- This topic has 41 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
<br>I think you are being incredibly naive here Reet Hard.
Without referring to any specific cases, it is my belief that dozens, possibly hundreds, of horses have been deliberately stopped in this country so that connections (via their "agents" ) can benefit financially from those defeats. That is a little different to Paul Nicholls telling Derek Thompson he doesnt fancy one on The Morning Line….
(Edited by thedarkknight at 9:02 am on Jan. 3, 2007)<br>
Each to their own, TDK.<br> Maybe it is naive to believe that the information passed is all about crooked races, when there are any number of legitimate ways to engineer a horse’s chances – and know about it – without, in any way, risking one’s whole career for a handful of silver?
Many valid observations. ÂÂÂ
From a betting/levy standpoint, the crucial thing is to ensure confidence that the betting market is of a sufficiently level nature to make it worth playing.
IMO something like the Stock Exchange model isn’t strict enough –  overlay instead onto racing a more demanding, tried and tested professional disciplinary model:
Each trainer is sole principal of a firm of solicitors.  His clients are his owners.  His client files are the horses.   His employed solicitors are his staff and any freelancers he engages to work on his client files (jockeys).   Trainer, staff and jockeys are all licensed by the regulatory body.
Apply the Professional Conduct Rules:
1.   All information and opinions coming to the firm regarding a client and his horses in the course of a retainer is confidential to the firm.   All information and opinions – however boring and insignificant.   ÂÂÂ
2.   The trainer and his hired hands are each under a duty to keep confidential to the firm the affairs of  the  owners and their horses.  ÂÂÂ
    No discussion whatsoever outside the firm – ie jockeys as well as the other hired hands don’t say a word about a trainer’s horses to anyone outside of that trainer and his firm.    Not to family, not to friends, not to other trainers or jockeys, not to the media – nobody.  Information and opinions about those client files are not anybody’s but the client’s to peddle, for any reason – not even to make a trivial passing comment.
3.   On top of not disclosing, neither trainer nor hired hands must make any profit of any kind (financial, political, emotional, social, sexual or otherwise) by using confidential information in any other way than to best advantage of the particular file.
4.   If any secret profit nonetheless is made, it  must be disclosed fully to the trainer, the client and the regulatory body.  Secret profit can be retained only if they all agree.
5.   Trainer is the gatekeeper of  the information.  He speaks to the owner.  He can authorise his hired hands to speak to the owner.  He polices the use of the information and he is responsible (alongside the defaulting hired hand) if any of his hired hands (including his hired jockey) breaks any of the rules.
6.   The firm doesn’t talk about any client’s files with any other client,  unless both clients have given their fully informed consent.
7.   Subject to the above, a jockey can talk to the media and anyone else – but only about those horses on which he has no confidential information. ÂÂÂ
(side-benefit: Thommo / Rishi asking the runner-up what he thinks of the winner should make for some livelier replies.)
8.    In recognition of levy funding to the sport, trainer obliged to release to the public through the PA specified items of information .
<br>Others rules about running on merit, etc as now.
One final thing – it becomes recognised that the HRA’s responsibilities cannot reasonably be expected to stretch beyond its powers.  ÂÂÂ
The present interim, of-necessity, position whereby to maintain integrity the HRA is expected to police not only the racing industry but also the betting industry, ends in September 2007. ÂÂÂ
At that point the Gambling Commission – which has been given the powers over the betting industry – takes on responsibility for policing the betting part of the integrity equation.
best regards
wit <br>
This looks a very sensible and, more importantly, workable model. It seems fairly close to how I have always imagined things operate in Hong Kong, where they run a tight ship as far as disclosing information is concerned.
I’m sure wit has thought about how this model would sit in the broader legal system and hasn’t mentioned any notable caveats, so it may well be the way forward.
Wit,
I am in broad agreement with your suggestion – I suspect, however, that the media would not be since they thrive on a diet of trainer and jockey interviews and are already sniffy towards trainers such as Stoute who grinds out his interviews through gritted teeth. But no matter to me as they would have to reach their own opinions. The way the HRA seem to worry about media hoo bra hahs , however, does not bode well for its introduction.
I suspect moreover if a jockey or trainers brother in law lays one of his rides to lose there might still be difficulties and I shall watch with interest how long and how well Western Australian and Victorian racing thrive without betting exchanges. I am praying they do although I appreciate that is only part of the solution.
kind regards
If I have got Wit’s suggestion correct, all matters, including those connected with the integrity of racing, would be the responsibility of the trainer who employed or hired the alleged miscreant.<br>Good.
Nor1,
absolutely  – and that aspect is already not  so great a leap from the position envisaged by the  Phase One report on Inside Information:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
…….trainers are likely to be the chief target of any rule changes, former Office of Fair Trading chief executive and now Jockey Club regulatory board chairman John Bridgeman forecast yesterday.
"Trainers have to take much more responsibility for what they do.
"The trainer is the ultimate guardian of information about an owner’s horse and he has a duty of care to the owner, who has a legal right to the intellectual property about his horse’s health and wellbeing.
"A significant proportion of trainers don’t understand these points and what steps they should take to safeguard their position…."
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<br>So, doing a bit more overlaying of  solicitor obligations onto trainer: ÂÂÂ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A trainer undertaking any kind of business on behalf of an owner is bound to give to it that amount of personal attention which it reasonably requires.
If he hands it or any part of it  over to an agent [staff member, jockey, farrier, etc] to carry through, he is responsible [ both to owner and his own professional regulator] for the agent’s acts and defaults.
Thus, he is liable for any want of care, knowledge or honesty in his agent, and he can be made liable for the misconduct of his agent acting in respect of the matters for which the agent was engaged by him. ÂÂÂ
It is also the trainer’s duty to give proper instructions to any agent whom he may employ to conduct the owner’s business.
In the case of impropriety by the agent, the trainer will be responsible if the matter was one which it would have been within the agent’s authority to carry through in a proper manner.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<br>For anyone wanting to do a bit of overlaying of their own, The Guide to the Professional Conduct of Solicitors  (893 pages in paper form) is available online at:
http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/profession … =index.law
<br>Chapters 3,  12, and 15-19 may be of particular interest.
<br>Galejade, as regards the media, there was an interesting letter to the RP from a gentleman named Mal Downey just after the Phase One report:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In my racehorse-owning days, trainers used a code of conduct that ensured (1) nobody talked to a jockey without the trainer’s permission, (2) jockeys and stable staff did not socialise with gambling interests, (3) trainers did not divulge information on an owner’s horse to other owners in the stable, (4) the media did not dare approach stables etc.
In current times, the media appears to make the running in regard to the code of conduct.
Jockeys and staff are interviewed before the start, at the start, on the way back to the paddock and then, eventually, the trainer is interviewed, too.
Forget the owner unless he/she has a dog or a baby.
Television presenters, some of whom appear to be professional tipsters selling ‘inside information’, continually seek from jockeys and trainers their best bet of the day.
Since this is part of the owner’s intellectual property rights that trainers/jockeys are not allowed to divulge, then smoke screens abound and racing lives the great lie.
You cannot fool all of the people all of the time, and so racing falls into disrepute.
Perhaps the Jockey Club could take some control of interviews in regard to content and frequency and impose limitations.<br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<br> <br>best regards
wit<br>
(Edited by wit at 11:11 pm on Jan. 4, 2007)
- Total Posts 17716
Quote: from wit on 5:27 pm on Jan. 3, 2007[br]Many valid observations. ÂÂÂ
From a betting/levy standpoint, the crucial thing is to ensure confidence that the betting market is of a sufficiently level nature to make it worth playing.
IMO something like the Stock Exchange model isn’t strict enough –  overlay instead onto racing a more demanding, tried and tested professional disciplinary model:
Each trainer is sole principal of a firm of solicitors.  His clients are his owners.  His client files are the horses.   His employed solicitors are his staff and any freelancers he engages to work on his client files (jockeys).   Trainer, staff and jockeys are all licensed by the regulatory body.
Apply the Professional Conduct Rules:
1.   All information and opinions coming to the firm regarding a client and his horses in the course of a retainer is confidential to the firm.   All information and opinions – however boring and insignificant.   ÂÂÂ
2.   The trainer and his hired hands are each under a duty to keep confidential to the firm the affairs of  the  owners and their horses.  ÂÂÂ
    No discussion whatsoever outside the firm – ie jockeys as well as the other hired hands don’t say a word about a trainer’s horses to anyone outside of that trainer and his firm.    Not to family, not to friends, not to other trainers or jockeys, not to the media – nobody.  Information and opinions about those client files are not anybody’s but the client’s to peddle, for any reason – not even to make a trivial passing comment.
3.   On top of not disclosing, neither trainer nor hired hands must make any profit of any kind (financial, political, emotional, social, sexual or otherwise) by using confidential information in any other way than to best advantage of the particular file.
4.   If any secret profit nonetheless is made, it  must be disclosed fully to the trainer, the client and the regulatory body.  Secret profit can be retained only if they all agree.
5.   Trainer is the gatekeeper of  the information.  He speaks to the owner.  He can authorise his hired hands to speak to the owner.  He polices the use of the information and he is responsible (alongside the defaulting hired hand) if any of his hired hands (including his hired jockey) breaks any of the rules.
6.   The firm doesn’t talk about any client’s files with any other client,  unless both clients have given their fully informed consent.
7.   Subject to the above, a jockey can talk to the media and anyone else – but only about those horses on which he has no confidential information. ÂÂÂ
(side-benefit: Thommo / Rishi asking the runner-up what he thinks of the winner should make for some livelier replies.)
8.    In recognition of levy funding to the sport, trainer obliged to release to the public through the PA specified items of information .
<br>Others rules about running on merit, etc as now.
One final thing – it becomes recognised that the HRA’s responsibilities cannot reasonably be expected to stretch beyond its powers.  ÂÂÂ
The present interim, of-necessity, position whereby to maintain integrity the HRA is expected to police not only the racing industry but also the betting industry, ends in September 2007. ÂÂÂ
At that point the Gambling Commission – which has been given the powers over the betting industry – takes on responsibility for policing the betting part of the integrity equation.
best regards
wit
Wit<br>Imo, a workable model, but:
A/ The media would never accept it!
B/ The conspiracy theorists would be bereft of reasons to justify their own ineptitude!
The above apart; roll on the day.:cool:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.