- This topic has 39 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hello,
You said in your post , " yet another jockey" TOLD you ..God, you are in the ******* know!!
What is his name?
If you are so in touch with the people you know,,,Name them??
I ave been involved with horses’ and gambling, all my life, but I would never have the gaul to accuse jockeys and good men to excuse a defeat!
It ia very tiresome that people actualy resond to your nonsense
Excuse my spelling..
regards,
doyley
doyley, please………
Do you really expect me to name names. Without written instructions, or taped evidence (and I’m not sure that would suffice) I can’t.Richard, Nor etc with the greatest of respect you are missing the point. Culhane was alleged to have passed information to his relatives. no element of for reward was included. He pleaded guilty and was suspended for one year – equivalent to a very hefty fine. I believe this was appropriate.
If the HRA had any evidence that he had not ridden his horses on their merit – a far more serious charge – why would they not have proceeded on that charge? It is not a criminal court, they suffer no consequences if they do not convince the tribunal of the probability of their charges being correct. After all the HRA are the experts and it would be difficult to oppose their viewing of the video tapes if they believe a transgression has occurred( who is more expert than them and their stewards?.
We must therefore conclude as non experts that The HRA, acting fairly and properly were satisfied with the riding . That being the case further heavier punishments are not appropriate.
When the HRA believe a jockey has not ridden a horse on its merits and that such an offence is deliberate rather than normal human error no doubt they will so allege and if the tribunal are convinced swingeing punishments such as disqualification for life or 4/5 years which is effectively life, will undoubtedly follow.
Galejade,
I hope I’m not missing the point, whatever that might be.
I know solid evidence is necessary before jockeys etc. can be accused of rigging a race and this is difficult. The lesser charge of passing on information is easier to establish and deal with (at the moment). Fine.
Whether the punishment for this is severe enough is open to opinion. Mine is that I would prefer longer suspensions or warnings off but appreciate that this should happen from now on, to educate and warn those who have been used to a more lax regime.
As for my postings on the pressure jockeys are under to comply with instructions; be they from trainers, owners, or others; I can only repeat what I see and hear without mentioning names. I’m sorry if this offends, but it comes from reliable and honest people whom I trust.Pricewise has put up Sander Camillo for today’s July Cup, even after stating ‘she was massively over-hyped and has run poorly twice this season’. The sole basis for his reccommendation, as far as I can see, is what he’s been told from somebody in the yard – that connections would fancy Camillo to topple Soldier’s Tale, a Golden Jubilee winner, on fast ground.
Now, this information would not have ordinarily been in the public domain, so do we forget about it because Segal has mentioned it or should the person who passed it on be weeded out? By definition somebody has passed that on with the intent to gain, and Segal has used it with intent to gain.
But then again it would mean the HRA taking their heads out of their backsides long enough to realise one conviction every millennium doesn’t do all that much.
The point I’m making isn’t that Segal and his accomplice in this case should be hung, drawn and quartered, it’s merely that the passing of information exists in so many forms that any attempt to define a related action is almost futile. We will accept some forms of inside information, but not others, and probably gloss over it when it appears, tucked away, in the racing media itself.
The sooner tipping lines are clamped down on, promising the best ever inside information day in and day out, the better in my opinion. If a promise of wealth from what is, effectively, cheating is propelled on a daily basis then there is little chance of ever ridding the sport of it’s transgressors.
Can I assume that there will no longer be any jockeys appearing on the morning line,RUK etc etc passing on their information with regard to their daily rides. I assume they would get paid for this information to. Surely worth a 5 year ban.
- Total Posts 17716
The truth is LGR, if they banned every jockey that had ever passed on information, all races would be run riderless, (And still with half of the field not off).
And that’s exactly the point I am trying to make, reet, that inside information exists in countless forms – some we tolerate, and some we don’t. It’s a fruitless exercise trying to define it and apply any sort of ‘law’ in accordance with such definitions, when the spectrum for breaking it is so great.
If the constant promise of wealth as a result of inside information was stamped out (i.e. adverts in newspapers, on teletext) then maybe racing would have a fighting chance, but that would also mean the HRA concentrating their efforts on sifting out the actual cheats – those who hold back horses for gain, concealing their ability to land an almighty touch in the future.
Galejade, with the greatest of respect, the stopping of horses has nothing to do with either the charges or the penalties. Culhane was charged under rule 220 (i) -aiding and abetting corrupt practices, etc and rule 201 (v) – commmunicating inside information, etc. For these transgressions it is possible to exclude, rather than just suspend those found in breach.
One of the reasons the panel gave for giving Culhane a small suspension was "that Culhane did not pass information to Mr Lyons knowing to what use it would be put".
Begs the question what the panel thought Culhane passed information on 37 occasions for?. Just out of interest? It is no wonder Lydia wrote what she did – followed up by Howard Wright. And it raises a very serious question as to the motivation of the panel in their sentencing.
Reet Hard, I am sorry if you found my response to you condescending. I would just say that there is no indication that any of the trainers connived in any way with Culhane’s and Mernagh’s activities. Also several trainers have been banged to rights by the HRA: Mcentee, Flood, Keightly and a number of others for not providing suitable instructions, schooling in public and so on. Trainers have no control over what jocks may decide to comm unicate to others. And if we are talking about dodgy rides, no control over what a jock actually does in a race.
richard
- Total Posts 17716
Reet Hard, I am sorry if you found my response to you condescending. I would just say that there is no indication that any of the trainers connived in any way with Culhane’s and Mernagh’s activities. Also several trainers have been banged to rights by the HRA: Mcentee, Flood, Keightly and a number of others for not providing suitable instructions, schooling in public and so on. Trainers have no control over what jocks may decide to comm unicate to others. And if we are talking about dodgy rides, no control over what a jock actually does in a race.
richard
We are not talking dodgy rides, there was never any question of this in either Tony Culhane’s or Robert Winston’s case.
Nor are we talking about trainers conniving with jockeys in the passing on of information, for reward or otherwise.
Put simply, both jockeys passed on information on whether horses would win or lose which, since the advent of the exchanges and the attendant publicity, has suddenly become the cause celebre of the HRA and the media.
However, for this information to have had any value, it had to be of a nature that was not available to the general public, and given that they were not stopping horses, then it would also have been known to, and in most cases originated from, the stables where the horses were trained.
As the vast majority of the information concerned horses that wouldn’t win, then it is a reasonable assumption the horses were either placed, trained, or raced not to win, otherwise the jockeys would have been guessing, and therefore not passing on information.
Therein lies the real corruption, the one that is acted out every day, in almost every race, on a far larger scale than the jockeys could ever perpetrate, and the one that anyone with more than a superficial knowledge is aware of, yet you, Lydia, the media in general, and the HRA in particular, continually turn a blind eye to in the hope that the sacrifice of a few jockey’s careers will cover up that which exchange activity is clearly laying bare.
Tell me again about pioneering journalism?Richard I am very sorry to be so obtuse but I cannot see the merits of your position at all. I support the conclusion of the panel that their punishment of Culhane was appropriate. The Panel stated the entry point for punishment under the the regulations, stated their debate of factors for upping the punishment and factors for lowering and announced their decision.
You do not agree with their punishment and say "it raises a very serious question as to the motivation of the panel in their sentencing". What question? Whatever are you suggesting? Is this just the normal "tabloid stance" that you know better than the judge who sat throughout the case and saw all the evidence, all the cross examinations and all the responses ? or do you know something about the panel that we all ought to know?
Praise for reet hard (post, Sat Jul 14, 2007 1:59 am) and Galejade (post, Sat Jul 14, 2007 1:16 pm). Only occasionally does an excellence of insight so elegantly blend with such an authoritative rubric.
“As the vast majority of the information concerned horses that wouldn’t win, then it is a reasonable assumption the horses were either placed, trained, or raced not to win, otherwise the jockeys would have been guessing, and therefore not passing on information. Therein lies the real corruption, the one that is acted out every day, in almost every race, on a far larger scale than the jockeys could ever perpetrate, and the one that anyone with more than a superficial knowledge is aware of, yet you, Lydia, the media in general, and the HRA in particular, continually turn a blind eye to in the hope that the sacrifice of a few jockey’s careers will cover up that which exchange activity is clearly laying bare.
“Tell me again about pioneering journalism?â€ÂGalejade,
Gary Lyons to whom Culhane and Mernagh communicated information was excluded indefinitely, one of the reasons given being:
"As a former member of the Council of the Jockey’s Association Mr Lyons’ behaviour was even more reprehensible"
Culhane is a current member of the Council, yet he provided information to Lyons 33 times.
So why was Culhane given the minimum penalty of 12 months suspension, when Lyons was excluded?
As I said in an earlier post, one of the HRA’s mitigations for Culhane was that " Culhane did not pass information knowing for what use it would be put" One has to ask, what did the panel think the information was being provided for? Are they really that naive?
My general point is this Galejade. Under the old JC regime, hardly anyone was collared for serious breach of the rules. The new HRA offered hope initially that wrongdoers would be collared and punished accordingly. Some have certainly been collared, but the punishments have been for the most part at the minimal end of the scale. Why?
Is it that the establishment when they set up the HRA looked upon it as a pr execise and were caught out by it’s initial zeal and instructions have now gone out in terms of ok you have to catch these people , but don’t be too hard on them because we want them to ride for us (or whatever)? I don’t know, but I would suggest that the sentences for Culhane and Mernagh and others are just slaps on the wrists.
To clean up the corruption in racing, albeit a small minority of the race program, requires positive action. As other posters have said, the penalties given to Culhane and Mernagh are neither an appropriate punishment nor a deterent to others.
Galejade, hope this clarifies my point of view for you.
richard
Can I assume that there will no longer be any jockeys appearing on the morning line,RUK etc etc passing on their information with regard to their daily rides. I assume they would get paid for this information to. Surely worth a 5 year ban.
No, the rules allow jockeys to pass on information as part of broadcast media work.
Several times in this thread the issue of horses not being trained or raced to win is brought up. This is the result of a system that does not reward a horse for running to its maximum ability first time out (or everytime for that matter) but rather penalises it.
The easiest way for a horse to win a decent number of races is to progress through the handicap system, to do this, as low a handicap mark as possible, is required to begin with, to best "exploit" the system. Similarly once a horse is handicapped to its level then clearly it is unlikley to win as it will continuously come up against "progressive sorts", so connections have little option but to try and lower their handicap mark. None of this requires a jockey to "stop" a horse. But anyone with a brain can work out when this is the case, for example a horse bred for middle distance trips running in three five furlong maidens. For evidence just go and look at how unfit many horses running in maidens are in the parade ring. The horse is racing to the best of its abilities and the jockey giving it a proper ride. Anyone connected with the horse will be aware that this is the case. This is where most of the problems raised with the passing on of information arise. If the system rewarded horses for performing to the best of their abilities then there would be far fewer horses running in this type of situation.
I am fully aware of how greatly the handicap system underpins the vast majority of racing in this country and that most of this is exceedingly obvious. What I am interested in is why nobody seems to raise this issue when discussing "corruption" in the sport. Surely it is this facet of the racing that creates so many of the grey areas in the context of the sport.
Got yer Richard,
Flay them alive and boil them in oil – that will larn them.
Incidently before you commit libel and slander – I bet your attitude to punishment would miraculously change then! – the Chairman of the panel, Mr Matthew Lohn is an independent legal advisor to the HRA. A senior partner and head of regulatory law at Field Fisher Waterhouse he is the acknowledged expert in the law of disciplinary procedures and sentencing and advises inter alia, the GMC, Police Authorities, RCIS etc as well as sitting on the Chairmans Panels of the HRA and RFU amongst many many other sporting bodies..
He is not a registered racehorse owner.
Culhane did not get the minimum sentence he got the recommended entry point and the panel lay out the arguements for raising or lowering the sentence from that entry point ( Mernagh got above). The HRA are intending, however, to raise the entry points and the punishments in general now that they have defined insider information and clarified that jockeys passing their opinion to anyone except the owner or the public at large are guilty of passing ( by definition) insider information.
I think Lydia’s article is very good and I agree with both Richard’s and Nor’s comments.
It is surely naïvety in the extreme to suggest that “dodgy rides” don’t come into these cases at all, as the nibblers involved were “only telling their family what they thought their chances were” [or words to that effect]. Yeah, right – they were telling their loved ones that these yokes were worth risking 4 and 5 figure losses (as surely must have been involved in laying horses to the tune of earning £56k out of it) as they didn’t think their mounts were good enough to win, this has nothing to do with the small matter of them strangling the beasts to make damn sure they didn’t win!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.