- This topic has 113 replies, 53 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Before you get sued for libel Seagull would you care to change Harry Findlay to Harry Rednap!!!!
These types of documentaries focus on scandalising individuals rather than focusing on the framework in which they operate. The police operation was a shambles, as far as I am concerned, perhaps a program about that would be more worthwhile.
Trash Television.
- Total Posts 17716
The document was never and never will be made public but Commander Rice admits in the Fallon and (others ) trial they conducted 500 interviews, they took 1,300 statements, they also had a staggering 17,000 exhibits and 40,000 pages of evidence.
So with all this ammount of evidence apparently gained why did the High Court judge find that the defence teams had no case to answer?
In legal terms "evidence" does not imply "evidence of wrongdoing". It is simply a general term meaning "documentary material relating to the case". And that relation can be as loose as you like. For such a large-scale enquiry, 40,000 pages – however they defined a page! – is not really such a huge amount. The same is true of exhibits: not everything’s a murder weapon.
Maybe our trouble is that we’re so used to cut-and-dried TV Cop Show verdicts, that the mixed grey nature of reality makes us impatient. In truth, the sheer weight of evidence-gathering that’s needed for a reasonable judicial system to operate fairly in a complex, modern democracy is massive.
In the early 19th Century they’d have simply hung Fallon and Lynch straight away and looked for the evidence later. Was that a better way of doing things?
My sympathies are with the Police, the BHA – and also with the jockeys and trainers whose livelihood has been affected by this interminable bruhaha. For quite a few of them, the nightmare continues despite the entirely predictable collapse of the court cases.
The case fell apart because the Police chose an expert witness in Ray Murrihy who admitted under oath that he was anything but an expert on British racing and wasn;t even totally familiar with the British rules of racing.
The case fell apart because the Police chose an expert witness in Ray Murrihy who admitted under oath that he was anything but an expert on British racing and wasn;t even totally familiar with the British rules of racing.
Ray Murrihy was brought in because the prosecution knew no UK based steward, pundit or expert would have given an opinion of deliberate cheating in the races involved as evidenced by the prosecution failing to disclose the evidence of Timeform’s Jim Mc Grath.
- Total Posts 17716
The case fell apart because the Police chose an expert witness in Ray Murrihy who admitted under oath that he was anything but an expert on British racing and wasn;t even totally familiar with the British rules of racing.
You don’t think it was anything to do with them not having a sustainable case to answer then?
For all the furore, I still fail to see where K Fallon has done anything other than pass on tips to a friend, there was certainly no evidence on last night’s programme of anything different. As the judge said at the time, a quite normal and accepted practice in the real world.
Where is all the evidence that had TRFers and others baying for his blood, and cost him so dearly?On that topic by the way what’s good for the goose is good for the gander and evidence of inappropriate relationships between major bookmakers and licensed individuals should also be the subject of official scrutiny.
A good point, imo.
For all the furore, I still fail to see where K Fallon has done anything other than pass on tips to a friend, there was certainly no evidence on last night’s programme of anything different. As the judge said at the time, a quite normal and accepted practice in the real world.
Kieren Fallon has had 4 years of his life ruined for possesion of an unregistered mobile phone(s). An offence which under the rules of racing carries a first time fine of £500.
The case fell apart because the Police chose an expert witness in Ray Murrihy who admitted under oath that he was anything but an expert on British racing and wasn;t even totally familiar with the British rules of racing.
Ray Murrihy was brought in because the prosecution knew no UK based steward, pundit or expert would have given an opinion of deliberate cheating in the races involved as evidenced by the prosecution failing to disclose the evidence of Timeform’s Jim Mc Grath.
.. Bumbled police enquiry costing the tax payer a fortune. Why did the Prosecution fail to disclose Jim McGraths evidence? Did they forget? Did they try and hide it and hope nobody would find out? Did his evidence support the case for the prosecution or did it not?
How about a program about why there was no case to answer rather than a retrial by television docu/soap.
Hello,
Cav says:
Kieren Fallon has had 4 years of his life ruined for possesion of an unregistered mobile phone(s). An offence which under the rules of racing carries a first time fine of £500.
There is a good point to your statement, but I hardly sympathise with guy that dabbles with cocaine whilst attempting to clear his name?
The guy has a serious personality flaw, his whole career has been blighted by episodes that he claims are no fault of his own. But more bizarrely, people who don’t know the guy personally also defend him..
The lad needs professional, medical help in my opinion. Or at least a confidente he can trust. This in no way detracts from the fact he is a superb jockey.
He may have thought it hilarious winning on horses that he allegedly should have lost on, but those jocular decisions could have cost him his life if certain people got his attention in the early morning…
regards,
doyley
I take your points Doyley and your welcome to your opinion.
If personality faults were criminal 90% of us would be locked up
But if McKeown is eventually brought to book and serious misbehaviour proven, it will be very upsetting to me as I must infer he has been at it for years and irrepairably damage my perception of racing over the last 20 years.
On the contrary, I rather think a warm glow of vindication would sweep over many of the er…more astute race-readers who have scrutinised his rides over the decades.
Is this libellous?
The problem lies with the BBC’s execution of the programme in relation to a court of law.
Lynch’s comments on the probe sound very ‘dodgy’ and you would think liable to be open to investigation. However, as some have pointed out we do not know what was said before and after the comments.
Unfortunately, evidence of association between parties and correlative betting patterns that ensue are not PROOF. It’s hard not to think criminal activity isn’t going on, especially when looking at the body language and reactions of these men. But again that is not proof, which makes the programme and any potential investigations pointless.
Anzum, I don’t really care if the evidence was not proof to ensure a criminal conviction but what we saw in the program is certainly enough to rid these cheats from our sport.
The BHA have all they need to warn off a number of people featured. If they have access to the police files they must take action.
I thought it was an excellent programme and quite reassuring about how carefully Betfair and the horse-racing authorities discharge their responsibilities. As previous posters have said, with that degree of oversight, many who might be tempted to cheat may well be deterred.
Several specific points struck me:
1) most importantly, the horse racing authorities seem, for reasons not made clear, to be at a disadvantage to the BBC in getting hold of information held by other public bodies and presumably obtained by the BBC legally. Or maybe they are just slower off the mark. Surely something for the horse-racing authorities to consider;
2) it is not only among the young in the deprived inner-city areas where foul-mouthed, aggressive thugs can be found – we saw two utterly repulsive middle-aged individuals from, one would say, the better heeled part of society, whom I find it quite embarrassing to have to acknowledge as fellow members of the human race;
3) the presenter’s professionalism. Good command of the material; a preparedness to ask awkward questions (many of the BBC’s political correspondents would do well to take lessons from him) without Paxman-like theatrics; and calm under provocation including actual assault.
Overall I thought this was the BBC at its best, investigative without being didactic or inappropriately polemic.
Flameproof jacket on. Right, here goes…
I think betting on horses NOT to win in the UK should be stopped immediately. It is not allowed in America, and rightly so, in my opinion.
Call me naive if you like, but from a punter’s point of view, I’ve always believed that betting on horses is about backing winners. That is why I will never play the exchanges or lay horses to lose.
One more thing. Why didn’t the Panorama reporter have the chav millionaire businessman charged with assault – or better still, lay in about him. It was obvious by the way in which he kicked the reporter that he was all mouth and trousers and couldn’t fight to save himself.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.