28 Mar 2010 Pre-2014 Releases

1.    On 26-28 January 2010, the Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) conducted an enquiry into allegations of breach of the Rules of Racing said to have happened when GOLDEN SURPRICE (IRE) ran in two races at Wolverhampton in November and December 2007.

2.    The first race was on 19 November 2007. GOLDEN SURPRICE (IRE), then a 5 year old, ran his first race in England after a career of 37 races over 4 years in Italy. This was in a 7 furlong seller, in which he carried top weight, started evens favourite, and won easily by 5 lengths. Two weeks later on 4 December, he ran in a 6 furlong claiming race at the same racecourse in which he again started favourite at 6-5, but finished 11th of 12 runners, beaten approximately 9 ½ lengths by the winner and giving a performance which represented a turnaround in form of about 32 pounds on the Racing Post’s ratings.

3.    For the first race, Betfair noticed that there was heavy betting on the horse to win carried out through a number of accounts based in Italy – betting that was of an unusual size for the accounts in question. Two weeks later, it was noted that many of the same accounts placed sizeable lay bets. Investigations since then led the BHA to present charges of breaches of the Rules of Racing concerning (mostly) the second race.

The allegations

4.    There were seven individuals against whom a variety of breaches were alleged at the hearing of the enquiry. These are set out in summary form below:-

1)    Niccolo Rugani

He accompanied the horse into Wolverhampton racecourse for both races, and is said to have been engaged in corrupt lay betting against the horse for the second race, contrary to Rule 201(v). Alternatively, he is said to have been in breach of Rule 247, which outlaws lay betting by owners and other connections of a horse. Another allegation was that he provided inside information about the horse for reward, in breach of Rule 243. There were three separate allegations of misleading officials: two of these said that Rugani gained access to the racecourse stables by falsely representing himself to be the horse’s owner, and the third allegation was that he misled the Wolverhampton Stewards after the race when stating that there was no explanation for the poor run on 4 December. Rugani provided answers to questions put by BHA investigators in an interview, but he did not attend the enquiry. He submitted a short written document for the enquiry which does not say in terms whether he admitted or denied the allegations against him. It appears to accept the factual material put together in the evidence collected by the BHA. Nevertheless, the Panel approached the case against Rugani on the basis that the BHA had to prove the breaches of the Rules of Racing it alleged.

2)    Sabrina Spuntarelli

She was a “limited partner” in Chevaux Prestige, a limited liability partnership which owned GOLDEN SURPRICE (IRE). She was alleged to be complicit in making corrupt lay bets for the second race, in breach of Rule 201(v). She faced alternative allegations of breaches of Rules 247 and 243. However, during the hearing, the allegation of breach of Rule 247 was withdrawn by the BHA in the light of her former husband Pierre Carniti’s evidence (itself backed up by documentary material about the partnership structure) that he was the unlimited partner and that she only had the authority he gave to act for the partnership. She faced a fourth allegation of breach of Rule 201(iii) in wilfully causing the horse to start in the 4 December race when she knew it was not qualified to run because the Rule 184(a) requirement for it to have been in the care of a licensed trainer was not observed. She denied all the breaches alleged against her, and although she did not attend the hearing or give evidence, she was represented by an Italian advocate, Federico Spuntarelli, (who happened to be her cousin).

3)    Pierre Carniti

He was the “unlimited partner” in Chevaux Prestige, the organisation which owned the horse, and the main allegation he faced was that he had been engaged in corrupt lay betting for the second race on 4 December. There was an alternative allegation that he was in breach of Rule 247, both in respect of the lay betting he was said to be responsible for on 4 December and for some small lay bets he was said to have placed on 19 November in an effort to move the price favourably for his intended win bets later in the day. He admitted breaches of Rule 247, but rejected the other allegations and gave evidence by telephone to the enquiry. He was represented by the Italian advocate, Marina Lo Faro.

4)    Carlo Spuntarelli

He is the father of Sabrina, and was alleged to have been part of a corrupt conspiracy as the Betfair account holder whose account placed some lay bets against the horse for the 4 December race. He denied the allegation but did not give evidence. He was also represented by Federico Spuntarelli.

5)    Alessandro Carli

He was said to be part of a corrupt conspiracy because lay bets were placed through an account he controlled. He did not appear at or give evidence to the enquiry, but wrote in to say, in essence, that he had nothing to do with the lay betting because his Betfair account was used by others.

6)    Oscar Urbina

Urbina rode the horse in the 4 December race. There was no criticism of the ride he gave, and no allegation that he was part of or even knew of the conspiracy that others were said to be engaged upon. He was, however, alleged to have become aware, shortly before the race, that the horse had not been in training since 19 November. Hence he faced an allegation of concealing from the Stewards (in association with Rugani) that there was an explanation for the poor run – said to be a breach of Rule 220(i) and 220(viii). He was also alleged to have prejudiced the integrity and proper conduct of racing by the same concealment – in breach of Rule 220(iii). Finally he faced an allegation of failure to make a report on the running of the horse as required by Instruction H24 – Reports on Performance by Riders. He denied all the breach allegations and was represented by Rory Mac Neice.

7)    Aldo Locatelli

As the registered trainer, he was alleged to be in breach of the requirement imposed by Instruction D5 – Trainers Representative to authorise someone to represent him properly at the 4 December meeting. He was represented at the hearing by Federico Spuntarelli, and admitted to a “partial breach”. However, he also said that he had delegated the owner (by whom he seemingly meant Carniti) to represent him. The Panel therefore approached the allegation against him as one which the BHA had to prove.

5.    When this enquiry was formally launched in February 2009, there was an eighth person facing allegations – Gaetano Ravelli. He had died by the time of the hearing in January 2010, and the Panel was asked not to make any findings against him, but to have regard to the evidence collected, so far as it might be relevant to help determine the allegations against others.

GOLDEN SURPRICE (IRE) and the two Wolverhampton races

6.    The horse was acquired by a limited partnership with the full title of “Chevaux de Prestige Italia di Pierre Carniti E C” a few months before it was sent to England in November 2007. It had run extensively on Italian racecourses. Its new trainer was given as Aldo Locatelli, whose main yard is near Milan. The horse, however, was stabled in Tuscany, near Grosseto where Carniti lives. Locatelli informed the Panel (through the record of his interview and when giving evidence by telephone at the enquiry) that he had never seen the horse while it was in his care. It was kept and looked after by the owner – effectively Carniti and Sabrina Spuntarelli as far as Locatelli was concerned. The Panel cannot say whether this arrangement – by which a trainer recognises responsibility for a horse as its registered handler (as Locatelli did in his evidence by accepting that he would be liable if there was any doping problem), but does not exercise personal supervision  – is permitted or usual in Italy.  It seems strange to English eyes.

7.    The horse was brought from Italy to England by horse transport under the care of Hana Corcikova, who seemingly worked for Carniti. When she arrived at Wolverhampton she was met by Rugani. They were signed into the secure area of the racecourse at 09:15 hours on 19 November. Hana Corcikova signed in as the representative of Mr. Locatelli. Rugani signed himself him as representing the ‘owner’.

8.    In the race itself, GOLDEN SURPRICE (IRE) was ridden by an Italian jockey brought over for this specific race – P.Convertino.  The horse broke quickly but was soon settled in the rear third of the field. Convertino then took the horse around the outside of all the other runners on the final bend, making ground easily on the leaders. He rode it briefly to lead over 1 furlong out, went clear and won by 5 lengths without putting the horse under any further pressure.

9.    There was heavy betting from Italian based Betfair accounts on this outcome. Among those seemingly betting heavily to win were Rugani, the Carlo Spuntarelli account, Carli and Ravelli. The betting is described in greater detail below, but it goes without saying there was nothing wrong in such betting. Indeed, the chance they took in betting to win at around even money might be seen as surprising by many. Locatelli expressed the thought that it was a substantial risk to bet on the win when there was no clear form guide for the horse against UK runners.

10.  After the race, Rugani bought the horse in for 11,500 guineas. (He had brought a large amount of cash to enable him to try to do this.) Instead of taking the horse back to Italy, it seems that Carniti and Rugani were impressed enough by the ease of the win to consider racing again in England. So arrangements were made that afternoon to stable the horse in England. Rugani made contact with Pasquale Minichiello, an Italian who had long been resident in the UK, and who, after retiring from Tattersalls Ltd (Auctioneers) helped in making transport and stabling arrangements for horses travelling to and from Italy. He phoned his usual contact, Wendy Middleton, to ask her to stable the horse for 10 days or so pending possible return to Italy. The horse arrived at Middleton Stud in the evening after the race. Minichiello asked that the horse be exercised while with the Middletons. In fact, while it was there, it received only limited exercise – maybe for an hour a day on good weather days – when it was allowed out into a temporary cage set up on grass near the stable. The horse did not have any hard feed, just hay and water. It was not ridden at any time during the fortnight with the Middletons.

11.  Exactly when Carniti decided to run the horse again is unclear. Obviously, the plan for a possible run became firmer when the horse was entered 6 days before the claiming race on 4 December. Rugani returned to England, it seems, the day before that race. He made contact with Minichiello, and asked that he be taken to see the horse that evening. He was taken to the Middleton Stud and went out to see the horse in its box but there was no detailed inspection. The horse was kept rugged up. There was no evidence that he either asked or was told what if any exercise the horse had had. Wendy Middleton and her husband were given to understand that the horse was being removed to be sold the next day.

12.  Urbina was booked to ride a couple of days or so before the race. Carniti had telephoned Marco Botti, the Newmarket trainer, to ask him whether he could arrange for Urbina to ride. He wanted Urbina because he had seen him ride in Italy, and knew he spoke a little Italian. Botti did not know who Carniti was, but agreed to ask Urbina, who rode regularly for him. Urbina was happy to take the ride, and he expected to win after researching the form. To get GOLDEN SURPRICE (IRE) to Wolverhampton, it seems that Hana Corcikova made an arrangement (possibly indirectly) for a stable employee of Ed Dunlop, named Andrea Stastna, to act as stable girl. She, or possibly another stable employee of Ed Dunlop, arranged for transport to Wolverhampton with Ian Watkinson, a former jockey who had a Newmarket based transport business.

13.  Watkinson and Stastna picked up GOLDEN SURPRICE (IRE) from the Middleton’s Stud early on 4 December. Watkinson recalled that Colin Middleton was shocked to hear that the horse was being taken to Wolverhampton to race, because he felt it was not fit, and had understood that it was leaving to be sold.  Watkinson was told that the horse had had “no exercise to speak of” during its time with the Middletons.

14.  Around 10:00 hours, Watkinson arrived at Wolverhampton, after a roundabout journey because of traffic problems. They were met by Rugani. Because neither Rugani nor Stastna spoke good English, Watkinson approached the Stable Security Officer for them to make arrangements for stabling. This was Shaun Mitchell. He was aware that nobody was able to show him a stable pass indicating that they represented the trainer, Mr. Locatelli. But Stastna showed him her pass for Ed Dunlop and he checked Rugani’s passport. The entries made in the stable register (in part by another Security Officer) record that Rugani was representing Locatelli, and his status was given as “owner”. Stastna signed also as Locatelli’s representative, and her status was given as “stable girl”.

15.  When Rugani inspected the horse upon its arrival at Wolverhampton, he said (during interview by investigators) that he thought it did not look well in its coat. He spoke with Carniti, who asked him to check the horse’s temperature to ensure it was well enough to race. Carniti gave evidence to the Panel that this was done, and that the temperature showed nothing untoward. At all events, lay betting against GOLDEN SURPRICE (IRE) began shortly afterwards on a number of Italian based accounts, including Rugani’s account named baccio123.

16.  Rugani gave riding instructions in Italian to Urbina (who in fact spoke only a little of the language) in the weighing room. Urbina’s account was that he was told that the horse should jump well but needed to be settled in mid field before being brought with a run around the outside of the other horses, and not between them. Watkinson helped Statsna to get the horse ready for the race at 13:30 hours. He spoke with Urbina shortly before then. Urbina’s evidence was that Watkinson was concerned about the horse, and told him to be careful because “he’s fresh; he hasn’t been doing a lot so he’ll be fresh”. Watkinson gave evidence that he told Urbina of the horse’s lack of preparation, that Urbina was taken aback by this and said he would be careful. In his original statement, Watkinson did not set out his memory of the words he used when giving this warning. When giving evidence to the Panel, Watkinson expanded on his account. He thought he told Urbina that the horse had lacked exercise and that he (Watkinson) was concerned that if the horse was put under pressure it could collapse and cause a pile up. He recalled, he thought, having asked Urbina whether they should tell the Stewards. Urbina was categorical about his recollection that nothing of the sort about a trip to the Stewards was said, and maintained his evidence that the warning that came across to him was simply a warning that the horse had not been doing a lot and could be fresh.

17.  In any event the horse went to post without any problem and did not show any of the signs of freshness that Urbina had been warned about. GOLDEN SURPRICE (IRE) broke well from the stalls but was swiftly in trouble. Urbina began to ride forcefully within the first furlong to try to maintain his positon, but without being given any visible response. Despite getting a ride that was energetic throughout, the horse finished last but one. As Urbina said in evidence, it was never travelling. This defeat produced substantial winnings for the lay bets placed through Italian based Betfair accounts.

18.  On returning after the race, Urbina did not report that the horse had never been travelling, as he accepted he was required to do by Instruction H24. When going to his car afterwards, he found Rugani and asked him whether he had discovered anything wrong with the horse. On being told that nothing had been found, he told Rugani that he should report this to the Stewards and offered to go along with him because Rugani’s English was limited. They went along and made that report. That led in turn to the Stewards officially recording that they had considered the run and “having received a report that the trainer was unable to offer any explanation and in the absence of any other relevant information, they decided not to hold an enquiry.” A routine dope test returned a negative result.

19.  Urbina was paid £100 in cash by Rugani for “expenses” before they parted. He told the Panel that it was normal for jockeys to be paid expenses when racing in Italy, and evidence was produced to that effect. It should be recorded that Urbina was quite open about this payment when interviewed by investigators, and volunteered the fact of the payment which would otherwise have been unlikely to come to light. On his drive back to Newmarket, Urbina called Botti to ask him what he knew about the horse, saying that it had not been exercised properly. Urbina was described by Botti as sounding disappointed, and wanting to find out what the explanation might be for the poor run. Botti was unable to help.

20.  It was suggested on behalf of Carniti, the Spuntarellis and Locatelli that the reason for the bad run on 4 December was discovered in January 2008 when the horse was examined by the vet Dr Martelli and found to have bone fragments around hind leg joints which were removed by operation. But as Dr Martelli said when giving evidence to the Panel, it was difficult to say that that condition (which he found and treated on 22 January) accounted for the performance on 4 December. He told the Panel that he had provided veterinary treatment for GOLDEN SURPRICE (IRE) for some time before the trip to England, and that the horse required treatment – usually a steroid injected into joints – every 2-4 races. He said it had had such an injection before its run in Milan on 4 November, and that it was a horse which required only light work because of this chronic joint problem: it only needed to be walked or trotted, according to him.

21.  The Panel concluded that the bad run on 4 December could not be attributed to the bone fragments found by Dr Martelli on 22 January. Those fragments may have been present for some time or they may not – it is impossible to tell. The likely explanation is to be found in a combination of the restricted diet and exercise provided in the fortnight before the 4 December race and the horse’s tendency to stiffness that must have increased as the effects of the pre 4 November injection wore off. It should be emphasised that absolutely no blame for the performance can be attached to Urbina.

The betting evidence

22.  Betfair identified 15 accounts as showing unusual betting patterns for the race on 19 November. These included accounts in the names of Rugani, Carniti, Carlo Spuntarelli, Carli and Ravelli. As a whole, the accounts risked £115,000 odd to win £169,500 odd. For 6 of the accounts, their back bet was the largest ever placed; for 3 of them it was the second largest; and for 2 more it was the third largest. Carli’s polmone account was the most striking example: £16,897 was risked to win £19,501, whereas the next largest back bet was just £420. The carlo1234 account in the name of Carlo Spuntarelli wagered £21,078 to win £25,945: its next largest back bet was £2,863.

23.  Of course, there was no breach of the Rules of Racing involved in placing these bets – this was an old fashioned coup. But the change in tack when the horse ran 2 weeks later was remarkable and called for explanation.

24.  The same group of accounts risked £124,500 odd to win £100,000 odd. On this occasion, Carli’s polmone account risked £53,003 to win £46,843, taking a lay risk nearly ten times larger than the account had ever taken before. Other accounts took a lay risk that was much greater than their history showed was usual. For instance, Ravelli’s Tatina27 account wagered £38,032 to win £29,398: a lay risk bigger than any other taken by any of the accounts in his name. The Carlo Spuntarelli account named carlo1234 placed lay bets only during the running of the race. £2,745 was risked to win £976 at Betfair prices between 3.45 and 4.6.

25.  It needs to be said, however, that the Panel attached limited significance to the fact that many of the accounts took unusually large lay positions. This was because these same punters took unusually large back bet positions for the 19 November race, when, objectively speaking, the risk was one which more cautious punters might not have taken as the horse was an unknown quantity in an English race. So while the size of the lay bets required explanation, it did not of itself indicate that they must have had inside information to motivate their betting.

The decisions on the allegations of breach

1) Niccolo Rugani

26.  There is no doubt that Rugani was in breach of Rule 247, because he was a “service provider” within the meaning of that Rule at the time when he placed lay bets. So he was not allowed to place any lay bets. In Rugani’s defence document, filed just before the enquiry hearing, he denies being engaged in any lay betting on the 4 December race, though he accepts that sub-accounts registered under his master account did bet, and that he would have received commission from their success. The Panel concluded he did place lay bets and will have shared in the proceeds of successful bets placed by others on the strength of his assessment of the horse’s chances. One of the more revealing indications of his participation in the betting is that he logged on to Carli’s polmone account just minutes before the race started, and more lay bets were then placed. The fact that he logged onto this account is plainly demonstrated by the fact that the internet access for this was traced to Wolverhampton.

27.  But was he also in breach of Rule 201(v), either because he was guilty of a “corrupt practice” in placing such lay bets, or because he was involved in a conspiracy with others to place lay bets on the basis of inside information? In the Panel’s view, there is no doubt that Rugani was acting on the basis of inside information when placing the lay bets on 4 December. That information consisted of his assessment of the horse when he saw it at Wolverhampton on 4 December.  He was sufficiently persuaded by what he saw of the horse’s condition to think its chances were poor, even if he did not know exactly what feeding or exercise regime it had had while with the Middletons.

28.  However, The Panel came to the view that there was no plot formed before 4 December in this case. There was no plan to restrict diet and exercise and training. The arrangements for stabling with the Middleton’s were made at the last minute and it is significant that the person whom Rugani asked to do this – Pasquale Minichiello – did ask for the horse to be exercised while it was with the Middletons, as both Wendy and Colin Middleton confirmed in evidence to the Panel. There was no evidence that Rugani, Carniti or anyone else involved in the lay betting on 4 December had sought to ensure that the horse received no exercise or a limited diet. Nor was there any evidence that they came to learn of how little it had had.

29.  There was no evidence that Rugani learnt much from his visit to see the horse on 3 December, but his observation of the operation that the Middleton’s ran – which it must have been evident to him was not a training operation – and his inspection of the horse on 4 December when it arrived at Wolverhampton caused him to think it would not do well. Though it seemed at first highly suspicious that the Middletons were told that the horse was being taken to be sold (suspicious because it might indicate they knew the horse was unfit to race and wished to conceal from the Middletons that it was going to do just that), this was in a sense potentially true because it was to run in a claimer. The Panel was alive to the possibility of language confusions in this case because Rugani spoke little English. The confidence and size of the lay betting through Italian based accounts including Rugani’s no doubt also raised the suspicion that there was a premeditated plan for a bad run on 4 December to be achieved through keeping the horse out of training and on a non-racing diet. Quite simply, there was no such plan and the lay betting, was attributable to what Rugani saw of the horse’s condition on 4 December, reinforced by what he had gleaned about the Middleton’s operation the evening before. But these same accounts, including Rugani’s, had been prepared to take surprising risks with their win betting on 19 November so there was no reason why they should not be prepared to take a similarly surprising risks on what might seem to others to be limited information to justify placing the lay bets.

30.  The fact that Rugani placed lay bets on the basis of his inside information establishes, in the Panel’s view, that he was acting corruptly in placing the lay bets. The use of accounts in the names of others to place some of these bets is significant. He accessed Carli’s polmone account as already described. He also accessed a Ravelli account later on 4 December. That account sharing (which was not new: it had occurred before 4 December) shows a degree of agreement between them over betting activities to exploit the inside information Rugani had provided.

31.  As for the alternative allegation of breach of Rule 243, there was plainly communication of inside information back to Italian account holders, as appears above. The degree of account sharing between at least Rugani, Carli and Ravelli persuaded the Panel that Rugani must have shared the rewards that his inside information produced through exploiting the lay side of the Betfair market, so the breach was found to be proved.

32.  There were three aspects to the allegation of breach of Rule 220 (viii). The first was said to be the misleading of the Stewards, who were told that Rugani could give no explanation for the horse’s flop on 4 December. He knew that the horse was in poor condition and must have realised that one reason for this was because it had been in stables rather than in proper training, even if he did not know the detail of how the horse had been looked after while with the Middletons. So the Panel decided that he had misled the Stewards when telling them (through Urbina) that there was no explanation. He concealed from them the very observations that caused him and his confederates to engage in the lay betting.

33.  The second aspect of the allegation suggests that he misled the Security Officer when signing in on 19 November. The Panel disagreed. He signed in as the representative of the owner, and he was doing that. He had agreed with Carniti to go.

34.  Finally, it was said that he mislead the Security Officer on 4 December when he signed an entry made in the Stable Register to the effect that he was representing Locatelli. But he also gave his status as owner, and it is likely that the entry was made on the basis of what Watkinson told the Security Officer. The Panel did not therefore find this allegation proved.

2) Sabrina Spuntarelli

35.  In the Panel’s view she was not in breach of Rule 201(v). As the idea for the lay betting coup only came about on the day of the race, it is necessary to see if there was any clear evidence to connect her to it. There was not. It is true that Locatelli and Carniti, when first interviewed by investigators, sought to emphasise her role in running Chevaux Prestige. By contrast, their live evidence to the Panel (given by telephone links) sought to persuade the Panel that she played no part in running it. The truth lies somewhere in between – she carried out some administrative functions for the owning partnership, though it was Carniti who exercised real authority. But whatever part she may have played in active administration of the partnership, the true question is whether she was party to any agreement to lay GOLDEN SURPRICE (IRE). Her former husband Carniti placed such bets as he placed from his racing club in Siena; there was no reason to decide she was party to this.

36.  Essentially for the same reason, there is no material to indicate any breach of Rule 243 by her. She said in interview that she had been told by Carniti that he had received a report (obviously from Rugani) that the horse did not look good, but no evidence or basis for concluding that she passed it to anyone but her father or that she received any reward for passing it on.

37.  The final allegation she faced was that of breach of Rule 201(iii), because it was said that she had entered the horse when it was not qualified to run on 4 December, not having been in the care of or trained by Locatelli for the 14 days before the race (as Rule 184(a) requires). Again, the Panel does not find this proved, for the simple reason that there is no evidence that she made the entry for the race. All the indications are that this was arranged by Carniti.

3) Pierre Carniti

38.  Carniti was alleged to be in breach of Rule 247 in three respects, and he admitted breach. These were (i) for small lay bets placed to “seed” the market for the win bets made on 19 November; (ii) for small lay bets made early on 4 December for the same purpose, before he heard that the horse was not looking good and therefore decided not to follow up with back bets; (iii) for the lay bets he placed during the running of the race on 4 December.

39.  Because the lay bets referred to at (i) and (ii) above did not appear in any account documents disclosed in this enquiry, the Panel asked for further detail of them from the parties after the hearing ended. The information received from Carniti’s representative was that he could not recall or identify which account they had been placed on. Nor did the BHA produce the evidence. It was on the basis of Carniti’s admissions in his interview that they alleged the breaches identified as (i) and (ii) above. He admitted them without prompting and without any indication that he was inventing them for any purpose. Despite the absence of the original records, the Panel accepted that they must have been placed.

40.  But the importance of these transactions seemed to the Panel to extend beyond the question of breach of Rule 247. If they did occur, they provide support for the view that the laying activity for the 4 December race was decided upon on the day rather than being the culmination of some long planned plot. Just as Carniti’s lay bets on 19 November were a prelude to the later heavy win bets, so the fact that he followed the same path initially on 4 December was a strong indicator that he originally intended the same course of action on that day. If, early on 4 December, he had been intending to lay it when the market developed, why not back it at that stage?

41.  Was Carniti in breach of Rule 201(v) – the anti-corruption Rule – because of his lay betting on 4 December? He pointed to the fact that the only bets of any size placed on the carlo1234 account which he admitted he used were bets in running. They yielded a profit (converted into sterling) of £975 for a liability risked of £2,745. While bets in running are to be seen in a different light from bets before a race, because they can be prompted by new, public information (ie how a horse is perceived to be running), they can also still be influenced by inside information available to the punter before the race. In this case, the Panel had no doubt that Carniti placed those bets because what he saw in running confirmed what he had been led to expect by Rugani’s information. In other words