This is an article I've posted in previous years,but here it is again for anyone who may not have seen it.
It's obviously not comparing apples with apples,but none the less it goes to showing how deterrents can be introduced.
By J A McGrath12:01AM GMT 05 Mar 2007
Timing is everything. This weekend, there would be no better person to ask for verification of the old adage than Chris Munce, the Australian jockey who was jailed for 30 months in Hong Kong last week after being found guilty of selling tips.
Munce, 37, was a big name in his native country. He achieved every Australian jockey's dream of winning the Melbourne Cup and had also won plenty of other big races. In two decades, he rode 40 Group One winners.
The court in Hong Kong heard that Munce had the equivalent of £16,000 in cash and a list of horses and bets in his pockets when arrested by officers of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) leaving a local hotel in July last year.
The ICAC is an all-powerful independent group of enforcement officers who have more extensive powers than the local police. They have been involved in racing cases several times.
Prosecution lawyers argued that Munce was having bets placed on his behalf in exchange for tips or the passing of information. Two key figures involved in the jockey's operation - a middle-man and a punter - were granted immunity for giving evidence against him.
Emotional scenes erupted when the verdict was read out by district court judge Kevin Browne. Munce's wife Cathy broke down in tears before shouting: "You'll never get anyone here again." That cry was almost certainly inaccurate, but you can see where she is coming from.
To say this conviction has sent shock waves through the ranks of jockeys - and licensed persons in general - is an understatement. And it is not just in Hong Kong that the effects may be felt. This is a landmark case, as it is the first time a jockey in Hong Kong has been convicted for accepting advantages in return for tips. Munce's legal team have indicated he will appeal.
Anybody who has visited Hong Kong and seen the frenzy of even a normal raceday and the 48 hours leading up to it, will know that this is indeed a ground-breaking case. In Hong Kong a jockey is a god. If he walks into a crowded restaurant a table is always found. In the old days, it was a standing joke that any Hong Kong resident would rather have dinner with a leading jockey than the Governor.
Naturally, the reason for this is the craving for information about horses and their likely performances - or tips, as most would say. The Munce case has sent a very clear message to those wishing to ride in Hong Kong, but it has also highlighted an important change in the interpretation of what giving tips involves.
The judge found that Munce had undermined the intregrity of Hong Kong racing by "selling secret information" yet the jockey's legal team had argued that while this contravened the local rules of racing, it was not a criminal offence. It is this interpretation, and whether it also applies to other racing jurisdictions that will be the key to how racing is to be policed.
Britain's Horseracing Regulatory Authority have already stated they will take on cases, where their powers and access to phone and betting accounts provide the information they require - rather than handing them over to the police.
Paul Scotney, the HRA's director of security, has recently briefed trainers on the subject of "inside information," stressing that his department is only looking to punish those who pass that information on for corrupt or fraudulent purposes. He has promised a definition of "inside information" by the end of April.
As I said, timing is everything. Munce could be excused for wishing he was riding in an earlier, less-focussed era in which jockeys were almost expected to have 'punters'. But, racing has moved on, and times have undoubtedly changed.
I reckon this deterrent probably worked.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Topic Author
