EXCLUSION BANS TO STAND Exclusion orders placed on three of the men cleared of charges of race-fixing and doping remain in place following a meeting of the Jockey Club`s Disciplinary Committee today. Ray Butler, John Matthews and Adam Hodgson, who were warned off all licensed premises in March 1999 in light of the charges brought by the Metropolitan Police, have been excluded for an indefinite period and were told that no application to have the orders lifted would be considered until January 1 2006. The Jockey Club lifted exclusion orders on Glen Gill and Jason Moore in December following the collapse of the trial at Southwark Crown Court in October. However, at the same time the Jockey Club announced that, following a review of all the information available, a decision on Butler, Matthews and Hodgson would await the outcome of the inquiry. The committee gave their decision after considering evidence which included numerous statements and telephone billing accounts and having heard representations from the three men. Jockey Club press officer John Maxse stressed there was little similarity between the court case and the inquiry held today. He said: 'The charges of conspiracy put before the court and the matter put before the Disciplinary Committee today are two very different things. 'With regard to the doping trial that was a criminal case before a judge and jury where the issue was whether or not there was evidence to prove conspiracy to defraud. 'However Rule Two of the Rules of Racing gives the stewards the power to exclude someone from licensed premises if they consider the presence of such a person undesirable in the interests of racing. 'The Disciplinary Committee heard various statements which were collected during the course of the investigation, some of which were used during the trial and other corroborating information which was not.' The three men could appeal against the decision and the Jockey Club are prepared for the possibility of legal action. 'They have the right to appeal but they have to give us their grounds and that would go to an appeal body here,' Maxse added. 'Beyond that if they had the intent to take it further it could go to court, we are aware of that prospect over every decision we make.'
