- This topic has 27 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
R TYF, simply a compliment to his ability to keep his trap shut when someone is, to all intents and purposes, cheating.
A bit holier than thou sort of post , although glaringly true in my opinion , …also his association with some unsavory antics at Southwell(imo et al ) . last year did little to lift that perception
Uncomfortably I find myself nodding in agreement with the boss on this one
OR TYF, simply a compliment to his ability to keep his trap shut when someone is, to all intents and purposes, cheating.
Haha totally agree with you, David. I’m not condoning Curley and his type. Still, if you’re a trainer, knowing that what happens on the gallops stays on the gallops is essential. Most jockeys seem to try to conform with this unspoken code of secrecy.
For example, Sam Twiston-Davies recently did a Twitter Q&A session with the Racing Post. People asked him about specific horses, how they were working, what their targets were, how good there were etc. Twiston-Davies gave the same generic "we’re excited" and "could be a nice horse" answers to everything.
Queally did
admit
the offence. The sleepwalking thing was used in
mitigation
by his lawyer. Anyone in his position where he relies on driving for his job would have used what he could to try and make the penalty smaller. That is his lawyers job. You have no evidence that he will commit the offence again. Remember Cecil did. It seems your view is coloured by an obvious dislike of Queally. To say he has lost credibility as a person for the offence but then saying that someone who was convicted and then repeated the offence keeps his is quite frankly bizarre.
Queally has
effectively
denied committing the offence
whilst conscious
,which suggests to me he has no remorse and is prepared to concoct a story to ensure he is allowed to continue driving. As with any offence we must ask ourselves is it a one off or was he simply caught out.
He has 22 months now to consider his actions and one hopes his punishment will change his views.
You are right, HRAC was done for drink driving twice, and on the second occasion he struck an elderly couple. The point I was making was that when you remain in self denial your chances of repeating certain behaviours remains high.
I don’t know Tom Queally as a person, so it would be difficult to dislike him. Acquaintances of mine have had horses he has ridden and it has been suggested to me he can be arrogant, which probably stems from his time riding Frankel.
The key differences between the Cecil instances of drink driving and the Queally one is that Cecil, whilst in court, took it on the chin. We all know he had a problem with drink and following the second drink driving conviction he took measures to deal with his drink problem.
If Queally has a drink problem (and some would argue he has by virtue of the fact he has risked his professional and ergo domestic life through drink) then I pity him and hope he seeks professional help and gets it sorted.
However my suspicion is that at the moment he does not regard his behaviour as wrong and that is why he put together such a ridiculous tale for the court.
In terms of loss of credibility, I don’t believe Cecil did lost his, certainly not as far as the public were concerned. Yes, his professional achievements had a lot to do with that, and perhaps it is the lack of depth to Queally’s achievements on the track which means in the eyes of the public his credibility is in tatters. After all , apart from Frankel what did he achieve before or since? Comparatively little.
I’m not trying to play amateur high-court lawyer here, but according to the Judge, so-called Mr Loophole’s defence – one of sleep-walking/driving – is specifically addressed in law and had been rejected in a number of previous cases.
Hope Queally had the dimwit on ‘no foal/no fee’!
Mike
I try not to take any notice of court proceedings. Am not there listening to every word, so the judge and jury are likely to have a better idea than me if sleep driving is a serious defence.
As for Tom’s riding ability, he’s ok. Wouldn’t put him in the current top 10, might get in the top 20.
Value Is EverythingGinge, sleep driving is an offence but not in it’s own right. The person sleep driving if they crashed would be driving without due care and attention dependant on the severity of the accident.
If they killed someone it would be death by either careless or dangerous driving again dependant on all the circumstances.
I beleive Queally pleaded guilty to the drink driving offence as he would have no choice.
What is lawyer did was argue special reasons not to disqualify him from driving. He would however still have had the conviction for drink driving.
His lawyer rightly failed. My earlier point was and still is, if he has that medical condition, sleep walking/driving I am surpried the Authorities do not look at stop him getting his licence back when he re applies for his licence as he would seem to be a liability on the road.
On an aside from that he was in British Airways club lounge at Gatwick Airport with Jamie Spencer, Frankie Dettori and others who I did not recognise. They all went to board the flight to Barbados.
Not a bad life.People who have committed crimes whilst sleepwalking can put forward the defence of Automatism, because they were not consciously aware of what they were doing.
The law specifically prevents the use of Automatism as a defence in any case where the accused was intoxicated.
A person cannot be deemed responsible for that which they carried out whilst asleep, but has to be held responsible for driving in a state which could cause them to fall asleep at the wheel.
Queally’s lawyer should have been well aware of this and it was highly unprofessional to have tried to use this defence.
Should have used Lionel Hutz or Saul Goodman instead!
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Ginge, sleep driving is an offence but not in it’s own right. The person sleep driving if they crashed would be driving without due care and attention dependant on the severity of the accident.
If they killed someone it would be death by either careless or dangerous driving again dependant on all the circumstances.
I beleive Queally pleaded guilty to the drink driving offence as he would have no choice.
What is lawyer did was argue special reasons not to disqualify him from driving. He would however still have had the conviction for drink driving.
His lawyer rightly failed. My earlier point was and still is, if he has that medical condition, sleep walking/driving I am surpried the Authorities do not look at stop him getting his licence back when he re applies for his licence as he would seem to be a liability on the road.
On an aside from that he was in British Airways club lounge at Gatwick Airport with Jamie Spencer, Frankie Dettori and others who I did not recognise. They all went to board the flight to Barbados.
Not a bad life.Fair enough NI, I don’t follow these things at all closely. Unless it has a bearing on how a jockey rides, got no interest in their private lives.
Value Is EverythingI have often wondered if Hutz was a contributing factor towards the excellent Goodman.
I’ve little knowledge of legal matters but TQ and better-call-Saul were surely tilting at windmills, or blatantly taking the mick with that one. TQ must be thick – anyone with any common would have binned the bloke as soon as it was suggested surely?
his reputation as a credible human being is in tatters
everyone today is judge, jury and executioner. a statement such as this leaves no room for interpretation, ambiguity or, dare I say, compassion.
the modern world is a pretty nasty place and much of it emanates from the anonymous, tinpot, crackpot on-line commentariat.
Even allowing for extraordinary spectacle of the SJP, Frankel retired unbeaten with a pilot who never experienced defeat. But never let the facts get in the way of a nasty prejudice.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.