More Jockeys Charged

[Heyesey]

I beg to differ with Heyesey's claim about "not knowing what I'm talking about"

 

 

As a general rule, when someone says that horses are supposed to do X when the Jockey Club rules flatly contradict this statement, I assume that this someone doesn't know what he's talking about.

[happyhippy]

As a general rule, when someone says that horses are supposed to do X when the Jockey Club rules flatly contradict this statement, I assume that this someone doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

I'm not sure what you're alluding to here. Are you going back to the point Chairboy made, and I expanded upon, about the handicapper?

[happyhippy]

I thought people were innocent unless convicted, not merely charged.

 

 

Besides, if you actually knew anything whatsoever about the case, it'd be as clear to you as it is to everyone in racing that there's no hope at all of a conviction, because there isn't any reasonable case against them.

 

Personally speaking, for the HRA to have taken such a strong line (and many other countries' racing authorities too) against a five time champion Flat jockey in the UK, and one who has possibly the most prestigious stable jockey job in British and Irish racing, suggests to me that there is very much a case to answer.

 

Furthermore, the fact that more and more jockeys and trainers are being interviewed, and some charged lends more weight to likelyhood of a conviction.

[bystander]

As far as I am concerned, the increased activity of the authorities in recent months is a positive thing. As rumours will always abound, and losing punters blame 'bent' trainers and jockeys for their own failings, it is essential that the sport is seen to be guarding its integrity. Transparency is vital.

[happyhippy]

As far as I am concerned, the increased activity of the authorities in recent months is a positive thing. As rumours will always abound, and losing punters blame 'bent' trainers and jockeys for their own failings, it is essential that the sport is seen to be guarding its integrity. Transparency is vital.

 

Very much agreed, but there is one other thing here. People used to call Reg Akehurst various things from 'bent (insert expletive)', through 'shrewd operator' and 'The Handicap King' to 'Master handler'.

 

He exploited the rules of racing better than most, and legally. The people who called him 'bent' weren't on; the people who called him a 'Master handler' were.

[CHAIRBOY]

Makes me laugh at times when I hear it on TV: "This trainer knows the time of day!" Nobody ever tells you those trainers 'who don't know'. One who did, before Akehurst was John Sutcliffe Jnr.

The strategies you outline re-handicapping, wrong trips etc. are not the immediate problem. The gist is that some jockeys are allegedly incahoots with people in a position to make profits - more likely by laying to lose - and they are rewarding people for this information.

In an earlier thread with a few names of those who had been warned off for breaches of Rules, a certain Graham Bradley was missed. In the past, I think much has been swept under the carpet with bookies hiding behind the confidentiality clause. Now things are more open with Betfair's paper-trail, allied to access to mobile phone records, I think it is quite likely, albeit 2008, people will be convicted, and if they are guilty, why not?

[happyhippy]

Makes me laugh at times when I hear it on TV: "This trainer knows the time of day!" Nobody ever tells you those trainers 'who don't know'. One who did, before Akehurst was John Sutcliffe Jnr.

The strategies you outline re-handicapping, wrong trips etc. are not the immediate problem.

 

Before my time that fella ....... 'working' a handicap mark isn't a problem at all, but when people see trainers being interviewed, such practices are looked at; by punters because they see it as fiddling to get a stable gamble landed, and by the HRA as to possible breaches of the Rules of Racing. 'Working' a handicap has never been, and should never be a problem.

 

The gist is that some jockeys are allegedly incahoots with people in a position to make profits - more likely by laying to lose - and they are rewarding people for this information.

 

Which is why Fallon has been charged with 'intent to defraud'.

 

In an earlier thread with a few names of those who had been warned off for breaches of Rules, a certain Graham Bradley was missed. In the past, I think much has been swept under the carpet with bookies hiding behind the confidentiality clause. Now things are more open with Betfair's paper-trail, allied to access to mobile phone records, I think it is quite likely, albeit 2008, people will be convicted, and if they are guilty, why not?

 

Toatally agreed. Bradley was possibly the most, ahem, 'unusual' jockey of recent times.

 

One thing that is missed in all of this is that this has been going on for years and years - whether selling information, or jockeys betting, or the infamous 'jockeys' races'.

 

I can definitely remember a certain Willie Carson being asked to comment on Radio Five Live on his favourite Classic winner. His reply (which will be as close to verbatim as I can remember) was,

 

"Ooooohhhhhh, Nashwan. It was the biggest bet I ever, ..... biggest tip I ever gave out."

 

The main difference between what happened then (and probably still do now) is that in these investigations, jockeys were saying that horses "wouldn't" win races; their implication being that the horses would not be running to their true ability.

 

The infamous race at Lingfield with Fallon was the clincher in getting him charged.

[CHAIRBOY]

Sutcliffe was a dab-hand at readying one for the big handicaps. Hunt Cup and Wokingham's in the 70's. Even before that, though I guess you must have heard of Ryan Price and his winners in the Schweppes at Newbury, most notably Hill House when there was wholesale booing from the stands as the Price runner surged clear. All these were handicap coups when very often the winner had a string of coconuts by their names.

Didn't you think Red Rum was a case of being trained specifically for the Grand National? He had some 'easy' races beforehand. As agreed earlier, this circles round the handicapping which was not the original point, though I'm happy to chip in.

I was at Doncaster the day when Nashwan did that famous gallop and heard about it from an SP man who was duly despatched to get me 6-1 for the 2000Guineas. Major Hern put a ban on Carson from talking to the media at one stage because he thought he let out too much information.

He would argue that owners pay bills and deserve the first bite.

Others may say if it wasn't for punters, there'd be no racing!

[Heyesey]

The infamous race at Lingfield with Fallon was the clincher in getting him charged.

 

 

Ballinger Ridge, would that be? The most obvious example of all of them that the police don't have the faintest clue what they're doing. If Fallon were trying to get a horse beaten, he would not go to the front on it.

[happyhippy]

Ballinger Ridge, would that be? The most obvious example of all of them that the police don't have the faintest clue what they're doing. If Fallon were trying to get a horse beaten, he would not go to the front on it.

 

And he dropped his hands way before the victor was upsides. It was only a short head, but as you well know, the horse was a good 20 lengths clear in the final straight, with over 2 furlongs to run. He 'appeared' to look for dangers, and then rode the horse as the winner passed him.

 

In my opinion anyway.

 

I shan't quote Fallon's ALLEGED statement in the paddock before the race for fear of sub judice, though it is in the public domain.

 

Suffice it to say, there were only two horses who had an earthly's in that race.

 

I was surprised when he got the job with my training hero, Henry Cecil, as when he was with Lynda Ramsden, as I thought he was a good jobbing jockey ........ good in a hold up race ..........