The home of intelligent horse racing discussion
The home of intelligent horse racing discussion

Reply To: usa vs uk

Home Forums Horse Racing usa vs uk Reply To: usa vs uk

#42248
wit
Participant
  • Total Posts 2154

technically the distinction is between a disqualified person and an excluded person.  

colloquially these translate respectively to "banned" and "warned off", but these synonyms are not always used as precisely.  

a disqualified person, as i understand it, is someone who is or has been subject to JC/HRA rules by reason of having at some stage agreed to be so, and who has then broken those rules and been punished under them.

an excluded person is a wider (though, since it does not depend on voluntary submission, maybe not a deeper) category used against someone – whether or not he has ever agreed to be subject to JC/HRA rules – who is regarded as an undesirable.

Under Rule 2 (v) of the Rules of Racing: "The Stewards of the Jockey Club shall have power to exclude or cause or order to be excluded for any period or for an indefinite period from any premises owned, licensed or controlled by them any person whether or not subject to the Rules of Racing where, in their absolute discretion, they consider the presence of such person on such premises undesirable in the interest of racing even though such person is not and has not been declared, a disqualified person. "

Then again Rule 220 (iv) says: ‘No person shall without the permission of the Stewards of the Jockey Club associate in connection with horseracing in Great Britain with any person known to be disqualified or otherwise excluded under Rule 2 (v) from any premises owned or licensed by the Stewards of the Jockey Club, whether or not constituting a breach of the Orders or Rules of Racing."

<br>The distinction was regarded as capable of making a real difference to Graham Bradley’s bloodstock business:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

6.7. Mr Leach raised the question of using the penalty of exclusion as opposed to disqualification.

He accepted that if we were minded to impose a disqualification in respect of the breaches of these Rules, it would not be possible for Mr Bradley, by reason of the provisions of Rule 205(vi),  to deal in any capacity with a racehorse, thus prohibiting him from acting as a bloodstock agent.

However, said Mr Leach, if we took the route by way of imposing an exclusion order, the exclusion Rule 2(v), permits there to be tailoring of the terms of the order made to accommodate continuation of Mr Bradley’s bloodstock business in, at least, a limited form.

We bear this in mind. <br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

best regards

wit