- This topic has 742 replies, 131 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Its a shame , and brings racing to a new low , I do hope he finishes last ………whatever can the connections be thinking of , and what can they possibly gain except spiteful revenge
shambolic
Ricky
But surely it is Keiren Fallon that is at fault here for signing a contract and then reneging?
Also can’t see why its a low for racing.
It’s a good job this didn’t happen years ago or my favourite ever jockey would have ridden half his classic winners.
I can’t help liking Fallon despite being suspicious of him. I think he’s a great jockey but has been let down by himself, the epitome of a flawed talent. If I had to choose one jockey to ride my horse to win it would certainly be Keiren, it’s a huge shame he will always be surrounded by an air of what might have beenI hear Fallon fans trying to liken his situation to that of Lester Piggott. There is a very important distinction in that Lester would never have signed a written contract in the way that Fallon has done.
I’m sure that Ballydoyle will be furious if Fallon has kept them in the dark over this written contract. They are now in a real pickle as Recital looks a somewhat quirky individual to ride, and Epsom isnt the easiest track to ride either. Good luck to pat Smullen , he might need it.
Fallon never ceases to amaze me in his ability to bring trouble upon himselfFallon fans and Recital backers will be biased in their opinions on this.
Bottom line is he signed a legally binding contract which he then ignored, treating the owners and the law with total disdain.
He lied in court, under oath, further showing his contempt for the law which applies to everything including racing.
It’s not the first time he’s treated the sport and the people who have made him rich with zero respect and the decision was right, he should have been hit with costs too.
A ban for bringing the sport into disrespect could also be considered, until people are properly discouraged from doing wrong, they will keep doing wrong.
It’s just another chapter in his book of tarnished talent.
I take everything I said about the owner being mean spirited etc etc back because I had no idea that Fallon was stupid enough to sign a contract that included preventing him from riding against Native Khan………….the owner has acted 100 percent within his rights and for what it’s worth I apologise .Fallon signed a contract and he should man-up for a change and not try to wriggle out of his wholly self made trouble as usual.
- Total Posts 17716
I didn’t realise horses rode jockeys now!
ps this comment infuriates me quite a bit.
"It was not that we thought Kieren was better or anything, we were just exercising our right to go to court when we think a contract has been breached."
Feel sorry for Fallon on this one, the guys just a scapegoat!
How can he be a scapegoat when it is his own actions (and his alone) that have caused this. If he was unsure who he wanted to ride he should have been candid enough to have said so and not signed a contract.
It isn’t exactly rocket science is it.
Very, very strange circumstances.
However, I must say I’m delighted that Pat Smullen has picked up the ride. He’s as good as any jockey currently riding in my opinion.
No more contracts for jockeys from here on. If owners insist that trainers break contracts with jockeys and replace them (with Frankie) it won’t be easy now because trainers will be in court if they break contracts with stable jockeys.Can’t help thinking what would have happened if Johnny Fortune had gone to court.Does being a rustic jockey help ones case or hinder it against an industrialist in England?
How can he be a scapegoat when it is his own actions (and his alone) that have caused this. If he was unsure who he wanted to ride he should have been candid enough to have said so and not signed a contract.
It isn’t exactly rocket science is it.
Exactly. Some could call this move by the owners spiteful, but there is only one person clearly in the wrong here.
the damages part of the claim presumably is still running?
if so, with breach of contract seemingly established, the question now would be how much the loss resulting from the breach ends up being mitigated by the owner.
from that angle, the best result for Fallon would be for Native Khan to win.
though whereas a week ago such a victory would have added to his bank account, now it would just minimise subtraction from it.
Couple of queries :
1: Has anyone actually seen the "contract"? Was it produced in court and if so is there a published version anywhere in the public domain? I’d like to read it and see what it committed Fallon to.
2: What did Dunlop mean earlier in the week when he commented "He’s as committed to Native Khan as Mr Fallon is ever committed" (or words to that effect) Why didn’t he state at that point that there was a written contract? (if there was one)
3: Maybe AOB should have picked up the phone to ED (or vice versa)a week or so back and ascertained exactly what the position was regarding Fallon’s legitimate availability…or is that too simple!?
For what it’s worth, and from what I’ver read thus far, my opinion is that Fallon has been as naive as ever and the owners are being spiteful and vindictive. But I’d like to read the "contract" before I’d move from "opinion" to statement.
J
Lord Justice Jackson in the Court of Appeal read the contract.
"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."
His opinion:
"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."
Documents in the nature of this contract which are produced in Court do not thereby automatically become available to the public.
Since this was an interlocutory hearing, doubt that there will be any much more comprehensive report than has been in the mainstream media today.
Try the Guardian website:
Couple of queries :
1: Has anyone actually seen the "contract"? Was it produced in court and if so is there a published version anywhere in the public domain? I’d like to read it and see what it committed Fallon to.
2: What did Dunlop mean earlier in the week when he commented "He’s as committed to Native Khan as Mr Fallon is ever committed" (or words to that effect) Why didn’t he state at that point that there was a written contract? (if there was one)
3: Maybe AOB should have picked up the phone to ED (or vice versa)a week or so back and ascertained exactly what the position was regarding Fallon’s legitimate availability…or is that too simple!?
For what it’s worth, and from what I’ver read thus far, my opinion is that Fallon has been as naive as ever and the owners are being spiteful and vindictive. But I’d like to read the "contract" before I’d move from "opinion" to statement.
J
I was about to say "read Wit’s post at page 3 top for the answers" but he has posted again.
What Dunlop meant was that KF had signed a legally binding contract, AOB is as likely as some others to take the chance of booking a successful Derby jockey even if there are doubts about his availability as he would want the best jockeys, after all, owners of booked horses won’t do anything if the jockeys and other trainers piss on them, will they?
Naive? Yes, when someone reneges on contracts with you, maybe on a house deal or whatever, you’ll just put it down as naievity and move on, taking it on the chin and accepting it, after all, you wouldn’t want to be vindictive or spiteful.
He looks to have got off lightly to me.
"Naive? Yes, when someone reneges on contracts with you, maybe on a house deal or whatever, you’ll just put it down as naievity and move on, taking it on the chin and accepting it, after all, you wouldn’t want to be vindictive or spiteful."
I meant "naive" in signing anything in the first place. As to how I’d react, what makes you think you know? [deleted]
J
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.