Oh Dear , Is Charles a naughty boy ??

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".

Slattsy

Coneygree wrote: »

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".

I'm sorry what's this now?

The Mig

Leave at Dawn in Mall Dini's Pertemps

IAMAMORON

Pogue eile wrote: »

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.

I mean what I said.

I find it uncomfortable that only these small yards are getting caught out and then been pulled to all and sundry as evidence that the HRI are doing their job.

Don't make me laugh. The HRI are a gang of fat cats - John Delaney stuff. They are not going to piss in their own soup - that is the problem.

The way I see it there is not enough transparency throughout racing. How come punters are not being made aware of what stables are being tested? How come testing results are not being made public as and when they happen?

It is all well and good having a few bad guy nobodies getting carted out and labelled as cheats, but everyone knows it is tip of the iceberg stuff. I tell you one thing, nothing will be done about it until the HRI gets a shake up - bring it on.

Slattsy

People are saying he was stopped?

Coneygree

Slattsy wrote: »

People are saying he was stopped?

That's supposedly who Walsh was alluding to in the article.

The Mig

Slattsy wrote: »

People are saying he was stopped?

According to the rumour mill, yes!

IAMAMORON

Yeah because pulling an 11/2 shot in a big handicap at Cheltenham is really what is going down?

Phucking garbage for starters.

That is not where the corruption is. Albeit it sits nicely with dragging Charles Byrnes through the mud. Bullshight of the highest order.

Owners and trainers don't be in the game to send one to a championship meeting to pull a stroke .... at 2/11 on? ..... lololololololol , tell me another. Phuck sake there are another 23 horsies in the race to beat for starters?

Rubbish bullshight and the journalist who wrote it needs to remove his head from whatever arse it is sitting in.

Coneygree

Tbh David Walsh has no credibility any more. He was great in piling the pressure on Lance Armstrong but he'd the exact same opportunity to do the same with Wiggins, Froome and Sky and said everything was above board when it so clearly wasn't, which was later proven by their top two cyclists being involved in scandals.

Saying that, is it possible Charlie and Geraghty pulled a fast on Leaving At Dawn? Absolutely. I don't and have never bought this craic that "oh they'd never do it at Cheltenham, they'd only do it in somewhere like Ballinrobe".

IAMAMORON

Coneygree wrote: »

Saying that, is it possible Charlie and Geraghty pulled a fast on Leaving At Dawn? Absolutely. I don't and have never bought this craic that "oh they'd never do it at Cheltenham, they'd only do it in somewhere like Ballinrobe".

They can pull strokes anywhere they like.

The only smidgeon I could give the story is that the markets at Cheltenham are massive and as such there is scope to lay more money without things being scrutinised.

Geraghty wouldn't need to know either, all you do is run the horse for 3 miles at full pelt that morning, job done.

It is a rumour and papers never ever refused ink.

Slattsy

Sounds like nonsense. Googled his form there, he never raced again! That story belongs in the conspiracy theory bin.