09 Mar 2011 Pre-2014 Releases


The Application

1. Mr Fergal Lynch’s application form for a flat race jockey’s licence for the period to 17 March 2011 is dated 11 October 2010. It is to be found within divider 2 of the bundle before us.

2. The application to the British Horse Racing Authority (“the Authority”) arises in the following circumstances:-

2.1. Mr Lynch came to England to be an apprentice jockey when he was 15. He is now 32. He was the Champion Apprentice Jockey in the 1997/8 season and his career soon blossomed whilst he also benefited from a stable 7 year relationship with his former partner.

2.2. Most unfortunately from about 2002 he came into contact with Mr Miles Rodgers who was then the principal of the Platinum Racing Syndicate (“the Syndicate”). Whilst this led to rides and riding success for Mr Lynch, ultimately it led to extremely serious breaches of the Rules of Racing. These are identified in a document dated 24 June 2009 entitled “Basis of Admission and Recommendation on Penalty”. A copy of that document is at page 35 of the bundle.

2.3. In essence Mr Lynch admitted that in connection with Mr Rodgers:-

a) On 6 occasions he supplied inside information for material reward, sometimes using an unregistered telephone;

b) On one occasion he intentionally failed to ensure that the horse “Bond City” ran on its merits knowing that it had been laid to lose by Mr Rodgers;

c) On 15 occasions he instructed Mr Rodgers to place bets on his behalf and received the proceeds; and

d) He was associated with a disqualified person, Mr Rodgers, between April and August 2004 in connection with horse racing.

2.4. The most serious offence of stopping a horse from winning knowing that it had been laid to lose occurred on 31 August 2004. The next day Mr Lynch was arrested by the police. However, he was not charged until the summer of 2006 and therefore continued to hold a licence and to race until 7 July 2006.

2.5. As from that date Mr Lynch’s licence was not renewed due to him having been charged with the criminal offence of the common law conspiracy to defraud. The charge concerned his involvement with Mr Miles Rodgers, involved a number of defendants and included allegations of conspiring to ensure that horses that had been laid to lose did not win their races. The stopping of “Bond City” was one of the cases relied upon by the prosecution.

2.6. Mr Lynch pleaded not guilty and was acquitted on 7 December 2007. He had been unable to race for some 17 months.

2.7. Mr Lynch re-applied for his licence and this was granted at a hearing of a Licensing Committee held on 18 December 2007. The transcript is at page 62 of the bundle.

2.8. Mr Lynch moved to the United States of America in August 2008 and had a very successful year riding some 120 winners in Pennsylvania where his brother is a trainer.

2.9. However he was the subject of disciplinary proceedings concerning the incidents summarised at sub-paragraph 2.3 above. An application by him to dismiss the enquiry was heard and dismissed on 15 and 16 June 2009. The basis for the application being that it would be unfair to conduct an enquiry into breaches of the insider information rules and of stopping Bond City because of his acquittal in the criminal proceedings. He had made no admissions at that stage.

2.10. A few days later the “Basis of Admission and Recommendation on Penalty” was negotiated between Mr Lynch and the Authority. It was presented to the Disciplinary Panel on 24 June 2009 at the enquiry concerning himself and another jockey, Mr Darren Williams. For reasons given (see page 38 of the bundle) the Panel accepted the recommendation of a £50,000 fine. The panel did so in the circumstances of an undertaking that:-

“Mr Lynch is settled in the USA for the foreseeable future and in any event will not apply for a licence to race in the UK or seek to ride in the UK in reliance on any foreign licence (under the provisions of Rule 61) for at least [12] months”.

2.11. The undertaking was given in circumstances of the Authority accepting that it would not “invite any other jurisdiction to impose any restriction on Lynch’s licence to race as a result of these proceedings” unless he failed to pay the fine (see page 40, paragraph 11 of the decision).

2.12. That intention to ride in the USA was thwarted. It appears that the Pennsylvania Racing Commission would and will not grant him a licence unless he is licensed by this Authority or receives a ruling from this Authority that he is of “good standing”.

2.13. It is in those circumstances that an application is made with Mr Lynch’s primary aim being to return to the USA. However, he is more than willing to race in England and to live in Yorkshire if that is necessary because the Authority is unwilling to grant a licence due to his intention to race in a different jurisdiction.


3. His application in the circumstances summarised above has led to objections contained in a document dated 11 November 2010 and entitled “Reasons for the Authority’s Recommendation that the Application Be Refused”. The grounds are summarised at paragraph 2 as follows:-

The Authority recommends refusal of Mr Lynch’s application on the ground that he is not a suitable, or ‘fit and proper’, person to hold a jockey’s licence. The Authority’s concerns arise out of (i) the nature and extent of the breaches of the Rules of Racing which Mr Lynch committed in 2004, (ii) his failure to be candid with, and an attempt to mislead, this Committee at a previous licensing hearing on 18 December 2007 and (iii) his failure to admit his misconduct until June 2009. The Authority also has concerns about the way in which Mr Lynch appears to be seeking a British licence in order to enable him to ride in the USA.

The Preliminary Issue

4. A preliminary issue (“the Preliminary Issue”) was identified at the first hearing of this application on 16 December and argued at a hearing held on 13 January 2011. The issue was:-

“Whether this Committee can decide that Mr Lynch should not be granted a licence because he is not a suitable person regardless of any insight, contrition, rehabilitation or matters of mitigation because of the very serious and dishonest breaches of the Rules of Racing committed by him in the past?”

5. At paragraphs 45 and 46 of our decision we answered as follows:-

45. Our decision is that this Committee can decide that an applicant should not be granted a jockey’s licence because he is not a suitable person regardless of any insight, contrition, rehabilitation or matters of mitigation because of the very serious and dishonest breaches of the Rules of Racing committed by him in the past.

46. Whether we will do so in the case of Mr Lynch is another matter. Although we have rejected Mr Lynch’s case on the preliminary issue, we make clear that we have not reached any view or conclusion as to whether he is a suitable person to be granted a licence. We also make clear that we have not reached any view or conclusion upon the relevance or significance to his application of the Authority’s agreement to the “Recommendations On Penalty” and of the decision of the Disciplinary Committee in this case.

6. That decision and its reasons were handed down to the parties prior to this hearing.

The Hearing 28 February 2011

7. At the hearing on 28 February 2011 Mr Lynch provided information in answer to questions asked of him by his Counsel, Mr John Kelsey-Fry QC. The hearing was in the form of a discussion. Mr Warby QC, who appeared on behalf of the Authority together with Mr Jacob Dean, asked Mr Lynch some questions but the hearing was inquisitorial by nature.

The Rules

8. The General Manual of the Rules of Racing (“the Rules”) establishes the framework for the governance and regulation of horse racing within England, Wales and Scotland. Rule 1.1. of Part 1 of the General Manual (A) provides that all functions relating to the governance and regulation of horseracing shall be exercisable by the Authority. Those functions include granting, refusing, withdrawing and suspending licences required by the Rules .

9. Licences are required for jockeys to ride in races and an application for a licence must be made in accordance with the detailed requirements set out in the relevant Manual of the Rules, Rider Manual (D).

10. These include Rule 12 of Part 2 of the Rider Manual (D) which provides:-
“12. Jockeys to be suitable Persons
12. The Authority may

12.1 refuse to grant or renew a Jockey’s Licence, or
12.2 suspend or withdraw a licence,

if the Authority considers that an applicant or a licence holder is not a suitable Person to hold a licence.”
11. Each application should be considered individually on its merits . A licence may be granted subject to such restrictions or conditions as the Authority considers appropriate .

12. The Authority may from time to time issue guidance to ensure compliance with any Rule . The guidance relevant to applications for a licence are to be found in the Guidance Notes that accompanied the application form sent to Mr Lynch. They are at divider 6 of the bundle. Paragraph 3 of the Guidance Notes identifies the criteria that an applicant for a jockey licence must demonstrate or confirm. Those criteria include the following:-

“They are otherwise in all the circumstances suitable to hold a licence (i.e. that they are ‘fit and proper’).

13. Schedule 9 to the General Manual (A) of the Rules of Racing makes clear that it is for the applicant to satisfy the Licensing Committee that he meets all the criteria contained within the Guidance Notes which accompany each application form.

Mr Lynch’s Oral Statement

14. In answering the questions put to him by Mr Kelsey-Fry, Mr Lynch did not attempt to excuse his conduct or to minimise its seriousness. He provided information which he relied upon to explain what occurred and to show that he understands that his misbehaviour was gravely wrong, that he demonstrates true contrition and that he is a reformed person.

15. Mr Lynch’s explanation for the breaches of the Rules he has admitted may be summarised as follows:-

15.1. His involvement with Mr Miles Rodgers started off innocently. Mr Rodgers was a gentle giant, likeable and quite funny. The Syndicate was soon very successful expanding from 12 to 20 and then 50 horses, doubling in size every year. There would be promotional events such as dinners attended by many owners with jockeys there to discuss horses and racing. Mr Lynch became a trusted jockey both as a rider and as an adviser. He was successful as a result of riding for the Syndicate.

15.2. However more and more information was being provided by Mr Lynch and gambling crept in. What had started as information recommending horses worth claiming for the Syndicate and advising upon whether to keep and run horses of the Syndicate moved into the provision of insider information for gambling purposes.

15.3. It got out of hand. It went from talking about horses and one thing led to another as conversations escalated. He knew the information he was providing was being used as insider information for gambling. He knew this was wrong. The reward he received in respect of each one of the occasions of the admitted offences of supplying insider information was £1,000.

15.4. He also knew it was wrong to instruct Mr Rodgers to place bets on his behalf but he did so on 15 occasions as he subsequently admitted. He made about £10,000 from this and whilst he first informed us that he did not receive that money from Mr Rodgers, having admitted to its receipt before the Disciplinary Panel in 2009, he later said he would have received profits, although not all of them, in dribs and drabs.

15.5. In addition Mr Rodgers had been warned off in February 2004 and he was aware of this upon his return from racing abroad during the winter. He nevertheless continued his involvement knowing that it was wrong to do so.

15.6. The circumstances that led him into those arrangements and that misconduct could be attributed to the break down of his relationship with his former partner. He lost the stability of a home life which had existed for some 7 years and he began to live a different life. He would stay drinking with other jockeys after races, go to night clubs, dog tracks and casinos. Whilst he did not accrue gambling debts as a result, the ending of his relationship led him down the path he wrongly took towards the breaches of the Rules he has admitted.

15.7. Ultimately it led to his offence of “stopping” Bond City. This was the first and only time that this occurred. It occurred when he knew that Mr Rodgers had laid the horse to lose. He knew it was against the Rules and that it was wrong but it was the end of a chain of events that had escalated. He was in so deep at this stage that he could not get out of this role with Mr Rodgers even though it occurred to him to get help. However, it was this incident that made him realise (in his words) that he had “crossed the line”.

15.8. On 31 August 2004 he had 3 rides and had advised Mr Rodgers that none of them had a chance of winning. He accepted that he expected Mr Rodgers to use that information for betting purposes. The first race turned out accordingly but not the second which he won on a horse with odds of 9/1. On returning to the weighing room Mr Lynch was soon told that Mr Rodgers wanted to speak to him. Mr Lynch did not telephone in the public area set aside for jockeys but instead he went to his car and (also in breach of the Rules) left the course in order that no-one would see him telephoning to avoid suspicion.

15.9. Mr Rodgers was extremely angry having laid the winning horse to lose with the result that he had lost a substantial amount of money on that bet. Mr Lynch made clear that Mr Rodgers did not threaten him but did treat the fact that he had lost a lot of money as being Mr Lynch’s fault because the information provided had proved incorrect. He asked Mr Lynch for a guarantee that Bond City would not win its race. Mr Lynch says that he told Mr Rodgers that he did not fancy Bond City, that he didn’t think it would win but that he could not give a guarantee.

15.10. However, during the race the conversation was going through his mind and Mr Lynch explained that he was subconsciously thinking about it. He consciously failed to ask Bond City to run on its own merits, in the event finishing second, in order that the bets laid to lose would succeed.

15.11. Mr Lynch described that as being the time when his eyes were opened. He knew he had lost his integrity. There was no good reason for doing what he had done. He made a bad decision and felt ashamed and embarrassed. He felt his conduct had let other jockeys and the owners down. He had “crossed the line” and was angry with Mr Rodgers for placing him in that position. He needed help.

15.12. Mr Lynch then explained that he left the track and spoke to Mr Rodgers. He told him never to ask him to do that again; that it cost him a winner. He said that his trainer was unhappy with the ride and that it might cost him his job and career. He says that he said that as an excuse because he wanted out and could no longer be involved with Mr Rodgers.

15.13. There was no inquiry into the race but the next day he was arrested at 6.00am. Thereafter, as summarised within sub-paragraphs 2.4 – 2.11 above, he continued to race until he was charged with the criminal offence of conspiracy. He was not able to race again until he was acquitted. He subsequently raced in the USA, faced the disciplinary proceedings and found he could not race in the USA afterwards as intended.

16. Mr Lynch set out a number of reasons why he could be trusted now and for the future. In particular:-

16.1. The reasons that led him to commit the admitted breaches no longer exist. He is not in contact with Mr Rodgers. Of great importance is the fact that he has found a stable home life with a wife who provides support and with whom he wants to have a family. They met shortly after his arrest (in 2005) and became engaged before the trial. They married in 2008 and moved to the USA together. This is the stability he needed and now has.

16.2. He has paid a very high price and suffered as a consequence of his actions both financially and physically. The process of the criminal trial in particular was awful with the threat of imprisonment and all the pressure that a trial at the Old Bailey will have. He thought that suicide might have resulted had he been convicted. Furthermore in this case (as we were told by Mr Kelsey-Fry who acted in the trial for one of the defendants) the police over stepped the mark significantly.

16.3. He has subsequently recognised and admitted his guilt, made his admissions and understood why what he did was wrong. He understands that his actions of providing inside information were unfair to those who accepted bets on the races. His actions identified within the breaches admitted struck at the heart of racing, they were corrupt and despicable. He is ashamed and embarrassed and apologises.

16.4. His letter to the Licensing Department of March 2010 at page 90 of the bundle was written before lawyers became involved. Whilst it may not be perfectly written, it sets out his position and demonstrates his recognition and admission of guilt together with his contrition. It shows he wishes to put the past behind him.

16.5. He wants to start again with a new family and the opportunity to have children which step has been placed on hold in all the circumstances. He is willing to assist other jockeys to show them the pitfalls and provide help in order that no-one else will have to go through what he has gone through.

17. Mr Lynch also apologises for misleading the Licensing Committee on 18 December 2007 when he re-applied for his licence. This was at a hearing at which he did not admit his offences. In addition his Counsel had informed the Committee on instructions that Mr Lynch had made no financial gain as a result of the betting. That was untrue. So too was the statement that the betting was not done on his instructions. He had indeed made financial gain and had indeed had bets placed at his direction for his benefit through Mr Rodgers. His explanation for these lies, which enabled him to obtain a licence that led him to the USA and to considerable financial gain there, was the criminal trial. He had been side lined for some 18 months due to the trial. He was upset and wanted his life back; to get back to riding as quickly as possible. He had been through a hard time and thought he deserved to continue riding. Bond City did not crop up, so he did not volunteer it. He was angry that he had had to sit through the trial and did not think he should be punished. He blamed everyone but himself at that Committee hearing. He did not realise, as he does now, that the only person to blame was himself.

18. Mr Lynch explained his position in respect of where he would like to ride as follows:-

18.1. He would prefer to ride in the USA.

18.2. If the Authority will not give him a licence in those circumstances, then he will ride in this country. He will live in Yorkshire and he has trainers willing to engage him as evidenced by letters submitted.

Mr Kelsey-Fry’s Submissions

19. Mr Kelsey-Fry submitted that the approach the Committee should adopt is to be found within paragraphs 17 and 18 of a previous Licensing Committee decision concerning Robert Fitzpatrick dated 2 December 2010 following a hearing on 24 November 2010. Accordingly he submits:-

19.1. We should reject the notion that refusal of a licence would be criticism “by the back door” of the decision of the Disciplinary Panel on 24 June 2009. It is not our function to mete out further punishment.

19.2. Equally a person in breach of the Rules can not submit that they should be readmitted on the ground that they have “served their time”.

19.3. An applicant who shows they now have the necessary honesty and integrity and sufficient insight into past breaches of the Rules combined with knowledge of and commitment to the Rules regarding integrity will be unlikely to commit future breaches.

19.4. In reaching a decision that someone is fit and proper, account should be taken of the need to uphold public confidence in racing and in the sport’s reputation.

19.5. There is a tendency to uphold those wider interests if a jockey is readmitted because he is unlikely to prove a threat in the future to the integrity of racing and has expressed deep remorse for his wrongdoing and has shown the necessary commitment to the Rules.

20. Mr Kelsey-Fry has moved away from his skeleton argument in that he does not now assert that it would be unconscionable for the Committee to refuse a licence in the circumstances of the agreement between Mr Lynch and the Authority in respect of the disciplinary enquiry and/or the decision of the Disciplinary Panel on 24 June 2009. He accepts instead the approach taken by the Committee within the Preliminary Decision, namely that these are factors to have regard to when reaching our decision. Mr Kelsey-Fry has expressly disavowed reliance upon any case of estoppel arising from those matters. He does not assert any claim of legitimate expectation or restraint of trade nor rely upon any principles or authority relevant to those areas of law.

21. Mr Kelsey-Fry raised concern that Mr Lynch may be viewed as “a rabbit caught in the headlights” when giving his evidence and that as a result he may not have been as eloquent as he might have been. However he emphasised that:-

21.1. Full admissions were stated;

21.2. Mr Lynch did not take the easy life line of alleging that he was threatened by Mr Rodgers in order to try to minimise what he did.

21.3. At the time of the main offence, the stopping of a horse, he told Mr Rodgers that: “I don’t really want to do that again … It’s cost me a winner …” (see p.39 at paragraph 7 of the decision of the Disciplinary Panel on 24 June 2009). This shows that at the time Mr Lynch knew he should not have done what he did. He said he would not do so again. That is how the words “It’s cost me a winner …” should be construed. It is an assurance of his future conduct existing even at that stage.

21.4. There was a prolonged period of riding after his arrest and following his acquittal. There was no re-occurrence of the breaches here or in the USA. Although references from people in Pennsylvania have not been provided, there is no reason for that.

21.5. Not only has Mr Lynch not transgressed but he has gone through a process of facing trial and potential imprisonment from which he is likely to have learnt never to transgress again.

21.6. That likelihood is supported very strongly by the absence of the factors that led to his breaches in the first place and the existence now of a stable relationship. He was easily flattered by Mr Rodgers and the wining and dining of the Syndicate but has now moved to a new life.

21.7. Mr Lynch apologises for misleading the Committee in 2007 unreservedly. However, Mr Kelsey-Fry as his current Counsel observes from the transcript that the instructions given to his then Counsel were in circumstances of that Counsel having been recently briefed, of that Counsel emphasising that this led him to urge caution and of them having a mere 5 minute adjournment for instructions when it would have been wiser to accept the 3 weeks suggested by the Committee.

21.8. Whilst all cases turn on their facts, other cases referred to at dividers [16] and [17] of the bundle reveal that the fact of misleading a previous Committee does not automatically lead to a decision in this case that the applicant is an unsuitable person. This is not an issue or question of legitimate expectation. Each case depends upon its own facts and each decision is reached in its own circumstances. However, they show that suitability can still be established and indeed in circumstances that may be considered worse than Mr Lynch’s insofar as misleading is concerned.

21.9. The personal letter from Mr Lynch to the Licensing Department (page 90 of the bundle) is significant. It does not refer as such to dishonesty but it is written without lawyers and no-one can argue that it fails to recognise the gravity of what has occurred or fails to express remorse. It provides a personal insight.

21.10. Those unfamiliar with the full facts may consider the Disciplinary Panel’s decision lenient. However, it is clear that Mr Lynch has paid a very heavy and high price for his conduct: the criminal trial, the inability to ride and the continuing lack of a licence preventing him from riding in the USA or here.

21.11. If anyone has learnt a lesson Mr Lynch has. The abyss into and influence under which he fell could not be more different than the life he has today. He is manifestly ashamed, contrite and apologetic. He has no illusions about his conduct and there is a negligible chance of re-offending. This should uphold public confidence.

21.12. He could attend seminars concerning insider information, although this is probably mandatory for all jockeys.
21.13. The position with regard to his riding here or in the USA is clear and should not prevent a licence being granted. He will undertake to ride within the jurisdiction of the Authority if necessary. He has a home in Yorkshire.

21.14. He has well known and respected people who will provide rides and who have provided references which should be taken into account. This too is relevant to the public confidence issue.

22. Mr Kelsey-Fry had previously submitted a skeleton argument dated 9 January 2011 primarily but not wholly concerned with the test we should apply. We have read that document and have taken its contents into account when reaching this decision. We do not consider it necessary to repeat it having heard the detailed, oral submissions identified above.

Submissions of Mr Warby

23. Mr Warby’s approach, quite rightly, was that he would not adopt an adversarial response and seek to reply to the points made by Mr Kelsey-Fry. His submissions are primarily contained within his and Mr Dean’s skeleton argument and in the document entitled “Reasons for the Authority’s Recommendation that the Application Be Refused”. We agree with that approach and do not consider it necessary to repeat the contents of that skeleton or document, although obviously thank him for his assistance, as we equally thank Mr Kelsey-Fry.

The Test

24. The Guidance Notes provide that:-

“Applicants are required to demonstrate or confirm that:

• They have the competence and capability to race ride;
• They are medically fit to race ride in accordance with the published Medical Standards for Fitness to Ride;
• Derive their main income or a reasonable portion of it from race riding or, in the case of Apprentice or Conditional Jockeys, be in full time paid employment of a licensed trainer and recorded as such on the Trainer’s Register of Stable Employees;
• They are otherwise in all the circumstances suitable to hold a licence (i.e. that they are ‘fit and proper’); and
• In the case of Overseas Riders they have permission to work in Great Britain as a professional jockey.”

25. As to the fourth of those factors, we start with the general guidance applicable to the test of suitability to be found within the speech of Lord Bingham concerning the words “fit and proper” in the case of Regina v. Crown Court at Warrington, Ex parte RBNB (an unlimited company) [2002] UKHL 24, [2002] 1 WLR 1954:-

“… some consideration must be given to the expression “fit and proper” person. This is a portmanteau expression, widely used in many contexts. It does not lend itself to semantic exegesis or paraphrase and takes its colour from the context in which it is used. It is an expression directed to ensuring that an applicant for permission to do something has the personal qualities and professional qualifications reasonably required of a person doing whatever it is that the applicant seeks permission to do.

26. The context for suitability here is of course the application to ride as a jockey which, if successful, will make that jockey available to owners of horses and their trainers for rides in professional races which will attract audiences both present and through the media. The role of the jockey is obviously very important for the racing world, its status as a sport and its position as a business for all those who have a direct or indirect stake in the horse racing industry. That role involves participation in a sport which attracts enormous sums of money both for investment in horse racing and for the purpose of gambling both at the races themselves and these days worldwide. The jockey must have the personal qualities reasonably required for a professional rider to be involved in such an environment. Honesty and integrity are necessary qualities in those circumstances.

27. The Guidance Notes include the following paragraphs in respect of suitability:-


17. In considering any application, the Licensing Committee must be satisfied, taking into account any fact or matter that it considers appropriate, that the applicant is suitable to hold a licence.

18. The Licensing Committee expects full and frank disclosure from the applicant, who is required to disclose all matters known to him/her and those which he/she can be expected to discover by making enquiries. Failure to do so will be a relevant factor in the assessment as to an applicant’s honesty and integrity.

19. A person whose conduct or character is not in accordance with that which, in the opinion of the Licensing Committee, should be expected of a licensed person, may not be considered suitable and therefore may be refused a licence.

20. In some cases a single factor may lead to the conclusion that someone is not suitable, whereas in another case the determination of whether someone is not suitable may depend upon the cumulative assessment of a number of matters.

21. It is not possible to produce a definitive list of all matters that would be relevant to a particular application. This document should be considered a guide as to the sorts of considerations that the Licensing Committee will have in mind when making such an assessment.

22. The criteria to which the Licensing Committee will have regard in assessing honesty and integrity include the following:

22.1. Whether the applicant has been convicted of any criminal offence in Great Britain, or a foreign jurisdiction, excluding road traffic offences and offences which are spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and in the case of foreign offences, such as may be appropriate. Particular consideration will be given to offences of dishonesty, fraud and those relating to sexual conduct, violence, and animal welfare.

22.2. Whether the applicant is the subject of any proceedings of a criminal nature or has been charged in connection with any alleged criminal offence involving dishonesty, fraud or those relating to sexual conduct, violence, or animal welfare.

22.3. Whether the applicant has been the subject of any adverse finding by a judge in any civil proceedings, or has settled civil proceedings brought against him/her relating to any matter which could reasonably be said to materially affect his/her suitability to hold a licence.

22.4. The applicant’s record of compliance with the regulatory requirements of the Authority or its predecessors, of any other Turf Authority or of a regulator of any other sport in which he/she has participated or has been otherwise involved.

22.5. Whether the applicant has been candid, open and truthful in al