Tell him to go to South Africa, it's in the job description over there. Which reminds me of that classic comment made to Fallon by US customs:lol:
Karl Burke
- Thread starter Gamla Stan
- Start date
Tell him to go to South Africa, it's in the job description over there. Which reminds me of that classic comment made to Fallon by US customs:lol:
I think Lynch's sentence was pretty disgraceful and in essence having made lots of cash in Philadelphia he was able to buy the BHA off so long as he went abroad - it is a 19th century style punishment - someone able to pay a fine could choose to do so and not go to prison - the option of a fine as it was known .
Three cheers for Philadelphia for not letting Lynch ride - he is the jockey equivalent of the toxic waste sent to Brazil !
Three cheers for Philadelphia for not letting Lynch ride - he is the jockey equivalent of the toxic waste sent to Brazil !
Lynch admitted to stopping a horse - I think his punishment was disgracefully lenient.
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 24,823
I can just picture it...
"Say, Mr Lynch, sir, would you mind sittin' in this chair a minute? OK, Hal, just press that red button..."
jinnyj
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
- Messages
- 4,463
This is the press release from Burkes solicitor which begs me to ask - why if he HAD to associate with Rodgers due to him being involved over the proprty, didn't he just toddle off to the BHA, explain the situation "Hey guys, my old owner was a teensy bit naughty, you banned him but I still gotta speak to the geezer, how do I go about it?" Instead of buying a new mobile phone and conducting secret conversations with him??? I'm sure teh BHA would have been pretty accomodating - might even have paid for that phone if they'd been able to listen in!:lol:
[/FONT][/FONT]
Press release from Bark & Co Solicitors on behalf of Karl Burke
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]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.
[/FONT][/FONT]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.
Background of the proceedings
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]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, Keiren Fallon, Fergal Lynch, Darren Williams, and others in connection with 'race-fixing' allegations. All persons in this trial were acquitted.
[/FONT][/FONT]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, Keiren Fallon, Fergal Lynch, Darren Williams, and others in connection with 'race-fixing' allegations. All persons in this trial were acquitted.
BHA disciplinary proceedings
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]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 1 winner.
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 1 winner.
Breaches of the rules of racing
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.
[/FONT][/FONT]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.
Penalties
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]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.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]20th July 2009 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.
[/FONT][/FONT]
T
Toobe
Guest
What (and I quote) "circumstances have conspired in both their favours" in respect of Lynch and Williams? Why has it not been disclosed what those are. Someone knows something or at the least it gives the impression someone has something on someone else. They must have to plea bargain and Burke obviously doesn't know what it is or can't use it.
Honest Tom
At the Start
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,272
The BHA probably think they're responsible for Lynch's one year American ban. "It was us that grassed im up".
Can we look forward to more of the same from these spineless c****? In future will it be back to full Jockey Club mode where no one is ever accused of anything in "the straightest racing in the world" but the BHA will quietly grass up an offender's close relative to the social, slash an owner's tyres, daub graffiti on a trainer's stables or steal a jockey's whip from the weighing room?
Can we look forward to more of the same from these spineless c****? In future will it be back to full Jockey Club mode where no one is ever accused of anything in "the straightest racing in the world" but the BHA will quietly grass up an offender's close relative to the social, slash an owner's tyres, daub graffiti on a trainer's stables or steal a jockey's whip from the weighing room?
Last edited:
Love Everlasting
At the Start
- Joined
- May 8, 2003
- Messages
- 358
Shame it wasn't for life, all of them are scumbags
Irish Stamp
Forum Moderator
HT - even the BHA aren't that naive to think they're responsible for the ban at Philly Park. Shame that Lynch is dragging his family into the whole debacle (Shane apart) since Cathal is one of the good guys in the US and has given his brother a second chance (which not many would).
T
Toobe
Guest
What do you mean "in future" They're probably already in that mode with whatever the offenders have been plea bargaining with.
Bark for Burke. Jinny, I thought at first you had invented that name.
Anyway, the hounds of law have apparently forgotten that Lynch, a rising star at the time, had already spent a lot of time out of action (18 months?) before his criminal trial.
Last edited:
PRICEWISE2008
At the Start
Ban Burke for life, don't let his wife / Jarvis take over the licence..He's a disgrace, no excuses
T
Toobe
Guest
What the same Jarvis who was a witness on the aspect of someone's got it in for Fallon.
Gamla Stan
At the Start
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2005
- Messages
- 4,337
From the RP.... Can anyone perhaps see through this slightly? Unbelievable if this is allowed...
TRAINER Alan Jarvis is planning to take over from Karl Burke at Spigot Lodge after his son-in-law's one-year warning off for passing information for reward took effect on Wednesday.
Jarvis, 61, who envisages his base in Twyford, Buckinghamshire, becoming a satellite yard as part of the new expanded operation, hopes to have the move rubber-stamped by the BHA licensing committee on Friday.
If his application to have both stables licensed is approved, it will safeguard the jobs of Burke's 35 staff and mean owners of the 90 horses at his Middleham establishment will no longer be forced to transfer them to new trainers.
Jarvis said: "I am hoping to run both yards and take my horses up to Middleham, but if I had runners at southern meetings I would keep them down here."
TRAINER Alan Jarvis is planning to take over from Karl Burke at Spigot Lodge after his son-in-law's one-year warning off for passing information for reward took effect on Wednesday.
Jarvis, 61, who envisages his base in Twyford, Buckinghamshire, becoming a satellite yard as part of the new expanded operation, hopes to have the move rubber-stamped by the BHA licensing committee on Friday.
If his application to have both stables licensed is approved, it will safeguard the jobs of Burke's 35 staff and mean owners of the 90 horses at his Middleham establishment will no longer be forced to transfer them to new trainers.
Jarvis said: "I am hoping to run both yards and take my horses up to Middleham, but if I had runners at southern meetings I would keep them down here."
T
Toobe
Guest
It's alway's puzzled how, if a family within the sport has a banned person in there fold, what happens regarding the contact with that person, as I thought those in racing cannot have contact with a banned person. Is this because a ban and warning off are two seperate issues?
I was thinking the same. The administration in racing is an absolute joke, and the wording of the RP seems to indicate just what a fine thing this move by Jarvis is.
Another shining example of the work Roy and his cronies are carrying out.
Last edited:
Colin Phillips
At the Start
Not so different from Nicky Henderson having Caracciola running from Barry Hills' yard at Gooders this week.
Exactly. Racing is a shambles, and if the RP had the slightest backbone, they would challenge the BHA through their paper. Instead, we have their sycophantic 'writers' producing babble, and failing to realise just what it means to be a journalist.
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
I can't quite believe Burke's attitude in getting so sniffy when his wife's licence application was turned down - what does he expect? That it's not a 'real' ban and he can still carry on as normal? I'd like to think the BHA would turn down Jarvis' proposal since let's face it, it is just another attempt to carry on, business as usual. I don't seem to remember the bleating about peoples' jobs before when trainers were warned off - maybe they can all blame Burke for breaking the rules rather than blaming the BHA for taking their jobs!
Honest Tom
At the Start
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,272
Love Everlasting
At the Start
- Joined
- May 8, 2003
- Messages
- 358
I thought it was disgusting when Francome said "what a shame" when news came through that Burke couldn't train until the appeal. What is a shame about banning a cheat who fixed races and liased with a banned individual. Hes lucky he should have been banned for life.
Love Everlasting
At the Start
- Joined
- May 8, 2003
- Messages
- 358
If anything I think most of the staff will be glad that his wife wasn't allowed to take over!!!
If I read correctly I think if his ban is upheld after August 17th he will not be allowed to liase with licenced people, as his duaghters have both got amatuer licences will this make family life quite difficult?
Irish Stamp
Forum Moderator
They should all be banned for life LE - Burke, Henderson, Flood etc. but the BHA are too spineless to actually bother doing anything about the cheats who bring the game into disrepute.
Irish Stamp
Forum Moderator
If anything I think most of the staff will be glad that his wife wasn't allowed to take over!!!
If I read correctly I think if his ban is upheld after August 17th he will not be allowed to liase with licenced people, as his duaghters have both got amatuer licences will this make family life quite difficult?
BHA will kindly turn a blind eye to this I'm sure, along with any times that he visits his father in law for an extended Sunday lunch.