The independent disciplinary panel which decided that the trainer Jim Best had ordered Paul John, a conditional jockey, to stop two horses in races last December published the reasons for its imposition of a six-month suspension on the trainer on Wednesday , and suggested as it did so that if the British Horseracing Authority wished to see a sterner penalty for such a serious offence, it should amend its sentencing guidelines to reflect that.
However, its reasons did little to dispel widespread surprise that an offence which, in the panel’s own words, involved “dishonest practices” that “strike at the heart of racing’s integrity” had resulted in what appeared to many in the sport to be an extremely lenient penalty.
If Best decides not to appeal against the result, he will still be allowed to visit racing stables and attend race meetings, associate with licensed jockeys and trainers, and buy and sell horses at auctions during the six-month period when his licence is suspended. The process which concluded on Monday was a rehearing of the case, after the result of an earlier hearing – which resulted in a four-year disqualification for Best – was quashed on appeal.
The appeal was lodged after it emerged that Matthew Lohn, the chairman of the original panel, had been paid by the BHA for his advice on non-disciplinary matters.
The new panel reached the same decision as the first: that John, a conditional rider at Best’s stable, had deliberately stopped two horses – Echo Brava, in a race at Plumpton on 14 December 2015 and Missile Man at Towcester on 17 December 2015 – and had done so under orders from the trainer.
The members also stressed in their findings a view that “the worst feature of the case is the fact that Mr Best, the trainer, suborned a young Conditional Jockey to do wrong when he should have been taking steps to guide him in the right direction as opposed to engaging in dishonest practices.” Where the earlier panel had imposed a four-year ban from the sport, however, it decided on a six-month suspension.
In its reasons for imposing the suspension, the panel says that in reaching its decision, it “gained only limited assistance from the [BHA’s] guidelines as to the length of that suspension. As a comment, we suggest that if the BHA regards suspension or disqualification for a longer period as appropriate for such a case as the present, then it would be wise were the guidelines to reflect that policy directly and with clarity. Speaking for ourselves, we can see that might better reflect the gravity of the kind of misconduct we find here.”
The panel also said that it had been mindful of the possible effect on innocent employees at Best’s yard in Sussex had it imposed a longer suspension, or decided to disqualify him from the sport rather than merely suspending his licence.
The panel’s words did little to dispel confusion about the penalty, however, as in addition to charges related to the stopping rides, Best was also found in breach of Rule A(30), a more general offence which covers conduct prejudicial to horseracing. The BHA’s guidelines suggest a range of possible penalties for a breach, including suspension or disqualification for between one month and three years.
In a statement on Wednesday, the BHA said that it had “argued that the panel should impose a significant period of disqualification on Mr Best to preserve the reputation of British horseracing and to maintain public confidence in the integrity and proper regulation of our sport”. The regulator also said that it “will consider the panel’s comments over the coming days, and months, but we will make no further comment while the appeal window [for Best] is still open”.
