One-year ban for Near Kettering owners over lay bets placed against their horse

Two owners have been banned from racing for a year after admitting they placed lay bets against their horse, Near Kettering, on three occasions in 2019, even though they still wanted him to win.

A disciplinary panel ruled on Thursday that Rob Drye and Helen Webster would have to be excluded from the sport, despite mitigating factors, because "the ban on any lay betting by owners against their own horse is absolute".

The verdict followed a six-hour hearing on Tuesday, at which Drye accepted responsibility for devising and directing what he believed was an efficient betting strategy, making much use of a Betfair account in the name of Webster, his partner.

The pair profited by around £200,000 when Near Kettering won at Thirsk and Sedgefield in the space of a fortnight in August 2019 but as part of their strategy they also placed dozens of bets against their horse, with the twin aims of shoring up his pre-race odds and then mitigating their losses if he was narrowly beaten.

A statement from the BHA judicial panel said the pair were "not acting dishonestly", but added: "They acted in grossly culpable ignorance of what the rule required.

"They stood to make a profit in each of the first two races even if the horse had lost, smaller than the win profit but substantial nevertheless. Their activities in the pre-race lay market had the effect of distorting [and almost certainly improving] the odds available to them when they switched to backing Near Kettering.

"While the absence of an interest in the horse losing is a mitigating factor, it does not take the case outside the range of those that will attract disqualification."

There was lengthy argument at the hearing about exactly how much profit the pair would have made, had Near Kettering been beaten at Thirsk or Sedgefield, with Drye repeatedly insisting the BHA had overstated its case on this point.

But the panel said: "Racing would be impossible to administer if a lengthy inquisition had to be carried out to find if any given owner who indulges in lay betting against his own horse has a financial interest in its defeat."

Owner made 'the most basic of errors'

The 42-year-old Drye was described during the hearing as "a self-employed IT consultant, assisting companies in rolling out large-scale infrastructure projects". He told the panel he was embarrassed by his failure to realise his activities were not allowed.

"Never in a million years did I think the strategy was in any way corrupt or going to fall foul of the rules," he said. "Ultimately, it is a back-bet strategy that was never designed to profit from the horse losing. It was designed to be efficient and profit from the horse winning.

"I have always assumed the rules around the laying of horses were to stop the corrupt element of the sport. I just simply did not associate what we were doing with anything corrupt and therefore did not imagine we would fall foul of the rules."

Of the work required in preparing his defence, Drye said: "It's not just been time-consuming and costly for the BHA, I assure you it's been exceptionally time-consuming at this end as well. It's frustrating for all concerned, how I've managed to find myself in such a position by way of making the most basic of errors."

Jeremy Phillips QC, presenting Drye's case, suggested the panel should consider whether any penalty was required in the circumstances. That was countered for the BHA by Tomas Nolan, who stressed that the matter was viewed seriously by the ruling body. "Horseracing and betting have a symbiotic relationship and each support the other," he said.

"It is crucial to the health of the sport that the betting market on horseracing is honest and fair. Allowing owners to manipulate the market in the fashion the respondents have and to escape with anything other than lengthy disqualifications would send a message that this sport is ripe for corruption and the regulator is not disturbed by this. That would be extremely detrimental to the sport."

Phillips said in a statement that Drye and Webster were "glad the panel accepted that they were not acting dishonestly . . . they said that it had never been their intention to profit had Near Kettering lost. The lay bets had simply been part of a more efficient betting strategy which they had not realised at the time was technically in breach of the rules."

Read more BHA hearing reaction:

Trainer Liam Bailey fined £4,500 for 'shocking' incident over female employee

Four-month ban for box driver who drove into people and abused officials

Harry Fry avoids punishment as top-class chaser tests positive for arsenic

'I felt pretty intimidated' – Hollie Doyle complains about treatment by stewards

Join Members' Club Ultimate and read tipping from the likes of Pricewise and Paul Kealy, all the big interviews and features, daily comment and news analysis – plus our Ultimate Daily newsletter. Click here to sign up.