Barry Connell rules out Fenton horses from Cheltenham

RichieLawlor

The Tullow tank now a non runner

UrbanSea

That is a horse singular richie

Bangor Billy

He has ruled out Volvalien as well so that makes two.

Colonel Sanders

http://www.sportinglife.com/racing/news/article/465/9175046/tank-out-as-fenton-case-adjourns

UrbanSea

PP to refund too

BangBeater

Facking balls.

Was looking to forward to the Tank at the Festival.

Imhof Tank

So the strategy in court was to apply for an adjournment at the last minute until a date after Cheltenham to facilitate Last Installment's Gold Cup tilt?

Although there must still be the possibility that the BHA will suspend his runners pending the trial so then what? Would Fenton and O'Leary try for an injunction in England to stop the Gold Cup being run without their horse?

Vet interesting situation brewing.

UrbanSea

Was it said there is a chance they'll suspend his runners before the trial?

ste2010

To me this is disgraceful by connell. Unless he knows for a fact the horses have been plied with something he should not have done this and might as well take the horses out of the stable...
It's the guilty until proven innocent approach

Imhof Tank

UrbanSea wrote: »

Was it said there is a chance they'll suspend his runners before the trial?

Not as far as I know, but if I was O'Leary I would be concerned

carpothepunk

Wouldnt in any way say its disgraceful. Infact, I'd have more respect for the man for taking him out knowing its infact possible he would be allowed run.

carpothepunk

BHA have received all details from the Turf Club and their own investigation is underway. Legal trial being adjourned means little to nothing to the BHA or Turf Clubs investigations.

Also, this craic of Ante Post bets being refunded. Thats bollocks. Maybe I am being old fashioned.

Imhof Tank

carpothepunk wrote: »

BHA have received all details from the Turf Club and their own investigation is underway. Legal trial being adjourned means little to nothing to the BHA or Turf Clubs investigations.

.

The British Horseracing Authority say they are liaising with the Irish Turf Club to gain as "much information as is currently available" about the Fenton case.

A statement read: "BHA are currently in possession of little in the way of information regarding the charges that Philip Fenton is facing.

"We are in contact with the Irish Turf Club with a view to gathering as much information as is currently available.

"It would be inappropriate to comment further or to speculate about this issue until we are in possession of the relevant facts."

Seeing Stars

In terms of Accumulators would trebles be treated as doubles etc...or is money back on whole bet?

Is it singles just being refunded?

Plentyofice

Define logic !!

Wealthy horse owner pays £160,000 for an 11 yr old hunter chaser in an attempt to have a cheltenham winner. Lines up as many horses as possible.

Then pulls out 2 live chances due to an issue with an "unconvicted" trainer ??

Ehhh.. Why not just leave them in ? This issue is from 2012 . ! It's not as if his horses will be blackened or tarnished as suspect if they won ?

Go ask Henderson hee hee hee ..!! (Joking)

Imhof Tank

UrbanSea wrote: »

Was it said there is a chance they'll suspend his runners before the trial?

Actually, just saw this from yesterday's IT before the adjournment:

Only 20 days away from the start of the Cheltenham festival, the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) hasn’t ruled out preventing Mr Fenton from running horses there if it feels details from the hearing are serious enough to justify such a course of action.

.................... a controversy that has already cast a massive pall over the run-up to the festival could spread further if Mr Fenton isn’t cleared, or even if the case is deferred to a later date. The BHA confirmed it has not been informed of the matter by the Turf Club which has stated they are unable to take any action until the case is completed.

The case has already been deferred twice, in December and January last. Another deferment would leave Mr Fenton able to continue to run horses in Ireland but it is not certain if the same would apply in Britain. A BHA statement said: “We are in communication with the Irish Turf Club in relation to Philip Fenton’s court appearance . . . It is not appropriate for us to comment any further on this matter at this stage, although we are conscious of the need for clarity as soon as possible in advance of next month’s Cheltenham Festival.”

However sources within the BHA suggested if details emerge in the hearing that the body believe are serious enough to warrant them preventing Mr Fenton from running horses at Cheltenham, or anywhere else in Britain, it will consider such a step.

Huntley

Barry Connell wants nothing to do with this and rightly so. He is just saving himself from the ridicule that would inevitably follow and surround his horses, and himself, at Cheltenham.

The Gigginstown brigade running their mouth off the other day was amateur hour stuff.

nuckeythompson

Imhof Tank wrote: »

So the strategy in court was to apply for an adjournment at the last minute until a date after Cheltenham to facilitate Last Installment's Gold Cup tilt?

Although there must still be the possibility that the BHA will suspend his runners pending the trial so then what? Would Fenton and O'Leary try for an injunction in England to stop the Gold Cup being run without their horse?

Vet interesting situation brewing.

A vet has already been before the courts, a fine or donation was the punishment. It was also reported in the papers at the time that they investigation would lead to more before the courts.
However this may not have anything to do with Mr Fenton. The dope was alledgelly only found on his premises - not in his horses

Imhof Tank

nuckeythompson wrote: »

A vet has already been before the courts, a fine or donation was the punishment. It was also reported in the papers at the time that they investigation would lead to more before the courts.
However this may not have anything to do with Mr Fenton. The dope was alledgelly only found on his premises - not in his horses

Well the vet in question would not have been a licenced person so nothing further the Turf Club or BHA could do vis a vis him.

Fenton is licenced. Even if he did just get a fine or donation (probation act??) from the court, I wouldn't think it would be safe to assume Turf Club/ BHA would be happy to leave it at that.

nuckeythompson

I cant see the turf club going hard on him - this is the turf club where every week we see horses not trying etc.
Over the years the turf club has only ever gone hard on people such as stable staff and where another body is involved. Chances are the TC will consider the sentence handed out by the courts deemed enough punishment.

Just compare BHA and the TC regards to punishments / bans etc handed out. Unrelated to this case but Nepotism is rife in this country

Imhof Tank

nuckeythompson wrote: »

I cant see the turf club going hard on him - this is the turf club where every week we see horses not trying etc.
Over the years the turf club has only ever gone hard on people such as stable staff and where another body is involved. Chances are the TC will consider the sentence handed out by the courts deemed enough punishment.

Just compare BHA and the TC regards to punishments / bans etc handed out. Unrelated to this case but Nepotism is rife in this country

Absolutely agree.

When Gerard Butler was banned recently the editorial in the Irish Field was HIGHLY sympathetic to him, basically that the sanction was excessive etc, etc.

There has always been tension between the 2 countries' regulators though. I remember Joe Byrne and (Timmy Ryan was it??) being banned for whip abuse at Cheltenham 30+ years ago. It was portrayed as nearly a racist incident by the Irish racing media.

nuckeythompson

its a shame really, we produce the top horses ,jockeys etc but too pig headed to learn from other countries in respect of regulating , promoting etc

I commend the BHA in its approach to weed out the undesirables from the sport , where as we consider such to be cute hoors

Imhof Tank

Post colonial fallout possibly

dicky dunne

BET365 refunding too

Starokan

I find this very strange, pulling the horses out to me would imply the owner has obtained knowledge which is not mainstream knowledge yet. It certainly does not help the public's perception of the fenton yard.

Surely most owners would let them take their chance especially given that the alleged offence was 2012 and that if anything had been up the horses in all likelihood are now virtually certain to be clean .

Very strange decision for me, cant help but feel sorry for both fenton and connell , no winners here, it should have been a great run in to cheltenham for the yard and connections

Seeing Stars

Those refunding are treating selection as void..trebles now doubles etc..

nuckeythompson

Starokan wrote: »

I find this very strange, pulling the horses out to me would imply the owner has obtained knowledge which is not mainstream knowledge yet. It certainly does not help the public's perception of the fenton yard.

Surely most owners would let them take their chance especially given that the alleged offence was 2012 and that if anything had been up the horses in all likelihood are now virtually certain to be clean .

Very strange decision for me, cant help but feel sorry for both fenton and connell , no winners here, it should have been a great run in to cheltenham for the yard and connections

O Connel is shrewd , Id say method behind madness. Maybe used as he didnt fancy the chances of winning. Anythig can be made of this such as a horse being sold , a dispute over fees etc. The list is endless but it will be interesting to see what happens to the horse after chelt. Took advantage of a situation maybe

NaiveMelodies

My first thought regarding the removal of TTT and his other one is that they obviously weren't fancied to win at the Festival. Fairly handy excuse to take them out thereafter.
I think he'd be willing to face the jibes if he really fancied TTT to win.

Harry Angstrom

I'd expect both those horses will have a new trainer next season.

Pinesky

Barry is just proving that he is a man of the highest integrity .

mdwexford

only1stevo wrote: »

My first thought regarding the removal of TTT and his other one is that they obviously weren't fancied to win at the Festival. Fairly handy excuse to take them out thereafter.
I think he'd be willing to face the jibes if he really fancied TTT to win.

What rubbish.

premierstone

Pinesky wrote: »

Barry is just proving that he is a man of the highest integrity .

Or you could argue that he has shown absolutely no loyalty to a trainer and friend who's not actually been convicted of anything.

O'Connell has known about this pending case for almost two years and had many entries with Fenton in the interim but decides to pull the plug now, when the case hits the media, sounds more like a rat jumping a sinking ship and covering their own hole than any great act of intergity.

dirkmeister

Not a good day for Connell, Matt Chapman is reporting on twitter that Minsk has died.

BumperD

dirkmeister wrote: »

Not a good day for Connell, Matt Chapman is reporting on twitter that Minsk has died.

That is horrible news.

tipptom

If I were Fenton I would put the two of the out in the field and tell him to have a box down for them within 48 hours.

hucklebuck

This doesnt stack up, if Connell has done this on integrity grounds was he kept in the dark for 2 years.

If he did know and left his horses with Fenton and waited until 3 weeks before Cheltenham its fairly stupid.

TTT (edit: dunno who I was thinking of), Last Instalment and Dunguib won very well recently.

BumperD

TTT was well beaten lto.

zpehtsfd

hucklebuck wrote: »

This doesnt stack up, if Connell has done this on integrity grounds was he kept in the dark for 2 years.

If he did know and left his horses with Fenton and waited until 3 weeks before Cheltenham its fairly stupid.

IMO he has known and is being reactive given that Cheltenham is the biggest stage in the NH calendar and this controversy will be the focal talking point, especially with Last Installment now a live GC contender. All Barry Connell is doing is disassociating himself from all of this by withdrawing his horses. Smart move if you ask me.

tipptom

I think O Connell by his actions has hung Fenton and his other owners out to dry and needs to come out with a statement on any thing else he knows about this.
Its just plain silly not to give these horses their chance next month because of something that was found two years ago that cannot be associated with any horse but he is definatly tainting all Fentons runners now by pre_emptive actions.

ste2010

It's a disgrace - if his horses aren't doped why would he pull them out and why would he worry about perception if he knows they weren't doped..it's all bullsh*t to me. If they weren't doped he should have no issue, go to Cheltenham this isn't his issue this is fentons. If he's not happy with him take them to another trainer post Cheltenham

Andalucia

Pinesky wrote: »

Barry is just proving that he is a man of the highest integrity .

couldn't agree more, the man is pure class after this
could give a few lessons to Eddie O'Leary on how to conduct himself in a professional manner

Dessie Hughes can look forward to these two recruits next year, there is no way back for the Fenton/O'Connell relationship after this

zpehtsfd

ste2010 wrote: »

It's a disgrace - if his horses aren't doped why would he pull them out and why would he worry about perception if he knows they weren't doped

He pulled them out AFTER the court case was adjourned until March 20th. The media will have a field day with this during Cheltenham and as always it'll be a case of GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. Would you as an owner want to be bang right in the middle of all this? Barry Connell decided he didn't and if people read this as him "hanging Fenton" then i believe they're misinterpreting his actions. On the other hand Eddie O'Learys response was just plain dumb.

NaiveMelodies

mdwexford wrote: »

What rubbish.

On reflection and having read the comments above and various reports elsewhere, I think it's fair to say I was indeed talking rubbish.

chinguetti

O'Connell comes out of this doing the decent thing as looking at it from the outside, its stinks like hell to have it deferred until after the festival. If he was innocent as Eddie O'Leary stated, they would want to get the case out of the way ASAP.

Can you imagine the focus on Fenton coming up to the Gold Cup as every piece will mention the story? Mud sticks and it will takes ages to wash out if he is proven innocent.

tipptom

zpehtsfd wrote: »

He pulled them out AFTER the court case was adjourned until March 20th. The media will have a field day with this during Cheltenham and as always it'll be a case of GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. Would you as an owner want to be bang right in the middle of all this? Barry Connell decided he didn't and if people read this as him "hanging Fenton" then i believe they're misinterpreting his actions. On the other hand Eddie O'Learys response was just plain dumb.

But he has known about this case for two years,why did he not act well before this.
He has basically taken the moral high ground against all the other owners with Fenton and is saying that if any of them wins there is something dodgy about them and left the whole lot of them tainted at the festival by his actions pre_trial.

Pinesky

Barry is a very successful adviser and hedge fund manager. His reputation is everything to him .
As the owner the buck stops with him , not with Fenton who is a hired hand in all of this. If there is any suspicion or hint of illegality ( which there clearly is),
he is doing the honorable thing withdrawing his horses,rather than having the Festival ruined with innuendo and conjecture.There is no disloyalty to Fenton in this action, it actually makes life easier for hint.
Barry is a shining example of doing the right thing however painful and would that the O'Learys ,Shatters and Kennys of this country take note.

gillamandango

Do ye not think he consulted Fenton before withdrawing the horses, and also it would have been Fenton who officially withdrew them.. Plain business decision by Connell..Simple as.

Andalucia

Speaking from a hypothetical perspective, if I was a owner of means aka O'Connell(wishful thinking), I would have also taken the decision to run for cover and have nothing more to do with this sorry full mess until it is resolved, particularly when it reads how the defence is going to play this case:

Declan Molan, solicitor for Fenton, told the court on Thursday morning that he wished to make submissions "in relation to the summonses themselves".

Imhof Tank

tipptom wrote: »

But he has known about this case for two years,why did he not act well before this.
He has basically taken the moral high ground against all the other owners with Fenton and is saying that if any of them wins there is something dodgy about them and left the whole lot of them tainted at the festival by his actions pre_trial.

I get the impression this 11th hour adjournment application (Gigginstown strategy) was the final straw for Barry.

If he had been told all along not to worry and that it was a storm in a tea cup and PF would be vindicated in court and the whole thing cleared up before Cheltenham I can totally understand why he might have given his trainer the benefit of the doubt. The late emergence of Last Installment as a serious GC contender, then Eddie O'Learys PR offensive against the powers that be, and then the timing of the last minute adjournment application - that doesn't tally with the storm in tea cup defence and entitled BC to reconsider the situation.

This is a huge issue I think. Gigginstown have been spoiling for a fight with the Turf Club recently over their multiple declarations policy. They have seen the power of Coolmore on the flat and would like the same treatment for themselves. They wouldn't think twice about going to law if that were necessary over this.

tipptom

Imhof Tank wrote: »

I get the impression this 11th hour adjournment application (Gigginstown strategy) was the final straw for Barry.

If he had been told all along not to worry and that it was a storm in a tea cup and PF would be vindicated in court and the whole thing cleared up before Cheltenham I can totally understand why he might have given his trainer the benefit of the doubt. The late emergence of Last Installment as a serious GC contender, then Eddie O'Learys PR offensive against the powers that be, and then the timing of the last minute adjournment application - that doesn't tally with the storm in tea cup defence and entitled BC to reconsider the situation.

This is a huge issue I think. Gigginstown have been spoiling for a fight with the Turf Club recently over their multiple declarations policy. They have seen the power of Coolmore on the flat and would like the same treatment for themselves. They wouldn't think twice about going to law if that were necessary over this.

I agree with you about Gigginstown statement but I don't think there should have been any statements from either of them before the court case and the horses should have been allowed to run.


After O Connells actions should Duguibs owners now withdraw their horse?


I feel for Dunguibs owners now that O Connell has virtually put the spotlight on them and their horse and should he win he will have taken the good out of it for them.

Motivator

At the end of the day Barry Connell pays the bills, he can do what he wants with his horses. He owes other owners & punters absolutely nothing. His purchase of Mossey Joe shows he's in the sport for enjoyment & certainly not financial gain. He is entitled to do with his horses as he wishes.

Obviously there is more to this than any of us know, I'm interested to hear if any more news comes out over the next few days.