- This topic has 137 replies, 41 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
The other side of the coin:
http://www.attheraces.com/article.aspx?hlid=516604&lid=&raceid=&title=Riders+protest+their+innocence&ref=atrPA+Racing+Feed&nav=&sub=&day=Fri
(For those whom Mr W has already hung, drawn, and quartered.
}I’ve not hung anyone Reet, but those are their representatives speaking so its hardly going to be anything else than what you’d expect to hear.
When was the last representative that come out and berated their client? you wouldn’t call them a represenative.
oh by the way,
What do you think of ATR and RP to use Kirsty’s picture for publishing the story? out of order if you ask me.
- Total Posts 17716
Corm
Methinks you are confusing ‘legal’ with ‘moral’ – else why call them loopholes?mmmm – take your point Reet.
I’d probably justify my stance by saying there are loopholes around ‘rules’ which are morally different (i.e more justifiable) than loopholes around ‘the law’.
Probably… but good challenge.
“Morality is based on a consideration of circumstances-not principles”
I dunno RD – If the rules allow it I don’t think you can use the moral argument against trainers who exploit inefficiencies or loopholes in the ‘system’.
If you watch the Sir Mark Prescott interview with Lydia Hislop on RUK he talks about this very subject. He maintains it is the job of the trainer to find these loopholes and exploit them and it is the job of the authorities to stop them. I find it difficult to argue with that. He uses a taxation argument to support his view (i.e. you pay your accountant to exploit the tax loopholes such that you pay what you owe but no more and no less).
He makes a strong point that he stays within the rules while doing so.
There is a very big moral difference between ‘playing the system’ and moving outside the system.
Of course Prescott plays the system Corm. A system that allows him, time and time again, to run a horse that is bred to need a trip, down the field over inadequate distances as a 2yo, in order to gain a mark and run up a quick hcap five timer (or as many as he can manage before the handicapper wakes up) on it’s first runs as a 3yo over 1m3f and further.
Yet a thrifty benefit claimant legally ‘plays the system’ and gets jumped on as a money-grabbing, cheating scrounger. Funny old world heh?Trainers running horses over "wrong trips" as you put it, are doing absolutely nothing wrong. It is up to punters to take a look at breeding and character to see if a horse is likely / unlikely to be suited by the trip. "Nothing is ever done about it" because they are breaking NO rules.
They may not be breaking the written rules, but they most certainly are breaking
unwritten
rules of morality. I’d go as far as to say it is tantamount to manipulating the rules to exploit the loophole.
If you are saying that deliberately running on the wrong ground and over the wrong trip is perfectly acceptable, according to the rules, then you may as well skip the debate and say that you know cheating happens all the time and that nothing can be done to stop it. To go a step further, you may as well just say there is no point in having rules at all as it is impossible to police non-triers.
We may as well just toss out the rulebook and bet exclusively by following the market.So what do you want done about it?
Silver By Nature produced his best two performances on heavy ground. Would you have prevented him from having the opportunity of running in the Grand National on good (bordering on good-firm)? Was he a non-trier?
If a horse runs well twice on heavy and twice poorly on good ground; is he allowed to run again on good ground? Or is he thought to be a non-trier?
Would you have stopped Red Rum from running in the National, just because he wasn’t bred for the distance?
Would you have told Henry Cecil he could not run Frankel at a mile as a three year old, because he’s by Galileo?
Bayardo won at sprint distances at two and yet successful in the Gold Cup. At what distance would you have prevented him from running?
A horse called Kawagino, started out being placed at 6f. Barely got 2 miles as a novice hurdler, yet latterly ran well at extreme trips over fences. You could have easily judged him to be a non-trier when stepping up in trip. But his trainer knew something we didn’t.
Top Aussie sprinter Takeover Target is by 1 1/2 mile French Derby winner Celtic Swing. When would you have granted him permission to run at an "inadequate" 5f?
Was Mill Reef a non-trier in the Derby or Gimcrack? Presumably the Gimcrack was an "inadequate trip".
I could go on….
Who is it that says what is the "wrong ground" or "wrong trip".
Quite a lot of these non-triers seem to win.
Only at Salisbury this week:
Sunny Venture had pulled hard at 10f, looked to me like one highly unlikely to stay 14f. Looked like a non-trier beforehand, yet ran really well to be placed.
Bussa was going up in trip and had better form on a softer surface; yet won.
Value Is EverythingI think you’re mis-imterpreting RD GT.
I can see the point re Sir Mark Prescott.
Yet, without jumping onto the SMP love-in, I’d defend him by stating that what he does is similar to the chess player, looking for that next move that’s going to exploit his opponent’s weakness. His MO is different to the cheat. He doesn’t cheat, he simply exploits the opportunity made available by the system. You could argue that it is akin to benefits cheats and, yes, I suppose in some ways it is, although I think SMP is made of stuff that would debaulk from such easy prey.
He ‘takes’ from other trainers. The money would be ‘won’ by someone whatever the case. Whether he ‘hoodwinks’ the punters is another matter. Perhaps he does, some punters at any rate. But if you’re not clever enough to be alert to an SMP runner you have no right to be in the game in the first place.
My point is how would you stop it?
Some horses may not be at their best at a mile, yet are capable of winning a handicap at that trip; before going on to improve over much further. Is this to be stopped?
Fact is, it may look as though connections deliberately run over an inadequate trip, but it is impossible to know for sure without hindsight. So impossible to police.
Of course we can identify these things after it has improved a stone when upped in trip. Or even identify the likely improver. But that is all part of a punter’s work.
What about the one who was bred for middle distances, yet ends up a sprinter; who does not show the expected improvement when upped to his expected best trip. Is he to be prevented from running at sprint distances?
Let Sir Mark run his horses at the wrong trip. As long as even with trip limitations, he’s trying to win the race. What’s the problem? We can all see the ones likely to improve at a longer trip anyway.
Value Is EverythingBreaking the law is not always morally wrong. Example; running a red light at four a.m. in the morning when there is no traffic on the road.Not morally wrong.
Morally wrong is always morally wrong.If circumstances change what you do may move from moral(you decide) to ethical(society decides) to legal(the law decides).
On another subject I wonder how much time these people will be allowed to prepare their case. And will they be allowed to practice their profession until the case is judged a la H. Johnson?Only the trainer can answer truthfully if he ran the horse to win or just to run.If he knew the horse had absolutely no chance then he was a non trier from the start no matter how you look at it.To do so is immoral, maybe unethical, but definitely not illegal.
Given the seriousness of the charges against the four jockeys still riding, its mildly surprising to see three of them in action at Lingfield and Goodwood today.
Such largess was not extended to Fallon, Lynch and Williams in July 2006 (banned from riding in the UK pending criminal trial) when the then HRA issued a statement containing…
"We realise the hardship that suspension will cause, but we also recognize the damage that can be done if persons the subject of a serious criminal charge are permitted to ride pending trial. In our view the damage done would be very hard to repair."
So what part of that statement does not apply to similar circumstances in 2011, the lack of criminal proceedings notwithstanding?
The other side of the coin:
http://www.attheraces.com/article.aspx?hlid=516604&lid=&raceid=&title=Riders+protest+their+innocence&ref=atrPA+Racing+Feed&nav=&sub=&day=Fri
(For those whom Mr W has already hung, drawn, and quartered.
}I’ve not hung anyone Reet, but those are their representatives speaking so its hardly going to be anything else than what you’d expect to hear.
When was the last representative that come out and berated their client? you wouldn’t call them a represenative.
oh by the way,
What do you think of ATR and RP to use Kirsty’s picture for publishing the story? out of order if you ask me
.
Agree Mr. Wilson,
As I’ve already said, I believe there was absolutely nothing wrong with Kirsty’s ride on Obe Gold and am staggered that this is one of the ‘races’ in question. The BHA must have something however to question the ride, but still, on visual evidence alone she did nothing wrong and will be cleared in my opinion.
But you’re right, why are ATR and RP using her pic to publish the story? Two reasons perhaps; 1) Her link to Mr. Fallon, 2) Female jockey in cheat claim shock.
Can anyone else – hand on their heart – say Kirsty (sorry, I don’t know her personally it’s just easier than spelling her surname lol) gave this horse a bad ride?
The horse stumbled at the start for crying out loud, causing Kirsty to hit the stalls (or the horse hit her I can’t remember) and injure herself by all accounts. The horse was then left a few lengths so Kirsty went to the rail (normally the fastest strip of ground). The horse then started to run on (as you would expect from an Ev money fav) and Kirsty steered left to get a clear run, running through the field to finish fifth.
She never once took a pull, never once steered the horse behind another horse to get blocked etc. Given what happened at the start it was a perfectly good ride there after. I’m still shocked that this is one of the rides brought to quesiton by the BHA.
One point being missed here is , regardless of whether these alleged wrongdoings are proven or not , does anyone in their right mind think that this episode will enhance the image of racing
Rfc have been (dabbling) trying to attract a new customer base to attend and bet on the product ,I think this will further embed the concept widely held amongst non racing supporters that racing is bent
Just think ,a series of major investigations within 5 years and possibly more to come , who would bet on British racing for a hobby ,my hunch is not many .
For the ordinary small punter , this must insert huge doubts about whether his bet is valid or not , it will effect betting confidence big time , and if these allegations are proven , instead of the message ok we have cleaned racing up AGAIN , it will be seen as another nail in the coffin of punter confidence
I personally have no confidence in the vast majority of low grade racing , it has been obvious to me for some considerable time that low grade and low prizes are a hotbed for fiddling
Sadly the bulk of British racing is made up of the same low grade stuff , so where does that leave Joe Punter
Ricky
Cav – I’m far from being a legal expert but I think it is the absence of criminal proceedings that stops the BHA suspending them ahead of the outcome.
If they are found guilty of breaking the rules they’ve been charged with then you’d expect that there would be evidence which would be strong enough to convict of fraudulent activity in a criminal court, although I appreciate that the law is seldom that black and white. I wonder if these misdemeanours have been brought to plods attention. You’d expect so.
On the point of trainers being complicit, I wouldn’t be too quick to jump to that conclusion. At the end of the day there are a number of tricks a jockey can pull to stop a horse winning without the trainer knowing or being involved in it.
I’m aware of an ongoing BHA investigation into a horse during the most recent AW winter season where I’m 100% sure the trainer was completely unaware of what was going on. I’m also pretty sure the horse was stopped. The jockey concerned is not one of those named in this enquiry and I susppect that this time next year we will be discussing a whole new set of jockeys.
Let Sir Mark run his horses at the wrong trip.
As long as even with trip limitations, he’s trying to win the race
. What’s the problem? We can all see the ones likely to improve at a longer trip anyway.
But he doesn’t try to win the race does he? Not you personally, but anyone who thinks he is trying to win a race – when he puts a stamina-laden horse in a six furlong race as a two-year-old, it opens at 8/1 and drifts to 33/1 – is a fool.
Studying pedigree alone, it’s not difficult to see that some of Sir Mark’s entries are ridiculous in terms of winning the race, and are purely intended for 1) education, 2) handicap mark for later in career. Nothing against the rules perhaps, but it doesn’t sit well with me.
Father – winner of three races at 8f & 9f at two, excelled at 14f.
Mother – unraced at two, winner of 6 races at 14f and beyond.
Unraced two-year-old offspring’s race entries – 5F Maiden Chester, 5F Maiden EpsomExaggerated example perhaps – but anyone who doesn’t know what I mean is very naive.
One point being missed here is , regardless of whether these alleged wrongdoings are proven or not , does anyone in their right mind think that this episode will enhance the image of racing
Rfc have been (dabbling) trying to attract a new customer base to attend and bet on the product ,I think this will further embed the concept widely held amongst non racing supporters that racing is bent
Just think ,a series of major investigations within 5 years and possibly more to come , who would bet on British racing for a hobby ,my hunch is not many .
For the ordinary small punter , this must insert huge doubts about whether his bet is valid or not , it will effect betting confidence big time , and if these allegations are proven , instead of the message ok we have cleaned racing up AGAIN , it will be seen as another nail in the coffin of punter confidence
I personally have no confidence in the vast majority of low grade racing , it has been obvious to me for some considerable time that low grade and low prizes are a hotbed for fiddling
Sadly the bulk of British racing is made up of the same low grade stuff , so where does that leave Joe Punter
Ricky
Perception might be that it is bad; but in the long run must be good for racing. Jockeys must see this investigation and wonder if it is worth stopping horses.
Might stop a few new punters coming in to the sport. But all sports are prone to the occasional betting scandal these days.
Won’t stop the mug punter, as many of them actually want to believe the game is bent. So he can claim it is not his own fault for backing losers.
Value Is EverythingThe reasons for the ban the last time seem to have been reputational more than legal, cormack.
"Whatever action we take must reflect the role of the regulator, whose task is to attempt to ensure that the manner in which the sport is run is fair and honest. It is obvious from reading the (police) charge that it is a very serious matter in the racing context.
Our task is to balance the potentially conflicting interests of, on the one hand, the reputation and integrity of racing, and on the other hand, the right of the individual to pursue his chosen career.
It is not for us to seek to assess the strength of the case for the prosecution or the defence, but we know that a responsible public authority . . . under the guidance of the Director of Public Prosecutions has taken the view that the (police) evidence collected raises at least a prima facie case against the jockeys.
We appreciate that an inability to ride in races in this country would be a very serious setback for Kieren Fallon. His career is at its height. To deprive him of the ability to ride here is highly detrimental to his interest.
Similar considerations apply to Fergal Lynch and Darren Williams. If they cannot ride in racing here, their main and ostensible means of livelihood is removed from them.
We realise the hardship that suspension will cause, but we also recognise the damage that can be done if persons the subject of a serious criminal charge are permitted to ride pending trial. In our view the damage done would be very hard to repair."There is very little difference this time around. I’d be very interested to know why the BHA deem it ok for the jockeys concerned to be riding today when that wasn’t the case in 2006.
}
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.