'Dishonest and disreputable' - Carter account totally unreliable say defence

Former jockey Adam Carter gave a series of contradictory accounts over his involvement in the alleged stopping of Blazeofenchantment that made his evidence so unreliable it was impossible to believe, a BHA inquiry was told on Thursday.

Robin Leach, the barrister representing co-defendants John Wainwright and John Wright, said that at the outset of the case the BHA had conceded it would not be able to proceed against his clients if Carter did not attend the hearing.

When Carter did attend he retracted a statement he had made and allegations in a second interview that Malton trainer Wainwright and Wright told him to stop the horse, saying these were lies given in a bid to secure a more lenient punishment.

"I am not sure how the situation has improved for the BHA," Leach said in his final address to the disciplinary panel. "In my submission he [Carter] is a dishonest, disreputable person who has given conflicting accounts.

"No one knew he was going to change his evidence. You saw him for yourselves. His evidence is totally unreliable."

Wainwright, Wright, a professional gambler from Carlisle, and Carter are charged with conspiring to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice over the running and riding of Blazeofenchantment, who finished seventh of nine in a race at Southwell in June 2014 on his stable debut. Wainwright and Wright deny the charges.

Also charged are stable employee Paul Bradley and Peter Bennett, who, like Wright, is not registered or licensed. They are alleged to have known of the conspiracy and used the inside information received from Carter to gain an advantage on the betting markets. Neither has attended the hearing.

Leach said it was difficult to find a motive for his clients' involvement as there was no suggestion they had benefited financially. Wainwright ran a small stable, had few winners, few horses and most of his runners were outsiders.

"Why throw away the chance of winning a race at Southwell with a horse that was 4-1?" he said. "It was a bit of a rarity for him to have a horse at those odds. He had never seen the horse run. Why mess around before he had seen what it could do?"

He said both Wainwright and his son Ben had small bets on the horse. "Is that consistent with a horse expected to be given a stopping ride?"

As for conspiracy between Wright and Wainwright, Leach said: "They barely knew each other at this time. Theirs was not a friendship. There was no evidence of phone contact between them and the BHA can't prove there was."

Leach said that according to the BHA case Wainwright and Wright must have used "dirty phones" to speak to each other, but there was no mention of a second phone in Carter's "confession" statement nor of Bradley, who was called by Carter before the race.

The hearing had been told that the investigation was triggered by the suspicious lay betting activity of Geoff Marsden, who was an associate of another professional gambler Jason Parkin, a friend of Wainwright also known by Wright. The panel was told Parkin was interviewed by the BHA during its investigation.

"Perhaps it's surprising that he has not been charged given his possible involvement," Leach said. "They all know Parkin for different reasons. There is no sequence of calls that links them all together and connects them with the betting and stopping activity."

As a result of the lack of information on the two lay bettors, Marsden, who has been excluded after refusing to cooperate, and Bennett, who says he has no case to answer, Leach said the defence had not been able to explore possible alternative theories.

"Namely that there was one conspiracy involving Carter, Bradley, Bennett and Marsden," he said. "There were bets placed at very similar times within minutes of each other."

The panel retired to consider its verdict, which will be announced at a later date.