Originally posted by Warbler@Dec 8 2007, 11:18 AM
Betfair made a gaff in this respect, which was compounded by the CPSand CoL police who seemingly failed to understand what they were dealing with. This resulted inevitably in unsustainable evidence being presented. At one level the 'flagging' system worked, it's just that the prosecution didn't seem to understand what they had. It's possible of course that they did understand it? but that the enquiry had become clouded by Scotney's obssession by then? that can only remain a point of conjecture though - I don't know - but I do know then when you lose a sense of objective assessment, your judgement goes and mistakes follow.
I thought some of CH4 team (the usual industry sychophants - or should that be sychophant) were equally remiss in aspects of their dismissal of the witnesses. ........... I think there's probably aspects of the traditional 'wall of silence' or 'non-compliance' that is hardly uncommon in a prosecution of various different natures. Essentially, a complicated web of mutual self-interests, not to mention old favours, friendships and understandings permeates the industry, and if one cherishes one's place (and livelihood in a lot of cases) to being an insider, there was always a fair chance that the prosecution was going to have to rely on outsiders to make their case,
Both these points made by Warbler in his very intelligent appraisal of what has gone wrong here resonate with me.
It was a huge mistake imo to try Fallon along with the other defendants. Even if Fallon had been passing 'information', ie tips, it seemed to me that there was no question of gain for him - more that he may have been feeling sorry for old childhood chums less fortunate than himself, and trying to give them tips so they could make a few bob. What they might have been intending to do with them was nothing to do with him.
The question of whether or not he lost races in the past which he should have won deliberately, and if so for what reason, is another matter altogether, and one on which I've no informed opinion of my own. The fact of the matter here is that there was NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER that he was part of any conspiracy to defraud, as accused [other possibly than a text warning that "I'm being watched"].
If Fallon had been tried separately there would have been no media circus and it's far more likely that IF THERE WERE any conspiracy on the part of the others, it would have been properly investigated, evaluated, and tried - which it wasn't. I'm afraid so far as I'm concerned the jury is still out on the other defendants.
As for the law of omerta [silence] in the racing ranks, I'm afraid this is always going to make any enquiry all but impossible. I've personal knowledge of this in the case of a friend who was approached by a waitress at a big Newmarket racing dinner, where a local trainer [of noted unpopularity it must be said] was heard to say something 'newsworthy' which shocked her. She reported this to my friend, a journalist and father of a school friend of hers, who investigated it thoroughly, getting corroboration from several trainers and others present.
The story was duly published in The Sunday Times iirc] after the usual checking, and the trainer promptly sued them and my friend personally for slander. He won. No-one in racing who had corroborated the story willingly - many were shocked by what happened - was prepared to testify in court, and my friend had only the word of the waitress as witness, so the judge found against the ST and my friend. It was hardly a big deal one way or the other, but it had serious consequences financially for my friend who had only reported the truth. That's how racing closes ranks, and it happens at all levels.
Personally although informed friends in racing think that KF has his finger permanently over the self-destruct button, I've always been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I cannot believe however that all of the other defendants in this case were totally innocent of ANY wrongdoing or conspiracy, even if the particular charges in the case could not be made to stick. There is too much unexplained evidence there.
