'Our quasi-judicial system is working'

Q: This month Jim Best was given a six-month suspension for the same offences that earned a four-year ban at an original hearing earlier this year. That's a remarkable degree of variation. Harry Stewart-Moore, Best's solicitor, described the system as a lottery and he's right, isn't he? The sentencing guidelines are chaotic.

No, I think the sentencing guidelines are clear. What I would say with regard to Mr Stewart-Moore's comments is that the quasi-judicial function that Christopher Quinlan QC reviewed and said was fair and legally robust was there for Mr Best to use. They have chosen not to appeal and have said to do so would be a roll of the dice. I would say Mr Best had enough confidence in the appeal process when he appealed the first outcome, and that shows that our quasi-judicial system is working. He should have had faith in it if he wanted to protest his innocence against these very serious charges. With regards to the guidelines, we are disappointed a stiffer penalty wasn't given down, but having read the reasons given by the panel we take on board and note very carefully their comments about the guidelines. For the good of our sport, I have a mandate now to look at those and make sure there are the toughest penalties put in place, without resistance from participants in the sport to the changes, for the most serious offences in the sport.

Q: Can you give any further detail about the penalties you wish to put in place?