- This topic has 100 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Quote: from Zorro on 4:05 pm on Feb. 18, 2007[br]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.<br>
You seem to suggest that the corrupt and criminal make rational choice calculations regarding their actions, weighing up risks and rewards. With all due respect, you’d find yourself more at home on BF chit chat proclaiming that death penalties and clips round the ear would put an end to crime.
Life isn’t like that. If a person has been brought up with certain norms of behaviour, it’s very hard to change them through incentives and punishments. You can take the jockey out of the Ramsden stable, but you can’t take the Ramsden stable out of the jockey.
We live our lives on the assumption that most people behave rationally most of the time, Glenn. Do you know a better way?<br>I think you’re arguing for the sake of it now.
As I have said earlier in this thread I support the action taken by the HRA in this matter.
There is, however, one worrying feature to me in the HRA ruling and that is in the long discourse they give on what constitutes "inside information". They have concluded that inside information includes opinion and is not merely confined to facts. This is totally at odds with the "insider trading" rules enshrined in Company Law and I believe gives credence to Blakes comments on behalf of the Jockeys association namely that Jockeys will in future have to be careful even in passing on their opinions to friends who may respect the jockeys opinions enough to back on them and hence set up a "corruption trail"
Short of their intention to pull a horse – and in Winstons case the HRA went out of their way to state that he did not – it is my opinion that jockeys are rarely in possession of facts which might adversly effect the chances of a horse in a race since stable staff and trainers are unlikely to inform them of same and jockeys are normally merely relaying their own opinion. I read AP’s column in the Telegraph and the interesting thing is how he is normally more wrong than right. vide eg Foto island
The key thing about Winston is that the HRA believe there was overpowering cicumstantial evidence that he passed on his opinions for profit although they admitted that they had no direct proof of same. In the absence of a detailed transcript we have to assume this was the case given the calibre and integrity of the Panel. I have my doubts whether this would have been sufficient burden of proof for a Criminal Court. Paradoxically it may be that Fallon has a better chance of acquittal – irrespective of any guilt on his part – under the Criminal courts than he has from the HRA panel because it is virtually impossible to overturn the HRA verdict unless they have not followed a due process and no-one can accuse them of that.
It is a really bizzare and strange carry on, where on the one hand you persue a hand full of miscreatants, who have passed on information to someone who has defrauded punters for his own personal gain. And on the other, we have Lord Donaghue facilitating one of the biggest hiests in racing history.
The whole things a laugh really.
<br>I share the concerns expressed by Galejade about the blurring of the definiton of ‘information’ in the rules to include opinion.
Instead of the current macho posturing between the HRA and Jockeys Association, it would be far more useful if they sat down and produced a clear and concise code of conduct for all concerned.
At the very least, we need proper and widely understood definitions of ‘information’ and ‘public domain’.
AP
Come on, the dumb insolence that Blake projects really is insulting.
No jockey has ever been pulled in for what he said in a coprporate box before racing, nor are they ever likely to be.
I would suggest that the jockeys under investigation have/had no confusion at all that what they did was wrong. Otherwise why would they repeatedly lie about doing it or having any knowledge of the people they have communicated info to?
Galejade<br>The idea that stable staff etc. do not communicate with others far and wide regarding info on their horses is incorrect. Mobile phones make this so easy. <br>And, if you ask them (from a variety of stables) about corruption, it’s quite remarkable how the same names crop up over and over again.
Bluechariot,
The times have said clearly and eloquently what I was stumbling to say. Fallon will have a better chance with the burden of proof being " beyond all reasonable doubt" than Winston experienced from the Panel which was at best " on the balance of probabilities"
‘shriek’ is an interesting choice of word in the Times. Is everyone who thinks those found guilty of corruption (found guilty, note) should be banned for life necessarily shrieking?
The fact that Winston, who received the most lenient sentence, is NOT appealing, speaks volumes.
Incidentally when will R Hills and Darley be apologising to John Francome for rubbishing him some months ago when he claimed on Radio 5 that races were fixed? Francome’s error was in saying it was only 6 a year!
Darley’s statement that he had never ridden in a fixed race in his life was even more laughable if you consider he rode ‘Flockton Grey.’
What would be the point in Winston appealing to this kangaroo court? It is not a proper court and has no right of appeal to a higher court like in the real world. He would be wasting even more money.<br>Lingfield I would have thought you would have recognised this as a Court not fit for purpose as I think you have posted in the past that you work in the real Criminal Justice system.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.