- This topic has 59 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 12 months ago by
.
- Posts
We all know of Barneys charitable exploits in Africa, but he is not so charitable where us punters are concerned.<br>Once again he is found guilty of a breach of rule 155, and his jockey 157, (Zabeel Palace Notts yesterday).<br>While having not seen the race in question so I cant comment on the rights and wrongs of the punishment.<br>But it is not the first and wont be the last where this guy is concerned. I seem to remember this guy once proclaimed himself the "Punters Pal" the only pal this guy is, is himself and nobody else. I have learned over the years to not to bother backing in races where he has a runner, nobody knows wether his horse is going to drift like a barge or be backed off the board and bolt up on the bridle. I think there should be a more severe punishment for continous breaching of rule 155, say if a trainer is found guilty of the offence say 3 times then ban him from training for a year, might make him think twice then. I for one would be glad to see the back of this guy from racing altogether, as he is a total menace as far as punters are concerned.
(Edited by madman marz at 10:58 am on May 13, 2007)
So he is beyond criticism because he does work for charity ?.
Sting might save the rain forests and Bono might just save the world, but you dont have to like their music, as for Curley I dont like the way he trains horses. Or maybe he is just a loveable old rogue. Not when he was spitting and stuttering and totally losing the run of himself when attacking John Mc Crirrick. JMC showed what a real professional he was by keeping his calm while Curley made a complete idiot of himself.
Has he been done for this many times in the past? I just assumed they turned a blind eye to the non jiggers.
There is almost a need for two betting markets for races where there is a Curley runner-with it and without it.
Quote: from Lingfield on 3:21 pm on May 13, 2007[br]There is almost a need for two betting markets for races where there is a Curley runner-with it and without it.
Couldn’t have put it any better Lingfield.
Quote: from Smithy on 4:35 pm on May 13, 2007[br]Madman Marz,
Names and dates of these other Rule 155 occasions? <br>
Ah come on smithy there has been numerous over the years dont ask me to remember them.
How about the scam that was Mick Mcgoogle, funny he ran in curleys colours. <br>"Good old Barney the larger then life character who stitches up the bookies once again", but at the same time he stitched up millions of his fellow punters.
Smithy I can’t recall when he was last done under 155 if he ever was, he will probably win an appeal on yesterdays decision
Quote: from bluechariot on 8:01 pm on May 13, 2007[br]Smithy I can’t recall when he was last done under 155 if he ever was, he will probably win an appeal on yesterdays decision
Oh no not another apologist, Barneys philosophy." I’m alright Jack, I’m looking after No 1".
Madman
I don’t think anyone on here is a Curley apologist. Merely a case of pointing out that the punishments you suggest in your opening address would not affect Curley as this is the first time (as far as I can remember) he has been found in breach of rule 155.
Your suggestions would merely impinge on the hard working souls like Declan Carroll, who have been found guilty under this rule more than once in the last 12 months.
MM<br>You make sweeping statements without checking the facts. Mickmacmagoole never ran in Curleys name.
Not saying he’s right or wrong but continual breach of rules should carry severe punishments.
Quote: from madman marz on 8:20 pm on May 13, 2007[br]
Quote: from bluechariot on 8:01 pm on May 13, 2007[br]Smithy I can’t recall when he was last done under 155 if he ever was, he will probably win an appeal on yesterdays decision
Oh no not another apologist, Barneys philosophy." I’m alright Jack, I’m looking after No 1". ÂÂÂ
<br>
You should try and comprehend the difference between a Curley apologist and someone who was responding to a factually incorrect bleat.
For what it’s worth, I think it is a shame that a guy who clearly has a talent for training racehorses feels the need to operate in such a manner.
Quote: from Smithy on 8:41 am on May 14, 2007[br]
Quote: from madman marz on 8:20 pm on May 13, 2007[br]
Quote: from bluechariot on 8:01 pm on May 13, 2007[br]Smithy I can’t recall when he was last done under 155 if he ever was, he will probably win an appeal on yesterdays decision
Oh no not another apologist, Barneys philosophy." I’m alright Jack, I’m looking after No 1". ÂÂÂ
<br>
You should try and comprehend the difference between a Curley apologist and someone who was responding to a factually incorrect bleat.
For what it’s worth, I think it is a shame that a guy who clearly has a talent for training racehorses feels the need to operate in such a manner.
Ok smithy, I can’t substantiate my claims, but I would bet my bottom dollar that he was in breach of the rule other times in the past. Maybe someone out there has the relevent information.
I see good old Barney is going to appeal, and have another of his now famous/infamous spats with the stewards. If this guy had been operating in say Hong Kong he would have been hunted to extinction by now.
The stewards here are far too lenient. This guy is simply laughing at them.
OK, it’s 2001 and it’s not Rule155 but I lend my support to Madman’s sentiments….with so much racing taking place these days, I think we can afford ourselves the luxury of disegarding any race featuring a steed from B Curley esq.
"BARNEY CURLEY was found in breach of the Jockey Club instruction relating to schooling in public yesterday, writes Andrew Scutts. After the stewards had inquired into the running and riding of the Newmarket trainer’s Malakal in the maiden hurdle, Curley was fined pounds 1,200, his amateur jockey Richard Young suspended for seven days, and Malakal banned from racing for 30 days.<br>The gelding, who had been pulled up on his two previous starts over hurdles, finished sixth, beaten approximately 34 lengths, and was deemed to have been tenderly ridden throughout."
Training in public is a rule that only applies to private trainers with small strings It does not apply to Aidan OBrien Stouty Oxx etc who constantly use the race track to prepare their horses for the next race. All the powerful stables use races to bring their string along,<br>But if a small yard or a permit holder does likewise he is suspended.The rule is bull .
Quote: from andyod on 1:59 pm on May 16, 2007[br]Training in public is a rule that only applies to private trainers with small strings It does not apply to Aidan OBrien Stouty Oxx etc who constantly use the race track to prepare their horses for the next race. All the powerful stables use races to bring their string along,<br>But if a small yard or a permit holder does likewise he is suspended.The rule is bull .
Come on Andy, Curleys horses usually win on the bridle when heavily backed, after having 10 duck eggs behind its name, making absoluetly astonishing improvement in form.<br>Yes I do agree with you the bigger yards usually get away scott free, but there is no trainer between Britain & Ireland who so arrogantly and blatantly cheats as Curley does, and I hope the stewards once and for all hunt this guy without mercy, as Curley shows no mercy at all to his fellow punters.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.