The Jim Best case has exploded again into a furious row between racing’s ruling body and solicitors for the Lewes trainer, with the British Horseracing Authority having decided to insist on a date for the proposed rehearing, despite objections from Best’s lawyers.
The BHA has also refused to budge as to the identity of the three people it wishes to make up the disciplinary panel, despite queries being raised in relation to two of them.
The Authority now faces an accusation that it is determined to hold the rehearing before publication of the Quinlan review, an independent survey of its disciplinary practices and procedures which is due to be released on 30 September. The BHA says the Best case must be heard in the week beginning 19 September and refuses to consider a fortnight’s delay, as suggested by Best’s solicitor.
Robin Mounsey, a spokesman for the BHA, denied that this amounted to strong-arming Best, saying the trainer could still voice his objections to the panel itself as to the date and the membership of the panel, with a right of appeal beyond that. Mounsey was not impressed by suggestions that Best might not wish to antagonise the panel from the very outset by asking them to recuse themselves.
The BHA’s inflexibility drew anger from Harry Stewart-Moore, Best’s solicitor, who pointed to the fact that the regulator’s own QC, Graeme McPherson, had said at the appeal hearing in May: “This is not a case where anyone would be imposed on Mr Best or where the objective observer would be able to say, ‘Oh, the BHA has picked its own chairman.’”
Stewart-Moore said it was “deeply cynical and utterly unacceptable” for the BHA to “crowbar” the rehearing into the time available before Christopher Quinlan QC publishes his report.
“In the absence of any meaningful explanation as to why the BHA insists on the rehearing taking place in September, the obvious conclusion is that it wants one more go at Mr Best before it is forced to clean up its act,” he said.
“Further, having apologised to Mr Best three times and assured him that the BHA would not impose its own chairman while grovelling before Anthony Boswood QC [the appeal chairman] in the hope of securing the right to hold a rehearing, the BHA has now unilaterally imposed a panel and has refused to engage with Mr Best regarding his entirely legitimate concerns on that subject.
“Frankly, any other organisation would have accepted by now that there cannot be a fair rehearing of the Best case. The BHA, however, appears determined to destroy what remains of its credibility by conducting the rehearing in such a way that no one can have any faith that a fair process has taken place.”
That met with a robust response from Mounsey, who said it was in the best interests of the sport for the rehearing to take place as soon as possible. He added that the week of 19 September had been identified in May and that all parties had been asked to keep it free.
“The BHA has sought to put together a suitably qualified and impartial panel, in accordance with the rules of racing. It is entirely incorrect to state that a panel is being imposed on anyone.
“While we have proposed a provisional panel – as Mr Best has chosen not to accept our offer to use Sport Resolutions to convene one – we also already have in place a process which allows the parties to formally raise a challenge to any panel member, a process which, if followed to its conclusion, would see an appeal board ruling on the suitability of the panel. This process is clearly fair and transparent and will ensure the appointment of a suitably qualified and impartial panel.”
Mounsey saw no benefit in delaying the rehearing until after Quinlan’s report, saying that the review in question had been announced in March, “prior to the issues regarding the Jim Best case having arisen. It is entirely separate from the Jim Best case and racing’s disciplinary process must continue while that review is ongoing.” He did, however, acknowledge that the Best fallout had prompted an independent person, Quinlan, to be put in charge of the review.
Best is accused of instructing a jockey, Paul John, to stop two horses in December, which the trainer denies. His four-year ban from a hearing in February was quashed due to an appearance of bias and inadequacy of the panel’s published reasons.
The BHA’s panel for the rehearing will consist of Sir William Gage, a former High Court judge, Nicholas Wachman, a former senior steward in Ireland, and the barrister William Norris QC, who is to chair it. Norris was the man proposed by Sport Resolutions and the BHA appear particularly keen on him, having put his name forward once again. Norris has served on the National Anti Doping Panel, as has Matthew Lohn, the solicitor whose involvement caused the original Best verdict to be quashed. The BHA insists that that fact should be no barrier to the involvement of Norris.
The Quinlan review could produce many recommendations on subjects affecting the Best rehearing. These include the manner in which the BHA appoints disciplinary panel members, the qualifications necessary to sit on such a panel, whether the BHA should continue to use a QC who is also a licensed trainer to present its cases, the BHA’s approach to disclosure, the use made of expert evidence and the manner in which the BHA presents its cases.
Quinlan may yet urge a complete change of approach in any or all of these areas. That would cause difficulty for the BHA if Best’s case had been concluded under the old system just days beforehand, but officials appear sanguine at the prospect.
