Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
29 Apr 13
11:47
Joined:
Date Joined:
05 Jan 10
The hearing is scheduled to take place on 29th April - 3rd May 2013,
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?
read more http://www.britishhorseracing.presscentre.com/Press-Releases/Jockey-Eddie-Ahern-and-five-individuals-charged-with-serious-breaches-of-the-Rules-of-Racing-33c.aspx
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?
read more http://www.britishhorseracing.presscentre.com/Press-Releases/Jockey-Eddie-Ahern-and-five-individuals-charged-with-serious-breaches-of-the-Rules-of-Racing-33c.aspx
Show More
don't really care about charges 1 or 2. BHA would have to disqualify every jockey in the weighing room if they wanted to be taken seriously on so called "information". And every trainer in the land too.
Only interested in 3 - was a horse run on its merits
Only interested in 3 - was a horse run on its merits
Found guilty already strange thing is Adam KIRBY rode the horse but is not involved in any wrongdoing
24 Apr 2013 12:00
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.
24 Apr 2013 12:00
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.
you're missing 2 little important words the PB, "for reward". and i and many others care about this care
Agree 3 is much more serious but 1 and 2 shouldn't be dismissed so easily imo. They often go for these when they're not convinced they can make charge 3 stick but are confident on 1 and 2. If someone has passed info for reward whether they charge them with three or not it has to cast doubt on the integrity of the ride surely? If a jock has passed info (esp negative info) and been paid for it would you be sure he's trying his best?
understand your point, Gary, but find it difficult to understand how if you asked any half clued up jockey, would he/she not give you an opinion on their ride, which can then be construed as positive as negative?
It doesn't mean they are cheating or stopping a horse, or trying any harder (or even less hard) to win.
The BHA will surely have to ban all interviews given on TV or to the media if they want to enforce these outdated rules on provision of information?
It doesn't mean they are cheating or stopping a horse, or trying any harder (or even less hard) to win.
The BHA will surely have to ban all interviews given on TV or to the media if they want to enforce these outdated rules on provision of information?
I agree that information is passed all the time in horseracing and it's part of the whole set up, most of it harmless (jockeys are crap judges half the time!)and there has to be common sense applied. These cases that result in charges are almost always more than that though. Past ones have usually involved a conspiracy where there is evidence of dozens of phone contacts etc aligned with people risking much more than they usually do, I'd be surprised if it isn't the same in this one. Showing someone stopped a horse is very subjective and can be hard to prove whereas hard evidence of phone calls, texts, betting data etc is much objective and can often suggest charge 3 has probably occured even if hard to prove, just my opinion of course.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539