What a waste of time interviewing this joker

Someone believes him, it's in to 14.5 on here.

7% chance = 'no chance' does it?

his horse ran well, but i still wouldn't give him air time.

Philip McEntee

46. McEntee explained that he first met Mr Khan at Newmarket in the summer of 2004, perhaps being introduced by an Alan McCabe who worked for David Loder. They became friends, and regularly attended poker nights at Danny Baker's house. Early in their relationship, Mr Khan provided considerable sums of money to McEntee to fund the purchase of various horses, usually in claiming races. Among them were three of the horses that ran in suspect races – PIDDIES PRIDE (IRE), GOOD WEE GIRL (IRE), and ANDURIL. McEntee said that this money was provided to him as an interest-free loan, and that his mother, in whose name the horses were registered, was the true owner. Mr Khan was described by the HRA when opening the enquiry as the shadow owner, in part because of the lack of documents to support such an uncommercial arrangement, and in part because Mr Khan occasionally paid some of the vet’s bills. At the time when these arrangements were allegedly made, McEntee was party to an IVA (Individual Voluntary Arrangement). In mid-2006, Mr Khan began a legal action against McEntee, claiming £6,600 "due to me from the buying and selling of horses". McEntee said that he allowed judgement to be entered in default against him, but later applied to set it aside. However, he failed to produce any documents to illuminate this.



47. Though there are a number of real oddities about this relationship, the Panel felt that there was insufficient material before it to justify a decision that McEntee's mother was merely a front or nominee, concealing the true ownership by Mr Khan. It followed that the alternative charge against McEntee (raised during the enquiry) fell away, and that the question for decision was that posed by the original charge - whether McEntee was in breach of Rule 243 in supplying inside information to Mr Khan.



48. A clear pattern emerged from the evidence about phone contact between McEntee and Mr Khan. On suspect race days, they were in communication with each other twelve times on average. On other days when they were in contact, the average number of calls was less than three. Furthermore, the timelines that were prepared to show the sequence of contact between all relevant persons demonstrate that Mr Khan frequently placed his substantial lay bets against McEntee trained horses shortly after contact with him on suspect race days.



49. To counter the obvious inference arising from the increased frequency of contact and the lay betting by Mr Khan, McEntee advanced two explanations. In the document filed shortly before the enquiry to set out his defence (which was prepared with the help of his lawyers before he dispensed with their services), he suggested that this contact was for the purpose of discussing arrival times, meeting points, and organising entry tickets for Mr Khan and his friends. He effectively abandoned that explanation during the enquiry when it was pointed out to him that Mr Khan was betting from his computer in Bolton on suspect race days. His next explanation was that the calls were about the buying and selling in claiming races of the horses obtained with funds provided by Mr Khan. The Panel accepted that there might have been occasional references to this in principle if, on a suspect race day, there was a claim for a Mr Khan financed horse. This only happened on three of the seven suspect race days with which McEntee was concerned, and in each case the claim took a Mr Khan financed horse out of McEntee's yard. Therefore, even on those three days, they would be no reason for the increased volume of contact until after the race. Yet all the days show a high frequency of calls before the races, as well as after.



50. Quite apart from the inference that arises from the frequency of phone contact, there was an additional specific piece of evidence which indicates powerfully that McEntee was passing valuable inside information for reward to Mr Khan. This was the call made from McEntee's mobile on 26 January 2005 (not a suspect race day) to another mobile -- "the 226 mobile" -- which was used by a betting confederate of Mr Khan to place some of the lay bets in suspect races. McEntee was unable to give any sensible explanation for this. He was eventually reduced to saying that he had no idea what it was about. This reinforced the Panel's conclusion that McEntee was closely involved with Mr Khan and his lay betting.



51. The liabilities risked by Mr Khan on the suspect races concerning McEntee were sizeable even by his standards. On BAYTOWN FLYER, he risked £18,376; on PIDDIES PRIDE (IRE) on 7 October 2004, he risked £45,140; on GOOD WEE GIRL (IRE), he risked £65,640; on the last two PIDDIES PRIDE (IRE) races, he risked £35,639 and £62,244; on SIRAJ he risked £50,936; and on ANDURIL he risked £48,940. These were his only bets in these races, they frequently took an extravagant share of the available Betfair win and place markets, and they sometimes layed prices, in the place markets especially, that were incredibly generous.



52. Another revealing feature was that Mr Khan did not lay PIDDIES PRIDE (IRE) to lose on 26 January 2005, when she won under Kelly. This indicated that McEntee was able to provide pretty reliable information to Mr Khan about her chances at least.



53. In an effort to cover his tracks, McEntee told investigators at an interview on 26 January 2006 that, when he replied to Mr Khan's regular questions during their telephone calls about the chances of a McEntee runner, he had no idea that Mr Khan was a gambler. This was plainly untrue.



54. This all led the Panel to conclude that McEntee was obviously supplying Mr Khan with highly valuable and specific inside information. Did he receive rewards for this? The answer to this too is clear. Not only did he have the benefit of interest free money from Mr Khan, but he shared in the betting profits realised by Mr Khan. In this regard, the Panel relied not only on the obvious inference that arose from the fact that he was providing information of such value to Mr Khan, but also upon its conclusion that he will have been given a share of the profits in the same way that Byrne was. If any more support was needed for this view, there was also the giveaway phone call made by McEntee to Mr Khan's betting confederate who used the 226 mobile.



55. Though McEntee was in clear breach of Rule 243, it is right to record the Panel's conclusion in his favour that it was no part of the information provided to Mr Khan that McEntee would arrange for his horses in the suspect races to be stopped if necessary to ensure the success of the betting. This decision flowed in part from the fact that in five of the seven races with which McEntee was concerned, no suggestion was made on behalf of the HRA that the jockeys (Tom Queally, Dominic Fox and Hayley Turner) were in on the act. And because of the decision set out below that Kelly was not concerned with the supply of inside information in respect of his rides on SIRAJ or ANDURIL, the same position applied there.



56. In summary, McEntee was in breach of Rule 243 in respect of all seven races for which he was charged, but was not in breach of Rule 155(ii) in respect of the ANDURIL race. He was not engaged in giving any indications to Mr Khan that the horses he trained might be stopped if necessary. He was in breach of Rule 220(viii) for his lies to investigators in interview.

Just managed to read that lot before it got pulled