• Home
  • News
  • Disciplinary Panel's summary of findings regarding D M Greenwood, M Stainton, C Murray, K Ackerman and K Mackay

Disciplinary Panel's summary of findings regarding D M Greenwood, M Stainton, C Murray, K Ackerman and K Mackay

British Horseracing Association Logo

Press Release

  • Former registered owner and excluded person David M Greenwood found in breach of Rules (A)41.2, (A)41.1, (A)50.2 and (B)58.2
  • Licensed jockey Michael Stainton found in breach of Rules (A)41.2, (A)41.1 and (B)58.1
  • Registered owner Kenneth Mackay and non-registered person Kevin Ackerman found in breach of Rule (A)41.1
  • Former licensed jockey Claire Murray found not in breach of any Rules

The following represents the findings of the Disciplinary Panel in relation to a hearing which took place between 1 and 9 July 2015 regarding former registered owner and excluded person David M Greenwood, licensed jockey Michael Stainton, former licensed jockey Claire Murray, registered owner Kenneth Mackay and non-registered person Kevin Ackerman.

The British Horseracing Authority (BHA) awaits further direction from the Disciplinary Panel as to when full written reasons will be published and a hearing to consider penalties for the breaches found will be held.

  1. Below, the Panel sets out in summary form the results arrived at on the various charges brought by the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) against individuals arising out of races run by AD VITAM (IRE) between November 2011 and March 2012. Full reasons will be given later.
  2. David Greenwood and Michael Stainton engaged in a conspiracy contrary to Rules (A)41.1 and (A)41.2 to seek to ensure that AD VITAM (IRE) ran down the field in races 1, 4, 5 and 6.
  3. David Greenwood (the owner of AD VITAM (IRE)) gave instructions (contrary to Rule (B)58.2) to Michael Stainton to ride in races 1, 4, 5 and 6 in a way which could, and in races 1 and 5 did, have the effect of preventing AD VITAM (IRE) from achieving its best possible placing.
  4. In races 1 and 5, Michael Stainton rode AD VITAM (IRE) in breach of his obligation by Rule (B)58.1 to ride the horse on its merits.
  5. David Greenwood's purpose in getting Michael Stainton to ride in this manner was for handicapping reasons: it was done to try to reduce the horse's Official Rating to a mark at which David Greenwood judged it would be more competitive.
  6. Neither David Greenwood nor Michael Stainton acted in breach of the Rules as above for the purpose of a lay betting conspiracy.
  7. David Greenwood was not in breach of Rule (A)36 by communicating Inside Information to betting exchange account holders for reward. Though he did communicate Inside Information to Kevin Ackerman and Kenneth Mackay, there was no reward involved.
  8. David Greenwood was in breach of Rule (A)50.2 between 11 July 2012 and 31 January 2013 because he failed to agree a time and a place for interview by the BHA Investigating Officer, because he failed to attend any such interview, and because he failed to supply his telephone billing records to the BHA as requested.
  9. Claire Murray was not in breach of Rule (A)41 or Rule (B)58.1 in relation to races 2 and 3. In reaching this conclusion, the Panel did not accept the evidence of Sophie Griffiths (the wife of the trainer of AD VITAM (IRE)) that she was told by Claire Murray before race 3 that she (Claire Murray) had been instructed by David Greenwood to finish out of the first four in the race. However, the Panel emphasises that it concluded that Sophie Griffiths (and her husband David Griffiths) gave honest evidence to the Panel. The Panel's eventual conclusion was that Sophie Griffiths misunderstood what was said to her about the riding instructions which Claire Murray had been given by David Greenwood.
  10. The Panel did not, therefore, find that David Greenwood gave Claire Murray instructions to ride AD VITAM (IRE) otherwise than on its merits. While he hoped that the horse would run down the field for handicapping reasons, he was seeking to achieve this by using an apprentice (Claire Murray) whom he judged, correctly, to be too weak a rider to produce the horse's best efforts.
  11. Kevin Ackerman was in breach of Rule (A)41.1, but not of Rule (A)41.2. He became aware from David Greenwood that AD VITAM (IRE) was likely to run down the field in races 1, 4, 5 and 6 because of the possible cooperation of Michael Stainton in handicapping runs. He placed lay bets against AD VITAM (IRE) in those races. He was not in breach by virtue of his betting for races 2 and 3, because the prospects for handicapping runs in those instances was based at least in part upon Mr Greenwood's judgement that the jockey (Claire Murray) was too weak to get the best from the horse.
  12. Kevin Ackerman was not in breach of Rule (A)37 because he was not providing reward to David Greenwood for the information which informed his lay betting against AD VITAM (IRE) for races 1, 4, 5 and 6, and he did not otherwise assist, encourage or cause David Greenwood to act in contravention of the Rules.
  13. Kenneth Mackay was in breach of Rule (A)41.1, but not of Rule (A)41.2. He became aware (directly or indirectly) that AD VITAM (IRE) was likely to run down the field in race 1 because of the possible cooperation of Michael Stainton in handicapping runs. He placed lay bets against AD VITAM (IRE) in that race. He was not in breach by virtue of his lay betting for race 2, because the prospect for a handicapping run on that occasion was based at least in part upon Mr Greenwood's judgement that the jockey (Claire Murray) was too weak to get the best from the horse.
  14. Kenneth Mackay was not in breach of Rule (A)37 because he was not providing reward to David Greenwood for the information which informed his lay betting against AD VITAM (IRE) in race 1, and he did not otherwise assist, encourage or cause David Greenwood to act in contravention of the Rules.

Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.

Courses

Legal Advisors

Upcoming Events


Copyright © LawInSport Limited 2010 - 2022. These pages contain general information only. Nothing in these pages constitutes legal advice. You should consult a suitably qualified lawyer on any specific legal problem or matter. The information provided here was accurate as of the day it was posted; however, the law may have changed since that date. This information is not intended to be, and should not be used as, a substitute for taking legal advice in any specific situation. LawInSport is not responsible for any actions taken or not taken on the basis of this information. Please refer to the full terms and conditions on our website.