Racing’s ruling body has denied there is inappropriate leniency in its treatment of the jockey Paul John, who recovered his licence to ride last week despite, in the regulator’s view, stopping two horses from winning in December. John is the only witness relied on by the British Horseracing Authority in its case against the trainer Jim Best, charged with instructing the jockey to lose on the horses in question.
The fact that John could ride in a race means his position is in sharp contrast to that of Paul Cooley, Best’s head lad and a defence witness, who is not suspected of any wrongdoing but is still unable to ride in races. Cooley applied for a licence in January but is still waiting for a final verdict, having been put on hold for five months until the BHA eventually agreed to consider the matter after an approach by the Guardian.
The BHA denies doing any kind of deal with John. Best’s lawyers argue there was a deal and point to a January email from the BHA’s QC to John’s solicitor in which the BHA says it will not seek a period of disqualification if John both pleads guilty and states that he rode as he did because Best had told him to do so.
Robin Mounsey, a BHA spokesman, said: “We reject most strongly any suggestion that the BHA has treated Paul John differently from any participant found in breach of the rules or reapplying for a licence,” but he was unable to identify another case in which a jockey made such a swift return to the saddle after being found to have stopped two horses. Privately, and while stressing that the facts are different, officials believe the cases of Jimmy Quinn, Darren Williams and Robbie Fitzpatrick are precedents for relicensing jockeys who had been found guilty of serious offences.
But none of those three was found to have stopped a horse and in Quinn’s case it was decided that he would not have stopped a horse if asked to do so. Yet all three were banned from the sport for some time whereas John was never banned and was merely prevented from applying for a licence for six months.
A complicating factor is that the BHA still seems to be relying, in its treatment of John, on the disciplinary panel’s original verdict, despite that verdict having been quashed after an appeal made by Best, an appeal that succeeded because of an appearance of bias and inadequacy of reasons. The BHA has offered no explanation about what will happen to John if the planned rehearing of Best’s case ends with the trainer being exonerated and culpability resting solely with the jockey.
In a statement last week the BHA said John had been given credit for delaying his application for a licence until some time after he would have been allowed to do so. But a post on John’s Facebook page from mid-May suggests he intended to apply that day, the first after the expiry of his suspension. Asked why John should get credit for a delay he seems to have had no intention of making, the BHA did not reply. In relation to Cooley, the BHA says it cannot proceed until Best and Cooley have responded to questions sent to them some weeks ago. Best’s representatives accuse the BHA of trying to drown them in procedure and paperwork.
Mounsey said: “The penalty imposed on Paul John by the disciplinary panel, and all aggravation and mitigation to that penalty, was applied in line with the guide to procedures and penalties for his specific offences.
“In regards to his permit application the licensing team considered Paul John’s application on its individual merits and took all the usual steps necessary to assess his suitability to hold a permit, including an integrity assessment.
“In assessing the application, the licensing team considered the fact that Paul John was never disqualified or excluded from the sport, that he admitted the breaches in question and that he showed remorse for his actions. It was also noted that he applied for an amateur rider’s permit, which is consistent with his stated intention to start again in the sport and build people’s trust in him, and a permit for which he meets all of the criteria.
“The apprentice jockey’s application made jointly by Paul Cooley and Jim Best was placed on hold for the duration of the initial hearing, but the BHA was subsequently asked to reconsider it. This process is under way, and the BHA is currently awaiting further information from Messrs Best and Cooley regarding their application.”
