Susan
Searching Britishhorseracing.com
Please Wait...

Disciplinary Panel Enquiries

Paul Benson, Nick Lawes, Mark Lawson, Mark Flynn, Colin Haddon, Mark Howard, Adrian McCarthy, David Nolan and Derek Nolan

Published: Thursday 05 May 2005

The Disciplinary Panel of the Jockey Club held enquiries on 5th May 2005, to consider whether or not the jockeys listed above had committed a breach of Rule 221B(i) in the light of Instruction F5 headed ‘Use of Mobile Telephones by Riders, Master Jockeys’ Valets and Master Valet’s Assistants on Racecourse Property’ in respect of their failure to provide copies of their mobile telephone records for the restricted period at Southwell on 18th January, following a random check that was made for all jockeys riding at Southwell on that date.

In the cases of Mark Flynn, Colin Haddon and Mark Lawson, the Panel accepted an admission from the riders that they were in breach of Rule 221B(i) in that they had not been able to obtain the requested mobile telephone records because of the type of mobile telephone contract they had with their service provider. Noting that under Instruction F5 all licensed jockeys are required to ensure that they only use mobile telephones for which they are able to obtain itemised details of all calls, the Panel imposed a fine of £400 each upon Flynn, Haddon and Lawson.

In the cases of Adrian McCarthy, Derek Nolan and David Nolan, the Panel accepted an admission from them that they were in breach of Rule 221B(i) in that, although they had eventually produced the requested mobile telephone records on 4th May, they had only done so after receipt of 3 letters and a scheduled appearance before the Disciplinary Panel. Under Instruction F5 the Disciplinary Panel imposed a fine of £250 each upon McCarthy, Derek Nolan and David Nolan in respect of their failure to provide mobile telephone records by the requested date.

In the case of Paul Benson and Nicholas Lawes, the Panel accepted an admission from them that they were in breach of Rule 221B(i) in that they had not been able to obtain the requested mobile telephone records because of the type of mobile telephone contract they had with their service providers. Taking into account the difficulty in getting a contract on a mobile telephone before reaching 18 years of age for which itemised details of all calls could be obtained, as required by Instruction F5, the panel imposed a fine of £250 upon Benson and Lawes. The Panel also instructed the riders to seek advice from their service providers as to what they could do to amend their contracts so that full itemised details could be obtained in the future.

5th May 2005


Careers in Racing