Former jockey banned....

rode mainly for scot dixon.

a little fish yet again,they all at it that's the game.

Maybe, just maybe, some people will have some respect for the BHA when they ban some of the culprits we all see day in day out on the non jiggers. They think by banning the little fish the public think they are doing their job effectively - when in fact, it is the complete opposite.

so 1000 odd bets is gambling addiction.... walofs

Who is it? everytime i copy n paste a link off here it never bloody works

Only a matter of time before the artist formerly known as Philip is next

There will be a few jockeys out there thinking 978 bets isn't even 3 bets a day. That's nothing!

Not the sharpest knife in the toolbox held account with BEt £3.65
nearly a 1,000 bets if every 1 was a loser hes probably ended up blowing a tenner

Why don't the BHA ask bookmakers why they allow known jockeys to bet with them? The answer wouldn't be that said jockey also tells them what he's gonna lose on would it?

Jimmy Fitzgerald knew nothing of the above alledgedly.

Pathetic no brains or understanding of the real world.Short ban and guidance would be correct for a first offence where clearly the integrity of racing was not in question.No doubt the decision was made by the same arrogant pri**s who were able to clear Sheikh Mohammed of in a few days.DOUBLE STANDARDS at its worst.

Witchfinder General! This guy is worse!

I love how the line about big fish/little fish gets trotted out in all circumstances merely because it might have some validity in other circumstances where it might actually be relevant. Do people seriously think Matthew Hopkins has done nothing wrong and is only being banned because he's small fry and that a big name jockey also caught backing and laying horses would walk away unpunished?

It's unlikely he did anything dodgy on the mounts he was riding and more just a case of trying to benefit from backing winners when knowing jockeys aren't allowed to bet and I very much doubt any big name jockey would go unpunished for the same offence.

I don't doubt for one minute enpassant that in some (key word there) cases big names are treated differently to small fry but you can't just say it happens across the board in all circumstances, otherwise it's actually that that would be naive. If a big name jockey bumps another horse or carries it across the track then he might get a bit more leeway that a smaller name jockey but that's just once set of circumstances.

You look at the jockeys who have had drugs bans in the past and it ranges from journeymen to former Champion Jockeys with some of the highest profiles in the game, so why didn't those high profile jockeys get treated leniently? If any top name had been caught doing what Matthew Hopkins did here then they would have had the same treatment, which brings me back to previous arguments on here when saying a jockey of Hopkins's profile and status in the game makes it seem more likely he would do anything dodgy to effectively end his career in the sport than someone at the very top.

It's also like when the Queen's or Sheikh Mo's horses fail a drugs test and the big fish/little fish argument gets trotted out then too but have any owners ever faced a ban for their horses failing a test? I'd also have said the Aga Khan was a pretty big fish in racing and yet he had a classic winner disqualified, trained by Micahel Stoute who is a high profile trainer. Henry Cecil had a FPTP horse demoted in a classic too, so if ever there were cases when the authorities wanted to be lenient with big names then these were the ones.

No owner should face a ban for their horse failing a drugs test unless they are proved to have adminstered drugs themselves or to have given consent for drugs to be administered.