- This topic has 16 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
So Jim Best is found guilty of ordering the stopping of two horses and gets a six month ban. Surely that has to be a joke?
BHA not fit for purpose, surely it’s got to be corrupt. Stier and Rust should go immediately.
AN ABSOLUTE DISGRACE. SHOULD HAVE LICIENCE REVOKED FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE. SAME OLD STORY GOT NO BOTTLE. THEY SHOULD ALL STEP DOWN
A shambles indeed with the key prosecution witness coming across, to me, at least, as totally unreliable. Had it been a proper legal case, I think a conviction would have been unlikely (regardless of whether it was deserved or not).
There has to be a complete overhaul now of the way all such cases are handled.
Its a desperate attempt by the BHA to stop JB taking them to court. A court case where there is no hard evidence, thats been brought to light, apart from he said, she said nah nah nah nah. Can you Imagine a golfer cheating, getting caught, thrown out of the sport and then taking the games rulers to court. Its amazing. The participants in horse racing from top to bottom are riddled with deception and “playing the game” against handicappers, bookies, punters and the public is par for a tired old course. They would be better off issuing penalties somewhat similar to that which football clubs receive. dont hurt the trainers directly, ensure that the rest of the trainers are not taken advantage of. This could be achieved very sinmply, non triers given a six month ban and up 18lb. Incorporate the above into the rules of the game. The owners of said horses would soon be voting with their feet. And all the excuses that come out after the race, this that and the other met with one simple reply, WHY DID YOU RUN IT THEN YOUR A PROFESSIONAL.
There are lots of questions for the BHA to answer over how the case was handled and presented as it was indeed a shambles. However, the verdict, right or wrong, and the penalty, right or wrong, were not down to the BHA. The case was heard by an independent panel and the BHA, like Best, have the right to appeal. My understanding is the BHA wanted six years. It’s a bit like a court case. The CPS bring he prosecution but the verdict and sentence are out of their control.
A shambles indeed with the key prosecution witness coming across, to me, at least, as totally unreliable. Had it been a proper legal case, I think a conviction would have been unlikely (regardless of whether it was deserved or not).
There has to be a complete overhaul now of the way all such cases are handled.
Totally agree. As an observer I am none the wiser as to whether Jim Best is culpable or not because the only strong theme to emerge from the case is the total unreliability of Paul John. Is it reasonable to take away a man’s livelihood based on that?
I feel sorry for Jim Best in all of this and I waive my punter squawking rights without difficulty this time around. This wretched case transcends far beyond my few bob and its circumferential journey in a field. I’ve sourced some of the info for this post from Chris Cook’s excellent reports on the matter in The Guardian.
Is BHA institutionally cruel? What would a psychiatrist make of the people within an organisation who from time to time stick their heads up, blades gleaming, intent on destroying careers and lives on a whim. And make no mistake about it, six years for Best would have likely finished him. And I’d imagine the effect that can have on a human is potentially devastating.
BHA of course has previous in this area. They destroyed Kieran Fallon’s career in similar fashion. Was it the hair just a little too low beneath the collar they didn’t like? The natural rebelliousness or the company he kept? We never found out. The CPS came up with one expert witness on that occasion. The Australian “expert” along with the case, was laughed out of court. The damage to Fallon however was terminal.
BHA haven’t been silly enough to bother the courts this time around, but standard operating procedure vis a vis Fallon may be witnessed in both the targeting of what could justifiably be described as a non-establishment racing figure and his execution by means of a sole dodgy witness, in this case a liar jockey. The usual institutional cover ups and denials sandwiched in between. What is it that they say about The Bourbons.
What a shame in 2007 that Fallon in his haste to put that awful matter behind him extended such benevolence to the regulator, where a civil case for massive costs would have been appropriate. It would have been a pleasing sight. This at times wilfully belligerent regulator badly needs to have its nose bloodied.
Perfectly understandable of course that Jim Best would wish to proceed on a similar path, take his medicine for six months and move on. But in his shoes given that the regulator was intent on finishing me as trainer, I’d certainly be engaged in discussions with my legal team on taking the matter as far as legally possible.
How would the high court judge a balance of probabilities case given the fact that the only witness presented by the prosecution is a proven liar and that the regulator initially lied about the plea bargain it entered into with said liar and failed to inform the third party about that “deal”?
I’d also call into question exactly what expertise the three man disciplinary panel has to determine what constitutes a “stopping” ride. And given their admittance that John was an unreliable witness their interpretation of both rides are crucial to Best’s conviction. Are any of them professional race readers? How much racing do they watch? Taking aside libel considerations would for example Hislop/Melish be calling a ride a “stopping” ride without “the slightest doubt” on a single viewing, as the panel did?
And why was a lying, self-admitted two time horse stopping jockey, never formally banned from racing? Never excluded from a racecourse? Re-licenced after six months without even a referral to the BHA licencing committee?
I’ll continue this later.
IT will be interesting to see what JB does next, an innocent man will fight and fight and fight, a “slightly guilty” man with no substantial evidence against him will think 6 months, Phew I got away with that lightly.
The whole problem of stopping/non trying is impossible to stop because it’s so difficult to prove. Even now we’re arguing over Best’s guilt. Trainers and jockeys will always find ways to stop horses winning from running horses over the wrong distance or unfit to riding them up blind alleys. It seems you need to have a smoking gun because otherwise as is pointed out earlier in this thread it comes down to one word against another.
As for Fallon he was lucky to get to ride again after what he did to Stewart Webster.
It’s a desperate attempt by the BHA to stop JB taking them to court
This is surely the whole point.
Mike
I read JB will not appeal.
He has admitted his guilt by not appealing, citing stress etc for a reluctance to continue. Surely the joy and jubilation of having his tarnished name cleared would be worth it.The BHA must have thought he was particularly despicable as they leave the rest of the card shuffling sharks alone.
The result is as I thought Really all along, slightly guilty but no proof. BHA should start setting them up by putting horses here there and everywhere, a bit like Rogue traders and Cowboy contractors.
Don’t get done get Dom! To catch a rat set a trap, don’t go chasing it round the bloody Shires.
Looking into it a bit deeper the BHA has a serious problem on its hands with these young men coming into the game who are trying to be upstanding, the young lad has had his character slaughtered in public. It must be very off-putting for anyone who wants to do the “right thing”. That in different circumstances another young man contacted them over dodgy urine samples shows that the remarkable battle against the tide has begun, they need support. BHA must do more and attempt to protect their identity. Whistle blowers always seem to get the shitty end of the stick.
It would be understandable if there was no appeal. Could he afford it for a start?
But given that the BHA did a secret “deal” with the proven liar they offered up as their sole witness, whose credibility is so open to question his evidence alone wouldn’t have gotten a conviction, and that the “decisive” evidence in the case has been judged on by three blokes who are not professional race readers, who arguably arent even interested enough in racing to have watched either race in question almost twelve months after they happened, and who can apparently unanimously conclude a ride is a stopping ride on a single viewing, I’d currently be in very deep conversations with my legal people over taking the case beyond the BHA and its panel. And thats before you even consider the arrogance/belligerence of the BHA on ignoring all advice on the Lohn possible conflict of interest in the first place, which has extended the agony for eight months longer than it should have done.
The bloke has lost over half his string, has suffered enormous damage to his repuation, finances, livelihood and seemingly health, on a process that is just not good enough imo.
I would be very interested to see that process tested in court.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.