Sean McBride corruption ban from Danny Brock affair reduced by two years following BHA error

The appeal board of the independent judicial panel has reduced the Sean McBride's corruption ban from seven to five years after it was forced to revisit its original findings when the BHA admitted to making an error during the original appeal back in May. 

McBride, the son and former assistant to trainer Charlie, was given a seven year ban by the judicial panel in January as part of his connection to the Danny Brock affair. McBride placed a bet on Tricky Dicky to win a two-horse race at Southwell in March 2019, having been told by Brock the night before that he would not be riding the only other horse in the race, Samovar, on its merits. 

During the independent panel hearing in January, the BHA withdrew elements of its case against McBride relating to his alleged role in the Brock conspiracy across several races in 2018-19 at a very late stage, instead focusing on the single corrupt betting on the Southwell race. 

At the original appeal in May this year, the BHA argued that it did not need to prove McBride was part of the conspiracy to stop Samovar to justify the seven-year sentence as handed down under rule (A)41. 

The appeal panel dismissed the McBride legal team's argument that he should receive a similar punishment as the six-month bans given to Kevin Ackerman and Kenneth McKay in 2015 for laying Ad Vitam, after the BHA successfully argued the penalty structure for such offences had changed in the interim.

Danny Brock: told McBride he would not be riding Samovar on his meritsCredit: Edward Whitaker

The BHA subsequently disclosed an error had been made in preparing the case and that those changes had been made prior to the Ackerman and McKay ruling. The authority returned the matter to the appeal panel in order to "correct the public record."

In passing down its findings following the reconvened hearing on July 14, the appeal board observed that the change in strategy adopted by the BHA in January when withdrawing conspiracy charges had led to a lack of clarity. 

The finding read: "It seems to us that part of the reason why it is only now that clarity is being established is the manner in which the BHA has presented its case. 

"The last-minute decision to withdraw a major part of the case against Mr McBride left him and the Panel with the unenviable task of seeking to meet a different case at rather short notice. To adopt a metaphor from the footballing world, the goalposts had been moved."

A ban for breaching rule (A)41 ranges from five to 25 years, with an entry point of eight years. The original disciplinary panel chose to take one year off the entry point owing to mitigating circumstances surrounding the situation of McBride's parents. 

The appeal panel decided that the single breach which the BHA had sought to prove should carry a six-year ban, reduced to five for the same mitigation.  

They concluded: "On the facts of this case, we take the view that the finding that Mr McBride was indirectly involved in the dishonest arrangement to stop the horse is only of limited credit to him. 

"His conduct was calculated and showed premeditated planning for the purpose of achieving significant dishonest profit."

Read this next . . .

Controversy at Brighton after flip-start for sprint handicap with meeting abandoned due to poor visibility  

The Front Runner is our unmissable email newsletter available exclusively to Members' Club Ultimate subscribers. Chris Cook, a four-time Racing Reporter of the Year award winner, provides his take on the day's biggest stories and tips for the upcoming racing every morning from Monday to Friday. Not a Members' Club Ultimate subscriber? Click here to join today and also receive our Ultimate Daily emails plus our full range of fantastic website and newspaper content