Five gamblers accused of taking part in a horse-doping and betting conspiracy walked free from London`s Southwark Crown Court today after a judge ruled there was 'no case to answer'.
The much-publicised inquiry, which following the doping of two strongly-fancied horses in 1997 rocked racing, unearthed a death threat and saw a total of 16 arrests.
But the acquittals brought the #3million, three-and-a-half year investigation to a sudden halt without a single conviction to show for it.
The five men _ including 'big-stake' punter Jason Moore _ could not hide their relief at the judge`s ruling after he decided the Crown had failed to prove the men were members of a conspiracy.
Smiles, handshakes and congratulations all round greeted the decision which followed lengthy legal submissions by the quintet of senior QCs defending them.
The jury of seven men and five women trying the case were then called back into court and formerly directed by Judge Christopher Elwen to return not guilty verdicts on Moore, 30, Raymond Butler, 52, Adam Hodgson, 37, John Matthews, 36 and Glen Gill, 34.
After apologising to the jury for keeping them waiting for several days as the legal argument was heard in their absence, he explained: 'In every trial at the end of the prosecution case, the defence has the option of calling upon the court to review the state of the evidence and determine whether it is deficient in any respect, and indeed so deficient that a defendant or defendants may have no case to answer.
'That review took up quite some time and involved some very careful and detailed submissions on everybody`s part.
'Having thought very carefully what was put to me I have come to the conclusion that there is no case for these defendants to answer.'
He went on: 'Central to the charge of conspiracy is the idea they were in some way involved in doping horses or arranging for horses to be doped and thereby going on and defrauding bookmakers and others.
'Having considered matters very carefully my conclusion is that there is no evidence from which you can infer that that part of the plot took place.
'In the circumstances there is no case for any of these defendants to answer,' he concluded.
The judge`s decision means that whoever plunged a syringe containing a fast-acting sedative into Avanti Express at Exeter and Lively Knight at Plumpton, is still free.
And they are likely to remain that way despite probably having pocketed a fortune after the acetylpromazine _ ACP for short _ took effect and the animals ran badly.
John Maxse, the Jockey Club`s press officer, commented: 'Two racehorses were doped, jockeys put at risk and the betting public defrauded but nobody has been brought to justice.
'While the law remains unchanged racing is vulnerable to criminal activity and the outcome of this case underlines why, in its submission to the Gambling Review Body, the Jockey Club has called for changes to the criminal law and for stronger regulation of betting.'
As the defendants left court Hodgson said he was 'pleased' with the outcome.
'I`ve been through hell for the last three years ... now I`m going to celebrate with a few glasses of brandy and champagne _ together!'
He went on: 'I think it was a malicious prosecution in that they had to charge somebody ... I think the evidence was ridiculous. At the end of the day they charged me with going to Plumpton and doing all this sort of stuff. But I have never been there in my life. I don`t even know where it is to be honest.'
Hodgson added he planned to appeal against the 'warning off' from the Jockey Club, preventing him from attending racecourses.
Butler, who also spoke outside court, said he intended to do the same, adding: 'I feel a lot of resentment about the case.'
Now, however, he was looking forward to a glass of wine and a few days back in his native Graignamanagh, in County Kilkenny, Eire.
Their cases will now be reviewed by the Jockey Club.
Maxse added: 'Due to the serious nature of the charges the five individuals charged were excluded from all licensed premises until the outcome of the criminal proceedings was known.
'The stewards of the Jockey Club will now consider the evidence available to them and review the situation.'
Moore of Sands Way, Woodford Green, Essex; Butler of Cricklewood Broadway, Cricklewood, north west London; Hodgson, of Laurell Avenue, Langley, Slough, Berkshire; Matthews of Beaumont Court, Post Office Lane, Slough and Gill of Highlands Road, Fareham, Hampshire, had all pleaded not guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud between March 1 and April 4, 1997.
Richard Whittam, prosecuting, had insisted they were 'members of a team that set out to dope racehorses for gain by betting on one or more of the horses who were not doped'.
As a result bookmakers and punters alike were 'prejudiced'.
He claimed the gang first struck on March 7 at Exeter during the second race of the day, a two-mile, three-and-a-half furlong novices` hurdle.
But not long into the event, trainer Charlie Egerton`s seven-year-old Avanti Express was in trouble and jockey Jamie Osborne decided to pull the gelding up.
'I was going nowhere, he felt lifeless,' Osborne was to later tell the court. 'It was quite apparent I should be attempting to get a bit closer to Give And Take but I was unable to do that ... something was obviously amiss.'
As he pulled the horse up, market rival Give And Take romped to victory.
At first neither a stewards` inquiry nor Egerton could explain what had gone wrong with Avanti Express.
However, a urine sample taken shortly after the race found traces of the drug, which is sometimes used in training but is banned by the Jockey Club. It affects an animal`s central nervous system and can last for hours.
According to the Crown the five men next targeted Lively Knight, a 1-7 favourite, in a novice chase at Plumpton three weeks later.
This time jockey andhorse finished the course, but could only manage a poor second to Stormhill Pilgrim.
Trainer Josh Gifford later recalled Lively Knight`s businessman owner Alan Weller going 'berserk', with 'smoke coming from his ears' as the drama unfolded.
Whittam told the court that Butler was not only present at both races but, nine months later, was found to have syringes with traces of ACP in a cupboard at home.
He claimed they had been adapted so they could be carried ready-loaded without leaking.
Butler, however, told police they belonged to a friend who raced greyhounds and used the sedative to prevent them suffering travel sickness during trips to and from Ireland.
Whittam had also maintained that a late flurry of on-course wagers by some of the conspirators, as well as an analysis of Gill`s spread-betting at a bookmakers, indicated knowledge of the doping.
Frequent mobile telephone calls between some of the men before, during and after the events, were another pointer, he suggested.
So, too, were two attempts by Hodgson to slip into the secure stabling area at Exeter, where Avanti Express spent several hours before his race, the only 'window of opportunity' for the sedative to be given.
He was challenged on both occasions and told to leave.
A finger of suspicion was also pointed at head travelling lad Joseph Tuite, who accompanied Avanti Express from Egerton`s stables at Chaddleworth, Lambourn to Exeter.
Whittam said: 'The prosecution cannot exclude the possibility he was involved in doping.' He was not called to give evidence.
Now that a court order has been lifted, it can be revealed that Tuite received a death threat at the stables in February, 1998.
Had he been allowed to, Whittam would have told the jury the letter warned: 'Be very careful Joe. You could very easily be found with the fishes.'
A secretary at the stables saw it, rubbed a pencil over the paper, revealing impressions that eventually led police to a man called Plunkett Herr. Not only did he live near Butler, but the pair previously shared a house.
No paper found in Herr`s house matched that of the letter.
Whittam vainly argued the jury should be allowed to 'consider the letter, consider whether or not it was written by Butler, or, if it was not written by him, sent on his behalf'.
But the judge ruled the evidence prejudicial to Butler and therefore inadmissible.
However, amongst the evidence the court was allowed to hear was that of a prosecution telephone expert.
The Crown had argued that numerous telephone calls between some of the defendants on the two race days backed up the conspiracy claim.
However, the expert said an 11-month long record of who rang who showed many other occasions _ before, between and after the races _ when contact was just as intense.
The four-week trial also heard case officer Detective Constable Peter Kelly admit he had been a 'bit green' about betting matters when joined the inquiry.
He had had great trouble, for instance, understanding 'value betting' where a punter bets against an odds-on favourite _ Gill`s explanation of his pattern of wagers. Even now, said the officer, he regarded the practice as 'folly'.
For his part Judge Elwen said during his ruling that the Crown had failed to prove the men had entered into an agreement to dope horses. Neither could they show who had doped them.
And although they had pointed a finger of suspicion at Tuite, the prosecution had neither called him a conspirator nor been able to demonstrate any contact between him and those in the dock.
Furthermore, there was nothing unusual in the level of telephone contact between a number of the defendants. As professional gamblers, their betting on the two race days was 'not out of line with their normal stakes'.
Finally, said the judge, the only opportunity to dope the two horses had been in the racecourse stables, and the Crown had failed to produce any evidence that any of the defendants had gained access to them.
Outside court, Det Con Kelly admitted: 'I am not surprised by the judge`s decision. The judge knows best.
'It was always going to be a difficult case because there is no physical evidence. We know horses were doped but not who by and how.
'I think there was enough evidence to bring the case to trial and obviously so did the Crown Prosecution Service. But once certain things happened during the trial, evidence not being admitted, losing critical evidence ... I think losing the Tuite letter was reasonably crucial and it changed the whole complexion of the case,' he said.
Asked how he felt about the repeated criticism levelled at him during the trial regarding his lack of knowledge of betting, he replied: 'The first officer in the case had a bit of racing knowledge but when I took over it was a bit too late for me to learn.
'It has been an interesting case and I have learned a bit about horse racing, but not a lot about betting.'
