- This topic has 100 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Doubt if Winston did get paid, no evidence that he did, also the bookie lost money laying his mounts. I don’t think bookmakers are in the habit of paying for information they lose on.<br>
Note the use of the word ‘if’.
The HRA felt that the evidence indicated that he was receiving substantial payment, therefore they imposed a punishment.
You obviously have a different opinion
The HRA were not able to produce evidence of payment but as we all know bookies love to pay for info even if they dont profit so it is natural to assume that they paid
- Total Posts 17716
Quote: from Aranalde on 4:49 pm on Feb. 24, 2007[br]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)<br>
<br>" Rules are for the guidance of wise men, and for strict observance by fools."
Aranalde
It isn’t just about rules though, it is about integrity! Not the perceived integrity thrust upon us by the HRA, but the basic human value.<br>If the sport is to have real trust, then why is information and opinion not only not freely available, but guarded and secreted by its own rules?<br> Why is it an issue, at all, that some should have this inormation, and some shouldn’t, unless the rules were implemented in the first place to keep the information from us?  <br>Is Robert Winston really the guilty party in all this; okay he lied about his contacts with the other jockeys – not really surprising, considering a very promising career was on the line – but that wasn’t what he was handed a 12 month suspension for?<br>What he was really banned for was telling the truth in the first place, and aren’t those who imposed the ban actually perpetuating racing’s dishonesty by deeming that to be the offence?:o :o <br>
<br>
Reet
Whilst I agree with the principle of more openness, I suspect that it would be difficult to enforce. I’m not sure how feasible it would be for every trainer to be required to reveal every single piece of information concerning every one of their horses to the public, or indeed how this would be transmitted.
In the case of the other three, it should also be remembered that it was found they were prepared to actually fix races.
It seems to me that a jockey on the brink of a very succcessful career, who does take money for information, illegally, is like a prospector who, having just struck a very rich seam of gold, then breaks into the local fish and chip shop one night, after a heavy night’s boozing! It doesn’t matter whether the rules are hypocritical or the only sound way of keeping a check on the worst kinds of cheating.
I can’t believe it happens – particularly, with all the poverty in the country.
A very interesting debate, although I thought it would develop a greater head of steam. For example, no one mentioned the mysterious non-appearance of the Jockey Club/HRA’s ‘Inquiry into Inside Information – Phase Two Report’. For me, the report’s absence is more telling than its presence.
Incidentally, Galejade wins the gold star with honours for the very perceptive "what constitutes ‘inside information’" question (page 5).
Nice one, Lingfield.
AR
I am not surprised the report on inside info has not yet been published.<br>Consider- jockeys are paid a pittance for the risks they take when travelling expenses, their agent, the valet, the taxman, etc. take their cut. No rides, no money.<br>A trainer can struggle with rent, food for the horses, the vet, staff, supplying transport, bad debts, etc.<br>How do both survive, when they have limited horses and rides? You surmise.
A very interesting debate, although I thought it would develop a greater head of steam. For example, no one mentioned the mysterious non-appearance of the Jockey Club/HRA’s ‘Inquiry into Inside Information – Phase Two Report’. For me, the report’s absence is more telling than its presence.
Incidentally, Galejade wins the gold star with honours for the very perceptive "what constitutes ‘inside information’" question (page 5).
Nice one, Lingfield.
AR
<br>Oh God, he’s back…
Fitzpatrick had 630 rides in 2006. At £104.69 a time he would have earnt £65, 955 from riding fees alone. Plus his share of £379, 000 in prize money and any monies earnt from riding out and sponsorship. Winston had 981 rides giving a basic riding fee income of £102, 700
Lack of regular income is no excuse for what they did.
richard<br>
<br>Simply for accuracy, that’s £104.69 minus the fee for the valet, the percentage for his agent and the various compulsory deductions made by Weatherbys for insurance.
And if he was riding as an apprentice at the time, half the fee goes to the trainer holding his registration.
Still not an excuse, but not quite the total suggested.
AP
I’m not excusing anyone Richard. Merely trying to explain. From all walks of life, it wouldn’t matter how much money people had, they would still want more.
The top jockeys were all apprentices and this is when corruption can begin. Once in it’s difficult to get out.<br>The racing industry has turned a blind eye for too long.<br>It has relied on paying low wages to stable staff and riders. They now recruit from abroad as so many leave.<br>When you see the enormous sums paid for some horses it does not make sense. There is an imbalance.<br>So, other means of supplementing incomes (and I’m not just talking about jockeys) helps some to keep the show on the track.
Nor1, faultless stuff. However, wit’s excellent thread (Jockey earnings in HK…as told to Court) simply underlines apracing and richard’s double point on “excuseâ€ÂÂ
Again, not to defend the indefensible, some apprentice jockeys just want rides; want to succeed; are not greedy; and are not even paid.<br>The racing industry, at the moment, does little to protect them from their dreams. They go through a racing school, are placed with a trainer, and apart from one or two courses and visits later on, are pretty much left in the trainer’s care.<br>If, according to Roger Bufham and others, racing was/is institutionally corrupt, what are these fledging jockeys meant to do?<br>The same can apply to new trainers.<br>
Thanks AR for the link to AL’s piece in The Times. He seems to focus somewhat on the "issue of booze" which to me could be the result, rather than the reason, of problems.
I think the racing schools, when placing their youngsters with trainers, should have a specific person and a confidential telephone number for contact if these problems occur reference corruption, drugs, bullying etc.<br>It might be that they are not suited to the hard work and dedication required, but time would tell.
A more radical solution would be for the racing schools to employ and/or apprentice them for the first year or two and place them with trainers for set periods of time. Some of the funding could come from those who became apprentice jockeys where percentages of fees etc. were paid to the school rather than the trainer.<br>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.