Racing allegations and the actual LAW

[Ian_Davies]

Just because I've got a Law degree, it doesn't mean I'm the world's leading authority on legal matters.

It was only a "Desmond" (I spent literally more time at the races than at seminars) and I never pursued a career in Law.

But I did spend time in journalism, I have a pretty firm handle on what libel and slander (often confused, the former is written, the latter is spoken) actually are and aren't, ditto defamation and establishing if a tangible loss has actually occurred (something else many don't understand - people expressing negative opinions about you or the quality of your work, or even simply making false statements about you generally, doesn't necessarily mean you've been libelled or slanderered if it can't be proved you tangibly suffered as a result).

Racing Post: "Dual Grand National-winning rider Leighton Aspell said he believed Philip Byrnes' controversial unseat from Redwood Queen at Wexford in May was a 'deliberate act' in his evidence presented at an Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board (IHRB) referrals committee hearing on Monday."

Aspell's opinion wouldn't be conclusive evidence in a court of law any more than the opinion of race readers in the Top Cees case was ultimately deemed to be back in the day.

Meaningful evidence is conclusive proof of conspiracy - direct betting trails back to people, recorded phone calls or text transcripts etc.

The racing authorities need to tread carefully as, not only might they fail to meet legal tests here, they could end up with a court case coming back the other way.

Irish law won't be identical to UK law, but basic legal principles apply worldwide.

This will be a fascinating one to follow.

 

[Chunky Monkey]

Fascinating, it will be indeed.
I am curious to see if the same principles will apply across the pond with today’s news that the now leader of the free world is seeking USD5 billion from the Beeb.
It will be interesting to see what passes as meaningful evidence on that one.
Appreciate this latter case is not racing related but there may be some “interesting” contrasts in these two processes, and it could be interpreted that Donny J Trump v The Beeb is a race to the bottom.

 

[Slim]

I appreciate the essay, but neither jockey’s testimony is credible or advances either side’s case.

He jumped off. Anyone with a pair of eyes saw that. They need to follow the money trail.

It’s also worth pointing out that, while this was a fine opportunity to remind everyone you have a law degree, this isn’t a criminal case. The standard here isn’t beyond reasonable doubt. It’s a regulatory process, and intent is assessed on the balance of probabilities and surrounding evidence, not courtroom theatrics.

If they conclude he deliberately jumped off, he’s facing a serious sanction, potentially a lengthy suspension. That’s the reality.

 

[Ian_Davies]

I appreciate the essay, but neither jockey’s testimony is credible or advances either side’s case.

Completely agree with this point.

As for your next sentence, while I get where you're coming from - it's opinion.

And to prove that allegation, you need clear motive and that's where a money trail comes in.

I would completely agree that's key here.

I'd also agree it's not a court of law, so the same standards don't apply.

But if the Byrnes subsequently decide to sue for libel, a court will apply legal tests and that's where hot water lies, as The Sporting Life found to their cost.

A racing governing body isn't a mere newspaper, but they need to tread carefully nonetheless.

What else?

Oh, yeah - did I mention I have a Law degree?

 

[Slim]

You’re misapplying the Top Cees case.

That was a libel action brought by Fallon and the Ramsdens against a newspaper. The issue for the court wasn’t whether the horse was stopped under the Rules of Racing, but whether the newspaper could justify publishing an allegation of cheating to the public. That’s why motive, enrichment, and alternative explanations were so central.

This situation is entirely different. The IHRB aren’t publishing allegations or defending a headline. They’re assessing conduct under the Rules of Racing. The question is whether, on the balance of probabilities, a jockey deliberately dismounted.

Video evidence of the ride is primary. Betting patterns and motive may support or undermine a finding, but they are not a legal prerequisite.

Dragging libel standards from a 1990s newspaper trial into a modern regulatory process is a bit like mentioning faggotts on 'The Will Win Thread'.

 

[Ian_Davies]

Dragging libel standards from a 1990s newspaper trial into a modern regulatory process is a bit like mentioning faggotts on 'The Will Win Thread'.

Very good - I liked that (not that you asked or necessarily care).

You could be right, but when I read the RP story I had a "here we go again" moment.

In the Top Cees case, the Life wheeled out "experienced," "respected," race readers, but none of those labels ultimately meant "Jack," legally.

Now a "Grand National-winning jockey" (as if that matters) is apparently giving "evidence," - it's not proof, it's just the fella's opinion.

And Davy Russell's "evidence" for the defence is just an opinion too.

They will, or won't, find Byrnes guilty and if guilty impose a sanction, and no, it's not a court of law.

But it might not end there and it could end up in one.

I'll be ordering in extra popcorn if it does.

 

[Slim]

You don't seriously think Charles Byrnes' would go to court with this? He wants this to go away as quickly as possible.

 

[Ian_Davies]

I've honestly no idea, but if they find his son guilty, throw the book at him, and someone gives Byrnes legal advice none of it would have stood up in an actual court of law, he might at least run a cost/benefit analysis on the notion.

 

[Slim]

I've honestly no idea, but if they find his son guilty, throw the book at him, and someone gives Byrnes legal advice none of it would have stood up in an actual court of law, he might at least run a cost/benefit analysis on the notion.

If that were the case, why doesn’t Roman McNally hold a trainer’s licence anymore? If the rules are breached, they are entitled to ban a jockey for as long as they see fit.

You sound like the sort of lawyer who sees an elderly woman fall on a frosty morning on her way to collect her pension. You hand her a business card to discuss a claim. All while she’s still lying on the pavement, wondering how many hips she’s broken.

 

[Ian_Davies]

If that were the case, why doesn’t Roman McNally hold a trainer’s licence anymore? If the rules are breached, they are entitled to ban a jockey for as long as they see fit.

You sound like the sort of lawyer who sees an elderly woman fall on a frosty morning on her way to collect her pension. You hand her a business card to discuss a claim. All while she’s still lying on the pavement, wondering how many hips she’s broken.

How (legally) rude! (and just when I was about to ask if you'd ever had a betting "accident" that wasn't your fault as well??!!)

 

[pawras]

Just had a vision of you both on one of those day time legal ads