Panorama - Racings Dirty Secrets BBC1

mike65

On tonight at 9 pm, a follow up to thier 2002 special about corruption. Controversial no doubt.

Mike.

Bluetonic

...and the last five minutes are a summary of why Fallons site is gone

The rest was just a rescript of the court case, boring enough.

mike65

I thought it intriguing, sounds like Fallon my have nearly got pasting at one point for being a lousy tipster.

Mike.

Bluetonic

Program itself was poor enough by Panorama, no real new information which is a pity.

wb

Same old same old. Just the losing court case re-presented. A waste of an hour.

Cantoris

There is no suggestion that it was a bad progamme!! If I hear those words again........

punchestown

How ironic that Fergal Lynch is riding in the 6:40 at Musselburgh tommorrow in a race which features Forevers Girl owned by Reg Bond who was owner of Bond City (the horse Fergal confirmed as being pulled for the benefit of Miles Rodgers)

mike65

Hmmm he'll be trying!

/checks field and any odds

Mike.

corban

Bluetonic wrote: »

...and the last five minutes are a summary of why Fallons site is gone

The rest was just a rescript of the court case, boring enough.

i missed the programme, why was fallons site pulled?

Bluetonic

Cantoris wrote: »

There is no suggestion that it was a bad progamme!! If I hear those words again........

Of course it was a bad program. All it did was dramatise facts which are already in the public domain. The majority who have an interesting in horse racing already were aware of it all, the general public will just have been spooked.

Bluetonic

corban wrote: »

i missed the programme, why was fallons site pulled?

There were/are a further 47 races under investigation not involving Rogers but involving a race horse owner and business man who layed all 47 races where all but one lost. Fallon rode all the horses in question. Fallons driver is the layers son, who subsequently is Fallons joint partner in the website. It's also in the public domain that Stoute was far from impressed with the way the information was being relayed via the website.

Of course it's just my opinion that this is why the site was pulled

punchestown

Bluetonic wrote: »

Of course it was a bad program. All it did was dramatise facts which are already in the public domain. The majority who have an interesting in horse racing already were aware of it all, the general public will just have been spooked.

The information regarding Bennett and his connection with Fallon was not in the public domain. Hence the reaction from Mark Davis of Betfair who was unaware Kenyon had knowledge of Bennetts remarkable strike rate laying Fallon horses. Also, the enhanced recordings of little Fergal made for interesting listening and again the look on his face when confronted at Haydock racecourse and told that the recordings had been enhanced and they could hear his side of the conversation was priceless!

I would have liked to see the Bennett connection explored more thoroughly but anyone who says they learned nothing new last night must have been watching a different programme.

Morgans

Did the program not introduce new evidence of Lynch's conversation with Rogers - saying that he (rogers) cost Lynch a winner?

Whenever these documentaries come out there is always a rush to say that they were pointless, that they didnt tell us anything that we didnt know already etc. One factor involved in this panorama episode that I liked was the fact that they didnt get involved in trying to educate the fan how a jockey tries to lose a race. Previously they have tried to do this, and only came across as clueless race-readers. I can always remember backing Top Cees at Newmarket in one of the controversial races (Swaffham handicap), and it was given one of the worse rides from one of the best jockeys. I accepted it as part of the game then.

Yeah, the program isnt going to result in the hanging of anyone, but I think it did a good job of reheating the same debate. The tracking of the phone calls from betfair was a good education of the lengths the wrong-doers have to go to in order to get involved in a rogers/bennett type system.

All jockeys, no exception, know when their mounts are ready. It is part of the game, but there is a difference between that and being on a retainer of gamblers who are systematically laying horses.

The more of these documentaries the better.

Bluetonic

punchestown wrote: »

The information regarding Bennett and his connection with Fallon was not in the public domain.

Of course it was. Just because it wasn't part of the court case doesn't mean that it wasn't in the public domain. To put it in other words I was aware of it and I am just a general member of the public and the person who told me is that same.

Bluetonic

Morgans wrote: »

Did the program not introduce new evidence of Lynch's conversation with Rogers - saying that he (rogers) cost Lynch a winner?

It would be interesting to see if that alleged evidence would be admissible in court or by the HRA. It was greatly enhanced and therefore it's original changed. Has a precedence been set for using this type of evidence before?

Morgans

Enhanced doesnt mean changed. It was analysed thoroughly, not changed. It wasnt mocked up, if that is the implication or defence that Fergal Lynch would decide to us.

I dont know if such evidence has been used before and I'm not really interested if it has been. The program showed one thing it was the inabilities of the police and the HRA, but what can/cannot be proved in a court of law is not going to determine my opinion of certain jockeys and their connections.

Proper racing fans can make their own judgement on it.

punchestown

Bluetonic wrote: »

Of course it was. Just because it wasn't part of the court case doesn't mean that it wasn't in the public domain. To put it in other words I was aware of it and I am just a general member of the public and the person who told me is that same.

It was not in the public domain. Many people with an interest in racing were unaware of Bennetts record on Betfair and the reaction of Mark Davis from Betfair said it all. You may be in a position of priviliged information but to the general public the information was not available.

Bluetonic

punchestown wrote: »

You may be in a position of priviliged information but to the general public the information was not available.

Someone mentioned it to me in conversation, I wouldn't say that I was in a privileged position. I presumed they read or heard it some where. He nor I have no contacts in racing aside from friends of friends who talk more than they know. I stand corrected, easy to see how I could think it was in the public domain.

Anyhow, nothing further to add to this thread.

corban

mike65 wrote: »

Hmmm he'll be trying!

/checks field and any odds

Mike.

thanks for the advice backed first choice against a strong fav prime mood and he won at 9s!!
nice one fergal..... sweet

Cantoris

Bluetonic wrote: »

Of course it was a bad program. All it did was dramatise facts which are already in the public domain. The majority who have an interesting in horse racing already were aware of it all, the general public will just have been spooked.

I think you missed my point. Every time there was any inkling that a jock had pulled a horse the famous comments "there is no suggestion that the jockey did anything wrong" were heard. It must have been mentioned about twenty times in the programme. The lawyers were all over this programme before it went out and it showed.

mike65

corban wrote: »

thanks for the advice backed first choice against a strong fav prime mood and he won at 9s!!
nice one fergal..... sweet

Did I do the same? Did I hell!

Mike.