Chris Cook on Dan Skelton case

Cheltenham Festival week began with a high moment for conspiracy theorists when the verdict in the long-running George Gently case was published by the BHA at midday on the day before the sport's biggest race-meeting. Inevitably, coverage was limited. The audience was looking elsewhere.

Word from inside the BHA was that its hand had been forced by Dan Skelton announcing the outcome the previous weekend and that, otherwise, it would not have allowed publication to clash with the festival. It wasn't spelled out, but presumably the verdict would have been released this week.

I suppose you could say it was naive of the BHA to agree to a conclusion of this case just before the festival. If it didn't want the outcome leaked at that point, it could have waited until after the great week to state its view of the punishment (a fine of £6,000) to Skelton's lawyers. Or perhaps Skelton's lawyers mentioned the sum and the BHA agreed – it's not clear who made the first move.

I'd rather they hadn't done a deal at all. This was a high-profile case involving a really serious allegation. The appropriate way for it to end was a hearing before racing's independent judicial panel, with proceedings open to the media as they usually are.

That's how you show the sport insists on openness and independence, even with the cases that have the greatest capacity to harm its reputation. That's how you start the difficult process of regaining the trust of those who have been wronged.

It's important to state a caveat here. Sarah Crowther, who chairs the judicial panel, was not obliged to accept the deal agreed between the BHA and Skelton. I'm told she had access to the case notes and Skelton's signed admission, and if she felt the penalty was insufficient, or if she was otherwise concerned, she could have rejected the deal and either called for a hearing or suggested a stiffer penalty.

Instead, she has ruled that "a fine of £6,000 reflects the circumstances of the case and meets the needs of justice". Personally, I find that hard to swallow, given what Skelton was found to have done.

He failed to tell an owner about the benefit he would receive from that owner's purchase of a particular horse. Then, when the BHA investigated, Crowther says "he denied the existence of any documents regarding the payment he received".

Later, he produced an invoice that had been amended to fit his line of defence. The original invoice only came to light because the owner in question took Skelton to court, presumably risking a six-figure sum in order to do so.

GEORGE GENTLYDAN SKELTON STABLE TOUR 2016GROSSICK PHOTOGRAPHYThe Steadings Rockhallhead Collin DG1 4JW www.grossick.co.ukJOHN GROSSICK
George Gently: sold for £130,000 to a syndicate in October 2016
Credit: Grossick Racing
Crowther identifies some mitigating factors. She says that Skelton's advice to the owners about the value of the horse was honest and accurate. The trainer had been "careless" about his obligations "but did not actively seek to misrepresent the position".

She does not think he made anything remotely resembling an illicit profit. "If anything, the financial benefit which he obtained was rather less than he was actually fairly owed in training fees and expenses," she rules. "There is no evidence before me that the purchase price was anything other than a fair one."

In words that are significant for all trainers, she continued: "It is not necessarily always straightforward for a trainer to know when his involvement in a purchase amounts to ‘advising’ on a sale ... There is no evidence of deliberate disregard of the Code [of Conduct] ... His breach arose essentially by reason of a misjudgement."

She notes Skelton's "deep regret" and that he has made "an unreserved apology to the BHA". She concludes: "In my judgement, Mr Skelton has learnt a valuable lesson from his experiences in this case," a line which would have been better deleted in the Front Runner's opinion. Skelton has held a trainer's licence for more than a decade. Why should it require a case like this to show him how he should interact with owners and the ruling body?

The section of Crowther's verdict that struck me is this one: "The truth regarding the invoices was only revealed by stages and in each case only when Mr Skelton had little choice but to confess. The aggravating feature is undoubtedly a pattern of behaviour involving deliberate attempts to cover up his previous breach of the Code of Conduct. This case is therefore in some ways one in which the ‘cover up’ discloses more deliberate and serious behaviour than the original breach."

Serious indeed. I'm at a loss to know why the BHA thinks a £6,000 fine is the right response to the behaviour described in that section. Obviously, there are trainers out there for whom such an outcome would be a serious blow but Skelton is one of the most successful people in our game. If he is not already in an enviable financial position, he needs a new business manager. It's hard to believe the loss of £6,000 will be much of a sting to him.

The BHA wants everyone in racing and especially its licensees to be straightforward and honest with it at all times but that message is not underlined by this case. A big-time operator, reflecting on this case, might conclude he or she can readily afford a bit of deception now and again. That's why they call it a fine, I suppose, because you pay it and everything's fine again.

Good to see a journalist not afraid to speak out. His father was the same.A politician who spoke against the invasion of Iraq.

Was there any ruling on the recovery of the syndicate's legal expenses ? Or will they have to sue in the civil court to recover damages ?

fullset • March 18, 2024 11:06 AM GMT
Was there any ruling on the recovery of the syndicate's legal expenses ? Or will they have to sue in the civil court to recover damages ?

Very good point

I think I read somewhere that those expenses ran well north of six figures . Could it be that this paltry fine is merely a precursor to Skelton having to poppy up a lot more , or go to court for a real cribbing ?

In July 2023 the two parties agreed a confidential out-of-court settlement.
Costs would have been part of that settlement

Drubbing

Glad to see there are still some racing journalists willing to stir it up rather than follow the gravy train - Lydia Hislop for example.

Think I read last week that the case with the syndicate was settled out of court.

The report does suggest Skelton is basically a cheat a thief and liar. Funny it was never mentioned by ITV during last weeks coverage.

Ah , thanks for that Mr c . That explains a lot

skelton prempted any criticism by getting out there telling everyone he hadnt slept for 2 yrs ruined his life etc ,etc,no response from wronged owners since the verdict

BHA wants to encourage new owners. Look closer to home! Why would you put a horse with Dan Skelton on the back of this case or even have any trust with the regulator so have any horse in the UK etc. Been sickening to see Skelton bleating about not having slept etc. You're the perpetrator not the victim. Shameful the lack of challenge he's had by 99% of the racing press.

Agreed Joe

You would maybe send him a horse you have bought on the back of what he has done at Cheltenham, but you wouldn't be in a hurry to give him a blank cheque and say go buy me a horse please Dan.

Always the same with British horse racing - certain big trainers seem to do what they like and then smaller ones get banned / warned off for life for seemingly less offences or having it right off.

That being said, if the parties had already settled, maybe there wasn't much could be done if the owners were not wanting to go back to court?

Why would the owners go back to Court when the case was already settled? The Court case had no bearing on the BHA's ability to punish Skelton and their summary of his offences are laughable in view of the fact that had the owners made a complaint to the police, criminal charges could easily have followed and the BHA appear to have ignored this.

The usual rule in civil litigation is that "costs follow the event" i.e loser pays the winners costs (or part thereof). But we don't know what "the event" was here due to the confidentiality clause. Strikes me as being inconceivable that DS "won" otherwise he has nothing to be sorry about and no reason to pay a fine. Whether the owners, having "won",  got all of their costs re-imbursed is a moot point. I cannot see why they would settle if not.

This is what I mean Cagliari. If the owners have already settled and done with the job then they probably won't want to spend time going back to a BHA hearing etc with their evidence and maybe told the BHA they were done with the job, so the BHA might have found it harder to run the case and obtain all the information needed to have a full hearing.

As such the BHA maybe though the fine was the best they could do. Don't think it will ever all truly come out now.

You meant the BHA as opposed to Court which makes sense now and other than seeking retribution against Skelton they would have nothing to gain as you intimate. However it appears the BHA had as much of the evidence as they needed but failing to call a full hearing where they could have invited the owners seems to either indicate the owners perhaps refused/ would refuse or the BHA had decided to treat the case as less serious as it obviously was.

Little wonder some are saying the BHA favours a certain category of licenced individuals e.g Robbie Dunne's case, which was worse in terms of bringing the sport into disrepute etc etc. Seems fraud trumps bullying as far as they are concerned?

Could there be a confidentiality agreement keeping the horse buyers silent?

Remember the BHA didn't even think there was sufficient to bring a case in the first instance. They were dragged to the stage they eventually settled on. Terrible look all round. Don't think Sarah Crowther who chairs the independent panel has covered herself in glory either. As Chris says she wasn't obliged to accept the "deal". She states that Skelton did "not actively misrepresent the position" in terms of the original sale. How can she she know this? She can't say what's in Dan Skeltons mind. Subsequend events where he produced an amended invoice to fit his line of defence suggest the "not actively" part is certainly questionable.

You want more owners to be in the UK, BHA? These series of events do more harm than any drubbing by the Irish at Cheltenham. They, like Dan Skelton, appear to just want it to go away and the press in large part seem happy to go along with the charade.

I love the ''Mr Skelton will learn a valuable lesson from this''. Lessons will be learned b0ll0x again.
He's been training for about 12 years or longer, surely he knows what the rules are.
Not only do we have two tier policing in this country,
We have two tier punishment for rich trainers and trainers at the bottom of the scale.
Didn't Hendo get away with it a few years ago.?

inconceivable that the civil court agreement could prevent the BHA from taking such action as it saw fit and calling whatever evidence it decided to call. No court would countenance preventing a perfectly legitimate disciplinary body from pursuing a case against the "loser" in a civil case and the BHA could not be bound by the High Court unless there was a specific order (in which case the BHA would have appeared and put forward argument). I suspect that what is bound by confidentiality is not the EVIDENCE (which is well known) but the terms of the SETTLEMENT (which is not the same thing).

I would be happy to SEND a horse to Skelton but perhaps not ask him to buy me one. He is not unique in that. Racing has always been full of stories about trainers buying horses cheaply from breeders and then selling on to owners for 4 times as much. Plenty of owners know enough to value a horse themselves and buy at auction or from a breeder.

Donegal, there was no "Court" settlement, an agreement was reached between the two parties and the majority of evidence was already in the public domain so the BHA had as much if not more than anyone who had followed the case.

I know Cagliari. Apologies. That is what I was saying (albeit confusingly!). In the vast majority of cases in which a settlement is reached, the court is asked to formally approve it because they are , by then, seized of the case. They cannot just do nothing. One assumes the civil court approved this settlement and, importantly, the clause in relation to costs. Just surmise on my part informed by decades of being involved.

Donegal, the court would have told the plaintiff to gather all their evidence and submit copies to the court and the "accused", it would then be up to the accused party to decide whether they had a case they could defend in court with a chance of winning. They obviously decided the plaintiff had the better case and decided to settle out of court. The only way the court would have got further involved is if the defendants decided to defend their case, the court has no say in whether the agreement was acceptable as they were not involved and ditto would not be unless the plaintiff had disagreed and decided to proceed.

Cagliari you have only been on here since 16/07/22 and you are trying to argue legal points with DP who was/is a Lawyer

A lot longer than that Mr C and not arguing, simply stating facts and I started my law studies in 1982, feel free to use Google if you feel the need!!

A lot longer than that Mr C and not arguing, simply stating facts and I started my law studies in 1982, feel free to use Google if you feel the need!!

130k was certainly an eye watering price tag for an unraced horse with such an ordinary pedigree.

The whole affair still stinks and my instinct is that the way it was leaked gave the bha an alibi to be able bury it under Cheltenham. How can you have learned your lessons and at the same time leak or at least allude to an outcome before the investigating agency has gone public.

Should have just warned him off instead of all this messing about and be a lesson to other shysters in the game.

the tax situation is also, shall we say quite interesting. i don't know enough about how these benefit in kind type of arrangements are meant to be declared, or indeed how commonplace they are in this industry. it doesn't smell absolutely transparent.

well sparrow it feel to me like the punishment loosely fits the original offence, if he is assumed to have not known the fragility of the horse. but the cover ups, non disclosure, effective lying and stalling, evasiveness are far worse offences in my view. how much has it cost the bha themselves for example, and the embarrassment to them that they originally dismissed it so easily, and they've only eventually arrived at this result, kicking and screaming due to the extreme persistence of the IP.

It certainly looks like they would rather it had gone away Cider and makes one wonder how many practices they turn a blind eye to, the most damning piece of evidence putting Skelton firmly under suspicion of a fraud was the invoice imo?

Once an invoice has been issued it should not be amended at all. Can be voided and reissued in event of error. But an audit trail of the original voided invoice maintained.

ANYBODY CAN MAKE A MISTAKE END OF.................except the mistake could have been righted and they did not.

nice to see a bit of balanced journalism(for once) in the RP

BB..the horse was not unraced it had finished second in France

to think in a different age when i came into racing gentlemen like Fulke Walwyn and Fred Winter were Champion Trainers...nowadays it could be someone like the man highlighted in the Chris Cook article.
And couldnt agree more Sparrow

The BHA is complicit in settling this case asap after a long period of inactivity; it took a route by the owner of the horse concerned to the court to secure an "investigation" by the BHA which initially dismissed it out of hand.

An experienced trainer who'd do a fraudulent financial act to benefit himself, and not forthcoming with the truth until his hands were forced during the investigation is only punished with a £6k fine is utterly absurd and ridiculous. The BHA is not fit for purpose to be the horseracing regulator to agreed to this lenient censure.

I'd like the CEO of the BHA Ms Julie Harrington to explain how she'd reconcile a deliberate attempt by an experienced high profile trainer to deceive and cheat one of his owners and only fined £6k without any training censure or suspension. I'd also like her opinion on the implication of this case to the integrity of UK horseracing; a motoring speeding fine by a high worth individual eg a footballer will incur more than a £6k fine along with an automatic driving suspension.

But, a deliberate attempt by a horse trainer to deceive and cheat one of his owners can only be fined £6k and without a suspension of training is beyond comprehension.

What did Mr Elliot get photographed for sitting on a "dead" horse?

The man is about as trustworthy as Boris Johnson.

Skelton fell fowl of two areas of the BHA's regulation. One for the original offence (27) and the second for the attempted "cover up" (28). Here are the passages from the Sarah Crowthers independent panels report showing the scope of punishment for each:

27. My attention has been drawn to the fact that the sanctions in place at the time of commission of the breach of the Trainers’ Code of Conduct provided an alternative of financial penalty or suspension or withdrawal of licence. The range of fine was £1,000 to £10,000 and the suspension range was 1 month to 3 years. Penalty entry point is £2,000 or 3 months’ suspension.

28. In respect of the breach of (J)24 the financial penalty range is £1,000 to £5,000 and the suspension range is 1 month to 3 years. Entry point is £2,000 fine or 3 months’ suspension.[/i]

Remember Dan Skelton admitted to both breaches yet he barely got a fine higher than the combined entry points. You can read the report in full on the BHA's website. As Sarah Crowther states at the end "I am satisfied that a fine of £6,000 reflects the circumstances of the case and meets the needs of justice and is in accordance with the penalty guidance"

Absolutely laughable state of affairs. Why did the BHA agree to a £6k fine and on what basis?

in the end the size of the fine with no suspension is exactly what the BHA did not want..people and the media talking about it.
what an organisation to run what was once a great sport

Just about everything they touch becomes embroiled in controversy.

The meaning of"langer"is"illegal or dishonest dealer"..very prescient to name the horse after dodgy Dan .

Methinks the ''plaintiff'' was satisfied with his ''out of court settlement'', and to sign a confidentially agreement !


Essentially, The B H A are satisfied that Skelton has been honourable at the eleventh hour !


The £6k fine is a ''token'' gesture by the B H A, who would of obviously been advised by senior lawyers of the ramifications of a higher fine, and more pertinently a lengthy suspension !

LoyalHoncho18 Mar 24 18:26Joined: 28 May 10 | Topic/replies: 14,098 | Blogger: LoyalHoncho's blog
The man is about as trustworthy as Boris Johnson.



I think thats most unfair on Boris!!

I thought Webber and Sherwood were very lucky years ago. Skelton's case shows very little has changed over the years, buyer beware.

Why agree to an out of court settlement ?  If they felt so wronged why not go the whole way and take him to court ?  Sorry no sympathy  from me.

If you were taking someone to court and were offered a good deal,and your legal team advised accepting it. Refusing could be a very expensive mistake.

GLASGOWCALLING, good morning.

That's the point Sir, the plaintiff accepted Skeltons money over, perhaps a monetary ( sic ) / suspension.

Essentially, The B H A are satisfied that Skelton has been honourable at the eleventh hour

So, unless the matter had been reported and investigated he'd likely still be doing it and "honourably" coming clean if challenged later!?
A £6K fine to an accused fraudster who;s just won maybe ten times that at Cheltenham and can afford to pay it and the private settlement.
Fantastic administration by the Bungling Horseracing Association.
In fact it is akin to being told to carry on regardless!

B.H.A.  Please feel free to continue accusing minor trainers of not trying with their 150/1 shots. 
That's about your dead strength.

Glasgow...do you have no idea how much persuing a high court case would cost when a KC will charge 2 or 3k per hour..easy to go bust with those kind of costs

Glasgow, an "out of court settlement" simply means that a case was brought, a writ served, a defence filed and (one assumes) the matter was listed for preliminary hearings before the court for directions and orders from the court. At some stage, PRIOR to the case actually being listed for a trial of the issue, a negotiated agreement was reached which satisfied both parties.  Indeed Halcyon, it is very likely that DS paid damages but we will never know. The High Court has no power whatsoever to "discipline" DS. Only the BHA and Disciplinary Panel can do that. Which they did, albeit somewhat leniently.

The Civil case and BHA's agreement to £6K fine are two seperate things. Like is said above the fine is barely higher than the entry point for both offences (combined) which beggars belief. Why did they agree to this and why to the Independent panel chair also seem of the opinion that justice is served. What are they seeing that the rest of us aren't? BHA not fit for purpose.