Road to the Epsom Derby 2011

How isn't Recital not 12s for this? Probably a worse price than Carlton House now.

I've added Native Khan as the front two are trading at crazy odds.
 
Euronymous said:
How isn't Recital not 12s for this? Probably a worse price than Carlton House now.

I've added Native Khan as the front two are trading at crazy odds.
Click to expand...

you won't be saying that when Recital wins :)

i've been thinking about NK..i don't want the horse to win tbh..the owners are real mardy arses..they don't deserve to win.
 
Euronymous said:
How isn't Recital not 12s for this? Probably a worse price than Carlton House now.

I've added Native Khan as the front two are trading at crazy odds.
Click to expand...

If Recital should be 12's..then would you think Pour Moi should be 20's?

Bubble Chic has run against both..beaten 1.5 len by PM and by 5 len by Recital

As PM is 11/2 and if you think that is a fair price ...then Recital should be a lot shorter surely?
 
Last edited:
Interesting looks like AOB has gone off Hughes who has ridden two placed horses for him in Epsom classics
 
EC1 said:
If Recital should be 12's..then would you think Pour Moi should be 20's?

Bubble Chic has run against both..beaten 1.5 len by PM and by 5 len by Recital

As PM is 11/2 and if you think that is a fair price ...then Recital should be a lot shorter surely?
Click to expand...

I'm not basing it on weights and measures. Recital looks a dodgepot who won't be at home on the track.
 
I did hours of form study yesterday, picked out five horses and permed the ten trebles. 3 firsts and two narrow seconds and i barely won enough for a jug of sangria and a plate of tapas. So a radical change of approach is required today :

Back anything that sounds French in the Derby.
 
Great news. It's nice to see a lack of loyalty and/or greed being punished. Fallon now equalling Mark Hughes as prick of the week.
 
Euronymous said:
Great news. It's nice to see a lack of loyalty and/or greed being punished. Fallon now equalling Mark Hughes as prick of the week.
Click to expand...

No doubt the owners would have stuck to the agreement if someone they perceived to be a better jockey had offered his services for the horse. This sort of thing has gone on forever and has always been met with a shrug of the shoulders. That should have been the case here - this smacks of vindictiveness.
 
Last edited:
Ed Dunlop has said that Fallon signed a written contract in his (Dunlop's) office. That does put a different slant on it, I have to say. It's a foolish thing for him to have done if he wanted to keep his options open. I still think court action was the wrong way to go, however. They've got a top jockey on board, anyway, and it's not in reality as if Fallon would have any competitive advantage as a result of riding Native Khan in previous races. Stopping him riding in the race is, as I said, vindictive given that damages can be awarded for any measurable financial loss.
 
The whole point of a contract is that it's legally binding.

Fallon has a past of not being loyal to people, he has got all that he deserves this morning.
 
Back to the race itself....

Pour Moi, Native Khan and Ocean War are the 3 for me. I'm on at 6s, 100s and 16s so bound to go wrong despite the value!

Totally agree with Euro, the front two are daft prices.
 
Sheikh said:
Both sides have accepted that a promise was made, right decision by the court.
Click to expand...


Absolutely wrong in my opinion.Not only does NKs owner get a top class jockey but he gets an opposing jockey banned.
Imagine in another sport if Alex Ferguson went to court to get an opposition player ruled out-we would all be giving out.
A financial remedy would have been appropriate-justice has not been served by this judgement-it's an unwelcome intrusion into sport by the legal system.
 
I am not surprised by the Court of Appeal's ruling considering the facts that have come out namely that this was a written contract which appeared to have that express negative stipulation . Once Fallon had to fall back on public interest and the potential prejudice to Ballydoyle he was on a sticky wicket especially with a small field with a number of top jockeys without rides.

I think this is completely different to the traditional A rings B books him for ride B gets off to ride C scenario due to the terms of the contract Fallon signed . The judgment will be fascinating to read.
 
Last edited:
These days the top jocks think a lot of themselves. They consider things like agreements and etiquette beneath them. While I can't help feeling a little sorry for Fallon, I'm glad that this attitude of pleasing yourself has collectively received the slap of a wet fish in the face.

Perhaps it will help to bring back values of commitment and loyalty rather than always grabbing the main chance. The irony is Fallon probably had a better chance on Native Khan, but went for the other as it looked a better longer term move.

In the final analysis I'm very pleased NK's owner took the view they did and pursued it "mardy arses" or not.
 
It serves Ballydoyle right too. Their policy of not employing a top jockey this year is a non-sense.
 
Ardross said:
I am not surprised by the Court of Appeal's ruling considering the facts that have come out namely that this was a written contract which appeared to have that express negative stipulation . Once Fallon had to fall back on public interest and the potential prejudice to Ballydoyle he was on a sticky wicket especially with a small field with a number of top jockeys without rides.

I think this is completely different to the traditional A rings B books him for ride B gets off to ride C scenario due to the terms of the contract Fallon signed . The judgment will be fascinating to read.
Click to expand...

How does this fit in with your admiration of Lester Piggot.Serious question.
 
SteveM said:
These days the top jocks think a lot of themselves. They consider things like agreements and etiquette beneath them. While I can't help feeling a little sorry for Fallon, I'm glad that this attitude of pleasing yourself has collectively received the slap of a wet fish in the face.

Perhaps it will help to bring back values of commitment and loyalty rather than always grabbing the main chance. The irony is Fallon probably had a better chance on Native Khan, but went for the other as it looked a better longer term move.

In the final analysis I'm very pleased NK's owner took the view they did and pursued it "mardy arses" or not.
Click to expand...

i find it interesting that when a jockey used to get jocked off for..lets say Lester..it was deemed as ..well you have to expect this...where was loyalty from owners in those cases Steve?

loyalty works both ways..in the past there has been little shown to many jockeys..when boot is on other foot though the loyalty card is somehow more valid..it isn't

Some owners don't deserve loyalty..as they have none themselves

in this Fallon incident..it now appears there was a contract..but if I had been owner and Fallon had snubbed my horse like this I definately would not have wanted him on board today..the owners are showing poor judgement in the extreme in sticking with Fallon..if the horse has such a chance then the jockey isn't going to make that much difference..there are plenty of other riders who would have gladly took the ride.
 
Last edited:
Fallon may ride Native Khan in furture races:
Chris Cook



Kieren Fallon cannot ride in the Derby at Epsom following a sensational reversal of fortune for the jockey at the court of appeal this morning. An interim injunction has been granted to the owner of Native Khan, who claimed Fallon had contracted to ride his horse and not Recital, which the jockey announced as his Derby mount on Monday.
That injunction was initially denied at the high court on Friday morning but was appealed by Ibrahim Araci, whose colours will be worn by Johnny Murtagh on Native Khan in today's race. Araci gained a second hearing before two judges on Friday afternoon and their verdict was that Fallon should be prevented from riding Recital.
"There is nothing special about the world of racing that entitles the major players to act in flagrant breach of contract," said Lord Justice Jackson. He explained that the contract between Fallon and Araci, signed early this year, required the jockey to ride Native Khan when asked to do so and also that he not ride another horse in any race against Native Khan.
Fallon had told the high court in a witness statement that he had never intended to commit to riding Native Khan in the Epsom Derby but had always believed the horse would be aimed at the French Derby on the following day, leaving him free to commit to Recital for the Epsom race. But that defence was rejected by Friday's judge, Mr Justice MacDuff, as "totally inconsistent with the contemporaneous documents" and Fallon's barrister, Graeme McPherson QC, did not challenge that view during the appeal hearing.
The appeal instead revolved around two questions: whether damages paid to Araci by Fallon could be an adequate remedy for a breach of contract, and whether it could be right to grant an injunction preventing Fallon from riding in the Derby. Mr Justice MacDuff ruled on Friday that damages could be adequate and that it would be wrong to grant an injunction, but both those decisions were overruled by the appeal judges.
Lord Justice Jackson said that, on the basis of what McPherson had told the court as to Fallon's means, there was a "real risk that if things go badly for him in the litigation, and substantial damages and costs are awarded against him, he may not be able to meet that judgement in full".
The judge added that an injunction against Fallon would not be a restraint of trade. Although he accepted that Coolmore, owners of Recital, might not be able to engage a replacement jockey of the same stature of Fallon, it was "unrealistic to suppose that Coolmore have not been making very urgent enquiries since Wednesday" as to the availability of other riders.
Finally, Lord Justice Jackson said he was not deterred from granting the injunction by the fact that the betting public had placed wagers on Recital in the belief that Fallon would ride the colt. He pointed out that others may, until Monday, have backed Native Khan in the belief that Fallon would be on him.
"The second and more fundamental point," he said, "is that when a person bets on a horse, he or she is running a multitude of risks, including that the particular jockey may not be riding as the result of injury. I accept that the risk of an injunction is rather less than the risk of injury but it is one of the vicissitudes of life.
"Fallon has brought this predicament on himself by his deliberate and cynical disregard for a contract recently entered into. He did not improve his position by putting forward evidence which, it is now common ground, must be treated as untruthful."
McPherson relayed an initial reaction from Fallon, who spoke by telephone with his solicitor shortly after the verdict. "He's obviously very disappointed by the decision but accepts it," McPherson said, "wishes all the connections of Native Khan the very best of luck this afternoon. He will watch with great interest from the changing room to see how it all unfolds."
Speaking for Araci, the solicitor Mehmet Ali Erdogan expressed satisfaction with the outcome and added: "The Derby and the justice system are much bigger than Kieren Fallon."
Though it might stretch credulity to imagine Fallon riding Native Khan again, McPherson said he had been advised by Araci's representatives that the owner was still prepared to consider booking the jockey to ride his horses in the future
 
Back
Top