One of the panellists in the Jim Best rehearing appeared to reveal a limited understanding of betting on horses as he asked hypothetical questions about why a jockey might ride a stopping race. William Norris QC, one of three panellists expected to deliver a verdict next week, intervened on Thursday to suggest that punters who lay horses to lose would not be interested in doing so at odds of 14-1 or higher.
Day four of the rehearing began with Best facing continued cross-examination over charges that he ordered a jockey to stop two horses last December, which he denies. Norris, who has shown a strong grasp of detail in his many other interventions and rode as an amateur in the 80s, opened up a line of discussion that had not been explored this week when he told Best he was interested in any possible reasons why a jockey might decide to stop a horse without the trainer’s knowledge.
Norris suggested a jockey “might stop a short-priced horse on behalf of a gambler”. “But neither of these horses was a short price,” he continued, noting that Echo Brava started at 22-1 and Missile Man at 14-1 in the relevant races. On that basis, Norris seemed inclined to discount the possibility of gamblers being interested in laying either horse, even if they knew that the jockey would ride to lose.
Norris did not appear to be taking account of the possibility of laying either horse in the place market at shorter odds, or in the in-running market. It is not known whether any British Horseracing Authority officials plan to fill the gaps in the panel’s understanding of betting before the case is completed. Best did not do so in his short response to Norris’s question, in which he said he did not know whether the jockey in the case, Paul John, was linked to any gamblers. John has admitted stopping both horses but insists he did so only because Best ordered it.
Continuing on the theme of why a jockey might stop a horse, Norris said another reason might be to disguise the horse’s ability for the sake of a lower handicap rating. “On whose behalf would that be done, other than in the interests of the trainer or the owner or both?” he asked, rhetorically. Norris briefly considered whether a jockey might stop a horse to “get back” at a trainer, then suggested to Best: “You don’t think that’s likely?” The trainer replied: “No”.
Earlier the BHA’s barrister, Louis Weston, was brought up short on two occasions in his cross-examination when the panel was unimpressed by lines he pursued. At one point he referred to a quote from Best in a Guardian article of 2011. Best could not remember saying the words and, since Weston did not intend to call the writer of the piece as a witness, Norris told Weston: “We’ll file that in the bin”.
Weston also referred to the Best-trained Planetoid, in order, the barrister said, to illustrate the benefits of a horse having a low handicap mark. Two panel members intervened on behalf of those jockeys who had ridden Planetoid before it was allotted a rating.
Norris told Weston: “We need to proceed here with absolute caution”. Weston was forced to clarify that he did not allege Planetoid was run other than on its merits before moving to a different subject.
The panel also heard from Jack Callaghan, part-owner of Missile Man, who said Best had criticised John for his ride on the horse while the three men returned home from Towcester together, contradicting the case put by the BHA. “Jim did take the opportunity to have a real go at him,” Callaghan said. “He gave him what I would call a constructive bollocking.”
The hearing is expected to conclude on Friday with evidence from the jockey Jamie Moore and Best’s head lad, Paul Cooley. Barristers for both sides have committed to finishing their closing submissions by 4pm but the panel has indicated it will not issue an immediate verdict, opting instead to take time to consider the evidence before ruling at some point next week.
