- This topic has 100 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
- Total Posts 17716
Quote: from Nor1 on 8:00 pm on Feb. 20, 2007[br]bluechariot<br>You seem to forget that all the jockeys were alleged to have been untruthful. In a ‘proper court’ this would amount to perjury and a prison sentence. Remember Aitken? Perhaps they were fortunate it was, in your estimation, a ‘kangaroo court’.
‘Alleged’, not proven; particularly in Winston’s case.<br>Only kangaroo courts could get away with it!
reet hard<br>According to the HRA there were "false denials by Winston…"<br>I used ‘alleged’ because I am not privy to the facts in this enquiry. Alleged , in this instance, was not used by the HRA.<br>I think Winston, along with Egan, are lucky to still be able to work within the racing industry in this country.
Quote: from bluechariot on 7:30 pm on Feb. 20, 2007[br]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.<br>
BC,
In a criminal court the prosecution must prove its case "beyond all reasonable doubt" before a jury or magistrate. This is where Fallon and co. are initially appearing.
In a civil court the burden is the lesser "balance of probabilities".
Someone like wit is far more versed than I in the non -criminal field and may be able to elaborate , but the law generally recognises the right of a sport to discipline its participants e.g. the FA, IAAF etc.. You opt to participate, you play by the rules.
As part of his appeal, Graham Bradley attempted to challenge the process on lack of impartiality and human rights.
Of course bodies such as the General Medical Council also have discipline processes and can mandate retraining or strike medics off.
On a related topic I do think that A D’s column in today’s RP was an exceptional piece of journalism. It really is about time that the RP shook itself out of it’s monopoly complacency and addressed real issues. A D’s piece did just that to my way of thinking.
His criticisms of John Blake were spot on. What is this guy actually saying, that my members are crooks and they should be allowed to keep on stopping horses and selling priviledged info, and it doesn’t matter?
I own racehorses and the trainers I use and myself are very careful about the jocks employed. I would have never thought that any of them were up to no good. But comments of the like that Blake has made – on behalf of the Jockey’s Association – do make me think about whether this is a sport I want to keep putting money into. And from conversations with other owners, that’s not an unusual opinion, based on what has gone on in the past.
So all power to the HRA, well done them for banging this particular set of crooks to rights. And whilst I might think all of them got off lightly, I do think the HRA sat their sentences very sensibly, none of them have got grounds for appeal and the longer they are kept out of racing the better.
As I see it, the bottom line is this. For too long racing has turned a blind eye to corruption. Now the worm – as it were – has turned. The more the wrongdoers are rooted out, and the more publicity given to those actions the better. It will give existing and would be owners and punters confidence that they aren’t being ripped off.
richard
well said richard
i for one can’t wait for the showpiece all these little entree’s are leading up to, where a certain person is probably getting his brown trousers cut to fit as we speak
Whilst I applaud the HRA for the work they have done in getting Winston, Ferris, Fitzpatrick and Morris out of the game, I hope that the CPS have something more solid than what the HRA produced, otherwise I have concerns as whether they will have proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. The fact that Winston was eventually released without charge by the CPS but punished by the HRA leaves me feeling and hoping that they do.
I concur DJ. Some of what I read in the HRA text of the hearing gave me real concerns over the strength of their ‘evidence’. Albeit I don’t doubt the accuracy of the things being alleged.
I enjoyed AD in the RP yesterday with his holier than though attitude. Is this the same person that used  boast about his contacts with Sir Mark. I am sure he never used his inside information to get the best ante post prices on Pasternak etc.  and he was up the backside of every Irish trainer that would tolerate his drunken behaviour.
(Edited by bluechariot at 6:54 am on Feb. 21, 2007)
- Total Posts 17716
Perhaps it’s me, but I still fail to see where R Winston has done much wrong?<br>OK, he has passed on information, unsurprising in an industry awash with it, and maybe he did get paid for it, but has he actually done anything  that would be considered corrupt in any other sport?<br>If it is a crime to give or receive information, then we are all guilty of it, and if it is a crime to be paid for it then why condone trainers and jockeys being paid by the media, and the wholesale advertising of tipping lines, racing clubs, etc? Can anyone pretend that their popularity isn’t due to subscribers hoping for an inside line?<br>At worst, R Winston was in the position only to give opinions on most of his rides, and, according to the transcripts, they would mainly cover such as horses carrying too much weight or running on the wrong ground. Aren’t the real transgressors those who put horses in such positions in the first place?<br>Day after day, at all levels, horses aren’t being run on their merits, at infinitely more cost to punters than concerned this enquiry, yet the authorities, media, et al, continue to turn a blind eye.<br>Certainly, jockeys found to deliberately stop horses should be banned, but aren’t they just scapegoats to draw attention away from the real problems?
Comparing the activities that are detailed in the HRA report with a jockey being interviewed on ATR or RUK before a days racing is ridiculous. As has been raised beforehand, if the riders didn’t know full well what they were doing was wrong, why did they deny that they knew the bookmaker and go to such lengths to conceal the extent to which they had dealings with.
OK, he has passed on information, unsurprising in an industry awash with it, and maybe he did get paid for it, but has he actually done anything  that would be considered corrupt in any other sport?
Yes, cricket for one.  But we’re not talking about any other sport.
Day after day, at all levels, horses aren’t being run on their merits
And their connections are going unpunished?  Such as…?
Certainly, jockeys found to deliberately stop horses should be banned, but aren’t they just scapegoats to draw attention away from the real problems?
No, jockeys deliberately stopping horses are not just scapegoats.
Perhaps it’s me, but I still fail to see where R Winston has done much wrong?
Yes, perhaps it is.
Mike
- Total Posts 17716
Betlarge
Day after day, at all levels, horses aren’t being run on their merits
And their connections are going unpunished?  Such as…
3 recent examples, all gd1 races where all horses are assumed to be ready to run for their lives. The lower down the scale, the bigger the problem becomes.
—————————————<br>28 Dec  War of Attrition, btn 13l<br>Trainer’s comments:<br>The ground was very deep and testing, and it was all against him. In the circumstances I’m pleased enough.  Mouse Morris, trainer <br>—————————————–<br>10 Jan  <br>Aztec Warrior<br>He really wants three miles and he will be entered for the Royal & SunAlliance Chase <br>Next run, February Gd1 2.5 miles.<br>—————————————-<br>17 Feb  River City
He was only 80 per cent fit and this wouldn’t be his ground
——————————————
3 examples of horses not run on their merits, no audit trails, phone records, or long investigations necessary.<br>Action taken……….zilch.<br>The tiny tip of a very large iceberg.
<br>
Reet
3 recent examples, all gd1 races where all horses are assumed to be ready to run for their lives. The lower down the scale, the bigger the problem becomes.
————————————— <br>28 Dec War of Attrition, btn 13l <br>Trainer’s comments: <br>The ground was very deep and testing, and it was all against him. In the circumstances I’m pleased enough. Mouse Morris, trainer <br>—————————————– <br>10 Jan <br>Aztec Warrior <br>He really wants three miles and he will be entered for the Royal & SunAlliance Chase <br>Next run, February Gd1 2.5 miles. <br>—————————————- <br>17 Feb River City
He was only 80 per cent fit and this wouldn’t be his ground
——————————————
3 examples of horses not run on their merits, no audit trails, phone records, or long investigations necessary. <br>Action taken……….zilch. <br>The tiny tip of a very large iceberg.
Bad examples, all three. I think you are getting confused with horses not running under their ideal conditions rather than not running on their merits.
Furthermore a trainer is only expressing his (in my experience usually inaccurate) opinion about his horse. It could reasonably be argued that River City’s performance, in which he started at 20-1, was close to a lifetime best. ‘80% fit’ – bullsh*t. Don’t listen to ’em!<br> <br>If an owner/trainer thinks (or even knows) a horse wants 3 miles over fences, he is still perfectly allowed to run it at 2 miles over hurdles, providing the horse still runs on it’s merits (i.e. the best it can at that trip/race type). It happens all the time, every day. It’s why we have form books.
You seem to be suggesting that a horse should somehow be allocated it’s favourite distance, course, going etc and should never be able to race outside those criteria.
Mike
- Total Posts 17716
Betlarge<br>Nevertheless, there are 3 horses running either on the wrong ground, over the wrong trip, or not fully fit, and presumably responsible for losing punters much more than the total involved in the Winstone rides.<br>He has passed on, in all likeliehood, similar information,possibly for reward, and received a 12 month ban for doing so?<br>Who are the real thieves?
Reet
Sorry, but I still don’t get your argument.
Who is to say they have run over the wrong trip? Or the wrong ground? Who gives that cast-iron definition of ‘wrong’.
These were just opinions spouted pre- or post-race by trainers. They are not facts.
You are in effect saying that if a trainer says “I think horse x is best at 1m2fâ€ÂÂ
Exactly, betlarge.
Some trainers run horses on unsuitable ground, over wrong distances, left when the horse prefers right, etc.<br>This could be because they are inept, not sure, owner’s request, or trying to adjust the handicap rating.
BUT we can try to analyse this from the form book.
Completely different to jockeys trying to influence the outcome of a race because they have been paid, or will collect from a bet, or are trying to please their master.<br>Also different to jockeys who know whether a horse is ready or fit enough to run.
If the HRA really means business in ridding the sport of these cheaters, great.
Rule 243 states that jockeys cannot sell information about a horse which is not publically available. There are exceptions, such as providing information to a horse’s owner, passing on information as part of press or broadcast work and when speaking to sponsorship groups.
So if you accept that Winston did pass information on in return for money and none of the above exceptions applied, then he is guilty.
The report also explains why ‘information’ is taken to include opinion, since if it didn’t, jockeys would simply be able to state that they were only passing on opinions. For example, ‘In my opinion, this one won’t win today’ (because I’ll be taking the wrong course).
(Edited by Aranalde at 5:10 pm on Feb. 24, 2007)<br>
(Edited by Aranalde at 6:25 pm on Feb. 24, 2007)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.