The Hong Kong Jockey Club yesterday released further details of the case against John Egan after the jockey decided against an appeal over his two-month ban for 'improper practice'. But the Club refused to reveal the full facts of the case, with chief stipendiary steward John Schreck saying: 'Whilst particulars are now being released, reasons for arriving at a guilty finding are not going to be given and will not be given.' Egan, who was suspended on Monday for misleading the stewards following an inquiry which centred on his relationship with Jockey Club employee Godwin Chow, would not comment yesterday following the expiry of the 48-hour deadline for the lodging of an appeal. He rode at Happy Valley last night before starting his suspension, which will keep him out until April 1. The Club had refused to provide details of the case while there was the possibility of an appeal, but Egan's decision prompted Schreck to release the '11 particulars' of the charge against the jockey. The Club detailed the question-and-answer session between Egan and the stewards concerning his relationship with Chow, with the questions indicating that the Club had telephonic and photographic evidence to back up its case. Questioned about Chow, who works on racedays as a jockeys' room attendant, Egan told the stewards: 'I do not know anybody called Godwin Chow.' Although it later became clear that Egan knew Chow by sight, the jockey remained adamant throughout the exchange with the stewards that he didn't know the Club employee's name, saying: 'I never knew his name as Mr Chow.' Egan also denied having had phone conversations with Chow, specifically before the Egan-ridden Jade Ruyi finished last of 12 runners when 2.2-1 favourite for the Ruby Handicap at Happy Valley on January 9. Jade Ruyi's disappointing performance is at the centre of the Club's case against Egan, though Schreck said on Monday that the jockey's ride on the Peter Ho-trained gelding was not in question. Egan's suspension followed three separate stewards' inquiries into matters arising from the January 9 race, with the jockey found 'guilty of an improper practice in that the evidence he provided to the inquiry at Sha Tin on January 12 was not in accordance with the facts and was calculated to mislead the stewards'. Although the Club released details of the '11 particulars', which Schreck said the stewards had 'relied upon when finding him [Egan] guilty', he added: 'All followers of the sport must not expect the stewards to take the next step and publish reasons for arriving at any decision.' Schreck explained that the policy of openness over cases relating to racing incidents did not extend to conduct matters such as the Egan affair. 'The Hong Kong Jockey Club has adopted over recent years a policy of issuing comprehensive details of action taken by racing stewards,' he said. 'This has included providing the particulars of charges which have been levelled against licensed persons. Usually racing stewards deal with breaches of rules which have occurred arising out of the running of a race. It is therefore reasonable and fair to all concerned that the full particulars be provided, not only to the licensed person involved but to followers of the sport in this region. 'The particulars provided can be looked at and analysed by anyone who might choose to do so, because films of races are readily available and there is something tangible to check the particulars against. In a conduct matter, this is not the situation and it is clearly not the case in relation to the matter involving John Egan.' Schreck also pointed out that Rule 151 (7), under which Egan was charged and found guilty, included the disjunctive 'or' in the clause relating to 'false or misleading' evidence. 'The rule creates two separate offences and John Egan was found guilty of providing misleading evidence,' Schreck said. 'The racing stewards view the giving of misleading evidence in an inquiry as a serious breach of the rules. The whole thrust of the organisation of the sport necessarily requires that the racing stewards be able to pursue their obligations adequately and not to have their efforts to do so hampered or frustrated by persons such as they allege John Egan did during the course of this inquiry.'