- This topic has 28 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 19 years ago by
.
- Posts
Why would they appeal to the HRA as they are Prosecution, Judge and Jury all in one. The HRA are not going to overturn one of there own rulings. Why through good money after bad?
That is why Fallon will get acquitted at the Old Bailey as the evidence will not be strong enough to convict in a Criminal Court.
(Edited by bluechariot at 6:54 am on May 11, 2007)
Richard,
Winston was selling ( by inference and implication by the way as they admitted they did not establish a direct link) OPINION not facts.
THe HRA have broken new ground by classing opinion as inside information when the City Code is quite clear that inside information must be fact.
I believe Winston was unfortunate to the extent that he did nothing of a criminal nature that would have led to a conviction in a criminal court. Yes he broke the rules attached to his licence – but many people consider this to be unfortunate since palpably what is inside information is so poorly defined. It is important to realise that many many people get paid in life for their opinions. The HRA do not wish their licencees to receive more than £100. Fair enough but they should not allow the misapprehension that Winston sold FACTS only known to a secret few – he did not and nor did the HRA ever suggest same indeed they went to great lengths to say he rode absolutely correctly in all the 20 races, and on the balance of probability sold his opinion which they regarded as’ inside information ‘ as defined in their rules as the licencing authority.
I find it very difficult to accept that opinion – even professional informed opinion – can ever be classified as fact and hence inside information. I suppose it is because I have spent too many years working under the auspices of the Stock Market.
<br>As Wit has pointed out they are a private club and can lay down what rules they like provided they are followed with due process and are not obviously challengable.
A difficult area, yet I would venture that a jockey giving his opinion privately for financial reward is a form of corruption.
The jockey puts himself in a position where he can gain financially(in addition to his fees) by affecting the outcome of the race by his actions/inactions. In other words, he has a vested interest in ensuring that his ‘opinions’ are translated into facts which benefit both himself and the person who pays for such opinion.
Legal arguments to one side, this is a very unwise position for any jockey to get himself into. People are almost bound to assume that there is something fishy about a jockey who allows himself to get into such a situation.
I cannot think of any circumstances where a jockey would accept money for his ‘opinion’ prior to a race from a private individual – I exclude newspaper columns and TV interviews – without thinking that all is not well in the state of Denmark.
As regards Winston selling info or opinions I am pretty sure there was no evidence of financial reward, just an assumption that he was rewarded. Wouldn’t stand in a criminal court.
- Total Posts 17716
Richard
The reason that you are mystified by my opinion is apparently because you haven’t even begun to understand it, and seem to think that, by routinely repeating the ‘rules’ as they stand, everything in racing’s garden will be rosy? It won’t – and for some very simple reasons.<br>It isn’t just the rules that are wrong, it is the whole ethos that racing must have secrets and they must be protected. For racing to have any real integrity, it needs to be open and above board, and its rules framed to ensure that it stays that way.<br>That it isn’t is a matter of record, else why would they be fining jockeys for telling the truth?
Artemis,
I concede that you make a very fair point and Winston has certainly been ill advised and unwise.
I also confess, however, to being of advanced years and being rooted in a pre – tabloid era and consider the use of the term corruption as somewhat over the top. I put Winstons actions on a par with Prescotts acceptance of free gifts from a Casino bidder or Blairs persistent acceptance of freebie holidays. We would have categorised it as somewhere between being a sillybilly and an idiot – certainly ungentlemanly and certainly greedy and of poor form.
Unlike me the HRA are trying to update to the modern era and have decided to crack down and show the world they intend to act. In my day Scotney would have slid alongside Winston and told him he would be walking bowlegged if there proved to be any suggestion of him greedily accepting payment.
No doubt the HRA are right but I am left with the lingering feeling – does the punishment really fit the crime?
Yes, I prefer the old approach of ‘a word’, but it isn’t enough in the modern world where gentlemanly behaviour is seen as a weakness by many.
Interesting comparison with Prescott and Blair’s freebies, which we would probably fall short of describing as being corruption, although it can leave a sour taste. I suppose the politician’s influence isn’t perceived by the public as direct as that of a dodgy jockey in a race.
I should add that I like Robert Winston and believe that he has been harshly dealt with if there was no proof of any payment for revealing inside information.
It isn’t that I mis-understand your point Reet Hard I’d simply refer to the detailed explanations given by the HRA in the insider information cases and the rules of racing.
It is not an offence for owners, jocks or anyone else legitimately connected to a horse to have to have a view as to how a horse might run. Neither is it an offence for licensed persons to communicate that information to anyone, so long as they do not get payment in whatever form for doing so, media fees apart
So there is no need to define what is and what isn’t insider information under the current rules in respect of the situation outlined above.
There are however, grey areas in respect of what constitutes gain for insider informarion. An obvious one is the racing jounalist who picks up info. about a horse, doesn’t communicate it in whatever medium he is working in and uses it in an attempt to make money for himself. Another obvious one is a jock or trainer betting or not betting on a horse they train or ride. If, for example, a well fancied horse is not backed by the rider and if that jock has backed something else in the race (through a third party of course), then that is an opportunity for the bookie to benefit at the expense of punters. I’ve no idea of the basis of the insider information review, but if they don’t tackle those kind of situations, they are wasting their time.
What you seem to be arguing for Reet Hard is that every tiny bit of information relating to a horse’s training should be made immediately available. As Artemis has said, that’s totally impractical and quite frankly wouldn’t be very much help, because it’s what happens in the actual race that counts.
Just as an aside, the analogy with politicians doesn’t hold up. Politicians can accept whatever freebies/monies they like, they only transgress the rules if they don’t declare them. If they do transgress they are judged by their fellow politicians who may be snouting away in their own particular troughs.
Thankfully, the HRA appears to be run by people with rather more integrity than the normal politician.
richard
- Total Posts 17716
Richard
Perhaps I haven’t made it clear enough, but all I’m really asking for is the truth, while all the HRA seems hell-bent on is stifling it. <br>Whether that truth consists of information about a horse’s wellbeing, its inability to act in certain circumstances, its long-term targets, anything that would prejudice its chances, or simply informed opinions, in a properly run sport it should be, as far as is reasonable, within the public domain.<br>The emphasis would then be – properly, in my opinion – on pursuing and castigating those who deliberately witheld such information, and not, at it is currently is, simply a witch hunt against those who tell it as it is.<br>The very fact that some tell it for reward is, imo, a bigger indictment of the current state of racing’s legislation than it is of its transgressors.<br>If racing is an honest sport, why is it only those who tell the truth that are pursued so vigorously???
Fran Ferris is explaining in The News Of The World today how he was told not to try on a lot of the horses he used to ride.<br>He said that unless he carried out these orders he would not get further rides.<br>http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/story_pages/sport/sport5.shtml<br>
(Edited by Seagull at 9:38 am on May 13, 2007)
Fran Ferris is in the poor house and will say anything the N.O.W. pay him to say. He does not mention the name of one Trainer that asked him to stop a horse.
- Total Posts 17716
bc
While it is true that Fran told the NotW what they wanted to hear, indeed they were unlikely to pay him for anything less, it would be naive to think it a total invention.<br>As he says, jockeys would normally ride to a trainer’s instruction – jockeys of his stature wouldn’t get many rides if they didn’t – yet some chav thought it worthwhile to pay him 1k a time to find out those having an ‘easy’. <br>Difficult to believe that FF is unique in having such rides, not difficult to believe that his ‘crime’ was to tell someone???
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.