The Wigham Farce

S

Sara

At the Start
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
3,731
From Lydia Hislop's column in the Times, I must say I agree totally with her verdict:

<< The case of Michael Wigham exposes a loophole in the integrity of British racing. This trainer was found guilty of - in the words of the disciplinary panel - “cheating”, twice within 13 days with the same horse. He had already been found guilty of this offence once before. He received a record £20,000 fine and was banned from running his horses for five weeks.

Yet Wigham's horses have been running anyway, under the auspices of other trainers. One of them even won a race at Kempton in Wigham's ownership. Once the 35-day ban has ended, these horses are free immediately to return to Wigham's yard.

Three things should now happen. First, the authorities must verify these horses are actually in residence at their new yards. Second, a rule must be created to prevent such horses from returning to their original trainer for three months in future cases of this kind. Third, trainers should be made to feel ashamed if they help someone who has broken the rules thumb his nose at the sport that provides him with a living. >>
 
My initial thought is that banning all horses in the yard from running is a ridiculous penalty which is set out to penalise owners who have had no say, nor ever stood to benefit, from said cheating. I presume the owners are still expected to pay their full training fees to Mr Wigham during this period, so the ban would have a minimal effect on the person they are trying to punish.
 
Im with Melendez on this one, why ban the owners from running their horses? And the reason they are running with these different trainers are easy they are the types of trainers who are like Wigham cheap compared to most Newmarket trainers with the training fees and also his friends who he would have no doubt recomended.
 
The owners should perhaps reconsider whether they want their horses trained by a man who repeatedly non tries in that case. I know I wouldn't.

I don't think they came down on him hard enough, he's repeatedly flouted the rules. They should have warned him off for a year and made an example of him. I hope they manage to get him for his current antics too.

It's trainers like him that give racing a bad reputation and I guarantee he'll be labelled "shrewd" or something complimentary by the RP when the ban has been lifted when he is simply a cheat.
 
Oh please. This sort of thing has been going on for years and years with the authorities turning a blind eye. Anyone notice that McCourt was running all Quinn's horses whilst he was suspended? Anyone else notice that McCourt retired suddenly and prematurely not long after?!?!
 
Wigham is finished as a trainer in my opinion, regardless of the length of the ban.

I can't imagine any owner would want to admit having horses with him.

I hope that the authorities have checked out whether any of his horses that have run since the start of the ban have actually been stabled with their new trainers.
 
And of course we have Phil McEntee who is given a one year ban yet is still allowed to be assistant (ironically to Wigham) and can therefore still train his horses despite the supposed ban.
Presumably Wigham is still 'training' these horses during his ban?
 
I've read the full transcript of Wigham's hearing and must say that I was impressed at how thorough the authorities were. I wouldn't be so sure that they are merely allowing him to continue training in someone else's name.

On a related note, it's naive to think that Wigham's career is over because he will struggle to find owners; in my experience, the more bent a trainer appears, the more likely he is to attract owners. I'd love to think that someone is monitoring the phenomenon of "job" jockeys who have no previous background dealing with horses, suddenly appearing as trainers with yards full of horses.
 
So we learned nothing about stabling from the There Is No Doubt scandal at Sandown?

I thought horses now had to be in their new yard (literally in the yard) for a period of time prior to debuting for that trainer?
 
Hardly. Invasian, a horse belonging to the infamous dentist Karen Sanderson, won a race within 24 hours of being removed from Al Lidderdale's yard to Paul D'Arcy's last summer over a dispute regarding fees. The win, most unfairly in my opinion, went down on D'Arcy's record not Lidderdale's.

If a trainer has entered a horse for a race, it should imo go down as his/her win even if it's moved in the meantime, within a reasonable period [say 2/3 weeks?]

There's something very wrong with this whole question of banned horses and trainers, and the lack of inspection in such cases. If a trainer is going to cheat in a race, he's going to cheat in other ways
 
The HRA is a laughing stock. Can you imagine anything like this happening in Hong Kong.

I see Burgle Lynch and his cohorts are still riding away despite the glut of evidence from the trial that they passed on information. It's a wonder the other jockeys that were 'dealt with' by the HRA on that very charge aren't suing for the same compensation the trial division were paid during their holiday.
 
Tom, did you see the interview with Robert Winsome on one of the channels this week, must have been ATR because Chaparse was putting him up as a possible Champion Jockey contender!!! :eek:

Winsome's reply was that he was leading the Championship when he had his injury and as long as he retained the confidence of connections he was looking forward to a good season.
 
Originally posted by Melendez@Mar 26 2008, 12:24 PM
My initial thought is that banning all horses in the yard from running is a ridiculous penalty which is set out to penalise owners who have had no say, nor ever stood to benefit, from said cheating. I presume the owners are still expected to pay their full training fees to Mr Wigham during this period, so the ban would have a minimal effect on the person they are trying to punish.
Click to expand...
I think the idea is to force owners to move their horses from trainers who cheat.

If my trainer had been caught - more than once - in such skulduggery, I'd move my horses.
But then, I wouldn't choose a trainer like that anyway!

The idea is to force out the corrupt element in racing, whether owners or trainers. Owners are at liberty to move their horses at any time, so a ban on a trainer doesn't need to stop any owners' horses running - except the one in question of course.
 
Either he is fit to train horses or he isn't. If there is a message from this type of ban, and I doubt there is, it is that the trainer is currently unfit to train horses but will be grand in five weeks time.

If they want to force owners to move their horses elsewhere, they should remove his licence. If they don't have the power to do this, or don't feel the necessity then the entire punishment should be upon the person that is caught cheating. If £20K is not a sufficient punishment, fine him £30k etc.

It is like punishing a wife for a crime by cutting her husbands goolies off.
 
:laughing: :laughing: You're right!

But some owners positively encourage Whigham-type behaviour...
It's def an area - yet another!! - which needs an overhaul as the current procedure is a farce
 
Originally posted by Colin Phillips@Mar 28 2008, 10:18 AM
Tom, did you see the interview with Robert Winsome on one of the channels this week, must have been ATR because Chaparse was putting him up as a possible Champion Jockey contender!!! :eek:

Winsome's reply was that he was leading the Championship when he had his injury and as long as he retained the confidence of connections he was looking forward to a good season.
Click to expand...
Didn't se it Colin. Winston was a one time serial offender in my eyes but, unlike some of the others, did appear toi clean up his act when he found he was under investigation. Culhane in particular was topping up his holiday fund right to the bitter end. It's a travesty that most of his 'suspension' was duriung a period he would have been out injured anyway and highlights just what a bunch of clowns the hra are.
 
Back
Top