Do you think the BHA should take disciplinary action…

[bluechariot]

Lingfield

The defendants were never under oath as the case collapsed after the close of the prosecution case and they did not get the opportunity to state their side of the case. I don’t quite know where you are coming from in saying "the breaches of rules revealed under oath by the defendants needed to be investigated."

I think it is only fair to give both sides of the story and to my mind the behaviour of the Police,Jockey Club and to a lesser extent the CPS need further investigation to see if there were any attempts to pervert the course of justice. A criminal offence is much more serious than a breach of a few jockey club rules where there was not a shred of evidence that horses were stopped on purpose.

As the trial was nearing its premature conclusion it was funny to see the blame game starting. The police were blaming one another for the disclosure cock ups. (out of decency I call them cock ups and nothing more sinister). The Jockey Club are blaming the City of London police for taking on the case (two police forces turned it down so Scotney went to his old employers the City of London police where there were dinners between the Commissioner and the J.C and notes were not taken of the funding discussions nor anything else). The Police are blaming the CPS and the CPS are blaming the Judge as he had an opportunity to bin it in July when an application of no case to answer was made but the Judge did not know in July that Murrihy was not an expert in UK racing as his witness statement suggested he was and it was only when he went in the box that it became apparent he wasn’t.The Police instruct an expert without written instructions as to his brief. In any other walk in life if you instruct an expert you always do a written letter of instructions.
If the police had disclosed what Murrihys verbal instructions were and the Jim McGrath evidence earlier the case would have been stopped in July saving millions of taxpayers money. The McGrath evidence was disclosed on the Friday afternoon before the start of the Trial on Monday. It is amazing the Police consult an English expert and don’t like what they hear so they bury it.
Not a good episode for the forces of the state and Mr Justice Forbes is the only one that acted in an a fair manner though he should have stopped the Trial as soon as Murrihy said he was not an expert in UK racing.

[Fist of Fury 2k8]

oh come on Friggo. "It is that kind of attitude that has alienated racing to the general public in the first instance?" It is the fact it was brought to the public’s attention that will alienate people. All people on the outside will take out of this is that all Jockeys are crooks/racing is crooked….it goes with the territory

I have no doubt that public exposure of the misdemeanors of racing’s great and good will damage the sport short term, but allowing racing to wholly govern itself would simply allow the corruption that already exists to spread through the sport like a cancer, and then it really would be in the apocalyptic state that you and some others predict.

PS if you cared one hoot about racing you would be embracing the verdict and shouting it from the rooftops. Instead you are saying lets bring it all back up again and further tar the name of racing.

Just because I want a man punished for breaking the rules means I couldn’t care less about racing?
I care deeply about racing, and I want the public image of the sport to be as clean as possible. Of course just slapping a ban on a few jockeys will not end things, but if an example is made of those involved in this case, it could act as a deterrent for others thinking of pulling the wool over people’s eyes in future.
If racing exists purely to look after it’s own, it’s never going to attract new audiences and will suffer accordingly.

BTW Friggo if you are around before the end of the day go to http://www.sportinglife.com I see they published a picture of you and I on the front page.

If you are in any doubt which one is me… I’m on the right….. which sums up your chances…you may rough me up a little mate but I’ll beat you on points at the end of the day

Very good. Funny you should say that, I’ve been wanting Hatton to give that mouthy b@st@rd a good hiding for months!

Do I detect a slight amount of sarcasm there Never mind you can’t get them all right…..I might get racing wrong but MA of all sorts are my speciality………..it’s so much fun knowing more than you about everything

Here’s a tip for you Friggo don’t take anything I say to seriously it’s all just a bit of banter……..I have no right to judge you any more than you have the right to judge me…….all we can do is give opinions and mones is I think you’re a Dick Sorry you know I am just joking I admire you for standing up for what you believe and enjoy reading your posts……except for when you have a go at me and stick your big neb in where it doesn’t belong ………which is every day Believe it or not you are definately my favourite poster on here second to none….love a guy who throws caution to the wind and gets stuck in. Place would be boring without you.

[apracing]

[quote="Lingfield

Precedent was the case of Dean Gallagher who got an 18 month ban from the French for a second drug offence.
Incidentally is there a gap in drug testing procedures outside of France? They seem able to detect offenders whereas the rest of Europe doesn’t. UK seems to confine itself to the breathyliser!

Lingfield,

Gallagher’s second offence and 18 month ban was the result of a test conducted at Newton Abbot in September 2002 – the enquiry was held in November that year and he was banned until may 2004.

AP

[Author]

Posts