- This topic has 118 replies, 48 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Ever get the feeling we’ve been here before –
I would like to know on what grounds the BHA asked Channel 4 Racing not to comment on the suppression of Jim McGrath’s views in this case.
As mentioned previously, I regard this suppression as the single most alarming aspect of the case, as it has implications far beyond horseracing.
The first Jim McGrath knew that the prosecution were not going to use him was when he received a letter from one of the jockeys defence team asking him to be their defence horseracing expert.
In todays Telegraph, the other Jim McGrath (Aussie JIm) writes that he was also due to give evidence as an expert witness for the defence.
As if the plods weren’t confused enough – I’m left wondering if they ever realised that they were handling witness statements from two different men!
AP
I would like to know on what grounds the BHA asked Channel 4 Racing not to comment on the suppression of Jim McGrath’s views in this case.
Seconded.
I would also like to know why C4 Racing didn’t tell them to **** off.
I would like to know on what grounds the BHA asked Channel 4 Racing not to comment on the suppression of Jim McGrath’s views in this case.
Seconded.
I would also like to know why C4 Racing didn’t tell them to **** off.
Because too many at C4 are part of the clique who are too close to those who run racing and who will not do anything to rock the boat.
They did something far more effective than telling them to p*** off. They mentioned it on air. Unfortunately it’s mostly the under 16s who are watching at the time of day.
But the BHA now have even more explaining to do.
I don’t have a platform for these matters at present, but I hope that someone who does asks the questions that need to be asked.
I would like to know on what grounds the BHA asked Channel 4 Racing not to comment on the suppression of Jim McGrath’s views in this case.
Seconded.
I would also like to know why C4 Racing didn’t tell them to **** off.
Because too many at C4 are part of the clique who are too close to those who run racing and who will not do anything to rock the boat.
Exactly, it’s hardly likely the prosecution would want witnesses who the defence were so eager to use.
There’s a hilarious letter in today’s Post from a David Buik who clearly has no idea what the phrases "habeas corpus" and "turning Queen’s evidence" actually mean. I’m surprised he didn’t end his rant by adopting the old Tony Hancock cri de coeur: "…what about Magna Carta? Did she die in vain?"
I would like to know on what grounds the BHA asked Channel 4 Racing not to comment on the suppression of Jim McGrath’s views in this case.
A source "close to the BHA" tells me that the BHA did not make this request but did make the more understandable one that Jim McGrath himself should not comment on the matter in his role as a BHA Director.
There was, apparently, nothing stopping him commenting in one of his other capacities, and nothing stopping other members of Channel 4 Racing from commenting on the matter.
Seems to have been a slip of the tongue by Mike Cattermole, though I have seen no official confirmation of this from any of the parties involved.
I would like to know on what grounds the BHA asked Channel 4 Racing not to comment on the suppression of Jim McGrath’s views in this case.
So Prufrock yours is the nth accusation levelled at the BHA these past few days, none of which seem to have any validity.
Are the BHA too good for us? We expect our racing to be dodgy and our authorities to be mockable.
If it meets and acts like a conspiracy, texts like a conspiracy, phones like a conspiracy, passes envelopes of cash like a conspiracy and bets like a conspiracy but wins no money, what is it?
So Prufrock yours is the nth accusation levelled at the BHA these past few days, none of which seem to have any validity.
The statement that the BHA had asked C4Racing not to comment on the suppression of Jim McGrath’s evidence was made live on television by a C4Racing employee. I am unaware of any official denial of it from the BHA, not least in racing’s trade paper. That is hardly an "accusation" originating from me.
For what it is worth, I am not particularly critical of the BHA in this court case, though I do think they should have made a point of countering the misinformation propagated in this particular instance.
Another question that needs asking is on what evidence the BHA saw fit to suspend Fallon’s permission to ride in Britain, given the claims being made in today’s Racing Post:
THE BHA on Sunday continued its attempts to distance itself from the embarrassment of the Kieren Fallon trial collapse, with sources within Shaftesbury Avenue insisting the governing body had been strongly opposed to the use of Australian steward Ray Murrihy as the key prosecution witness.
Furthermore, they claim that, as far as the BHA is concerned, Fallon was only a peripheral figure in the file passed by the then Jockey Club to the City of London police in September 2004. That file, it is claimed, focused on the betting activities of professional gambler Miles Rodgers.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.