- This topic has 100 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Quote: from Seagull on 8:06 am on Feb. 17, 2007[br]There is one possible positive to come out of all this that is for Sir Michael Stoute to stop dithering and to offer the job of stable jockey to RYAN MOORE.
<br>
<br>They would suit each other, neither has a sense of humour. Good Jockey that Moore is, he is dull as dish water
Madman Marz<br>There is more to being a good jockey than <br>(1) flying dismounts<br>(2) lending your name to some Italian sauce<br>(3) kissing your bearded owner in the winning enclosure<br>(4) getting your name involved in video games<br>(5) spraying champagne over your trainer<br>(6) grabbing every chance to make a £1 by appearing on the likes of Question of Sport <br>(7) turning up at celebrity auctions<br>(8) letting your home be shown on tv programmes such as ‘Through The Keyhole’
Incidentally both current champion jockeys AP and Ryan may come across as dull and obsessed with just winning races but Ryan is no worse than Mick Kinnane or Ruby Walsh they just went to concentrate 100% on their chosen profession.
At least you know you are getting ‘what it says in the tin'<br>Champion Jockey
Seagull,
I would agree that a Dettori clone would be just tooooooooooooo much!!!
But could you ask Ryan just to try practising smiling, it aint that difficult if I can manage it.:biggrin:
Colin
Quote: from class tells on 12:21 am on Feb. 17, 2007[br]the worst bit of jiggery pockery i saw was when ihad a 50£ bet on a horse at hamilton we had been following this stable owned by a local lad it was a sprint when the gates opened the jockey {not its usual} was holding on to the stalls for grim life the horse had to make up half a furlong  the horse finnished only lengths of the winner and the name of this animal LES ARCS<br>
I remember the race well, think it was the Scottish Stewards’ Cup, Spirit of France just got the better of my selection Fantasy Believer. For information purposes, Les Arcs was ridden by Tony Culhane that day.
As far as I can tell Winston was banned not for stopping horses but providing information for reward even though the HRA admit they have no evidence of reward. I doubt if he would have been convicted in a Court of Law due to lack of evidence.
As for banning Betfair and people laying horses, how ridiculous
Quote: from FlatSeasonLover on 2:11 am on Feb. 17, 2007[br]DO you think this gives us any clues to the Fallon case? Have the HRA made their point here, or do you think Fallon will be made an example of?<br>
Different type of case in that in the first instance Fallon, Williams, Lynch and their co-defendants are up before a beak and jury where the Crown Prosecution Service are required to prove the criminal case beyond all reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.
Conversely cases pending before the HRA are against Culhane and others and also against Kelly, Nolan, Byrne and others
Quote: from bluechariot on 10:05 am on Feb. 17, 2007[br]As far as I can tell Winston was banned not for stopping horses but providing information for reward even though the HRA admit they have no evidence of reward. I doubt if he would have been convicted in a Court of Law due to lack of evidence.
As for banning Betfair and people laying horses, how ridiculous<br>
Not factually correct Blue Chariot.<br>Read the HRA judgement posted on this topic by David Johnson.<br>Paragraph 61 indicates that the panel rejected the assertion made by Winston and his brief that he was not being paid for passing inside information. The panel found this incredible given the sheer volume of communication between WINSTON and co-accused (he was found to be using Fitzpatrick as the go between)
MP’s have spin merchants, Betfair brag they are uncovering dubious betting patterns with their MOU.
They never give a one word answer ie. YES or NO.
To the question is it now easier for unscruplous owners, trainers, jockeys, stable staff, to lay a horse than it was pre Betfair?
the answer is too painful.
Yes Lingfield but where is the evidence of payment? Also the bookmaker lost money laying winstons mounts so is he going to reward him for that?
Well, i read it as being like this.
If Winston had nothing to do with this as he keeps pleading, a) would there be this much evidence against him if he hadn’t done anything wrong?
and b) if you were said to be involved in racing corruption and found out that Fitzpatrick had been giving information about mounts ridden by yourself, wouldn’t you be a little upset with him, rather than looking quite happy be talking to him on the way to court yesterday?
I know if i felt i was innocent and found out that Fitzpatrick had been giving information about horses that i was riding to a bookmaker i would be less than happy and would feel like he had befriended me.
I don’t think the HRA would have done anything unless they had fool proof evidence, this matters too much to the sport and i doubt they would take this action unless they were sure of the goings on.
However, i do feel the suspensions/warning off were harsh but this is just to set a principal to show they are not messing around this time and that is a good thing in my eyes.
Barry – you have been and always will be against the exchanges, your view will be entirely biased.
Maybe it is easier to lay horses, but it is also MUCH easier to catch these people, greed will always get the better of any people into corruption. No matter how many different accounts people use, there are always links. And after this less people from the general public will want to get involved with it.
<br>
Quote: from barry dennis on 10:31 am on Feb. 17, 2007[br]
To the question is it now easier for unscruplous owners, trainers, jockeys, stable staff, to lay a horse than it was pre Betfair?
the answer is too painful.<br>
Isn’t the answer to punish the cheats as has happened in this case rather than withdraw the method they use and overwhelming majority use honestly?<br>I’d sooner take my chances on an exchange with an extremely small number of bad eggs any day than be conned all my life by our friends the bookies and their restrictive practices.
(Edited by yeats at 11:59 am on Feb. 17, 2007)
A good jockey can ride winners, a great jockey can ride winners and losers and not get caught ;)
Even Ron Cox ,from the Guardian, is at it. His article is headed "Exchanges will always leave racing open to skulduggery" Substitute Exchanges for Betting and he would be nearer the truth.<br>As we can’t have a parimutuel monopoly, what about making it a requirement for all bets over a certain limit to be registered through an account. I appreciate fictitious names and addresses could be used but a proof of identity (passport etc.) would be mandatory.<br>On-course bookmakers would have a problem with this but modern technology could assist.<br>More bad publicity for racing is possible next week: John Egan is in court on Monday.
Quote: from barry dennis on 10:31 am on Feb. 17, 2007[br]MP’s have spin merchants, Betfair brag they are uncovering dubious betting patterns with their MOU.
They never give a one word answer ie. YES or NO.
To the question is it now easier for unscruplous owners, trainers, jockeys, stable staff, to lay a horse than it was pre Betfair?
the answer is too painful.<br>
In a similar request for one word answers, Barry, has a bookmaker ever been privy to inside information from a jockey and taken advantage of this situation?
And, have all bookies in such situations been happy to provide full details of their bets and customers to allow a full and fair enquiry?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.