If only the NHRA was like the BHA

Jim Best Found Guilty of not making two horses running to their true capabilities.

Trainer Jim Best and jockey Paul John have both been found guilty of breaching the Rules regarding the running and riding of two horses in December of last year.

Best and his former conditional rider John faced the British Horseracing Authority's disciplinary panel over the performances of Echo Brava at Plumpton on December 14 and Missile Man at Towcester on December 17.

Both horses finished unplaced, with Best and John accused of failing to ensure the horses ran on their merits.

John was banned for 14 days by the Plumpton stewards for his ride on Echo Brava after being found guilty of failing to take all reasonable and permissible measures, but this was subsequently amended with John charged with intentionally doing so, prompting a further charge for Best.

Following an inquiry, Best has been found guilty of failing in his "duty to secure the best possible placing" on two occasions as well as "c onduct prejudicial to horseracing in Great Britain."

John has been found guilty of two counts of failing to run a horse on its merits.

The BHA tweeted: "Trainer Jim Best found in breach of all charges, being Rule (C)45 on two counts and one count of Rule (A)30

"Paul John found in breach of both counts of Rule (B)59.2

"Penalties for all breaches will follow in due course, with timing yet to be determined."

4 year ban he got

Running to merit and prepping similar ?

That's Jim Best,don't get confused with my friend John Best.
Johns as straight as an arrow.

davetheflower wrote: That's Jim Best,don't get confused with my friend John Best.
Johns as straight as an arrow.

Apologies and thank you for clearing it up.

SA Racing authorities have NO BALLS , except for odd doping cases.
Negative publicity is in fact good for all punters as they can get some assurance they are being protected when wagering hard earned cash.

Years ago the incident in Cape with Russian mob , Mackaskil , Chenye etc... ?? Was the truth ever uncovered ?? Who was punished ??

NHRA needs to go to Hong Kong to see how to Police racing !!!! Amazing how they are so strict with ALL ASPECTS of racing . Does not matter WHO you are . Betting volumes are so high - Punters KNOW they are protected

Jockeys/Agents /Trainers / ( NO BOOKIES- only tote ) +++ are followed around the island , constant surveillance , even interference in races are taken serious and severely punished

Bob Brogan wrote: 4 year ban he got

TRAINER Jim Best has been banned from racing for four years with immediate effect after being found guilty at a BHA disciplinary inquiry last month of ordering conditional jockey Paul John to stop two horses from running on their merits.

Best was found to be a "dishonest individual who corrupted a young man" by the disciplinary panel, while the BHA slammed the trainer, branding his behaviour "reprehensible and an abuse of the privilege of holding a licence to train racehorses".

Over three weeks have passed since Best was found guilty of all charges against him, including acting in a manner prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct or good reputation of horseracing.

The case relates to the running and riding of Echo Brava and Missile Man at Plumpton and Towcester last year, with the disciplinary panel siding with John's version of events that the jockey had been told by his then boss to ensure both horses did not obtain the best possible placing.

After both races - which took place three days apart in December - a stewards' inquiry was called in which Best expressed his dissatisfaction with the rides John had given, a ploy the conditional said the pair had discussed in advance to mask the intention of not running the horses on their merits.

John had been banned by the stewards for his rides in each instance, with Best receiving no punishment, but the rider offered to be a witness against the trainer when receiving legal letters from the BHA in January for his second ride on Missile Man.

'Cannot be tolerated'

Adam Brickell, BHA director of integrity, legal and risk, said: "The case against Jim Best and Paul John concerned an issue that cannot be tolerated in British racing - the exploitation of a vulnerable young jockey by his employer in order to coerce him into breaking the rules of our sport to gain an unfair advantage.

"It is the responsibility of any trainer to act as guide and mentor to young jockeys who are attached to their yard. No trainer can be allowed to abuse that relationship by pressurising jockeys to breach the rules and this is reflected in the sanctions incurred by Jim Best. In the words of the disciplinary panel, Jim Best's behaviour was reprehensible, and an abuse of the privilege of holding a licence to train racehorses."

John, who was found guilty of two counts of failing to run a horse on its merits, received a more lenient punishment of a 150-day period during which he can not apply for a licence. The ban was backdated to December 21, 2015 and ends on May 19, 2016.

'Ashamed'

In a statement released through the Professional Jockeys' Association, John said he was "ashamed" of his action and promised to learn from his mistakes if he was granted a licence to ride again.

He said: "I fully accept that what I did was wholly wrong. I want to apologise to the sport for my conduct in those two races. I am ashamed to have carried out what I was instructed to do and if I could go back in time and change it I would.

"This has been a very unpleasant experience and I can absolutely assure everyone that if I am lucky enough to be allowed the opportunity to be licensed once again I will not be making the same mistakes again."

Brickell said the disciplinary panel had taken into account John's co-operation when handing him his punishment and that he "deserves significant credit for his actions in distancing himself from Mr Best".

Brickell added: "We would encourage any jockey who finds themselves in a similar situation to Paul John to seek assistance before they feel compelled to commit breaches of the rules of racing."

Best's suspension runs until April 4, 2020 and the BHA has said his owners have until Friday to remove their horses from his yard.

The trainer's legal team said that an appeal against the ban was "highly likely".

Our situation is much smarter ..........if a horse with a MR of 110 is prepping, and runs 80% fit , that is 11lengths below its rating .......no jockey collusion required (although the effect is identical) and our regulators are so thick ,and so at a loss of how to act , the connections even confess at every Interview!

For what it's worth, I don't think a four-year ban was excessive. He could easily have got double that (remember what Eddie Ahern got).

Well chaps, all things being equal, it brings this whole "prepping " thing into context.

As we discussed , ad nausium, about Champagne Haze, and to a lesser extent French Navy, both of which gave the unsuspecting punter a dose of the piles, :woohoo: is that "prep runs" from an exposed horse should be dealt with as per this article.

"NO" is the outcry from the trainer, we can do what we want when we prepare our horses.

"NO" is the outcry from the bookies, who never give you a decent price anyway, simply because the horse IS exposed.

"YES" should be the outcry from the lifeblood of the industry - THE PUNTER :lol:

We bemoan our fate when this happens, but don't make enough noise about it. :sick:

I believe that, as a forum, when we get "piled" :woohoo: again, we should be sending emails by the thousands to the Chief Stipe, until we are satisfied that this conduct is reduced or hopefully, even eradicated.

I know that this message will, undoubtedly fall upon deaf ears, but I feel better for having ha my say.

In the stipes defense though, they did get it right with Hollie Point last night.

I agree with everything you say khargisisland, except "in the stipes defence though, they did get it right with Hollie Point last night"

It's like thank you lord for small mercies? :ohmy:
Had a few bob on it? :lol:

Overall there are horses - newcomers and those with exposed form, that only peak with racing. U can do what you like with them, they will not be at their best after a rest.
Injuries are part and parcel of racing. However some 90% of injuries occur on the Training tracks. Yes this estimate is a bit stacked, based upon the fact that horse's use the training tracks every day and not so, the race tracks. But the bottom line remains soundness and Trainers efforts to keep horses sound. If given the choice of a sound horse versus an 80% fit horse, which one will you choose ? Methinks the Owner will choose the unfit horse and the punter the unsound horse, based on this thread.
Maybe we are expecting too much from both sides of the story ? In Dubai and Hong Kong and the rest of the World, favourites come unstuck. It happens.

Harry's Son ran poorly in Dubai because he had a jarred joint and he won't go to Hong Kong. Instead he is headed for Spain. Harry's son ran poorly because of an injury.

For the sake of the horse it may be better to let him need the run a bit rather than sustain an injury in trying to avoid him needing the run. Especially when the programme offers few alternatives.

What we do need though, is better dissemination of info from Trainers to the public in these instances.