- This topic has 742 replies, 131 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
It does seem very childish and pathetic of the owner, as the only outcome in his favour is that Fallon won’t ride in the race at all.
It’s not like Native Khan has been left riderless either. Johnny Murtagh has ridden more Derby winners than any other jockey currently riding (except Fallon who is equal with him on 3)
I don’t see how stopping Fallon from riding another horse isn’t classed as a restraint of trade either. Clauses in contracts barring employees for working for competitors when they leave a a job have been ruled illegal AFAIK. This seems very similar.
I can understand why people might think the owner has gone OTT but if you put yourself in their shoes (and obviously none of us yet know the full facts) and assume they have something in writing or a solid verbal contract then they have every right to take action. We are potentially talking about multi-millions of pounds in stud fees here.
Owner has gone OTT. My advice to him… get over it, move on.
Are people not allowed to change their mind these days?
As you say we don’t know the full facts but what I will point out is that there is a huge difference between a contract and ‘something in writing’. Contracts are usually legally binding, ‘something in writing’ isn’t. So if the owner has got the former then he’s got a case (still think he’s going OTT mind), but if he’s got the latter then he hasn’t. It can’t be any simpler than that.
…..
I don’t see how stopping Fallon from riding another horse isn’t classed as a restraint of trade either. Clauses in contracts barring employees for working for competitors when they leave a a job have been ruled illegal AFAIK. This seems very similar.
hi david
restraint of trade principles give way to protecting confidential information.
so if an owner can show that a jockey in breach of contract would have particular insight into how to get his former mount beat, that would override any right of the jockey to exercise his trade.
in fact that routinely happens even where an employee is not in breach of his contract but the employer wants him to serve out his contractual notice period by putting him on garden leave to kick his heels so that confidential knowledge is protected and not applied to the benefit of a competitor.
best regards
wit
Fallon free to ride Recital, pending a possible appeal this afternoon
No surprise there then.
Owners of NK have came out of this looking like spoilt kids. Ok, to them it might be a matter of principle but they won’t be the first owners ever to have a jockey tell them he no longer wishes to ride their horse.
Very stupid of the owners to take the action they did imho.
Common sense prevails, although I see that the petulant owner, Ibrahim Araci, has leave to appeal.
Hopefully, this pitiful ploy to put Fallon out of tomorrow’s Derby is binned once and for all this afternoon.
His actions were churlish to say the least.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Fallon seems to think that no matter who rides him Native Khan cannot win so knowing how to beat him seems like a rediculous claim by the owners.
Can’t believe the owners have actually gone down the appeal route
They’ve got Johhny Murtagh on board for crying out loud; let sleeping dogs lie and move on for everyone’s sake.
Embarrassing behaviour from the owners and spare a thought for the diplomatic minefield Ed Dunlop must be going through…….I would be amazed if he supports what the owner has done in anyway shape or form but of course he can’t say a word…………what will the owner’s next stunt be? ….to take the horse away when he realises that Dunlop and Fallon will be nowhere near falling out with each other about this,infact I would guess that they are laughing at him behind his back……..Clown!
Agree with the sentiments expressed above re petulance from the owner.
However lets not lose sight that although (subject to the appeal) the injunction will not stand , Fallon has lost the case over breach of contract (allegedly , and will have to pay damages, as it appears to be reported).
If this was allowed to occur in other sports (and this is a ridiculous, but worrying precedent), if any high profile football player thought that his team was going to get outplayed in , for example, the Champions League final, then why not switch sides and play for the likely winners, get the medal, and then pay up ?
Racing has to be the subject to the law, especially as , in my opinion, it is ineffective in putting its own house in order.Embarrassing behaviour from the owners and spare a thought for the diplomatic minefield Ed Dunlop must be going through…….I would be amazed if he supports what the owner has done in anyway shape or form but of course he can’t say a word…………what will the owner’s next stunt be? ….to take the horse away when he realises that Dunlop and Fallon will be nowhere near falling out with each other about this,infact I would guess that they are laughing at him behind his back……..Clown!
That is not the impression I have gauged from Dunlop who revealed this morning that Fallon signed the contract to ride Native Khan in his office in front of him.
Fallon NOT now free to ride in Derby.
This guy is an expert at attracting trouble. Unbelievable.
Love the horse, greatly respect the jockey and trainer, but hope Native Khan’s owners get boo’ed off the racecourse today! And every time they set foot on a racecourse in the future!
Fallon should absolutely demand to ride NK
and take his chance to screw the owner good and proper
Love the horse, greatly respect the jockey and trainer, but hope Native Khan’s owners get boo’ed off the racecourse today! And every time they set foot on a racecourse in the future!
On all available evidence the person at fault is Fallon and the correct decision has been made.
Guardian report on the Court of Appeal:
"There is nothing special about the world of racing that entitles the major players to act in flagrant breach of contract," said Lord Justice Jackson. He explained that the contract between Fallon and Araci, signed early this year, required the jockey to ride Native Khan when asked to do so and also that he not ride another horse in any race against Native Khan.
Fallon had told the high court in a witness statement that he had never intended to commit to riding Native Khan in the Epsom Derby but had always believed the horse would be aimed at the French Derby on the following day, leaving him free to commit to Recital for the Epsom race. But that defence was rejected by Friday’s judge, Mr Justice MacDuff, as "totally inconsistent with the contemporaneous documents" and Fallon’s barrister, Graeme McPherson QC, did not challenge that view during the appeal hearing.
The appeal instead revolved around two questions: whether damages paid to Araci by Fallon could be an adequate remedy for a breach of contract, and whether it could be right to grant an injunction preventing Fallon from riding in the Derby. Mr Justice MacDuff ruled on Friday that damages could be adequate and that it would be wrong to grant an injunction, but both those decisions were overruled by the appeal judges.
Lord Justice Jackson said that, on the basis of what McPherson had told the court as to Fallon’s means, there was a "real risk that if things go badly for him in the litigation, and substantial damages and costs are awarded against him, he may not be able to meet that judgement in full".
The judge added that an injunction against Fallon would not be a restraint of trade. Although he accepted that Coolmore, owners of Recital, might not be able to engage a replacement jockey of the same stature of Fallon, it was "unrealistic to suppose that Coolmore have not been making very urgent enquiries since Wednesday" as to the availability of other riders.
Finally, Lord Justice Jackson said he was not deterred from granting the injunction by the fact that the betting public had placed wagers on Recital in the belief that Fallon would ride the colt. He pointed out that others may, until Monday, have backed Native Khan in the belief that Fallon would be on him.
"The second and more fundamental point," he said, "is that when a person bets on a horse, he or she is running a multitude of risks, including that the particular jockey may not be riding as the result of injury. I accept that the risk of an injunction is rather less than the risk of injury but it is one of the vicissitudes of life.
"Fallon has brought this predicament on himself by his deliberate and cynical disregard for a contract recently entered into. He did not improve his position by putting forward evidence which, it is now common ground, must be treated as untruthful."
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.