You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Eddie Ahern
- Thread starter Homer J
- Start date
Spoons, the following is an exerpt from the BHA panel's decision re Josh Byrne:Originally posted by Spoons@Dec 21 2007, 05:33 PM
As for the comments about Josh,he was found guilty of passing on information,NOT for monetary gains.
He [Josh Byrne] said he first met Mr Khan at a poker game in Newmarket in December 2004, and that they developed a friendship because of their mutual poker interests. Mr Khan quickly became aware that Byrne was a jump jockey and began asking questions about his rides. Byrne was prepared to answer because he hoped that Mr Khan, who said he was an owner, might use him as a jockey in races. In early January 2005, Byrne was asked by Mr Khan for his opinions on horses he was riding and he began to provide them. Soon thereafter, Mr Khan offered him money for these. He said he did not know how much he would receive initially “as it would depend on the size of the bet placed by Mr Khan”. After his races, he and Mr Khan would speak by phone and Mr Khan would tell him what he had won and what he was prepared to pay Byrne. He received in respect of the four suspect races in which he rode a total of about £2,500. He received this in cash by registered post for which he signed on three occasions. He knew the money came from Mr Khan because the sender’s name and address was given to him through the registered post system, and he rang or texted to confirm receipt. When asked by the Panel what percentage of Mr Khan’s winnings he was meant to receive, in light of the fact that £2,500 represented about 17% of the profits it is now known that Mr Khan received, Byrne said that he was meant to receive 50%. In a revealing insight into his moral compass, he further told the Panel that when he learned in interviews with investigators the extent of Mr Khan’s actual profits from laying his rides, he promptly phoned Mr Khan to complain angrily that he had not received the full amount.
Um, for one it was a joke about Eddie being in Dubai, hence the smiley face at the end.Originally posted by Homer J@Dec 21 2007, 06:06 PM
Very amusing fudge.
You come on here and (shock horror) defend a jockey who has been found guilty by the sport of butchering a horse to wipe his totting up slate clean - though you "cant believe he did do this on purpose."
I know nothing of Eddie Ahern, but would have more faith in a discplinary panel who will have looked at all the details behind this and heard representations from Ahern's brief, rather than you telling us that Eddie is a "very nice lad" etc etc.
I seem to recall you about 18 months ago refusing to believe that your buddy Josh Byrne would have done anything wrong. Again, a discplinary panel, looking at the full picture (including JB's admission he had taken brown envelopes from some unsavoury punters), begged to differ.
When Brian Wright was on trial were you trotted out to confirm he was one of racing's good guys?
And i have never met Josh Byrne and wouldnt know who he was if i walked past him in the street. I think you have the wrong person there i have never defended him.
As for defending jockeys sometimes except on very few occasions the NORMAL public have not got a clue about racing!!!! I stand in the bookies where my Mum is manager and listen to the idiots shouting utter rubbish at the screen and listening to them who have had no experience of horses let alone never sitting on one it gets very tiresome. One great example is the case just been thrown out at the High Court because they didnt have a clue about the sport.
There is many many things i could comment about on here when people make stupid remarks but i always just leave it just to not make trouble whether it be for myself or anyone involved in racing.
Maybe Eddie did do it on purpose, if he did maybe he over did it but i can tell you he wont be bothered in the slightest as laying on the sand in a sunny country somewhere is far better than having it kicked in your face round the All Weather shitholes...
Desperate Dan
Senior Jockey
Perhaps if he had any self-respect or integity he would be bothered.
K
Kathy
Guest
Which is exactly the point. He has brought the sport into disrepute and whether he likes it or not the owner of the horse he was riding was paying for Eddie to ride their horse not give it a good hiding so he could go and have a well earned break! :angy:
Perhaps Eddie will assume owners will be bending over backwards to let him ride their horses, well if a ban of 3 months doesn't do the trick - then perhaps owners deciding they would rather let a jockey (any jockey) who is not "whip happy" given the chance.
Let's hope he gets the tanning he clearly longed for, and I don't mean tanning via the sun either.
Perhaps Eddie will assume owners will be bending over backwards to let him ride their horses, well if a ban of 3 months doesn't do the trick - then perhaps owners deciding they would rather let a jockey (any jockey) who is not "whip happy" given the chance.
Let's hope he gets the tanning he clearly longed for, and I don't mean tanning via the sun either.
Fudge,
Apologies I was getting you mixed up with spoons (see above). I suspect Eddie will be bothered though. There are at least a couple of small owners on this thread (myself included) whose horses he will never ride in future. I doubt we are the only ones.
Homer
Apologies I was getting you mixed up with spoons (see above). I suspect Eddie will be bothered though. There are at least a couple of small owners on this thread (myself included) whose horses he will never ride in future. I doubt we are the only ones.
Homer