Top Irish trainer facing drugs charges

Seems it was the third time in a few months that the horse had been laid for substantial amounts by the same crew. Awful coincidence that such an honest man was involved, albeit innocently....allegedly.
 
Desperate Dan said:
Seems it was the third time in a few months that the horse had been laid for substantial amounts by the same crew. Awful coincidence that such an honest man was involved, albeit innocently....allegedly.
Click to expand...

Is it really a substantial amount though?

I am not for a second trying to downplay anything about this, but this is kind of connected to my initial reaction - was the sums of money involved really worth the risk?

Surely there are easier ways to stop a horse? And would you not wait for one that was considerably shorter in the market which would arouse less suspicion from a betting perspective - volume wise I mean, it is expected that there would be more money traded on the shorter priced animal.
 
I guess running a horse when it’s been sedated, is the line you cross from being ‘a bit of a rogue’ to ‘a danger to horse and jockey’. It all feels a bit too ‘Howard Johnson’ to be comfortable with.

That said, if this is the end for Charlie Byrnes, I confess I will miss him. Trying to figure-out whether one of his was off, was part of the puzzle for me, when betting in races where he had a runner. I also think he was very capable, when the right horse landed in his mitts.

He had walked the line for long enough, I suppose, and was bound to get caught on the wrong side eventually.
 
Last edited:
I thinks it’s worth recapping on what the Committee found concerning Byrne’s involvement:


There is no evidence to connect Mr Byrnes with these betting patterns, but they are part of the full and relevant context to the events of 18 October 2018 at Tramore and informed the subsequent investigation into those events.*

21. The Committee approached the case on the interpretation of the evidence that was reasonably open and most favourable to Mr Byrnes, that being that Viking Hoard was “nobbled” by an unidentified third party at a time when the gelding was left unaccompanied by him or his son. Although not alleged to be involved directly in the administration of ACP, his neglect in supervising the gelding facilitated what was clearly organised pre-race doping of his charge.* The deliberate doping of Viking Hoard close to race time in this case could not conceivably have been a casual or opportunistic event.

Even on the worst interpretation you could only say non-proven so far as his actual involvement in the doping was concerned.
 
Basically they know he's a cheating ******* but they can't prove it. The fact a horse can be laid on the exchanges and no KYC is an issue that won't go away. It's ******* rancid.
 
I'm all in favour of the 'innocent until proven otherwise' principle (having once been maliciously and falsely accused of assaulting a pupil only to be cleared by the pupil's mates who weren't prepared to stand by him) but he has clearly been found guilty of negligence, negligence that strikes me as being to a stupefying extent, and deserves much heavier punishment than six months off and a paltry fine.

That's hardly going to act as a deterrent for others; it will merely serve to make them try and be smarter about it.
 
Last edited:
He's guilty of over sedating the horse and getting caught. How often are horses we back that run terribly sedated? We have no idea how big a problem this is.
 
We will see how insular the sport is now

2 Walsh's will be prominent on TV these coming weeks and I hope it is put to them, especially Ted

It would take a very great leap of faith to exercise Mr Byrne's from any wrongdoing,no matter what the initial findings outline.
 
Absolutely fukcing disgusting. Call it out for what it is.

Would love a 'quiet' word with the tw8ts who thought it acceptable to send a horse to run with this cr8p in its system.
 
Slim said:
He's guilty of over sedating the horse and getting caught. How often are horses we back that run terribly sedated? We have no idea how big a problem this is.
Click to expand...

What I don't understand is why the doses were so heavy. If the horse was, say, a 7/1 chance to start with it was 1/7 not to win. You'd only need to sedate it very lightly to stop it. Or even just give it an extra bucket of water. Or slacken the girthstraps so that the saddle would slip and the jockey would need to pull it up. Or leave it a few gallops short. Or just get David Maxwell to ride it.
 
Desert Orchid said:
What I don't understand is why the doses were so heavy. If the horse was, say, a 7/1 chance to start with it was 1/7 not to win. You'd only need to sedate it very lightly to stop it. Or even just give it an extra bucket of water. Or slacken the girthstraps so that the saddle would slip and the jockey would need to pull it up. Or leave it a few gallops short. Or just get David Maxwell to ride it.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and all to win €3,200.
 
Desert Orchid said:
What I don't understand is why the doses were so heavy. If the horse was, say, a 7/1 chance to start with it was 1/7 not to win. You'd only need to sedate it very lightly to stop it. Or even just give it an extra bucket of water. Or slacken the girthstraps so that the saddle would slip and the jockey would need to pull it up. Or leave it a few gallops short. Or just get David Maxwell to ride it.
Click to expand...

I think there is almost no chance that Charles administered the dose. He is a genius at stopping horses and I doubt he would need to sedagte them. The problem is he lay down in bed with some scum in his stable and got fleas.

If the horse was x100 the dose the horse probabnly needed x25 to stop it. So someone gave 4 times the required amoiunt. Charles has always been bent and the laying part of this is digusting but he's not stupid. There are others involved.
 
Last edited:
As Slim says, that Betfair has accepted substantial lay bets from anonymous entities is unacceptable, even corrupt. I hope there are consequences for them.

Regarding racecourse security, surely the point of it is to prevent unauthorised people getting at horses. If a horse does get nobbled, then the finger must point at the trainer. Either they have been negligent or deliberately malicious.

But why use these methods to stop a horse when there is a high risk of being detected? As others have said, there are safer ways to stop a horse than using a substance that will show up in a test. Might it be that the labs have only recently developed the capability to detect the substance used in this case?
 
Maybe I'm missing something here, but why would a trainer put his career on the line for his share of such a paltry sum?
 
Grey said:
As Slim says, that Betfair has accepted substantial lay bets from anonymous entities is unacceptable, even corrupt. I hope there are consequences for them.

Regarding racecourse security, surely the point of it is to prevent unauthorised people getting at horses. If a horse does get nobbled, then the finger must point at the trainer. Either they have been negligent or deliberately malicious.

But why use these methods to stop a horse when there is a high risk of being detected? As others have said, there are safer ways to stop a horse than using a substance that will show up in a test. Might it be that the labs have only recently developed the capability to detect the substance used in this case?
Click to expand...

Trainers use the substance to take the edge off wild horses. What I'm getting at is they would know that dose to give a horse. It's just such a reach that a man with Byrnes capabilities would give the horse such a high dose or even need to do so to stop any horse.
 
reet hard said:
Maybe I'm missing something here, but why would a trainer put his career on the line for his share of such a paltry sum?
Click to expand...


A scorpion, which cannot swim, asks a frog to carry it across a river on the frog's back. The frog hesitates, afraid of being stung by the scorpion, but the scorpion argues that if it did that, they would both drown. The frog considers this argument sensible and agrees to transport the scorpion. Midway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog anyway, dooming them both. The dying frog asks the scorpion why it stung despite knowing the consequence, to which the scorpion replies: "I couldn't help it. It's in my nature.
 
Hopefully some good will come of it and while it'd no doubt be short term detrimental to the sport to have this discussed and reported in depth in front of a more wider (i.e. non racing) audience, the controls around exchanges will hopefully be thoroughly reviewed as a result.

Notwithstanding the risk to horses and riders I can sort of accept the actions of the perpetrators because, as the post above indicates, running horses that aren't off has unfortunately always been a part of the sport (and always will be) and has been carried out in a variety of ways but back in the 'good old days' punters applauded it as it was a coup taking money of the 'old enemy'.

Not as funny when it's largely innocent, fellow punters being hit though is it and Betfair need to sort their fecking KYC controls out because it is sadly in the nature of a few to circumvent boundaries for financial gain.

If this were a financial investment breach then while the culprits would most likely be facing prison, the investment bank who's controls allowed it would be facing eye watering fines and an influx of regulators crawling through their business practices and audits.
 
Last edited:
ACP is (or was) regularly used in yards usually for horses that were tricky to ride. When I worked at Cumanis it was common practice for the Assistant Trainer to go round with the pills and administer them to plenty every morning! (Actually it works better if you dissolve them in warm water and via a syringe into the horses mouth in which case you only need one 5mg pill)
But it would take nothing for someone to walk past a stable at the racecourse or indeed at home with ACP pills plus some horse feed in your pocket and feed them to a horse. I’m not sure the trainer is being hounded for negligence? How is he supposed to be next to the horse the entire time? And if it happened at a racecourse stables, then surely there is CCTV?

A few years ago there was a spate of racing tack going missing stolen from outside the stable (it can get hectic getting a horse ready for a race and you often leave stuff lying around). I got a really decent racing bridle stolen at Warwick on one occasion. I went nuts and reported it to racecourse security demanding to see the CCTV. There was clear evidence and it was given to the Police. It transpired that Ralph Becketts travelling head lad was the culprit. But when challenged he denied it and screamed human rights! Even though he was clearly on camera! I was furious and Beckett was such an arrogant twat and backed his lad. (Some months later I rented out a couple of rooms in Newmarket during the sales and Beckett rang up to book in a couple of lads so I double charged him and got the cost of my bridle back :lol:)

Edit: Just read elsewhere that you’re not allowed to leave a horse unattended in Ireland at racecourse stables and there are no CCTV cameras at Tramore
 
Last edited:
reet hard said:
Maybe I'm missing something here, but why would a trainer put his career on the line for his share of such a paltry sum?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying he's actively involved in this or any other instance, but he is infamous for some of the major betting coups he has pulled off. Someone told me he won close to 3 million Euros on singles/doubles/trebles etc when 3 of his horses were running at the same meeting and two had poor recent form. Person who told me not prone to exaggeration. Also that one day same person put , for him, a hefty single bet on one of his horses, saw CB at the course and told him he had backed said horse to tune of a lump of money and CB said ' oh no no not today'. Now that could be the conditions of the race and the horse really didn't have a chance of winning, or interpreted in another way.
What I never understand in these types of cases, why does it take so long?
Very interesting as well the to and fro-ing of said horse and ownership/trainer changes in the last 7 or so months too.
 
I can't add much here, and this might not be relevant to this case, but I do just ask, in relation to horses being 'off,, or not ready to run, etc, are we getting to a point where the general public or authorities, expect owners to be told the same information as me, you, or joe bloggs?

I' m as shocked as the next person at times like this, but I'm also realistic. The person paying the bills might need to land a punt, and that person not sharing this info with me, you or Joe blogs is just the way it is. If you accept the above statement, you also have to partly accept, that some horses may be being targeted at a race or a day, at the expense of some races prior to that day or event.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top