- This topic has 87 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
These are the charges from the BHA website
Jockeys Fergal Lynch and Darren Williams, trainer
Karl Burke
and former owner Miles Rodgers charged
The British Horseracing Authority has concluded its review of the evidence obtained following the trial into alleged race-fixing at the Old Bailey. As a result of that review, and following interviews with the individuals concerned and taking legal advice, charges have been issued against jockeys Fergal Lynch and Darren Williams, trainer Karl Burke and former owner Miles Rodgers. The charges focus on lay betting activity on 12 races that took place in a 5 month period of 2004. The various accounts allegedly operated or controlled by Miles Rodgers risked over £800,000 on the 12 races and won over £87,000, despite one of the horses winning, losing the accounts over £40,000.
Fergal Lynch, Darren Williams and Karl Burke are charged, in relation to the races in which they took part as rider or trainer, with breaches of:
Rule 243 by communicating to Miles Rodgers for material reward, gift, favour or benefit in kind information that was not publicly available or provided for in Appendix N to the Rules (‘Inside Information’) about the Named Horse; or alternatively,
Rule 220(i) by aiding or abetting the commission (in breach of Rule 201(v)) of a corrupt and/or fraudulent practice by Mr Rodgers (namely laying the Named Horse in that race with the benefit of Inside Information relating to its prospects in the race) by communicating such information to Mr Rodgers knowing that, or being reckless as to whether, or contemplating as a real possibility that Mr Rodgers would use or enable someone else to use it for such a corrupt and/or fraudulent practice;Karl Burke
is additionally charged with breaches of:
Rule 220(viii) by misleading by an overt act and/or endeavouring to mislead an Official of the BHA during an interview with a BHA investigating officer about his relationship with Miles Rodgers.
Rule 220(vii)(c) by omitting relevant information in relation to the administration or control of racing when he omitted to mention the fact that he had accepted money from Mr Rodgers for the purchase of a stake in the horse KHANJAR on a date unknown in August 2004.
The hearing for Rodgers and Burke concluded on 2nd July
Does anyone know what we are ACTUALLY waiting for?
Is it the VERDICT or the PUNISHMENT to be handed down?
All the BHA say is they are waiting for the panels report.
If the verdict is GUILTY and the BHA are awaiting the panels report , then surley Karl Burke should have been suspended from that time. [ remanded on bail! ] If the decision was NOT GUILTY , why the delay.
Paul Struthers normally does a reasonable job but even he must be wishing he had taken a PR job with a more efficient organisation. How much longer can he go on defending an incompetent BHA before HE loses all credibility?Make your mind up Happy – if the BHA are awaiting the independent panels report then how can the delay be due to an "incompentent BHA"?
Or are you just seeing the BHA as a convenient whipping boy?
Perhaps the delay could just be the panel have a great deal of complex evidence to review and they are not rushing into a knee-jerk decision – unlike others seem to be keen to do jump to conclusions without seeing the evidence.
I would rather see a considered verdict from an independent panel than the reaction from a lynch mob.
Happy – I updated journalists yesterday informing them that the Disciplinary hoped to get their decision and reasons to us tomorrow (Friday), but it might not be until Monday.
The delay is far from ideal and is due in main to a couple of factors I’ve posted somewhere on TRF before, namely:
– Two high profile hearings taking place at approximately the same time (Henderson and the Rodgers et al one) with the same Chairman
– Said Chairman (Tim Charlton QC) being an active barrister who has other commitments, likewise the other panel members.I’ve not been on here to update this thread because until yesterday I had no update and wasn’t on TRF yesterday.
In previous cases we’ve simply issued the result when we’ve had it (which we haven’t in this case) and then issued the reasons at a later date. What happens then is people are commenting on the penalty without being able to read the Panel’s reasoning, and by the time the reasoning comes out it’s old news.
Can you tell me how much you pay the Chairman when he presides on these panels?
How much do you earn Happy??
Enough for my needs but probably not as much as you. !!
I will not let you get away with that!!
I think we are all entitled to know the BHA costs for these hearings.
so you see the point I was trying to make – I don’t think the cost of the hearings is relevant and certainly not the amount paid to individuals who sit on the committee.
Does it matter how much, for example, the FA or RFU spend on disciplinary matters?
It would also be nice of you to address yourself to the questions I have posed throghout this topic.
Well you have raised so many – and a large number have already been addressed by Paul Struthers – but if there are any you specifically want to hear my views on then please let me know.
From RP:
KARL BURKE is expecting to learn his fate on Friday following the BHA’s latest race-fixing inquiry.
The Middleham trainer has been waiting a fortnight for the verdict on his charges despite the findings against jockeys Fergal Lynch and Darren Williams – fined £50,000 and banned for three months respectively – being announced over a week ago, while gambler and former racehorse owner Miles Rodgers admitted to the Racing Post this week that he had received a lifetime ban from the sport.
Speaking on Thursday, Burke, who has been unable to fully celebrate Lord Shanakill’s win in the Group 1 Etihad Airways Prix Jean Prat at Chantilly two Sundays ago as he anxiously awaits the news from Shaftesbury Avenue that could potentially mean losing his licence, said: "It has been been very frustrating for me, and hopefully I will finally find out the result tomorrow.
"Over the last two weeks I have been getting around 20calls a day from owners, friends and family, asking me what has been happening, and we have been completely left in the dark although I am sure the BHA have got their reasons for that."
After a bit of hunting I see it is the same panel as NJ Henderson But NOT the same one that dealt with D Williams and F Lynch. The chairman is the same. Would it not have been prudent to use the same panel who had already gone through the above cases as the charges seem to be related?
The Chairman has been used by the BHA / Jockey Club for quite a few years, so as you know his private practice keeps him busy why not find a retired QC. He would come cheaper. Can you tell me how much you pay the Chairman when he presides on these panels?Happy
The Panel for Nicky Henderson was Tim Charlton QC (Chair), Patrick Hibbert-Foy and Sandra Arkwright.
The Panel for the Rodgers, Lynch, Williams and Burke hearing was Tim Charlton QC (Chair), Nicky Vigors and Didi Powles.
I know we remunerate all our panel members but don’t know the sums. I’ll have a word and see if we can use retired QCs in future. Then you can complain that they’re out of touch, doddery, on the gravy train, don’t know current law etc etc.
I think this guy would do a sterling job.
http://bluurb.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/general_melchett.jpg
Just be sure to leave the black cap handy. I think he’ll be needing it.
PAUL,
Your view please.
Q1 Is there a delay because the panel is still deliberating their verdict ?I am not privy to what the committee is thinking. However as I understand it Lynch and Williams pleaded guilty so it was only the punishment that needed to be discussed. Burke, on the other hand pleaded not guilty, so presumably the committee have more to discuss. Not only finding guilt or otherwise but if guilty deciding the appropriate penalty.
Q2 Do you beleive a verdict was reached some time ago?
Again I do not know – see my answer above
Q3 Do you beleive the verdict will be Guilty, if it is not guilty Mr Burkes should have been cleared immediately?
I am not privy to the evidence therefore cannot comment on his guilt or otherwise. If the panel do reach a not guilty decision then I would expect, as a matter of natural justice, the decision would be announced to all parties immediately
Q4 Is the panel truly independent. when the QC Chairman has worked on behalf of the BHA / Jockey Club for many years?
I believe it is an advantage having a long term chairman as it should aid consistency as well as having an in depth knowledge of the rules and regs.
In terms of independence I think that is best illustrated by the fact in several recent cases the penalties imposed by the panel has been less than requested by the BHA.
Q5 Do the FA employ outside committees to deal with thier disciplinary hearings or they do they do it in house?
I believe, but am prepared to be proved wrong, the FA also employ QC’s to chair disciplinary panels
Q6 As the BHA is a” public Body” what is wrong in asking for a breakdown of the costs?
The BHA is not a Public Body.
Turning to the question you asked Paul S about why have a QC chairing the panel. I would have thought the reasoning is obvious.
The penalties that can be handed down by the disciplinary panel are such that they can deprive individuals of their ability to work – quite a draconian power. It is a penalty that cannot be applied lightly.
Therefore it is in the interests of the BHA to ensure due legal process is followed when such decisions are made. Hence it is in the interest of the authorities to ensue a QC is involved in the process.
If the BHA were to deny an individual the right to ply their trade and had been seen to take that decision without taking a legal view, they could be taken to the cleaners if the individual were to go for a review in the courts.
It is no different than the "real world". When I worked in the banking industry any major disciplinary hearing involving regulated staff, which could result in their regulated authority being withdrawn, was heard by an independent panel headed by a QC.
Paul what recent case are you talking about when you say the penalty imposed by the tribunal was less than the BHA requested?
Happy the verdict will be guilty. The tribunal has an excellent stat if you were punting. 100% conviction rate.
The RP has an artice about Burke this morning where he states that he will fight on if it is a guilty verdict.
I think he has a week to lodge an appeal so he would be able to continue to train if banned until the appeal was heard but I would imagine when he loses the appeal any ban would come into play regardless of any High Court proceedings he may take..
Paul what recent case are you talking about when you say the penalty imposed by the tribunal was less than the BHA requested?
In the Wiliams case the BHA requested a 4-6 month disqualification, he was given three
In the Henderson case the BHA also wanted costs against Henderson, this was denied.
I may be awfully naive, but why do you need a QC on the panel?
Trainers and jockeys licenced by BHA accept the rules when they accept their licences. The Disciplinary Hearing is just that.. a Disciplinary Hearing NOT a criminal case. I would assume that all the rules of the BHA are run past solicitors first to make sure they do not contravene human rights , discrimination and restrictive practice acts. If an appeal is made against the decision then I understand a legal person may be required. I hold licences issued by a local council and I have to accept their rules. If I break the rules the matter is dealt with by the department that issued me with those licences… not a legal bod in sight. If I wish to appeal against the decision I can do so at a a magistrates court.
At the end of the day there should be no legal arguments in BHA decisions as the persons appearing have either broken the rules or have not.I don’t think it’s naive Happy, it is the way of the world unfortunately. Sportsmen and women across the world sign up to the rules of the sports they partake/earn a living in, but the law always comes into it. We have an active solicitor or QC on our Disciplinary Panel for serious cases (a normal careless riding appeal wouldn’t, for example) because invariably there will be legal arguement, whether about the rules themselves, procedure etc and you need someone on that Panel who knows his or stuff.
My understanding is that they haven’t finalised their reasons yet, so it is looking like Monday almost certainly," said BHA PR manager Paul Struthers on why the decision could not be released ’till Monday. Excuse me but, you finalize your reasons before the decision not after it. At least that is how I thought it was done.
What he means (I think) is that the QC in charge hasn’t completed the full written reasons for their decision – ie. like the Henderson document, which ran to several thousand words – and will not be able to do so today.
On the RP site this morning :
KARL BURKE went into another busy racing weekend unsure of his future after the outcome of the BHA disciplinary inquiry in which he faced race-fixing charges was delayed again.
Having given notice that the result was likely to be announced on Friday, the BHA issued a further bulletin postponing publication until after the weekend because the disciplinary panel had not completed its findings.
The inquiry, at which Burke denied the charges against him, ended on July 2, with jockeys Fergal Lynch and Darren Williams being fined £50,000 and banned for three months respectively, while gambler Miles Rodgers admitted to the Racing Post that he had received a lifetime ban.
The BHA had been preparing to release details of the outcome on Friday but had not received the written reasons for the decisions of the panel, whose chairman Tim Charlton QC also oversaw the recent Nicky Henderson inquiry.
"My understanding is that they haven’t finalised their reasons yet, so it is looking like Monday almost certainly," said BHA PR manager Paul Struthers.
Colin
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.