the issues in the appeal). The placings in the race remain as corrected by the Newmarket Stewards.

12. The appeal raised difficult issues and was, as the Panel said when announcing the decision, a tight call. This was clearly a case where it was appropriate to return the deposit, and the Panel so orders.

Richie McGrath

The Disciplinary Panel has already provided reasons for its decision that Richie McGrath was in breach of Rule (B)58 of the Rules of Racing in respect of his ride of RUMBLE OF THUNDER (IRE) at Fakenham on 1 January 2011.

This breach was characterised as a “Case 1” breach as described in Rule (B)59.2, which amounted to schooling in public.�� Having given to the parties a preliminary indication of its approach to penalty in the circumstances of this case, and having received the BHA’s notification that it was not contending for any suspension or fine, the Panel decided not to impose any penalty.

This sort of breach, occurring so long ago, was not the focus of the inquiry which led to a general acquittal for McGrath.�� It was not appropriate to subject him to a suspension (usual in schooling cases) in all the circumstances.

Notes to Editors:

1. The Panel for the appeal hearing was:��Tim Charlton (Chair),��Hopper Cavendish,��William Barlow.

Result of a Disciplinary Panel hearing (Richie McGrath and Mark Aspey)

Robin Mounsey — Tue, 28 Apr 2015 14:02:34 +0000

The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) have today returned their verdict from the hearing involving former licensed jockey Richie McGrath and registered person Mark Aspey which commenced on March 23 and completed on March 27 2015.

The Panel’s decision is as follows:

“Having considered the evidence and arguments put forward in the recent inquiry concerning Mark Aspey and Richie McGrath, the Disciplinary Panel reached the following results. The allegation of breach by Aspey and McGrath��of Rule (A)41.2 was not found to be proved and was dismissed. The Panel did find that Richie McGrath was in breach of Rule (B)58 in the sense explained in (B)59.2 in one instance – the ride of RUMBLE OF THUNDER at Fakenham on 1 January 2011. But this was a breach of the least serious kind, described in the Guide to Procedures and Penalties as a schooling run. In other words it was a free-standing breach of the Rule and not a part of any conspiracy to ride to lose if necessary, which was the allegation made by the Rule (A)41.2 charge. Full reasons for the Panel’s findings will be published in a few days.”

The Panel will now consider submissions as to how penalties – if appropriate – will be dealt with.

Notes to Editors

1. The Panel for the hearing was: Tim Charlton QC (Chair), Hopper Cavendish and Didi Powles.

2. The BHA are unable to make any further comment until being in receipt of the Panel’s full written reasons, which will be published in due course.

3. A breach of Rule (B)59.2 in terms of schooling a horse in public carries an entry point penalty of a 14 day suspension with a range of 10 – 18 days.

4. The charges against McGrath and Aspey were as follows:

1. Whether Richie McGrath and Mark Aspey, in the period between about 1 October 2009 and 18 July 2012, acted in breach of Rule (A) 41.2 by conspiring together and/or with others unknown to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice, namely the use of inside information about the likely performance of horses for betting purposes when:
��
a) the information was (i) known by a licensed jockey, Richie McGrath, as a result of acting as a licensed jockey and (ii) not information in the public domain or regarded as such under the Rules of Racing (and hence ‘Inside Information’ as defined within Rule (A) 36) and would provide a bettor with an unfair advantage in the betting market.
��
b) the information was or included the fact that Richie McGrath was prepared, if necessary, to omit to ride the horses on their merits so as to prevent it from winning or being placed in the race.
��
2. Whether Richie McGrath acted in breach of Rule (B) 59.2 by intentionally failing to ensure that he rode the horses set out in the additional table of races on their merits.

5. The table of races upon which the case was based here:
/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Table-of-All-Races.pdf

Result of an enquiry (Danny Cook) heard by the Disciplinary Panel on Thursday 19 March

Lucy Tully — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:39:23 +0000

The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry on Thursday 19 March 2015 to consider whether or not Danny Cook, a licensed jockey, had committed a breach of Rule (D)65 of the Rules of Racing in that a urine sample taken from him on 1 February 2015 at Musselburgh racecourse tested positive for benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine, and therefore, pursuant to Rule (D)58, a Banned Substance.

Cook, who was in attendance, was represented by Rory Mac Neice.

The Panel heard submissions from Mr Mac Neice that Cook accepted there was no mitigation up to the notification dated 18 February 2015 that he had tested positive for cocaine on 1 February 2015, but that thereafter he accepted the positive test result, informed the Professional Jockeys Association and expressed a wish not to oppose any interim suspension.

Mr Mac Neice explained that Cook had admitted the breach from an early stage, and by his co-operation had saved the BHA time and money, and as a result should receive some reduction in penalty.

The BHA submitted that in line with the Guide to Procedures and Penalties no reduction in penalty was appropriate in the circumstances of a finding of cocaine.

The Panel considered that the six month suspension should not be reduced notwithstanding Cook’s co-operation post notification of the positive test, because the Panel considered that as an experienced jockey, taking a substance, which later proved to be an illegal Class A drug, the night before he was booked to take six rides, which he then rode, was a serious matter.

Taking this into account the Panel suspended Cook from riding for six months from Wednesday 25 February 2015 to Monday 24 August 2015 inclusive.

Notes to editors:

1. The Panel for the enquiry was:��Philip Curl (Chair),��Celina Carter, Ian Stark.

Disciplinary Panel reasons regarding Graham Bradley and Brendan Powell

Robin Mounsey — Tue, 09 Dec 2014 12:27:53 +0000

1. �� Between 20 and 22 October 2014, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an inquiry into the allegation that Graham Bradley had acted as an unlicensed trainer from October 2012 until May 2014 with the assistance of Brendan Powell snr, who does have a trainer’s licence. Having considered the evidence and arguments put before it by the parties, the Panel announced on 28 October that it did not find the cases against them to be proved. The reasons for this decision are given below.

2.�� The Rule breaches are said to have happened in respect of 12 horses that ran both on the flat and over jumps between October 2012 and May 2014. They ran in a total of 116 races, achieving 19 wins. The horses are identified in the attachment to these reasons, and are referred to below (for convenience only) as “the Bradley horses”.

3.�� The structure of the case made by the BHA and presented on their behalf by Graeme McPherson QC was this :-

(i) Bradley was accused of breach of Rules (A)14 and/or (C)1. These provide –

“(A)14.1 A Person in Great Britain may not train a horse which runs in a race under these Rules unless

14.1.1 he holds a trainer’s licence or a trainer’s permit granted by the Authority in accordance with the Trainer Manual (C)”

“(C)1.1 Part (A)3 prohibited any Person in Great Britain from training horses to run under these Rules unless

1.1.1 he holds a trainer’s licence or a trainer’s permit granted by the Authority….”

(ii) He was further said to be in breach of Rule (A)30: by training without a licence or by running the Bradley horses, he was alleged to have acted “in a manner which the Authority considers prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct or good reputation of horseracing…”

(iii) Thirdly, he was alleged to be in breach of Rule (A)37 because he “assisted, encouraged or caused” Powell to act in breach of Rule (A)30 (the prejudicial conduct Rule referred to above).

(iv) Powell faced the allegation that he was in breach of Rule (A)37 by “assisting encouraging or causing” Bradley to act in breach of Rules (A)14/(C)1 or to act in breach of Rule (A)30.

(v) The second charge faced by Powell was that he was himself in breach of Rule (A)30.

4.�� Bradley represented himself at the hearing; Powell was defended by Rory Mac Neice.

Background

5.�� After October 2009, when his disqualification came to an end, Bradley felt that his bloodstock business was not doing as well as he hoped. He eventually decided to seek to get back into work in the racing industry. In August 2011, he took a job as a part-time unpaid work rider for Barry Brennan in Lambourn. That came to an end in March 2012.

6. �� On 19 March 2012, he moved to the yard of Seamus Durack, and was registered on Durack’s Stable Employees Register (SER) as a part-time unpaid work rider. Durack’s yard was in a fenced off portion of the premises occupied by Powell. Bradley brought with him a number of horses which were registered as going into training with Durack. The BHA soon became concerned about the extent of Bradley’s involvement in Durack’s training operation, and on 26 July 2012, they carried out an unannounced inspection at his yard. This was followed shortly afterwards by Durack’s move to different premises in Lambourn, and he told Bradley that he could not come along and bring his horses to the new yard.

7.�� Bradley therefore asked Powell whether he might be allowed to keep the Bradley horses at Powell’s yard, Newlands Stables, which was now restored to its previous size following Durack’s move. Powell agreed. He thought that the arrangement would be short term, because he understood that Bradley was intending to apply for a training licence. On 29 October 2012, Bradley was registered on Powell’s SER as a full-time unpaid employee. A few days after this, Bradley wrote to the BHA asking whether there was any reason why he should not apply for a trainer’s licence. After a chasing letter in December 2012, he received a reply in January 2013 which indicated that the BHA wished to have a meeting with him. This meeting took place in March 2013, but the Panel is unaware of the detail of what transpired. During the early months of that same year, Bradley completed his training modules. Thereafter, he put together an application for a training licence, which he sent to the BHA on 24 May 2013.

8.�� On 25 July 2013, an unannounced inspection of Newlands Stables was conducted by the BHA. Its purpose was to establish the involvement of Bradley in the training of horses there. Following this, interviews were conducted with Bradley and Powell and documents were requested from them. Further investigations were carried out, and these eventually led to the allegations of breach of the Rules of Racing with which this inquiry is concerned.

The Panel’s approach to the relevant Rules of Racing

9.�� As this seems to be the first occasion when allegations of breach of Rules (A)14 and (C)1 have had to be considered, it is necessary for the Panel to set out its understanding of these provisions.

10.�� The reliance upon Rule (C)1 can be swiftly disposed of. This creates no obligations to be met by anybody. It merely declares what is believed to be the effect of the Rules in Part (A)3, among which is Rule (A)14.

11.�� Rule (A)14.1.1 appears simple enough. (The other parts of Rule (A)14 are not relevant for this inquiry; they deal with foreign trained horses and training for hunter chases). Only horses trained by a licensed trainer or permit holder can run in races held under Rules.

12. �� It is important to note that the Rule does not seek to declare that only licensed trainers can train horses. That of course would be an overreach. Many people will and can train and prepare racehorses without a licence, such as pre-training yards and individual owners. Such horses cannot run in races, however, unless they are trained at that time by a licence holder. Furthermore, such horses must have been in the care of and trained by a licensed trainer for at least 14 days before a race, as Schedule (B)3, paragraphs 22 and 23 stipulate.

13.�� There is no compendious statement within the Rules of what constitutes “training”. There are detailed provisions within the Trainer Manual (C) of the Rules which set out the duties of a trainer. The most basic of these are his duty to conduct training with reasonable skill and care (Rule (C)22), to take all reasonable steps to ensure the welfare of horses in his care or control Rule (C)27), and to give necessary instructions to jockeys to ensure that horses run on their merits (Rule (C)45). And there is a whole raft of other detailed requirements, many of them concerning a trainer’s liability in the case of a positive sample test. These provisions provide only a partial guidance when considering what does or does not constitute “training”.

14.�� Ultimately, the ingredients of “training” emerged in the inquiry in a commonsense way – they included the financial arrangements between owner and trainer, the day-to-day care of horses, the exercise and work regime, race selection and entry, jockey selection and instructions.

15.�� It was not suggested by either side during the inquiry that any particular matter or activity demonstrated, one way or the other, that Bradley was training the Bradley horses or that Powell was not. That seemed the correct approach to this Panel. Thus, it could not be argued (and was not) by Bradley or Powell that, because the Bradley horses were entered for races by Powell and raced under his name as trainer so that he would have personal responsibility if one of them gave a positive sample or was found to be a non-trier, then this settled the debate. Likewise, the BHA did not argue (again correctly) that for instance the unusual financial arrangements for the Bradley horses concluded the argument. What matters is forming an overall judgement from all the evidence.

16.�� It was the BHA’s case (developed both in its written Case Summary and when opening the inquiry) that Bradley, not Powell, was the trainer of the Bradley horses. The response to that by Bradley and Powell was to assert the contrary and a number of witnesses were called by Bradley – mostly people who worked at the stables. However, in closing submissions, Mr McPherson QC for the BHA raised an alternative argument. This was to the effect that, even if the Panel concluded that Powell was to be viewed as a trainer of the Bradley horses, Bradley should equally be seen as their trainer also. Mr Mac Neice’s response was that the horses could in principle have only one trainer, and that was in fact Powell. Though this argument was a late arrival, the Panel nevertheless felt it was open in principle on the facts and on the wording of Rule (A)14. Thus, a conclusion that Powell was the trainer was not the end of the analysis.

17.�� But caution is needed with this approach. There are many instances in which a person, whether employed within a yard or not, might be seen to carry out training activities. An assistant trainer is an obvious example. Though he may carry out many, perhaps most, of the activities that can be described as “training”, he will ordinarily do so under the control and direction of the licensed trainer and plainly does not fall foul of Rule (A)14. An owner or his representative may intervene and insist upon matters such as which vet treats a horse, what they should be fed, and how they should be run. An owner may insist upon a particular jockey to ride his horse. That does not convert the owner into a trainer. And when a trainer goes on holiday, he is not in any sort of day-to-day control of the practical aspects of training. Similarly, if a trainer is ill or injured, he may be out of action for some time. Though there is provision in the Rule (C)9 for temporary licences, unless and until that is granted, the trainer is taking no part in directing the work of his stable staff. It could not then be said that the stable staff are in breach of Rule (A)14.

18.�� So the criterion the Panel applied was this. Was Bradley operating an autonomous training operation within Powell’s yard? Or in other words, was Bradley running an operation which was outside the control and direction of Powell?

The main witnesses

19.�� Before examining the various facts and matters canvassed at the inquiry to throw light on the issue for decision – was Bradley training the Bradley horses? – the Panel first state its view of the main witnesses.

20.�� Powell was, in the Panel’s view, a basically truthful witness. He had known Bradley since their riding days. While they generally got on well, their relationship was not as close or as friendly as Bradley sought to say. They did not socialise, and there was an element of the wariness on Powell’s part about Bradley because of his disciplinary past and, perhaps, because of his more forceful character.

21.�� Bradley was subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. A part of this focused upon his previous history and upon a number of matters emerging from the evidence in this inquiry. Their relevance was to challenge the credibility of Bradley’s evidence on the issues for decision. There were many disturbing features. It is not necessary to go through these in detail, because they did not directly arise for decision, being credibility questions, though they may well be found relevant by the Licensing Committee when it comes to decide upon Bradley’s training licence application. This Panel felt that it had to be very cautious in accepting Bradley’s unsupported word on the matters that do arise for decision. There was concern about Bradley’s failure to recognise the seriousness of the misconduct which had led to his disqualifications. It was also very troubling that, after he put in an application that was rejected for his wife to become a registered owner, he arranged for Durack’s partner, Samantha Beddoes, to represent herself to be the owner of his horse SUGARFORMYHONEY (IRE). There was also seeming overcharging by Bradley of such items as transport and farrier costs to the owners of the Bradley horses. He admitted that he occasionally “topped up” to give himself extra, because the rates charged to these owners were so tight. Against these matters, the Panel did set the fact that Bradley had co-operated openly and swiftly with all demands for interviews and documents that came from the BHA. But the overall picture with which the Panel was left was that Bradley’s uncorroborated evidence had to be viewed with great caution.

22.�� The Panel heard from a number of other witnesses, many of whom worked at Newlands Stables. All seem to have their own view on the question who was the trainer, Bradley or Powell? Those views were of negligible assistance, but their evidence on what they did at the yard and what others (especially Bradley and Powell) did was of real help.

23.�� In the light of the observations above, the Panel arrived at the following findings on the various areas examined at the inquiry that bear upon the issue of whether Bradley was running an autonomous training operation.

(i)�� Financial arrangements

24.�� When the Panel first saw the documents and heard the BHA’s opening at the inquiry, the financial arrangements for the Bradley horses with their various owners appeared to show a near conclusive case that Powell was not training the Bradley horses and that Bradley was. But that provisional view was materially altered by the evidence of Powell in particular.

25.�� The owners of the Bradley horses were each charged between £35 and £40 per week by the training agreements which they had with Powell – an amount appropriate for a livery service rather than a training service. The training agreements (some signed by Bradley as the owners representative) which for the most part evidenced this were said by the BHA to be shams. The Panel did not agree.

26.�� One of the owners, Mr Nigel Davies, had originally entered into a more conventionally priced training agreement in September 2012 which provided for a monthly all-in fee of £1094 per horse. But shortly after this, Powell discussed the financial arrangements for the Bradley horses with his yard accountant, Sarah Gandolfo, and the supervisor of his Individual Voluntary Arrangement (“IVA”), Sue Stockley. Powell had entered into an IVA in 2010 when in serious financial difficulty. It obliged him to make payments for the benefit of his creditors for 5 years, while continuing to run his training business. The IVA supervisor, Mrs Stockley, was concerned that the training fee was very tight given all the costs that Powell would have to meet from it, especially as a number of them were uncertain. For instance, Bradley wanted his horses to be kept on the same feed he had used while he was with Durack rather than switching to the feed that Powell used. He also wanted to continue to use the same farrier. These uncertainties and the difficulty for Powell in getting credit from new suppliers led to the revision of the arrangement with Mr Davies so that he was to be charged by Powell £40 per week for use of a box and a bale of hay. That charge covered his own liability for rent to the owner of Newlands Stables, calculated on a per box basis, plus the cost of hay.

27.�� In these circumstances, the Panel was persuaded that this move to charging on a livery basis did not also involve an abdication by Powell of his training responsibility. He was simply protecting himself financially. He had of course the prospect of gain through his percentage of prize-money. It was accepted, as Bradley argued, that the trainer can, if he chooses, agree to train for nothing. He cited the example of a well-known trainer who used sometimes to recruit owners with other yards by offering to train their horses for free, no doubt judging that he could improve them, win races and therefore a prize-money percentage, and also raise his profile in the racing world. While Powell’s thinking was different from that, it was dictated by his awkward financial situation and was not an indication either that he was not training the Bradley horses or that Bradley was. The remaining owners of the Bradley horses made their agreements after the date of Mr Davies’s, and they simply provided from the outset for making what was, essentially, a livery charge of £35-£40 per week.

28.�� All the owners were in fact charged more substantial sums by Bradley through his bloodstock company. For instance, he charged Mr Davies £1000 per horse (of which there were eventually four) enterprisingly described in Bradley’s invoices as a charge for “horse bedding etc”. Though that was misleading because it undoubtedly represented a concealed element of training fees for Bradley, it does not mean that he was training the horses independently from Powell. The same point applies to the fact that Bradley invoiced the owners of the Bradley horses for “trainers expenses” when they were taken to racecourses.

29.�� One feature which troubled the Panel was that Bradley later prevailed upon Powell to share the trainer’s prize-money percentage on a 50/50 basis. But there is no reason in principle why a trainer should not agree to share his percentage with someone like his assistant, however rare that might be in practice. What mattered to the Panel at the end of the day was who had ultimate control of the care, preparation and racing of the horses.

(ii) Care of the Bradley horses

30.�� Feeding of all the horses in the yard, including the Bradley horses, was both supervised and carried out by Rachel Powell, who acted as Powell’s assistant trainer. So the Panel attributed minimal weight to the fact that Bradley had a separate feed room and tack room at the yard. The reason for a separate feed room was obvious – Bradley was buying a different feed for his horses. Powell’s inability to find the key for the Bradley feed room when the BHA made its unannounced inspection in July 2013 was of minor significance only – Rachel Powell knew where it was and she was the person in the yard apart from Bradley and Lindsey Gallagher who needed to know its whereabouts. The fact that Bradley used a different farrier to Powell added little – this was really an aspect of the separate cost regimes in operation at the yard because of Powell’s IVA concerns. The same point applies to Bradley’s use of a different veterinary service. In fact, on one occasion, Powell arranged for his own vet to give flu vaccinations to Bradley horses and passed on the charge to Bradley. Bradley bore the main cost of employing Lindsey Gallagher to act as a stable lass for the Bradley horses. This too was done because of Powell’s IVA worries. She had previously worked for Powell. Though the detail of her day to day work was directed by Bradley, she was not outside the control and ultimate direction of Powell.

31.�� When the BHA conducted its unannounced inspection of Powell’s yard in July 2013, Mr Tim Miller, BHA Investigating Officer, was taken around by Powell. He gave evidence that Powell was “hesitant” in locating the boxes where the Bradley horses were stabled. Did this indicate a degree of disengagement by Powell from the care and supervision of the Bradley horses? In the end, the Panel decided that it did not, though it readily understood Mr Miller’s concern. Powell’s hesitancy arose because Rachel Powell frequently moved horses between boxes for organisational reasons, and she was very much the person in day-to-day control of the details of stable management.

(iii) Work and exercise

32.�� The work and exercise regime for Bradley horses was under the control and management of Powell. He would prepare the work list for all horses in his yard (including the Bradley horses) of an evening, no doubt in discussion and usually agreement with Bradley. He would then give instructions to work riders for the detail of the work required in the morning. There was one occasion at least of disagreement between Powell and Bradley. Powell felt that Bradley (who had limited experience of flat races) was not applying the right regime for some of the Bradley horses due to race on the flat. He required that they do the work he felt necessary rather than that which Bradley was disposed to give them. Powell’s decision on what was required was followed.

33.�� Bradley regularly rode work himself, and arranged for others to come to the yard to ride out as necessary. Some of these were doing so without charge, like Lisa Smith (an amateur) and jockeys hoping for rides. Some like Mike Palmer would be paid by Bradley. The work to be done was directed by Powell before the various lots set off for the gallops. The Panel attached significance to the fact that, at the outset of Bradley’s time within Powell’s yard, Powell vetoed Bradley’s attempt to set off for the gallops with the Bradley horses separately from the Powell horses. Powell required that the Bradley horses, in whichever lot they might be on a given morning, should go out amongst the other horses from Powell’s yard. Powell was in the habit of discussing the work with the work riders for all the horses.

(iv) Race planning and race days

34.�� Race entries and declarations were decided upon and made by Powell with the administrative help of his partner Emma Hunter. Of course, that would follow discussion with Bradley for the Bradley horses, but the ultimate decisions rested with Powell. On one occasion Bradley did make a bold attempt to get access to the entry system by asking for a password from Weatherbys. But he was unsurprisingly turned down (fortunately for him).

35.�� Generally, the Bradley horses were ridden in their races by jockeys who did not ride much, if at all, on Powell horses. But while Powell did not choose them, he did not disapprove of those choices save in one case. But this does not establish that Bradley was training rather than Powell. Jockey choice is often dictated by owners, and it must be recalled that Bradley was in a position to do this as owner’s representative for the Bradley horses. Mr Davies, for example, sponsored Ritchie Killoran and he rode the Davies horses on a number of occasions.

36.�� Powell regularly attended the race meetings at which Bradley horses were running, and was of course involved in the giving of instructions for the race to jockeys. There was one occasion of disagreement about the tactics to be followed, and Powell’s preference was not adopted. This was with KNOCKGRAFFON LAD (USA), when ridden by Alain Cawley. But as already pointed out, there are occasions when a trainer’s tactical preferences may be overridden by an owner or his representative. Of course, it is a trainer’s obligation to veto this if he takes the view that the owner’s plan is one which conflicts with the obligation to run a horse to obtain the best possible placing. But short of this concern, there can be legitimate disagreements about how to do this. The Panel concluded that this was an instance of different judgements about the best tactics to follow rather than an occasion where Powell ought to have exercised a veto, and that this does not indicate an abdication of his obligations as a trainer.

Conclusions

37.�� Though this was a finely balanced case, the Panel was not persuaded that Bradley was running an autonomous operation from within Powell’s yard, and therefore Bradley was not in breach of Rule (A)14. In the light of that decision, the Panel could not see any separate basis upon which a breach of Rule (A)30 could be established. As Bradley was not running an autonomous operation outside Powell’s control there was nothing prejudicial to the integrity proper conduct or good reputation of horseracing in doing what he did.

38.�� It follows that Powell was not in breach of Rule (A)37. For completeness, the Panel points out that if the decision in Bradley’s case had gone the other way, it would have held that Powell assisted such a breach by failing to exercise the control of Bradley that his trainer’s license required. The alternative formulations put by the BHA – that Powell encouraged or caused such a breach – would not have been accepted. As with Bradley, the Panel found that there was no separate basis upon which Powell could be found in breach of Rule (A)30 in circumstances where the basic charge of breach by Bradley of Rule (A)14 was dismissed.

39.�� Finally, the Panel emphasises that its ultimate decision was a close run thing. It is fully understood why the BHA initiated this case. There is no doubt that Bradley pushes at the limits of what is legitimate, and is sometimes prepared to cross those limits, as he may well have done when seemingly getting Samantha Beddoes to front as an owner of one of his horses. But he did not do so in relation to the issues decided in this inquiry.

Notes to Editors

1. The Panel for the hearing was:��Timothy Charlton QC,��William Barlow and��Roger Bellamy.

2. Full details of the horses and races involved can be found here:��/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Attachment-to-Bradley-Powell-Reasons.pdf

Result of an enquiry (K. Clutterbuck) heard by the Disciplinary Panel on Thursday 6 November 2014

Lucy Tully — Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:43:48 +0000

1. The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) on Thursday 6 November 2014 held an enquiry in to an allegation by BHA that Mr Kenneth Clutterbuck (“KC”) was in breach of Rule (A)30.3.1, in that he associated with Mr James Clutterbuck (“JC”), a Disqualified Person, in connection with horseracing in Great Britain during a period when “KC” was a licensed trainer.

Background

2. It was not disputed that throughout 2013 and until 18 June 2014 (when the Licensing Committee of the BHA suspended KC’s licence to train) that KC was a licensed trainer. He is the father of JC.

Nor was it disputed that JC was disqualified by the Disciplinary Panel after admitting breaches of the Rules of Racing on the 29 April 2013 and that the disqualification continues until 28 June 2015. At the time JC’s disqualification was imposed he was Assistant Trainer to KC.

3. After JC’s disqualification, BHA wrote to KC on 19 June 2013 to ensure that he was fully aware of the restrictions concerning contact with Disqualified Persons and also sought assurances that sufficient controls had been introduced by KC at Pond House Stables, Exning, Newmarket (“The Yard”) to ensure that any contact with JC would not place him in breach of the Rules of Racing. KC replied on 25 June 2013 that JC was now running KC’s public house (the Wheatsheaf, Exning) and that both KC and JC understood the Rules and Regulations relating to the disqualification, were fully abiding by them and would continue to do so.

4. On 14 October 2013, JC applied for dispensation from his disqualification, so that he could take up employment in his father’s yard. The BHA formally objected to this application and the matter was referred to the Chairman of the Disciplinary Panel.

5. On 29 October 2013, two BHA Investigating Officers (Mr Malcolm Carson and Mr Stuart Williams) paid an unannounced visit to KC’s yard. They stated that they found JC and Eleanor Stirk (his partner – who at the time of the visit had taken over as Assistant Trainer to KC at the Yard) and their infant son in the yard, and that JC had straw and hay particles in his hair and his work boots appeared dirty.

JC, in an email sent to the Disciplinary Department of the BHA later on in the morning of 29 October 2013, denied he was working in the yard and said he had only gone to collect their infant son from his partner because they had no car to transport him as it had gone in for an MOT that morning.

Subsequently, both JC and KC claimed that JC was not on licensed premises when seen by the BHA Investigating Officers on 29 October 2013.

6. On 16 January 2014, the Disciplinary Panel gave written reasons for refusing JC’s application for dispensation from disqualification.

7. On Tuesday 3 June 2014 at about 7.15 a.m., BHA Investigating Officers paid their second unannounced visit to the yard. The BHA Investigating Officers on this occasion were Mr John Burgess and Mr Tim Miller. They stated they found JC working in the yard. JC said he had only come to the yard at about 7.00 a.m. that morning because Eleanor Stirk had a chest infection and could not come to the yard to feed and muck out. JC stated his father was unaware that he was on the yard.

8. Following the stable inspection, the BHA Investigating Officers subsequently located KC, JC and Eleanor Stirk at the Horseshoes Public House, Newmarket which KC had purchased about six weeks previously and was renovating. It was arranged that both KC and JC would subsequently be formally interviewed by the BHA.

Interviews

9. Accordingly, on 10 June 2014, KC was formally interviewed by Messrs Burgess and Miller. In the interview, KC maintained that so far as he was aware, JC had not been in the yard at all since his disqualification. He said that JC had not been on a licensed part of the premises at the time of the unannounced visit of 29 October 2013 and, in any event, was only pushing a child in a pram and not working.

On the occasion of the second unannounced visit on 3 June 2014, KC maintained that he, himself, had already fed the horses at 5.30 a.m., had left the yard and did not know that JC had entered the yard at any stage that morning. He said that in recent weeks, JC and Eleanor Stirk had been living and working at the Horseshoes Public House. On 3 June 2014, he said, Eleanor Stirk had been ill and unable to work and JC, without telling either him or Eleanor Stirk, had taken it upon himself to go up to the yard and look after the horses to save KC from having to do it as he knew KC had a busy day. KC said that when he later learned that JC had been working in the yard that morning, he severely reprimanded him.

KC said that the knowledge that JC appeared to have of the seven horses in the stable was likely to have been acquired from Eleanor Stirk, who did work at the yard and had been his Assistant Trainer and was JC’s partner.

10. JC was formally interviewed by Messrs Burgess and Miller on 19 June 2014. He maintained that on 29 October 2013, he was not working in the yard but was in smart clothes pushing a baby round in a pram, and, in any event, was not on licensed premises but just outside the gates.

As to the unannounced visit on 3 June 2014, he said that his partner, “Ellie”, had woken up feeling ill and, although she had not said she was not going to work at the stables, she had fallen back to sleep. JC, without telling her where he was going, or informing KC, had gone up to the stables as a favour to both of them and fed, watered and mucked out at least some of the horses. JC said that KC had no idea that he was in the yard until the BHA Investigating Officers had telephoned KC to inform him that they had found JC in the yard.

11. At the Disciplinary Hearing, the Panel heard from Messrs Burgess and Carson for the BHA and from KC himself.

Findings

12. (1) 29 October 2014: The Panel accepts the evidence of Mr Carson that he and the other BHA Investigating Officer, Mr Williams, found JC in the yard and that this was part of the licensed premises where he should not have been. As Mr Carson told the Panel, the Investigating Officers had gone through the gates and into the yard where they saw JC. Mr Carson said there were no further gates in front of them to go through. The Panel also took into account that in an email sent later that very morning, JC never alleged he was not on licensed premises and this aspect was not raised with the BHA until many months later. Furthermore, JC was not called at the hearing so that his version of events could be tested. Also, KC was not at the scene at the material time and could not say from his own direct knowledge where JC was found by the BHA Investigating Officers.

The Panel further accepted the evidence of the BHA Investigating Officers, and in particular that of Mr Carson who gave evidence to the Panel, that JC had straw and hay particles in his hair and his working boots appeared dirty and that he gave Mr Carson the impression that he was then working in the yard. Whether or not JC had also come to collect his son, the Panel is satisfied that, on this occasion it is likely that JC had been working in the yard.

(2) On 3 June 2014, JC accepts that he was found working in the yard and there is clear evidence from the BHA Investigating Officers (Messrs Burgess and Miller) that this was so. The Panel accepts that JC was seen on their approach, cleaning out a bucket or manger and shortly afterwards was found in a stable, apparently trying to remain undetected whilst a bucket of water filled up outside the stable.

Although both KC and JC subsequently maintained that KC had no idea that JC was working in the yard that morning, having considered all the information before it, the Panel considers that it is likely that KC did, in fact, have such knowledge and was agreeable to it. In particular, the Panel was invited by KC to rely on the accounts of what occurred that morning as described by JC in interview, and also by Eleanor Stirk. Neither was called to give evidence before the Panel and have their accounts tested. The Panel noted that KC alleged that his relationship with JC had now broken down. The Panel considered the complicated account of how JC came to be working in the yard that morning to be unlikely. For example, that JC had gone to the yard without informing either KC or Eleanor Stirk that he was doing so and apparently leaving her asleep when there were children to be woken and attended to; the fact that neither JC or Eleanor Stirk contacted KC to inform him as to what was happening; the internal inconsistencies in JC’s own account as given in interview (i.e. at one point maintaining that he had no interest in horses or racing since his disqualification, and, at other points agreeing that he read The Racing Post every day).

The Panel, having considered all the information before it, was satisfied that both in October 2013 and June 2014, the lives of KC and JC were closely intertwined. They lived geographically close to one another, JC latterly lived in a public house owned by KC, and they clearly met on a regular basis. It is agreed that prior to the second unannounced visit, they met daily. JC’s description in interview of the horses in the yard and what he fed them, showed a detailed knowledge of the yard. The Panel considers it more likely that this knowledge was gathered first hand by JC, rather than as reported to him by his partner.

The Panel also concludes that it is highly unlikely that on the two occasions (over six months apart) that the BHA made unannounced visits to the yard, JC on both occasions was working in the yard unbeknown to KC. The prospect of this being an unhappy coincidence for KC is considered by the Panel, in all the circumstances, to be most unlikely.

13. The Panel is therefore satisfied that KC is in breach of Rule (A)30.3.1 as alleged. Whilst it is not possible to specify other dates and times when JC worked in the yard during this period, the Panel considers that the likelihood is that it occurred on a number of other occasions and that the 29 October 2013 and 3 June 2014 were not the only occasions.

��

Penalty

14. The BHA did not seek disqualification but suggested a period during which KC would be ineligible to hold any licence or permit or registration under the Rules of Racing.

The Panel considered the breach of Rule (A)30.3.1 to be aggravated by the fact that it occurred notwithstanding that JC’s application for dispensation from disqualification had been refused. At the same time, the Panel noted that KC’s training licence had been suspended since 18 June 2014 and that he had voluntarily relinquished his training licence at the end of August 2014. The Panel noted that he was now 67 years of age and had previously been involved in racing for many years.

In all the circumstances, the Panel ordered that KC be ineligible to hold any licence or permit or registration under the Rules of Racing for a period of five years, effective from 6 November 2014.

Notes to editors:

1. The Panel for the enquiry was:��Philip Curl (Chair),��Didi Powles,��Ian Stark.

Disciplinary Panel – Integrity Issues – ���Ǵ���

Results of enquiries (Neil Mulholland and John Jenkins) heard by the Disciplinary Panel on 19 January

Disciplinary Panel result and reasons (Jim Best)

Result of an enquiry (John Ryan) heard by the Disciplinary Panel on Thursday 13 October

Results of enquiries (J Fanshawe, R Woollacott) and appeals (J Portman, K Fox) heard by the Disciplinary Panel on Thursday 7 January

Disciplinary Panel’s full written reasons regarding David M Greenwood, Michael Stainton, Claire Murray, Kevin Ackerman and Kenneth Mackay

Result of an appeal (S Manana) heard by the Disciplinary Panel on Friday 29 May, and a finding regarding penalty (Richie McGrath)

Result of a Disciplinary Panel hearing (Richie McGrath and Mark Aspey)

Result of an enquiry (Danny Cook) heard by the Disciplinary Panel on Thursday 19 March

Disciplinary Panel reasons regarding Graham Bradley and Brendan Powell

Result of an enquiry (K. Clutterbuck) heard by the Disciplinary Panel on Thursday 6 November 2014

Disciplinary Panel – Integrity Issues – ��Ǵ��