Casela Park

Grey said:
In my Dublin schooldays 'mill' was another word for a fight, Prufrock. Basically he's saying he didn't want the horse getting beaten up for the sake of coming third.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

We may have to go into the definition of "getting beaten up". :)

Basically, though, he should not be giving instructions that run counter to the horse achieving the best possible position (within the Rules of Racing). Those rules are in place to protect, among others, punters who might have backed this horse to finish in the first three. The horse's possible/probable involvement in another race two days hence should be absolutely immaterial, and I can't help thinking the trainer has shot himself in the foot.

Whatever, I feel sure that the BHA will ask him to explain himself further on this point as well as on many others.
 
Last edited:
I thought he could win, even inside the last furlong but bare in mind I had a small bet. Looks a bit of dog or if you are very cynical was made to look a dog.
 
Steadied start/switched and held up, raced freely and looked a bit awkward early, effort 2f out, switched outside and ridden, kept on despite edging slightly left. Beaten 1.3 lengths.

A magnificent performance into which you could - and people have - read pretty much anything you/they liked.

I feel sure that the BHA panel will, however, note that the jockey - and it was a different one to Newcastle in the end - did not spend most of the closing stages pushing with one hand and pulling with the other, that he did not switch the horse away from gaps but actually steered it into the open, and that he used his whip fully in the closing stages.

Others will see things differently, obviously.
 
I'm inclined to agree that Mr Tyrrell has to a large degree got his jockey off the hook by admitting that the tactics were largely his and that he was delighted with the ride. I'm coming round to the notion that this was a case of stunning ineptitude by connections, rather than a daringly orchestrated coup.
 
Absolutely spot on from the BHA, about time they handed out bans of this length for these offences. If anything, it's a little too light for me. I'd like to see five year bans for these things.

Only trouble is that there are numerous similar offences on a weekly, if not daily occurrence (there are more non triers than triers in some Irish novice hurdles!). I personally think they were unlucky to be caught in that they were Irish running at a British track and shite at covering it up what with having the horse entered two days later at Musselburgh, it was obvious what they were upto.
 
No problem with the 3 years in theory but what about all the others who do a similar thing? what about all the Barney horses suddenly showing 30 pounds improvement when the money is down?

I'd bet any money they appeal and get it down to 6 months or less.
 
LUKE said:
Disproportionate.
Click to expand...

Having just watched it again online (not seen it since the day), you're right. It should be more like a five year ban.

It's an absolute disgrace, the thing would have won by half the track.
 
Hamm said:
No problem with the 3 years in theory but what about all the others who do a similar thing? what about all the Barney horses suddenly showing 30 pounds improvement when the money is down?
Click to expand...

Agree entirely, Curley isn't the only one either, he's just the household name crook.
 
Go after the easy ones first, hit them hard and you reduce the amount of times it is done as people run scared.
 
Come down hard on ANYONE who cheats and who's cheating has a negative effect on others.

I've not minced my words on here before about banning these sorts, big names or not.
 
If by that you are referring to my comment then that is not what I was suggesting - going after the likes of Curley, who are relatively high profile and certainly more so than the trainer banned today, would set a strong precedent and discourage smaller trainers who have more to lose - I don't see anything wrong with this.
 
Back
Top