- This topic has 12 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 7 months, 4 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
What is particularly galling is Skelton saying he has not slept for ages, trying to portray himself as the victim.
Yes, he wants to come across as the victim. But also the Lady from the judicial panel who felt that the fine of £6,000 “reflects the circumstances of the case and meets the needs of justice” doesn’t fully understand what he tried to do. by the way, that sum doesn’t make any sense at all, if you can get away with such a small punishment, you might try this again one day.
I wonder who really trusts Skelton right now. Most of his owners might have huge wallets like Ferguson, Mason, Hales and maybe he wouldn’t pull that stunt on them. But he’s anything else than trustworthy towards owners and punters.
Leave my new favourite trainer alone!
Have any of you seen the price of (who ate all the) pies, lately?
The lad’s got to eat!
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"If it was purely just about a misjudgement that led to the Code of Conduct breach then maybe you could somewhat argue the amount of the fine is justifiable.
However, he actively went to the lengths of first stating a document didn’t exist showing the payment he received for the sale and then, when it was investigated, producing an amended (or doctored) invoice which backed his story and it wasn’t until he was actually taken to court that the original invoice came to light.
That behaviour warrants a much more considerable fine that would be keenly felt by Skelton in order to drum home a lesson and be a deterrent from others trying it on.
Really good article from Chris Cook. Anyone who makes the frequently heard criticism that the racing media is afraid to criticise the racing establishment would do well to read it.
Cook thinks that possibly the announcement was made before Cheltenham because Skelton forced the BHA’s hand. That may be true, but I also have to wonder if the BHA were actually happy for this unsavoury matter to have as little attention as possible drawn to it.
Where Skelton plays the victim because it was hanging over him for such a long time, he would do well to remember that things would not have dragged on so long if he had been open with the investigation.
High profile figures like Skelton don’t get heavily punished, if it was a fringe trainer they probably would have had business ending fine thrown at them or warned off for a few years.
I agree with the article the fine should have been higher (maybe a calculation based on % of last seasons income)
It probably has cost Skelton a lot more than £6k, as the court case brought by the owners involved, was settled out of court with no details made public.
There is a case for saying Skelton should have had his licence suspended for a few months. Elliott did just for being an idiot and bringing racing into disrepute.
You can’t really use Elliott as an example for comparison, he was pictured on the phone sitting on top of a dead horse and that is a far more visceral optic for Horse Racing to deal with than someone not disclosing a financial payment over the sale of a horse.
That being said, had a licence suspension rather than a fine been the punishment, I would not have had a problem with that after learning the lengths Skelton went to cover/mislead the investigation into the payment he received.
That is what I meant, LD. Elliott’s offence had more visual impact but it could be argued Skelton’s offence was worse. Instead of whining about his sleepless nights he should reflect on how he got away with such a light penalty for some disgraceful conduct.
If I fiddled my expenses at work or was anything less than financially honest, I would be dismissed for gross misconduct.
Indeed Cork. Yet another example of racing thinking they live In a different bubble from anybody else. A horrendous look as Skelton lied,lied then lied again. Surely a fine of how much he fraudulently fiddled the sale would have been the least he should have got. Staggering it was so light.
Not an area I have any direct experience in but my hunch is that I think if we knew a tenth of the detail on what goes on behind closed doors when it comes to horse trading we’d probably be shocked.
A quick google of ‘bloodstock sales scandal’ will bring up a host of previous in this area.
You’d need your wits about you I think if you were a novice dealing with Skelton and the like.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.