First, the good news. Rules of racing have been created and fine-tuned to guide the naive and define the corrupt. Miscreants are being identified and punished. So convincing has been the evidence and so proven the system that, for the first time, two jockeys have pleaded guilty to some of the charges levelled against them. The bad news is what has happened next.
Despite possessing power to deliver penalties that befit the crime, those who sit in judgment have lately shrunk from their responsibility. What is the point of the Horseracing Regulatory Authority’s security department rooting out corruption if its disciplinary panel allows the guilty to return within months?
It began very differently. In September 2005, jockey Gary Carter was disqualified for five years for passing information for reward and aiding the corrupt betting practices of a known miscreant in eight races. In December 2005, trainer Shaun Keightley was disqualified for three years and prevented from reapplying for his licence for a further two for ensuring that a horse did not win one race and briefing that same miscreant for financial gain.
This deserved severity contrasts favourably with the going rate for corruption. The turning point came last December, during the case against apprentices Brian Reilly and Dean Williams, when convictions became more timid and the gravity of passing information for reward was tacitly diminished. The disciplinary panel took into account mitigating factors not even proffered by the defence and banned each rider for 18 months, only six of which were for passing information.
Since then, Robert Winston and Shane Kelly have been suspended for one year for passing information for reward, the former on 21 races in a seven-month period and the latter on nine in three months. So ineffective is this that Winston preferred to “take it on the chin” rather than appeal, while maintaining “I did nothing wrong and received no reward”.
Advertisement
It is highly undesirable for all parties if someone would rather serve a penalty than prove his innocence. It allows ambiguity over what should be a definitive verdict to linger. It suggests that the punishment does not hurt enough. It also fails in its intended wider resonance of deterring other potential wrongdoers and protecting both the integrity of the sport and the livelihoods of its honest participants.
When contrasting the fortunes of, say, Keightley with Winston, note the difference between “disqualification” and “suspension”. A suspended jockey is prevented only from race-riding. A disqualified person cannot set foot on racecourses or training premises nor discuss racing with licensed people. Disqualification, though admittedly hard to police, prevents the guilty from making a living from the sport.
Note also that on Monday the disciplinary panel chose to suspend Tony Culhane for only a year for aiding and abetting a corrupt practice. The HRA’s guidelines advise disqualification as the appropriate penalty for this offence. Whether this anomaly was an error or mitigation in light of Culhane’s confession and cooperation will be revealed when the panel’s reasons are published. Whatever, this fact should deter Culhane from the appeal that he is considering.
It is not too late to halt this disconcerting trend. Last week, the HRA finally published a definition of inside information and, on Monday, its board approved increased penalties for misuse, including the removal of the option to suspend rather than disqualify. When ratifying this change, the Jockeys Association must also strip Culhane of council membership if their attestation of “working together with the HRA” is to hold any substance.
The disciplinary panel should also note the unprecedented step taken by the appeal board yesterday. That body – the first recourse, before the courts, of those challenging the panel’s rulings – yesterday published its reasons for upholding the disqualification of jockey Robbie Fitzpatrick for three years for his ringleader role in passing information for reward.
Advertisement
Although tactfully claiming “we do not mean to imply that the penalties imposed here were unduly lenient”, their last sentence allowed little doubt: “Without wishing to interfere with the discretion of disciplinary panels, harsher penalties, in appropriate circumstances, for this type of conduct would be unlikely to attract any sympathy from this board.” The message is clear: do not undo your good work.