NOTICE OF A FORTHCOMING DISCIPLINARY PANEL HEARING (STEVEN GAGAN, ELLIOTT COOPER AND STUART TREVASKIS)

09 Jun 2014 Disciplinary

Former licensed jockey Steven Gagan, former licensed trainer Elliott Cooper and unlicensed individual Stuart Trevaskis have been informed they will be requested to attend a Disciplinary Panel hearing on a date to be confirmed to consider possible breaches of the Rules of Racing, as follows:

Steven Gagan

1. Did STEVEN GAGAN in the period between about 1 August 2011 and 13 January 2012 act in breach of Rule (A)41.2 by conspiring with one or more others including ELLIOTT COOPER for the commission of a corrupt or fraudulent practice namely the use for lay betting with a Betting Organisation of information about the likely performance of horses in races when, as GAGAN knew:

a. the information was (i) known by a Rider, GAGAN, as a result of acting as a Rider and (ii) not information in the public domain or regarded as such under the Rules of Racing (and hence ‘Inside Information’ within the Rules) and would provide a bettor with an unfair advantage in the betting market

b. the information was or included the fact that GAGAN was prepared and intended if necessary to take steps or to omit to ride the horse so as to prevent it from winning or being placed in the race

c. the conspirators contemplated that the net proceeds of the lay betting would be shared between them

d. the information related to a horse of which at least one of the conspirators was an owner and as such prohibited by the Rules of Racing ((E)92.2) from laying or instructing another to lay it with a Betting Organisation and

e. the true ownership of the horse was fraudulently concealed

and/or

2. In relation to each of Races 1, 2 and 3, did STEVEN GAGAN on and/or before the date of that Race act in breach of Rule (A)36.2 by communicating directly or indirectly to ELLIOTT COOPER and/or STUART TREVASKIS for material reward, gift, favour or benefit in kind Inside Information about the horse due to run in that race?

3. In relation to each of Races 1 and 3, did STEVEN GAGAN act in breach of Rule (B)59.2 by intentionally failing to ensure that the horse was run on its merits in the race?

4. In relation to each of Races 1 and 3, did STEVEN GAGAN act in breach of Rule (D)53.2.3 by receiving part of the proceeds of laying a horse to lose with a Betting Organisation?

5. Did STEVEN GAGAN act in breach of Rule (A)50.2 by failing to supply billing accounts in respect of a mobile telephone which he had used in the period 1 August 2011 to 23 February 2012 and which were relevant to an investigation conducted under Part A(5) of the Rules of Racing and fell within the scope of a request made of GAGAN on 23 February 2012 by an Approved Person with prior specific authorisation from BHA who reasonably believed such records to be so relevant?

Elliott Cooper

1. Did ELLIOTT COOPER in the period between about 1 August 2011 and 13 January 2012 act in breach of Rule (A)41.2 by conspiring with one or more others including STEVEN GAGAN and/or STUART TREVASKIS for the commission of a corrupt or fraudulent practice namely the use for lay betting with a Betting Organisation of information about the likely performance of horses in races when, as COOPER knew:

a. the information was (i) known by a Rider, GAGAN, as a result of acting as a Rider and (ii) not information in the public domain or regarded as such under the Rules of Racing (and hence ‘Inside Information’ within the Rules) and would provide a bettor with an unfair advantage in the betting market

b. the information was or included the fact that GAGAN was prepared and intended if necessary to take steps or to omit to ride the horse so as to prevent it from winning or being placed in the race

c. the conspirators contemplated that the net proceeds of the lay betting would be shared between them

d. the information related to a horse of which at least one of the conspirators was an owner and as such prohibited by the Rules of Racing ((E)92.2) from laying or instructing another to lay it with a Betting Organisation and

e. the true ownership of the horse was fraudulently concealed
and/or

2. In relation to each of Races 1, 2 and 3 did ELLIOTT COOPER act

a. in breach of Rule (A)37 by causing or encouraging STEVEN GAGAN to act

i. in contravention of Rule (B)59.2 by intentionally failing to ensure that the horse was run on its merits in the race and/or
ii. in contravention of Rule (A)36.2 by communicating directly or indirectly to COOPER for material reward, gift, favour or benefit in kind Inside Information about the horse due to run in that race and/or

b. in breach of Rule (A)36.2 by communicating directly or indirectly to STUART TREVASKIS for material reward, gift, favour or benefit in kind Inside Information about the horse due to run in that race and/or

c. in breach of Rule (E)92.2.2 by instructing TREVASKIS to lay a horse to lose a race with a Betting Organisation on COOPER’s behalf when it was a horse of which COOPER was an owner and/or

3. In relation to each of Races 1 and 3 did ELLIOTT COOPER act

a. in breach of Rule (A)42 by having dealings with a Professional Rider, Steven GAGAN, which caused GAGAN to contravene Rule (D)53.2.3 by receiving any part of the proceeds of the laying of a horse with a Betting Organisation and/or

b. in breach of Rule (E)92.2.3 by receiving any part of the proceeds of a lay bet placed with a Betting Organisation by TREVASKIS on COOPER’s instructions and on his behalf on a horse of which COOPER was an owner?

Stuart Trevaskis

1. Did STUART TREVASKIS in the period between about 1 August 2011 and 13 January 2012 act in breach of Rule (A)41.2 by conspiring with one or more others including STEVEN GAGAN and/or ELLIOTT COOPER for the commission of a corrupt or fraudulent practice namely the use for lay betting with a Betting Organisation of information about the likely performance of horses in races when, as TREVASKIS knew:

a. the information was (i) known by a Rider, GAGAN, as a result of acting as a Rider and (ii) not information in the public domain or regarded as such under the Rules of Racing (and hence ‘Inside Information’ within the Rules) and would provide a bettor with an unfair advantage in the betting market

b. the information was or included the fact that GAGAN was prepared and intended if necessary to take steps or to omit to ride the horse so as to prevent it from winning or being placed in the race

c. the conspirators contemplated that the net proceeds of the lay betting would be shared between them

d. the information related to a horse of which at least one of the conspirators was an owner and as such prohibited by the Rules of Racing ((E)92.2) from laying or instructing another to lay it with a Betting Organisation and

e. the true ownership of the horse was fraudulently concealed

and/or

2. Did STUART TREVASKIS on and/or before the date of each of Races 1, 2 and 3 act in breach of Rule (A)37 by

a. assisting, causing or encouraging STEVEN GAGAN to act

i. in contravention of Rule (A)36.2 by communicating directly or indirectly to COOPER and/or TREVASKIS for material reward, gift, favour or benefit in kind Inside Information about the Horse due to run in that Race and/or
ii. in contravention of Rule (B)59.2 by intentionally failing to ensure that the Horse was run on its merits in the Race and/or
iii. in contravention of Rule (D)53.2.3 by receiving part of the proceeds of laying a horse to lose with a Betting Organisation?

b. assisting, causing or encouraging ELLIOTT COOPER to act

i. in contravention of Rule (A)36.2 by communicating directly or indirectly to TREVASKIS for material reward, gift, favour or benefit in kind Inside Information about the Horse due to run in that Race and/or
ii. in breach of Rule (A)42 by having dealings with a Professional Rider, Steven GAGAN, which caused GAGAN to contravene Rule (D) 53.2.3 by receiving any part of the proceeds of the laying of a horse with a Betting Organisation and/or
iii. in contravention of Rule (E)92.2.3 by receiving any part of the proceeds of a lay bet on a horse of which COOPER was an owner?

Notes to Editors:

1. BHA’s investigation into this case began in January 2012, however, as of July 2012 the matter was referred to Cumbria police. An investigation was then conducted by Cumbria police from the period of July 2012 to July 2013, however no charges in relation to racing were brought and the matter was referred back to BHA at this time.

2. The races involved in this investigation are as follows:

  1. QUELL THE STORM: the 17:30 at Cartmel on 25 August 2011
  2. PLATINUM: the 12:25 at Fakenham on 1 January 2012
  3. KICKAHEAD: the 13:40 at Musselburgh on 13 January 2012

3. Details of the Rules involved and possible penalties are as follows:

Rule (A)36.2
Communication of Inside Information
Entry point: Disqualify/exclude 3 years
Range: 18 months – 5 years
http://rules.britishhorseracing.com/Orders-and-rules&staticID=126201&depth=3

Rule (A)37
Assisting, encouraging or causing Rule contraventions
For Penalty see Rule that was breached
http://rules.britishhorseracing.com/Orders-and-rules&staticID=126202&depth=3

Rule (A)41.2
Involvement in corrupt or fraudulent practices in relation to racing
Entry point: Disqualify/exclude 3 years
Range: 6 months – 10 years
http://rules.britishhorseracing.com/Orders-and-rules&staticID=126207&depth=3

Rule (A)42
Involvement in contravention of Rules as to betting etc
Entry point: Disqualify/exclude 6 months
Range: 3 months – 10 years
http://rules.britishhorseracing.com/Orders-and-rules&staticID=126208&depth=3

Rule (A)50.2
Requirement to provide information or records
Entry point: Disqualify/exclude 18 months
Range: 1 year – 3 years
http://rules.britishhorseracing.com/Orders-and-rules&staticID=126216&depth=3

Rule (B)59.2
Failure to run a horse on its merits
Entry point: Disqualify/exclude 8 years
Range: 5 years – 25 years
http://rules.britishhorseracing.com/Orders-and-rules&staticID=126360&depth=3

Rule (D)53.2.3
Betting and betting contacts: professional riders
Entry point: Disqualify/exclude 18 months
Range: 3 months – 10 years
http://rules.britishhorseracing.com/Orders-and-rules&staticID=126110&depth=3

Rule (E)92.2.2 + Rule (E)92.2.3
Restrictions on laying to lose
Entry point: Disqualify/exclude 18 months
Range: 3 months – 10 years
http://rules.britishhorseracing.com/Orders-and-rules&staticID=126895&depth=3

 

For more information contact:

Robin Mounsey
British Horseracing Authority
t:02071520048
m:07584171551
e: rmounsey@britishhorseracing.com