Winston banned for a year as other riders are warned off
by Bill Barber

ROBERT WINSTON was told on Friday that he would not be able to ride again for 12 months as a huge Horseracing Regulatory Authority investigation into corruption concluded with verdicts that seemed set to reopen the debate on whether the sentences were sufficient deterrent to others.

The top-flight Flat jockey’s riding licence was suspended, but he will still be able to work in racing, giving him a lifeline to continue his career as his offences were considered less serious than those of fellow riders Robbie Fitzpatrick, Luke Fletcher and Fran Ferris.

Each of those three jockeys was handed racing’s most severe sanction, a warning off, for three years in the case of Fitzpatrick and Fletcher, and in the case of Ferris for two.

Winston’s absence will leave champion trainer Sir Michael Stoute without one of his most regular riders.

The HRA’s latest investigation centred on 37 races run between June 16, 2003 and February 29, 2004, together with the associated activities on betting exchanges which centred on Nottinghamshire-based bookmaker Ian Nicholl, who was warned off indefinitely and is unable to reapply for access to the racecourse for ten years.

Winston was found guilty of passing on information for reward and for misleading investigators.

However, in the 21 suspect races in which Winston rode, he was not in breach of not riding his mounts to their merits.

He left HRA headquarters in Shaftesbury Avenue silent and stony-faced and was ushered into a waiting taxi, along with Fletcher, by their solicitor Christopher Stewart-Moore.

Neither jockey gave any comment while Fitzpatrick, who left in another taxi and was in the panel's opinion the conduit between Winston and Fletcher and Nicholl, would only say he was "very disappointed” when asked for his reaction.

Stewart-Moore later issued a statement on behalf of his clients which included the view that Winston was “shocked and disappointed” by the HRA disciplinary panel's finding that he was in breach of rule 243 in giving information for reward.

The statement went on: “This disappointment is tempered to some degree by the panel finding that they accepted that it was no part of the information (Winston) gave that he would ride to lose if necessary, and their further finding that in no instance did he in fact ride to lose."

The disciplinary panel said that Winston's case had been "the most difficult to resolve” but that it was inescapable "that Winston knew that his information would be used for lay betting purposes by Mr Nicholl".  The panel also decided that Winston was being paid but that at the time he was "a vulnerable character, who was drinking heavily . . . This vulnerability played its part in causing him to involved in supplying inside information in breach of rule 243".

However, Stewart-Moore rebuffed those conclusions, his statement adding: "For the avoidance of doubt, Mr Winston received no reward from Mr Nicholl - or anyone else for that matter - in relation to the information that he is alleged to have given.

"No physical evidence of a reward was put to the panel and no such evidence exists. Mr Winston never spoke to Mr Nicholl and was completely unaware of his existence at the relevant time."

Stewart-Moore added: "There are two further factors that militate against the likelihood of Mr Winston receiving a reward for the information he allegedly gave to Mr Nicholl.

"The first is the average starting price of the horses ridden by Mr Winston and laid by Mr Nicholl, which is in the region of 12-1 . . . Secondly, Mr Nicholl actually made a loss laying Robert Winston's rides, as is now revealed from the bookmakers' accounts."

He added: "The level of penalty imposed in the circumstances is extremely harsh."

Fitzpatrick was found guilty of passing information for reward, hindering an investigation and misleading investigators but was not in breach of not rising a horse on its merits.

Fletcher was also found guilty of passing information for reward and misleading investigators as well as not riding his mounts on theeir merits.

The statement from Stewart-Moore said that both were “very disappointed" and that the penalties were "extremely harsh”.

Ferris was found guilty of the same offences as Fletcher and his solicitor Phil Williams said that while his barrister Gerard Hillman is out of the country an application would be made for more time in which to decide on an appeal.

Four other unlicensed individuals connected to Nicholl have also been warned off, with Paul Glendenning handed a three-year punishment, while Kim Evans, Joanne Roberts and Tegan Wilde will be unable to enter licensed horseracing premises for two years.