Trainer Burke to appeal disqualification in alleged race-fixing probe
Solicitors acting for Karl Burke confirmed this evening the North Yorkshire trainer intends to appeal after being disqualified for 12 months following a British Horseracing Authority inquiry into alleged race-fixing.
The Middleham-based handler has been enjoying a fine season and recently saddled Lord Shanakill to Group One success in France.
Former owner Miles Rodgers has been warned off for life, the BHA confirmed.
The BHA announced an investigation after concluding its review of evidence from the Old Bailey trial in 2007, where jockeys Darren Williams, Fergal Lynch, Kieren Fallon plus Rodgers were all acquitted of any wrongdoing.
Fallon did not have to face any further charges from the racing authorities but Williams, Lynch and Burke – who was arrested but released without charge as part of the original police investigation – were called before the disciplinary panel along with Rodgers.
Both jockeys and Burke faced charges concerning their relationships with Rodgers and whether they supplied him with inside information over 12 races in 2004.
Lynch and Williams admitted those charges on the first day of the hearing as well as failing to supply information requested by the BHA team.
Lynch also owned up to a charge of betting via Rodgers and stopping a horse from running on its merits.
Williams was banned for three months while Lynch, who is now based in America, paid a £50,000 fine and agreed not to apply for a British licence for 12 months.
Confirming Burke intends to appeal, the trainer’s solicitors, Bark & Co, issued the following statement: “Earlier today the BHA imposed on Karl Burke a penalty of 12 months disqualification for providing inside information and associating with a warned off person Miles Rodgers.
“These breaches occurred in unusual circumstances in 2004. Mr Rodgers had been an owner of horses and co-investor in land at Mr Burke’s yard at Spigot Lodge. This business relationship was on-going at the time Mr Rodgers was warned off and continued for a short period thereafter.
"During this period of contact Mr Burke also had some associations with Mr Rodgers connected with horse racing including the imparting of opinion on the running of six horses and the sale of the horse Khanjar.
“Mr Burke received no payment from Mr Rodgers for providing his opinion on these races. He spoke to Rodgers about these races in order to prevent any difficulty in the replacement of Rodgers as an investor at Spigot Lodge.
“Mr Burke was misguided in associating with Mr Rodgers in this way and has admitted these failings. He does not dispute being liable for a penalty for these breaches but the penalty imposed by the BHA today is unfair and excessive. This penalty far exceeds that which might reasonably have been expected particularly with regard to the penalties imposed on Fergal Lynch and Darren Williams.
“The BHA, and its predecessors, has been aware of the matters underlying these disciplinary proceedings since 2004. It referred these matters to be investigated by the City of London Police and the BHA remained closely involved in that Police investigation.
“Bark & Co represented Mr Burke during that Police investigation which concluded that no criminal prosecution should be brought against him in July 2006.
“The Police investigation of others led to the much publicised criminal trial brought against Miles Rodgers, Kieren Fallon, Fergal Lynch, Darren Williams, and others in connection with ’race-fixing’ allegations. All persons in this trial were acquitted.
“Following that lengthy criminal trial the BHA chose to bring disciplinary proceedings against only Miles Rodgers, Fergal Lynch, and Darren Williams from that trial. They also brought disciplinary proceedings against Karl Burke who had played no part in that criminal trial.
“The BHA began its disciplinary proceedings in February 2008 almost four years after they could have brought such proceedings against Mr Burke. They gave no previous indication of bringing such proceedings against him. During that time Mr Burke, despite the loss and stigma incurred from the investigation against him, has re-established his yard with great success recently having a Group One winner.
“Mr Burke, Mr Williams, and Mr Lynch had separate associations with Miles Rodgers in 2004. They have all admitted these associations in breach of the rules of racing. Their other breaches of the rules of racing vary considerably and form the main basis of the penalties imposed upon them.
“Fergal Lynch deliberately stopped a horse, Bond City, from winning a race. This is one of the most serious, if not the most serious, breaches of the rules of racing. He also supplied inside information on 6 races, and placed bets through Mr Rodgers.
“Darren Williams committed a much lesser breach by providing inside information to Rodgers on 5 races.
“Karl Burke provided inside information to Rodgers on the same five races as Darren Williams and also an additional race.
“Given the far greater severity of Fergal Lynch’s breaches it would have been expected that he would receive a much harsher penalty from the BHA than Karl Burke and Darren Williams. In reality the reverse is the case.
“The BHA negotiated a plea bargain with Fergal Lynch. It did not seek to ban Mr Lynch contrary to its own penalty guidelines. It did not require Mr Lynch to attend the hearing against him.
“The only penalty the BHA imposed on Fergal Lynch was £50,000 fine. Mr Lynch gave the BHA an undertaking that he will not ride in the UK for the next year but he has not ridden here since 2008 having moved to the USA. The BHA made no objection to Mr Lynch continuing to earn his living as a very successful jockey in the USA and abroad. This plea bargain was proposed to the Disciplinary Panel which approved it.
“In contrast, for the lesser breach of providing inside information on five races, Darren Williams was banned from racing receiving a three-month disqualification.
“Mr Burke has been treated most harshly receiving 12 months disqualification even though in effect he provided inside information in a manner no graver than Mr Williams.
“The severity of Mr Burke’s penalty is out of proportion with his breach of the rules and the penalties imposed on Mr Lynch and Mr Williams. The disparity in these penalties is not justified.
"Unlike Fergal Lynch and Darren Williams, Mr Burke has not been offered the penalty of a fine in place of his disqualification. This penalty not only affects Mr Burke personally but also his owners, employees, and others connected with his stables in whose interests he has worked diligently without any other reproach to his training.
“Mr Burke’s case was heard on Thursday, 2nd July 2009. The BHA said its decision would be given within two working days but it has taken over two weeks. By contrast, Lynch, Williams, and Rodgers were made aware of their penalties on the same day as their hearings.
“There is no proper reason for the delay in the decision against Mr Burke. We understand that the decision was delayed in part due to the Disciplinary Panel Chairman attending the cricket Test Match in Cardiff. It has been a general failing of the BHA not to deal with Mr Burke’s case expeditiously. This further delay unfortunately carries with it a concern that the penalty and reasoning against Mr Burke may have been influenced by matters irrelevant to his case.
“During this delay we have observed the BHA’s public justifications of its actions regarding Fergal Lynch and Darren Williams. In explanation of the penalties imposed on Lynch and Williams the BHA’s spokesman Paul Struthers was reported as saying ’...circumstances have conspired in both their favours ...’.
“Mr Burke has not had the benefit of a conspiracy of circumstances, plea bargaining, or otherwise in being dealt with by the BHA. It is clear from these proceedings that he has not been treated by the BHA comparably with Mr Lynch and Mr Williams nor fairly when all matters of the proceedings are considered. He intends to appeal this decision.”
The BHA disciplinary panel had earlier said it had decided to postpone the start of Burke’s penalty until the day after the time allowed for lodging an appeal – ie until 28 July 2009 – because “it would be wrong to cause what may be irreparable damage to Burke’s business in that time if he does intend to appeal.
“It will be for the Appeal Board to decide whether to extend that stay of the penalty if he does in fact appeal.
“It will also enable Burke to make the application his counsel foreshadowed at the hearing for some form of dispensation from the full effects of a disqualification if he still wishes to do so.
“As the Panel does not know of the grounds for such an application, this should not be seen as any encouragement to make it or to think that it might be granted, but it is right to identify that Burke has the opportunity.”
