- This topic has 385 replies, 102 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Wit,
I have no wish to reignite the "corruption debate" dealt with on another thread but would welcome your expertise as to what an appeal – based on the assertion of the Panel forming a view which was not part of the prosecutions case and for which there is no evidence – means legally in hearings of the HRA type as opposed to a Criminal Court where one is questioning the Courts judgement.
Fitzpatrick alleges:-
1. At para 40 of the HRA ruling" the Panel found that he would have done so[ ridden to lose] if occasion arose". There is no evidence for the Panel’s view which formed no part of the HRA case against him.
2. At inter alia para35 of the HRA ruling the panel stated that Fitzpatrick was the conduit for passing information from Ferris to Norton. There is no evidence for this statement which formed no part of the HRA case against him.
Thanks
Hi Galejade
As you rightly say, the Rules of Racing and the powers of  the HRA are just contractual. ÂÂÂ
While breaches of the Rules are referred to in quasi-criminal terminology as a "charge",  the HRA’s power comes totally from the jockey’s contractual promise as a licensed person to abide by the Rules.
The HRA has no more power than you or I to "charge" in the sense of any criminal offence  – neither we nor they are the police or the CPS.  ÂÂÂ
However, since the HRA is an association with a degree of impact on livelihoods, as far as English law is concerned it does have to apply its rules according to principles of natural justice.  That much traces back to the Nagle v Feilden case in 1966.
Natural justice comprises two basic rules; first that no man is to be a judge in his own cause (nemo judex in causa sua), and second that no man is to be condemned unheard (audi alteram partem).
Both of those rules are concerned with the manner in which the decision is taken rather than with whether or not the decision is correct.
If the appeal is made on the basis that findings were made by the tribunal regarding matters that "formed no part of the HRA case against him", then he’s saying  that since the matters were not put to him, he therefore had no chance to be heard on them, hence if they are the reason for the decision, then he has been condemned unheard, in breach of natural justice.
If he can substantiate that claim, it would be grounds to go on to High Court, should the internal HRA appeal fail. ÂÂÂ
best regards
wit<br>
(Edited by wit at 12:24 pm on Feb. 27, 2007)
Thank you Wit,
your comment " hence if they are the reason for the decision" begs the questions – if they were not then why include them in your decision or must we conclude this was mere incompetence on the Panels part.
I regret they included their necessarily unsubstantiated opinion that he would have ridden to lose if the occasion arose since it adds nothing to the case and might appear to undermine their integrity.
Lucky they were not a jockey making an error of judgement!
sorry, when i say "the reason for the decision", i should have said "the only reason" or "the predominant reason" – as opposed to "a reason", one among many.
<br>i’ve not studied the detailed adjudication, but if its the case that the decision would be the same leaving out the factors appealed against, then he’s ultimately on a hiding to nothing.
<br>taking a quick look now at the HRA report around the para numbers you mention i note the following statements by the tribunal:
<br>para 33 : "This reference to the passing on of just "opinions" seems to have been lawyer inspired: it came after Mr Stewart Moore began to represent him."
<br>para 37 :"account consisting almost entirely of lies"
<br>para 38: "actively obstructed the investigation"
<br>para 39: "Fitzpatrick volunteered to investigators a further statement which he had prepared with the assistance of Mr Blake of the Jockeys’ Association of Great Britain.
"This admitted that he had lied previously …….and explained that he had done so because he thought he might be in breach of a Rule of Racing which he imagined to exist which prevented jockeys from having bookmakers as friends.
" This explanation was itself contradicted by the written statement which Fitzpatrick provided to this enquiry, where he says that he feared being falsely accused of passing racing information to Mr Nicholl.
"Even if either of these explanations were true (and in the Panel’s judgement, both explanations are additional lies), this would not explain why he also lied (as he clearly did at the outset of the investigations) about the nature of his friendship with Winston and Ferris.
"The true view is that, from the outset, Fitzpatrick was resorting to lies and obstructions to cover up his central involvement in a corrupt betting operation. "
para 41:  "Considering the totality of all these matters, together with the betting history referred to earlier, the Panel was left in no doubt ……"
<br>All those findings appear outside paras 35 and 40 –  so are they not being appealed ?
<br>best regards
wit
(Edited by wit at 3:40 pm on Feb. 27, 2007)
Wit,
apparently not – hence my posted comments about the extraneous nature of the comments in para 40.
Can someone explain the difference between being warned off and being banned? Does being warned off mean your not allowed to work in the industry as a whole?
Someone asked me this and I didn’t know, but i’m sure someone on here will.. :)
- Total Posts 17716
<br>Doesn’t warned off mean excluded from all premises licenced by the authorities, eg racecourse, stables, farriers, etc?
Banned or suspended refers to riders who have committed a riding offence, and are not allowed to race ride for a certain period.
From memory I think a warning off has a clause about not being allowed on Newmarket Heath and various other specific places.
Rob
technically the distinction is between a disqualified person and an excluded person. ÂÂÂ
colloquially these translate respectively to "banned" and "warned off", but these synonyms are not always used as precisely. ÂÂÂ
a disqualified person, as i understand it, is someone who is or has been subject to JC/HRA rules by reason of having at some stage agreed to be so, and who has then broken those rules and been punished under them.
an excluded person is a wider (though, since it does not depend on voluntary submission, maybe not a deeper) category used against someone – whether or not he has ever agreed to be subject to JC/HRA rules – who is regarded as an undesirable.
Under Rule 2 (v) of the Rules of Racing: "The Stewards of the Jockey Club shall have power to exclude or cause or order to be excluded for any period or for an indefinite period from any premises owned, licensed or controlled by them any person whether or not subject to the Rules of Racing where, in their absolute discretion, they consider the presence of such person on such premises undesirable in the interest of racing even though such person is not and has not been declared, a disqualified person. "
Then again Rule 220 (iv) says: ‘No person shall without the permission of the Stewards of the Jockey Club associate in connection with horseracing in Great Britain with any person known to be disqualified or otherwise excluded under Rule 2 (v) from any premises owned or licensed by the Stewards of the Jockey Club, whether or not constituting a breach of the Orders or Rules of Racing."
<br>The distinction was regarded as capable of making a real difference to Graham Bradley’s bloodstock business:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
6.7. Mr Leach raised the question of using the penalty of exclusion as opposed to disqualification.
He accepted that if we were minded to impose a disqualification in respect of the breaches of these Rules, it would not be possible for Mr Bradley, by reason of the provisions of Rule 205(vi),  to deal in any capacity with a racehorse, thus prohibiting him from acting as a bloodstock agent.
However, said Mr Leach, if we took the route by way of imposing an exclusion order, the exclusion Rule 2(v), permits there to be tailoring of the terms of the order made to accommodate continuation of Mr Bradley’s bloodstock business in, at least, a limited form.
We bear this in mind. <br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
best regards
wit
Is corruption endemic within racing?
Not being close to racing in a professional capacity, an interested observer rather than an insider, I was of the mind that any corrupt practices within racing were restricted to a select few. Partly because I wanted to believe that, I guess, and partly, I think, because I believed that any malpractice would be easily identifiable within the sport and would self-police itself.
Given the seemingly endless barrage of evidence to the contrary have I been hopelessly naive? Is the sport hopelessly corrupt, like an apple that is shiny and red on the outside but decaying and full of maggots when you bite beneath the skin?
If so, who, or what, is to blame? Have the exchanges, which has made the formerly tricky but not impossible task of laying sizeable quantities of dosh on horses, been the carrot that has been dangled in front of the crooks? Or is it that the crooks have always been around and that we’re (the sport that is) are just better at rooting them out these days?
I think most races, in all classes, are won fairly by the best horse on the day, taking into account luck of course.
In fact, I would suggest it’s far straighter than many would believe and that your original views was about right Corm.
—————————————————
30 years Man & Boy- Total Posts 17716
Cormack there is nothing you can do mate, I think most racing fans know that the sport is corrupt.
Excellent subject to discuss cautiously. I am of the belief that Horse racing
is as corrupt now as it has ever been! Its common knowledge that in days gone by, before T.V cameras could capture the whole race, Jump Jockeys
would literally jump off their mounts out in the country. I was stood at a fence out there in the country at Southwell one day photographing chasers,
when a well known jockey literally jumped out the side door.2 weeks later
the same combination won in a hack canter over C/D. I am also of the belief that all corrupt races are run in moderate to low class fields. I would hate to think that pattern races, listed ,graded 1,2,3.etc were corrupt.I only bet in good quality races so i am not too concerned that the Betfair ch on Saturday is fixed. Although some may think so if Exotic beats Kauto fair and square! Snooker still the most corrupt sport for match fixing!- Total Posts 17716
Excellent subject to discuss cautiously.
This is why I get annoyed, racing fans and punters are made to feel small in what they believe in, yes I know you have to be careful with what you say but I don’t see why the trainers are always right, its like you have no right to step out and question as they shouldn’t be questioned, why shouldn’t they be questioned and challenged? are we just to take it for granted that they are always trying?
Of course there is corruption in horse racing there is corruption in everything, sport, business, politics. Infact the scum that are supposed to represent the people of the country in running the country are more corrupt than anyone.
As far as racing is concerned I don’t think the sport is in bad shape and most of it I believe is straight, probably 90% but there will always be a certain level of corruption.
Wherever you get people and wherever you get money its innevitable I’m afraid.
To believe that the sport is 100% straight would be incredibly naive, but on the other side of the coin to call racing as a whole corrupt is equally innacurate IMO. Its probably as straight as any other sport but there are tens of races run every day they’re not all going to be straight.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.