Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
22 May 13
13:53
Joined:
Date Joined:
05 Jan 10
bha.com
•Registered owner Neil Clement found in breach of Rule (A)41.2 (conspiring to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice), Rule (E)92.2 (placing a lay bet on a horse which he then owned) and Rule (A)50.2 (failure to provide phone records)
•Licensed jockey Eddie Ahern found in breach of Rule (A)41.2 (conspiring to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice), Rule (A)36.1 (communicating inside information for reward) and Rule (B)59.2 (intentionally failing to ensure that a horse was run on its merits)
•Unlicensed person Martin Raymond found not in breach of Rule (A)41.2 (conspiring to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice)
•Unlicensed person Paul Hill found not in breach of Rule (A)41.2 (conspiring to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice)
•Hearing to determine penalties to be held this afternoon (Wednesday 22nd May)
1. On 29 April 2013, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) began an enquiry into allegations of involvement in corruption. In the event, the hearing of the contested issues lasted 3 days.
2. The allegations made by the BHA fell into three largely self-contained sections. In the first, it was alleged that Neil Clement, a registered owner, and Eddie Ahern, a licensed jockey, were engaged in a conspiracy to commit corrupt practices by the use of inside information supplied by Ahern to support the lay betting carried out by Mr Clement. These allegations were made about five Ahern rides that occurred between 10 September 2010 and 11 February 2011. Details are given in the ‘Table of Races’ annexed to these Reasons. The second batch of allegations arose out of the last of the races referred to in the ’Table of Races’ – STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) at Lingfield on 9 March 2011. In this instance, Mr Clement, Mr James Clutterbuck, Mr Martin Raymond, Mr Paul Hill and Mr Michael Turl were alleged to be engaged in a corrupt practice to exploit inside information from Mr Clutterbuck (the assistant trainer of the horse) by lay betting. The final set of allegations was put against Mr Clement alone. He was alleged to have had a lay bet against a horse which he owned, HINDU KUSH (IRE), on 2 February 2011. He was also charged with breach of Rule (A)50.2 through his non-cooperation with this enquiry. In particular, he was alleged to have failed to provide telephone records, failed to agree a time and a place for interview, and failed to attend an interview with the BHA.
3. On 22 April 2013, a preliminary hearing took place to deal with the case against Mr Turl. He admitted the breach alleged against him. He supplied a basis of plea document describing his part in the allegation he faced. The Panel dealt with the matter on that day, and imposed a penalty of a 2 year disqualification together with a £10,000 fine. The way in which his case was disposed of was described in reasons published to Mr Turl and the other parties to this enquiry, which are published separately.
4. On 29 April 2013, at the outset of the enquiry hearing, Mr Clutterbuck admitted that he was in breach of the Rules of Racing as alleged, and he too supplied a basis of plea document describing his role. Again, the Panel dealt with his case, imposed a 30 month disqualification and supplied reasons for the decision which were supplied to Mr Clutterbuck and the other parties. These reasons are published separately.
5. Again at the outset of the enquiry, the Panel was informed by Kristina Montgomery QC acting for Mr Clement that he too admitted some of the allegations against him. He admitted his part in the conspiracy alleged by the BHA over the STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) race. He admitted the lay bet against his horse, HINDU KUSH (IRE). He admitted that his failure to supply phone records and attend interviews was a breach of his obligations under the Rules of Racing as charged. On 1 May 2013, the third day of the enquiry, the PPanel imposed a disqualification to take effect immediately on Mr Clement for a period and for reasons to be given when the remaining live issues in the enquiry were decided. The Panel took the view that this course was permitted by Rule (A)58.
6. The remaining live issues that were contested at the enquiry were therefore: –
(i) whether Mr Clement and Ahern were engaged in a conspiracy to commit corrupt practices in relation to the first 5 races identified in the ’Table of Races’, and whether Ahern was in breach of Rule (A)36.1.
(ii) Whether Mr Raymond and Mr Hill were engaged in a conspiracy to commit a corrupt practice in relation to the STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) race.
Mr Neil Clement
7. When considering the live issues remaining in relation to Mr Clement, the Panel had to do this against the backdrop of his admitted breaches. Some of those admitted breaches involved dishonest behaviour on his part – consisting of a small lay bet against a horse which he owned, and more importantly of his involvement in corrupt lay betting against STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) in league with Mr Clutterbuck and Mr Turl.
8. The remaining contested allegations concerned the alleged receipt of inside information from Ahern in relation to five of his rides between September 2010 and January 2011. However, as already noted, Mr Clement filed no defence to the BHA's allegations. And as he refused to be interviewed by BHA Investigators, as well as failing to appear at this hearing, the Panel had nothing positive from him to evaluate along with the BHA's evidence. Although he instructed leading counsel to appear on his behalf at the hearing, she was effectively left trying to build bricks without straw in his absence, and did not advance any positive material to contradict the BHA's evidence. Nevertheless, she correctly emphasised that the burden remained with the BHA to satisfy the Panel that Mr Clement was in breach of Rule (A)41.2 in relation to the five Ahern rides, and submitted that the legitimate inferences that could be drawn from the BHA's evidence did not justify an adverse finding.
9. It was not appropriate to assume breach on Mr Clement's part simply because he had been involved in the admitted conspiracy for STONEACRE GARETH (IRE). His co-conspirators in that instance were not alleged to have been involved with the other five races, where Ahern alone was alleged to be involved with him. So it was necessary to assess the other possible explanations for Mr Clement's lay betting against the Ahern mounts, which were canvassed by Ahern in his own defence. Those other possibilities were, in summary, firstly that Mr Clement was simply following his own inclinations in placing those lay bets without the benefit of any inside information from Ahern, and secondly that if Ahern did provide inside information to Mr Clement, this was inadvertent and secretly exploited by Mr Clement (i.e. without Ahern knowing).
10. As appears in the Panel's analysis of the case against Ahern, it was concluded that Ahern was passing inside information to Mr Clement and that Mr Clement was using this for his lay betting in the five races in question. They were involved in a conspiracy together in relation to these rides and both were in breach of Rule (A)41.2.
Ahern
11. Ahern is an experienced and capable flat jockey, currently aged 35. At the time of the events in question in this enquiry, he had been riding regularly for over 12 seasons in this country.
12. When considering the serious allegations he faced, the Panel was particularly conscious of the need for reliable evidence to justify any findings adverse to him. That was in part because of the standard of proof that the Rules require and in part also because Ahern co-operated with the BHA Investigators. He readily provided his telephone records and attended interviews. He has had a career without any comparable problems or Rule breaches. His previously good character and cooperation with BHA Investigators emphasised to the Panel the ’common sense’ need for cogent evidence to prove the BHA's case.
13. That said, there was little if any dispute about primary facts. The betting activities of Mr Clement were a matter of record. No challenge was made to the accuracy of the records, and it was not suggested, for instance, that bets recorded on various accounts which the BHA linked to Mr Clement were somebody else's. The evidence of telephone and other contact between Mr Clement and Ahern was likewise mostly common ground. The Panel's task was to determine whether the inference of a corrupt conspiracy between Mr Clement and Ahern was a legitimate one.
14. So far as the allegation of breach of Rule (B)59.2 was concerned, the Panel was equally conscious of the need not to find that Ahern deliberately rode to lose on JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA), unless persuaded that there was cogent evidence to make that conclusion probable.
15. Ahern described his relationship with Mr Clement as follows. He was introduced to him about 8 years ago and they soon became friends. He would leave racecourse tickets for Mr Clement and his family, and he got to know Mr Clement's wife and children. They would go out to meals together and even went on holiday to Dubai on one occasion. Mr Clement was a professional footballer at the time, who owned horses and racing was his main interest besides football. He said that he was close to Mr Clement, and told him things he would not tell others about his personal life. They shared confidences. Mr Clement stayed at Ahern's house from time to time. He was aware that Mr Clement liked to bet and that gambling was affecting his family, at least after Mr Clement was forced to retire from football following a career-ending injury in about January 2010.
16. Ahern and Mr Clement were in regular phone contact over the period of the events with which this enquiry is concerned. Over the seven-month period until the end of February 2011, there was a total of 265 calls or texts from Ahern to Mr Clement, and Mr Clement himself called or texted Ahern 163 times in the year up to November 2011. They also met frequently. Ahern would, for instance, ride work on horses owned by Mr Clement.
17. Ahern was adamant that, over the years, he had very few conversations with Mr Clement about racing. He said that he had a good understanding of what inside information was. He had attended seminars for jockeys about it. He fully appreciated the seriousness of wrongfully giving it out. He said that he would sometimes discuss his rides with Mr Clement but would never give too much away. He would answer general queries about his forthcoming rides and which the best might be with general answers along the lines of “X has a favourite’s chance in the last”.
18. When that portrait of the relationship is compared with Mr Clement’s lay betting and Ahern's rides that are the subject of this enquiry, serious doubts about the reliability of Ahern's account of the relationship immediately emerged. Three accounts with which Mr Clement was linked were relevant.
(i) A Betfair account (in his wife’s name) was active only between 15 January and 26 February 2011. A total of 515 bets were placed, the vast majority being bets in-running. Of the 116 pre-race bets, just 16 were lay bets, and 9 of these 16 risked a liability greater than £1000. Four of those 9 lay bets were on horses ridden by Ahern, and all were successful – JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA), FRENCH ART, and DOWNHILL SKIER in both the win and place markets. For DOWNHILL SKIER (IRE), the price in the place market was chased out from 2.86 to 4.0.
(ii) Mr Clement also had a **** account of longer standing. It was used between February 2009 and January 2012. Up to the end of June 2010, there were just 12 lay bets on British horseracing. These risked an average of £104 with the largest being a risk of £500. The behaviour on the account then changed markedly. Much larger lay liabilities were taken from July 2010. There were 27 lay bets thereafter that risked £1000 or more, and of these 12 bets risked more than £5000. Two were ridden by Ahern - FRENCH ART and SISINDU (IRE). For FRENCH ART on 10 February 2011, the account was primed with £40000 the evening before. £20057 was risked in lay bets to win £4290. (There were further lays placed by Mr Clement through the Betfair account, risking £2410 to win £700). The price was chased out from 4.3 to 6.4 in the **** account. For SISINDU (IRE), £9340 was the liability risked for a profit of £2000.
(iii) Thirdly, Mr Clement had a spread betting account with Star Spreads that was active between 1 November 2010 and 7 February 2011. There were just 11 bets on UK horseracing and two of these were the equivalent of lay bets against LOVE YOU LOUIS and JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA). The second of these appeared particularly significant. Mr Clement risked a maximum loss of £41,500 to win, in the event, £8500. That bet was 5 times larger in unit stake terms than any other risk on the account. It was the largest liability ever risked by the account, and indeed was greater than the combined liability on the account of its other 10 bets. It is to be noted that the Star Spreads facility used by Mr Clement was akin to a combined lay of the gelding in both win and place markets. This is because Star Spreads operated a points structure by which the first placed horse scores 50 points, the 2nd placed scores 25 points and the 3rd placed scores 10 points. They then offer a buy and sell price for each runner, so that gamblers can back or oppose a horse as they wish. Mr Clement's bet was a sell of JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) at 8.5 points for a unit stake of £1000. Hence the bet risked different losses depending upon whether the gelding finished first, second or third.
19. There is thus a wealth of evidence which indicates that Mr Clement's lay bets against the five Ahern rides at issue in this enquiry were inspired by information from Ahern. His betting demonstrated a preference for laying Ahern rides. The risks which he was prepared to run on such bets was higher than was usually found in the accounts he operated. He was prepared to chase the odds out for DOWNHILL SKIER (IRE) and FRENCH ART. The betting followed contacts between Ahern and Mr Clement on or before races, as the timelines put before the Panel generally demonstrated. The case of LOVE YOU LOUIS provides a striking example. There was a long contact between Ahern and Mr Clement that was promptly followed by a call from Mr Clement to place the lay bet against LOVE YOU LOUIS. In the case of JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA), however, there were no phone contacts found on the day of the race, but Ahern admitted that he and Mr Clement had met on the day before. The sheer size of the bets in the case of JUDGETHEMOMENT indicated a confidence in the outcome that is seen to have been justified by what happened in the race, where Ahern deliberately took steps to ensure that the gelding did not run on its merits. The Panel was left in no doubt that Mr Clement knew that the gelding would be ridden to lose.
20. Those matters dispose comprehensively of the argument that Mr Clement's lay betting against these Ahern rides was coincidence rather than a connected event. To support that argument in closing submissions, it was said on behalf of both Mr Clement and Ahern that the Panel should have in mind what an erratic gambler Mr Clement was. He was variously described as a "smack head gambler", a madcap, a gambling compulsive. He may have had a gambling addiction, but the Panel had no evidence from him on this. But he does not come across on the evidence available as quite the wild figure that some portrayed him to be. His **** account, for instance, which was the longest in operation of the three considered above, showed an overall profit both on lay and back betting. He was said to pester people for information – that was the evidence of Mr Raymond, though not of Ahern – but again the picture emerging from the timelines shows a propensity for others to initiate contact with Mr Clement on any given day rather than for him to be on the hunt for information from the outset. So for these additional reasons, the Panel's conclusion that the Ahern lay bets were inspired by information from Ahern was untouched.
21. That left the possibility, advocated on Ahern's behalf, that Mr Clement was placing the lay bets against Ahern's rides on the basis of information from the jockey, but that he kept this secret from Ahern. The Panel found that to be equally improbable. The starting point for this analysis is that, contrary to his evidence, Ahern was supplying inside information about the rides in question to Mr Clement. The notion that he was unwittingly supplying inside information which was then secretly used by Mr Clement is really contradicted by the conclusions already reached. Additionally, perhaps to give colour to his argument, Ahern told the Panel that he had had a conversation with Mr Clement at an unidentified time in which he had asked him whether he was engaging in lay betting against his (Ahern's) rides, and was told that this was not happening. He said this occurred in the course of a discussion about Mr Clement's Betfair account. Aside from the inherent improbability of this evidence, the Panel was struck by the fact that Ahern has at no stage expressed any anger about being supposedly tricked by Mr Clement, and has (according to him) taken no steps to contact Mr Clement to challenge him about such deceitful behaviour. In fact, he gave inconsistent evidence about his contacts with Mr Clement. In interview, he said he had not made contact. At the hearing of the enquiry, he said that he had made contact, but simply to ask him whether he was coming to the enquiry. The Panel rejected Ahern's evidence generally about the supposed discussion of the lay betting. It was satisfied that Ahern was fully aware of and in league with Mr Clement over this lay betting. Once again, the findings made in relation to the JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) race are a complete contradiction of Ahern's case.
22. In summary, therefore, the Panel concluded that Ahern and Mr Clement were complicit in the lay betting against Ahern rides organised by Mr Clement on the basis of inside information supplied by Ahern. While it has not been possible to identify exactly what that inside information was in 4 of the 5 cases, it was clear to the Panel that Ahern had information to supply because he had ridden the horses before. In the case of JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA), it was clear to the Panel that the inside information consisted of an indication that Ahern would ride to lose. Although Ahern denied receipt of money or some other reward for his part, the Panel rejected that evidence too. Again, the case of JUDGETHEMOMENT was a clinching reason for this. It was inconceivable to the Panel that he was not taking reward when riding to lose in that way.
23. Ahern was therefore in breach of Rule (A)41.2 and Rule (A)36.2.
Ahern and JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA)’s race on 21 January 2011
24. JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) was, at the time of the Lingfield race, a 6-year-old gelding trained by Jane Chapple-Hyam. Its best racing days were behind it. It had won over 2 1/2 miles at Royal Ascot in June 2009, but thereafter did not win again. Indeed, throughout 2010 it finished last or near last in all but one of its five races. Ahern rode it at Kempton on 30 December 2010, when it started as 3/1 favourite but finished last. On that occasion, the trainer reported that "the gelding curls up when crowded by other horses". After the race when unsaddling, Ahern recommended to Chapple-Hyam that she try the gelding next time in blinkers, and she agreed.
25. As anticipated, Ahern was booked to ride the gelding in its next race at Lingfield on 21 January 2011. This was again a 2 mile handicap, for which the gelding started at 12/1, having opened at 8/1. JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) led from the start. The comments in-running from the Racing Post gave this summary of the performance – "Led and soon spreadeagled field, came back from halfway, headed and weakened rapidly over 4f out".
26. The BHA's case was that Ahern deliberately rode at an inappropriately high pace, which inevitably led to the gelding tiring early and finishing out of the places. To support this analysis, there was produced an exercise compiled by Mr Tom Chignell, Principal Betting Investigator of the BHA, the factual detail of which was unchallenged. This was a comparison of JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA)'s performance over the first 6 furlongs of the race with performances in 32 other two mile races at Lingfield.
27. The essence of Ahern's response was that he had ridden, in the words of his counsel Jonathan Harvie QC in closing submissions, "an ill-judged race”. He denied that he had engaged in a deliberate attempt to destroy the gelding's chances by going off too fast. In addition to his own evidence, Ahern called Wally Swinburn as an expert. He suggested that the gelding's high pace over the early part of the race may have been the result of running for the first time in blinkers, and being "lit up" in consequence.
28. Having considered all the evidence and submissions, the Panel felt driven to the conclusion that Ahern had deliberately set a pace that was designed to hurt JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA)'s chances in the race, and that he was in breach of Rule (B)58.1 in the way described in Rule (B)59.2.
29. A number of reasons lay behind this decision.
30. Firstly, Ahern gave evidence about his riding instructions that the Panel rejected. There was a dispute between Ahern and Chapple-Hyam about whether the jockey was told when unsaddling after the Kempton race that he should go a bit quicker in the next race. She was adamant that she did not – she said that she would not talk tempo for the next time right after the race at Kempton. The Panel found her evidence in this regard much more convincing than Ahern's. When he came to give evidence, the time at which he asserted that the "go quicker" instruction had been given was put differently than it had been to Chapple-Hyam. He suggested, rather vaguely and uncertainly, that it may have been relayed to him in a telephone call from either Chapple-Hyam or Paul Howling (Chapple-Hyam’s assistant) at some time before the Lingfield race. The Panel rejected that. She gave a clear account of providing instructions to Ahern by telephone before the race, as she was going to be travelling to Australia at the time of the race. She told him he could lead and confirmed that the gelding would be wearing blinkers as he had recommended. She again rejected the notion that she told Ahern to make a faster pace than he had at Kempton. As she said, talking about speed didn’t come into it – that's why she had booked a professional jockey. Chapple-Hyam was a much more impressive witness than Ahern, and her version was preferred. Quite apart from that, Ahern's basic case that he misjudged the pace and went faster than he should have contradicted the notion that he went as fast as he did because of instructions.
31. Secondly, the race itself presented a remarkable sight in the recordings shown to the Panel. JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) dwelt fractionally when the stalls opened, but within 100 yards had reached the front and was running against the inside rail, having been actively pushed into that position by Ahern. Thereafter, Ahern let the gelding continue at high pace, which looked to the Panel to be what one would expect in a 6 or 7 furlong race. Much the same impression was made on Chapple-Hyam when she first saw a recording of the race shortly after it took place. She said she was furious when she saw how Ahern had ridden the horse like a 5 furlong horse. Within one furlong after the start, JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) was 5 lengths up on the chasing pair who were in turn over 3 lengths ahead of the remaining group of 4 horses. Three furlongs after the start, JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) was 10 lengths ahead of the chasing pair, who were themselves 6 to 8 lengths ahead of the remaining runners. At no stage did Ahern do anything to check the pace of JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA). The gelding remained 10 lengths ahead of its nearest pursuer when reaching the one furlong marker on its first circuit, with further gaps of 3 lengths and 5 lengths to the next horses in line. Going into the bend for the second circuit, however, JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) began to slow and the gaps to the other runners began to reduce rapidly. The nearest pursuer (the eventual winner) reached a length and a half down before the end of that bend, and was able to slow and maintain that position down the back straight. As JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA)'s pace had slowed so much, the remaining runners took much closer order. They all went quickly past JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) about 4 furlongs from the finish, and the gelding was eventually beaten into last by a total of 35 lengths.
32. Importantly, the impression gained from simply watching the recordings was reinforced by sectional times analysis provided by Mr Chignell. He analysed 32 two mile flat races on the all-weather track at Lingfield occurring between the beginning of 2010 and 10 August 2012 (when the track was relaid). The calculation of sectional times for the first 6 furlongs of each of these 32 races which he prepared from the recordings of the races was not challenged. Nor were any special features of those races identified to explain why they might be different from the present case. The analysis showed that JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) was faster by 2.56 seconds than any other leader at that 6 furlong point in any of the other races. Converting that into lengths or yards is an approximate exercise, but given the times for those first 6 furlongs, it is between 25 to 45 yards ahead of the next quickest runner in those 32 races. Mr Chignell’s figures in lengths were 10 to 15. He also gave evidence that JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) was roughly 39 lengths faster than the median time through 6 furlongs. These figures demonstrate that this was not a case of JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) making a strong but sensible pace while the remainder of the field dawdled behind.
33. Ahern's explanation for the ride was that he misjudged the pace, did not realise he was so far ahead and that, in summary, he had ridden a "terrible" race, as he said in interview. In closing submissions, his counsel characterised it as an ill-judged race.
34. Quite simply, the Panel could not accept that a jockey of Ahern's experience, especially on the all-weather at Lingfield, could have made an error of such an extent. It was not accepted that he was unaware of how far ahead he was – he took a look behind when he was passing the 4 furlong marker for the first time, at which point he was already more than 10 lengths clear.
35. The evidence from Wally Swinburn was of no real assistance to the Panel. A document containing the evidence he proposed to give was only provided at the very last minute. Called to give evidence as an expert, he ought to have been providing an independent minded view of the ride. But, through no fault of his own, he seemed to regard his task as finding points helpful to Ahern. He had looked only at one recording of the race, on the Racing Post website. He was unaware of the trainer's instructions, though he at once conceded that that was an important ingredient. He had negligible familiarity with Lingfield and its demands upon jockeys. His suggestion that JUDGETHEMOMENT may have been "lit up" by the use of blinkers for the first time was not borne out by close observation of the recordings shown to the Panel. There was no hint of JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) running free or keen. The gelding quickly attained a high cruising pace and was balanced throughout, receiving no restraint from Ahern. Revealingly, Ahern never suggested during his interviews that the fast pace was set because JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) had been set alight by the wearing of first-time blinkers. He sought to do so in evidence before the Panel, but this was unpersuasive. He was trying to latch onto Mr Swinburn's suggestion, even though it ran counter to the base argument he put forward about the high pace being a misjudgement on his part rather than being because the gelding ran too free.
36. The Panel's conclusion about Ahern's true intentions when riding the gelding were powerfully reinforced by the fact that his close friend Mr Clement had had a lay bet of such exceptional size against JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) either winning or finishing second or third in a seven runner race. As already recounted, the Panel simply could not conclude that Ahern's "terrible" ride and his friend's large lay bet were innocent, unconnected events.
Martin Raymond
37. STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) was a 7 year old gelding at the time of the race in question. It was owned by James Mr Clutterbuck's father, to whom he was acting as assistant trainer. After a 30 month break from racing, the gelding ran twice on 24 February and 3 March 2011 at Kempton and Wolverhampton respectively, winning both races.
38. After the Wolverhampton race, and prior to the Lingfield engagement on 9 March 2011 with which this enquiry was primarily concerned, STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) was left in a field for a couple of days to "get all the gunk out of him" according to Mr Clutterbuck, as he had a bleeding problem. He was not seen by a veterinary surgeon. Mr Clutterbuck said that the horse may have been treated with antibiotics to try to heal his lungs, but no treatment was recorded in the Medication Book.
39. STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) went off as the 11/4 favourite at Lingfield but finished fourth of ten. The jockey was Adam Kirby, against whom no allegations of misconduct were made.
40. As explained at the beginning of these Reasons, Mr Clement, Mr Clutterbuck and Mr Turl each admitted breach of Rule (A)41.2 in respect of this race. Mr Clement has given no evidence and has never explained the basis for his admission, or the nature of the inside information which motivated his persuasion of Mr Turl to allow lay betting on the latter's account. Mr Turl likewise did not disclose the nature of the inside information which he understood Mr Clement to have when he was persuaded to let Mr Clement use his Betfair account (and £40,000 of his money) to lay the gelding. The bet was of course successful and produced a profit of £8308. Mr Clutterbuck's basis of plea is also coy about the inside information which he admits passing to Mr Clement. In the Panel's view it may have been something to do with the gelding's bleeding and airway problems.
41. The BHA's case was that inside information was passed to Mr Raymond, either directly by Mr Clutterbuck or via Mr Clement. It was said that this happened at some time during the morning of the race, and that it caused Mr Raymond to switch from backing the gelding to laying it.
42. Mr Raymond's riposte was twofold. He denied receiving any inside information. And he explained that his betting pattern in relation to the race followed a common path for him: his concern was to "green out" through appropriate back and lay bets, and that is exactly what he did in this case. Indeed, it was common ground that he stood to profit more if STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) had won the race than he in fact made as a result of the gelding's defeat.
43. Mr Raymond is a professional gambler whose predominant interest has been in-running betting. Practically all of his gambling, he said, is horseracing related.
44. The Panel kept very much in mind when assessing the case against Mr Raymond that he had at all stages co-operated fully with the investigation, and that he had provided a detailed and thorough statement of his position in the Schedule (A)6 form. This was again, therefore, an instance where common sense called for persuasive evidence that Mr Raymond was engaged in wrongdoing.
45. Mr Raymond had known Mr Clutterbuck for about 8 or 10 years. Well before he became an assistant trainer, Mr Clutterbuck had tried his hand at in-running betting but was not successful. Mr Raymond said he formed the view that Mr Clutterbuck was not a good race reader. He freely accepted that he spoke from time to time with Mr Clutterbuck about his horses, but said that he did not receive inside information from him.
46. Similarly, Mr Raymond said that he had known Mr Clement for about 6 months or a year in March 2011. Mr Clement had become aware that Mr Raymond was a professional punter and arranged to shadow him to observe how Mr Raymond went about his in-running betting. His opinion of Mr Clement was that he was an unsuccessful gambler who could do wild things. He said that Mr Clement often used to pester him, and to drive him potty.
47. The Panel did not accept Mr Raymond's characterisation of Mr Clement as somebody who used to pester him. It was noteworthy that the timeline for the STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) race showed that it was Mr Raymond who initiated contact with Mr Clement on one day, and that he called him frequently.
48. It seemed improbable to the Panel that inside information reached Mr Raymond on 8 March, the day before the race, because he placed back bets early on the morning of 9 March. It was not suggested that these bets were "seeding the market" - i.e. that Mr Raymond was trying to create a false perception of confidence about the gelding's prospects in the minds of other Betfair gamblers. Mr Raymond's last back bet before the start of the race was timed at 0916 hours. His position at that point was that he had backed the gelding with a stake of £130 at a price of 3.11.
49. Did Mr Raymond receive some inside information thereafter, either directly from Mr Clutterbuck or via Mr Clement? The opportunity for this to happen did exist as there were both direct phone calls with Mr Clutterbuck and Mr Clement after the last of Mr Raymond's back bets and before he began placing some lay bets. There was evidence tending both ways on this issue. The Panel was left in genuine doubt about whether Mr Raymond did receive any such information, essentially because a proper understanding of his betting shows that he was not influenced by anything he may have heard from them. Therefore, applying the appropriate standard of proof, the Panel finds that he did not receive inside information. It may well be that he had some generalised tip from them, but the Panel accepted that he did not rate their horseracing judgement and did not act upon it. Thus, the Panel concluded that he was not involved in the conspiracy that others have admitted and the case against him was not proved.
50. Mr Raymond's betting for his own account after 0916 hours was as follows. He placed a lay bet to win £150 at 3.45. He then took a slightly different form of risk, backing PATAVIUM PRINCE (IRE) in a match bet with STONEACRE GARETH (IRE). Next, about 20 minutes before the start, he had a further back bet on PATAVIUM PRINCE (IRE). There were then 3 bets in-running - firstly a lay of STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) to win £50 at a price of 6.2; then a back bet on STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) of £60 at a price of 40.0; then a back bet on PATAVIUM PRINCE (IRE) of £200 at a price of 1.60. The net effect of these bets was that Mr Raymond would have been better off if STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) had won, mainly because of what he described as the lucky price he got for his back bet on the gelding in-running. It was contended by the BHA that, as these in-running bets were a legitimate reaction to the way in which the race was developing, they should be discounted for the purpose of assessing what information Mr Raymond had to justify his prerace gambling. The Panel did not feel that that was a fair approach. The overall pattern of his betting needed to be assessed. It was a pattern that was similar to that employed for the gelding's 2 previous races at Wolverhampton and Kempton. (On the first of those occasions, Mr Raymond began his back betting when the best price available was about 7/1, having missed the earlier available 25/1. That indicated to the Panel that he was not an insider on that occasion, another pointer against his having been an insider on 9 March).
51. The Panel found it particularly significant that these bets by Mr Raymond were of a size that were not merely within his usual parameters, but at the smaller end of his scales of betting in both win and place markets. It was suggested to him by the BHA that he was simply exercising caution by betting within his normal parameters, so as not to attract the attention of investigators. But as Mr Raymond himself said, he could have taken a substantially larger position against STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) and still remained within his usual betting parameters. This was a strong indicator that he was not acting upon or influenced by the information which persuaded Mr Clement, Mr Turl and Mr Clutterbuck to do what they did.
52. Accordingly, the Panel decided that the case against him under Rule (A)41.2 was not proved.
Mr Paul Hill
53. Mr Hill is a professional gambler and close associate of Mr Raymond. He too co-operated fully with the BHA investigation. He said that he met Mr Clement at about the same time as Mr Raymond did. He knew of Mr Clutterbuck but had no contacts with him generally and none on either 8 or 9 March 2011.
54. Mr Hill placed lay bets against STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) before the race, and exactly the same in-running bets as did Mr Raymond – they were both using the same software package to enable them to do this. He explained that he decided to lay the gelding on form: it was having its 3rd run in 2 weeks, it was up 15lbs in the handicap and had won on its previous outing by three quarters of a length all out. Most interestingly of all, he said that when a horse is to be ridden by Adam Kirby, then that is one to keep a close eye on in the market. He had discussed his form judgement with Mr Raymond.
55. While there were phone contacts between Mr Clement and Mr Hill on both 8 and 9 March, which provided an opportunity in principle for Mr Hill to be provided with the inside information which prompted Mr Clement's betting in this case, the Panel again concluded that this is unlikely to have happened. If it had, Mr Hill would surely have told his close associate Mr Raymond, but for reasons given above the Panel held that Mr Raymond did not have this information. That of itself as a sufficient reason to conclude that Mr Hill, like Mr Raymond, did not have that information.
56. Again, it was common ground that Mr Hill's betting was well within his usual parameters. As with Mr Raymond, the Panel took this is a further indication that he was not acting upon the basis of the information that was used by those who were actually involved in a conspiracy to exploit it.
57. Accordingly, the Panel decided that the case against him under Rule (A)41.2 was not proved.
Notes to Editors:
1. A penalty hearing will now be heard this afternoon.
2. The Panel for the hearing was: Tim Charlton QC (Chair), Richard Gould and Celina Carter.
3. The BHA was represented by Louis Weston
4. The defendants were represented by the following:
Eddie Ahern: Jonathan Harvie, QC
Neil Clement: Kristina Montgomery, QC
Paul Hill: In person
Martin Raymond: Rory Mac Neice
5. Two other individuals were involved in the investigation but both entered guilty pleas and as such their hearings were heard separately. They were:
•Unlicensed individual Michael Turl: Disqualified for 24 months and fined £10,000 http://www.britishhorseracing.presscentre.com/Press-Releases/Result-of-a-Disciplinary-Panel-hearing-Michael-Turl-3b5.aspx
•Licensed person James Clutterbuck: Disqualified for 30 months http://www.britishhorseracing.presscentre.com/Press-Releases/Result-of-a-Disciplinary-Panel-hearing-James-Clutterbuck-3d7.aspx
6. 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
7. 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
•Registered owner Neil Clement found in breach of Rule (A)41.2 (conspiring to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice), Rule (E)92.2 (placing a lay bet on a horse which he then owned) and Rule (A)50.2 (failure to provide phone records)
•Licensed jockey Eddie Ahern found in breach of Rule (A)41.2 (conspiring to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice), Rule (A)36.1 (communicating inside information for reward) and Rule (B)59.2 (intentionally failing to ensure that a horse was run on its merits)
•Unlicensed person Martin Raymond found not in breach of Rule (A)41.2 (conspiring to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice)
•Unlicensed person Paul Hill found not in breach of Rule (A)41.2 (conspiring to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice)
•Hearing to determine penalties to be held this afternoon (Wednesday 22nd May)
1. On 29 April 2013, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) began an enquiry into allegations of involvement in corruption. In the event, the hearing of the contested issues lasted 3 days.
2. The allegations made by the BHA fell into three largely self-contained sections. In the first, it was alleged that Neil Clement, a registered owner, and Eddie Ahern, a licensed jockey, were engaged in a conspiracy to commit corrupt practices by the use of inside information supplied by Ahern to support the lay betting carried out by Mr Clement. These allegations were made about five Ahern rides that occurred between 10 September 2010 and 11 February 2011. Details are given in the ‘Table of Races’ annexed to these Reasons. The second batch of allegations arose out of the last of the races referred to in the ’Table of Races’ – STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) at Lingfield on 9 March 2011. In this instance, Mr Clement, Mr James Clutterbuck, Mr Martin Raymond, Mr Paul Hill and Mr Michael Turl were alleged to be engaged in a corrupt practice to exploit inside information from Mr Clutterbuck (the assistant trainer of the horse) by lay betting. The final set of allegations was put against Mr Clement alone. He was alleged to have had a lay bet against a horse which he owned, HINDU KUSH (IRE), on 2 February 2011. He was also charged with breach of Rule (A)50.2 through his non-cooperation with this enquiry. In particular, he was alleged to have failed to provide telephone records, failed to agree a time and a place for interview, and failed to attend an interview with the BHA.
3. On 22 April 2013, a preliminary hearing took place to deal with the case against Mr Turl. He admitted the breach alleged against him. He supplied a basis of plea document describing his part in the allegation he faced. The Panel dealt with the matter on that day, and imposed a penalty of a 2 year disqualification together with a £10,000 fine. The way in which his case was disposed of was described in reasons published to Mr Turl and the other parties to this enquiry, which are published separately.
4. On 29 April 2013, at the outset of the enquiry hearing, Mr Clutterbuck admitted that he was in breach of the Rules of Racing as alleged, and he too supplied a basis of plea document describing his role. Again, the Panel dealt with his case, imposed a 30 month disqualification and supplied reasons for the decision which were supplied to Mr Clutterbuck and the other parties. These reasons are published separately.
5. Again at the outset of the enquiry, the Panel was informed by Kristina Montgomery QC acting for Mr Clement that he too admitted some of the allegations against him. He admitted his part in the conspiracy alleged by the BHA over the STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) race. He admitted the lay bet against his horse, HINDU KUSH (IRE). He admitted that his failure to supply phone records and attend interviews was a breach of his obligations under the Rules of Racing as charged. On 1 May 2013, the third day of the enquiry, the PPanel imposed a disqualification to take effect immediately on Mr Clement for a period and for reasons to be given when the remaining live issues in the enquiry were decided. The Panel took the view that this course was permitted by Rule (A)58.
6. The remaining live issues that were contested at the enquiry were therefore: –
(i) whether Mr Clement and Ahern were engaged in a conspiracy to commit corrupt practices in relation to the first 5 races identified in the ’Table of Races’, and whether Ahern was in breach of Rule (A)36.1.
(ii) Whether Mr Raymond and Mr Hill were engaged in a conspiracy to commit a corrupt practice in relation to the STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) race.
Mr Neil Clement
7. When considering the live issues remaining in relation to Mr Clement, the Panel had to do this against the backdrop of his admitted breaches. Some of those admitted breaches involved dishonest behaviour on his part – consisting of a small lay bet against a horse which he owned, and more importantly of his involvement in corrupt lay betting against STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) in league with Mr Clutterbuck and Mr Turl.
8. The remaining contested allegations concerned the alleged receipt of inside information from Ahern in relation to five of his rides between September 2010 and January 2011. However, as already noted, Mr Clement filed no defence to the BHA's allegations. And as he refused to be interviewed by BHA Investigators, as well as failing to appear at this hearing, the Panel had nothing positive from him to evaluate along with the BHA's evidence. Although he instructed leading counsel to appear on his behalf at the hearing, she was effectively left trying to build bricks without straw in his absence, and did not advance any positive material to contradict the BHA's evidence. Nevertheless, she correctly emphasised that the burden remained with the BHA to satisfy the Panel that Mr Clement was in breach of Rule (A)41.2 in relation to the five Ahern rides, and submitted that the legitimate inferences that could be drawn from the BHA's evidence did not justify an adverse finding.
9. It was not appropriate to assume breach on Mr Clement's part simply because he had been involved in the admitted conspiracy for STONEACRE GARETH (IRE). His co-conspirators in that instance were not alleged to have been involved with the other five races, where Ahern alone was alleged to be involved with him. So it was necessary to assess the other possible explanations for Mr Clement's lay betting against the Ahern mounts, which were canvassed by Ahern in his own defence. Those other possibilities were, in summary, firstly that Mr Clement was simply following his own inclinations in placing those lay bets without the benefit of any inside information from Ahern, and secondly that if Ahern did provide inside information to Mr Clement, this was inadvertent and secretly exploited by Mr Clement (i.e. without Ahern knowing).
10. As appears in the Panel's analysis of the case against Ahern, it was concluded that Ahern was passing inside information to Mr Clement and that Mr Clement was using this for his lay betting in the five races in question. They were involved in a conspiracy together in relation to these rides and both were in breach of Rule (A)41.2.
Ahern
11. Ahern is an experienced and capable flat jockey, currently aged 35. At the time of the events in question in this enquiry, he had been riding regularly for over 12 seasons in this country.
12. When considering the serious allegations he faced, the Panel was particularly conscious of the need for reliable evidence to justify any findings adverse to him. That was in part because of the standard of proof that the Rules require and in part also because Ahern co-operated with the BHA Investigators. He readily provided his telephone records and attended interviews. He has had a career without any comparable problems or Rule breaches. His previously good character and cooperation with BHA Investigators emphasised to the Panel the ’common sense’ need for cogent evidence to prove the BHA's case.
13. That said, there was little if any dispute about primary facts. The betting activities of Mr Clement were a matter of record. No challenge was made to the accuracy of the records, and it was not suggested, for instance, that bets recorded on various accounts which the BHA linked to Mr Clement were somebody else's. The evidence of telephone and other contact between Mr Clement and Ahern was likewise mostly common ground. The Panel's task was to determine whether the inference of a corrupt conspiracy between Mr Clement and Ahern was a legitimate one.
14. So far as the allegation of breach of Rule (B)59.2 was concerned, the Panel was equally conscious of the need not to find that Ahern deliberately rode to lose on JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA), unless persuaded that there was cogent evidence to make that conclusion probable.
15. Ahern described his relationship with Mr Clement as follows. He was introduced to him about 8 years ago and they soon became friends. He would leave racecourse tickets for Mr Clement and his family, and he got to know Mr Clement's wife and children. They would go out to meals together and even went on holiday to Dubai on one occasion. Mr Clement was a professional footballer at the time, who owned horses and racing was his main interest besides football. He said that he was close to Mr Clement, and told him things he would not tell others about his personal life. They shared confidences. Mr Clement stayed at Ahern's house from time to time. He was aware that Mr Clement liked to bet and that gambling was affecting his family, at least after Mr Clement was forced to retire from football following a career-ending injury in about January 2010.
16. Ahern and Mr Clement were in regular phone contact over the period of the events with which this enquiry is concerned. Over the seven-month period until the end of February 2011, there was a total of 265 calls or texts from Ahern to Mr Clement, and Mr Clement himself called or texted Ahern 163 times in the year up to November 2011. They also met frequently. Ahern would, for instance, ride work on horses owned by Mr Clement.
17. Ahern was adamant that, over the years, he had very few conversations with Mr Clement about racing. He said that he had a good understanding of what inside information was. He had attended seminars for jockeys about it. He fully appreciated the seriousness of wrongfully giving it out. He said that he would sometimes discuss his rides with Mr Clement but would never give too much away. He would answer general queries about his forthcoming rides and which the best might be with general answers along the lines of “X has a favourite’s chance in the last”.
18. When that portrait of the relationship is compared with Mr Clement’s lay betting and Ahern's rides that are the subject of this enquiry, serious doubts about the reliability of Ahern's account of the relationship immediately emerged. Three accounts with which Mr Clement was linked were relevant.
(i) A Betfair account (in his wife’s name) was active only between 15 January and 26 February 2011. A total of 515 bets were placed, the vast majority being bets in-running. Of the 116 pre-race bets, just 16 were lay bets, and 9 of these 16 risked a liability greater than £1000. Four of those 9 lay bets were on horses ridden by Ahern, and all were successful – JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA), FRENCH ART, and DOWNHILL SKIER in both the win and place markets. For DOWNHILL SKIER (IRE), the price in the place market was chased out from 2.86 to 4.0.
(ii) Mr Clement also had a **** account of longer standing. It was used between February 2009 and January 2012. Up to the end of June 2010, there were just 12 lay bets on British horseracing. These risked an average of £104 with the largest being a risk of £500. The behaviour on the account then changed markedly. Much larger lay liabilities were taken from July 2010. There were 27 lay bets thereafter that risked £1000 or more, and of these 12 bets risked more than £5000. Two were ridden by Ahern - FRENCH ART and SISINDU (IRE). For FRENCH ART on 10 February 2011, the account was primed with £40000 the evening before. £20057 was risked in lay bets to win £4290. (There were further lays placed by Mr Clement through the Betfair account, risking £2410 to win £700). The price was chased out from 4.3 to 6.4 in the **** account. For SISINDU (IRE), £9340 was the liability risked for a profit of £2000.
(iii) Thirdly, Mr Clement had a spread betting account with Star Spreads that was active between 1 November 2010 and 7 February 2011. There were just 11 bets on UK horseracing and two of these were the equivalent of lay bets against LOVE YOU LOUIS and JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA). The second of these appeared particularly significant. Mr Clement risked a maximum loss of £41,500 to win, in the event, £8500. That bet was 5 times larger in unit stake terms than any other risk on the account. It was the largest liability ever risked by the account, and indeed was greater than the combined liability on the account of its other 10 bets. It is to be noted that the Star Spreads facility used by Mr Clement was akin to a combined lay of the gelding in both win and place markets. This is because Star Spreads operated a points structure by which the first placed horse scores 50 points, the 2nd placed scores 25 points and the 3rd placed scores 10 points. They then offer a buy and sell price for each runner, so that gamblers can back or oppose a horse as they wish. Mr Clement's bet was a sell of JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) at 8.5 points for a unit stake of £1000. Hence the bet risked different losses depending upon whether the gelding finished first, second or third.
19. There is thus a wealth of evidence which indicates that Mr Clement's lay bets against the five Ahern rides at issue in this enquiry were inspired by information from Ahern. His betting demonstrated a preference for laying Ahern rides. The risks which he was prepared to run on such bets was higher than was usually found in the accounts he operated. He was prepared to chase the odds out for DOWNHILL SKIER (IRE) and FRENCH ART. The betting followed contacts between Ahern and Mr Clement on or before races, as the timelines put before the Panel generally demonstrated. The case of LOVE YOU LOUIS provides a striking example. There was a long contact between Ahern and Mr Clement that was promptly followed by a call from Mr Clement to place the lay bet against LOVE YOU LOUIS. In the case of JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA), however, there were no phone contacts found on the day of the race, but Ahern admitted that he and Mr Clement had met on the day before. The sheer size of the bets in the case of JUDGETHEMOMENT indicated a confidence in the outcome that is seen to have been justified by what happened in the race, where Ahern deliberately took steps to ensure that the gelding did not run on its merits. The Panel was left in no doubt that Mr Clement knew that the gelding would be ridden to lose.
20. Those matters dispose comprehensively of the argument that Mr Clement's lay betting against these Ahern rides was coincidence rather than a connected event. To support that argument in closing submissions, it was said on behalf of both Mr Clement and Ahern that the Panel should have in mind what an erratic gambler Mr Clement was. He was variously described as a "smack head gambler", a madcap, a gambling compulsive. He may have had a gambling addiction, but the Panel had no evidence from him on this. But he does not come across on the evidence available as quite the wild figure that some portrayed him to be. His **** account, for instance, which was the longest in operation of the three considered above, showed an overall profit both on lay and back betting. He was said to pester people for information – that was the evidence of Mr Raymond, though not of Ahern – but again the picture emerging from the timelines shows a propensity for others to initiate contact with Mr Clement on any given day rather than for him to be on the hunt for information from the outset. So for these additional reasons, the Panel's conclusion that the Ahern lay bets were inspired by information from Ahern was untouched.
21. That left the possibility, advocated on Ahern's behalf, that Mr Clement was placing the lay bets against Ahern's rides on the basis of information from the jockey, but that he kept this secret from Ahern. The Panel found that to be equally improbable. The starting point for this analysis is that, contrary to his evidence, Ahern was supplying inside information about the rides in question to Mr Clement. The notion that he was unwittingly supplying inside information which was then secretly used by Mr Clement is really contradicted by the conclusions already reached. Additionally, perhaps to give colour to his argument, Ahern told the Panel that he had had a conversation with Mr Clement at an unidentified time in which he had asked him whether he was engaging in lay betting against his (Ahern's) rides, and was told that this was not happening. He said this occurred in the course of a discussion about Mr Clement's Betfair account. Aside from the inherent improbability of this evidence, the Panel was struck by the fact that Ahern has at no stage expressed any anger about being supposedly tricked by Mr Clement, and has (according to him) taken no steps to contact Mr Clement to challenge him about such deceitful behaviour. In fact, he gave inconsistent evidence about his contacts with Mr Clement. In interview, he said he had not made contact. At the hearing of the enquiry, he said that he had made contact, but simply to ask him whether he was coming to the enquiry. The Panel rejected Ahern's evidence generally about the supposed discussion of the lay betting. It was satisfied that Ahern was fully aware of and in league with Mr Clement over this lay betting. Once again, the findings made in relation to the JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) race are a complete contradiction of Ahern's case.
22. In summary, therefore, the Panel concluded that Ahern and Mr Clement were complicit in the lay betting against Ahern rides organised by Mr Clement on the basis of inside information supplied by Ahern. While it has not been possible to identify exactly what that inside information was in 4 of the 5 cases, it was clear to the Panel that Ahern had information to supply because he had ridden the horses before. In the case of JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA), it was clear to the Panel that the inside information consisted of an indication that Ahern would ride to lose. Although Ahern denied receipt of money or some other reward for his part, the Panel rejected that evidence too. Again, the case of JUDGETHEMOMENT was a clinching reason for this. It was inconceivable to the Panel that he was not taking reward when riding to lose in that way.
23. Ahern was therefore in breach of Rule (A)41.2 and Rule (A)36.2.
Ahern and JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA)’s race on 21 January 2011
24. JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) was, at the time of the Lingfield race, a 6-year-old gelding trained by Jane Chapple-Hyam. Its best racing days were behind it. It had won over 2 1/2 miles at Royal Ascot in June 2009, but thereafter did not win again. Indeed, throughout 2010 it finished last or near last in all but one of its five races. Ahern rode it at Kempton on 30 December 2010, when it started as 3/1 favourite but finished last. On that occasion, the trainer reported that "the gelding curls up when crowded by other horses". After the race when unsaddling, Ahern recommended to Chapple-Hyam that she try the gelding next time in blinkers, and she agreed.
25. As anticipated, Ahern was booked to ride the gelding in its next race at Lingfield on 21 January 2011. This was again a 2 mile handicap, for which the gelding started at 12/1, having opened at 8/1. JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) led from the start. The comments in-running from the Racing Post gave this summary of the performance – "Led and soon spreadeagled field, came back from halfway, headed and weakened rapidly over 4f out".
26. The BHA's case was that Ahern deliberately rode at an inappropriately high pace, which inevitably led to the gelding tiring early and finishing out of the places. To support this analysis, there was produced an exercise compiled by Mr Tom Chignell, Principal Betting Investigator of the BHA, the factual detail of which was unchallenged. This was a comparison of JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA)'s performance over the first 6 furlongs of the race with performances in 32 other two mile races at Lingfield.
27. The essence of Ahern's response was that he had ridden, in the words of his counsel Jonathan Harvie QC in closing submissions, "an ill-judged race”. He denied that he had engaged in a deliberate attempt to destroy the gelding's chances by going off too fast. In addition to his own evidence, Ahern called Wally Swinburn as an expert. He suggested that the gelding's high pace over the early part of the race may have been the result of running for the first time in blinkers, and being "lit up" in consequence.
28. Having considered all the evidence and submissions, the Panel felt driven to the conclusion that Ahern had deliberately set a pace that was designed to hurt JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA)'s chances in the race, and that he was in breach of Rule (B)58.1 in the way described in Rule (B)59.2.
29. A number of reasons lay behind this decision.
30. Firstly, Ahern gave evidence about his riding instructions that the Panel rejected. There was a dispute between Ahern and Chapple-Hyam about whether the jockey was told when unsaddling after the Kempton race that he should go a bit quicker in the next race. She was adamant that she did not – she said that she would not talk tempo for the next time right after the race at Kempton. The Panel found her evidence in this regard much more convincing than Ahern's. When he came to give evidence, the time at which he asserted that the "go quicker" instruction had been given was put differently than it had been to Chapple-Hyam. He suggested, rather vaguely and uncertainly, that it may have been relayed to him in a telephone call from either Chapple-Hyam or Paul Howling (Chapple-Hyam’s assistant) at some time before the Lingfield race. The Panel rejected that. She gave a clear account of providing instructions to Ahern by telephone before the race, as she was going to be travelling to Australia at the time of the race. She told him he could lead and confirmed that the gelding would be wearing blinkers as he had recommended. She again rejected the notion that she told Ahern to make a faster pace than he had at Kempton. As she said, talking about speed didn’t come into it – that's why she had booked a professional jockey. Chapple-Hyam was a much more impressive witness than Ahern, and her version was preferred. Quite apart from that, Ahern's basic case that he misjudged the pace and went faster than he should have contradicted the notion that he went as fast as he did because of instructions.
31. Secondly, the race itself presented a remarkable sight in the recordings shown to the Panel. JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) dwelt fractionally when the stalls opened, but within 100 yards had reached the front and was running against the inside rail, having been actively pushed into that position by Ahern. Thereafter, Ahern let the gelding continue at high pace, which looked to the Panel to be what one would expect in a 6 or 7 furlong race. Much the same impression was made on Chapple-Hyam when she first saw a recording of the race shortly after it took place. She said she was furious when she saw how Ahern had ridden the horse like a 5 furlong horse. Within one furlong after the start, JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) was 5 lengths up on the chasing pair who were in turn over 3 lengths ahead of the remaining group of 4 horses. Three furlongs after the start, JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) was 10 lengths ahead of the chasing pair, who were themselves 6 to 8 lengths ahead of the remaining runners. At no stage did Ahern do anything to check the pace of JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA). The gelding remained 10 lengths ahead of its nearest pursuer when reaching the one furlong marker on its first circuit, with further gaps of 3 lengths and 5 lengths to the next horses in line. Going into the bend for the second circuit, however, JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) began to slow and the gaps to the other runners began to reduce rapidly. The nearest pursuer (the eventual winner) reached a length and a half down before the end of that bend, and was able to slow and maintain that position down the back straight. As JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA)'s pace had slowed so much, the remaining runners took much closer order. They all went quickly past JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) about 4 furlongs from the finish, and the gelding was eventually beaten into last by a total of 35 lengths.
32. Importantly, the impression gained from simply watching the recordings was reinforced by sectional times analysis provided by Mr Chignell. He analysed 32 two mile flat races on the all-weather track at Lingfield occurring between the beginning of 2010 and 10 August 2012 (when the track was relaid). The calculation of sectional times for the first 6 furlongs of each of these 32 races which he prepared from the recordings of the races was not challenged. Nor were any special features of those races identified to explain why they might be different from the present case. The analysis showed that JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) was faster by 2.56 seconds than any other leader at that 6 furlong point in any of the other races. Converting that into lengths or yards is an approximate exercise, but given the times for those first 6 furlongs, it is between 25 to 45 yards ahead of the next quickest runner in those 32 races. Mr Chignell’s figures in lengths were 10 to 15. He also gave evidence that JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) was roughly 39 lengths faster than the median time through 6 furlongs. These figures demonstrate that this was not a case of JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) making a strong but sensible pace while the remainder of the field dawdled behind.
33. Ahern's explanation for the ride was that he misjudged the pace, did not realise he was so far ahead and that, in summary, he had ridden a "terrible" race, as he said in interview. In closing submissions, his counsel characterised it as an ill-judged race.
34. Quite simply, the Panel could not accept that a jockey of Ahern's experience, especially on the all-weather at Lingfield, could have made an error of such an extent. It was not accepted that he was unaware of how far ahead he was – he took a look behind when he was passing the 4 furlong marker for the first time, at which point he was already more than 10 lengths clear.
35. The evidence from Wally Swinburn was of no real assistance to the Panel. A document containing the evidence he proposed to give was only provided at the very last minute. Called to give evidence as an expert, he ought to have been providing an independent minded view of the ride. But, through no fault of his own, he seemed to regard his task as finding points helpful to Ahern. He had looked only at one recording of the race, on the Racing Post website. He was unaware of the trainer's instructions, though he at once conceded that that was an important ingredient. He had negligible familiarity with Lingfield and its demands upon jockeys. His suggestion that JUDGETHEMOMENT may have been "lit up" by the use of blinkers for the first time was not borne out by close observation of the recordings shown to the Panel. There was no hint of JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) running free or keen. The gelding quickly attained a high cruising pace and was balanced throughout, receiving no restraint from Ahern. Revealingly, Ahern never suggested during his interviews that the fast pace was set because JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) had been set alight by the wearing of first-time blinkers. He sought to do so in evidence before the Panel, but this was unpersuasive. He was trying to latch onto Mr Swinburn's suggestion, even though it ran counter to the base argument he put forward about the high pace being a misjudgement on his part rather than being because the gelding ran too free.
36. The Panel's conclusion about Ahern's true intentions when riding the gelding were powerfully reinforced by the fact that his close friend Mr Clement had had a lay bet of such exceptional size against JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) either winning or finishing second or third in a seven runner race. As already recounted, the Panel simply could not conclude that Ahern's "terrible" ride and his friend's large lay bet were innocent, unconnected events.
Martin Raymond
37. STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) was a 7 year old gelding at the time of the race in question. It was owned by James Mr Clutterbuck's father, to whom he was acting as assistant trainer. After a 30 month break from racing, the gelding ran twice on 24 February and 3 March 2011 at Kempton and Wolverhampton respectively, winning both races.
38. After the Wolverhampton race, and prior to the Lingfield engagement on 9 March 2011 with which this enquiry was primarily concerned, STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) was left in a field for a couple of days to "get all the gunk out of him" according to Mr Clutterbuck, as he had a bleeding problem. He was not seen by a veterinary surgeon. Mr Clutterbuck said that the horse may have been treated with antibiotics to try to heal his lungs, but no treatment was recorded in the Medication Book.
39. STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) went off as the 11/4 favourite at Lingfield but finished fourth of ten. The jockey was Adam Kirby, against whom no allegations of misconduct were made.
40. As explained at the beginning of these Reasons, Mr Clement, Mr Clutterbuck and Mr Turl each admitted breach of Rule (A)41.2 in respect of this race. Mr Clement has given no evidence and has never explained the basis for his admission, or the nature of the inside information which motivated his persuasion of Mr Turl to allow lay betting on the latter's account. Mr Turl likewise did not disclose the nature of the inside information which he understood Mr Clement to have when he was persuaded to let Mr Clement use his Betfair account (and £40,000 of his money) to lay the gelding. The bet was of course successful and produced a profit of £8308. Mr Clutterbuck's basis of plea is also coy about the inside information which he admits passing to Mr Clement. In the Panel's view it may have been something to do with the gelding's bleeding and airway problems.
41. The BHA's case was that inside information was passed to Mr Raymond, either directly by Mr Clutterbuck or via Mr Clement. It was said that this happened at some time during the morning of the race, and that it caused Mr Raymond to switch from backing the gelding to laying it.
42. Mr Raymond's riposte was twofold. He denied receiving any inside information. And he explained that his betting pattern in relation to the race followed a common path for him: his concern was to "green out" through appropriate back and lay bets, and that is exactly what he did in this case. Indeed, it was common ground that he stood to profit more if STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) had won the race than he in fact made as a result of the gelding's defeat.
43. Mr Raymond is a professional gambler whose predominant interest has been in-running betting. Practically all of his gambling, he said, is horseracing related.
44. The Panel kept very much in mind when assessing the case against Mr Raymond that he had at all stages co-operated fully with the investigation, and that he had provided a detailed and thorough statement of his position in the Schedule (A)6 form. This was again, therefore, an instance where common sense called for persuasive evidence that Mr Raymond was engaged in wrongdoing.
45. Mr Raymond had known Mr Clutterbuck for about 8 or 10 years. Well before he became an assistant trainer, Mr Clutterbuck had tried his hand at in-running betting but was not successful. Mr Raymond said he formed the view that Mr Clutterbuck was not a good race reader. He freely accepted that he spoke from time to time with Mr Clutterbuck about his horses, but said that he did not receive inside information from him.
46. Similarly, Mr Raymond said that he had known Mr Clement for about 6 months or a year in March 2011. Mr Clement had become aware that Mr Raymond was a professional punter and arranged to shadow him to observe how Mr Raymond went about his in-running betting. His opinion of Mr Clement was that he was an unsuccessful gambler who could do wild things. He said that Mr Clement often used to pester him, and to drive him potty.
47. The Panel did not accept Mr Raymond's characterisation of Mr Clement as somebody who used to pester him. It was noteworthy that the timeline for the STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) race showed that it was Mr Raymond who initiated contact with Mr Clement on one day, and that he called him frequently.
48. It seemed improbable to the Panel that inside information reached Mr Raymond on 8 March, the day before the race, because he placed back bets early on the morning of 9 March. It was not suggested that these bets were "seeding the market" - i.e. that Mr Raymond was trying to create a false perception of confidence about the gelding's prospects in the minds of other Betfair gamblers. Mr Raymond's last back bet before the start of the race was timed at 0916 hours. His position at that point was that he had backed the gelding with a stake of £130 at a price of 3.11.
49. Did Mr Raymond receive some inside information thereafter, either directly from Mr Clutterbuck or via Mr Clement? The opportunity for this to happen did exist as there were both direct phone calls with Mr Clutterbuck and Mr Clement after the last of Mr Raymond's back bets and before he began placing some lay bets. There was evidence tending both ways on this issue. The Panel was left in genuine doubt about whether Mr Raymond did receive any such information, essentially because a proper understanding of his betting shows that he was not influenced by anything he may have heard from them. Therefore, applying the appropriate standard of proof, the Panel finds that he did not receive inside information. It may well be that he had some generalised tip from them, but the Panel accepted that he did not rate their horseracing judgement and did not act upon it. Thus, the Panel concluded that he was not involved in the conspiracy that others have admitted and the case against him was not proved.
50. Mr Raymond's betting for his own account after 0916 hours was as follows. He placed a lay bet to win £150 at 3.45. He then took a slightly different form of risk, backing PATAVIUM PRINCE (IRE) in a match bet with STONEACRE GARETH (IRE). Next, about 20 minutes before the start, he had a further back bet on PATAVIUM PRINCE (IRE). There were then 3 bets in-running - firstly a lay of STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) to win £50 at a price of 6.2; then a back bet on STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) of £60 at a price of 40.0; then a back bet on PATAVIUM PRINCE (IRE) of £200 at a price of 1.60. The net effect of these bets was that Mr Raymond would have been better off if STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) had won, mainly because of what he described as the lucky price he got for his back bet on the gelding in-running. It was contended by the BHA that, as these in-running bets were a legitimate reaction to the way in which the race was developing, they should be discounted for the purpose of assessing what information Mr Raymond had to justify his prerace gambling. The Panel did not feel that that was a fair approach. The overall pattern of his betting needed to be assessed. It was a pattern that was similar to that employed for the gelding's 2 previous races at Wolverhampton and Kempton. (On the first of those occasions, Mr Raymond began his back betting when the best price available was about 7/1, having missed the earlier available 25/1. That indicated to the Panel that he was not an insider on that occasion, another pointer against his having been an insider on 9 March).
51. The Panel found it particularly significant that these bets by Mr Raymond were of a size that were not merely within his usual parameters, but at the smaller end of his scales of betting in both win and place markets. It was suggested to him by the BHA that he was simply exercising caution by betting within his normal parameters, so as not to attract the attention of investigators. But as Mr Raymond himself said, he could have taken a substantially larger position against STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) and still remained within his usual betting parameters. This was a strong indicator that he was not acting upon or influenced by the information which persuaded Mr Clement, Mr Turl and Mr Clutterbuck to do what they did.
52. Accordingly, the Panel decided that the case against him under Rule (A)41.2 was not proved.
Mr Paul Hill
53. Mr Hill is a professional gambler and close associate of Mr Raymond. He too co-operated fully with the BHA investigation. He said that he met Mr Clement at about the same time as Mr Raymond did. He knew of Mr Clutterbuck but had no contacts with him generally and none on either 8 or 9 March 2011.
54. Mr Hill placed lay bets against STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) before the race, and exactly the same in-running bets as did Mr Raymond – they were both using the same software package to enable them to do this. He explained that he decided to lay the gelding on form: it was having its 3rd run in 2 weeks, it was up 15lbs in the handicap and had won on its previous outing by three quarters of a length all out. Most interestingly of all, he said that when a horse is to be ridden by Adam Kirby, then that is one to keep a close eye on in the market. He had discussed his form judgement with Mr Raymond.
55. While there were phone contacts between Mr Clement and Mr Hill on both 8 and 9 March, which provided an opportunity in principle for Mr Hill to be provided with the inside information which prompted Mr Clement's betting in this case, the Panel again concluded that this is unlikely to have happened. If it had, Mr Hill would surely have told his close associate Mr Raymond, but for reasons given above the Panel held that Mr Raymond did not have this information. That of itself as a sufficient reason to conclude that Mr Hill, like Mr Raymond, did not have that information.
56. Again, it was common ground that Mr Hill's betting was well within his usual parameters. As with Mr Raymond, the Panel took this is a further indication that he was not acting upon the basis of the information that was used by those who were actually involved in a conspiracy to exploit it.
57. Accordingly, the Panel decided that the case against him under Rule (A)41.2 was not proved.
Notes to Editors:
1. A penalty hearing will now be heard this afternoon.
2. The Panel for the hearing was: Tim Charlton QC (Chair), Richard Gould and Celina Carter.
3. The BHA was represented by Louis Weston
4. The defendants were represented by the following:
Eddie Ahern: Jonathan Harvie, QC
Neil Clement: Kristina Montgomery, QC
Paul Hill: In person
Martin Raymond: Rory Mac Neice
5. Two other individuals were involved in the investigation but both entered guilty pleas and as such their hearings were heard separately. They were:
•Unlicensed individual Michael Turl: Disqualified for 24 months and fined £10,000 http://www.britishhorseracing.presscentre.com/Press-Releases/Result-of-a-Disciplinary-Panel-hearing-Michael-Turl-3b5.aspx
•Licensed person James Clutterbuck: Disqualified for 30 months http://www.britishhorseracing.presscentre.com/Press-Releases/Result-of-a-Disciplinary-Panel-hearing-James-Clutterbuck-3d7.aspx
6. 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
7. 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
Show More
Penalties giving later today but going by Betfair Eddies twitter account been took down yesterday it's gonna be a long one
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
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
Game Set and Match, wonder if the shark and Chapman will cut loose now
Betfair Eddie one of the only one's with an a/c??
Unlucky eddie, you had a great ride on OUR backs......
Unlucky eddie, you had a great ride on OUR backs......
the only surprise here is he got away with it for so long
any chance of some porridge for this lot ? or is it the usual warning off approach?
The pro gamblers suggested watching Adam Kirby's rides in the market, did they elaborate 
me thinks--exchange/bookie
he has an account
what's his job? jockey
he's laying his own horse--oh dear,why should we pay out
he has an account
what's his job? jockey
he's laying his own horse--oh dear,why should we pay out
RAYMOND IS INNOCENT THREE CHEERS FOR BRITISH JUSTICE - Lol bigdoghenley Martin Raymond has got more lives than a black cat how theyve let him slip through the net this time beggers belief
And his agent that defended him stoutly on here.
I knew he was a wrong un about 10-15 years ago when the trainer told us the horse couldn't be beat we backed him. Opened 5/2 drifted to 5/1 we asked the trainer are you sure about this. He said this will win don't worry about the drift. Horse drawn 1 at Naas, turned into the straight Betfair Eddie pulled the horse out wide turned in 10 wide and got beat 1/2 length if he stayed on the rails he'd have won 10 Lengths. When he came back in to unsaddle he said "The horse started to hang" the trainer told him "What a load of Ball locks" Get the **** off that horse and never ever come back to my yard and you will never ride another of my horses" and "I'll let a lot of trainers know your on the take as well and not to use you". 6 months later after all his rides started to dry up he went to England to keep his pockets lined in an unscrupulous way I'm glad he's been finally caught
I knew he was a wrong un about 10-15 years ago when the trainer told us the horse couldn't be beat we backed him. Opened 5/2 drifted to 5/1 we asked the trainer are you sure about this. He said this will win don't worry about the drift. Horse drawn 1 at Naas, turned into the straight Betfair Eddie pulled the horse out wide turned in 10 wide and got beat 1/2 length if he stayed on the rails he'd have won 10 Lengths. When he came back in to unsaddle he said "The horse started to hang" the trainer told him "What a load of Ball locks" Get the **** off that horse and never ever come back to my yard and you will never ride another of my horses" and "I'll let a lot of trainers know your on the take as well and not to use you". 6 months later after all his rides started to dry up he went to England to keep his pockets lined in an unscrupulous way I'm glad he's been finally caught
Fraud in any other line of work equals court and possibly jail. With the money involved here surely he should be looking at time,although very unlikely he will unfortunately
The only thing to come out of this is...THE BHA were last to know. It's not news to anyone here or in racing
So I assume the Gambling Commission will be looking into this now, with a view to taking further action?
What? Don't laugh!
What? Don't laugh!
Racing media is always waiting to welcome back those warned off...joke the whole gravy train load of them...
Pair hit out after being cleared by BHA
By Graham Green racingpost.com 22 MAY 2013
IN-RUNNING punters Martin Raymond and Paul Hill are adamant they should never have faced corruption charges over their laying of Stoneacre Gareth when the 11-4 chance was beaten at Lingfield in March 2011.
Raymond, the Newmarket-based son of former jockey and Rabbah Bloodstock racing manager Bruce Raymond, and Hill, from Bushey, Hertfordshire, hit out at the BHA yesterday after being cleared by the disciplinary panel.
"Obviously it's a great relief it's all over, and I am very grateful for the terrific work of my solicitor, Rory Mac Neice," said Raymond. "I didn't have a problem being interviewed and being asked for my records, but it shouldn't have got any further than that."
Hill said: "The evidence was there in the bets that we weren't guilty, and it was ridiculous that we ever charged. The bets were so small compared with what normally goes on with the account there was only going to be one outcome."
Hill's son, Ryan, displayed a sign during the World Darts Championships last Christmas that read "Raymond And Hill Are Innocent", which was clearly seen by the television audience.
Mac Neice, who represented Raymond and assisted Hill, said: "The BHA's evidence against both Martin and Paul was such that it did not justify either of them ever being charged. Ultimately the BHA's case against both of them completely unravelled for reasons that should have been obvious to the BHA from the start.
"The panel's reasons are clear - Martin's betting strategy on the race in question was such that he would have won whichever of the market leaders in the race won. In fact he stood to win considerably more if Stoneacre Gareth had won. In other words his preferred outcome was a Stoneacre Gareth win - precisely the opposite to what the BHA was alleging. Martin's success as a gambler stems from his consistent and disciplined strategy and that was clear from the evidence."
Mac Neice went on: "Yet again there were very significant delays by the BHA in progressing this matter. Martin was not interviewed until January 2012, over ten months after the relevant race had taken place and was not then charged for another 11 months.
"These delays are unacceptable but seem to becoming the norm - we saw similar delays experienced by Jim Boyle recently before he was cleared of an allegation of milkshaking. The BHA needs to appreciate the very significant impact these delays have on the individuals concerned and to take immediate steps to explain to the industry how they will prevent similar delays in the future."
By Graham Green racingpost.com 22 MAY 2013
IN-RUNNING punters Martin Raymond and Paul Hill are adamant they should never have faced corruption charges over their laying of Stoneacre Gareth when the 11-4 chance was beaten at Lingfield in March 2011.
Raymond, the Newmarket-based son of former jockey and Rabbah Bloodstock racing manager Bruce Raymond, and Hill, from Bushey, Hertfordshire, hit out at the BHA yesterday after being cleared by the disciplinary panel.
"Obviously it's a great relief it's all over, and I am very grateful for the terrific work of my solicitor, Rory Mac Neice," said Raymond. "I didn't have a problem being interviewed and being asked for my records, but it shouldn't have got any further than that."
Hill said: "The evidence was there in the bets that we weren't guilty, and it was ridiculous that we ever charged. The bets were so small compared with what normally goes on with the account there was only going to be one outcome."
Hill's son, Ryan, displayed a sign during the World Darts Championships last Christmas that read "Raymond And Hill Are Innocent", which was clearly seen by the television audience.
Mac Neice, who represented Raymond and assisted Hill, said: "The BHA's evidence against both Martin and Paul was such that it did not justify either of them ever being charged. Ultimately the BHA's case against both of them completely unravelled for reasons that should have been obvious to the BHA from the start.
"The panel's reasons are clear - Martin's betting strategy on the race in question was such that he would have won whichever of the market leaders in the race won. In fact he stood to win considerably more if Stoneacre Gareth had won. In other words his preferred outcome was a Stoneacre Gareth win - precisely the opposite to what the BHA was alleging. Martin's success as a gambler stems from his consistent and disciplined strategy and that was clear from the evidence."
Mac Neice went on: "Yet again there were very significant delays by the BHA in progressing this matter. Martin was not interviewed until January 2012, over ten months after the relevant race had taken place and was not then charged for another 11 months.
"These delays are unacceptable but seem to becoming the norm - we saw similar delays experienced by Jim Boyle recently before he was cleared of an allegation of milkshaking. The BHA needs to appreciate the very significant impact these delays have on the individuals concerned and to take immediate steps to explain to the industry how they will prevent similar delays in the future."
Why do stables who obviously know his"form" give him and the likes the time of day??
Can't wait for the "Welcome Back Betfair Eddie Maiden" at Wolverhampton
if they want one pulled id imagine?reward is then to get ride when brakes are off
BHA got the story about Betfair Eddie, spot the deliberate mistake http://www.britishhorseracing.com/goracing/racing/newsweather/newsItem.asp?i...
Aww they took it down now and replaced it with Betfair Eddie. . They had a pic of Fwankie,
Eddie Ahern's QC Jonathan Harvie indicates that his client wishes to appeal guilty verdict in corruption case (length of ban not known yet)
Eddie Ahern lawyer says jockey will be banned from riding immediately including tonight at Kempton
Anaglogs you have been in this game a long time so have i
All this nonsence re doping is horlicks
any horse has 9 stone of a dope on his back and remember
The Ownwer employs the Trainer, the Trainer can pick any jockey he likes with the owners approval it a vicous circle
All this nonsence re doping is horlicks
any horse has 9 stone of a dope on his back and remember
The Ownwer employs the Trainer, the Trainer can pick any jockey he likes with the owners approval it a vicous circle
A fantastic day for all punters, and anyone that cares about the sport, imo...
Irish jockey Eddie Ahern banned for 10 years by BHA for colluding with others who were laying horses to lose races. Ahern can appeal.
Disciplinary Panel Penalties and Reasons for Penalties regarding Neil Clement and Eddie Ahern
•Eddie Ahern disqualified for a total of 10 years
•Neil Clement disqualified for a total of 15 years and 3 months and fined £3,000
Eddie Ahern
1. The Panel found Ahern in breach of Rule (A)41.2. That breach included a stopping ride of JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA), in further breach of Rule (B)59.2. So the Panel took the starting point for the (A)41.2 breach to be the disqualification appropriate for this stopping ride. That required an assessment first of all of whether 8 years was appropriate for the (B)59.2 breach in this case.
2. Ahern is a mature jockey who had no excuse of youth or vulnerability for his stopping ride of JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA). Against that it was said that he is a careless, garrulous person who did not do this out of malice but out of stupidity. That may be so, but it remains the fact that a stopping ride, even of a horse unlikely to win, remains the cardinal sin that a jockey can commit. Mr Harvie QC, on Ahern’s behalf, said that, on the Panel’s findings, Ahern’s ride on JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) was “assuring a result which was already assured”. The answer to that is firstly that nobody knows how JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) would have performed if ridden on its merits and secondly that if it was bound to finish unplaced as he suggested, then Ahern had no reason to give it a stopping ride.
3. It was also submitted that an 8 year penalty was out of line with what would happen in other sports, and is too lengthy for “a moment of madness”. The stopping ride was more than a mere momentary act. It was planned and done for reward, the Panel decided. The Panel was not equipped with the detail to enable a comparison of the approach to dishonesty in other sports even if such an exercise is appropriate, so can say little about it. So far as racing is concerned, the Panel can see why the starting point is at that level. Stopping a horse is just about the worst breach a jockey can commit, and all must understand that potentially career ending penalties will follow.
4. The Panel therefore decided that an 8 year disqualification was appropriate for the (B)59.2 element of the conspiracy.
5. It was decided to impose a further 2 year disqualification for the other aspects of the conspiracy in which Ahern was engaged, i.e. the passing of inside information to Mr Clement for reward in four other instances occurring between September 2010 and February 2011.
6. Accordingly for the breach of Rule (A)41.2, Ahern was disqualified for 10 years with immediate effect.
7. The penalty for breach of Rule (B)59.2 was a disqualification of 8 years, for the reasons already stated, to run concurrently with the disqualification for the Rule (A)41.2. breach. The disqualification runs from Wednesday 22 May 2013 until 21 May 2023 inclusive.
8. An application to mitigate the effect of the penalty pending an appeal was made. The Panel was asked to allow Ahern to work in racing, though not to ride in races while an appeal was pending. But paragraph 20 of Schedule (A)6 indicates that that should not be countenanced at the penalties hearing but made in writing later. So the application was refused.
Neil Clement
9. In his case, the Panel was required to assess appropriate penalties for four matters:-
i) Rule (A)41.2 for the Ahern conspiracy
ii) Rule (A)41.2 for the STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) conspiracy
iii) Rule (A)50.2 for failure to co-operate with the enquiry
iv) Rule (E)92.2 for lay betting against his own horse, HINDU KUSH (IRE).
10. For the conspiracy in relation to Ahern, which included Ahern’s stopping ride of JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA), the Panel imposed the same penalty as on Ahern, namely a disqualification of 10 years. It was not possible to treat either Ahern or Mr Clement as the leading light in their enterprise: they bore equal responsibility from what was revealed to the Panel.
11. For the conspiracy in relation to the STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) race, a disqualification of 4 years was imposed. This was a separate enterprise from the Ahern conspiracy, so the penalty is consecutive. It had the unattractive aspect that Mr Clement managed to involve his friend Mr Turl to finance the corrupt betting. No credit was due for admission of this at the outset of the enquiry, because the case against him was made overwhelming by the admissions of Mr Clutterbuck and Mr Turl.
12. For the failure to co-operate with the enquiry, a further consecutive disqualification of 1 year and a fine of £3,000 was imposed. The reason for this fine was that Mr Clement’s non co-operation caused serious expense to the BHA, including the costs of a Court application to procure disclosure of his telephone records. Having imposed that fine, the disqualification period was reduced from the entry point of 18 months to 12 months.
13. The lay bet against his own horse, HINDU KUSH (IRE), was made in February 2011. He risked £62 to win £10. While that may be small in money terms, it remains an important requirement that owners should not abuse their privileged access to inside information by placing lay bets against horses they own. No explanation for it was given by Mr Clement. A disqualification of 3 months was imposed, at the bottom of the recommended range and below the entry point of 18 months because of the small amount involved. This disqualification is to run consecutively to the others.
14. Hence Mr Clement was disqualified for a total of 15 years and 3 months, and fined £3,000. The disqualification runs from Wednesday 1 May 2013, the day when he was disqualified on the last day of the hearing, subject to a later determination of the appropriate period (see paragraph 5 of the Reasons for Decision). The disqualification period ends on 31 July 2028.
Notes to Editors:
1. The findings of the Disciplinary Panel related to result and reasons can be found here: http://www.britishhorseracing.presscentre.com/Press-Releases/Result-of-a-Disciplinary-Panel-hearing-Neil-Clement-Eddie-Ahern-Martin-Raymond-and-Paul-Hill-3d8.aspx
2. Eddie Ahern has 48 hours within which to lodge an appeal. This is because under Rules any penalties imposed for breaches of the Rules which involve a breach of Rule (B)59.2 can only be appealed within 48 hours. This period will run until 5pm on Friday 24th May.
3. Neil Clement will have the full seven days with which to appeal, running until 5pm on Wednesday 29th May.
For more information contact:
Robin Mounsey
British Horseracing Authority
t:02071520048
m:07584171551
e: rmounsey@britishhorseracing.com
Disciplinary Panel Penalties and Reasons for Penalties regarding Neil Clement and Eddie Ahern
•Eddie Ahern disqualified for a total of 10 years
•Neil Clement disqualified for a total of 15 years and 3 months and fined £3,000
Eddie Ahern
1. The Panel found Ahern in breach of Rule (A)41.2. That breach included a stopping ride of JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA), in further breach of Rule (B)59.2. So the Panel took the starting point for the (A)41.2 breach to be the disqualification appropriate for this stopping ride. That required an assessment first of all of whether 8 years was appropriate for the (B)59.2 breach in this case.
2. Ahern is a mature jockey who had no excuse of youth or vulnerability for his stopping ride of JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA). Against that it was said that he is a careless, garrulous person who did not do this out of malice but out of stupidity. That may be so, but it remains the fact that a stopping ride, even of a horse unlikely to win, remains the cardinal sin that a jockey can commit. Mr Harvie QC, on Ahern’s behalf, said that, on the Panel’s findings, Ahern’s ride on JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) was “assuring a result which was already assured”. The answer to that is firstly that nobody knows how JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA) would have performed if ridden on its merits and secondly that if it was bound to finish unplaced as he suggested, then Ahern had no reason to give it a stopping ride.
3. It was also submitted that an 8 year penalty was out of line with what would happen in other sports, and is too lengthy for “a moment of madness”. The stopping ride was more than a mere momentary act. It was planned and done for reward, the Panel decided. The Panel was not equipped with the detail to enable a comparison of the approach to dishonesty in other sports even if such an exercise is appropriate, so can say little about it. So far as racing is concerned, the Panel can see why the starting point is at that level. Stopping a horse is just about the worst breach a jockey can commit, and all must understand that potentially career ending penalties will follow.
4. The Panel therefore decided that an 8 year disqualification was appropriate for the (B)59.2 element of the conspiracy.
5. It was decided to impose a further 2 year disqualification for the other aspects of the conspiracy in which Ahern was engaged, i.e. the passing of inside information to Mr Clement for reward in four other instances occurring between September 2010 and February 2011.
6. Accordingly for the breach of Rule (A)41.2, Ahern was disqualified for 10 years with immediate effect.
7. The penalty for breach of Rule (B)59.2 was a disqualification of 8 years, for the reasons already stated, to run concurrently with the disqualification for the Rule (A)41.2. breach. The disqualification runs from Wednesday 22 May 2013 until 21 May 2023 inclusive.
8. An application to mitigate the effect of the penalty pending an appeal was made. The Panel was asked to allow Ahern to work in racing, though not to ride in races while an appeal was pending. But paragraph 20 of Schedule (A)6 indicates that that should not be countenanced at the penalties hearing but made in writing later. So the application was refused.
Neil Clement
9. In his case, the Panel was required to assess appropriate penalties for four matters:-
i) Rule (A)41.2 for the Ahern conspiracy
ii) Rule (A)41.2 for the STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) conspiracy
iii) Rule (A)50.2 for failure to co-operate with the enquiry
iv) Rule (E)92.2 for lay betting against his own horse, HINDU KUSH (IRE).
10. For the conspiracy in relation to Ahern, which included Ahern’s stopping ride of JUDGETHEMOMENT (USA), the Panel imposed the same penalty as on Ahern, namely a disqualification of 10 years. It was not possible to treat either Ahern or Mr Clement as the leading light in their enterprise: they bore equal responsibility from what was revealed to the Panel.
11. For the conspiracy in relation to the STONEACRE GARETH (IRE) race, a disqualification of 4 years was imposed. This was a separate enterprise from the Ahern conspiracy, so the penalty is consecutive. It had the unattractive aspect that Mr Clement managed to involve his friend Mr Turl to finance the corrupt betting. No credit was due for admission of this at the outset of the enquiry, because the case against him was made overwhelming by the admissions of Mr Clutterbuck and Mr Turl.
12. For the failure to co-operate with the enquiry, a further consecutive disqualification of 1 year and a fine of £3,000 was imposed. The reason for this fine was that Mr Clement’s non co-operation caused serious expense to the BHA, including the costs of a Court application to procure disclosure of his telephone records. Having imposed that fine, the disqualification period was reduced from the entry point of 18 months to 12 months.
13. The lay bet against his own horse, HINDU KUSH (IRE), was made in February 2011. He risked £62 to win £10. While that may be small in money terms, it remains an important requirement that owners should not abuse their privileged access to inside information by placing lay bets against horses they own. No explanation for it was given by Mr Clement. A disqualification of 3 months was imposed, at the bottom of the recommended range and below the entry point of 18 months because of the small amount involved. This disqualification is to run consecutively to the others.
14. Hence Mr Clement was disqualified for a total of 15 years and 3 months, and fined £3,000. The disqualification runs from Wednesday 1 May 2013, the day when he was disqualified on the last day of the hearing, subject to a later determination of the appropriate period (see paragraph 5 of the Reasons for Decision). The disqualification period ends on 31 July 2028.
Notes to Editors:
1. The findings of the Disciplinary Panel related to result and reasons can be found here: http://www.britishhorseracing.presscentre.com/Press-Releases/Result-of-a-Disciplinary-Panel-hearing-Neil-Clement-Eddie-Ahern-Martin-Raymond-and-Paul-Hill-3d8.aspx
2. Eddie Ahern has 48 hours within which to lodge an appeal. This is because under Rules any penalties imposed for breaches of the Rules which involve a breach of Rule (B)59.2 can only be appealed within 48 hours. This period will run until 5pm on Friday 24th May.
3. Neil Clement will have the full seven days with which to appeal, running until 5pm on Wednesday 29th May.
For more information contact:
Robin Mounsey
British Horseracing Authority
t:02071520048
m:07584171551
e: rmounsey@britishhorseracing.com
Can't believe they have done him for Judgethemoment,if they can do Eddie for that they should start looking at the coolmore ,godolphin and abdullas and other operations concerning there so called pacemakers? surely this is one rule for one,one rule for another? how can they make a judgement on a front running effort?
Think it is more to be doing with the laying part, caught with fingers in the till
They should take every punter and have there accounts checked,every time they lay a so called pacemaker?
Fitzgerald defending him on the basis that he didn't make much money out of it 
how many times do jockeys appear on tv saying too the public,that there's is a pacemaking role? This is also inside information, and what about Trainers? What a load of B o l l o c k s!
Concerning sticking needles in horses i fully support the Bhb and they have done a job,but this sort of Hearsay is utter nonsense,they all pass on info to there families it is a reality!
I would urge all jockeys too stop talking too the press.
MJ.... pacemakers can win races and set off at a pace suitable to the race involved, that ride he simply went too fast from the front to give the horse any chance.
still hard to prove but the with other evidence they have, they must be 100% sure they are right.
still hard to prove but the with other evidence they have, they must be 100% sure they are right.
proper order and lets hope the next one gets a life time ban thieving gits
Now its out in the open the game will go downhill ..take a look at the AW ..its spot the crowd why its not straight ..
May 22, 2013 -- 6:14PM, the dealer wrote:
MJ.... pacemakers can win races and set off at a pace suitable to the race involved, that ride he simply went too fast from the front to give the horse any chance.still hard to prove but the with other evidence they have, they must be 100% sure they are right.
I can name plenty of races where Coolmore have had know pacemakers,and the jockeys have said as much in public(there is no difference) it is all inside information and Eddies brief should look at this information.There is hardly any pace in the races in Europe on a daily basis without this kind of none sense(it is bad for the game)
but surely there is a difference between pacemaking and intentially going off far too fast.
like i said regarding being found guilty, im sure it is not purely based on the ride but the additional evidence they have.
like i said regarding being found guilty, im sure it is not purely based on the ride but the additional evidence they have.
By the way ,lets not ignore the fact that exchanges may or may not be revealing accounts?
Proves what I've believed all along you should not be allowed to bet a horse to lose
Toss up now whether an AW meeting has a "Good Riddance to Betfair Eddie stakes" or wait 10 years and have a "Welcome back Betfair Eddie you were badly missed Maiden"
I believe there are times when the public and press should get behind the jockeys who now have immense pressure on them from owners and Trainers to ride too orders,they do the job(if they did not they would lose there jobs)
Excnanges are playing a part in there own downfal, (too many layers not enough players.
MJ,, you need to read the full bha statement, he didnt ride to orders hth
Interesting that he's been done for seemingly deliberately going off too fast on one in order to stop it.
Perhaps the BHA should be reviewing some races from the last AW season, when some horses from one stable in particular, were blasting off from the front at crazy fractions.
Perhaps the BHA should be reviewing some races from the last AW season, when some horses from one stable in particular, were blasting off from the front at crazy fractions.
still doing it george, especially where they have to in the race
Frankie as multiple drug offences gets six months(oh our frankie it is a drug problem ) well let me tell you something Gambling is a human problem too,and the implications for jockeys is there livelihood,far too many owners manage to get away with it,who is sticking up for the little guy? that must ride too orders or may have a gambling problem?
he got caught, he should be warned off, the rules if anything are too lax, they should get life
stray and you're out rule should be in place, soon cleans up the game, hong kong have it right
stray and you're out rule should be in place, soon cleans up the game, hong kong have it right
I think Eddie should get a ban and the offer of counselling for his gambling problem. I think the exchanges should give more towards racing,and i think punters should understand that there accounts may be revealed.
punters do know their accounts can be revealed, it's in the t&cs
I have witnessed jockeys ease down 5 lenths in the past and be given a few months ban.ffs
I can name plenty of races where Coolmore have had know pacemakers,and the jockeys have said as much in public(there is no difference) it is all inside information and Eddies brief should look at this information.There is hardly any pace in the races in Europe on a daily basis without this kind of none sense(it is bad for the game)
I don't think you're quite grasping the concept of inside information there.
For example if a jockey says in an interview that he's on a pacemaker then that's out in the public domain. If however he only tells a few of his mates that's inside information.
There's your difference.
I don't think you're quite grasping the concept of inside information there.
For example if a jockey says in an interview that he's on a pacemaker then that's out in the public domain. If however he only tells a few of his mates that's inside information.
There's your difference.
Not sure it is so clear about pacemakers - surely they are not being ridden to obtain their best possible placing?
The difference is that he was not asked the question on that day?,i am interested after the so called offense did he ride again for that said Trainer? anyone know?
metro john if you can't see the difference then you're either beyond help or Neil Clement.
I am interested,after the so called offense did he ride again for that said Trainer? anyone know?
did the trainer know all the facts after he had ridden her horse?
no trainer would surely have him onboard after such a bad ride?
not sure did the trainer employ his services after that ride?
The penalty is obscene,murderers don't get 10 years,Druggies get 6months and mass doper get 8years.(well worth the appeal Eddie)
personally i couldn't care less, kick him out for good, kick out anyone who c heats
Not another jockey banned for cheating and feck me not another Irish one..Immigration is a touchy subject in the UK and me,I would let in as many Poles as possible and kick out the Irish and that would free up a couple of million Council Houses and we all would be happy.
There has long been an alliance amongst those from the "Emerald Isle" to fix horse races in this country.Time after time their "finest" are banned and yet they still come over.Fallon, Lynch, Betfair Eddie and a dozen others have been given the Red Card and yet still appeal.Give them life and perhaps the next boat over will not contain another batch of hopefuls that are willing to take the rotten shilling....
There has long been an alliance amongst those from the "Emerald Isle" to fix horse races in this country.Time after time their "finest" are banned and yet they still come over.Fallon, Lynch, Betfair Eddie and a dozen others have been given the Red Card and yet still appeal.Give them life and perhaps the next boat over will not contain another batch of hopefuls that are willing to take the rotten shilling....
The penalty is obscene,murderers don't get 10 years
He's not going to prison. hth
He's not going to prison. hth
"Eddie Ahern is absolutely devastated. He did not breach the rules of racing as found by the panel and he will be appealing both the findings as well as the very harsh penalties imposed on him." 
Eddie Ahern banned 10 years after being found guilty of corruption
• Jockey convicted of preventing horse from winning
• Former footballer Neil Clement is also warned off
Greg Wood
The Guardian, Wednesday 22 May 2013
Eddie Ahern, a leading member of Britain's weighing room for more than a decade, has been banned from racing for 10 years by the British Horseracing Authority for a series of breaches of the anti-corruption rules, including one instance in which he deliberately stopped one of his mounts.
Neil Clement, a racehorse owner and former professional footballer with West Bromwich Albion, has also been banned from the sport for 15 years and three months for using information from Ahern to lay bets against his horses on the Betfair betting exchange.
Ahern was found to have deliberately prevented Judgethemoment, a six-year-old gelding trained by Jane Chapple-Hyam, from running on its merits in a two-mile handicap at Lingfield on 21 January 2011. Ahern set a furious pace on Judgethemoment, "what one would expect in a six- or seven-furlong race" in the eyes of the panel, and then dropped back through the field from halfway.
Clement, whose phone records showed frequent contacts with Ahern, was found to have placed a number of "lay" bets against Judgethemoment, including a spread bet which risked a maximum loss of £41,500 in order to win £8,500. It was one of only 11 bets placed on the account in British racing, and risked a greater loss than the other 10 combined.
Clement was also found to have laid four more horses ridden by Ahern on the basis of inside information received from the jockey, and to have conspired with Michael Turl and James Clutterbuck, son and assistant to the Newmarket trainer Ken Clutterbuck, to lay the yard's Stoneacre Gareth in a race at Lingfield in March 2011. Turl was disqualified for 24 months and fined £10,000, while Clutterbuck, who intends to appeal against the length of the penalty, was banned for 30 months.
Ahern, who was Ireland's champion apprentice in 1997 and rode 140 winners in 2006, his best year in the saddle, is the most successful jockey to be warned off by the Authority for deliberately stopping a horse. His big-race record includes Group One wins in the 1999 Moyglare Stud Stakes and 2011 Irish St Leger, in which he rode John Gosden's Duncan to dead-heat with Jukebox Jury. He rode at least 100 winners four years in a row from 2003, from an average of 1,000 rides per year, though his total for 2013 prior to Wednesday's ban was just 10 winners from 127 rides.
Ahern has also courted controversy, however, as he was banned for three months in December 2007 after he was found to have deliberately committed a whip offence in order to trigger a suspension at a quiet point in the season.
Neither Ahern nor Clement attended Wednesday's hearing at the BHA's offices at High Holborn in London. Martin Raymond and Paul Hill, two professional gamblers who also faced charges in the case, were both cleared of any breaches of the rules.
Jonathan Harvie QC, who represented Ahern at the hearing, said as he left the BHA: "History is littered with imperfect decisions. I'm not for a moment criticising the tribunal, they came to a decision in good faith and so on and so forth. I happen to think that there might have been a different view and there might even have been a better view, but it's not for me to impugn the judgment of the tribunal.
"[Ahern] rode by his own admission an ill-judged race [on Judgethemoment]. It didn't work and he finished last and Mr Clement had a very substantial lay bet on the horse. That is where you get into difficulty with these cases, how and on what basis do you draw the inference."
Ahern's solicitor Christopher Stewart-Moore said his client intends to appeal against both the BHA disciplinary panel's findings and the severity of the suspension.
"Eddie Ahern is absolutely devastated. He did not breach the rules of racing as found by the panel and he will be appealing both the findings as well as the very harsh penalties imposed on him."
The impasse between the British and French racing authorities over when or if Frankie Dettori can return to race-riding after a six-month ban for using cocaine may move closer to a resolution on Thursday, when Stewart-Moore, also Dettori's solicitor, is expected to meet with officials from France Galop in Paris.
A brief statement from the BHA on Wednesday said that the Authority had been in touch with its counterpart in France, which had "confirmed that the issue sits with their medical committee, and that the specifics of the case have to remain confidential between that committee and Mr Dettori".
Eddie Ahern banned 10 years after being found guilty of corruption
• Jockey convicted of preventing horse from winning
• Former footballer Neil Clement is also warned off
Greg Wood
The Guardian, Wednesday 22 May 2013
Eddie Ahern, a leading member of Britain's weighing room for more than a decade, has been banned from racing for 10 years by the British Horseracing Authority for a series of breaches of the anti-corruption rules, including one instance in which he deliberately stopped one of his mounts.
Neil Clement, a racehorse owner and former professional footballer with West Bromwich Albion, has also been banned from the sport for 15 years and three months for using information from Ahern to lay bets against his horses on the Betfair betting exchange.
Ahern was found to have deliberately prevented Judgethemoment, a six-year-old gelding trained by Jane Chapple-Hyam, from running on its merits in a two-mile handicap at Lingfield on 21 January 2011. Ahern set a furious pace on Judgethemoment, "what one would expect in a six- or seven-furlong race" in the eyes of the panel, and then dropped back through the field from halfway.
Clement, whose phone records showed frequent contacts with Ahern, was found to have placed a number of "lay" bets against Judgethemoment, including a spread bet which risked a maximum loss of £41,500 in order to win £8,500. It was one of only 11 bets placed on the account in British racing, and risked a greater loss than the other 10 combined.
Clement was also found to have laid four more horses ridden by Ahern on the basis of inside information received from the jockey, and to have conspired with Michael Turl and James Clutterbuck, son and assistant to the Newmarket trainer Ken Clutterbuck, to lay the yard's Stoneacre Gareth in a race at Lingfield in March 2011. Turl was disqualified for 24 months and fined £10,000, while Clutterbuck, who intends to appeal against the length of the penalty, was banned for 30 months.
Ahern, who was Ireland's champion apprentice in 1997 and rode 140 winners in 2006, his best year in the saddle, is the most successful jockey to be warned off by the Authority for deliberately stopping a horse. His big-race record includes Group One wins in the 1999 Moyglare Stud Stakes and 2011 Irish St Leger, in which he rode John Gosden's Duncan to dead-heat with Jukebox Jury. He rode at least 100 winners four years in a row from 2003, from an average of 1,000 rides per year, though his total for 2013 prior to Wednesday's ban was just 10 winners from 127 rides.
Ahern has also courted controversy, however, as he was banned for three months in December 2007 after he was found to have deliberately committed a whip offence in order to trigger a suspension at a quiet point in the season.
Neither Ahern nor Clement attended Wednesday's hearing at the BHA's offices at High Holborn in London. Martin Raymond and Paul Hill, two professional gamblers who also faced charges in the case, were both cleared of any breaches of the rules.
Jonathan Harvie QC, who represented Ahern at the hearing, said as he left the BHA: "History is littered with imperfect decisions. I'm not for a moment criticising the tribunal, they came to a decision in good faith and so on and so forth. I happen to think that there might have been a different view and there might even have been a better view, but it's not for me to impugn the judgment of the tribunal.
"[Ahern] rode by his own admission an ill-judged race [on Judgethemoment]. It didn't work and he finished last and Mr Clement had a very substantial lay bet on the horse. That is where you get into difficulty with these cases, how and on what basis do you draw the inference."
Ahern's solicitor Christopher Stewart-Moore said his client intends to appeal against both the BHA disciplinary panel's findings and the severity of the suspension.
"Eddie Ahern is absolutely devastated. He did not breach the rules of racing as found by the panel and he will be appealing both the findings as well as the very harsh penalties imposed on him."
The impasse between the British and French racing authorities over when or if Frankie Dettori can return to race-riding after a six-month ban for using cocaine may move closer to a resolution on Thursday, when Stewart-Moore, also Dettori's solicitor, is expected to meet with officials from France Galop in Paris.
A brief statement from the BHA on Wednesday said that the Authority had been in touch with its counterpart in France, which had "confirmed that the issue sits with their medical committee, and that the specifics of the case have to remain confidential between that committee and Mr Dettori".
Statement on today’s Disciplinary findings from Adam Brickell, Director of Integrity, Legal and Risk for the BHA
Following the announcement of today's Disciplinary Panel findings and the issuing of penalty to the individuals concerned, Adam Brickell, Director of Integrity, Legal and Risk for the BHA, said:
"Today’s findings have confirmed that another network of corruption has been successfully prosecuted by the BHA, resulting in a total of four individuals being disqualified from Racing, including the jockey Eddie Ahern.
"The clear message from this, and other cases heard in the last 18 months, should be that the BHA is better equipped than ever at pinpointing and prosecuting malpractice. The penalties imposed as a result of these cases being heard should serve as a deterrent to others.
"The links we have developed with betting organisations and the advances made in our sharing of data and intelligence mean that we are increasingly effective at gathering evidence that leads to prosecutions. This investigation was another landmark in terms of our intelligence and evidence gathering capabilities as it was the first occasion on which we have received assistance from a spread betting company to bring a successful prosecution.
"We have now sought and received significant cooperation on a voluntary basis from more than one such firm and we hope that this is a resource we will continue to be able to turn to in future investigations. Meanwhile we continue to await Government's improvements to the overall legislative framework that will ensure all operators are mandated to share such information with us, and other sporting bodies."
Notes to Editors:
1. The Disciplinary Panel's findings and reasons can be found here: http://www.britishhorseracing.presscentre.com/Press-Releases/Result-of-a-Disciplinary-Panel-hearing-Neil-Clement-Eddie-Ahern-Martin-Raymond-and-Paul-Hill-3d8.aspx
2, The penalties imposed by the Disciplinary Panel can be found here: http://www.britishhorseracing.presscentre.com/Press-Releases/Disciplinary-Panel-Penalties-and-Reasons-for-Penalties-regarding-Neil-Clement-and-Eddie-Ahern-3dc.aspx
For more information contact:
Robin Mounsey
British Horseracing Authority
t:02071520048
m:07584171551
e: rmounsey@britishhorseracing.com
Following the announcement of today's Disciplinary Panel findings and the issuing of penalty to the individuals concerned, Adam Brickell, Director of Integrity, Legal and Risk for the BHA, said:
"Today’s findings have confirmed that another network of corruption has been successfully prosecuted by the BHA, resulting in a total of four individuals being disqualified from Racing, including the jockey Eddie Ahern.
"The clear message from this, and other cases heard in the last 18 months, should be that the BHA is better equipped than ever at pinpointing and prosecuting malpractice. The penalties imposed as a result of these cases being heard should serve as a deterrent to others.
"The links we have developed with betting organisations and the advances made in our sharing of data and intelligence mean that we are increasingly effective at gathering evidence that leads to prosecutions. This investigation was another landmark in terms of our intelligence and evidence gathering capabilities as it was the first occasion on which we have received assistance from a spread betting company to bring a successful prosecution.
"We have now sought and received significant cooperation on a voluntary basis from more than one such firm and we hope that this is a resource we will continue to be able to turn to in future investigations. Meanwhile we continue to await Government's improvements to the overall legislative framework that will ensure all operators are mandated to share such information with us, and other sporting bodies."
Notes to Editors:
1. The Disciplinary Panel's findings and reasons can be found here: http://www.britishhorseracing.presscentre.com/Press-Releases/Result-of-a-Disciplinary-Panel-hearing-Neil-Clement-Eddie-Ahern-Martin-Raymond-and-Paul-Hill-3d8.aspx
2, The penalties imposed by the Disciplinary Panel can be found here: http://www.britishhorseracing.presscentre.com/Press-Releases/Disciplinary-Panel-Penalties-and-Reasons-for-Penalties-regarding-Neil-Clement-and-Eddie-Ahern-3dc.aspx
For more information contact:
Robin Mounsey
British Horseracing Authority
t:02071520048
m:07584171551
e: rmounsey@britishhorseracing.com
As the PM said "We are all in this together"
PJA offer Ahern support
Eddie Ahern will have the full support of the Professional Jockeys' Association as he launches his appeal against the 10-year ban handed out to him by the British Horseracing Authority.
Ahern's career was effectively ended after he was found guilty of conspiring to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice along with former footballer Neil Clement at a disciplinary hearing on Wednesday.
However, while his appeal is ongoing, PJA chief executive Paul Struthers confirmed the organisation will continue to support the rider.
"The PJA agrees that corrupt conduct cannot be tolerated within a sport where integrity is absolutely vital," said Struthers.
"Given robust evidence, lengthy bans are the only option for those - not just jockeys - who have committed the most serious offences under the Rules of Racing.
"However, Eddie Ahern is adamant that he is not guilty of the corrupt charges found against him and plans to appeal.
"We are supportive of this position given the concerns over the judgement and written reasons of the Disciplinary Panel. It would be inappropriate to go into specifics at this stage pending his appeal.
"It is the PJA's role to support its members prior to and leading up to any disciplinary proceedings, and to provide any subsequent advice and non-financial support that is required following the conclusion to those same proceedings.
"Our condemnation of corrupt conduct does not alter that, particularly so when a member is appealing."
PJA offer Ahern support
Eddie Ahern will have the full support of the Professional Jockeys' Association as he launches his appeal against the 10-year ban handed out to him by the British Horseracing Authority.
Ahern's career was effectively ended after he was found guilty of conspiring to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice along with former footballer Neil Clement at a disciplinary hearing on Wednesday.
However, while his appeal is ongoing, PJA chief executive Paul Struthers confirmed the organisation will continue to support the rider.
"The PJA agrees that corrupt conduct cannot be tolerated within a sport where integrity is absolutely vital," said Struthers.
"Given robust evidence, lengthy bans are the only option for those - not just jockeys - who have committed the most serious offences under the Rules of Racing.
"However, Eddie Ahern is adamant that he is not guilty of the corrupt charges found against him and plans to appeal.
"We are supportive of this position given the concerns over the judgement and written reasons of the Disciplinary Panel. It would be inappropriate to go into specifics at this stage pending his appeal.
"It is the PJA's role to support its members prior to and leading up to any disciplinary proceedings, and to provide any subsequent advice and non-financial support that is required following the conclusion to those same proceedings.
"Our condemnation of corrupt conduct does not alter that, particularly so when a member is appealing."
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539