Ballydoyle Team Tactics

Its good news in so far as it will stop this nonsense going forward. It was a bang to rights case frankly.

Whether the manouver originated from Mutaghs initiative or AOB's you would have thought that in the back of one or others mind would be the thought that it might just be against the rules of racing?
 
If the man enjoying all the success was Henry Cecil or Michael Stoute they would not have been slurred in this manner.A behind closed doors meeting would have resolved this issue, if indeed there was an issue.
 
My thoughts on the matter ...

Ballydoyle (Murtagh, O'Donoghue & O'Brien) broke the rules, and deserved their punishment.

We already knew the BHA are ineffectual; nothing yesterday made me change my opinion.

Ballydoyle only have Murtagh's stupidity to thank for making the incident something even the BHA couldn't ignore. That's where AOB should be focusing his ire this morning.

The fact that willoughby embarassed himself in the post this morning by describing how wrong such an amazing season is being sullied by being punished by the BHA is cringeworthy; aside from the limp BHA, the racing public should be thankful the racing media brought this team tactics to the fore, and have hopefully put an end to the ugliness of watching one horse move aside for another from the same stable.

Willoughby was essentially trying to outlaw the just punishment of the great and mighty.
icon_rolleyes.gif


Ballydoyle broke the rules - fact. Yet JW is trying to say because they are having an amazing season, they should not be challenged or punished on this.

Granted, the BHA should have dealt with this better, as should the Newmarket Stewards, but yesterday was very much a positive day for British Horse Racing, and hopefully no longer will we have to watch races like the Juddmonte, Queen Anne, or for that matter Fantastic Light's Irish Champion Stakes.

Am I missing something here?
 
Sheikh said:
If the man enjoying all the success was Henry Cecil or Michael Stoute they would not have been slurred in this manner.A behind closed doors meeting would have resolved this issue, if indeed there was an issue.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously trying to suggest the reason behind yesterday's inquest was only because O'Brien's successful, and not part of the older British racing establishment?
 
I completely disagree with your post at 11:19.... and

yesterday's inquest was only because O'Brien's successful, and not part of the older British racing establishment?
Click to expand...

100% , It would be naieve to think anything other than that.
 
Good stuff andrew. As for willoughby, I dont think i will be able to bear to read that drivel. What complete rubbish

quite incredible that a supposed impartial journalist is suggesting that the power and success of the stable should be a factor in defining punishments.

Could you imagine this being applied to other sports? Imagine football or cricket with "we have to take into account what a wonderful season they have had when punishing them for breaking the rules"

I also see that this issue has brought the paranoids out too
 
I
completely disagree with your post at 11:19.... and

Quote:
yesterday's inquest was only because O'Brien's successful, and not part of the older British racing establishment?

100% , It would be naieve to think anything other than that.
Click to expand...


That is complete rubbish

Absolute crap. The rule is clear. The only questions that could have been asked were if hadnt have been followed up and teh accusation of favouring big stables would have stuck

trying to make out this is a british/irish thing is ridiculous
 
Sheikh said:
I completely disagree with your post at 11:19.... and



100% , It would be naieve to think anything other than that.
Click to expand...

That's uttterly ridiculous. Are you Irish?

This isn't meant to sound smart, but - do you understand the rules of racing, and what image the breaking of them projects?
 
There are the the rules in print and the spirit of the rules.
The best horse won and no other horse was interfered with.
This would not have happened (for example)to Stoute or Cecil .
A behind closed doors meeting would have sorted the issue and spared racing another embarassing episode.
 
Sheikh said:
There are the the rules in print and the spirit of the rules.
The best horse won and no other horse was interfered with.
This would not have happened (for example)to Stoute or Cecil .
A behind closed doors meeting would have sorted the issue and spared racing another embarassing episode.
Click to expand...

This all stems from the QEII a couple of years back...were it not for the race "team tactics" rules would not be in place and similar rules would not have been introduced after the races this season.
 
The spirit of the Ballydoyle pacemakers over the past year or so has been much worse than any transgression of official rules.

Phoenix Tower didn't quite have the clear passage DoM had, although not enough to change any result. Likewise Finsceal beo in the Queen Anne.

Why should it be behind closed doors? This would be very much to the detriment of racing - there's a clear need for transparency when such an incident occurs in such a high profile race.
 
How do you know it wouldnt have happened to Cecil or Stoute? Paranoid rubbish

There are the the rules in print and the spirit of the rules
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? This was clear. You almost seem to be suggesting (as per the pathetic willoughby response) that thsi should have been swept under the carpet because of who they were.
 
I just speed-read Willoughby's piece when I was getting my lunch, seemed to me his main point was that the rules are a nonsense.

He's right.
 
This all stems from the QEII a couple of years back
Click to expand...

So ?

Handball offences in football probably originate with william webb ellis (or someone). Its a completely transparent and fair rule (replicated elsewhere too i am sure).
 
Once Murtagh opened his big gob the BHA had no choice but to do something and do it publically. The punishments were probably predetermined, and pitched at an acceptably grave level. I would imagine the wording of the press statment was the only thing up for grabs at the meeting.
 
Must admit, i havent read the rule...but to quote from someone else, the "spirit" of the rule is correct> can not really be any argument about that
 
How do you know it wouldnt have happened to Cecil or Stoute? Paranoid rubbish .
Click to expand...

You are so paranoid yourself about the History of our two Countries that the first mention of a bias, be it Irish or British you get so uptight I can feel it through the cyberspace. If it makes you feel more comfortable we can call the parties A and B.

A public, behind closed doors meeting could have been held without embarassing the Champion trainer and everyone associated with Ballydoyle. .... and racing. A mutual concensus could have been reached and at the end of the day a statement could have been issued expressing both sides satisfaction.

Instead we get the public humiliation of a Champion trainer.A man who epitomises professionalism is accused of 'ignorance'.....and all this after the best horse won.
 
Last edited:
You've got to have some sympathy for the BHA - it must have come as a shock to them to be taking action against someone for trying to win a race.
 
You are so paranoid yourself about the History of our two Countries that the first mention of a bias
Click to expand...

You are all over the place. from the off it has been you taht has maintained that this is driven by prejudice. And the last thing anyone wants it behind closed doors tribunuals FFS. this is a public sport
 
Sheikh said:
A man who epitomises professionalism is accused of 'ignorance'
Click to expand...

On another thread I expressed the view that given the professionalism of the Ballydoyle operation, it would be very surprising indeed if they were unaware of the rule changes.

I am therefore very surprised that 2 of their senior jockeys were unaware of the rule changes and that the operation did not ensure they were aware of it, especially in light of AOB's comments that he is "paranoid" about it. Unless, of course, the operation as a whole was not aware of the rule changes, in which case, their epitomising professionalism is brought into some doubt.

I suppose that even men who epitomise professionalism make mistakes. Which is forgiveable.

A closed doors meeting would surely give rise to cries of "old boys network" and the likes and is the sort of thing which leads some to believe that Cecil/Stoute etc wouldn't have encountered such difficulties (myself among them).
 
Back
Top