Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
After the "Four Layers, but can't spot the Smoking gun" fiasco this has now happened:
OLDEN SURPRICE (IRE) - DISCIPLINARY PANEL DECISION ON PENALTIES
- Niccolo Rugani, Pierre Carniti and Alessandro Carli each disqualified for three years
- Trainer Aldo Locatelli fined £500
1. On 26-28 January 2010, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) conducted an enquiry into allegations of breach of the Rules of Racing said to have happened when GOLDEN SURPRICE (IRE) ran in two races at Wolverhampton in November and December 2007. After receiving further evidence and submissions in writing from the parties, the Panels decision was published in March 2010. Representations about penalty were then received in writing first from the BHA and subsequently from the four persons found to have been in breach of the Rules of Racing, in accordance with the directions given by the Panel at the end of the reasons for the decision. (No question of penalty arises in the cases of Carlo Spuntarelli or Sabrina Spuntarelli, because the Panel found that they were not in breach of any Rules. Nor does it arise in the case of Oscar Urbina, because the Panel declined to impose any penalty for the relatively minor breach found in his case, for reasons already explained).
2. Having considered the representations received, the Panel decided to impose the following penalties.
Niccolo Rugani
3. He was both the enabler of and a participant in the corrupt betting on 4 December. Though not a licence holder in Great Britain, nor (so far as the Panel is aware) in Italy, he did take a role as the owners representative at both the meetings in question at Wolverhampton and was subject to the Rules of Racing. He also concealed what he knew of the horses condition from the Stewards at Wolverhampton after the 4 December race.
4. He is declared to be a disqualified person for 3 years from Tuesday 27 April 2010 to 26 April 2013 inclusive. The BHA suggested that he should also be fined, because he could simply sit out this ban in Italy and return to race here if he wanted without suffering any real penalty. But as the Panel understands matters, this disqualification should be the subject of a reciprocal order in Italy, so it should have a real effect. If this does not occur, then it is open to the BHA to apply to the Panel to impose some further sanction.
Pierre Carniti
5. As the person with effective control of the owning partnership and the person who made the entries for the two races, Carniti was also subject to the Rules of Racing in this country. He was the central figure among those who participated in the corrupt betting. Even though the bets he placed personally against GOLDEN SURPRICE (IRE) through the accounts which came to the Panels notice were relatively small, the Panel found that he is likely to have shared the profits made on bets placed by others.
6. He is declared to be a disqualified person for 3 years from Tuesday 27 April 2010 to 26 April 2013 inclusive. Again, the BHA suggested that he should also be fined, because he could simply sit out this ban in Italy and return to race here if he wanted without suffering any real penalty. But as the Panel understands matters, this disqualification should be the subject of a reciprocal order in Italy, so it should have a real effect. If this does not occur, then it is open to the BHA to apply to the Panel to impose some further sanction.
Alessandro Carli
7. As he was not subject to the Rules of Racing, the appropriate penalty is an exclusion order which is imposed for a period of 3 years from Tuesday 27 April 2010 to 26 April 2013 inclusive. Though the BHA asked that he be fined also, the Panel concluded that this power was not open to them.
Aldo Locatelli
8. His breach of Instruction D5 now carries a standard penalty of £290. Though he was not party in any way to the wrongdoing of the others, his failure to observe what is an important aspect of a trainers duty did contribute to the ability of those others to carry out their corrupt betting, and in the light of that the Panel imposed a fine of £500.
Notes for Editors:
- The Panel for the enquiry was: Tim Charlton QC (Chair), Patrick Hibbert-Foy and Nicky Vigors
to view online - https://www.britishhorseracing.presscentre.com/Press-Releases/GOLDEN-SURPRICE-ENQUIRY-RESULT-ed.aspx
Why do the BHA continue to treat everyone in racing with a licence as innocent?
By this decision, they permit trainers to deliberately run an unfit horse.
Unreal.
OLDEN SURPRICE (IRE) - DISCIPLINARY PANEL DECISION ON PENALTIES
- Niccolo Rugani, Pierre Carniti and Alessandro Carli each disqualified for three years
- Trainer Aldo Locatelli fined £500
1. On 26-28 January 2010, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) conducted an enquiry into allegations of breach of the Rules of Racing said to have happened when GOLDEN SURPRICE (IRE) ran in two races at Wolverhampton in November and December 2007. After receiving further evidence and submissions in writing from the parties, the Panels decision was published in March 2010. Representations about penalty were then received in writing first from the BHA and subsequently from the four persons found to have been in breach of the Rules of Racing, in accordance with the directions given by the Panel at the end of the reasons for the decision. (No question of penalty arises in the cases of Carlo Spuntarelli or Sabrina Spuntarelli, because the Panel found that they were not in breach of any Rules. Nor does it arise in the case of Oscar Urbina, because the Panel declined to impose any penalty for the relatively minor breach found in his case, for reasons already explained).
2. Having considered the representations received, the Panel decided to impose the following penalties.
Niccolo Rugani
3. He was both the enabler of and a participant in the corrupt betting on 4 December. Though not a licence holder in Great Britain, nor (so far as the Panel is aware) in Italy, he did take a role as the owners representative at both the meetings in question at Wolverhampton and was subject to the Rules of Racing. He also concealed what he knew of the horses condition from the Stewards at Wolverhampton after the 4 December race.
4. He is declared to be a disqualified person for 3 years from Tuesday 27 April 2010 to 26 April 2013 inclusive. The BHA suggested that he should also be fined, because he could simply sit out this ban in Italy and return to race here if he wanted without suffering any real penalty. But as the Panel understands matters, this disqualification should be the subject of a reciprocal order in Italy, so it should have a real effect. If this does not occur, then it is open to the BHA to apply to the Panel to impose some further sanction.
Pierre Carniti
5. As the person with effective control of the owning partnership and the person who made the entries for the two races, Carniti was also subject to the Rules of Racing in this country. He was the central figure among those who participated in the corrupt betting. Even though the bets he placed personally against GOLDEN SURPRICE (IRE) through the accounts which came to the Panels notice were relatively small, the Panel found that he is likely to have shared the profits made on bets placed by others.
6. He is declared to be a disqualified person for 3 years from Tuesday 27 April 2010 to 26 April 2013 inclusive. Again, the BHA suggested that he should also be fined, because he could simply sit out this ban in Italy and return to race here if he wanted without suffering any real penalty. But as the Panel understands matters, this disqualification should be the subject of a reciprocal order in Italy, so it should have a real effect. If this does not occur, then it is open to the BHA to apply to the Panel to impose some further sanction.
Alessandro Carli
7. As he was not subject to the Rules of Racing, the appropriate penalty is an exclusion order which is imposed for a period of 3 years from Tuesday 27 April 2010 to 26 April 2013 inclusive. Though the BHA asked that he be fined also, the Panel concluded that this power was not open to them.
Aldo Locatelli
8. His breach of Instruction D5 now carries a standard penalty of £290. Though he was not party in any way to the wrongdoing of the others, his failure to observe what is an important aspect of a trainers duty did contribute to the ability of those others to carry out their corrupt betting, and in the light of that the Panel imposed a fine of £500.
Notes for Editors:
- The Panel for the enquiry was: Tim Charlton QC (Chair), Patrick Hibbert-Foy and Nicky Vigors
to view online - https://www.britishhorseracing.presscentre.com/Press-Releases/GOLDEN-SURPRICE-ENQUIRY-RESULT-ed.aspx
Why do the BHA continue to treat everyone in racing with a licence as innocent?
By this decision, they permit trainers to deliberately run an unfit horse.
Unreal.
Show More
Sooner they start weighing horses on the day the better;)
The BHA thought that this was all the trainer had done wrong:
7) Aldo Locatelli
56. He left the care and training of GOLDEN SURPRICE (IRE) in the hands of Carniti, and indeed had never seen the horse since it came into the ownership of Chevaux Prestige. Instruction D5 requires a trainer not merely to authorise someone to represent him when he does not attend a meeting himself, but also to take steps to ensure that his representative has sufficient knowledge about matters such as riding instructions. This he did not do. He had never heard of Rugani or of Anna Stastna, who are the only two possible candidates to be seen as his representative at the 4 December meeting.
57. The Panel therefore concluded that he was in breach of Rule 221B(i) as alleged, because he did not comply with Instruction D5.
7) Aldo Locatelli
56. He left the care and training of GOLDEN SURPRICE (IRE) in the hands of Carniti, and indeed had never seen the horse since it came into the ownership of Chevaux Prestige. Instruction D5 requires a trainer not merely to authorise someone to represent him when he does not attend a meeting himself, but also to take steps to ensure that his representative has sufficient knowledge about matters such as riding instructions. This he did not do. He had never heard of Rugani or of Anna Stastna, who are the only two possible candidates to be seen as his representative at the 4 December meeting.
57. The Panel therefore concluded that he was in breach of Rule 221B(i) as alleged, because he did not comply with Instruction D5.
they may as well have mr magoo watching the races for all they see they are the most useless blind bunch of f00kers in racing and that takes some doing
i bought annambo out ov wolverhampton race it won half a furlong think i paid the italians 13k got it home and it was lifeless i wonder what they gave it when it bolted up
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539