- This topic has 222 replies, 38 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
To
thedarkknight & Armchair Jockey
How can you both hope the BHA will punish the professionals who fix races?
The BHA probably have a list of known culprits but how can they prove it without a furore?
Casela Park was pretty obvious but just look at the defenders of that ride.
- Total Posts 17716
The BHA will always come under fire from somehwere and an insight to the type of problems they face can be found on u tube.
It’s only my opinion but The Panorama programme in 2002 was a pathetic effort to discredit them and some of the insinuations made by their presenter were no more than underharded trickery to dramatise their show.
What it does do is point out some reasons why sometimes the BHA’s hands can be tied.
Three years each. An interesting development at point 26.
Full details in Paul’s post beneath.
05 Oct 2010 12:30
JASON BEHAN / EAMON TYRRELL / CASELA PARK (IRE) DISCIPLINARY PANEL PENALTY AND REASONS
· Jockey Jason Behan and Trainer Eamon Tyrrell disqualified for three years
· Disqualification begins Wednesday 6 October 2010Penalty
17. The Panel has considered the written submissions from the BHA and from Tyrrell and Behan about the matters which should be taken into account when deciding upon the appropriate penalties to be imposed for the breaches of the Rules already found to have occurred when CASELA PARK (IRE) ran at Newcastle on 4 August 2010.
18. It is first necessary to record one change that needs to be made to paragraph 14 of the Reasons given by the Panel for its findings, where it was said that there was no access to lay betting information from other exchange operators such as Betdaq. In fact, the Panel has now been told that the BHA was informed by Betdaq that there was no untoward lay betting on the race, and therefore records that correction to its reasons. This change makes no difference to the Panel’s decision that there was a breach of the Rules, which proceeded on the basis that there was no unusual lay betting to explain the stopping ride. For the same reason, this amendment has no bearing on the approach to penalty.
19. The starting point is the indication provided at page 10 of the current edition of the Guide to Procedures and Penalties. For a case where (as held here by the Panel) a horse was deliberately prevented from winning, the Guide suggests a penalty range for both trainer and jockey of 1-5 years’ disqualification, with an entry point of 18 months.
20. The BHA submitted that there were three aggravating features of this case: the nature of the ride itself; what they describe as “the dishonesty of the ride”; and the untruthful accounts given both to the Newcastle Stewards and the Panel by Tyrrell and Behan.
21. Both Tyrrell and Behan drew attention, quite properly, to their previous good disciplinary records. They also said they had not gained financially from this race (or the later race at Musselburgh), and each pointed out his parlous financial position. Behan said he had no other source of income but racing. But having had only a few rides in recent years and seemingly riding unpaid work for Tyrrell, it is not clear what income he actually gets from racing. At the enquiry, he said that his only source of money was from family help. Tyrrell’s string has dwindled to just a few horses.
22. The Panel did not view the nature of the ride or the dishonesty involved in deliberately stopping the horse from winning (which cheated both win and place backers) as particular aggravating features. Cheating of punters will happen whenever a horse is stopped, and the blatant restraint by Behan might even be thought a less insidious danger to the sport than a smoother, less eye-catching ride which also prevents a win. However the evidence given both to the Newcastle Stewards and to the Panel has been found to be deliberately false, and does make the case worse. They did not have to lie when found out.
23. While it is correct that there is no evidence of financial gain here, that is at least in part because the furore generated by the Newcastle ride caused changed riding plans for Musselburgh, and, perhaps, changed betting plans. Even taking full account of the previous good disciplinary records of both Tyrrell and Behan, the fact remains that they have committed one of the sport’s cardinal sins.
24. The Panel decided to disqualify Tyrrell and Behan for three years each from 6 October 2010 to 5 October 2013 inclusive. There was no basis for treating Behan more leniently than Tyrrell: though he was clearly struggling as a jockey, there was no hint that he was lent on to do what he did.
25. The reasons for going beyond the entry point were these. Firstly, their untrue accounts do make worse what happened. Secondly, the Panel formed the view that the entry point (18 months) is pitched too low for what is a fundamental breach of the Rules. It is necessary to impose the 3 year disqualifications both to penalise what they did and to warn others of the consequences of similar riding, which strikes at the very nature of racing.
26. CASELA PARK (IRE) is also suspended for 42 days from 6 October 2010 to 16 November 2010 inclusive. This raises another problem which troubled the Panel. There is much to be said for the view that the gelding ought not to have been allowed to run at Musselburgh after the determination by the Newcastle Stewards that this was a deliberate failure to run it on its merits. The BHA may wish to consider giving Stewards the power to suspend a horse with immediate effect when they determine that a deliberate breach has occurred, even though the matter has then to be referred to the Disciplinary Panel because the Stewards’ penalty powers are limited. There are no doubt arguments pointing against this (such as the effect on innocent owners and the fact that the betting public is at least warned about a future race when there has been an enquiry that finds deliberate breach). But this present case is one where, in the Panel’s view, the argument for an immediate suspension prevails. What if it had won at Musselburgh and the money had been down, even at cramped odds because of the publicity the Newcastle race had received? That would cause more damage to the reputation of racing than the possible injustice to the owner.
Notes to Editors:
The Panel for the enquiry was: Timothy Charlton QC (Chair), Nicky Vigors and Mrs D. Powles.
The full enquiry result, including the integrity camera video footage, can be viewed online at http://www.britishhorseracing.com/resources/about/whatwedo/disciplinary/disciplinaryDetail.asp?item=092453
Well – that’s them finished then….
All I can hope is that this is a "line in the sand" from the BHA in terms of their treatment of horses who are clearly not trying in handicaps.
Given the harsh punishments that have been handed out here, it will be unacceptable, nay outrageous, if connections who land duck egg coups are allowed to carry on regardless.
I expect the BHA to treat them in exactly the same manner as these two have been treated.
Good stuff. Any doubts dispelled by the footage on the BHA website.
Well done disciplinary panel.
On a slightly different note – There is only one way to stop the duck egg boys. Sadly Phil Smith refuses to see sense on the matter if his answers on the recent Q+A are anything to go by.
Well – that’s them finished then….
All I can hope is that this is a "line in the sand" from the BHA in terms of their treatment of horses who are clearly not trying in handicaps.
Given the harsh punishments that have been handed out here, it will be unacceptable, nay outrageous, if connections who land duck egg coups are allowed to carry on regardless.
I expect the BHA to treat them in exactly the same manner as these two have been treated.
J
Our penalties rightly reflect that there are varying degrees of seriousness when it comes to breaches of the ‘non-triers’ rule. At the top end is deliberately not riding a horse on it’s merits in the knowledge that it has been layed to lose. Below that (not by far) is deliberately preventing a horse from winning, then delibterately failing to ask the horse for sufficient effort, then schooling, then ill-judged.
Any horse that is subjected to a similar ride to that given to Casela Park would therefore be treated in the exactly the same way.
As you know, if you ever have any concerns you can and should contact our Integrity Team.
3 years?????!!!!!!!!!!!
An absolute nonsense. There was no reason for this not to be 5 years. I give up.
That was the 1st time i have seen the race and because there is no volume on the commentary there, i thought i would guess who the guilty party was!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Whoever rode that horse is the sort of guy who goes to a Klu Klux Klan party dressed as Sammy Davies Jnr! What a complete T*at!
I have said it before but this "Silvoir" chap is the right man for the Job,well played Paul!Looking at the head-on footage, you can only assume the poor jockey is agrophobic, needing to dive for cover everytime a gap appeared.
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/resou … tem=092453
and scroll down to the bottom.
Thanks Prufrock.
This is the first time I have seen the race.
Well, what is there to add. Absolutely laughable.
Blatant cheating. Talk about making the obvious, ridiculously obvious. The horse would have won on the bridle had it been allowed to run on its merits.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Just came across the following article that was published in the Sunday Indo a few weeks ago. Entitled "Irish racing needs to look deep into its cheating heart", its a rare piece of introspection on racing this side of the Irish Sea.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.