happyhippy Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 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. Don't be an imbecile. Just on this race alone, do you think the HRA would charge a man who has been stable jockey to the greatest trainer of modern times (and without wanting a pun, a trainer and jockey who gets the best from fillies), as high profile as it gets without evidence? You're arguing for the sake of it with no idea of what you talk. The argument is perfectly valid. He said the horse wouldn't win before the race. He was 20 lengths clear in the final straight, with no dangers. He dropped his hands. He started to ride again as the eventual winner passed him. The horse lost. 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. I will give a cursory acknowledgement to that paragraph, simply to say that you have absolutely no idea what you are on about. It is one thing to ease down, to save the horse, or to gain a better mark, but to lose it by nearly a distance is taking the mickey. Were it such a good ride, he'd have won by a wide margin. Stop being such a prat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyhippy Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 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. Most important part that. I've said all the way through this that the whole lot is as straight as a circle, but if you take a gamble ........ and I do like to 'try' to second guess them ....... The jockeys under investigation, or who have been charged are all accused of 'stopping a horse from running on its merits', in order for others who have 'laid' the horse to win, on account of the horse losing. That is why Fallon is charged with 'conspiracy to defraud', and others, if they could be found, would be charged with "gaining a pecuniary advantage by deception' (i.e., they hadn't caused the wrong doing specifically, but gained from it). Lest it be forgotten, Fallon is charged under criminal law, and not just those of the HRA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madcow Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 Most important part that. I've said all the way through this that the whole lot is as straight as a circle, but if you take a gamble ........ and I do like to 'try' to second guess them ....... The jockeys under investigation, or who have been charged are all accused of 'stopping a horse from running on its merits', in order for others who have 'laid' the horse to win, on account of the horse losing. That is why Fallon is charged with 'conspiracy to defraud', and others, if they could be found, would be charged with "gaining a pecuniary advantage by deception' (i.e., they hadn't caused the wrong doing specifically, but gained from it). Lest it be forgotten, Fallon is charged under criminal law, and not just those of the HRA. makes a change we don't normally see eye to eye, but hey thats life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyhippy Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 makes a change we don't normally see eye to eye, but hey thats life That's what all the people say ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAIRBOY Posted February 16, 2007 Author Share Posted February 16, 2007 Bans for jockeys. http://www.sportinglife.com/racing/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=racing/07/02/16/RACING_Jockeys.html[/url by PA Sport staff Robert Winston was suspended on Friday for one year after being found guilty of various breaches of the rules of racing. Fellow jockeys Robbie Fitzpatrick and Luke Fletcher were both hit with a three-year disqualification for similar offences, while Fran Ferris was disqualified for two years. The disciplinary panel of the Horseracing Regulatory Authority announced the news at its headquarters in Shaftesbury Avenue on Friday afternoon. Winston's punishment means that although he cannot ride for a year, he is still able to work in racing. However, Fitzpatrick, Fletcher and Ferris are barred from entering licensed premises such as stables and racecourses during their period of disqualification. The investigation focused on 37 races between June 16, 2003 and February 29, 2004, together with the associated betting activities. The four jockeys were accused of providing information for reward, or passing information for reward that would subsequently be used for corrupt gain that otherwise was not in the public domain. The charges related to 21 horses ridden by Winston, 11 ridden by Fletcher, four by Ferris and two by Fitzpatrick. Winston, Ferris and Fletcher were also alleged to have misled HRA security department investigators and provided them with inaccurate information. Fitzpatrick was charged with hindering or obstructing the investigation. Unlicensed individual Ian Nicholl was warned off indefinitely and is unable to reapply for 10 years. Four other unlicensed individuals have also been warned off, with Paul Glendenning handed a three-year ban, while Kim Evans, Joanne Roberts and Tegan Wilde will be unable to enter licensed horseracing premises for two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyhippy Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Unsure what to make of this. It seems a fudge. Ferris has handed in his licence, as has Fitzpatrick, and I believe, Fletcher. The main jockey, or certainly the most high profile, has got the smallest penalty. Even in such a disciplinary as this, why do alarm bells ring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.