More Jockeys Charged

[happyhippy]

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.

 

Yes, I've heard of him but don't remember him. However, as Mr Akehurst memorably said (when the BBC tried to have its version of the Morning Line during Royal Ascot one year), in his Pringle sweater, grinning,

 

"If the horses run for me, what else can I say?"

 

This was on the same day as he had Tregaron (7/1 co-fav or so; it drifted on track) in the Hunt Cup, and Red Robbo (33/1 - ridden by a claimer) there too. He sang up the chances of both horses. Carson said, verbatim,

 

"He fancies Robbo more than Tregaron."

 

Red Robbo went from 33/1 to 16/1, and won well. The thing is, as punters, the form is often there, but what has happened is that jockeys are 'winning' cash on the back of losing horses.

 

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.

 

He was slow, very slow, but could jump over the Moon. Not surprised he was aimed at the National!

 

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!

 

That famous gallop ....... I've got it somewhere ....... anyway, owners deserve the odds, but we all get the thrills ........... if not always the spoils ......

[Heyesey]

He was slow, very slow, but could jump over the Moon. Not surprised he was aimed at the National!

 

Red Rum, slow? He won over five furlongs, you know...

[Heyesey]

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.

 

 

Then I'll repeat myself. Do you REALLY believe Fallon to be so unutterably stupid that, when deliberately losing a race, he would go twenty lengths clear?

[jena76]

It's a mugs game anyway always has been always will be!

[happyhippy]

Then I'll repeat myself. Do you REALLY believe Fallon to be so unutterably stupid that, when deliberately losing a race, he would go twenty lengths clear?

 

Alleged quote in the Parade ring - "This horse won't win."

 

Alleged. That day, that race.

 

And obviously, he wasn't talking about the great ALLEGED either ........

[happyhippy]

Red Rum, slow? He won over five furlongs, you know...

 

As a 2yo, I believe so .....

[Heyesey]

Alleged quote in the Parade ring - "This horse won't win."

 

Alleged. That day, that race.

 

 

And exactly how do you go from a jockey not expecting to ride the winner, to concluding that he is deliberately throwing a race? If you're that good a psychic, why aren't you solving murders instead of faffing about at horseracing?

 

 

And in any event, why aren't you answering my original question? Even granted that Fallon is completely bent - which I don't - do you seriously believe he's that dumb?

[happyhippy]

And exactly how do you go from a jockey not expecting to ride the winner, to concluding that he is deliberately throwing a race? If you're that good a psychic, why aren't you solving murders instead of faffing about at horseracing?

 

The inference generally taken was that he would throw it.

 

And in any event, why aren't you answering my original question? Even granted that Fallon is completely bent - which I don't - do you seriously believe he's that dumb?

 

I don't think Fallon is any more bent than any other jockey, but yes, he must be that dumb on two possible counts.

 

1, to throw a race in such a spectacularly obvious way, or,

 

2, to have given the horse such a spectacularly bad ride.

 

Either way you read it, he's that dumb.

[Heyesey]

The inference generally taken was that he would throw it.

 

Circular reasoning. It's assumed he meant he would throw the race because people think he's bent, and the assumption that he would throw the race is evidence he's bent? Invalid argument, try again.

 

 

 

I don't think Fallon is any more bent than any other jockey, but yes, he must be that dumb on two possible counts.

 

1, to throw a race in such a spectacularly obvious way, or,

 

2, to have given the horse such a spectacularly bad ride.

 

Either way you read it, he's that dumb.

 

2. To have given the horse such a GOOD ride that he damn near won on it, despite it completely downing tools and refusing to race for the last two furlongs. Maybe if you actually knew anything whatsoever about riding horses, we could have a sensible conversation here.

[madcow]

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.

 

take your a punter then ?

 

it seems obvious that if you have an animal running at speed with a little man on its back and its running along side lots of others animals who also have lots of little men on their backs, with lots of other little men putting lots of dosh on the out come of who passes the line first, than lots of other little men in positions of power might want to influence the out come, in order to maximise their own rewards.

 

innocent 'til proven guilty? yes, smoke with out fire ?no, scapegoats? very probebly .

 

oh by the way i do like a flutter on the gee gee's myself so have been quite interested in the case and i still think the sport as a whole is bent, but if you can't afford to lose it don't bet it.