IT’S much too early to prejudge the result of the Jim Best rehearing which is ongoing as I write this, but there are aspects of the case which are of great concern to the sport of horseracing and its governance. The fact that this case has rumbled on since last December, when Paul John’s eye-catching riding of a pair of Best-trained runners precipitated the initial BHA investigation, has been bad news for the sport’s ruling body. The case against Best was initially portrayed as something of a penalty kick, but it is now heading firmly in ‘disastrous own goal’ territory.

It’s fair to say that Best, who has been the subject of numerous BHA enquiries, has been viewed as a marked man by those who police racing, and when John willingly agreed to testify that he had stopped both Echo Brava and Missile Man on Best’s instruction, it must have seemed like the regulator’s prayers had been answered.

All it required then was to establish the credibility of their key witness, arrange a non-partisan disciplinary hearing and let justice take its course. It’s not worked well, though, has it?

DISHONEST INDIVIDUAL

In early March, Best was found guilty of all charges and labelled “a dishonest individual who corrupted a young man” by the panel, while the BHA’s head of disciplinary, legal and risk, Adam Brickell tore into the trainer and called his behaviour “reprehensible, and an abuse of the privilege of holding a licence to train racehorses.”

It seemed pretty unequivocal, but eight months later Best is still here while Brickell has gone in slightly murky circumstances after the fairness of the process was challenged by Best’s legal team. That wasn’t the only grounds on which an appeal was successful, however, with the case against him hinging almost entirely on the evidence given by Paul John. In the hubbub over the inappropriate choice of Matthew Lohn to chair the disciplinary panel, it’s rather been forgotten that the prosecution were heavily reliant on the believability of John as key witness. Lohn was replaced for the rehearing by Sir William Gage.

Now that we’ve eventually moved on to the rehearing, it might be expected that the BHA would have shored up their previous shortcomings and presented a more robust and compelling case but the signs haven’t been encouraging. Given complaints about the perception of bias in Lohn’s appointment to the disciplinary panel in the spring, it was almost comical that the man originally tasked with putting the legal case for the authority was Graeme McPherson, who is well qualified to do so as a Queen’s Counsel, but as a licenced trainer like Best, could hardly be described as an appropriate person for such a sensitive role.

LORD WESTON

Unsurprisingly, Best’s team objected to McPherson’s nomination, and Louis Weston was appointed as counsel instead. On Wednesday, Weston was criticised by Gage for spending too long in cross examination without touching on the specific allegations made against the beleagured Lewes trainer, and that must be a concern to those who hope and expect the BHA to be effective in its role of maintaining integrity.

The case which they have brought against Best is a very simple one – that he wanted two horses stopped from achieving their best placing and that he instructed his jockey to achieve that aim. He may be suspected of all other sorts of chicanery relating to ‘duck-egg gambles’, a high percentage of non-runners, and mysteriously broken-down cars, but none of that is on the table here, and an attempted character assassination will surely not sway the panel.

The most worrying aspect of the rehearing, however, is that the BHA don’t appear to have any back-up plan. Once again, Paul John is the only witness for the prosecution and it’s hard to imagine that the case against Best will stand up if the rider is not found to be a credible witness. His testimony to date has certainly been colourful, and taken on its own, his story is easy enough to believe; enough questions have been asked of his personal integrity, however, including in evidence given by former employer Victor Dartnall and his head girl.

Both John and the BHA deny that a deal was struck to offer leniency on his sentence in return for his cooperation, and it will be interesting to see what the panel’s conclusion on that allegation is. It’s easy to think that the worst case scenario for Best’s accusers is that the case against him will be unproven but that’s too optimistic a view. Even a positive result would be something of a pyrrhic victory given the opprobrium generated by the Lohn fiasco, and the best the regulator can hope for is some effective reputation management, or the unerring ability of the public to get distracted by other trivialities.