- This topic has 26 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Depressing in the short run.<br>Fletcher appears to have disappeared without trace but Ferris, Fitzpatrick and of course Winston are very much still in action.<br>According to the HRA ,several Northern based jockeys will also face HRA race fixing charges.<br>Where will this and the criminal charges against Fallon et al end?<br>Not good for the public image of racing in the short term but it would be nice if the usual sycophants and apologists for the status quo actually rallied round and supported the HRA in their quest for a clean up for once.
What I do not understand is why the police released Winston etc. without charge. Was the evidence not strong enough for charges to be made against them?<br>Perhaps Wit could explain.
Quote: from Lingfield on 9:57 am on Aug. 10, 2006
Not good for the public image of racing ….
<br>What exactly is the public image of racing ?
AP
Quote: from apracing on 10:37 am on Aug. 10, 2006[br]
Quote: from Lingfield on 9:57 am on Aug. 10, 2006
Not good for the public image of racing ….
<br>What exactly is the public image of racing ?
AP<br>
AP, That’s an interesting question!
A sweeping view from the uninitiated is that the game is "fixed". The allegations and publicity simply perpetuate this.<br> A more reasoned view is that it is an insular industry reliant on inside information run primarily by and for the benefit of itself with the general public coming a poor second.<br>As far  as racegoers are concerned, there seems to be a mixed bag. Attendances remain good for the big meetings and "theme nights" and pop concerts appear popular with those with just the casual interest in watching racing and having a drink.Other courses have well publicised problems in attracting punters and even bookmakers. Crowds were down at this year’s Tour de France and at athletics meetings where the paying public are sceptical over drug abuse and the credibility of what they are watching.Many meetings are run to give off course punters something to bet on.<br>Punters keep the game alive. The threat to racing is that there are a whole host of other sports, particularly football, which are attracting increasing shares of the betting market.If punters lose confidence in a sport they will take their business elsewhere.<br>As regards terrestrial TV coverage, the BBC have largely lost interest and drastically reduced coverage. C4 demand cash from the industry to deign fit to cover it. Coverage increasingly left to pay per view specialist channels. This proved a problem to boxing and will be to cricket’s popularity.<br>Thoughts?
<br>
(Edited by Lingfield at 11:04 am on Aug. 10, 2006)
strange that the public see racing as full of cheating and yet when Henry or gerrard dive to get a penalty…
Nor1
Since the Rules of Racing work to different criteria than the criminal law, its possible for situations to exist which breach the Rules which do not breach criminal law.
If someone is released from a criminal investigation, its because either the police (at an early stage) or the CPS (at a later stage) decide that there is no basis to charge a breach of the criminal law.  ÂÂÂ
That could be on the back of anything ranging from:
"wrong man entirely, not a blemish on his character"
right through to:
"lot of basis to suspect, but the evidence isn’t quite there for a reasonable prospect of conviction where it has to be strong enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt".
It’ll be interesting to see how the HRA charge in relation to the Rules is worded. ÂÂÂ
<br>on Lingfield’s comment about racing being insular, i was reading this yesterday in a racing biography:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is deplorable, but nevertheless true, that many racing people regarded the [Second World] war as a tedious interruption of their normal activities. ÂÂÂ
As an industry, racing has always been self-centred, which, in peace time may be no bad thing.  But it is quite another matter when the country is fighting for its existence.
If a bomb fell on Clapham Junction, most racegoers would have been more concerned as to whether trains to Windsor or Salisbury – the only two south country racecourses functioning apart from Newmarket – would be delayed, rather than displaying any concern as to how many casualties had been inflicted….
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
best regards
wit
Correct. Look at the abuse Cristiano Ronaldo got this week over the Rooney World Cup sending off yet we have our share of divers and cheats.<br>However I don’t think that a bit of annoying cheating or even performance enhancing drug taking equates to allegedly systematically conniving with others to fix results
(Edited by Lingfield at 7:00 am on Aug. 11, 2006)
Many thanks wit. Perhaps the evidence was not strong enough because if "wrong man" was the reason, I would think HRA would not be pursuing the matter.
From RP
"One of the jockeys, not Winston, is believed to have made more than 200 calls to the bookmaker, who is thought to have regularly laid horses to lose on betting exchanges while also offering more generous odds than his rivals about the same horses when operating his racecourse pitch."
<br>……………………………….<br>Found the above interesting
<br>Does that mean, that if say large bookmakers were recieving or privy to "inside" info and used that info to lay horses at more generous odds via the exchanges and their outlets, they too would come under the HRA "conspiracy to defraud" or whatever charges?
<br>
(Edited by empty wallet at 12:28 pm on Aug. 10, 2006)
If that charge is true then its curtains for him IMO
:angry:
Open up the knavesmire…thats what i say :angry:
Quote: from EC on 12:43 pm on Aug. 10, 2006[br]Does that mean, that if say large bookmakers were recieving or privy to "inside" info and used that info to lay horses
phew..I’m sure that never happened before the exchanges :cheesy: <br>
Anyone remember the Francome-Banks-stopped affair??
SHL
As an owner and breeder I am actually stunned and astonished by the charging of yet more jockeys. The charges do not necessarily seem to involve "race fixing" but more the passing of inside information although what this means in the case of the average jockey is anyones guess.
Most posters seem to be concerned with the punting fraternity but the ramifications of any impropriety affecting the actual running of races is actually far more marked for owners and breeders. The owners contribution to racing exceeds punters by a factor of 3 to 1 with the average return to owners being about 21% of their costs.
Winners are the lifeblood of the way the present breeding structure works and breeders who can see their mare being devalued because their offspring are being pulled would be incadescent.
To me the biggest danger to racing is not the General or even Punting public deeming it corrupt ( I think they do anyhow) The biggest danger is owners and breeders deciding it is not worth a candle. Fortunately there is no evidence of this at the moment.
May be most owners, like me, are innocents at large. In over 30 years of owning horses I have never had reason to believe that my runner has been pulled. My horses have endured spme terrible rides from time to time but then I have endured entirely mistaken advice from doctors, lawyers, accountants and trainers all of whom were honest and well meaning.
I wonder if the corruption problem is as widespread as current events would imply? I hope not. You would think that from here on in any jockey with a grain of sense would make sure his propriety was beyond doubt.
Sir Harry Lewis
for those who don’t, there’s a potted version here:
http://www.thehra.org/doc.php?id=28648<br>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
.2. First, we were referred to the case of Mr Francome decided by the Disciplinary Committee in 1978.
In that case Mr Francome had supplied confidential information on average about twice a week to Mr Banks, a bookmaker of substance.
This had lasted over most of the 1977/78 National Hunt season with a short break in the middle. Mr Francome received possibly £750 for this information.
Mr Winter, his trainer, learnt of this at some stage in about November of that season and cautioned him.
After a short period Mr Francome, ignoring Mr Winter’s warning, continued his contact with Mr Banks until mid March of the following year.
As Mr Leach pointed out, this case involved a breach of trust and the tipping of winners as well as the provision of information on horses which were expected to lose.
4.3. Mr Leach submits that whilst the nine-month period over which Mr Francome was passing information was considerably shorter than Mr Bradley’s ten-year period, the amount of information passed over that short period could have been substantially more than the overall information passed to Mr Wright. Accordingly, he submits that the penalty imposed on Mr Bradley was manifestly disproportionate……
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
best regards
wit
Wit,
Francome has since discussed the case in some detail and categorically denies he has ever pulled a horse. All the information he provided to Banks was – to the rigorous student of form and of Winter’s yard – in the public domain.
He argued that all he did was provide confirmation to Banks of a horses ability, wellbeing or otherwise.
I often wonder how fundamentally different was the relationship between Francome and Banks, and that of a certain national bookmaker and one of the world’s most successful stables which appears to be widely known and discussed in the press.<br>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.