Oh Dear , Is Charles a naughty boy ??

mountai

Does anyone seriously believe that Charles nobbled one of his own horses??

Kauto

He will get off on appeal.

Once again they go after a mid tier trainer. They wouldn't dare bring down one of the bigger names.

The Tetrarch

The previous race at Sedgefield was also interesting.
Viking Hoard finished 4th of 5. His price drifted from 9/2 out to 10/1, and was beaten 9 1/2 lengths.
In running comments "Held up in touch, reminder after 2nd, pushed along after 4th, ridden after 3 out, soon no impression (op 9/2 tchd 10/1)".
A horse that has to be giver a reminder after the 2nd, and then pushed along after the 4th could not have been in top form.

And the race before that was also interesting.
The horse was joint favourite.
In running comments "detached in rear after 4th, tailed off when pulled up after 4 out, never travelled". Pulled up.

The race before that he won
"ridden clear before 2 out, kept on strongly run-in, comfortably (op 3/1 tchd 100/30 and 11/4)"

The form does appear to be a bit in and out. :pac:

mountai

Kauto wrote: »

He will get off on appeal.

Once again they go after a mid tier trainer. They wouldn't dare bring down one of the bigger names.

Totally agree with you . I would consider Jim Bolger knows a lot more than the so called guardians of the galaxy .

paddy no 11

mountai wrote: »

Totally agree with you . I would consider Jim Bolger knows a lot more than the so called guardians of the galaxy .

Some trainers are too big to fail, Fenton and byrnes will get no traction in main stream media

Kauto

paddy no 11 wrote: »

Some trainers are too big to fail, Fenton and byrnes will get no traction in main stream media

Too big fail is right. Would destroy the game in Ireland if they got one of the big lads.

Hard to believe Jim is squeaky clean either as you have no chance unless your at it.

RivetingRoger

If I am understanding this correctly, CB is not so much accused of sedating the horse so much as not protecting the horse from someone else sedating it???

hurdles1

Byrnes has a colourful past in the Racing and betting game. A lot of stuff not adding up here.
Talk of horse with levels over 100 times legal limit of ACP. Talk of a shady individual living miles away in foreign shores laying bets through betfair agents. Hard to believe someone would risk life and limb of a jockeyvand horse for the small ammounts of money on winnings mentioned and with so many people involved.
Its nothing like a curley gamble on multiple horses and a big number of people involved
But winnings in the millions and worthwhile for everyone to get paid.
A lot more going on here.....

simongurnick

hurdles1 wrote: »

Byrnes has a colourful past in the Racing and betting game. A lot of stuff not adding up here.
Talk of horse with levels over 100 times legal limit of ACP. Talk of a shady individual living miles away in foreign shores laying bets through betfair agents. Hard to believe someone would risk life and limb of a jockeyvand horse for the small ammounts of money on winnings mentioned and with so many people involved.
Its nothing like a curley gamble on multiple horses and a big number of people involved
But winnings in the millions and worthwhile for everyone to get paid.
A lot more going on here.....

Probably just the tip of the iceberg. 10 grand here and there can add up quick, especially when you are guaranteed to win

IAMAMORON

simongurnick wrote: »

Probably just the tip of the iceberg. 10 grand here and there can add up quick, especially when you are guaranteed to win

I still don't understand the concept that they needed to dope the horse to make sure it underperformed.

In reality if you want a horse to underperform just run the chunt of a thing for 5 miles that morning at full gallop, job done. He will hardly leave his box after that?

I don't get the sophisticated drug conspiracy required to win 3 grand by laying a horse at 8/1 - it does not add up? How come it took 2 years and a bit of stirring from the media to land him in it? 2 years is a lot of horse racing in the meantime.

simongurnick

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I still don't understand the concept that they needed to dope the horse to make sure it underperformed.

In reality if you want a horse to underperform just run the chunt of a thing for 5 miles that morning at full gallop, job done. He will hardly leave his box after that?

I don't get the sophisticated drug conspiracy required to win 3 grand by laying a horse at 8/1 - it does not add up? How come it took 2 years and a bit of stirring from the media to land him in it? 2 years is a lot of horse racing in the meantime.

Yeah, fair points man. More going on here, which we will probably never know

Kauto

Something doesn't really tally. Drugging a horse to win 10k when he has bet multiplies of that in one bet countless times over the years.....

Have no doubt his horses are on the go go juice when the money is down but would
Wonder on this occasion if someone else was involved.

Kauto

Denis Hogan next.......

It seems the authorities are not letting that go either and proper order.

realdanbreen

Some of ye are beginning to sound a bit like Trump after the US election.
Maybe a few facts before ye start slandering trainers.

Kauto

realdanbreen wrote: »

Some of ye are beginning to sound a bit like Trump after the US election.
Maybe a few facts before ye start slandering trainers.

Facts are secondary

Justin10

Putting drugs in the horses system doesn't make much sense, as said before, either walk him that morning, or leave him in his box for a few weeks before the race.

Drugs aside, running horses that have no intention of winning, and then trainers and associates laying the horse is a huge problem.

chinguetti

Looks like the recent press attention did bring some good in that the report is very detailed and they laid it out step by step so hopefully those kind of judgments become the norm.

Also looks like they have now decided that if you leave a horse unattended at the races, you are going to have a fairly good reason then just going for food to do so the onus is on the trainer to have someone looking after the horses at the races. Whoever did nobbled the horse didn't seem to know what they were doing at all as well with the dose administered.

Anyone know how many outstanding cases have yet to reach a conclusion?

mountai

Its a well know fact that Byrnes is a gambler . As a trainer , he is out on his own insofar as setting up a horse to win a race . This obviously entails a lot of elements that have to come right on the day , Jockey , weight , distance and conditions etc . Primarily though , the animal has to be in top condition to ensure the success of the " Gamble" . So , its a contradiction to me , that he would risk harming the health of any horse in his charge by dosing it to the extent that the Racing Board has exposed in this instance . IMHO he is professional enough to , that , if he were going to drug the horse , he would be aware of the amount of drug to administer . Now lets be honest here , of course he "Stops" horses all the time , but SO DOES EVERY OTHER TRAINER IN THE COUNTRY . Its part of the game and we all know it . Anyone who read the article by David Walsh recently , can see the obvious bias that is in favor of the "Princes" of the industry , and the point made earlier about the medium and small trainer , being made to carry the can is 100% . Most Trainers , have the interests of animals in their charge as no 1 priority and I believe CB is no different .

The Tetrarch

Just an idea.
If I can't drug the horses in the racecourse stables can I do it in the horsebox in the car park?
Change of plan.

IAMAMORON

Kauto wrote: »

Denis Hogan next.......

It seems the authorities are not letting that go either and proper order.

My biggest worry is that they are going to bury this episode by screwing some of the smaller yards.

They have to start somewhere, but I would like to see more transparency over who they are testing and when they are testing them.

They also need to have an independent panel of testers. I reckon the top Vets are all on the wink and the nod as well, the crooked phuckers. Who is going to put it up to them?

Kauto

IAMAMORON wrote: »

My biggest worry is that they are going to bury this episode by screwing some of the smaller yards.

They have to start somewhere, but I would like to see more transparency over who they are testing and when they are testing them.

They also need to have an independent panel of testers. I reckon the top Vets are all on the wink and the nod as well, the crooked phuckers. Who is going to put it up to them?

The will isn't there to put it up to them!! Not much will happen over the Byrnes episode. Not a particularly big fish and not greatly liked.

The real big players are far too powerful to bring down and they will be protected rightly or wrongly.

Kauto

As for the Byrnes episode, it all seems a bit amateurish. On this occasion I would say someone went rouge and he has been scapegoated.
Something very off about it.

The Tetrarch

IAMAMORON wrote: »

They also need to have an independent panel of testers. I reckon the top Vets are all on the wink and the nod as well, the crooked phuckers. Who is going to put it up to them?

It is like the three card trick, but with a twist. Any card you pick is a winner.

Pick one of these and you go free

• it was the vet
• it was contaminated feed
• the animal produced the result themselves

IAMAMORON

The Tetrarch wrote: »

It is like the three card trick, but with a twist. Any card you pick is a winner.

Pick one of these and you go free

• it was the vet
• it was contaminated feed
• the animal produced the result themselves

You are forgetting the trump card.

" hey mickey... I am scheduled for a test at your fellas place on Tuesday week, you might give them the heads up will yah ? "

" oh , by the way , our man in the other yard told me his is going at 5 o'clock in Roscommon on Friday week, I will text ya the name at half 4 ... the owners are looking to get on.... "

" will you give dirty chuntface a ring there about the new batch of feed for the other crooked chunt up the way there, thanks , see ya on the Curragh on Saturday, send my wishes to all ,,,, byyyyyyyyeeeee. "

It is riddled.

MyStubbleItches

IAMAMORON wrote: »

You are forgetting the trump card.

" hey mickey... I am scheduled for a test at your fellas place on Tuesday week, you might give them the heads up will yah ? "

" oh , by the way , our man in the other yard told me his is going at 5 o'clock in Roscommon on Friday week, I will text ya the name at half 4 ... the owners are looking to get on.... "

" will you give dirty chuntface a ring there about the new batch of feed for the other crooked chunt up the way there, thanks , see ya on the Curragh on Saturday, send my wishes to all ,,,, byyyyyyyyeeeee. "

It is riddled.

I take it you’re single.

Rabbit Redux

It's astonishing that only one track in Ireland (Leopardstown) has full CCTV in its racecourse stable yard. Every racecourse in Britain is required to have it. The administration of the sport is amateurish. The IHRB needs overhauling.

Kauto

Rabbit Redux wrote: »

It's astonishing that only one track in Ireland (Leopardstown) has full CCTV in its racecourse stable yard. Every racecourse in Britain is required to have it. The administration of the sport is amateurish. The IHRB needs overhauling.

Tramore has CCTV since 2019!

mountai

Interesting follow up by David Walsh in an article in sports section in yesterdays Sunday Times . In the article , he compares the HRI enquiry into the famous " Two Shoes Foxrock " incident back in 2014 . It will be remembered that the reason for this enquiry , was the poor running of Foxrock in the GBS chase in Punchestown . Reason given was that the horse lost its two front shoes in the race and this contributed to its poor showing . In the paddock , after the race , CCTV showed that the horse had indeed got its shoes intact . The horse however lost these shoes , on the short walk from the parade ring to the Vets stable on the course !!! . Heres where it gets interesting . Aiden Obrien and Willie Mullins gave evidence in defense of Walsh , and the case against Walshe collapsed . I wonder will the bould Ted come to Byrnes defense , as HRI has obviously not held Byrnes responsible for nobbling his own horse . So they ban Byrnes and Ted gets off scot free ?? .

Pogue eile

mountai wrote: »

Interesting follow up by David Walsh in an article in sports section in yesterdays Sunday Times . In the article , he compares the HRI enquiry into the famous " Two Shoes Foxrock " incident back in 2014 . It will be remembered that the reason for this enquiry , was the poor running of Foxrock in the GBS chase in Punchestown . Reason given was that the horse lost its two front shoes in the race and this contributed to its poor showing . In the paddock , after the race , CCTV showed that the horse had indeed got its shoes intact . The horse however lost these shoes , on the short walk from the parade ring to the Vets stable on the course !!! . Heres where it gets interesting . Aiden Obrien and Willie Mullins gave evidence in defense of Walsh , and the case against Walshe collapsed . I wonder will the bould Ted come to Byrnes defense , as HRI has obviously not held Byrnes responsible for nobbling his own horse . So they ban Byrnes and Ted gets off scot free ?? .

There is absolutely no comparrison between the two though, in the recent case there is irrefutable evidence of wrongdoing, the only question that remains open is who. In the Foxrock case there is no proof of any wrong doing.

I read the same article and to be honest its shockingly poorly written, I'm not claiming that racing is squeaky clean and the reality is any sport or indeed any facet of life where there is money involved will have some degree of cheating, its human nature. But the article in question has more holes in it than a swiss cheese and the last part of the article where he claims that there is a well known case of an Irish trained fav. in Cheltenham being stopped by the jockey is patethic, either name the horse or stop talking bollo*

mountai

You might have read the article , but did you read between the lines?? . to say that it is " Poorly written " ?? . David Walsh is one of the most respected sports writers and analysts this country has ever produced . HRI wont be pleased with his attention and I bet there is far more to come on this matter .

posturingpat

I was listening to the Betfair podcast with Tony Calvin and Kevin Blake. They mentioned David Walshs article and I don't know if it was the same article or a different one but talk of Walsh writing about a favourite being a non jigger in a Cheltenham festival handicap.
Has anyone got a link to the story or can she more light?

Pogue eile

mountai wrote: »

You might have read the article , but did you read between the lines?? . to say that it is " Poorly written " ?? . David Walsh is one of the most respected sports writers and analysts this country has ever produced . HRI wont be pleased with his attention and I bet there is far more to come on this matter .

I couldnt give a fiddlers who respects him, the article is embarrassing.

Read between the lines....is that code for he has absolutely no evidence what so ever and is throwing shi* against a wall. If he has the courage of his convinctions then spit it out.

The following line is like a scolded child lashing out;

There is also a belief in Irish racing, held by many in a position to know, that within the past five years a favourite for one of the handicaps at the Cheltenham Festival was stopped.

No sedative was necessary. Just a jockey doing as he was told.

It is also very clear from the article that he doesn't know his subject very well.

Pogue eile

posturingpat wrote: »

I was listening to the Betfair podcast with Tony Calvin and Kevin Blake. They mentioned David Walshs article and I don't know if it was the same article or a different one but talk of Walsh writing about a favourite being a non jigger in a Cheltenham festival handicap.
Has anyone got a link to the story or can she more light?

See above

famagusta

Pogue eile wrote:

There is also a belief in Irish racing, held by many in a position to know, that within the past five years a favourite for one of the handicaps at the Cheltenham Festival was stopped.

Ya that line is a joke, no names, proof etc

mountai

Well what I took from reading between the lines . In the enquiry into the Foxrock incident , there was clear camera evidence , that supported the fact , that the horse did NOT shed its shoes during the race , and because Obrien and Mullins supported Walsh , he got away with it .
On the other hand , due to lack of camera evidence , its considered just to ban Byrnes for 6 months .

Pogue eile

mountai wrote: »

Well what I took from reading between the lines . In the enquiry into the Foxrock incident , there was clear camera evidence , that supported the fact , that the horse did NOT shed its shoes during the race , and because Obrien and Mullins supported Walsh , he got away with it .
On the other hand , due to lack of camera evidence , its considered just to ban Byrnes for 6 months .

What did Walsh get away with?

mountai

Pogue eile wrote: »

What did Walsh get away with?

Any censure regarding the running of his horse . After all , thats what the enquiry was about . The camera doesnt lie you know !!

Pogue eile

mountai wrote: »

Any censure regarding the running of his horse . After all , thats what the enquiry was about . The camera doesnt lie you know !!

lol so you have camera evidence of Walsh taking the shoes off the horse?


Lets be honest the running of Foxrock in the race at hand was as dodgy as feck but the case brought against him re the shoes was silly and was never going to be able to be proven.

As for the 'reading between the lines' it is supposed to be an investigative reporter writing an expose, either he has evidence or he doesnt, if I want to read between the lines I'll do the cryptic crossword.

zpehtsfd

mountai wrote: »

Well what I took from reading between the lines . In the enquiry into the Foxrock incident , there was clear camera evidence , that supported the fact , that the horse did NOT shed its shoes during the race , and because Obrien and Mullins supported Walsh , he got away with it .
On the other hand , due to lack of camera evidence , its considered just to ban Byrnes for 6 months .

The Foxrock incident was an absolute joke and Walsh was very lucky to get away with it. Some very irate punters let them know that too on the day I remember being told. A blatant non-trier. Was delighted when he got done in the PP next run.

zpehtsfd

If the other trainers didn't corroborate Walsh's story then he would have be done.
It's that simple. Everyone and their mother knew he was protecting his mark for the PP. He was very lucky.

mountai

Pogue eile wrote: »

lol so you have camera evidence of Walsh taking the shoes off the horse?


Lets be honest the running of Foxrock in the race at hand was as dodgy as feck but the case brought against him re the shoes was silly and was never going to be able to be proven.

As for the 'reading between the lines' it is supposed to be an investigative reporter writing an expose, either he has evidence or he doesnt, if I want to read between the lines I'll do the cryptic crossword.

For an informed punter you really dont get it do you ? . The enquiry in Walshes case wasnt about the "Shoes" . It was about the poor showing during the race of Foxrock . The defense case was that it lost its front shoes during the race . Camera evidence showed this didnt happen . The shoes were removed between the paddock and the vets box , yet who else had a motive for this situation ?? . Mullins or Obrien ??? . Dont think so !!!!

Pogue eile

mountai wrote: »

For an informed punter you really dont get it do you ? . The enquiry in Walshes case wasnt about the "Shoes" . It was about the poor showing during the race of Foxrock . The defense case was that it lost its front shoes during the race . Camera evidence showed this didnt happen . The shoes were removed between the paddock and the vets box , yet who else had a motive for this situation ?? . Mullins or Obrien ??? . Dont think so !!!!

I am afraid it is you that dont get it!

The running of the horse was as I said earlier as dodgy as feck, Walsh claimed the horse lost two shoes during the race, when this was proved not to be the case they went all out to prove he had removed the shoes when there was no evidence of this, all they had to do was to pursue the original charge of deliberaltey stoping a horse running to obtain the best position.

They thought they had Walsh by the short and curlies, went for the big hit and ended up with nothing.

I am still baffled by what this has to do with the C Byrnes case though, or the ludicrous half claim of a facourite being pulled in Cheltenham in the last 5 years?

mountai

Well you are rolling back a bit there old son . You previously said " The case brought against him RE THE SHOES was silly " . It was NEVER about the shoes . Hope youve gotten that by now . What I find strange about all this is . Byrnes is considered guilty of an offence , due to lack of camera evidence , yet Walsh ( the Media Darling) with connections of the Racing Royalty gets away with it DESPITE the camera evidence . So HRI in their wisdom assume Byrnes is guilty , but Walsh was innocent !!!. As to other matters , you can be sure if David Walsh decides to do a proper investigation , he will uncover facts that HRI might wish to be left buried .

Pogue eile

mountai wrote: »

Well you are rolling back a bit there old son . You previously said " The case brought against him RE THE SHOES was silly " . It was NEVER about the shoes . Hope youve gotten that by now . What I find strange about all this is . Byrnes is considered guilty of an offence , due to lack of camera evidence , yet Walsh ( the Media Darling) with connections of the Racing Royalty gets away with it DESPITE the camera evidence . So HRI in their wisdom assume Byrnes is guilty , but Walsh was innocent !!!. As to other matters , you can be sure if David Walsh decides to do a proper investigation , he will uncover facts that HRI might wish to be left buried .

Thanks David. Very insightful as always.

Pogue eile

mountai wrote: »

Well you are rolling back a bit there old son . You previously said " The case brought against him RE THE SHOES was silly " . It was NEVER about the shoes.

I will quote the masterpiece that is so well written;

The stewards reopened the case. They accused Ted Walsh of removing or securing the removal of the front shoes from Foxrock “once he was alerted to the stewards’ enquiry into the running and riding of the horse”, and of having “concealed from the Turf Club and misled [its] officers and stewards as to the true circumstances in which the shoes were removed”.

I know you are more of a 'reading between the lines' man, but surely even you can grasp that the stewards made it about the shoes, when that should have only been the secondary case, the real case was the running of the horse.

Andalucia

zpehtsfd wrote: »

If the other trainers didn't corroborate Walsh's story then he would have be done.
It's that simple. Everyone and their mother knew he was protecting his mark for the PP. He was very lucky.

The omerta was in action for this one alright, the most ridiculous scenario presented and supported by two champion trainers. They all agree not to spit in the soup.

The Tetrarch

Rabbit Redux wrote: »

It's astonishing that only one track in Ireland (Leopardstown) has full CCTV in its racecourse stable yard. Every racecourse in Britain is required to have it. The administration of the sport is amateurish. The IHRB needs overhauling.

The Chief Executive of HRI has been in the job since 2001.
The Chief Executive of IHRB* has been in the job since 2001.
*previously the Turf Club

They are both accountants.
As an ex Chartered Accountant I probably should say accountants are great (they are ).
I think both these were working in those organisations (or other racing organisations) as accountants and just moved across into the positions.
They were not hired as chief executives. They were hired as accountants.

dicky dunne

http://https://www.racingpost.com/news/bha-insists-hogan-runners-are-not-being-singled-out-after-ayr-pre-race-inquiry/389437

"The only other trainers who have been subject to similar pre-race interviews this year are Ronan McNally and Charles Byrnes, also based in Ireland."

Hmmm a likely trio - Hogan, Byrnes and McNally

IAMAMORON

dicky dunne wrote: »

http://https://www.racingpost.com/news/bha-insists-hogan-runners-are-not-being-singled-out-after-ayr-pre-race-inquiry/389437

"The only other trainers who have been subject to similar pre-race interviews this year are Ronan McNally and Charles Byrnes, also based in Ireland."

Hmmm a likely trio - Hogan, Byrnes and McNally

Blame hounds and scapegoats for the rest of them.

Pogue eile

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Blame hounds and scapegoats for the rest of them.

Link is not working for me, but come on all three are shall we say 'of interest' when it comes to questionable running of their horses and betting paterns.

Hogan's I have noticed a lot of them are shortened considerably over night or early in the morning only to dirft right back out before the off and always finish nowhere near the front.

Coneygree

I've heard whispers about that Irish handicapper that was stopped in Cheltenham but I could never find too much proof to back it up. Would have been pounded into lots of accas with other favourites though so it might be fresh from the same cloth of the "Ruby hopped off Annie Power".