Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Oh dear 
Show More
TRAINER Jim Best has been banned from racing for four years with immediate effect after being found guilty of ordering conditional jockey Paul John to stop two horses at a BHA disciplinary inquiry last month.
Over three weeks have passed since the guilty verdict was delivered and the BHA on Monday evening revealed the punishment issued to Best, who was also charged with acting in a manner prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct or good reputation of horseracing.
The case relates to the running and riding of Echo Brava and Missile Man at Plumpton and Towcester last year, with the disciplinary panel siding with John’s version of events that the jockey had been told by his then boss to ensure both horses did not obtain the best possible placing.
In releasing the findings against Best, the BHA disciplinary panel described Best as a "dishonest individual who corrupted a young man to ensure horses did not run on their merits".
More to follow . . .
Over three weeks have passed since the guilty verdict was delivered and the BHA on Monday evening revealed the punishment issued to Best, who was also charged with acting in a manner prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct or good reputation of horseracing.
The case relates to the running and riding of Echo Brava and Missile Man at Plumpton and Towcester last year, with the disciplinary panel siding with John’s version of events that the jockey had been told by his then boss to ensure both horses did not obtain the best possible placing.
In releasing the findings against Best, the BHA disciplinary panel described Best as a "dishonest individual who corrupted a young man to ensure horses did not run on their merits".
More to follow . . .
someone should cuff him one...lol thought he was clever and above the law
Paul John banned for 150......days 
Wonder if he'll have to go into witness protection 
Wonder if he'll have to go into witness protection
should be life....simple ...go and sack shelves in Aldi mr best
surely only scratches the surface of blatant non trying,geraghty guilty as well.
someone had to be called to account before the integrity of racing was pebbledashed down the bowl
someone had to be called to account before the integrity of racing was pebbledashed down the bowl
4 years - he will be p1ssing himself at that sentence!
APR 16
Disciplinary Integrity
Today, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority issued penalties to Jim Best and Paul John for their part in failing to ensure that two horses, Echo Brava and Missile Man, ran to their merits, in accordance with the Rules of Racing.
Adam Brickell, Director of Integrity, Legal and Risk for the British Horseracing Authority (BHA), said:
“The case against Jim Best and Paul John concerned an issue that cannot be tolerated in British racing – the exploitation of a vulnerable young jockey by his employer in order to coerce him into breaking the Rules of our sport to gain an unfair advantage.
“As Paul John has admitted, he should not have committed the offences that he has, and for which he has been penalised. The BHA is grateful to him for subsequently admitting his part in the case and for explaining the reasons for his actions, as this has helped to reveal the full extent of Jim Best’s breach of the Rules in these two cases. The Disciplinary Panel stated that Paul John deserves significant credit for his actions in distancing himself from Mr Best, seeking guidance from the Professional Jockeys Association (PJA) and admitting the truth of the events, and the 50% reduction they have applied to his penalty reflects this.
“It is the responsibility of any trainer to act as guide and mentor to young jockeys who are attached to their yard. No trainer can be allowed to abuse that relationship by pressurising jockeys to breach the Rules and this is reflected in the sanctions incurred by Jim Best. In the words of the Disciplinary Panel, Jim Best’s behaviour was reprehensible, and an abuse of the privilege of holding a licence to train racehorses.
“We would encourage any jockey who finds themselves in a similar situation to Paul John to seek assistance before they feel compelled to commit breaches of the Rules of Racing. Support is available from both the BHA and the PJA and any rider raising such issues would be met with full understanding and be offered every assistance to prevent them being drawn into actions which could jeopardise their future career.
“The recent BHA Integrity Review confirmed that education remains a central part of the BHA’s long-term approach to integrity. As we further increase our focus on this aspect of our work, we will aim to provide additional help to those who find themselves in a similar position to Paul John.”
Disciplinary Integrity
Today, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority issued penalties to Jim Best and Paul John for their part in failing to ensure that two horses, Echo Brava and Missile Man, ran to their merits, in accordance with the Rules of Racing.
Adam Brickell, Director of Integrity, Legal and Risk for the British Horseracing Authority (BHA), said:
“The case against Jim Best and Paul John concerned an issue that cannot be tolerated in British racing – the exploitation of a vulnerable young jockey by his employer in order to coerce him into breaking the Rules of our sport to gain an unfair advantage.
“As Paul John has admitted, he should not have committed the offences that he has, and for which he has been penalised. The BHA is grateful to him for subsequently admitting his part in the case and for explaining the reasons for his actions, as this has helped to reveal the full extent of Jim Best’s breach of the Rules in these two cases. The Disciplinary Panel stated that Paul John deserves significant credit for his actions in distancing himself from Mr Best, seeking guidance from the Professional Jockeys Association (PJA) and admitting the truth of the events, and the 50% reduction they have applied to his penalty reflects this.
“It is the responsibility of any trainer to act as guide and mentor to young jockeys who are attached to their yard. No trainer can be allowed to abuse that relationship by pressurising jockeys to breach the Rules and this is reflected in the sanctions incurred by Jim Best. In the words of the Disciplinary Panel, Jim Best’s behaviour was reprehensible, and an abuse of the privilege of holding a licence to train racehorses.
“We would encourage any jockey who finds themselves in a similar situation to Paul John to seek assistance before they feel compelled to commit breaches of the Rules of Racing. Support is available from both the BHA and the PJA and any rider raising such issues would be met with full understanding and be offered every assistance to prevent them being drawn into actions which could jeopardise their future career.
“The recent BHA Integrity Review confirmed that education remains a central part of the BHA’s long-term approach to integrity. As we further increase our focus on this aspect of our work, we will aim to provide additional help to those who find themselves in a similar position to Paul John.”
why did they wait for the champ to retire before best and green/gold got called in and banned.
the carry on with best for the last 2 seasons has been glaringly obvious to all
John – Mitigation & Penalty
46. The Panel then considered the mitigating factors in relation to John. Put shortly he has decided to tell the truth. From the moment John walked out of the Steward’s room at Towcester on 17 December 2015, he was on notice of the hearing. John’s actions from that point are noteworthy of credit. Firstly he promptly distanced himself from Best – the source of corrupting instructions. In walking out of Best’s yard he was walking out on his licence and potentially his career but he took this step and it was the right thing to do. He subsequently spoke to the Professional Jockey’s Association and thereafter with his solicitor. He instructed his solicitor to come forward to admit the truth of the events and in addition admitted a further breach of the Rules at Plumpton which had not previously been identified by the BHA. Having made his initial approach to the BHA through his solicitor, John appears to have remained willing to co-operate throughout and has provided written and oral evidence. He provided oral evidence before the Panel in the face of the inevitable character assassination that followed.
47. The effect of John’s admissions (as noted above) has also meant that he would be liable to a far greater extent than if he had continued with the story he gave to the Stewards. Finally, without John’s evidence the BHA would have not been able to pursue the breadth of case that it ultimately was able to bring against Best.
48. John deserves significant credit for these factors. The Guide to Procedures and Penalties provides that ‘the Panel may reduce a penalty as much as by one half where the person has co-operated fully with the investigation and, where applicable, provided information enabling action to be taken against other wrongdoers.’
49. The Panel having assessed John’s co-operation and the provision of information enabling action to be taken against Best have deemed that John should be entitled to the full reduction of one half. John’s penalty for the rides at Plumpton and Towcester will be a period of 150 days during which time he will be ineligible to apply for a licence. The Panel has also considered when the penalty should commence. In the Panel’s view it would be apposite and fair in all the circumstances for the penalty to commence at the point John removed himself from Best’s yard – in effect he imposed a suspension upon himself at this point.
50. John will therefore be ineligible to apply for a licence for 150 days from 21 December 2015 to 19 May 2016 inclusive.
Best
51. The Guide to Procedures and Penalties provides that a trainer found in breach of Rule (C)45 in respect of a ride which has been found in breach of Rule (B)59.2 sub-division (e) is liable to a fine of £5,000 to £30,000 with the recommended entry point being £7,500. A Breach of Rule (A)30 is liable to a fine of £1,000 to £15,000 or a suspension/disqualification of 1 month to 3 years with an entry point of a £2,000 fine or 3 months. As noted above the Guide does not provide guidance for a breach of Rule (B)59.2 sub-division (e) where there has been a second breach within 12 months.
52. The Panel considered whether a fine would be an appropriate penalty to mark the severity of Best’s behaviour. It was clear from a cursory application of the principles adopted for John that such an approach could result in a penalty significantly in excess of the £75,000 maximum fine allowed under the Rules. In any event the Panel did not consider this was a case where the required censure of Best could be reflected in a fine.
53. The Panel reminded itself of the approach laid out in the Guide to Procedures and Penalties and in particular the direction that ‘In all cases the Panel has the discretion to impose a sanction which is outside the Range. In respect of offences not referred to in the table, appropriate sanctions may be imposed at the discretion of the Panel by applying suggestions of similar sorts of offences of by referral to the recommendations given to the Stewards.’
54. There is no precedent for this kind of case in the Guidelines; the Panel has therefore considered the matter in the light its findings and the need to find an appropriate penalty which proportionately reflects the Panel’s concern of Best’s behaviour for the breaches of both Rule (C)45 and (A)30. The Panel have determined to issue a single penalty which reflects the gravamen of these matters.
55. The sport of horseracing is reliant on the ability to trust licensed trainers to prepare their horses to show their true potential and to send them to the races with the intention that they will demonstrate their true merits.
56. Best’s behaviour associated with the races at Plumpton and Towcester was reprehensible. It is a privilege to hold a licence to train. Best abused that privilege. He was determined that neither ECHO BRAVA nor MISSILE MAN (IRE) would run on their merits and he moreover was determined that this fact would be concealed. To effect his plan he corrupted and exploited a conditional jockey. He intentionally and deliberately used his position as a trainer to manipulate John knowing that he had to rely on his patronage to remain with any chance of progressing his career as a jockey. The Panel concluded that the gravity of Best’s conduct necessitates a period of disqualification to appropriately reflect this wrongdoing.
57. In determining the appropriate period the Panel reminded itself that Best was the architect of the rides given by John in the races at Plumpton and Towcester. He educated John in the ways of stopping a horse and how to conceal the fact he was doing so. John had never stopped a horse before. It was only under the corrupt tutelage of Best in December 2015 he started doing so.
58. And when the impropriety of the rides was questioned by the local stewards Best lied. He had told John he would do so; it was a pre-ordained plan. He distanced himself from John’s conduct who had in fact ridden according to his direct instructions. This was not a ‘moment of madness’ where Best gave instructions at the last minute at the racecourse – this was a carefully premediated course of conduct. Best falls to be censured proportionately in respect of it. The Panel examined the facts to see if there were any mitigating circumstances which it could apply in Best’s favour. It noted Best’s previous good record. But in respect of these events in particular, it found nothing to his credit.
Best – Penalty
59. Taking all of the above facts into account, the Panel concluded that Best has forfeited the right to enjoy the privilege of being a licensed trainer for a significant period of time. The Panel is mindful of the wider effects any period of disqualification will have on the owners who have horses with Best and the staff who rely upon Best for employment but that does not override the Panel’s concern to appropriately censure Best. He is a dishonest individual who corrupted a young man to ensure horses were not run on their merits. For the breaches of (C)45 and A(30) the Panel have determined that Best should be disqualified for 4 years with immediate effect, from 4 April 2016 to 3 April 2020 inclusive. Best’s owners have until 8 April 2016 to remove their horses from his yard. The Panel has also directed that whilst making the necessary arrangements to remove their horses during this period the owners can associate with Best, notwithstanding his disqualified status.
46. The Panel then considered the mitigating factors in relation to John. Put shortly he has decided to tell the truth. From the moment John walked out of the Steward’s room at Towcester on 17 December 2015, he was on notice of the hearing. John’s actions from that point are noteworthy of credit. Firstly he promptly distanced himself from Best – the source of corrupting instructions. In walking out of Best’s yard he was walking out on his licence and potentially his career but he took this step and it was the right thing to do. He subsequently spoke to the Professional Jockey’s Association and thereafter with his solicitor. He instructed his solicitor to come forward to admit the truth of the events and in addition admitted a further breach of the Rules at Plumpton which had not previously been identified by the BHA. Having made his initial approach to the BHA through his solicitor, John appears to have remained willing to co-operate throughout and has provided written and oral evidence. He provided oral evidence before the Panel in the face of the inevitable character assassination that followed.
47. The effect of John’s admissions (as noted above) has also meant that he would be liable to a far greater extent than if he had continued with the story he gave to the Stewards. Finally, without John’s evidence the BHA would have not been able to pursue the breadth of case that it ultimately was able to bring against Best.
48. John deserves significant credit for these factors. The Guide to Procedures and Penalties provides that ‘the Panel may reduce a penalty as much as by one half where the person has co-operated fully with the investigation and, where applicable, provided information enabling action to be taken against other wrongdoers.’
49. The Panel having assessed John’s co-operation and the provision of information enabling action to be taken against Best have deemed that John should be entitled to the full reduction of one half. John’s penalty for the rides at Plumpton and Towcester will be a period of 150 days during which time he will be ineligible to apply for a licence. The Panel has also considered when the penalty should commence. In the Panel’s view it would be apposite and fair in all the circumstances for the penalty to commence at the point John removed himself from Best’s yard – in effect he imposed a suspension upon himself at this point.
50. John will therefore be ineligible to apply for a licence for 150 days from 21 December 2015 to 19 May 2016 inclusive.
Best
51. The Guide to Procedures and Penalties provides that a trainer found in breach of Rule (C)45 in respect of a ride which has been found in breach of Rule (B)59.2 sub-division (e) is liable to a fine of £5,000 to £30,000 with the recommended entry point being £7,500. A Breach of Rule (A)30 is liable to a fine of £1,000 to £15,000 or a suspension/disqualification of 1 month to 3 years with an entry point of a £2,000 fine or 3 months. As noted above the Guide does not provide guidance for a breach of Rule (B)59.2 sub-division (e) where there has been a second breach within 12 months.
52. The Panel considered whether a fine would be an appropriate penalty to mark the severity of Best’s behaviour. It was clear from a cursory application of the principles adopted for John that such an approach could result in a penalty significantly in excess of the £75,000 maximum fine allowed under the Rules. In any event the Panel did not consider this was a case where the required censure of Best could be reflected in a fine.
53. The Panel reminded itself of the approach laid out in the Guide to Procedures and Penalties and in particular the direction that ‘In all cases the Panel has the discretion to impose a sanction which is outside the Range. In respect of offences not referred to in the table, appropriate sanctions may be imposed at the discretion of the Panel by applying suggestions of similar sorts of offences of by referral to the recommendations given to the Stewards.’
54. There is no precedent for this kind of case in the Guidelines; the Panel has therefore considered the matter in the light its findings and the need to find an appropriate penalty which proportionately reflects the Panel’s concern of Best’s behaviour for the breaches of both Rule (C)45 and (A)30. The Panel have determined to issue a single penalty which reflects the gravamen of these matters.
55. The sport of horseracing is reliant on the ability to trust licensed trainers to prepare their horses to show their true potential and to send them to the races with the intention that they will demonstrate their true merits.
56. Best’s behaviour associated with the races at Plumpton and Towcester was reprehensible. It is a privilege to hold a licence to train. Best abused that privilege. He was determined that neither ECHO BRAVA nor MISSILE MAN (IRE) would run on their merits and he moreover was determined that this fact would be concealed. To effect his plan he corrupted and exploited a conditional jockey. He intentionally and deliberately used his position as a trainer to manipulate John knowing that he had to rely on his patronage to remain with any chance of progressing his career as a jockey. The Panel concluded that the gravity of Best’s conduct necessitates a period of disqualification to appropriately reflect this wrongdoing.
57. In determining the appropriate period the Panel reminded itself that Best was the architect of the rides given by John in the races at Plumpton and Towcester. He educated John in the ways of stopping a horse and how to conceal the fact he was doing so. John had never stopped a horse before. It was only under the corrupt tutelage of Best in December 2015 he started doing so.
58. And when the impropriety of the rides was questioned by the local stewards Best lied. He had told John he would do so; it was a pre-ordained plan. He distanced himself from John’s conduct who had in fact ridden according to his direct instructions. This was not a ‘moment of madness’ where Best gave instructions at the last minute at the racecourse – this was a carefully premediated course of conduct. Best falls to be censured proportionately in respect of it. The Panel examined the facts to see if there were any mitigating circumstances which it could apply in Best’s favour. It noted Best’s previous good record. But in respect of these events in particular, it found nothing to his credit.
Best – Penalty
59. Taking all of the above facts into account, the Panel concluded that Best has forfeited the right to enjoy the privilege of being a licensed trainer for a significant period of time. The Panel is mindful of the wider effects any period of disqualification will have on the owners who have horses with Best and the staff who rely upon Best for employment but that does not override the Panel’s concern to appropriately censure Best. He is a dishonest individual who corrupted a young man to ensure horses were not run on their merits. For the breaches of (C)45 and A(30) the Panel have determined that Best should be disqualified for 4 years with immediate effect, from 4 April 2016 to 3 April 2020 inclusive. Best’s owners have until 8 April 2016 to remove their horses from his yard. The Panel has also directed that whilst making the necessary arrangements to remove their horses during this period the owners can associate with Best, notwithstanding his disqualified status.
and his last 2 distance winners was surely a fingers up to the bha
Unlikely to get his licence back after 4 years as he will have to show that he is a fit and proper person to hold a licence, the committee can refuse him a licence indefinitely
Surely its time the BHA monitored this forum.
lots of ideas can be gleaned from posts highlighting the wayward ones in this game
lots of ideas can be gleaned from posts highlighting the wayward ones in this game
Made enough money over the years, probably won't be to bothered and the next Best family memeber or friend will step up
he will just put somebody in charge just like carl burke did
Goodbye and good riddance.
Let's hope the BHA have the balls not to allow his wife/brother etc to take over the licence or him to go and "assist" another trainer while he is banned.
Let's hope the BHA have the balls not to allow his wife/brother etc to take over the licence or him to go and "assist" another trainer while he is banned.
It's ok saying they may not grant him a license (which they probably won't), but why not ban him for life in the first place? Surely he isn't one of the boys at the BHA.
Surely its time the BHA monitored this forum
They spend more hours monitoring posts on here than pulling anyone in (NAP). They read everything on here and that is 1.01
Surely its time the BHA monitored this forum
They spend more hours monitoring posts on here than pulling anyone in (NAP). They read everything on here and that is 1.01
I think the reason they do not dish out a life ban is they are afraid the person would go to the civil courts and get it overturned. The high court would be very unlikely to overturn a 4 year ban whereas a life ban could be seen as unproportional
very true MD, pretty sure been under their radar, as were a few others because of knowing a certain person.
Can't believe there's a snowball of a chance that any of the family will get a licence.
the dealer - they generally want to 'bully' whoever they want (or whoever they think they can get away with bullying). How many are warned off for life with absolutely nothing on them? How many actually get reported in the press, how many swept under the ever increasing bulging rug at the BHA? Yet someone caught actually stopping horses gets given 4 years!! Where is the logic within the authorities actual rules and punishments here? A chance to show some balls and prove they are trying to clean the sport up - but not the good old BHA.
The only good thing here is the BHA are highlighting how incompetent they actually are at running and policing the sport - an ever increasing thought by more punters up and down the land, something which we read more and more on a daily basis.
And loads are under the radar - for absolutely nothing apart from association. If they went to a court of law the BHA would be laughed out in minutes.
No doubt this post will be doing the email rounds tomorrow at headquarters - they have to get their priorities in the right order!!
The only good thing here is the BHA are highlighting how incompetent they actually are at running and policing the sport - an ever increasing thought by more punters up and down the land, something which we read more and more on a daily basis.
And loads are under the radar - for absolutely nothing apart from association. If they went to a court of law the BHA would be laughed out in minutes.
No doubt this post will be doing the email rounds tomorrow at headquarters - they have to get their priorities in the right order!!
BP got a restricting order,but telling the bha final ruling segregated horses with the trainers horses whom he was supposed to be helping with 
hard to explain but anyone who read it knows what im on about
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/resource-centre/disciplinary-results/disciplinaryappeal-hearings/disciplinary/?result=54897035281f192e0629875e
BP
BP
Made the mistake of getting a kid to ride a pair of non triers who couldn't have made it more obvious had he tried.
Missile Man was beat before the home straight anyway but instead of a hands and heels job over the last two flights he spends a furlong basically restraining it to make sure it doesn't just get beat but gets beat half a furlong.
The ride at Plumpton is if anything even worse. Again the horse was probably incapable of winning the race but one can only assume he was told not to finish in the first three as he spends most of the time in the home straight restraining a horse 30+ lengths behind the front 2.
Missile Man was beat before the home straight anyway but instead of a hands and heels job over the last two flights he spends a furlong basically restraining it to make sure it doesn't just get beat but gets beat half a furlong.
The ride at Plumpton is if anything even worse. Again the horse was probably incapable of winning the race but one can only assume he was told not to finish in the first three as he spends most of the time in the home straight restraining a horse 30+ lengths behind the front 2.
chavman 04 Apr 16 20:40 Joined: 04 May 12 | Topic/replies: 14,199 | Blogger: chavman's blog
BP got a restricting order,but telling the bha final ruling segregated horses with the trainers horses whom he was supposed to be helping with Confused
*segregated from the
BP got a restricting order,but telling the bha final ruling segregated horses with the trainers horses whom he was supposed to be helping with Confused
*segregated from the
Just out of interest, what's the different between one being stopped and a non-trier?
A non trier is when you know the horse can not win off its current mark so it's running for a bit of fresh air. When you become very greedy and need to know before the monies down that it is capable of winning, you run the horse to test its ability under its current mark telling the jockey not to win if that becomes a possibility.
Wonder if Geraghty will turn Queens evidence?
I somehow dont think so.
I somehow dont think so.
just watched both races for first time - echo brava could/should have finished 3rd, noticeable for a first time out how well the horse jumped and the restraining efforts quickly followed by a few weak pushes of encouragement would have confused the horse nevermind helping in losing lengths, missile man perhaps less obvious but as it was only three days after the first incident even the BHA/stewards knew it was time to get involved although as several on here have said, this stable should have been called in a few years back. let's hope some of the other suspicious rides (many noted in this forum) get looked at, wonder how long they can go back in the archives? at least it should send a message to those still engaged that maybe just maybe they'll get punished. however the bigger story considering the connections has to be what happened in limerick which considering JP local track and the far smaller fish bowl over there, is a very unexpected and very brave (if not long overdue) turn of events although that day at limerick there were several who went off in front and never came back
i've not read the whole BHA report but i don't think it references any laying activities on the exchanges and i think the SPs reflected the market chances of the two horses i.e. no on course bookies were attempting to lay larger prices, so probably a future coup being lined up and certainly echo brava jumped well enough to be interesting for whomever it next runs
Struthers appears to have got a very light sentence for the jockey.
Stewards at Plumpton and Towcester did a good job in questioning the integrity of these rides. I've seen similar examples which are perhaps even more obvious - particularly in Irish races where horses are routinely dropped out the back from flagfall and never put into a race - but the stewards take no action.
I don't think we'll see Paul John on a racecourse again. The industry won't want a whistleblower in their midst.
And yet we have seen trainers like Best and Eamon Tyrrell get bans numbering several years, as well as jockeys like Eddie Ahern, Gary Carter, Paul Doe, Darren Egan, Greg Fairley, Matthew Hopkins and Dean McKeown effectively having their careers ended for presumably not trying to win and/or obtain the best possible position, yet when it happens in other instances we see bans for horses, jockeys and trainers adding up to a matter of days.
sad thing is none of us are surprised by any of this, outside of racing this isn't even a story, and in 4 years time Best will be welcomed back with open arms by the sport ...
When you look at the list of people who have been banned its amazing that in the coverage on tv of the sport that the integrity of rides isn't questioned on a daily basis...but that would mean rocking the Gravy Boat, so it aint gonna happen.
After all the skulduggery since Best first got his licence a minimum of ten years would of been both fair and just !
I hope Paul John gets another chance to be a jockey as he'll never again risk a dodgy ride.Furthermore he's shown a lot of courage in telling the truth and getting a most unpleasant scoundrel banned.
If Best has a wife or a dog Id imagine he'd get them to take out the licence for him. Most of them get their wives involved and continue as if nothing ever happened. Didnt Harry open a bank account in his dogs name so surely there should be no problem getting a dog licence.
Paul John will be ostracised by the rest of the training community, how he is treated will speaka volumes about the industry.
I think the minute Paul John decided to blow the whistle was the same time he chose to pursue another career.
Otherwise he is very naieve/been ill advised.
Otherwise he is very naieve/been ill advised.
Betfair Eddie must feel the games slanted agin wee fellows !
posy,,,,he's grassed someone else up to save his own skin. Not heroic to be honest
Maybe not "heroic" but the lad has done us all a favour, and not to his own benefit either.
why are richards and henderson and the rest allowed to get away with this?
Now we need the same sort of sanctions against bookmakers
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/126319
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/126319
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539