• Home
  • News
  • Notice of a forthcoming Disciplinary Panel hearing (David M Greenwood, Michael Stainton, Claire Murray, Kevin Ackerman and Kenneth Mackay)

Notice of a forthcoming Disciplinary Panel hearing (David M Greenwood, Michael Stainton, Claire Murray, Kevin Ackerman and Kenneth Mackay)

British Horseracing Association Logo

Former registered owner David M Greenwood, licensed jockey Michael Stainton, former licensed jockey Claire Murray, registered owner Kenneth Mackay and non-registered person Kevin Ackerman have been informed that they have been charged with breaches of the Rules of Racing, as follows.

The hearing will commence on Wednesday 1 July with six working days set aside for the proceedings. All individuals charged have responded to the BHA’s case, denying the charges issued against them. Mr Greenwood, Mr Stainton, Miss Murray and Mr Ackerman are expected to attend the hearing to defend the charges.

David M Greenwood

1. Did David Greenwood between 1 November 2011 and 8 February 2012 act in breach of Rules (A)41.2 and/or (A)41.1 in that he conspired with Michael Stainton, Claire Murray, Kevin Ackerman and/or Kenneth Mackay to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice in relation to racing and then committed such a practice by:

a. Instructing Michael Stainton and/or Claire Murray to ride AD VITAM other than on its merits and so that it would not be placed in Races 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 (see Notes to Editors for table of races).

b. Communicating directly or indirectly to betting exchange account holders information relating to the prospects of AD VITAM which information was or included information (i) obtained in his capacity as an Owner of AD VITAM and (ii) which was not publicly available or authorised for such disclosure by the Rules of Racing (‘Inside Information’) knowing that (i) and (ii) were the case and knowing that such information would or might be used to gain an unfair advantage in the betting market?

And/or

2. Did David Greenwood between 1 November 2011 and 8 February 2012 act in breach of Rule (B)58.2.1 in relation to Races 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 by giving instructions to the named jockey in those races which if obeyed could or would prevent AD VITAM from obtaining the best possible placing in some or all of those races.

And/or

3. Did David Greenwood between 1 November 2011 and 8 February 2012 act in breach of Rule (A)36.1  in that he communicated directly or indirectly to one or more betting exchange account holders for material reward, gift, favour or benefit in kind, information relating to the prospects of AD VITAM in the Races which was or included Inside Information knowing such information was Inside Information?

And/or

4. Did David Greenwood between 11 July 2012 and 31 January 2013 act in breach of Rule (A)50.2  in that he:

a. Failed to supply his telephone billing to the BHA as requested and following the making of an Authorisation to Request Production on 5 November 2012 and specifying the billing required to be produced, and/or

b. Failed to agree a time and place for an interview with a BHA Investigating Officer and/or

c. Failed to attend for an interview with a BHA Investigating Officer.
 

Michael Stainton

1. Did Michael Stainton between 1 November 2011 and 8 February 2012 act in breach of Rules (A)41.2 and/or (A)41.1 in that he conspired with David Greenwood, to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice in relation to racing and then committed such a practice by:

a. Following instructions from David Greenwood in respect of his rides in Races 1 and 5 which were instructions in breach of Rule (B)58.2.1.

b. Agreeing to ride and then riding AD VITAM in breach of Rule (B)58.1 in Races 1 and 5.

c. Agreeing to ride AD VITAM in breach of Rule (B)58.1 in Races 4 and 6 if the need to ride the horse other than on its merits arose.

d. Communicating directly or indirectly to betting exchange account holders information relating to the prospects of AD VITAM which information was or included information (i) obtained in his capacity as a Rider of AD VITAM and (ii) which was not publicly available or authorised for such disclosure by the Rules of Racing (‘Inside Information’) knowing that (i) and (ii) were the case and knowing that such information would or might be used to gain an unfair advantage in the betting market?

And/or

2. Did Michael Stainton between 1 November 2011 and 8 February 2012 act in breach of Rule (B)58.1 in relation to Races 1 and 5 by intentionally failing to ensure that the horse was run on its merits?

Claire Murray

1. Did Claire Murray between 1 November 2011 and 8 February 2012 act in breach of Rules (A)41.2 and/or (A)41.1 in that she conspired with David Greenwood, to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice in relation to racing and then committed such a practice by:

a. Following instructions from David Greenwood in respect of her rides in Races 2 and 3 which were instructions in breach of Rule (B)58.2.1.

b. Agreeing to ride and then riding AD VITAM in breach of Rule (B)58.1

c. Communicating directly or indirectly to betting exchange account holders information relating to the prospects of AD VITAM which information was or included information (i) obtained in her capacity as a Rider of AD VITAM and (ii) which was not publicly available or authorised for such disclosure by the Rules of Racing (‘Inside Information’) knowing that (i) and (ii) were the case and knowing that such information would or might be used to gain an unfair advantage in the betting market?

And/or

2. Did Claire Murray between 1 November 2011 and 8 February 2012 act in breach of Rule (B)58.1 in relation to Races 2 and 3 by intentionally failing to ensure that the horse was run on its merits?

Kevin Ackerman and Kenneth Mackay

1. Did Kevin Ackerman and Kenneth Mackay between 1 November 2011 and 8 February 2012 act in breach of Rules (A)41.2 and/or (A)41.1 in that they conspired with David Greenwood to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice in relation to racing and then committed such a practice by using information to place bets on some or all of the Races which was or included information (i) obtained from David Greenwood in his capacity as an Owner of AD VITAM and (ii) which was not publicly available or authorised for such disclosure by the Rules of Racing (‘Inside Information’) knowing that (i) and (ii) were the case and knowing that such information would or might be used to gain an unfair advantage in the betting market?

And/or

2. Did Kevin Ackerman and Kenneth Mackay between 1 November 2011 and 8 February 2012 act in breach of Rule (A)37.1 by offering to provide or providing a reward, gift, favour or benefit in kind to David Greenwood in return for the provision to him by David Greenwood of Inside Information or by encouraging such provision in relation to some or all of the Races?

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.