Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
24 Apr 13
14:33
Joined:
Date Joined:
05 Jan 10
Associated Press Sports
updated 7:35 a.m. ET April 24, 2013
LONDON (AP) - A former racehorse owner has been disqualified for two years after pleading guilty to involvement in a corruption scandal in Britain.
Michael Turl was charged along with jockey Eddie Ahern and four other men with violating various horseracing rules. Those include stopping horses running on their merits and passing on inside information for races from September 2009 to February 2011.
The men were scheduled to appear at a five-day disciplinary hearing of the British Horseracing Authority. But the governing body says on Wednesday that Turl has already entered a guilty plea.
Turl, an unlicensed individual, was fined $15,000
updated 7:35 a.m. ET April 24, 2013
LONDON (AP) - A former racehorse owner has been disqualified for two years after pleading guilty to involvement in a corruption scandal in Britain.
Michael Turl was charged along with jockey Eddie Ahern and four other men with violating various horseracing rules. Those include stopping horses running on their merits and passing on inside information for races from September 2009 to February 2011.
The men were scheduled to appear at a five-day disciplinary hearing of the British Horseracing Authority. But the governing body says on Wednesday that Turl has already entered a guilty plea.
Turl, an unlicensed individual, was fined $15,000
Show More
24 Apr 2013 BHA
Result of a Disciplinary Panel hearing (Michael Turl)
On 22nd April 2013 the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry involving Michael Turl, who is now an unlicensed individual but was formerly a registered owner.
Michael Turl had been charged with a breach of Rule (A)41.2 in that he conspired with Neil Clement and/or other persons to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice. A link to the full notice of charges is included in the Notes to Editors.
This formed part of a wider investigation in which charges are being brought against licensed jockey Eddie Ahern and five other individuals. This hearing is scheduled to begin on 29th April and last for five days. However, Mr Turl entered a guilty plea on a factual basis which was accepted by the BHA. As such his case was heard separately.
There follows the Disciplinary Panel's findings:
Michael Turl
1. Mr Michael Turl is a businessman. He has known Mr Neil Clement for many years. He was alleged by the BHA to be in breach of Rule (A)41.2, essentially because his account with Betfair was used to place a lay bet against STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) which risked £40,000 to win £8308. In interview, he told the BHA that the bet was placed as a result of a tip passed to him in a pub or at a cricket club, and that it was placed by a friend who lived abroad. He did not name the person in the interview.
2. Shortly after he was charged with a breach of the Rules, his solicitors indicated to the BHA that Mr Turl might be prepared to admit a breach, and thereafter the BHA and Mr Turl followed the plea-bargaining procedure set out in Schedule (A)10 to the Rules. On 8 March 2013, Mr Turl set out in a document the factual basis upon which he was prepared to admit a breach. On 20 March 2013, the BHA indicated to Mr Turl's solicitors that the BHA was prepared to accept that penalty should be determined upon the basis put forward by Mr Turl.
3. A hearing was held on 22 April 2013, at which the Panel was asked to decide the penalty that would be imposed for the breach. The Panel first determined from the papers available for the hearing whether it felt it was appropriate to proceed on the factual basis outlined by Mr Turl and accepted by the BHA. The Panel did feel that this was an acceptable course. The question of penalty was therefore assessed upon the basis set out by Mr Turl, subject to some further questions which the Panel raised itself.
4. Mr Turl had known Mr Clement for many years. They were friends and shared an interest in horse racing. Mr Clement has owned horses in the past. Each has occasionally placed a bet on behalf of the other. There was no formal arrangement for repayment nor for the sharing of any win, but such was their friendship that "prompt repayment and some recompense went without saying".
5. Mr Turl transferred £40,000 of his own money into his Betfair account, which Mr Clement had asked to be used. All of this was risked in the win market to lay STONEACRE GARETH (IRE), winning £8308. The bet was undoubtedly extraordinary for the Mr Turl account, being 20 times larger than the next largest risk taken. The bets were physically placed by Mr Clement, who was able to access Mr Turl's Betfair account remotely.
6. Mr Turl accepted that the circumstances of the placing of the lay bet revealed a corrupt intention on the part of Mr Clement, and he was himself aware that there was good reason to believe that the horse would not run to form. In the light of that awareness and the facilities which he provided to Mr Clement to seek to profit from Mr Clement's inside information, he recognised and accepted that he was in breach of Rule (A)41.2.
7. He further explained that his evasiveness in his interview of 14 July 2012 (when he refused to name the person who had placed this large bet through his account), was because he did not consider it to be appropriate to discuss third parties.
8. The Guide to Procedures and Penalties 2013 provides a penalty range of 6 months to 10 years disqualification or exclusion, with a recommended entry point of 3 years. As Mr Turl’s registration as an owner remained in force at the time of the STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) race, disqualification was the correct form of penalty here.
9. Before considering what reduction of penalty might be appropriate to reflect the admission of breach by Mr Turl, the Panel first determined what the offence itself required. As there was no suggestion that STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) was given a stopping ride, or that its rider might have been prepared to do so, the Panel treated this 3 year recommendation as its starting point. While the size of the bet in question was large, and Mr Turl made the case worse by evasive behaviour at interview, the Panel did accept a number of points made in mitigation by Miss Kristina Montgomery QC on Mr Turl’s behalf. This was an isolated incident on Mr Turl’s part; financial gain by him was not at the heart of his involvement, but rather this was a most unwise promotion of his friendship with Mr Clement. So the conclusion was that a 3 year disqualification was called for.
10. The Panel then applied the discount which the Guide says is to be given where there has been, as here, a prompt recognition of guilt. This is a discount of “up to a third”. The Panel was prepared to act on this basis, subject to the addition of a fine in this case of £10,000, to mark the general need, especially for people of means, to ensure that they do not become engaged in assisting corrupt betting. Even if, as Miss Montgomery told the Panel, Mr Turl did not keep the benefit of the corrupt bets, a financial penalty was still necessary here.
11. So the Panel imposed a disqualification of 24 months with immediate effect from Monday 22 April 2013 until 21 April 2015 inclusive and a fine of £10,000.
Notes to Editors:
1. The original charge notices brought against all individuals can be found here: http://www.britishhorseracing.presscentre.com/Press-Releases/Jockey-Eddie-Ahern-and-five-individuals-charged-with-serious-breaches-of-the-Rules-of-Racing-33c.aspx.
2. The overall hearing remains an ongoing investigation and as such the BHA will not comment further on this hearing or the hearing scheduled for next week.
3. The Panel for the hearing was: Tim Charlton QC (Chair), Richard Gould and Celina Carter.
For more information contact:
Robin Mounsey
British Horseracing Authority
t:02071520048
m:07584171551
e: rmounsey@britishhorseracing.com
Result of a Disciplinary Panel hearing (Michael Turl)
On 22nd April 2013 the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) held an enquiry involving Michael Turl, who is now an unlicensed individual but was formerly a registered owner.
Michael Turl had been charged with a breach of Rule (A)41.2 in that he conspired with Neil Clement and/or other persons to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice. A link to the full notice of charges is included in the Notes to Editors.
This formed part of a wider investigation in which charges are being brought against licensed jockey Eddie Ahern and five other individuals. This hearing is scheduled to begin on 29th April and last for five days. However, Mr Turl entered a guilty plea on a factual basis which was accepted by the BHA. As such his case was heard separately.
There follows the Disciplinary Panel's findings:
Michael Turl
1. Mr Michael Turl is a businessman. He has known Mr Neil Clement for many years. He was alleged by the BHA to be in breach of Rule (A)41.2, essentially because his account with Betfair was used to place a lay bet against STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) which risked £40,000 to win £8308. In interview, he told the BHA that the bet was placed as a result of a tip passed to him in a pub or at a cricket club, and that it was placed by a friend who lived abroad. He did not name the person in the interview.
2. Shortly after he was charged with a breach of the Rules, his solicitors indicated to the BHA that Mr Turl might be prepared to admit a breach, and thereafter the BHA and Mr Turl followed the plea-bargaining procedure set out in Schedule (A)10 to the Rules. On 8 March 2013, Mr Turl set out in a document the factual basis upon which he was prepared to admit a breach. On 20 March 2013, the BHA indicated to Mr Turl's solicitors that the BHA was prepared to accept that penalty should be determined upon the basis put forward by Mr Turl.
3. A hearing was held on 22 April 2013, at which the Panel was asked to decide the penalty that would be imposed for the breach. The Panel first determined from the papers available for the hearing whether it felt it was appropriate to proceed on the factual basis outlined by Mr Turl and accepted by the BHA. The Panel did feel that this was an acceptable course. The question of penalty was therefore assessed upon the basis set out by Mr Turl, subject to some further questions which the Panel raised itself.
4. Mr Turl had known Mr Clement for many years. They were friends and shared an interest in horse racing. Mr Clement has owned horses in the past. Each has occasionally placed a bet on behalf of the other. There was no formal arrangement for repayment nor for the sharing of any win, but such was their friendship that "prompt repayment and some recompense went without saying".
5. Mr Turl transferred £40,000 of his own money into his Betfair account, which Mr Clement had asked to be used. All of this was risked in the win market to lay STONEACRE GARETH (IRE), winning £8308. The bet was undoubtedly extraordinary for the Mr Turl account, being 20 times larger than the next largest risk taken. The bets were physically placed by Mr Clement, who was able to access Mr Turl's Betfair account remotely.
6. Mr Turl accepted that the circumstances of the placing of the lay bet revealed a corrupt intention on the part of Mr Clement, and he was himself aware that there was good reason to believe that the horse would not run to form. In the light of that awareness and the facilities which he provided to Mr Clement to seek to profit from Mr Clement's inside information, he recognised and accepted that he was in breach of Rule (A)41.2.
7. He further explained that his evasiveness in his interview of 14 July 2012 (when he refused to name the person who had placed this large bet through his account), was because he did not consider it to be appropriate to discuss third parties.
8. The Guide to Procedures and Penalties 2013 provides a penalty range of 6 months to 10 years disqualification or exclusion, with a recommended entry point of 3 years. As Mr Turl’s registration as an owner remained in force at the time of the STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) race, disqualification was the correct form of penalty here.
9. Before considering what reduction of penalty might be appropriate to reflect the admission of breach by Mr Turl, the Panel first determined what the offence itself required. As there was no suggestion that STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) was given a stopping ride, or that its rider might have been prepared to do so, the Panel treated this 3 year recommendation as its starting point. While the size of the bet in question was large, and Mr Turl made the case worse by evasive behaviour at interview, the Panel did accept a number of points made in mitigation by Miss Kristina Montgomery QC on Mr Turl’s behalf. This was an isolated incident on Mr Turl’s part; financial gain by him was not at the heart of his involvement, but rather this was a most unwise promotion of his friendship with Mr Clement. So the conclusion was that a 3 year disqualification was called for.
10. The Panel then applied the discount which the Guide says is to be given where there has been, as here, a prompt recognition of guilt. This is a discount of “up to a third”. The Panel was prepared to act on this basis, subject to the addition of a fine in this case of £10,000, to mark the general need, especially for people of means, to ensure that they do not become engaged in assisting corrupt betting. Even if, as Miss Montgomery told the Panel, Mr Turl did not keep the benefit of the corrupt bets, a financial penalty was still necessary here.
11. So the Panel imposed a disqualification of 24 months with immediate effect from Monday 22 April 2013 until 21 April 2015 inclusive and a fine of £10,000.
Notes to Editors:
1. The original charge notices brought against all individuals can be found here: http://www.britishhorseracing.presscentre.com/Press-Releases/Jockey-Eddie-Ahern-and-five-individuals-charged-with-serious-breaches-of-the-Rules-of-Racing-33c.aspx.
2. The overall hearing remains an ongoing investigation and as such the BHA will not comment further on this hearing or the hearing scheduled for next week.
3. The Panel for the hearing was: Tim Charlton QC (Chair), Richard Gould and Celina Carter.
For more information contact:
Robin Mounsey
British Horseracing Authority
t:02071520048
m:07584171551
e: rmounsey@britishhorseracing.com
2012 12:00
Jockey Eddie Ahern and five individuals charged with serious breaches of the Rules of Racing
Licensed Jockey Eddie Ahern, registered owner Neil Clement, licensed person James Clutterbuck and three unlicensed individuals - Paul Hill, Martin Raymond and Michael Turl - have been informed they will be required to attend a Disciplinary Panel Hearing to consider possible breaches of the Rules of Racing as below.
Please note that although the charges below specifically refer to Betting Exchange account holders, it is the BHA’s case that some of those account holders also used other betting platforms (including spread betting firms and fixed odds bookmakers) to place bets against the horses in question. The BHA sought and received significant cooperation from these firms.
Eddie Ahern
1. Did EDDIE AHERN on, and/or before, the date of the races identified in the Table of Races in which he was the jockey act in breach of Rule (A)41.2 in that he conspired with Neil Clement and/or other persons to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice by communicating directly or indirectly to one or more Betting Exchange account holders information relating to the prospects in the race of that horse which was or included information (i) obtained in his capacity as a licensed person and (ii) which was not publicly available or authorised for such disclosure by the Rules of Racing (‘Inside Information’), knowing that (i) and (ii) were the case and knowing that such information would or might be used to gain an unfair advantage in the betting market?
and/or
2. Did EDDIE AHERN on, and/or before, the date of the races identified in the Table of Races in which he was the jockey act in breach of Rule (A)36.1 in that he communicated directly or indirectly to one or more account holders on betting exchanges, for material reward, gift, favour or benefit in kind, information relating to the prospects of his rides, which was or included Inside Information, knowing such information was Inside Information?
3. In relation to JUDGETHEMOMENT when it ran on 21st January 2011 at Lingfield racecourse, the issue for Inquiry is, did EDDIE AHERN act in breach of Rule (B)59.2 by intentionally failing to ensure that the horse was run on its merits?
Neil Clement
1. Did NEIL CLEMENT on, and/or before, the date of the races in the Table of Races in which the jockey was Eddie Ahern act in breach of Rule (A)41.2 in that he conspired with Eddie Ahern and/or other persons to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice by placing bets and/or causing one or more other Betting Exchange account holders to place bets on the horse Eddie Ahern rode in the race using information he had received directly or indirectly from the Jockey relating to the prospects in the race of the named horse which was or included information (i) obtained by the Jockey in his capacity as a licensed person which was (ii) not publicly available or authorised for such disclosure by the Rules of Racing (‘Inside Information’), and knowing that (i) and (ii) were the case, and that such information would provide an unfair advantage in the betting market?
and/or
2. Did NEIL CLEMENT on, and/or before, the race of STONEACRE GARETH act in breach of Rule (A)41.2 in that he conspired with James Clutterbuck and/or other persons to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice by placing bets and/or causing one or more other Betting Exchange account holders to place bets on STONEACRE GARETH using information he had received directly or indirectly from the assistant trainer and owner relating to the prospects in the race of the named horse which was or included information (i) obtained by the assistant trainer and/or owner in his capacity as a licensed person which was (ii) not publicly available or authorised for such disclosure by the Rules of Racing (‘Inside Information’), and knowing that (i) and (ii) were the case, and that such information would provide an unfair advantage in the betting market?
3. Did Neil Clement on or before 2nd February 2011 act in breach of Rule (E)92.2 by placing a lay bet on HINDU KUSH, a horse which he then owned?
4. Did Neil Clement on or before December 2011 act in breach of Rule (A)50.2 by:
(a) Failing to provide telephone records to an Approved Person following a request made on 9th September 2011? and/or
(b) Failing to agree a time and place for an interview at the request of an Approved Person? and/or
(c) Failing to attend an interview at the request of an Approved Person?
James Clutterbuck
1. Did JAMES CLUTTERBUCK on, and/or before, the date of the race of STONEACRE GARETH which he owned, and in respect of which horse he was the assistant trainer, act in breach of Rule (A)41.2 in that he conspired with Neil Clement and/or other persons to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice by communicating directly or indirectly to one or more Betting Exchange account holders information relating to the prospects in the race of that horse which was or included information (i) obtained in his capacity as a licensed person and (ii) which was not publicly available or authorised for such disclosure by the Rules of Racing (‘Inside Information’), knowing that (i) and (ii) were the case and knowing that such information would or might be used to gain an unfair advantage in the betting market?
and/or
2. Did JAMES CLUTTERBUCK on, and/or before, the date of the race of STONEACRE GARETH which he owned, and in respect of which horse he was the assistant trainer, act in breach of Rule (A)36.1 in that he communicated directly or indirectly to one or more account holders on betting exchanges, for material reward, gift, favour or benefit in kind, information relating to the prospects of his rides, which was or included Inside Information knowing such information was Inside Information?
Paul Hill
1. Did PAUL HILL on, and/or before, the date of the race of STONEACRE GARETH act in breach of Rule (A)41.2 in that he conspired with NEIL CLEMENT and/or other persons to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice by placing bets and/or causing one or more other Betting Exchange account holders to place bets on STONEACRE GARETH using information he had received directly or indirectly from JAMES CLUTTERBUCK relating to the prospects in the race of the named horse which was or included information (i) obtained by JAMES CLUTTERBUCK in his capacity as a licensed person which was (ii) not publicly available or authorised for such disclosure by the Rules of Racing (‘Inside Information’), and knowing that (i) and (ii) were the case, and that such information would provide an unfair advantage in the betting market?
Martin Raymond
1. Did MARTIN RAYMOND on, and/or before, the date of the race of STONEACRE GARETH act in breach of Rule (A)41.2 in that he conspired with NEIL CLEMENT and/or other persons to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice by placing bets and/or causing one or more other Betting Exchange account holders to place bets on STONEACRE GARETH using information he had received directly or indirectly from JAMES CLUTTERBUCK relating to the prospects in the race of the named horse which was or included information (i) obtained by JAMES CLUTTERBUCK in his capacity as a licensed person which was (ii) not publicly available or authorised for such disclosure by the Rules of Racing (‘Inside Information’), and knowing that (i) and (ii) were the case, and that such information would provide an unfair advantage in the betting market?
Michael Turl
1. Did MICHAEL TURL on, and/or before, the date of the race of STONEACRE GARETH act in breach of Rule (A)41.2 in that he conspired with NEIL CLEMENT and/or other persons to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice by placing bets and/or causing one or more other Betting Exchange account holders to place bets on STONEACRE GARETH using information he had received directly or indirectly from JAMES CLUTTERBUCK relating to the prospects in the race of the named horse which was or included information (i) obtained by JAMES CLUTTERBUCK in his capacity as a licensed person which was (ii) not publicly available or authorised for such disclosure by the Rules of Racing (‘Inside Information’), and knowing that (i) and (ii) were the case, and that such information would provide an unfair advantage in the betting market?
Notes to Editors:
1. Please note that it is BHA policy not to comment on ongoing investigations or pending a Disciplinary Panel hearing.
2. The hearing is scheduled to take place on 29th April - 3rd May 2013, however this is subject to change.
3. Details on Rules and guideline penalties for the offences in question are as follows:
Rule (A)41.2
A Person who conspires with any other Person for the commission of such a practice shall be taken to have contravened a requirement imposed on him by these Rules.
Entry Point: Disqualify/Exclude 3 years
Range: 6 months - 10 years
Rule (A)36.1
Inside Information is information about the likely participation or likely performance of a horse in a race, which
36.1.1 is known by an Owner, Trainer, Rider, stable employee or any of their service providers as a result of acting as such, and
36.1.2 is not information in the public domain.
A Person must not communicate Inside Information directly or indirectly to any other Person for any material reward, gift, favour or benefit in kind.
Entry Point: Disqualify 3 years
Range: 18 months - 5 years
Rule (B)59.2
A Rider of a horse shall be taken to have contravened the requirement imposed on him by Rule 58.1 where the Stewards or the Authority consider that the Rider has intentionally failed to ensure that his horse is run on its merits.
a) Deliberately not riding a horse to obtain the best possible placing for personal reward or knowing that it had been layed to lose
Entry Point: Disqualify 8 years
Range: 5 - 25 years
b) Deliberately preventing a horse from winning
Entry Point: 3 years
Range: 1 - 5 years
c) Purposely not riding out a horse that would otherwise have won
Entry Point: 3 years
Range: 1 - 5 years
Rule (E)92.2
An owner laying a horse he owns to lose
Entry Point: Disqualify 18 months
Range: 3months - 10 years.
Rule (A)50.2
Requirement to provide information or records. A person shall be taken to have contravened a requirement imposed on him by this Rule if:
a) he fails to supply the information or record to the Authority within the time and in the manner specified when the request was made.
Entry Point: Disqualify 18 months
Range: 1-3 years
b) he fails to agree a time and place for an interview within the time specified when the request was made.
Entry Poiint: £2000 or Suspend/Withdraw/Disqualify 3 months
Range: £1000-£5000, 1 month - 3 years
4. Table of Races
No. Date Race Horse Jockey
1 10.9.10 2.30pm, Chester 10th September 2010 in the 7½F **** The Betting Exchange EBF
SISINDU Eddie Ahern
2 8.12.10 2.20pm,Kempton 8th December 2010 in the 5f Racing at Skysports.com Handicap
LOVE YOU LOUIS Eddie Ahern
3 21.1.11 1.25pm, Lingfield (AW), The Felbridge Handicap JUDGETHEMOMENT Eddie Ahern
4 10.2.11 8.40pm,Kempton 10th February 2011 in the 1m **** The Betting Exchange Handicap
FRENCH ART Eddie Ahern
5 11.2.11 5.40pm,Wolverhampton 11th February 2011 in the 5f 216 yrds Great Offers at Wolverhampton-Racecourse.co.uk Handicap
DOWNHILL SKIER Eddie Ahern
6 9.3.11 3.10pm, Lingfield –Breathe Spa at Lingfield Marriott Handicap
STONEACRE GARETH Adam Kirby
Jockey Eddie Ahern and five individuals charged with serious breaches of the Rules of Racing
Licensed Jockey Eddie Ahern, registered owner Neil Clement, licensed person James Clutterbuck and three unlicensed individuals - Paul Hill, Martin Raymond and Michael Turl - have been informed they will be required to attend a Disciplinary Panel Hearing to consider possible breaches of the Rules of Racing as below.
Please note that although the charges below specifically refer to Betting Exchange account holders, it is the BHA’s case that some of those account holders also used other betting platforms (including spread betting firms and fixed odds bookmakers) to place bets against the horses in question. The BHA sought and received significant cooperation from these firms.
Eddie Ahern
1. Did EDDIE AHERN on, and/or before, the date of the races identified in the Table of Races in which he was the jockey act in breach of Rule (A)41.2 in that he conspired with Neil Clement and/or other persons to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice by communicating directly or indirectly to one or more Betting Exchange account holders information relating to the prospects in the race of that horse which was or included information (i) obtained in his capacity as a licensed person and (ii) which was not publicly available or authorised for such disclosure by the Rules of Racing (‘Inside Information’), knowing that (i) and (ii) were the case and knowing that such information would or might be used to gain an unfair advantage in the betting market?
and/or
2. Did EDDIE AHERN on, and/or before, the date of the races identified in the Table of Races in which he was the jockey act in breach of Rule (A)36.1 in that he communicated directly or indirectly to one or more account holders on betting exchanges, for material reward, gift, favour or benefit in kind, information relating to the prospects of his rides, which was or included Inside Information, knowing such information was Inside Information?
3. In relation to JUDGETHEMOMENT when it ran on 21st January 2011 at Lingfield racecourse, the issue for Inquiry is, did EDDIE AHERN act in breach of Rule (B)59.2 by intentionally failing to ensure that the horse was run on its merits?
Neil Clement
1. Did NEIL CLEMENT on, and/or before, the date of the races in the Table of Races in which the jockey was Eddie Ahern act in breach of Rule (A)41.2 in that he conspired with Eddie Ahern and/or other persons to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice by placing bets and/or causing one or more other Betting Exchange account holders to place bets on the horse Eddie Ahern rode in the race using information he had received directly or indirectly from the Jockey relating to the prospects in the race of the named horse which was or included information (i) obtained by the Jockey in his capacity as a licensed person which was (ii) not publicly available or authorised for such disclosure by the Rules of Racing (‘Inside Information’), and knowing that (i) and (ii) were the case, and that such information would provide an unfair advantage in the betting market?
and/or
2. Did NEIL CLEMENT on, and/or before, the race of STONEACRE GARETH act in breach of Rule (A)41.2 in that he conspired with James Clutterbuck and/or other persons to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice by placing bets and/or causing one or more other Betting Exchange account holders to place bets on STONEACRE GARETH using information he had received directly or indirectly from the assistant trainer and owner relating to the prospects in the race of the named horse which was or included information (i) obtained by the assistant trainer and/or owner in his capacity as a licensed person which was (ii) not publicly available or authorised for such disclosure by the Rules of Racing (‘Inside Information’), and knowing that (i) and (ii) were the case, and that such information would provide an unfair advantage in the betting market?
3. Did Neil Clement on or before 2nd February 2011 act in breach of Rule (E)92.2 by placing a lay bet on HINDU KUSH, a horse which he then owned?
4. Did Neil Clement on or before December 2011 act in breach of Rule (A)50.2 by:
(a) Failing to provide telephone records to an Approved Person following a request made on 9th September 2011? and/or
(b) Failing to agree a time and place for an interview at the request of an Approved Person? and/or
(c) Failing to attend an interview at the request of an Approved Person?
James Clutterbuck
1. Did JAMES CLUTTERBUCK on, and/or before, the date of the race of STONEACRE GARETH which he owned, and in respect of which horse he was the assistant trainer, act in breach of Rule (A)41.2 in that he conspired with Neil Clement and/or other persons to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice by communicating directly or indirectly to one or more Betting Exchange account holders information relating to the prospects in the race of that horse which was or included information (i) obtained in his capacity as a licensed person and (ii) which was not publicly available or authorised for such disclosure by the Rules of Racing (‘Inside Information’), knowing that (i) and (ii) were the case and knowing that such information would or might be used to gain an unfair advantage in the betting market?
and/or
2. Did JAMES CLUTTERBUCK on, and/or before, the date of the race of STONEACRE GARETH which he owned, and in respect of which horse he was the assistant trainer, act in breach of Rule (A)36.1 in that he communicated directly or indirectly to one or more account holders on betting exchanges, for material reward, gift, favour or benefit in kind, information relating to the prospects of his rides, which was or included Inside Information knowing such information was Inside Information?
Paul Hill
1. Did PAUL HILL on, and/or before, the date of the race of STONEACRE GARETH act in breach of Rule (A)41.2 in that he conspired with NEIL CLEMENT and/or other persons to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice by placing bets and/or causing one or more other Betting Exchange account holders to place bets on STONEACRE GARETH using information he had received directly or indirectly from JAMES CLUTTERBUCK relating to the prospects in the race of the named horse which was or included information (i) obtained by JAMES CLUTTERBUCK in his capacity as a licensed person which was (ii) not publicly available or authorised for such disclosure by the Rules of Racing (‘Inside Information’), and knowing that (i) and (ii) were the case, and that such information would provide an unfair advantage in the betting market?
Martin Raymond
1. Did MARTIN RAYMOND on, and/or before, the date of the race of STONEACRE GARETH act in breach of Rule (A)41.2 in that he conspired with NEIL CLEMENT and/or other persons to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice by placing bets and/or causing one or more other Betting Exchange account holders to place bets on STONEACRE GARETH using information he had received directly or indirectly from JAMES CLUTTERBUCK relating to the prospects in the race of the named horse which was or included information (i) obtained by JAMES CLUTTERBUCK in his capacity as a licensed person which was (ii) not publicly available or authorised for such disclosure by the Rules of Racing (‘Inside Information’), and knowing that (i) and (ii) were the case, and that such information would provide an unfair advantage in the betting market?
Michael Turl
1. Did MICHAEL TURL on, and/or before, the date of the race of STONEACRE GARETH act in breach of Rule (A)41.2 in that he conspired with NEIL CLEMENT and/or other persons to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice by placing bets and/or causing one or more other Betting Exchange account holders to place bets on STONEACRE GARETH using information he had received directly or indirectly from JAMES CLUTTERBUCK relating to the prospects in the race of the named horse which was or included information (i) obtained by JAMES CLUTTERBUCK in his capacity as a licensed person which was (ii) not publicly available or authorised for such disclosure by the Rules of Racing (‘Inside Information’), and knowing that (i) and (ii) were the case, and that such information would provide an unfair advantage in the betting market?
Notes to Editors:
1. Please note that it is BHA policy not to comment on ongoing investigations or pending a Disciplinary Panel hearing.
2. The hearing is scheduled to take place on 29th April - 3rd May 2013, however this is subject to change.
3. Details on Rules and guideline penalties for the offences in question are as follows:
Rule (A)41.2
A Person who conspires with any other Person for the commission of such a practice shall be taken to have contravened a requirement imposed on him by these Rules.
Entry Point: Disqualify/Exclude 3 years
Range: 6 months - 10 years
Rule (A)36.1
Inside Information is information about the likely participation or likely performance of a horse in a race, which
36.1.1 is known by an Owner, Trainer, Rider, stable employee or any of their service providers as a result of acting as such, and
36.1.2 is not information in the public domain.
A Person must not communicate Inside Information directly or indirectly to any other Person for any material reward, gift, favour or benefit in kind.
Entry Point: Disqualify 3 years
Range: 18 months - 5 years
Rule (B)59.2
A Rider of a horse shall be taken to have contravened the requirement imposed on him by Rule 58.1 where the Stewards or the Authority consider that the Rider has intentionally failed to ensure that his horse is run on its merits.
a) Deliberately not riding a horse to obtain the best possible placing for personal reward or knowing that it had been layed to lose
Entry Point: Disqualify 8 years
Range: 5 - 25 years
b) Deliberately preventing a horse from winning
Entry Point: 3 years
Range: 1 - 5 years
c) Purposely not riding out a horse that would otherwise have won
Entry Point: 3 years
Range: 1 - 5 years
Rule (E)92.2
An owner laying a horse he owns to lose
Entry Point: Disqualify 18 months
Range: 3months - 10 years.
Rule (A)50.2
Requirement to provide information or records. A person shall be taken to have contravened a requirement imposed on him by this Rule if:
a) he fails to supply the information or record to the Authority within the time and in the manner specified when the request was made.
Entry Point: Disqualify 18 months
Range: 1-3 years
b) he fails to agree a time and place for an interview within the time specified when the request was made.
Entry Poiint: £2000 or Suspend/Withdraw/Disqualify 3 months
Range: £1000-£5000, 1 month - 3 years
4. Table of Races
No. Date Race Horse Jockey
1 10.9.10 2.30pm, Chester 10th September 2010 in the 7½F **** The Betting Exchange EBF
SISINDU Eddie Ahern
2 8.12.10 2.20pm,Kempton 8th December 2010 in the 5f Racing at Skysports.com Handicap
LOVE YOU LOUIS Eddie Ahern
3 21.1.11 1.25pm, Lingfield (AW), The Felbridge Handicap JUDGETHEMOMENT Eddie Ahern
4 10.2.11 8.40pm,Kempton 10th February 2011 in the 1m **** The Betting Exchange Handicap
FRENCH ART Eddie Ahern
5 11.2.11 5.40pm,Wolverhampton 11th February 2011 in the 5f 216 yrds Great Offers at Wolverhampton-Racecourse.co.uk Handicap
DOWNHILL SKIER Eddie Ahern
6 9.3.11 3.10pm, Lingfield –Breathe Spa at Lingfield Marriott Handicap
STONEACRE GARETH Adam Kirby
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539