Karl Burke

[Anonymous]

Silvoir

It seems quite clear that Karl Burke sent out 5 horses, in a 1 month period, with no intention of them trying to win their respective races..
Why, in 5 years of investigation and litigation, has not one single question been raised – at any stage – about this

real cheating

, without which this whole sorry episode would never have been spawned?

[Drone]

Thanks Seagull, nice to know there was one amongst the crowd brave enough to report him

I ask again: Is it an offence for on-course bookmakers to knowingly lay bets to a warned-off individual?

And if so what are the penalties available to the BHA? e.g suspension of permit

Silvoir?

[Silvoir]

The B.H.A. and the racing press both blamed the City Of London police for not getting convictions in court yet in the City Of London Police review of the case which was leaked (some members of this forum have read it in full) they put the blame totally with the B.H.A.

Seagull – I’ve just re-read this very review (it’s marked by CoL Police as confidential so I’m unable to post it up there) and could not see any blame whatsoever laid at Jockey Club/BHA door.

I do know they issued the media with a public version of the document but I don’t have that copy I’m afraid.

[Silvoir]

Reet / Drone

I’ll try and get back to you on both your points at some point today – fairly snowed under so might not be until much later.

Paul

[Silvoir]

SILVOIR

If K Burke appeals will the Appeal Hearing be heard by the same panel?
Do the Appeal Panel have the authority to INCREASE the penalty?

Happy

1 – No, The Appeal Board is a totally separate Board with different members.

2 – Yes

[wit]

I ask again: Is it an offence for on-course bookmakers to knowingly lay bets to a warned-off individual?

And if so what are the penalties available to the BHA? e.g suspension of permit

Silvoir?

Hi Drone

I’ll be interested to see what Silvoir says but, FWIW, my understanding is:

a) the writ of the BHA runs only as far as those who are licensed by it – it is a jurisdiction essentially based on contract law between BHA as governor and its licensees as governed

b) a person warned-off by the BHA is warned-off only in the sense that other persons licensed by the BHA cannot deal with that person. That is the context here for the word "offence" – you’re not talking criminal offence or offence against the law of the land, just an "offence" against the contractual rules of essentially a large but still private club

c) bookmakers are not licensed by the BHA, and never have been: The BHA is nothing to do with betting, and I imagine will have been relieved to see that made clear by the appearance of the Gambling Commission.

d) bookmakers were previously licensed by magistrates and now are licensed by the Gambling Commission. Neither of those bodies was/is directly concerned with whether a bookie deals with a person warned-off by the BHA – they operate(d) to their own separate statutory objectives.

e) the way the BHA can exercise influence over the situation you describe is to use its leverage against the licensed racecourse which in turn can use its leverage against those it licenses (ie allows by contract) to enter its premises, who the racecourse can eject / not admit in future if in breach of their contractual terms of entry to the course.

f) the Gambling Commission could address the issue of BHA-warned-off persons betting through its Codes of Conduct but I’m not aware that it has specifically done so yet or that it has expressed any intention specifically to do so.

g) the declared role of the Gambling Commission is to keep crime out of gambling, to ensure that gambling is conducted fairly and openly, and to protect children and vulnerable people from being harmed or exploited by gambling.

h) being warned-off by the BHA certainly is not a crime and best i know – though I stand to be corrected on this – is not regarded by the Gambling Commission as automatic proof of lack of fairness and openness in the conduct of gambling (as opposed to the rules of racing).

i) the attention that bookies pay to the BHA warned-off list is essentially a voluntary matter for the bookies. They may keep an eye open to not exposing themselves, when applying for re-licensing, to objections that they have been consorting with elements not conducive to integrity of the events on which they bet, but the extent they do so tends to be a matter for their individual assessment and not an automatic follow-on from any declaration made by the BHA against any individual.

j) basically neither the Gambling Commission nor the bookies are bound by, nor do they automatically voluntarily follow, BHA decisions against a person when it comes to the way they exercise their own discretions in relation to that person.

or have i got any of that wrong, Silvoir ?

best regards

wit

[Anonymous]

"Let me say I have no sympathy for Burke – he has broken the rules, seemingly tried to lie to protect himself. I do have the greatest sympathy for his staff who may be out of a job through no fault of their own."

That to me says it all here. I don’t know how anyone can have any sympathy for this man or any the others involved.

I was against the Nicky Henderson ban as I thought the whole thing seemed kind of daft to me……being a medicine and all that.

But this is just not on!

If Burke appeals I hope they put a zero on the end of his ban.

I have no objections to people giving horses a quite run ot 2 to bring them on then landing a gamble if a horse improves as hoped and wins. That’s the name of the game but to do what this lot were doing is not part of the game at all.

When a bunch of thieves committed a criminal offence and are caught they go to jail. He’s lucky he is not there now.
The slur it bings to racing is unforgivable. The fact others either walked away scott free or got away with lesser penalties is a failing by the prosecuters involved. It should not be acceptable as a basis for an appeal by Burke.

[Drone]

Many thanks Wit, not least for clarifying what the BHA has jurisdiction over

I too will be interested to read Silvoir’s opinion on the matter

I was careful not to append ‘offence’ with ‘crime/criminal’ as I do realise that ‘warning-off’ is a civil offence apportioned under the Rules of Racing; hence any bookmaker conducting business with such an individual would only fall foul of said Rules, if at all.

[Tom]

Broke the rules… lied… then owned up… and the ban was 1 year.

Only mugs bet on horses.

[Silvoir]

I ask again: Is it an offence for on-course bookmakers to knowingly lay bets to a warned-off individual?

And if so what are the penalties available to the BHA? e.g suspension of permit

Silvoir?

Hi Drone

I’ll be interested to see what Silvoir says but, FWIW, my understanding is:

a) the writ of the BHA runs only as far as those who are licensed by it – it is a jurisdiction essentially based on contract law between BHA as governor and its licensees as governed

b) a person warned-off by the BHA is warned-off only in the sense that other persons licensed by the BHA cannot deal with that person. That is the context here for the word "offence" – you’re not talking criminal offence or offence against the law of the land, just an "offence" against the contractual rules of essentially a large but still private club

c) bookmakers are not licensed by the BHA, and never have been: The BHA is nothing to do with betting, and I imagine will have been relieved to see that made clear by the appearance of the Gambling Commission.

d) bookmakers were previously licensed by magistrates and now are licensed by the Gambling Commission. Neither of those bodies was/is directly concerned with whether a bookie deals with a person warned-off by the BHA – they operate(d) to their own separate statutory objectives.

e) the way the BHA can exercise influence over the situation you describe is to use its leverage against the licensed racecourse which in turn can use its leverage against those it licenses (ie allows by contract) to enter its premises, who the racecourse can eject / not admit in future if in breach of their contractual terms of entry to the course.

f) the Gambling Commission could address the issue of BHA-warned-off persons betting through its Codes of Conduct but I’m not aware that it has specifically done so yet or that it has expressed any intention specifically to do so.

g) the declared role of the Gambling Commission is to keep crime out of gambling, to ensure that gambling is conducted fairly and openly, and to protect children and vulnerable people from being harmed or exploited by gambling.

h) being warned-off by the BHA certainly is not a crime and best i know – though I stand to be corrected on this – is not regarded by the Gambling Commission as automatic proof of lack of fairness and openness in the conduct of gambling (as opposed to the rules of racing).

i) the attention that bookies pay to the BHA warned-off list is essentially a voluntary matter for the bookies. They may keep an eye open to not exposing themselves, when applying for re-licensing, to objections that they have been consorting with elements not conducive to integrity of the events on which they bet, but the extent they do so tends to be a matter for their individual assessment and not an automatic follow-on from any declaration made by the BHA against any individual.

j) basically neither the Gambling Commission nor the bookies are bound by, nor do they automatically voluntarily follow, BHA decisions against a person when it comes to the way they exercise their own discretions in relation to that person.

or have i got any of that wrong, Silvoir ?

best regards

wit

Thanks for that contribution Tom/Dene – as constructive as usual.

Apologies for delay Wit, but I’d say you’ve got it pretty much spot on. the only thing I would add is that I’m pretty confident that betting organisations licenced by the Gambling Commission must report breaches of a sporting bodies rules if they are aware of it. Therefore if a bookmaker on course was taking bets off John McCracken if he knew it was him, he’d know it would be against the rules of the sport as he’s excluded from licensed premises so would be bound to report it theoretically. TDK might know more on this possibly?

There was also this story in the Post in early 2005:

Bookmakers ban McCracken in bid to support the corruption battle.
Source

GRAHAM GREEN.

IN AN unprecedented move, Britain’s major bookmakers have slapped a blanket
ban on John McCracken, the Brighton-based punter who was in effect warned off
for life by the Jockey Club last month.
Barring McCracken from premises operated by the leading High Street chains
represents the most dramatic example to date of the betting industry’s
determination to work with racing authorities in a bid to stamp out corruption.

The decision is being implemented with immediate effect by Ladbrokes, William
Hill, Coral, Stanley and Betfred, and has the support of the Association of
British Bookmakers, which represents almost 7,000 of Britain’s 8,300 betting
shops.

The ban has been warmly welcomed by the Jockey Club and is believed to be the
first public endorsement by bookmakers of a Disciplinary Panel ruling, which
also embraces greyhound stadia owned by the bookmakers.

Following an inquiry in December, an exclusion order was issued for McCracken
– a well-known punter on England’s southern circuit and focus of Jockey Club
investigations into alleged race-fixing – as “undesirable in the interests of
racing”.

Believed to be a former associate of fugitive drugs baron Brian Wright and
known to Sussex police, McCracken’s association with the sport first came to
light when telephone records linked him to races involving the controversial
defeats of
betting-exchange drifters Ice Saint, Tollbrae and Red Lancer.

While it is not unusual for individual bookmakers to ban suspected fraudsters
from shops, the latest move against McCracken followed meetings between Jockey
Club security chief Paul Scotney and security representatives from the big
betting companies. It
paves the way for similar action to be taken in future when a person is
considered a threat to racing’s integrity.

A Ladbrokes spokesman said: “In support of the Jockey Club’s disciplinary
hearing of December 10 at which John McCracken was banned from racecourses and
training yards, Ladbrokes have excluded him from all their betting offices and
both their greyhound
stadiums with immediate effect.

“We feel the move demonstrates much-needed solidarity on the important issue
of security in the industry and will help to enhance racing’s integrity.”

Coral own McCracken’s local greyhound track, in Hove, and the firm’s
spokesman Simon Clare said: “Coral, in conjunction with other major bookmakers,
have decided to exclude John McCracken from all Coral betting shops, our two
greyhound stadiums, and
from opening and using Coral accounts on our phones and online.

“This is a clear demonstration of our commitment to support the Jockey Club
and its battle against corruption and wrong-doing in horseracing.”

Although the ban applies nationwide, it will be policed most vigorously in
the Brighton area where a spokesman for Betfred, operators of a shop in the town
that McCracken is known to have frequented in the past, said his photograph is
being circulated
among staff working locally.

Commenting on the bookmakers’ response to the McCracken case, Jockey Club
spokesman John Maxse said: “We are encouraged by this development. The
increasing liaison between racing’s regulatory authority and the betting
organisations is now producing
positive results with regard to dealing with potential threats to the sport’s
integrity.

“Our efforts to deter corruption are more effective when endorsed and
supported by the betting industry.”

McCracken has never registered with Betfair, but accounts with which he is
thought to have had links have either been suspended, or closed. A Betfair
spokesman said: “John McCracken will not have access to bet on Betfair.”

[wit]

"Silvoir wrote:

….. betting organisations licenced by the Gambling Commission must report breaches of a sporting bodies rules if they are aware of it. Therefore if a bookmaker on course was taking bets off John McCracken if he knew it was him, he’d know it would be against the rules of the sport as he’s excluded from licensed premises so would be bound to report it theoretically. TDK might know more on this possibly?

Many thanks Silvoir.

I had forgotten the bookies’ voluntary initiative against McCracken.

As regards the Gambling Commission, there is Regulation 15 of its Licence Conditions

http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/Up … %20pdf.pdf

which says that:

=========================

Licensees must provide

the Commission

with any information that they:

● know relates to or suspect may relate to the commission of an offence under the Act, including an offence resulting from a breach of a licence condition or a code provision having the effect of a licence condition

● suspect may lead the Commission to consider making an order to void a bet.

……

Licensees who accept bets, or facilitate the making or acceptance of bets between others, on the outcome of horse races or other sporting events governed by one of the sport governing bodies for the time being included in Part 3 of Schedule 6 to the Act

must also provide the relevant sport governing body with

sufficient information to conduct an effective investigation if the licensee suspects that information in their possession may:

● lead the Commission to consider making an order to void a bet

● relate to a breach of a rule on betting applied by that sport governing body.

====================================

That last bit seems to cover only breaches of any

rules on betting applied by the BHA.

The inside information rule itself (243) does not refer to betting. The BHA betting rules seem to be in 244 – 247.

Also, the wording "applied by [the BHA]" seems apt only to cover persons licensed by the BHA at the time of the bet?

For example, if someone has never been licensed by the BHA, presumably the BHA was never in a position to apply any rule regarding his betting or anything else ? So that position will not change if such a person is warned-off ?

As a further example, does that wording cover a formerly BHA-licensed person within Rules 244-7 (eg jockey, trainer, etc), who has ceased to be licensed by reason of being warned-off ?

When such person is warned-off, presumably the contract between him and the BHA terminates, and with it there also terminates any basis for the BHA to continue applying its betting rules / prohibitions to him under 244-7?

So the act of warning-off itself will put the person involved beyond the bookies’ duty to notify the BHA about what he does once warned-off?

In other words, absent a specific McCracken-type voluntary arrangement, or else an obligation accepted by them on-course from the racecourse as a contractual condition of entry, there is no particular monitoring to be done by bookies of those warned-off by the BHA?

best regards

wit

[Pompete]

Happy, we have an answer for the delay. According to Burke’s Solicitors the delay was caused by that QC fella going to the Cricket for five days.

Bark & Co Solicitors, representing the Middleham trainer, said in a statement: "We understand the decision was delayed in part due to the disciplinary panel chairman attending the cricket Test Match in Cardiff.

Racing Post

[Silvoir]

RACING POST, 22/7/09
Test match did not hold up inquiry, BHA insists.

WHILE England basks in the Lord’s Ashes triumph of racehorse owner Andrew Flintoff and company, the BHA yesterday insisted it was not cricket to suggest disciplinary panel chairman Tim Charlton QC’s attendance at the first Test match contributed to the delay in Karl Burke learning his fate in the corruption inquiry,

writes Graham Green.

Although Fergal Lynch, Darren Williams and Miles Rodgers were informed of their punishments immediately after hearings, Burke was forced to wait 18 days before being notified of the outcome of his inquiry. Bark & Co solicitors, representing the Middleham trainer, said in a
statement: "We understand the decision was delayed in part due to the
disciplinary panel chairman attending the cricket Test match in Cardiff.

"It has been a general failing of the BHA not to deal with Mr Burke’s case
expeditiously. This further delay unfortunately carries with it concern that the penalty and reasoning against Mr Burke may have been influenced by matters irrelevant to his case."

In response, BHA spokesman Paul Struthers said: "Tim acts for us as an
independent chairman of the disciplinary panel and what Tim does in his own time is up to him.

"My understanding is that he was at the Test match for one day, and I doubt very much whether it had any bearing on how long it took.

"To suggest the delay was due to any interference in the disciplinary process is scandalous and without foundation.

"I’m not going to go back on saying that circumstances conspired in favour of Lynch and Williams, but on that issue – and I have to be careful what I say on the basis that he is intending to appeal the penalty – those same circumstances would appear to have worked equally in Karl Burke’s favour.

"That’s in so far as the length of time between the races in question and being able to deal with it through the disciplinary process, plus the fact that, unlike Williams and Lynch, Burke wasn’t charged by the CPS and spent no time on the sidelines at all."

Charlton also chaired the recent Nicky Henderson inquiry, and Struthers added:

"The big lesson for us to take away from this is not to have two big,
high-profile cases taking place at approximately the same time with shared disciplinary panel members. We accept it was far from ideal that Karl Burke had to wait so long to find out the result."

[seabird]

Paul. can I thank you for the time you have found to respond so well on this thread.

Colin

[davidjohnson]

I’d also like to thank Paul for doing his job!

[Anonymous]

Paul. can I thank you for the time you have found to respond so well on this thread.

Colin

Ahem…….. to at least some of the questions?

Silvoir

It seems quite clear that Karl Burke sent out 5 horses, in a 1 month period, with no intention of them trying to win their respective races..
Why, in 5 years of investigation and litigation, has not one single question been raised – at any stage – about this real cheating, without which this whole sorry episode would never have been spawned

[Drone]

Bark & Co Solicitors, representing the Middleham trainer, said in a statement: "We understand the decision was delayed in part due to the disciplinary panel chairman attending the cricket Test Match in Cardiff.

Burke was forced to wait 18 days before being notified of the outcome of his inquiry. Bark & Co solicitors, representing the Middleham trainer, said in a
statement: "We understand the decision was delayed in part due to the
disciplinary panel chairman attending the cricket Test match in Cardiff.

All rather heartening. Reminds me of the late-lamented Wednesday Derby Day when London took an unofficial bank holiday.

Some things are just too important to let mere work get in the way…

At least the BHA had the good manners to delay releasing the report to the world and his wife on TRF until the greatest sporting moment on English soil since 1934 had occurred.

Thanks again to Wit and Silvoir for their thorough response to my question. Not entirely sure the waters have been totally cleared but if they cause any Sussex-based bookmakers who may be looking in to ponder their business practices, then their words will not have been entirely wasted.

[Author]

Posts