Winston disappointed by verdict

Robert Winston was left 'extremely disappointed' and set to appeal after being told he has a case to answer in relation to corruption charges brought against him by the Horseracing Regulatory Authority.

The jockey had hoped to be excused from the main inquiry in January following a two-day preliminary hearing by the HRA's disciplinary panel earlier this week.

However, Winston was informed on Friday that he will face charges at the main hearing, which is due to start on January 10 and is expected to last around 10 days.

He will be joined by fellow jockeys Robbie Fitzpatrick, Fran Ferris and former rider Luke Fletcher, plus five Betfair account holders.

The charges relate to a security department investigation centred on 37 races between 16 June, 2003 and 29 February, 2004. In Winston's case, charges relate to 21 horses he rode over a seven-month period to early January 2004.

Winston's solicitor said: 'Robert is extremely disappointed by the disciplinary panel of the HRA's ruling that he has a case to answer,' Stewart-Moore said in a statement last night.

'He had hoped, at the very least, for a ruling that a substantial part of the HRA's wide-ranging and extremely circumstantial evidence was not admissible.

'There are aspects of the judgement which Robert Winston will undoubtedly appeal.

'The panel admit in their judgement that they had some difficulty in understanding the case that was put to them by Robert Winston's counsel, Andrew Monson. This much was clear from their reasons.

'It had been hoped that the (main) hearing, which had been set down for 10-15 days, would be substantially truncated by the panel exercising their discretion in removing a great deal of what can only be described as extremely circumstantial evidence. They have chosen not to do so. As a consequence, there will now be a full and very costly hearing, which the defendants will vigorously defend.

'We are also disappointed that the HRA have been permitted to persevere with a charge that the themselves concede to be based on an 'unlikely' circumstance.

'As the decision made by the panel has removed none of the HRA's evidence, it is hard to follow the panel's reasoning for stating that they suspect that the hearing may now be shorter.

'It is not understood what `admissions of fact' the panel are referring to in paragraph two of their decision.

'At the time that the HRA set this case down for a 10-15 day hearing, on their own estimate, they were aware of the defendants' positions from statements made by them to investigating officers.

'Contrary to what seems to be suggested by the disciplinary panel in their judgement, the defendants have not changed their positions since that time.

'Given the fact that the HRA evidence will be allowed in its entirety, there will be the added expense to the defendants of employing expert witnesses on their behalf. This will of course increase the length of any final hearing.'

The disciplinary panel was chaired by Tim Charlton QC and said it had: 'Looked critically at the case to be presented by the HRA - although necessarily it has considered only a portion of the documentation, and has not heard witness evidence at this stage - to see whether it was sufficiently robust to require answers from Robert Winston.

'It is clear to the panel that there is a case to answer, and that there is no warrant for dismissing any of the charges or for ruling that some of the evidence should be shut out.'

It went on: 'It should of course be remembered that no decision is being made at this stage about whether Robert Winston or any others among those charged are in breach of the Rules of Racing - that is what the hearing in January will determine.

'This present decision only looks at whether there is a case of substance that Robert Winston has to meet, and whether it is right in principle to permit the HRA to rely on certain parts of the evidence they have served on Robert Winston and the others.'