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

Diamond Racing

Home Forums Horse Racing Diamond Racing

Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 26 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #12264
    guskennedy
    Member
    • Total Posts 759

    I’m not up to cutting and pasting but can just about post a link and there’s an interesting case coming up according to yesterday’s Guardian. Scroll down to the "Seen and Heard" section and the paragraph which starts "Elsewhere at the BHA…":

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 … s-goodwood

    #242239
    seabird
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2924

    "Gullible" doesn’t really do it justice, does it, Gus? :shock:

    Colin

    #242240
    guskennedy
    Member
    • Total Posts 759

    My main concern is obviously what this says about the state of the Goodwins’ marriage, Colin.

    #242243
    seabird
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2924

    :D :D

    Colin

    #242247
    Glenn
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1988

    Evans above!

    Some people have friends in high places.

    #242269
    yorkshirepudding
    Member
    • Total Posts 608

    Warn the pair of them off for life along with the trainers and horses concened. Plus the horse ( of its a colt of filly) be removed from the stud book and not be allowd too have any offspring registered as TBs.

    A clear message too be sent, you, your trainer and your horse ae wipwd from the face of racing perminatly.

    #242296
    Glenn
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1988

    Warn the pair of them off for life along with the trainers and horses concened. Plus the horse ( of its a colt of filly) be removed from the stud book and not be allowd too have any offspring registered as TBs.

    A clear message too be sent, you, your trainer and your horse ae wipwd from the face of racing perminatly.

    Amen

    #242302
    no idea
    Member
    • Total Posts 684

    Surely what they should do is the sack the people at the BHA who actually beleived it.

    Even Disney could not come up with a story like that.

    A long time a go in a far away land lived the BHA………………

    #242397
    yeats
    Participant
    • Total Posts 3137

    Scandalous, don’t think Paul Struthers will be on to defend this one.

    #243346
    guskennedy
    Member
    • Total Posts 759

    The Guardian article indicated that the findings would be published last week but it hasn’t happened yet. I think they’d be making a mistake if they waited until the start of the Ebor Meeting…

    #243711
    Silvoir
    Participant
    • Total Posts 270

    Tomorrow AM.

    #243738
    guskennedy
    Member
    • Total Posts 759

    Thank you.

    #243851
    Silvoir
    Participant
    • Total Posts 270

    RESULT OF AN ENQUIRY HELD BY THE DISCIPLINARY PANEL ON MONDAY 20TH AND TUESDAY 21ST JULY 2009

    Steve Goodwin

    Introduction

    1. The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) enquired into the case of Stephen Goodwin and Diamond Racing Limited on 20 and 21 July 2009. The Enquiry concerned the laying of twenty eight horses between October 2003 and March 2005 on two Betfair accounts. Mr Goodwin was legally represented and gave evidence to the Panel.

    2. It was common ground between the parties that:
    (a) each of the horses in question was owned at the time of the relevant race by Diamond Racing Limited;
    (b) Mr Goodwin was, at the relevant time, a director of Diamond Racing as well as being its Registered Agent; and
    (c) Rule 247 of the Orders and Rules of Racing, since 1 September 2003, prevented a director or a Registered Agent of a company from laying a horse owned by that company.
    The question which the Panel had to determine was whether Mr Goodwin placed or caused to be placed lay bets on each of the twenty eight horses.
    Diamond Racing

    3. At the relevant time, Diamond Racing was a company which syndicated horses. Up to thirty-five owners would purchase a 1% share in a horse owned by Diamond Racing with Diamond Racing retaining a 65% share of the horse. The company also operated a telephone betting information service.

    The Betfair Accounts

    4. Two Betfair accounts were used to place the bets, which formed the subject matter of the Enquiry. The first account was registered to Mr Goodwin. The second Betfair account was registered to a Jenny Lewis who was, at the relevant time, an employee of Mr Goodwin. Miss Lewis declined to be interviewed by the BHA or co-operate with its investigation. Mr Goodwin accepted that his account was used to place lay bets but he denied the lay bets were placed by him. He asserted that the lay bets were placed by others, in particular, his wife.

    5. Analysis of the two Betfair accounts revealed a striking number of similarities. There was a chronological “fit” to the accounts, with one account appearing only to be active when the other account was dormant. There were coincidences between withdrawals being made from one account and payments being made into the other.

    6. A striking feature of the two accounts was the nature of the pattern of betting. Both accounts matched their own bets regularly and there was significant overlap between the accounts in relation to the non-racing bets placed on each of the accounts, which included bets on Darts, European Football, lower league Football and reality TV shows. There were also a number of instances where the same computer was used to access each account within a relatively short space of time. The Panel heard evidence from Tom Chignall, an expert betting investigator called on behalf of the BHA. He concluded that it was “inconceivable” that the same individual was not operating both accounts. The Panel concluded that the two accounts were operated by the same individual.

    7. The BHA submitted that Mr Goodwin was the individual who was placing bets on each of the accounts. Mr Goodwin told the Panel in evidence that he allowed his wife to access his Betfair account and use it regularly. Mr Goodwin explained to the Panel about his pattern of betting; when he placed a bet on the account it would be for several thousand pounds. He showed the Panel examples of such bets on his Betfair account and how they differed from the small sums that were placed by his wife on the horses owned by Diamond Racing. Having reviewed the evidence before the Enquiry, Mr Goodwin concluded that his wife may also have been responsible for the betting on the Lewis account. Mr Goodwin acknowledged, with hindsight, that he knew his wife was betting heavily on Betfair and realised that he should have done something about it. He admitted that his wife had informed him that she had placed a lay bet on a Diamond Racing horse after the Rules had changed and that he had advised her that she should never do that again.

    8. The Panel, having reviewed the betting evidence and carefully considered the evidence given by Mr Goodwin were not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that he placed or caused to be placed the lay bets on horses owned by Diamond Racing. It therefore found the alleged breach of Rule 247 not proved.

    9. That did not conclude the case since on the basis of Mr Goodwin’s own evidence before the Panel, he had recklessly allowed his Betfair account to be used to lay horses that he owned in such a manner that objective scrutiny of his Betfair account gave rise to an apparent breach of the Rules of Racing. In the Panel’s view, this constituted a breach of Rule 220(iii) in that Mr Goodwin had acted in a manner which was prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct and good reputation of horseracing in Great Britain. Mr Goodwin’s reckless approach to integrity in allowing his wife access to his Betfair account and his passwords which allowed her to lay the horses owned by Diamond Racing amounted to a breach of Rule 220(iii).

    10. In considering the penalty the Panel reminded themselves of the Penalty Guidelines from the relevant periods. The BHA submitted that there were aggravating features in this case evidenced by the duration of Mr Goodwin’s conduct and the number of lay bets that were placed on the account. It was also submitted, that Mr Goodwin as a director of an organisation which owned a number of horses with a public profile in racing had a responsibility to set a good example.

    11. Mr Goodwin submitted that this was his first and only offence and that there was no intention by him to commit a breach of the Rules of Racing. The Panel were informed of the difficult personal circumstances which Mr Goodwin was subject to during this period, including the ill health suffered by him and his family. The Panel learnt that in part, this had caused him to sell Diamond Racing Limited.

    12. The Panel determined that there were aggravating features in this case. The lay betting activity in relation to Diamond Racing horses had occurred over a period of three years. During that time, Mr Goodwin knew that his wife had access to his accounts. He knew the Rules of Racing had changed, he knew his wife was making the majority of bets on his Betfair account and moreover he knew that his wife had placed a lay bet on one of the company’s horses since the Rules had changed. Despite this he had failed to check her other bets or close his account or alternatively open an account in his wife’s own name where she could place bets. The Panel also considered that Mr Goodwin had a profile in racing and was responsible for introducing members of the public to racing and had a responsibility to behave appropriately. In the light of all these factors, the Panel were minded to award a fine of £7,000 against Mr Goodwin but for the mitigating features set out below.

    13. The Panel accepted that Mr Goodwin’s behaviour was not intentional and acknowledged that this was his first offence. It also noted the large number of testimonials from individuals whom he had introduced into racing and how positively they spoke of their experiences associated with Diamond Racing. The Panel also noted his extremely difficult personal circumstances during the relevant period and felt it fair that Mr Goodwin should be afforded some degree of latitude in respect of the manner in which he attended to his personal administration during this time.

    14. The Panel concluded that in all the circumstances, a fine of £3,500 was the proper penalty for this case.

    Notes for Editors:

    1. The Panel for the hearing was: Matthew Lohn (Chairman), Patrick Hibbert-Foy and Charles Warde-Aldam.

    #243854
    Irish Stamp
    Member
    • Total Posts 3177

    Thanks for posting the results Paul.

    Can’t say I’m too surprised – these independent enquiries seem to be led by people who don’t have a clue. Would be better for the BHA to do it all in house and have a zero tolerance attitude to drugs, laying and any wrong doing which is likely to rip off the betting public, race goers, other owners, trainers etc.

    #243856
    robnorth
    Participant
    • Total Posts 6220

    Can’t say I’m too surprised – these independent enquiries seem to be led by people who don’t have a clue.

    ‘Mindful of the legal implications’ of any decision might be a fairer comment. The report does not suggest the judgement of ‘people who don’t have a clue’.

    Rob

    #243857
    Silvoir
    Participant
    • Total Posts 270

    I have to say that we are as surprised by the decision as anyone and do not understand why, despite significant analysis of Steve Goodwin’s other betting accounts that demonstrated striking similiarities between his bets and those of ‘his wife’, they reached the conclusion they did.

    #243872
    Cav
    Participant
    • Total Posts 4825

    Many thanks Paul.

    Another kick in the teeth. Surely the time has come to disband this independent disciplinary panel fiasco and do the job inhouse.

    That’s 4 times now Matthew Lohn :evil: has let horseracing down badly.

Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 26 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.