- This topic has 39 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In today’s Times online
Lydia is of course entitled to her opinion and is lucky to have a stage to espouse it. Whether at her age and with her experience (purely limited to journalism) she is especially qualified as compared to the HRA is yet another matter of opinion.
Culhane has passed his opinion as to his chances to family members. Neither Lydia or the HRA have had the balls to suggest that his race riding was in any way improper. Why not? Instead HRA have defined opinion as inside information. That is fine – we now know the rules – but this definition was not in place when Culhane spoke of racing to his family nor has any proof of Culhane profiting from his opinion been tendered. My opinion for what it is worth is that the use of the term corruption and drawing comparisons with Keithley are absurd. His sentence for breaking the rule that he did is appropriate.
Culhane’s father-in-law profited from the information to the tune of STG£56K – it is naive to believe that Culhane himself hasn’t profited in some way (although obviously I have no proof of this and am merely expressing my opinion)
Precisely. Let us hope that we have not got a society which sentences on opinion rather than proof. HRA would have presented it if they have got it. Lydia I suspect has as much idea as you and I
Agree totally with Galejade, why is it people always have to try and pick fault? Perfectly sensible sentences which will send out a message and the HRA should be applauded imo.
Precisely. Let us hope that we have not got a society which sentences on opinion rather than proof.
Don’t we sometimes we sentence on balance of probability?
- Total Posts 17716
Culhane’s father-in-law profited from the information to the tune of STG£56K – it is naive to believe that Culhane himself hasn’t profited in some way (although obviously I have no proof of this and am merely expressing my opinion)
db
Would you charge your own father-in-law for tips if you were a jockey – and earning £850K a year?
Well he does owe me BIG time!
Culhane pulls in £850K a year? – I never realised it would be that much.
Lydia is one of the very few national press journalists who has got the knowledge and the courage to actually address issues which the majority of racing’s fourth estate have neither the competence or the guts to raise. Either because they are so used to cosying up to the old establishment in racing or because they are well in with the major bookies.
Take for example Brough Scott’s piece in todays RP. Never mind corruption, racing is so much better these days because back in the days of yore he once witnessed a fight at a racecourse. Very neat way of avoiding commenting on the HRA’s leniency and the basic issue of corruption.
Lydia’s point is a very, very serious one. It seemed the HRA had cast off the shackles of the old JC and were seriously trying to root out corruption.
But, if all they are now doing is giving wrongdoers a gentle slap on the wrist, what’s the point of charging them in the first place? The one sure way to clean up racing is to impose penalties that get the transgressors out of racing and send a very clear signal to anyone else that they had better not get up to no good.
The worrying thing in the lenient sentences handed out to those she names is that maybe the old guard is re-assertng control – ok uncover skulduggery – we have to do that in case Panorama do another job on us – but don’t get too carried away.
richard
- Total Posts 17716
Lydia is one of the very few national press journalists who has got the knowledge and the courage to actually address issues which the majority of racing’s fourth estate have neither the competence or the guts to raise. Either because they are so used to cosying up to the old establishment in racing or because they are well in with the major bookies.
Take for example Brough Scott’s piece in todays RP. Never mind corruption, racing is so much better these days because back in the days of yore he once witnessed a fight at a racecourse. Very neat way of avoiding commenting on the HRA’s leniency and the basic issue of corruption.
Lydia’s point is a very, very serious one. It seemed the HRA had cast off the shackles of the old JC and were seriously trying to root out corruption.
But, if all they are now doing is giving wrongdoers a gentle slap on the wrist, what’s the point of charging them in the first place? The one sure way to clean up racing is to impose penalties that get the transgressors out of racing and send a very clear signal to anyone else that they had better not get up to no good.
The worrying thing in the lenient sentences handed out to those she names is that maybe the old guard is re-assertng control – ok uncover skulduggery – we have to do that in case Panorama do another job on us – but don’t get too carried away.
richard
So, losing £850k in earnings, possibly a lucrative career as well, on the strength of rules cobbled together after the event, is a slap on the wrist? Two slaps in R Winston’s case?
Ffs, all they have done is pass on information.
Much more serious skulduggery was exposed some time ago in the Cooke Report when at least 2 senior trainers offered – on film , clearly and unmistakeably – proper offences against well established and meaningful rules.
What did the HRA do about it? Much the same as you and Lydia propose; throw another jockey on the fire!
The real villains in all this are the trainers, without whom the jockeys would have little worthwhile information to pass on, but will the media and the authorities ever even recognise this longstanding and everyday corruption?
Not unless, God willing, Panorama one day does a job on them.Tony Culhane earning £850k a year ? I doubt that very much.
880 rides last year at £80 a throw comes out at £70k. His cut of £850k prize money earned will come to something close to £50k.
Where are you getting the other six hundred thousand from ?
Reet Hard,you post an awful lot of opinions, but quite frankly, your knowledge of what actually goes on in racing is distant from reality.
Get real. It is the jock who rides the horse, not the trainer.richard
- Total Posts 17716
BSB
You’re probably correct. Seems like I may have misunderstood that particular sentence in the report.
These things happen when the red mist decscends.
Still doesn’t detract from the main thrust of my 2 posts though.Richard
What a pathetic and condescending reply; you don’t agree with me, so I know nothing?
There are certain areas where I know a damn sight more of what goes on than you ever will, so cut the crap.Great. An ‘I know more than you without evidencing any of it argument’.
Back to the point of the thread…. If the HRA are wrong to have taken such action against the jockeys can someone tell me why they aren’t being sued?
If I was being wronged by the organisation running my profession then I would be making a hell of a noise about it!
I agree with Richard’s point about Lydia. She is to be admired, and knows and cares enough to bravely broadcast the problems in racing.
Yet another jockey told me today about a trainer who issued instructions NOT to be placed. He wants rides, so is he going to spill the beans? No!!!
Does the owner know? Is he part of the conspiracy. I have no idea.Hello,
You have posted a statement that a jockey said…
" …NOT to be ..placed.."Continue please
regards,
doyley
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.