Panorama

Very dodgy lot shown tonight! Well, I learned two things from watching this.

1. Why Kieren Fallon took his website down
2. That there really are some people who do believe that 'inside information' can be contained!
 
Agreed Rory - and it's a real shame that the court case was so badly handled
I think though that there was definitely innuendo in the way the KF links to both 'villains' was handled
 
Thought it was a very good program myself.

Who knows, maybe, just maybe, there is some substance to the innuendo.

I didnt think any jockey would be stupid enough to pull a race in the manner of Ballinger Ridge, but I'm beginning to second guess myself on it.
 
Last edited:
Hmm, not sure I'd use the words very good.

In all fairness it got better after the first 17 minutes, and they were careful to state on several occasions that there was no suggestion the jockeys involved in certain rides had pulled the horses.

Bits of it were mildly interesting but not much that we hadn't heard before.
 
Surely the evidence shown in the programme suggested that the villainy that jockeys are involved in is in selling information which suggests that they wouldn't be trying and then (shock horror) trying anyway.
 
I'm not sure Fallon came out of it to badly in truth, he almost looked like the good guy at times, afterall they made a loss on his tips which could only be viewed as just that, opinion being given a good faith that were interpreted as tips. Not sure the same could be said for Lynch and reckon he might be facing a few awakward questions.

They didn't really tell us what we already knew, but it highlighted just what ham fisted job the prosecution made of things. You wouldn't have thought it was beyond their savvy to have had the telephone calls enhanced would you?

The Bruce Bennet drop kick had to be the highlight though
 
Shadow Leader said:
In all fairness it got better after the first 17 minutes, and they were careful to state on several occasions that there was no suggestion the jockeys involved in certain rides had pulled the horses.
Click to expand...

Yes I noticed that Panorama weren't exactly saying 'bring it on and sue me'.

I'm reminded of an exposee run against a previous employer and some of the alleged shananigans of our flying circus (Channel 4 Dispatches in this case). We were all sent emails in the mid afternoon telling us not to speak to their researchers. Suffice to say, a certain member of staff couldn't resist!!! as apart from anything, they weren't terribly happy about some of what we knew to be going on. Although they didn't quite sit in the adjacent pub after work holding up a sign that said "I'll tell you anything for a fiver", they did make contact with the investigative jornalist whom they correctly deduced would be haunting the local hostelry which was a known after work drinking den of the staff. Suffice to say, the employee learned alot!!! and couldn't add anything to what Dispatches had. He was however, assured that 90% of the evidence would be held back in the event of the central figure commencing litigation. It strikes me that if Panorama really thought they could do a better job at prosecuting the case, then all they need to do is make the accusation and say sue me if you think you can?
 
Thought it wasnt sensationalist. Thought for a program on a mainstream channel it did things well, and cant see how it can be criticised fairly. It might have only painted a picture with a broad brush, but I find it hard to think that it was inaccurate.

As for the drop-kick, I wonder how welcome such a program would be in Ireland.
 
Warbler said:
Yes I noticed that Panorama weren't exactly saying 'bring it on and sue me'.

I'm reminded of an exposee run against a previous employer and some of the alleged shananigans of our flying circus (Channel 4 Dispatches in this case). We were all sent emails in the mid afternoon telling us not to speak to their researchers. Suffice to say, a certain member of staff couldn't resist!!! as apart from anything, they weren't terribly happy about some of what we knew to be going on. Although they didn't quite sit in the adjacent pub after work holding up a sign that said "I'll tell you anything for a fiver", they did make contact with the investigative jornalist whom they correctly deduced would be haunting the local hostelry which was a known after work drinking den of the staff. Suffice to say, the employee learned alot!!! and couldn't add anything to what Dispatches had. He was however, assured that 90% of the evidence would be held back in the event of the central figure commencing litigation. It strikes me that if Panorama really thought they could do a better job at prosecuting the case, then all they need to do is make the accusation and say sue me if you think you can?
Click to expand...

Thought they were begging to be sued by Lynch. Has Sam Allardyce ever taken his action against Panorama....
 
I have to admit it wasn't too bad. Although every horse luddite friend I have is texting to gloat how my sport is bent.

I am glad my licence fee isn't flying 4 people to Keeneland to get 17 seconds walking next to a jockey.
 
The only inuendo that screamed out to me was the way they re-created Fergal Lynch's slow motion and somewhat panicked flight from Ripon. You might have said that the late night aborted visit to Fallon's house was inuendo, but that was in response to the fact that Fallon was winning races that they were laying him on. Paints Fallon as being out of the organised loop, and he coudl easily say he was offering opinion to a friend oblivious of what they were doing with it.
 
You're right Garney, it wasn't especially sensationalist and could have been far worse which did exceed my expectations.

However, nothing new was really revealed - all of us who know the sport are well aware of the many shady characters and aspects involved in it. The $64,000 question is to what extent is the sport infiltrated?

Let's face it, so long as there is money to be made, there is going to be corruption - in any walk of life. That's not to say that it is right, merely that it will be near on impossible to eradicate.

I'm sure that most of us have come across it firsthand in some way or another.
 
I'm not talking about the way they painted his relations with the Miles Rogers setup, but the way they showed what **** Bennett is, and then implied he had made a statistically impossible killing laying on races in which KF was the losing jockey - whilst Bennett's son was his driver. That was laden with innuendo, though they left it to the viewer to make the 'obvious' connection

The other implication which of course only racing people would see, is that KF had a very good idea in all those races that his horse would not be good enough, full stop
 
Garney said:
Thought they were begging to be sued by Lynch. Has Sam Allardyce ever taken his action against Panorama....
Click to expand...


Lynch was given a right to reply (admittedly doorstepped at Haydock) but they published his solicitors response. Personally I'd be very surprised if he sued as he'd have to be certain of winning, and since libel is a civil case the burden of proof that the BBC would need to prove isn't 'beyond reasonable doubt', but rather the 'balance of probabilities'. Under oath of course Lynch would be called as a witness and in all probability have to face questions from a better prosecution barrister than the one put up by the CPS. Also the BBC's case is based much more around what would appear to be shadey dealings and conversations, where as the CPS relied on an Australian steward.

In any event, one would think the BHA will launch an enquiry and the two couldn't be held simultaneosuly, though clearly an official legal action would hav eprimacy over an internal investigation.

Celebrities are often quick to threaten action (remember Posh and Becks said they'd sue over Rebbeca Loos) it does require the plaintiff to be in the right though and confident of proving their case, yet alone the rogue element that is an erroneous ruling
 
I'm not sure that they weren't insinuating that Fallon was sticking one syndicate away to the detriment of another?, but what was clear to me is that the case against him isn't that strong at all, and I certainly wouldn't try and prosecute it.

Lynch looks the more prosecutable at prima facie, but then we don't know if the BBC have held anything back in the expectation of a legal challenge. I'm just waiting for the next time Fergal Lynch wins a BBC covered race and Rishi has to interview him. One horse whip across the face me thinkz
 
There's no suggestion that it was a bad production but it was a little bit more of the same!! It dragged on a bit. If they said those words again I was going to drop kick the TV!! But if it makes people more aware that there may be a big brother out there with some teeth then that can only be good. I think it shows the issues though between the police and the BHA.
 
Of course they are begging for the "accused" (no-one was accused as you say) to take a case.

There was very little eye-opening information to seasoned racing fans (although the Bennett stuff was news to me) but I think more good than harm is done for the sport in these sorts of documentaries. At least in this iteration, there was no-one making ridiculous statements displaying their complete ingorance of the sport.

Of course, all jockeys know when their mount is ready to perform to its best. (more innuendo there)
 
Garney said:
I didnt think any jockey would be stupid enough to pull a race in the manner of Ballinger Ridge, but I'm beginning to second guess myself on it.
Click to expand...

I watch a lot of racing, as do most if not all on here.

Ballinger Ridge was always the "arrowhead" of this case when covered on the news media. I always thought it an odd choice because if ever a horse was NOT stopped it was Ballinger Ridge. The horse needed to get loose on the front end to stand any chanc eof winning. So if you seriously wanted to stop him, you would miss a couple of beats at the gate, and then bury him - he was a horse known to sulk when not getting an easy lead.

I have not seen all of the races in the "Fallon trial" but those I did watch looked fairly straight to me. I can think of any number of races I have seen where horses are quite obviously "not off" and nothing is done about it, and nobody is up in arms.

This programme clung onto a trial that has already been thrown out, and picked up on the new angle about Bennett. The problem is, unless race fixing can be proven (conspiracy to defraud Betfair Customers - bless them - has already proven to be a non starter in a court of law) then there is no point in harping on about this. Race fixing cannot be proven because it has not happened. If Fergal Lynch was "fixing races" then why go and win won (losing his supposed "fixer" £30k) which he could have easily lost (again by dropping his front running mount out the back). Or are we to believe it was the horse racing equivalent to the famous "Porridge" boxing contest between Godber and Nesbitt.
 
Well I suppose the main thing that i would take from the documentary tonight was the attitude I picked up on from Rogers and Lynch after Rogers lost his dough. It seemed that winning that race was treated as a blip in the system. The 30K lost was not seen as catastrophic, on the contrary, it was only lent.
 
It was a dull programme, with very little meat content, and it cast little light on anything.

Btw, Kenyon is rather, er, camp, isn't he?
 
Number Six, I think you'd have to dig the video out again of the only race that Lynch won of those that are alleged to have been laid. His 5 year S/R is 10% so he's down on that, but that could only be seen as an indicative benchmark in any event. It looked to me as if the opposition didn't get to him as he was hardly vigorous on it and seemed to be inviting challenges that never materialised (perhaps the second and third had been laid by other gangs hitherto unknown :D).

I tend to agree with Garney that in the same way as jockeys can screw up winning a race, they can equally screw up in trying to lose one if the horse doesn't co-operate, or the effort needed to suddenly stop it, would be so blatant that they just couldn't do it, and hope not to get noticed. If you're going to try and routinely pull such a stunt, your efforts to ride have to look plausible, in order to remain undetected. It almost looked to me as if he resigned himself to the fact that this one had gone wrong, and under the circumstances the best thing to do might be to cut your losses and win the race. At the very least it provides a defence that could be invoked in the future for both parties. Indeed, there's something on the tape where Rogers talks about slipping in one a week, and seems to suggest that perhaps they'd over extended themselves in trying for 3 in a day.

"Don't WE get ourselves in some fecking trouble"

followed by

"That cost me a winner"

Why the CPS never chose to enhance the bugged recording I don't know? but on the 'balance of probability' the burden of proof for a civil case such as libel, Lynch should surely have been asked "what cost you a winner?". As Garney said, there was a kind of jocular relationship to it, and it sounded like a cock up, but hey, what the hell, no serious damage done now, but that was a near miss - type of conversation.

When Fallon wasn't able to produce the same returns though, they appear to have made a journey from Harrogate to within a mile of his house. Why? Sort of thing we all do periodically isn't it? Fancy a midnight drive? yeah, lets go 100 miles. I hear Newmarket's nice at about 12 o'clock, or more precisely a little village a couple of miles outside of it.

Doubtless the BBC will want to present a certain angle and it isn't necessarily difficult to do.

Perhaps I'm drawing an incorrect paralell, but we've all seen various consumer affairs programmes before now for decades. One thing that always seems to happen is that when the rogue trader gets challenged, they always resort to violence, swearing, or aggresive behaviour. I can't think of hardly any instances where the accussed invites the team in to discuss things in a civil manner. The reaction of the 'layers' was just so consistant with that behavioural pattern.

Still, we'll see if there's any fall out or not, but I should perhaps acknowledge the role played by Betfair. They would stand to lose from this programme in theory, but seem to have played a very co-operative and open hand
 
Last edited:
Back
Top