- This topic has 100 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I think all the sentences were about 2 years too short.
Winston’s 1 year ban seems very lenient when you consider that Billy Newnes was given 3 years for much the same sort of offence.
Less than honest people exist in all walks of life and if there is a chance to make money, no matter what the means, they will do it. And find a way around any obstacles, such as banning the laying of horses, that stand in their way.
I believe the Oxford english dictionary defines it as ‘greed’.
It is almost amusing that each jockey refutes the claims made against them, but only state that their respective punishments are ‘extremely harsh’. Basically they know they’ve contravened the rules of racing, but don’t think what they’ve done is all that bad.
And it’s a sad state of affairs, but perfectly indicative of the society we live in today. Prince Charles was, wrongly, verbally castrated last year for saying that children shouldn’t be told that they can achieve whatever they want, because some simply aren’t capable of attaining beyond a certain level. And he’s right. But it’s a train of thought that has enveloped 80% of the civilised world, and continues to do so when the likes of the WAGs and Jade Goody are given so much media time. People are taught they can have whatever they want and if they are denied it, find a reason to get it anyway (enter non-sensical race, sex and age legislation).
It puts it into perspective when greedy, dishonest, dishonourable persons are prepared to cheat many thousands in the pursuit of money, with Gerald McClellan, a former world class fighter, unable to cover his annual medical fees after one of the greatest fights of all time (v Nigel Benn, 1995, as shown on ITV this evening). Let down by his sport, his life (now blind, 70% deaf and confined to a wheelchair) is a constant struggle having previously worked night and day to be a world leader in his chosen discipline.
Scum of the earth would be an apt entry in the bibliographical dictionary regarding today’s quartet, and I’d be keen to recoup the monies gained in the pursuit of cheating the industry, a la Dwain Chambers.
(Edited by LetsGetRacing at 1:28 am on Feb. 18, 2007)
Very passionate, LGR. I tend to agree with you. But you only have to read the literature and the history to see that this is by no means a new phenomenon.
Turn of the century American dopers; ringers; aristocratic corruption, (the very worst); the Druids Lodge Confederacy; Phar Lap; Pinturischio; Francome and Banks; Man Mood – all before the exchange idea emerged from a garage in West London.
The very first time wagers were placed on the outcome of two horses racing against each other was the first time we opened a Pandora’s Box of nefarious practice.
At least Betfair has a paper trail, though there can be no doubt that the exchanges make professional skullduggery a lot more comfortable.
Banning laying on exchanges? May as well ban umbrellas to stop the rain.
Yes Zorro is the moderate voice of reason, life bans for transgressors, why not go a bit further and bring in the death penalty. ATR could show Scotney doing the beheadings with Tommo doing the commentary. Betfair could sponsor these events.
<br>No problem with Zorro’s call for life bans for corrupt activity – as long as the same applies to members of the press room that take advantage of special deals with bookmakers in exchange for a favourable mention of their prices.
I mean, no journalist ever hoovered up the best ante-post prices from the PR men before the betting public could get a look in, did they Zorro?
And no journalist was ever released from the problem of paying off all or part of his credit losses, were they Zorro?
AP
I agree with life bans if people are found guilty of corruption by a court of law. The HRA is a kangaroo court. There is no such thing as Burden Of Proof. No equality for the accused as they have to pay for their defence and most could not afford the equivalent legal team that the HRA use.
All I can say is I haven’t, ap.<br>Maybe that’s because I hardly ever go in the press room.<br>Or because I don’t bet with the right bookies?<br>All in favour of corrupt practices in the press room being penalised. Why do bookies’ reps get badges anyway?
Never really had any hospitality from bookmakers either. Not surprising considering some of the things I’ve said about them.
TDK, Poor old Kiewwon? I still think what’s in effect a ban before the case is even heard is pretty dubious justice. Don’t you?
<br>Just to clarify, I certainly wasn’t suggesting that Zorro was guilty of any of the things I mentioned.
AP
OK. A difference of opinion. I hardly think he’d be likely to do anything that might draw further suspicion while waiting for his case to be heard. <br>I also think the effective ban while waiting for it to be heard might be prejudicial to his defence.
Quote: from bluechariot on 12:47 pm on Feb. 18, 2007[br]I agree with life bans if people are found guilty of corruption by a court of law. The HRA is a kangaroo court. There is no such thing as Burden Of Proof. No equality for the accused as they have to pay for their defence and most could not afford the equivalent legal team that the HRA use.<br>
Maybe the riders in question could have told more effective lies if only they could have afforded a Johnny Cochrane quailty attorney.
Quote: from Zorro on 1:12 pm on Feb. 18, 2007[br]OK. A difference of opinion. I hardly think he’d be likely to do anything that might draw further suspicion while waiting for his case to be heard.
Leaving aside Failon, in general I just don’t buy this.
Surely any rider with the threat of a life-ban hanging over him will make hay while the sun shines. If the prosecution fails, they’re unlikely to come back for another pop any time soon and if they succeed, the jockey has earned a nice little retirement fund in the interim (he can even ask for these misdemeanors to be taken into consideration upon sentencing and have them wiped clean).
What’s the deterent? Two life-bans?
In fact, even leaving racing aside. Zorro’s argument is rebutted by pretty much ever criminology study that’s ever been done. Is a guy with an ASBO, or a suspected troublemaker the police are keeping an eye on or an ex-con that has to report to his parole officer every week less likely to offend than the normal man in the street? That seems to be what Zorro is saying.
(Edited by Glenn at 1:32 pm on Feb. 18, 2007)
Quote: from thedarkknight on 1:32 pm on Feb. 18, 2007[br]Exactly, and apart from anything else, even if a jockey/owner/trainer is found guilty of defauding punters, do they have to return their ill-gotten gains to the people they stole it from?
I don’t recall any precedent for it….<br>
Not yet….
Nobody’s been found guilty of anything in a criminal court. However, if what they’ve told me is true, I know of some pro gamblers with the necessary wherewithal who will be looking into such a move should any of the jockeys be found guilty.
That is not what Zorro seems to be saying Glenn, and I suspect you know it.;) <br>If Fallon was skint there might be some force in your idea that he’d be likely to ‘make hay while the sun shines’. But he’s anything but, and has far more to gain by restoring his reputation than he could earn by any other means.
Predictably terrestrial TV didn’t have too much to say about the Winston affair. The Morning Line reported it matter of factly- guess McCririck may have had something to say but I believe he is out of the country. On BBC .Balding opened with an update but switched to Aussie Jim who mumbled something about "the authorities taking action" and that was that- we were switched straight to Persad’s insights into the handicap hurdle. <br>Full marks to Zorro for his article in today’s RP- being the first trade paper hack to comment on the latest bans and warnings off- at least acknowledging that corruption in racing is an age old problem and calling for stiff penalties for those found guilty. However I concur that his column seems at odds with the RP’s editorial campaign of "save our Fallon"- this is risible as no-one has heard the evidence!<br>The pages opposite were also interesting highlighting the "lies" told by the jockeys in their accounts.Interesting quotes from Paul Scotney criticising the lack of co-operation and indifference from the Jockeys Association in relation to the corruption in their ranks. It is plain disingenuous for the JA to advise their members that ghosting a newspaper column in which someone like McCoy earns cash for discussing the prospects of his mounts based on public form could be construed as passing inside information for gain! His column is available to anyone choosing to buy the rag . It is completely different to systematically flogging information to shady figures connected with the betting industry in order that they rip off bookies, layers and backers who aren’t privy to it. Mind you the sanctimonius bleatings from the bookies are laughable- they were paying for inside info. long before the exchanges were even thought of.<br>If the JA acknowledged the problem and operated a degree of self regulation then presumably Scotney and his ex CID chums would show less interest in them. As it is the authorities have to take jockeys mobile phones off them in the weighing room as they can’t be trusted and because of the poor public image portrayed, leaving the jocks moaning about their "human rights". The jocks will also be remembered for their "strike" in support of the cosy ReceTech stalls handlers monopoly which Arena chose to dispense with. This amounted to boycotting an evening AW meeting when most of the big boys were riding on turf elsewhere. We were promised carnage at the stalls as Arena employed untrained staff.Strangely it’s all gone quiet- humble pie time?<br>The JA attitude gives them about as much credibility as the Stable Lads Association, though I guess at least the JA books are in order
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.