• REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

    At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Point Blank: We’re Never Going to See a Jockey Holding a Bag of SWAG

with burden of proof set at a level almost impossible to meet, these things seem like a pointless exercise and only a face saving exercise for the IHRB or BHA so that they're seen to have acted in some way.

how many in the last 10 years have actually face any consequences?

it's not an old bailey criminal trial so they should be resolved much much quicker based on a lower bar of balance of probabilities that the jockey jumped off or whatever and those involved fined, banned, handicaps adjusted etc etc as appropriate.
 
The Fair Salinia/Sorbus Irish Oaks disqualification and appeal of 1978 followed by the Kings Lake/To Agori Mou saga of 1981 Irish 2000Gns brought the might of the legal eagles into Turf Club inquiries and there was no going back.
Memorably (to me at least) a Phoenix Stakes stewards inquiry and appeal (1981 Achieved won the race by a short head after barging through and kept the race) had the owner of the runner up (The Primate) pointing to the Sangster helicopter taking off from The Curragh after the appeal hearing saying "It is difficult enough to beat them in a race but impossible to off the racetrack" or words to that effect.
Jim Bolger, Christy Roche , Ted Walsh among others have brought everyone from Michael McDowell and associates to defend the indefensible , delay justice or whatever else : there is no going back lads and lasses.
P.S Racing is much more than a betting market; excellent article all the same, hope my sub went through.
 
Good article.
I am a litigator myself, but I am in full agreement with the general point that sports disciplinary proceedings and the like have become over-lawyered and far too aligned with legal proceedings. I've seen it in other sports and I find it depressing.
It's up to the bodies themselves to take a lead. If you just hand over the process to lawyers and judges you can only expect one result.
As for this case in particular, it seems to me to be a real dereliction of duty on the part of the IHRB not to have even prepared the case properly. If the Racing Post article is accurate, for example, not only did the IHRB turn down the use of betting analysis offered by the BHA for the disciplinary proceedings, but they were actually forewarned about betting patterns before the race, so they could have reacted immediately to events on the day if they had their act together.
 
Fairly recently we had a case within the Pointing industry where a trainer was up for a doping case. It was the most obvious case going. The case was prepared for the BHA and the trainer was looking at a lengthy ban (there had been plenty of other incidents including extreme threatening behaviour towards another trainer and their jockey). However the trainer managed to hang it on an employee and despite the Pointing hierarchy's best effort, the trainer walked away scot free because the BHA were utterly useless.
 
Generous1991 said:
Good article.
I am a litigator myself, but I am in full agreement with the general point that sports disciplinary proceedings and the like have become over-lawyered and far too aligned with legal proceedings. I've seen it in other sports and I find it depressing.
It's up to the bodies themselves to take a lead. If you just hand over the process to lawyers and judges you can only expect one result.
As for this case in particular, it seems to me to be a real dereliction of duty on the part of the IHRB not to have even prepared the case properly. If the Racing Post article is accurate, for example, not only did the IHRB turn down the use of betting analysis offered by the BHA for the disciplinary proceedings, but they were actually forewarned about betting patterns before the race, so they could have reacted immediately to events on the day if they had their act together.
Click to expand...

Firstly, I really appreciate your reply but I want to state one thing. The BHA evidence is a red herring. You can't ever prove someone jumped off a horse.
 
Slim said:
Firstly, I really appreciate your reply but I want to state one thing. The BHA evidence is a red herring. You can't ever prove someone jumped off a horse.
Click to expand...
That's fair. You'd have to do more investigation to establish some link or contact, to make the betting evidence more than just smelly circumstances. Betting evidence doesn't prove what was in Philip B's mind. But I can't help feeling the IHRB has done a bad job with the material, when the Tribunal's reason for finding that betting was not a reason for him to jump off was simply that they found his evidence to be convincing.
 
Generous1991 said:
That's fair. You'd have to do more investigation to establish some link or contact, to make the betting evidence more than just smelly circumstances. Betting evidence doesn't prove what was in Philip B's mind. But I can't help feeling the IHRB has done a bad job with the material, when the Tribunal's reason for finding that betting was not a reason for him to jump off was simply that they found his evidence to be convincing.
Click to expand...

Change the rules and ban them. Why should I have to prove in court that I know who was involved in both clsimers?
 
As far as I can see it's essentially a sports club with a ruling committee that can set and enforce whatever rules it wants, nor does it have to allow member's barristers etc even in the room.
But those running the club have to be willing to enforce the rules regardless of a member's standing etc in or out of the club.
Unfortunately money seems to have much the same effect on many people's probity as salt on ice.
 
Slim said:
Change the rules and ban them. Why should I have to prove in court that I know who was involved in both clsimers?
Click to expand...
I'm going to give a lawyer's answer!
If you make the charge bringing racing into disrepute, or something like that, with the aim that you don't have to prove certain specific acts, you would still have to prove that it was Philip B that did something to bring racing into disrepute. Just falling off doesn't bring racing into disrepute. Falling off when there are smelly betting patterns does, on the assumption that the two are connected. His defence will still be, the betting has nothing to do with me.

But if you try to fix that by reversing the burden, and say the appearance of wrongdoing brings racing into disrepute, and the defendant has to prove it was nothing to do with him, then you might bring in even more difficult problems. Who says what level of apparent wrongdoing, in a game afflicted by daily shenanigans, brings racing into disrepute?

Edit: what I mean by the last thought is that people have to believe the system is fair, so you would have to define your triggers very carefully. Otherwise the question would be asked every time, why does he have to prove he wasn't involved, when that guy the other day didn't?
 
Last edited:
We have a constitution where the rights of the person over ride everything else.
Every club and organisation has to abide by the rights of the person; if found to have done otherwise the organisation is in trouble , especially when given a grant/subsidy from the public purse.
Squash clubs, choirs and the like all have this duty of care to adhere to.
The punter has no such guarantee alas.
 
Generous1991 said:
I'm going to give a lawyer's answer!
If you make the charge bringing racing into disrepute, or something like that, with the aim that you don't have to prove certain specific acts, you would still have to prove that it was Philip B that did something to bring racing into disrepute. Just falling off doesn't bring racing into disrepute. Falling off when there are smelly betting patterns does, on the assumption that the two are connected. His defence will still be, the betting has nothing to do with me.

But if you try to fix that by reversing the burden, and say the appearance of wrongdoing brings racing into disrepute, and the defendant has to prove it was nothing to do with him, then you might bring in even more difficult problems. Who says what level of apparent wrongdoing, in a game afflicted by daily shenanigans, brings racing into disrepute?

Edit: what I mean by the last thought is that people have to believe the system is fair, so you would have to define your triggers very carefully. Otherwise the question would be asked every time, why does he have to prove he wasn't involved, when that guy the other day didn't?
Click to expand...

Then nothing ever changes. It is the same people who laid both horses in both claimers. This is not widespread corruption. It is a small cohort of people who amuse themselves by corrupting racing.
 
Last edited:
Slim said:
Then nothing ever changes. It is the same people who laid both horses in both claimers. This is not widespread corruption. It is a small cohort of people who amuse themselves by corrupting racing.
Click to expand...
I would say it depends on the powers and resources available to regulators, and their appetite for using them. If people laid those horses and made sure, by pressure of one sort or another on jockey or trainer, that the horses would lose, then evidence will exist, and an investigator with sufficient powers and resources could obtain it. Does the IHRB have sufficient powers and resources? I doubt it. From the outside, another concern is the impression that they weren't trying very hard to make the most of what they did have.
 
Generous1991 said:
Does the IHRB have sufficient powers and resources? I doubt it.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised if the IHRB were simply not bothered to do their job. I struggle to believe that a regulatory board who are so heavily funded by the Irish taxpayer are under-resourced. They didn't even call a stewards enquiry on the day.

From what I've heard, there wasn't much laying of Redwood Queen but people were instead having lumps on the winner (whose name I can't remember). Not a single on-course bookie was interviewed that day. Not one. If you are going to pull off this type of coup, you're putting money down on course or on the black market. This is not done through Betfair. Only one of those areas can be investigated by the IHRB, and the organisation making zero attempt to understand what was happening in the betting ring just screams irresponsible negligence. You don't need a lot of resources to have a chat with a few bookies.

It just looks like a complete shit show of an organisation. Paying 350,000 for 5 years to the BHA for the integrity service is also the deal of a lifetime. I'd be interested in the rationale behind not continuing that partnership. The Byrnes incident just shows the horse racing world how inept the IHRB are when it comes to dealing with betting markets, which will only encourage more of this type of stuff. If you're in any way intelligent about how you do it, you simply won't get caught.
 

Recent Blog Posts

Back
Top