Fallon Trial Collapses

WHIP IT!

Millionaire jockey Kieren Fallon's race-fixing trial collapsed today.
Fallon and five other men were acquitted by an Old Bailey jury on the directions of trial judge Mr Justice Forbes.

He said there was no case to answer following defence submissions at the end of two months of prosecution evidence.

Now the six-time champion jockey is set to get back in the saddle in big races in Britain following a 17-month suspension imposed after his arrest.

Fallon always denied involvement and his barrister asked the judge: ''You have to consider how much it would cost to buy Kieren Fallon.''
Fallon, fellow jockeys Fergal Lynch and Darren Williams, gambler and businessman Miles Rodgers and two other men had been accused of plotting to throw races.

But the ''fatal flaw'' in the £6million case was that no-one was able to prove the jockeys had interfered with horses.
The only expert witness called was Australian racing steward Ray Murrihy. He admitted he was not an expert on British horseracing.

The case against the men was that they were trying to break Jockey Club rule 157 by stopping horses racing on their merits.
But Mr Murrihy said he was not familiar with the rules in the UK, was only giving his opinion on the riding and could not say what the outcome of a stewards' inquiry would have been.

The jury also heard that Fallon had a higher win rate in the races he was allegedly meant to throw than his average.
City of London police, who had been asked to investigate by the Jockey Club, came under constant criticism throughout the case.

It emerged that the then Commissioner of the force had approached a director of the Jockey Club - now the British Horseracing Authority - about more funding for the inquiry, which is thought to have cost around £3million.
And it also emerged that the main detective in the case had been offered a job with the BHA's investigation unit.

The prosecution said there was no evidence that Fallon profited from the alleged scam. He was said to have ended up owing a betting syndicate money.
The accused were said to have plotted to stop 27 horses winning between December 2002 and August 2004, thereby defrauding Betfair internet customers and other punters.

The prosecution said large amounts of money had been bet on the horses losing after a series of phone calls and text messages involving the jockeys.
Fallon was said to have ridden in 17 of the allegedly fixed races and won five of them - a higher win rate than his normal average.

The betting syndicate run by Rodgers was said to have wagered £2.1million on horses to lose, making between £60,000 and £143,000.
But Fallon was alleged to have owed the syndicate's backers £338,000 by winning the five races.

Fallon, 42, formerly of Newmarket but now of Tipperary, Ireland, Lynch, 29, of Boroughbridge, North Yorkshire, and Williams, 29, of Leyburn, North Yorkshire, Lynch's driver brother Shaun Lynch, 38, of Belfast, gambler and businessman Rodgers, 38, of Silkstone, South Yorkshire, and barman Philip Sherkle, 42, of Tamworth, Staffordshire, were all cleared on the directions of the judge.

Rodgers was also found not guilty of concealing the proceeds of crime. All the defendants were on bail.
Fallon's QC, John Kelsey-Fry, had asked the judge to throw out the case against him because the prosecution had failed to ''come close'' to making a case against the jockey.

He said the races which Fallon lost yielded only small returns for alleged plotters - in one case just £3,000.
He said: ''There is simply no case to answer. None of the strands of evidence individually or collectively amount to a case to answer.
''The evidence presented by the prosecution when properly analysed has demonstrated that Kieren Fallon was not a party to a conspiracy to defraud.''

Sizzler

WOW !

Great news for Fallon.

Is he able to take them to the cleaners now for loss of earnings (maybe more?)

RichieLawlor

Every quote ive heard, from his lawyer ( launching 2 inquiries) from KF ( outraged)from John Magnier have one thing in common

Im going to sue the balls of yous!!!!!!

WHIP IT!

I knew they didn't have the best case in the world against him, but I'd no idea it was that flimsy!

Good on ya Kieron - now go ride some winners!

Colonel Sanders

From the sportinglife

Absolute joke, there was never a case to answer. how it even made it as far as the courts is a travesty of justice.

"The only expert witness called was Australian racing steward Ray Murrihy, who admitted he was not an expert on British horseracing." A prosecution case is based on this? Many trainers of his 'suspect' rides were very vocal in supporting Fallon and supporting the ride he gave their horses. The authorities were looking for a 'big kill' and sought to make Fallon a scapegoat to send out a message. this has cost him the chanc to earn a living in England for over a year. Hopefully he can take legal action over this.

Bluetonic

Great news.

How it ever got to trial is beyond me.

cson

The trial cost £10 million :eek:

cson

Sizzler wrote: »

Is he able to take them to the cleaners now for loss of earnings (maybe more?)

Its unquantifiable what he lost. He's been banned since 2004. How many G1/G2 races have been held since then? He should also sue for loss/damage to reputation. An allegation like that sticks and people convict you in their own minds. Allegation = Conviction to a lot of people.

Bluetonic

Having kept up daily with the trial this is by far my favorite part.

He (detective inspector Mark Manning) reminded the court of earlier surveillance evidence involving the meeting between Miles Rodgers and Williams at the Bridge Inn, when it was recorded that Williams had texted seemingly under instruction from Rodgers.

Sturman (QC) said: “This message was sent to Mr Fergal Lynch and read ‘How's yer big blonde bird, you dog?'”

Asked whether this was relevant to the case, Manning replied amid laughter: “It certainly sounds as if it's not part of the conspiracy.

punchestown

Bluetonic wrote: »

Great news.

How it ever got to trial is beyond me.

It went to trial because Kieran Fallon was relaying information regarding his mounts each day to certain people who were using that information to profit from the horse not winning. If you think that 'King Kieran' is the punters pal and an honest and honourable man than you probably are one of the betting shop fodder who back his mounts religiously in the s.p. shops! Overall the case was weak but there were certain instances in this case and previous rides down through the years were I have no doubt, financial gain was responsible for a less than vigirous effort in the saddle.

redzerdrog

King Kieran thats what he is!!!

mdwexford

Looks like cheats do prosper after all.

philstar

its the usual triblistic....he's irish so he's innocent jargon i'm hearing again

Well can someone explain to me that televised race in lingfield....which he was miles ahead but approaching the home straight you can clearly see him looking over his shoulder and blatanly slow the horse down and lose the race.

I reckon there was something fishy going on, the metropolitain police didn't put that case together just for the fun of it.

Hobart

mdwexford wrote: »

Looks like cheats do prosper after all.

Maybe you would like to back that up with some facts, or withdraw` your comment. The fact is that the might of British Justice could find SFA on this man, despite tapping and bugging him. His record speaks for itself and this outcome only confirms what has been an absolute mess of a trial from day 1.

Do you know that he actually had to put up no defence? Do you actually knoew that? The trial collapsed because of a complete lack of evidence on the prsoecution side.

Then again, maybe you are blessed with the capacity to laterally think so well that you are a genius amongst us serfs. Or maybe you are just an idiot who does not know what he is talking about?

Hobart

philstar wrote: »

its the usual triblistic....he's irish so he's innocent jargon i'm hearing again

Well can someone explain to me that televised race in lingfield....which he was miles ahead but approaching the home straight you can clearly see him looking over his shoulder and blatanly slow the horse down and lose the race.

I reckon there was something fishy going on, the metropolitain police didn't put that case together just for the fun of it.

No it's not. It's nothing got to do with him being Irish, nothing whatsoever. It was a complete farce of a trial, and has been dismissed without a single cintilla of defence. Cop-on FFS.

mdwexford

Hobart wrote: »

Maybe you would like to back that up with some facts, or withdraw` your comment. The fact is that the might of British Justice could find SFA on this man, despite tapping and bugging him. His record speaks for itself and this outcome only confirms what has been an absolute mess of a trial from day 1.

Do you know that he actually had to put up no defence? Do you actually knoew that? The trial collapsed because of a complete lack of evidence on the prsoecution side.

Then again, maybe you are blessed with the capacity to laterally think so well that you are a genius amongst us serfs. Or maybe you are just an idiot who does not know what he is talking about?

I am entitled to my opinion.

Funny how moderators are allowed to call people idiots but normal posters are not. You contribute nothing to this forum and i think you have a cheek to call me an idiot when i contribute a lot around here. Ill allow you to withdraw your comment though.

cson

He hasn't been proven guilty, therefore he is by definition innocent. If you've got any evidence to the contrary I suggest you provide it to the Met Police. Otherwise stfu. There's having an opinion and then there's slander. Mind you stay the right side of that divide.

mdwexford

Another tough guy behind a keyboard eh. Yes i have bagfulls of evidence im hoarding away obviously. Im entitled to think what i like and i dont need you to agree with me to do so. I think the trial was a farce and him being so high profile and who he works for had a bearing on the case imo.

Sizzler

Bluetonic wrote: »

Having kept up daily with the trial this is by far my favorite part.

Excellent

Also a word for the other jocks who were also vindicated today, presumably their careers will also commence again.

"Analysts" predicting £1m losses to Fallon, will be interesting to see exactly what recourse his legal team now take.

In fairness he looked drained today.

cson

mdwexford wrote: »

Another tough guy behind a keyboard eh. Yes i have bagfulls of evidence im hoarding away obviously. Im entitled to think what i like and i dont need you to agree with me to do so. I think the trial was a farce and him being so high profile and who he works for had a bearing on the case imo.

So the entire British legal system is a farce then? If you're suggesting the profile of a person affects their position in terms of justice, then thats what you're suggesting.

If the Crown Prosecution had enough evidence to convict Kieren Fallon he would be in jail. He's not.

mdwexford

I am to a degree, plenty of other "celebrities" get away with murder in England because of their "status".

They obviously didnt have enough concrete evidence or he would but from what ive read there were certainly a lot of suspect goings on.

Hobart

mdwexford wrote: »

I am entitled to my opinion.

Funny how moderators are allowed to call people idiots but normal posters are not. You contribute nothing to this forum and i think you have a cheek to call me an idiot when i contribute a lot around here. Ill allow you to withdraw your comment though.

You have no idea what I "contribute" to this forum. Multiple postings of drivel do not constitute contribution. That aside...and bearing in mind your subsequent post, have you any concept of what the word libel is? Have you ant concept of what the term "hearsay" means" in a legal context? On your ascertion that only I am "allowed" use the term idiot, that is simply false.

Anybody can use the term idiot to describe another user who uses idiotic terms to justify their ignorance, which is exactly what you have done. I should ban you for your completely libelous and unfounded "cheat" comment, when it is clearly unfounded. Heck...maybe I'm wrong, and maybe you are the closet genius that can see through all this "cheating" when the might of British Justice, The Met and £10Milllion plus sterling can't. Maybe I have you wrong?

cson

I don't disagree that racing isn't transparent. It's not, otherwise there would be no need for stewards inquiries etc

The issue I take is that in a modern state, which England is, a person is innocent until proven guilty and by that rationale Fallon is innocent. You can't draw any other inference than that unless you have evidence to the contrary.

Hobart

cson wrote: »

I don't disagree that racing isn't transparent. It's not, otherwise there would be no need for stewards inquiries etc

The issue I take is that in a modern state, which England is, a person is innocent until proven guilty and by that rationale Fallon is innocent. You can't draw any other inference than that unless you have evidence to the contrary.

Exactly. Well put cson.

mdwexford

Hobart wrote: »

You have no idea what I "contribute" to this forum. Multiple postings of drivel do not constitute contribution. That aside...and bearing in mind your subsequent post, have you any concept of what the word libel is? Have you ant concept of what the term "hearsay" means" in a legal context? On your ascertion that only I am "allowed" use the term idiot, that is simply false.

Anybody can use the term idiot to describe another user who uses idiotic terms to justify their ignorance, which is exactly what you have done. I should ban you for your completely libelous and unfounded "cheat" comment, when it is clearly unfounded. Heck...maybe I'm wrong, and maybe you are the closet genius that can see through all this "cheating" when the might of British Justice, The Met and £10Milllion plus sterling can't. Maybe I have you wrong?

"Multiple postings of drivel", perhaps you have examples of these "multiple postings of drivel". I know that i have a far greater knowledge of horse racing than you or a lot of people on this forum. Maybe form talk et al is drivel to you but that just shows how little you know.

I said nothing libelous at all. Perhaps you should study your law book a little deeper as nothing i said is in any way libelous. I also dont think anything is unfounded really, jockeys have been suspended and betfair accounts have been seized, is that all for no reason. What about the phone calls that were made from the weighing rooms and the tips that were given out that Fallon admitted to. Is that not cheating??

Hobart

I'll take your rantings bit by bit.

mdwexford wrote: »

"Multiple postings of drivel", perhaps you have examples of these "multiple postings of drivel". I know that i have a far greater knowledge of horse racing than you or a lot of people on this forum. Maybe form talk et al is drivel to you but that just shows how little you know.

I'm not one for justifying myself, but I read every single post on this forum. I've read your "so-called" form postings, and your various after-timing postings. Well done on Denman btw, you truely are a font of knowledge. Now lets leave that whole conversation to one side, shall we?

I said nothing libelous at all.

You did.

Perhaps you should study your law book a little deeper as nothing i said is in any way libelous.

Not that it's any of your busines, but I do study law.

I also dont think anything is unfounded really,

It is.

jockeys have been suspended and betfair accounts have been seized,

Without any evidence, which has been bourne out by the collapse of the trial today.

is that all for no reason. What about the phone calls that were made from the weighing rooms and the tips that were given out that Fallon admitted to. Is that not cheating??

No, it is not. It's simple really. Have you heard these calls? Do you know the circumstances of these calls? Do you know the context in which these calls were made? Who called who? When? Tell me this mdwexford...what gives a 25 year old accounts worker this breath of knowledge and conviction, when the might of the British legal system cannot prove it?

What evidence do you have that this man, 6 times racing champion btw, is a cheat?

Who regulates Betfair? Why were Betfair involved? Why was Fallon suspended, when he was innoncent? Why did the Judge direct the Jury to find the Def not Guilty? Why did the main witness for the crown have no idea about Jockey stewarts? Why did Fallon up his win percentage, when he was supposed to be loseing? Why did this mysterious betting syndicate lose their trousers, when they were supposed to be coining it?

Riddle me that, Mr MD.

mdwexford

Hobart wrote: »

I'll take your rantings bit by bit.

I'm not one for justifying myself, but I read every single post on this forum. I've read your "so-called" form postings, and your various after-timing postings. Well done on Denman btw, you truely are a font of knowledge. Now lets leave that whole conversation to one side, shall we?

You did. Not that it's any of your busines, but I do study law. It is. Without any evidence, which has been bourne out by the collapse of the trial today.No, it is not. It's simple really. Have you heard these calls? Do you know the circumstances of these calls? Do you know the context in which these calls were made? Who called who? When? Tell me this mdwexford...what gives a 25 year old accounts worker this breath of knowledge and conviction, when the might of the British legal system cannot prove it?

What evidence do you have that this man, 6 times racing champion btw, is a cheat?

Who regulates Betfair? Why were Betfair involved? Why was Fallon suspended, when he was innoncent? Why did the Judge direct the Jury to find the Def not Guilty? Why did the main witness for the crown have no idea about Jockey stewarts? Why did Fallon up his win percentage, when he was supposed to be loseing? Why did this mysterious betting syndicate lose their trousers, when they were supposed to be coining it?

Riddle me that, Mr MD.

No we wont leave that conversation to one side at all.

If you are referring to this thread http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055193288

Perhaps you can show me where i after-timed. I didnt even back Denman in the Hennessy, nor did i claim to. Your reading skills are a tad off perhaps. Look back through all my posts on here, there are plenty of good posts. Not like you, you never post on here at least Fade2Black posted here when he was a mod and he also knew his stuff.

I couldnt care less what you do, its pointless asking me have i heard phone calls when you know the answer. I read all the coverage just like you, im just taking the opposite stance. End of story, think what you like as will i.

Shan75

Great to see this case fall apart because to be honest most of what was said during this trial was nonsense.Their racing expert made a big deal about a horse that Fallon won a race on because he only just got there in the last strides.How many races like this happen every day?The thing about giving tips is exaggerated also.He did tell people when he thought he was going to win and when he thought he was going to lose a race.What's wrong with that?Jockeys do this all the time on newspaper columns and television interviews and I'd imagine with some of their friends.Just because you say you think you are going to lose because you are not on the best horse does not mean you want to lose or will try to lose.Anybody who considers that they know about horseracing knows there is some dodginess in the game but equally knows that it is not as widespread as some innocents like to think.In relation to the phone calls from the weighing room--I don't remember this being said in the case though it could have been and if this did occur I think it contravenes jockey club rules but to be honest is not enough to convict somebody of the crimes they were charged with.

Hobart

mdwexford wrote: »

No we wont leave that conversation to one side at all.

If you are referring to this thread http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055193288

No I wasn't.

Perhaps you can show me where i after-timed. I didnt even back Denman in the Hennessy, nor did i claim to. Your reading skills are a tad off perhaps.

Your skills know no bounds. Not only do you know what I am talking about, but you also know what I'm reading...fantastic!!

Look back through all my posts on here, there are plenty of good posts. Not like you, you never post on here at least Fade2Black posted here when he was a mod and he also knew his stuff.

well done, go you.

I couldnt care less what you do, its pointless asking me have i heard phone calls when you know the answer. I read all the coverage just like you, im just taking the opposite stance. End of story, think what you like as will i.

I couldn't care less that you couldn't care less. You are not taking the opposite stance, you are saying the man is a cheat. There is no opposite stance. It's a bit like me saying you are akin to Einstein, when I have no evidence to support it, and another user saying you are a complete idiot. There is no synonym to describe the opposite to opposite. It is what it is. Can you not see that?

Now take this as a warning mdwexford. You can carry on on your merry way about this trial, as long as you abide by the rules, but any more chatter about my role on this forum will result in a ban. Any more un-founded allegations about Fallon, or anybody else, and you will be banned.

If you have an issue with me, take it to the feedback forum. Otherwise carry on on your merry way. I don't want you dragging this thread anymore off topic.

WHIP IT!

Supposedly Fallon failed a drugs test in France? Hadn't heard about this...

philstar

As i asked before...

Can someone explain to me that televised race in lingfield....in which he was miles ahead but approaching the home straight you can clearly see him looking over his shoulder and blatantly slow the horse down and lose the race??

can any of you pro-fallon people explain that??:cool:

Imhof Tank

A few points

1. I agree with what McCrirrick said – there is a corruption problem in racing –its been there for about 250 years or so, and anyone who thinks racing is totally straight and that a horse has never in the history of the turf been stopped doesn’t know what they are talking about.

2. If the industry is serious about tackling the corruption problem, they need people with a serious knowledge of racing to investigate. Send in undercover men posing as stable lads or something. (I think there was a Dick Francis book with a plot something along those lines).

3. Instead of people with knowledge of racing, in the Fallon investigation we got City of London police officers who hadn’t even got the slightest clue about the basics of race riding – such as why jockeys aren’t seen to be “riding a finish” all the way through races – including at the start of middle distance races.

4. Where they got the guy from Australia from, I don’t know. In fact, I’m not convinced that testimony from any “expert” would ever be enough to convict or acquit a jockey in any trial. Its all just opinion really, and most punters would consider themselves to be as expert as, for example, most of the pundits on TV anyway, so why should a court attach any great weight to anyone’s subjective opinion on whether a ride was a good ride or a bad ride.

5. He won’t be winning any loss of earnings claim either. All the racing authorities have to say is that the police charged him – which is true – and their action in suspending him was reasonable – which (without the benefit of hindsight) would also be true (or impossible for KF to disprove). He cant sue the police either of course. This wasn’t a miscarriage of justice case – quite the opposite in fact.

Imhof Tank

philstar wrote: »

As i asked before...

Can someone explain to me that televised race in lingfield....in which he was miles ahead but approaching the home straight you can clearly see him looking over his shoulder and blatantly slow the horse down and lose the race??

can any of you pro-fallon people explain that??:cool:

You clearly attach great significance to a jockey "looking over his shoulder" and "slowing the horse down" - you are like those cops questioning Fallon about why he wasnt riding for all he was worth in the first 2 furlongs of 2 mile races.

JOCKEYS LOOK OVER THEIR SHOULDERS ALL THE TIME. JOCKEYS EASE THEIR MOUNTS DOWN ALL THE TIME FOR HANDICAPPING PURPOSES.

We all agree the Ballinger Ridge ride was not KF's finest ever, but anyone with any real understanding of knowledge could see it for what it was. On the other hand peolpe with no understanding of racing, like the City of London police, the expert witness from Oz and some of the posters on here, look at the Ballinger Ridge ride and say to themselves "caught red handed".

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Imhof Tank

[QUOTE=

I would think he could get hammered for this, if the first offence is a 6 month ban then what is a second offence? Anyone know?[/QUOTE]

18 months if the B sample is positive - according to the Morning Line anyway

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Bluetonic

punchestown wrote: »

If you think that 'King Kieran' is the punters pal and an honest and honourable man than you probably are one of the betting shop fodder who back his mounts religiously in the s.p. shops!

As you quoted my comment I presume you are referring to me.

Where did I even given an indication of anything for you to derive your comment from?

I look forward with eager anticipation your response and hope it will be a little more thought out that your initial reply.

Bluetonic

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You posted an article link and asked a question which was clearly answered in the article.

Have you a memory problem, I said have you a memory problem? Or do you normally post links to articles you've not read?

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Bluetonic

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

All joking aside why post a reference to something and ask a question which is answered in it?

Indicates you don't read what you post, thus rendering your future posts a little hard to fathom.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

punchestown

Good old Kieran, fcked it up again!!!

Time for Coolmore to rid themselves of this trash and find a new man who respects what people have done for them instead of someone who continually throws it back in their face.

Farewell dear Fallon, I love the irony in the fact that he failed the drug test after riding myboycharlie!

Colonel Sanders

Hobart wrote: »

No it's not. It's nothing got to do with him being Irish, nothing whatsoever. It was a complete farce of a trial, and has been dismissed without a single cintilla of defence. Cop-on FFS.

Spot on, there was never evidence to convict him of race fixing. Thats what it bout, his nationality is not the reason for any comment I made. I certainly don't think KF is a saint by any means but every man is innocent util poven guilty and the prosecutions attempts to prove him guilty were laughabl and pathetic.

Colonel Sanders

mdwexford wrote: »

Another tough guy behind a keyboard eh. Yes i have bagfulls of evidence im hoarding away obviously. Im entitled to think what i like and i dont need you to agree with me to do so. I think the trial was a farce and him being so high profile and who he works for had a bearing on the case imo.

I think who he is had a bearing but not in the way you suggest. The authorities wanted a high profile scapegoat and went after Fallon, unfortunately for them they chose the keystone cops to do it.

Tanabe

I have inside info Fallon is guilty of these crimes, it just couldn't be proven in a court of law. If the crime can't be proven, the offender can't be sentenced/punished.

It goes on in every sport IMO.

cson

Tanabe wrote: »

I have inside info Fallon is guilty of these crimes, it just couldn't be proven in a court of law. If the crime can't be proven, the offender can't be sentenced/punished.

It goes on in every sport IMO.

If it can't be proven in a court of law then it's not evidence.

Honestly, have you any grasp of the basic concepts of law?

Tanabe

Honestly, I never mentioned the word evidence. Can you read?

cson

You infered it.

Tanabe wrote:

I have inside info Fallon is guilty of these crimes

So if it isn't evidence then what is it? Hearsay? Because thats exactly what it sounds like.

Tanabe

It's inside info. You can call it hearsay from the outside, maybe that's what it would sound like.

Bluetonic

Tanabe wrote: »

It goes on in every sport IMO.

For me to prove your ignorant statement wrong I only have to pick one sport. You have to prove it for every sport.

Do you realise the implications your sweeping statement has?

If I pick sports will you provide evidence?

You start.....