- This topic has 41 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 8 months ago by Anonymous.
December 29, 2006 at 16:57 #629
Look forward to hearing the defence and seeing how this one unfolds.December 29, 2006 at 16:58 #34766SmithyMember
- Total Posts 720
Well I never. Innocent until proven guilty imo.December 29, 2006 at 17:30 #34767VenusianParticipant
- Total Posts 1665
What’s all this about, then?December 29, 2006 at 17:36 #34768
Two more jockeys are to be charged by the HRA. It was revealed on ATR by the intrepid reporter Gordon Brown on ATR that the 2 are Tony Culhane and Dean Mernagh.December 29, 2006 at 17:38 #34769WallaceParticipant
- Total Posts 862
Good old HRA. Good to see they are serious about getting vermin out of the game.December 29, 2006 at 17:48 #34770empty walletMember
- Total Posts 1631
:o newsDecember 29, 2006 at 17:59 #34771
At least it means I can free up one of my new year wishes.December 29, 2006 at 18:11 #34772VenusianParticipant
- Total Posts 1665
Thanks DJ, they weren’t named in the RP.December 29, 2006 at 18:43 #34773PaulBMember
- Total Posts 75
Quote: from Wallace on 5:38 pm on Dec. 29, 2006[br]Good old HRA. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Good to see they are serious about getting vermin out of the game.<br>
No matter what they do they will never ever get the vermin out of the game!! Wherever theres is large amounts of money to be made so easy there will always be someone to step in!! Its just somethin that comes with the game in my opinion and will always be there.December 29, 2006 at 19:45 #34774ArtemisParticipant
- Total Posts 1736
I think you’re right. There are plenty of deterrents against misdemeanours of all kinds, but crime is still the chosen occupation of many people.
Horse racing has always been open to cheating and while things have definitely got better in recent years, there are still a lot of people who get their living from the sport who don’t mind flouting the rules for financial gain. I don’t see any way to eradicate this completely.December 30, 2006 at 00:04 #34775LingfieldMember
- Total Posts 919
The jockeys are charged along with Culhane’s brother in law and father in law in relation to the communication of information in respect of 37 races held between July 03 and April 04 which are listed on the HRA and RP websites. Needless to say the jockeys deny the charges through their solicitor.<br>The charges remain to be proved but full marks to the HRA for pursuing those corruptly passing inside information. Depressing that a top northern rider, who presumably is making a decent living from racing, is allegedly involved. <br>Racing has always been an esoteric activity reliant on inside information. How widespread this corruption is remains a matter of conjecture.Depressing to read the views of other posters that as some miscreants are punished or warned off, others will step in as lessons are not learnt.December 30, 2006 at 06:40 #34776empty walletMember
- Total Posts 1631
More and more jockeys being charged, but you don’t see many racing insiders, like trainers, owners, jockeys agents, jockeys association reps, journalists, bookmakers etc coming out with statements like Wallace’s
<br>I find that strange, but there again, maybe not
(Edited by empty wallet at 7:01 am on Dec. 30, 2006)December 30, 2006 at 10:18 #34777Nor1Member
- Total Posts 384
Jockeys who want to succeed do as they are told.<br>Until they realise they are usually the only ones who get punished (if this indeed happens) there will always be others to replace them.<br>Some owners, trainers, bookmakers etc. are just as guilty. They work as a team with the rider.<br>Hopefully, jockeys will begin to respect themselves for their skill and bravery; not ride to instructions if this means cheating; and report to the HRA those who try to corrupt them.December 30, 2006 at 10:24 #34778WallaceParticipant
- Total Posts 862
EW there have been a few hangers-on also charged but wait and se what else comes out over the next couple of months. There is a big scalp to come from the bookmaking industry.December 31, 2006 at 14:11 #34779GalejadeMember
- Total Posts 185
We need your expert advice on this case. It is alleged and/or assumed that Culhane has inside info on his rides and has benefitted by telling his Brother in law and father in law who have then backed sometimes to win , but more normally laid his mounts to lose on the exchanges.
What are the standards of proof that have to be applied ie is it ‘on the balance of probability’ or ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’?
It occurs to me thay if I had a relative riding I would take much pleasure from following his every mount and backing it.
In the case of Culhane who had 870 rides for 88 wins and a level stake loss of 246 points just laying his every race to lose would be very very profitable ( even better if Chris Catlin was your brother – in -law since he has a level stake loss of 527 points) and it is open to all of us to do this since only 2 jockeys last year made a level stakes profit and the vast majority of regular riders lost over 200 points on a level stake)
secondly I personnally doubt Culhane’s inside info on Channon horses and wonder how this is established. Culhane does not ride work for Channon and to the best of my knowledge merely turns up at the track and is briefed by channon’s representative and rides them( a comment that applies incidently to almost all unattached jockeys)
Individually or in partnership I have had up to 5 horses in training for the best part of 30 years mainly with small trainers who have no professional jockey riding work for them and , apart from the fact that they may have ridden them before, there is no way a jockey has inside info on our horses – do you have to prove they have or is it just a reasonable assumption?
To the unitiated it would seem easy to establish a case which might pass the balance of probability ie- his brother in law is a jockey and he backs his mounts so he must be getting inside info which is ,by definition, a corrupt practice – but to ascertain beyond all reasonable doubt that something is going on which is corrupt in that it adversely effects other punters strikes me as an entirely different kettle of fish.
Would welcome your legal clarification of this potentially murky issue.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.