Pierre, Galejade, you both make interesting and valid points. I come at this from a different angle. I've been a small-level punter for 40 years but have also been a minor shareholder in horses (including the joy of part-owing a Group 3 winner). I'm probably unusual as a punter because I can go to a course for a meeting and never bet, I can just enjoy the spectacle as well.
On the subject of the exchanges, I use them, I don't think they should be banned but I do think that:
A) they should pay good dues to racing.
B) you should not be able to lay a horse unless you have a licence, with similar conditions to on and off course bookies.
As you quite rightly say Galejade, it is this aspect that brings benefit from stopping a horse into the domain of everyman and his dog. That is not a good idea.
I also agree with the conditions for and treatment of owners at courses. I wonder if the problems caused to racecourses by the growth (I assume there is a growth) of racing clubs etc with large memberships that turn up for a day out filters down to providing the lowest common denominator of facilities for all. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in favour of racing clubs heightening the interest of more people but the courses have got to make bigger efforts to accommodate all types of owners in a way that they deserve.
I agree wholeheartedly with your MacCririck Channel Four punter-centric views. Owners and breeders provide the dynamo of racing, the courses the venues and opportunities. The external enjoyers, the bookies, the crowd and the punters, should have to pay for the privilege of being able to be involved, the majority do either directly or indirectly but the betting exchanges probably get off lightly (don’t forget they do sponsor races).
I know this is also a minority view; I’ve been to enough tracks and bookies (joke) shops to know the average view of your average punter.
Race-fixing investigation looks@ChampJock Fallon &others
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster
FOS - A public forum is not the place to comment on what others in the sport might think.
Personally I don't think many people in racing were too surprised at the jockeys involved......maybe I'm wrong?
Seabird- McCrirrick is a self publicist who jumps on whichever bandwagon suits him at the time. Failed bookmaker who welched on bets...failed punter who had to be bailed out by his emplyer, the Sporting Life.......
Hardly the sort of person glowing with integrety?
Congrats on the G3 winner....I've had a horse in the prize money in a Listed race and race in G3 races.
Like it or not, before betting exchanges, people could lay horses by getting a bookie to take money out of the ring for them. Spread betting firms also gave punters the opportunity to bet against horses winning.
Betting exchanges don't put enough back into racing and I have been approached by a "new" (for want of a better word) betting exchange who want me to talk to the HRA on their behalf with a view to signing a deal whereby 50% of their net profit from UK horse racing betting on their site will go to the HRA for the purpose of increasing prize money.
The benefits are that the higher the prize money the more incentive there is for horses to win races and owners to get a better return on the high costs of keeping a horse in training. The betting exchange would benefit from people who want the health of racing to improve using their site.
The way to circumvent a "laying licence" would be to back all the other runners on an exchange.....not a big financial penalty with the average book being around 100.5% for the 10 minutes before the off time. I don't think a licence would be workable, especially with the commission levels that apply to most punters, and traders who back and lay would also be penalised. How do you enforce a licence with regard to non UK layers??
Bookies don't like exchanges because they can't control the prices so easily with a few quid on the course. Exchanges don't help me as I can no longer get a bet on a 33/1 shot which should be favourite. Previously bookies could shorten a false favourite to take the money in the shops which would be far greater than what they would pay out on the "hidden" outsider that was expected to win.
Galejade: With regard to racecourses treatment of owners: I have had several arguments with racecourse management. Their aim is now just to get in people who will spend money of food and booze.....for them the racing doesn't really matter.
It's a complex subject and maybe I see more than most. In my opinion, if Weatherbys were running racing, and not just carrying out the administration, then racing would be far healthier. It's a shame that owners ignored Barney Curley in the early 90's. Regardless of his public image, I have always found him to be honest and open, and his advice has been invaluable over the years.
I wonder how much of my anticipated costs of £80,000 for the 5 horses this year I shall recoup through prize money?
Personally I don't think many people in racing were too surprised at the jockeys involved......maybe I'm wrong?
Seabird- McCrirrick is a self publicist who jumps on whichever bandwagon suits him at the time. Failed bookmaker who welched on bets...failed punter who had to be bailed out by his emplyer, the Sporting Life.......
Hardly the sort of person glowing with integrety?
Congrats on the G3 winner....I've had a horse in the prize money in a Listed race and race in G3 races.
Like it or not, before betting exchanges, people could lay horses by getting a bookie to take money out of the ring for them. Spread betting firms also gave punters the opportunity to bet against horses winning.
Betting exchanges don't put enough back into racing and I have been approached by a "new" (for want of a better word) betting exchange who want me to talk to the HRA on their behalf with a view to signing a deal whereby 50% of their net profit from UK horse racing betting on their site will go to the HRA for the purpose of increasing prize money.
The benefits are that the higher the prize money the more incentive there is for horses to win races and owners to get a better return on the high costs of keeping a horse in training. The betting exchange would benefit from people who want the health of racing to improve using their site.
The way to circumvent a "laying licence" would be to back all the other runners on an exchange.....not a big financial penalty with the average book being around 100.5% for the 10 minutes before the off time. I don't think a licence would be workable, especially with the commission levels that apply to most punters, and traders who back and lay would also be penalised. How do you enforce a licence with regard to non UK layers??
Bookies don't like exchanges because they can't control the prices so easily with a few quid on the course. Exchanges don't help me as I can no longer get a bet on a 33/1 shot which should be favourite. Previously bookies could shorten a false favourite to take the money in the shops which would be far greater than what they would pay out on the "hidden" outsider that was expected to win.
Galejade: With regard to racecourses treatment of owners: I have had several arguments with racecourse management. Their aim is now just to get in people who will spend money of food and booze.....for them the racing doesn't really matter.
It's a complex subject and maybe I see more than most. In my opinion, if Weatherbys were running racing, and not just carrying out the administration, then racing would be far healthier. It's a shame that owners ignored Barney Curley in the early 90's. Regardless of his public image, I have always found him to be honest and open, and his advice has been invaluable over the years.
I wonder how much of my anticipated costs of £80,000 for the 5 horses this year I shall recoup through prize money?
hi Pierre LP...hello Galejade...hi Seabird
I hope that an honest commentary, insights and opinions can be shared here...without a trust or confidential communication being violated.
As a result of your and Seabird and Galejade's posts, I sense that I'm getting a genuine flavor of what's going on (with regards to horseracing in general and this case specifically) in Great Britain.
Thanks...and be assured that whatever comments, insights etc that you and others might share is appreciated.
Respectfully
Pierre LP wrote:A public forum is not the place to comment on what others in the sport might think.
I hope that an honest commentary, insights and opinions can be shared here...without a trust or confidential communication being violated.
As a result of your and Seabird and Galejade's posts, I sense that I'm getting a genuine flavor of what's going on (with regards to horseracing in general and this case specifically) in Great Britain.
Thanks...and be assured that whatever comments, insights etc that you and others might share is appreciated.
Respectfully
Obviously I have to be careful what I post and how I phrase the content of my posts. I do not know enough about the current investigation to have an opinion as the the strength of the case or the likely success or otherwise. Most people in the sport are keeping pretty quiet considering the gravity of the case.
I have to say that I honestly believe that Graham Bradley was the subject of a witch hunt and was no worse than any other jockey at that time. His association with Brian Wright was naive but then he wasnt the only jockey in that circle. If he was fixing so many races then why wasn't his agent, who I knew quite well, a millionnaire???? and gave up being a jockey's agent to manage football and cricket players.
This might be an interesting snippet that I came across today.....I cannot vouch for the validity of the piece and I post it as found:
here is a passage from the sunday times about barry brogan one of the top five jocks in britain for ten years between the sixties and seventies . brogan describes a ring of jockies in the north who carved up races among themselves for the profit of their punting paymasters jockies who were in the pocket of bookmakers. he doesent deny his own place in the scheme of things. throughout my career bookmakers didnt give me a minutes respite they pestered me to stop this horse and that horse and hounded me like bees around a honey pot .in 1969 he was offered 2500 to stop winterguide in a three horse race at ayr which he took as he knew the horse had no chance of getting around . the horse fell and he collected his 2500 in the carpark on the way home .he also refused 7k to stop even keel the fav in the 1969 champion chase. and the bookies have the cheek to blame exchanges for recent events.
John Francombe who fronts Channel 4 racing was banned for 6 months when he was a jockey.......I wonder why? (rhetorical question!)
Also several National Hunt owners have told me stories about how a certain champion jockey used to "jump off horses for a fee." they both named the same jockey and the same sum of money....draw your own conclusions......
I have to say that I honestly believe that Graham Bradley was the subject of a witch hunt and was no worse than any other jockey at that time. His association with Brian Wright was naive but then he wasnt the only jockey in that circle. If he was fixing so many races then why wasn't his agent, who I knew quite well, a millionnaire???? and gave up being a jockey's agent to manage football and cricket players.
This might be an interesting snippet that I came across today.....I cannot vouch for the validity of the piece and I post it as found:
here is a passage from the sunday times about barry brogan one of the top five jocks in britain for ten years between the sixties and seventies . brogan describes a ring of jockies in the north who carved up races among themselves for the profit of their punting paymasters jockies who were in the pocket of bookmakers. he doesent deny his own place in the scheme of things. throughout my career bookmakers didnt give me a minutes respite they pestered me to stop this horse and that horse and hounded me like bees around a honey pot .in 1969 he was offered 2500 to stop winterguide in a three horse race at ayr which he took as he knew the horse had no chance of getting around . the horse fell and he collected his 2500 in the carpark on the way home .he also refused 7k to stop even keel the fav in the 1969 champion chase. and the bookies have the cheek to blame exchanges for recent events.
John Francombe who fronts Channel 4 racing was banned for 6 months when he was a jockey.......I wonder why? (rhetorical question!)
Also several National Hunt owners have told me stories about how a certain champion jockey used to "jump off horses for a fee." they both named the same jockey and the same sum of money....draw your own conclusions......
Pierre,
You ask how much of your estimated ?80000 training costs you might get back this year? I know you know the answer but our USA friends might be surprised to know that the average for all UK owners is 21% or around ?17000.
They might also be surprised to know that the UK is well at the bottom of returns to owners of all the major racing countries. We do not have a Pool betting system as you do. We have Bookmakers taking 6 times the profit out of racing than they pay for the right to lay a book.
We also share the USA system whereby racetracks effectively control the actual races run and the prizemoney pay out. In our case, however, there is no statutory authority forcing any kind of equitable share and the RCA effectively reneged on the new deal agreed with Racing although, in any event, the entire system of selling data rights failed to survive legal challenges from the Bookmakers. Prize money is therefore falling and with costs inevitably rising it is odds on the owners will be receiving less than 21% in the immediate future.
________
sc2 replays
You ask how much of your estimated ?80000 training costs you might get back this year? I know you know the answer but our USA friends might be surprised to know that the average for all UK owners is 21% or around ?17000.
They might also be surprised to know that the UK is well at the bottom of returns to owners of all the major racing countries. We do not have a Pool betting system as you do. We have Bookmakers taking 6 times the profit out of racing than they pay for the right to lay a book.
We also share the USA system whereby racetracks effectively control the actual races run and the prizemoney pay out. In our case, however, there is no statutory authority forcing any kind of equitable share and the RCA effectively reneged on the new deal agreed with Racing although, in any event, the entire system of selling data rights failed to survive legal challenges from the Bookmakers. Prize money is therefore falling and with costs inevitably rising it is odds on the owners will be receiving less than 21% in the immediate future.
________
sc2 replays
Last edited by Galejade on Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
hello all...hi Pierre LP...hello Galejade...hi Seabird
Obviously the British HRA...and jockey Kieren Fallon (through his legal counsel) have made their positions clear (regarding Fallon's current ban in Great Britain).
That said, do you expect that Fallon will be riding outside of Great Britiain (while banned there)...including for Coolmore trainer Aidan O'Brien?
Best to you.
Respectfully
Obviously the British HRA...and jockey Kieren Fallon (through his legal counsel) have made their positions clear (regarding Fallon's current ban in Great Britain).
That said, do you expect that Fallon will be riding outside of Great Britiain (while banned there)...including for Coolmore trainer Aidan O'Brien?
Best to you.
Respectfully
Hi FOS,
Absolutely - Kiaran Fallon will be riding everywhere except Britain ( maybe even in USA at the Breeders cup) since the UK HRA has not asked for him to be banned elsewhere on the grounds that they are only concerned with the integrity of British racing and it is up to every other country to make their mind up. No other country has indicated that it will ban Fallon.
You may have noticed Fallon won The Irish Oaks ( Gr 1) on Sunday for O' Brian who has described Fallon's ban as most unfair and "like losing a wheel off the coolmore car" particularly as he believes Fallon to be a genius and better than any other jockey Ballydoyle have ever employed.
You may also have noticed Fallon's legal statement which expressed outrage that the HRA would not look at the videos of the 18 races which have been cited because they would clearly establish that Fallon has not pulled his rides and hence he had no case to answer. The HRA considered it was not their job to look at any of the evidence since doing so might prejudice the court case.
I am very much afraid that when a jury looks at the videos of the 18 races and is guided through them by expert defence council they will not be convinced beyond reasonable doubt and British racing will look not only foolish but also unfair.
________
Lincoln Continental Mark Iv Specifications
Absolutely - Kiaran Fallon will be riding everywhere except Britain ( maybe even in USA at the Breeders cup) since the UK HRA has not asked for him to be banned elsewhere on the grounds that they are only concerned with the integrity of British racing and it is up to every other country to make their mind up. No other country has indicated that it will ban Fallon.
You may have noticed Fallon won The Irish Oaks ( Gr 1) on Sunday for O' Brian who has described Fallon's ban as most unfair and "like losing a wheel off the coolmore car" particularly as he believes Fallon to be a genius and better than any other jockey Ballydoyle have ever employed.
You may also have noticed Fallon's legal statement which expressed outrage that the HRA would not look at the videos of the 18 races which have been cited because they would clearly establish that Fallon has not pulled his rides and hence he had no case to answer. The HRA considered it was not their job to look at any of the evidence since doing so might prejudice the court case.
I am very much afraid that when a jury looks at the videos of the 18 races and is guided through them by expert defence council they will not be convinced beyond reasonable doubt and British racing will look not only foolish but also unfair.
________
Lincoln Continental Mark Iv Specifications
Last edited by Galejade on Mon Mar 07, 2011 11:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Pierre LP et al
You said….
Like it or not, before betting exchanges, people could lay horses by getting a bookie to take money out of the ring for them. Spread betting firms also gave punters the opportunity to bet against horses winning.
Betting exchanges don't put enough back into racing and I have been approached by a "new" (for want of a better word) betting exchange who want me to talk to the HRA on their behalf with a view to signing a deal whereby 50% of their net profit from UK horse racing betting on their site will go to the HRA for the purpose of increasing prize money.
<unquote>
Agreed that it was possible before exchanges for unlicensed laying to go on but the exchanges make this so easy now that the temptation to have horses stopped can be hugely widespread.
Exchanges do not put enough back into the sport so I like the idea of the 50% of net profits exchange you describe so long as the net profit is fairly calculated and not artificially reduced. I’d sign up to an exchange that had racing as its top priority.
You also said…
Seabird- McCrirrick is a self publicist who jumps on whichever bandwagon suits him at the time. Failed bookmaker who welched on bets...failed punter who had to be bailed out by his emplyer, the Sporting Life.......
<unquote>
And there was me thinking he just talked rubbish!!!!
You say that the higher the prize money the more incentive there is for horses to win races. I’m naïve, why is this? If I currently owned a horse I’d want it to win every winnable race it entered irrespective of the prize money. The operative word is ‘winnable’ I’m not talking about unsuitable going and distance racing for some handicap-improvement reason. I agree of course with the higher prize money which would increase the dismal 21% owners return you and Galejade refer to. Higher prize money might increase entries but why would it increase the incentive to win?
I know it would be possible to circumvent the laying licence and it might be hard to work it but I still think it ought to be closely looked at. With regard to non-uk layers, well same applies, to lay you have to be licensed to do so on UK races.
I realise that exchanges are not for everyone but they are here to stay and whatever wrinkles they cause in the industry need to be straightened out including the contribution to the sport.
Pierre, you mention racecourses not really caring about the racing. I don’t know if this is so, I do agree there is a big emphasis on getting people to spend money on ‘food’ (is that what you called it?) and booze.
Both you and Galejade bemoan the lot of the owner… can’t disagree, but, no owners, no entries, no races, no meetings, no income for courses, bookies, exchanges, franchisees, jockeys et al. Have the owners’ association(s) ever contemplated a one-day, -week, -month strike?
Pierre you said…
In my opinion, if Weatherbys were running racing, and not just carrying out the administration, then racing would be far healthier.
<unquote>
Having had a bad experience with Weatherbys you may be right but I would need some assurances about that.
We have got way off subject here, so back to the police investigation and the HRA’s role regarding the three banned jockeys. I do not believe that a jockey suddenly becomes a person not fit to ply his/her trade just because they have been charged by the police. Many, many innocent people have been charged and even incarcerated for small to the most major crimes and have proved later to have been innocent or mis-tried.
I visited the Magna Carta memorial at Runnymede recently and I do not wish for others outside of a properly constituted court of law to sit in judgment on those who are accused. In this country you are innocent until proven guilty. I think it is a very bad decision by the HRA despite the offer of compensation to 2 of the 3 jockeys involved. I f they carried out their own investigation into the fitness of these three then that would be different, but they are not doing that. I have no idea whether the three are guilty or innocent being in no possession of the facts but I do defend their right to be considered innocent until proven otherwise.
You said….
Like it or not, before betting exchanges, people could lay horses by getting a bookie to take money out of the ring for them. Spread betting firms also gave punters the opportunity to bet against horses winning.
Betting exchanges don't put enough back into racing and I have been approached by a "new" (for want of a better word) betting exchange who want me to talk to the HRA on their behalf with a view to signing a deal whereby 50% of their net profit from UK horse racing betting on their site will go to the HRA for the purpose of increasing prize money.
<unquote>
Agreed that it was possible before exchanges for unlicensed laying to go on but the exchanges make this so easy now that the temptation to have horses stopped can be hugely widespread.
Exchanges do not put enough back into the sport so I like the idea of the 50% of net profits exchange you describe so long as the net profit is fairly calculated and not artificially reduced. I’d sign up to an exchange that had racing as its top priority.
You also said…
Seabird- McCrirrick is a self publicist who jumps on whichever bandwagon suits him at the time. Failed bookmaker who welched on bets...failed punter who had to be bailed out by his emplyer, the Sporting Life.......
<unquote>
And there was me thinking he just talked rubbish!!!!
You say that the higher the prize money the more incentive there is for horses to win races. I’m naïve, why is this? If I currently owned a horse I’d want it to win every winnable race it entered irrespective of the prize money. The operative word is ‘winnable’ I’m not talking about unsuitable going and distance racing for some handicap-improvement reason. I agree of course with the higher prize money which would increase the dismal 21% owners return you and Galejade refer to. Higher prize money might increase entries but why would it increase the incentive to win?
I know it would be possible to circumvent the laying licence and it might be hard to work it but I still think it ought to be closely looked at. With regard to non-uk layers, well same applies, to lay you have to be licensed to do so on UK races.
I realise that exchanges are not for everyone but they are here to stay and whatever wrinkles they cause in the industry need to be straightened out including the contribution to the sport.
Pierre, you mention racecourses not really caring about the racing. I don’t know if this is so, I do agree there is a big emphasis on getting people to spend money on ‘food’ (is that what you called it?) and booze.
Both you and Galejade bemoan the lot of the owner… can’t disagree, but, no owners, no entries, no races, no meetings, no income for courses, bookies, exchanges, franchisees, jockeys et al. Have the owners’ association(s) ever contemplated a one-day, -week, -month strike?
Pierre you said…
In my opinion, if Weatherbys were running racing, and not just carrying out the administration, then racing would be far healthier.
<unquote>
Having had a bad experience with Weatherbys you may be right but I would need some assurances about that.
We have got way off subject here, so back to the police investigation and the HRA’s role regarding the three banned jockeys. I do not believe that a jockey suddenly becomes a person not fit to ply his/her trade just because they have been charged by the police. Many, many innocent people have been charged and even incarcerated for small to the most major crimes and have proved later to have been innocent or mis-tried.
I visited the Magna Carta memorial at Runnymede recently and I do not wish for others outside of a properly constituted court of law to sit in judgment on those who are accused. In this country you are innocent until proven guilty. I think it is a very bad decision by the HRA despite the offer of compensation to 2 of the 3 jockeys involved. I f they carried out their own investigation into the fitness of these three then that would be different, but they are not doing that. I have no idea whether the three are guilty or innocent being in no possession of the facts but I do defend their right to be considered innocent until proven otherwise.
Seabird...if the prize money is say £2000 to the winner then it would be pretty easy for an owner to make more by laying the horse on an exchange. If the prize money is £5000 then it would be much harder to lay the horse.
In the early 90's Barney Curley called for an owners strike. With all the other sport on tv, numbers games etc in the bookies a strike would not have the same effect in 2006, as it would have in 1991.
It's good to hear that you would use an exchange that supported horseracing. That was my view and why I am putting a proposal together to give the HRA the opportunity to support such an exchange. Conversely no exchange can challenge betfair without such a unique selling point. At worse it may kick betfair into putting more back into racing to keep their current users.
In the early 90's Barney Curley called for an owners strike. With all the other sport on tv, numbers games etc in the bookies a strike would not have the same effect in 2006, as it would have in 1991.
It's good to hear that you would use an exchange that supported horseracing. That was my view and why I am putting a proposal together to give the HRA the opportunity to support such an exchange. Conversely no exchange can challenge betfair without such a unique selling point. At worse it may kick betfair into putting more back into racing to keep their current users.
hi Pierre LP...hello all
My understanding was that originally 7 persons were charged including 3 jockeys (Fallon, Lynch and Williams).
According to the following ThoroughbredTimes.com article
Fallon released on bail after court hearing the total number of persons charged is now 11.
That TBTimes article includes that "According to Racing Post, Fallon appeared with the ten other defendants in the case, including fellow jockeys Fergal Lynch and Darren Williams in the City of London Magistrates Court." I saw no mention made of jockeys other than Fallon, Lynch and Williams.
Respectfully
Pierre LP wrote:There's a rumour in a daily paper that "8 more riders to face charges"
My understanding was that originally 7 persons were charged including 3 jockeys (Fallon, Lynch and Williams).
According to the following ThoroughbredTimes.com article
Fallon released on bail after court hearing the total number of persons charged is now 11.
That TBTimes article includes that "According to Racing Post, Fallon appeared with the ten other defendants in the case, including fellow jockeys Fergal Lynch and Darren Williams in the City of London Magistrates Court." I saw no mention made of jockeys other than Fallon, Lynch and Williams.
Respectfully
Todays Racing Post is reporting that Fallon is likely to be banned from riding in the breeders Cup under strict repricocity rules between Illinois and The UK. The situation does not seem entirely clear cut with regards to the USA as a whole according to the Kentucky administration.
3 lawyers on another forum seem unanimous that Fallon will not succeed in his high court appeal on July 27th on the grounds that the High Court has no jurisdiction in respect of a "private club" provided that correct procedures have been followed. They opine that the European Court and Human Rights legislation are his best chance.
Although it is common practise in Uk to suspend professionals, such as Doctors, teachers and Policemen, from work pending the result of court cases into their alleged malpractices this is always on a full pay basis.( as is happening with Williams and Lynch). These lawyers believe that if Fallon is eventully found not guilty he will have an excellent case to succeed in a compensation claim against the HRA because in the event he is found not guilty it will be apparant that he has been denied the whole of his rightful world wide income particularly as the 18 races cited have already passed inspection and gave no apparant cause for complaint from the normal regulatory system ( ie the stewards of the meeting) acting in ignorance of the alleged betting patterns.
This will be particularly the case in the event that the charges can be argued to be "frivolous". Whilst one hopes that no Police charges are so adjudged nevertheless if the case eventually revolves around the race videos and expert opinion as to whether Fallon clearly ( beyond reasonable doubt) prevented the horses running on their merits there could well be a stunning defeat for the Police since Fallon can subpeona in his aid the local Stewards who did not notice the alleged offences at the time.
There have been several recent cases in UK where Public officials have , after a media frenzy or for Politically Correct reasons been brought to Court and the judge has thrown them out almost immediately saying no case to answer. I am still uneasy that we are suspending jockeys ( or any one else) in this way and would prefer for the case to be fast tracked and brought rapidly to court for judgement.
________
Chrysler Norseman specifications
3 lawyers on another forum seem unanimous that Fallon will not succeed in his high court appeal on July 27th on the grounds that the High Court has no jurisdiction in respect of a "private club" provided that correct procedures have been followed. They opine that the European Court and Human Rights legislation are his best chance.
Although it is common practise in Uk to suspend professionals, such as Doctors, teachers and Policemen, from work pending the result of court cases into their alleged malpractices this is always on a full pay basis.( as is happening with Williams and Lynch). These lawyers believe that if Fallon is eventully found not guilty he will have an excellent case to succeed in a compensation claim against the HRA because in the event he is found not guilty it will be apparant that he has been denied the whole of his rightful world wide income particularly as the 18 races cited have already passed inspection and gave no apparant cause for complaint from the normal regulatory system ( ie the stewards of the meeting) acting in ignorance of the alleged betting patterns.
This will be particularly the case in the event that the charges can be argued to be "frivolous". Whilst one hopes that no Police charges are so adjudged nevertheless if the case eventually revolves around the race videos and expert opinion as to whether Fallon clearly ( beyond reasonable doubt) prevented the horses running on their merits there could well be a stunning defeat for the Police since Fallon can subpeona in his aid the local Stewards who did not notice the alleged offences at the time.
There have been several recent cases in UK where Public officials have , after a media frenzy or for Politically Correct reasons been brought to Court and the judge has thrown them out almost immediately saying no case to answer. I am still uneasy that we are suspending jockeys ( or any one else) in this way and would prefer for the case to be fast tracked and brought rapidly to court for judgement.
________
Chrysler Norseman specifications
Last edited by Galejade on Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:42 am, edited 1 time in total.