- This topic has 28 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
About bloody time some sensible fines were handed out for these types of things. Well done the BHA.
[from the Racing Post online] TRAINER Michael Wigham has been fined a record £20,000 and suspended from having runners for 35 days, while jockey Jamie Mackay has been banned for 60 days following a British Horseracing Authority inquiry.
The pair initially faced the disciplinary panel in February over the running and riding of Granakey at Kempton on January 2, with the horse’s previous outing at Wolverhampton on December 20 also coming under the microscope.
Wigham and Mackay were found guilty of contravening the ‘non-triers’ rule on both occasions.
The panel also took into account the fact that Wigham had previously been found guilty of the same offence with Silver Hotspur at Newmarket in June 2007.
He was handed a £5,000 penalty on that occasion, although it was later increased to £7,500 on appeal.BHA press officer Paul Struthers said: "The disciplinary panel informed Michael Wigham and Jamie Mackay on Friday but with all that was taking place at Cheltenham we felt it would be more prudent to issue those penalties in full on Monday, which we still intend to do, although we can confirm the penalties."
The previous record fine handed out to a trainer was the £17,500 to David Elsworth in 1988 following the discovery of a prohibited substance in Cavvies Clown.
The BHA report pulls no punches, here is one of their findings.
“Just as the story of Wigham’s criticism of Mackay’s Wolverhampton ride was untrue, so the Panel decided that their accounts of the instructions given for the Wolverhampton and Kempton races were also untrue. It is tolerably clear what was really going on here. These races were handicapping jobs, designed to steer GRANAKEY (IRE) gently down the handicap to a mark off which Wigham felt she could win. There is of course nothing inherently wrong with betting coups; they are part of the sport. But they cannot be set up with preparatory false runs.”[/color:3r55dcfw]
Not much attention to detail and a bit clumsy to be caught twice. The real experts at this game are subtle and shrewd as the jockey does not have to be in on the plan. A simple flat out 2 mile gallop in the morning before going to the races is sufficient to deceive the handicapper.
I’m surprised Purr’s win for this trainer at Fakenham hasn’t excited more attention. Having been beaten streets on Monday and Wednesday, and a total of 350l in its last five completed races, it should have been much bigger than 40/1. It may have been dropped into a seller, but those other races weren’t much better. Was there even a stewards’ enquiry?
That was my initial thought as well, Ravel, but if Wigham was going to land a plot with a horse, I can think of more obvious candidates than a 44-race maiden running off an eye-wateringly rubbish hurdling OR of 60 and with a fairly ordinary amateur rider up.
gc
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
I think this is great. I’m sick of this great mystique around these people who pull off massive betting coups by deliberatly losing beforehand.
The only word for them is Cheats. Wigham got exactly what he deserved.
Have just found this – looks like the Irish stewards are clamping down.
50 days from the local stewards sends out a strong message
"There is of course nothing inherently wrong with betting coups; they are part of the sport. But they cannot be set up with preparatory false runs."
It will be interesting to see how the racing authorities choose to interpret "preparatory false runs" in the future. Running a horse on going he has amply demonstrated he can’t handle, or over the "wrong" trip, or on the wrong type of course?
- Total Posts 17716
The BHA report pulls no punches, here is one of their findings.
“Just as the story of Wigham’s criticism of Mackay’s Wolverhampton ride was untrue, so the Panel decided that their accounts of the instructions given for the Wolverhampton and Kempton races were also untrue. It is tolerably clear what was really going on here. These races were handicapping jobs, designed to steer GRANAKEY (IRE) gently down the handicap to a mark off which Wigham felt she could win. There is of course nothing inherently wrong with betting coups; they are part of the sport. But they cannot be set up with preparatory false runs.”[/color:1lw5hqk0]
Which, translated from BHA speak, reads: “We know you are at it, just don’t make it too obvious” and should be filed alongside their other core dictum: “It’s fine to do it, as long as the jockey doesn’t tell”. :roll:
Good – a massive result for the few trainers and owners who run their horses on their merits in handicaps.
I’m sick to death of seeing these "duck egg" coups being landed by this yard and even more sick to death of the likes of Matt Chapman lauding them on ATR for landing a "good old fashioned coup".
Not forgetting Wigham’s ‘assistant’ Phil Mcentee who despite being banned from holding a trainers licence at the moment has still been allowed to have an assistants position and lead up horses at the races etc…..
The fine itself wouldn’t be enough but the banning of runners for the next month or so is a step in the right direction without doubt.
Interesting that the jockeys ban is twice the length of the trainers’,wonder what the reasoning is on that one.- Total Posts 17716
Good – a massive result for the few trainers and owners who run their horses on their merits in handicaps.
.TDK
While I agree with the sentiments, it isn’t just ‘some’ trainers, and it isn’t just handicaps.
For instance, no one has thought to question Paul Nicholls about why Celestial Halo was ridden up with a strong pace when winning at Newbury, held up when beaten off a slow pace at Doncaster, and then made all at a strong pace to win the Triumph?
No handicap mark involved, and probably no betting coup, but it would be a brave man who said the horse was run entirely on its merits on each occasion.
It happens all the time, and at all levels, but the BHA would like us to think otherwise, hence the cosmetic sacrifices of the very small fry like Wigham?
Incidentally, I wasn’t a Franchoek backer, but I wonder how many of his supporters were put away by the above MO, compared to the money lost on the Wigham races?"
It will be interesting to see how the racing authorities choose to interpret "preparatory false runs" in the future. Running a horse on going he has amply demonstrated he can’t handle, or over the "wrong" trip, or on the wrong type of course?I’m sure its all allowed if you have a knighthood.
Reet, Nicholls admitted after the Triumph that he and Ruby had cocked things up at Doncaster.
Suggesting that they tried something and it didn’t work.
Colin
- Total Posts 17716
Seabird
It’s a fairly safe bet that they wanted to know if the horse could win the Triumph from off the pace. They found out he couldn’t, and rode him accordingly when it mattered.
Does that alter the fact that it was a “preparatory false run” though, or does it ameliorate those punters who backed him at 2/5 at Doncaster, or backed the even money Franchoek as a result of CH’s Doncaster failure.
I’d say emphatically not! The way he was raced ripped a lot more money out of punter’s walllets than Michael Wigham ever will.If anything it was the punters in the Doncaster race who were ripped off.
As punters, we don’t live in a vacuum and the idea that he might be ridden in the same way as on debut should have occurred to anyone having a bet in the Triumph.
Colin
I think the BHA have it more or less spot on in their assessment of the situation. The trainer has only himself to blame for being so crude. But what else was he to do? The variability of courses and underfoot conditions make this country’s turf racing some of the finest in the world and gives some punters an edge which just cannot be replicated on flat oval tracks where the course material remains consistently the same. This is in part the reason why less proficient trainers hands are tied at courses like Wolverhampton and the other artificially surfaced courses. they cant take a short runner to Ponte for a couple of spins and then bang it in at Bath. The variability of British and Irish racecourse conditions are the essence of the coup.
The options available to trainers who specialize in these events- wrong trip wrong grade of runners would be spotted a mile away by most serious punters and the price required would not be met.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.