The verdict in the Jim Best rehearing is to be announced on Monday afternoon, more than a fortnight after closing arguments were presented by barristers for both sides. In a surprising development, the outcome is to be revealed at the offices of the British Horseracing Authority in the presence of all those involved and representatives of the media, rather than being posted online in the usual manner.
There is not thought to be a precedent for calling back all the parties so long after a hearing to be told the verdict in person. The break with tradition comes at the direction of the three-man disciplinary panel, chaired by the former judge Sir William Gage, who are said to have told the BHA how they want the verdict to be handled.
The timing caused a certain amount of resentment within the sport, as it clashes with a long-planned media event in Kensington to promote the King George VI Chase on Boxing Day. That provoked frustration at both Kempton racecourse and the race’s new sponsors, 32Red, who can expect less publicity in consequence, though the BHA view is that it would have been inappropriate to bargain with the panel over timing.
BHA insiders were among those expressing puzzlement as to why the panel would ask to give the verdict in an open forum. It could be seen as a recognition of the importance of the case, which has generated many headlines since charges were first issued in January.
Best, a Lewes-based trainer, denies instructing a jockey to stop two horses in races that took place last December. He was initially found in breach and banned for four years, a verdict that was quashed in May on the grounds of an appearance of bias and insufficiency in the published reasons.
Separately, the BHA confirmed it would not allow the media to sit in during the rehearing of Paul Gilligan’s case next week. Gilligan, a trainer based near Athenry, is accused of running one of his horses at an unregulated (“flapping”) track, which he denies. Like Best, he was initially found in breach but obtained a rehearing after it emerged that the solicitor who chaired his hearing had been paid to give private advice to the BHA for some years.
Under established BHA guidelines, members of the media can sit in on hearings involving mid-race incidents, which would not include a case such as Gilligan’s. However, there was a discussion about whether the ruling body should stretch a point with the aim of demonstrating transparency in its disciplinary systems at the end of a year in which it has been heavily criticised. Gilligan’s lawyer made no objection to media presence at the hearing.
