Gordon Elliott

CH3OH

I don't believe anyone can defend what Gordon did.
It was in bad taste and disrespectful to the horse that helped him and his staff earn a living.
I struggled to find what he could be charged with. The Gardai said there was nothing to answer.
The IHRB website just states:
"The Referrals Committee of the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board is scheduled to convene on Friday 5th March 2021 to hear evidence and consider an investigation which was carried out relating to Mr. Gordon Elliott (Trainer)"

Lydia hislop writing on Sportinglife website suggests that Gordon will have to answer the IHRB tomorrow at 09:30 as they meet "to consider its case against Elliott, most likely under Rule 272 (i), addressing “behaviour… prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct or good reputation of horseracing”

I hope that he gets a fair hearing tomorrow.
I certainly don't believe that he deserves to receive an excessive punishment such as losing his licence.
He is guilty of showing incredible disrespect to the horse - nothing more. I believe that the punishment should fit the crime.
A big financial penalty, and/or donation to a relevant charity and re-education on appropriate behaviour.

Just my sixpence worth.

tipptom

Fromvert wrote: »

Elliott and the IHRB have made a mess of dealing with the fall out.

Elliott - insulting first response just angers more people and then Russell sent out to score a few own goals.

But the IHRB should not have kicked this down the road for a week, it's just allows more backlash to build and hysteria to grow. Monday morning Elliott should have been in front of them, every detail told, ban (maybe 6 months?) and a fine going to animal charity. Part time or not, this needed nipping in the bud immediately but they're a group of feet draggers. They where surely in conversation with the BHA Monday, and the BHA likely didn't like what they heard so they came out first while IHRB decided when they could meet.

He disappears for the six months, the hysteria dies down. There would still be backlash from some but most would have accepted that and it could have all moved on. Next you move on to redeeming him, media appearances down the road he shows remorse etc. etc. a few tears on the Late Late and it's sorted. Reputation takes a knock, he loses some of the horses but his business stays intact.

I think the BHA behaved like the despicable cowards in this.
They had been under severe pressurre up to the Sunday when this photo broke properly because of their silence over the Sheikh.

They must have thought this is manna from heaven and did not allow a fellow racing authority a chance to arrange due process but came out with their own statement within a day overiding another juristriction and practically demanding that owners move their horses from Elliots,which they have since rowed back on, but they got their positive publicity and dont have to go through what the IRHB have to deal with which is complex and unprecedented.

They BHA seem a lot slower and less vocal when it comes to the sheikh who has been found in a British court to have drugged,kidnapped and imprisoned his daughter on British soil and this was before he kidnapped his other daughter and the recent Panorama programme which had the BHA under so much pressure up to the GE photo breaking,this is why they rushed a statement after a day

It is a clear rule in the BHAs code of ethics that an owner must be a fit and proper person in racing and outside of racing but their silence is slow and deafening on this one,while they acted in one day about a fella sitting on a dead horse in another juristriction but have sat on the drugging and kidnapping on their own soil for two years after the court case.
The only way the BHA have intervened was to take the horses that was in her name over to the Sheiks name while his wife is in hiding on British soil in fear for her life and which a British civil court found to be well founded.

The BHAs rushed to usurp the irish racing authority after one day and could not liase with them privately was disrespectful and there was no need for it except to snatch at the opportunity to bury their own inaction and refusal to deal with the Sheikh story

It would have been like the IRHB rushing in when Nicky Henderson admitted giving illlegal drugs to the Queens horse and the IRHB rushing in to to release a statement to say he could not run his horses in ireland and tell owners to move their horses from NH if they wanted to do so before the BHA gave their verdict.
Didnt matter as it happend because the BHA waited until the main festivals were over to give him his three month ban when all his horses are out in the field.

This post is about the BHA hypocracy on how fast they move on two cases of bringing the game in to disrepute

Silly Gilly

I'm surprised Paddy Power don't have a market up for Gordo's sanction tomorrow. What do we reckon is likely to be the outcome? Lifetime ban surely heavy odds against, five years appealed down to two drifting, six months and a fine current favourite.

Any tips?

Coneygree

Silly Gilly wrote: »

I'm surprised Paddy Power don't have a market up for Gordo's sanction tomorrow. What do we reckon is likely to be the outcome? Lifetime ban surely heavy odds against, five years appealed down to two drifting, six months and a fine current favourite.

Any tips?

Tips? Saint Calvados for the Coral Cup

Silly Gilly

tipptom wrote: »

I think the BHA behaved like the despicable cowards in this.
They had been under severe pressurre up to the Sunday when this photo broke properly because of their silence over the Sheikh.

They must have thought this is manna from heaven and did not allow a fellow racing authority a chance to arrange due process but came out with their own statement within a day overiding another juristriction and practically demanding that owners move their horses from Elliots,which they have since rowed back on, but they got their positive publicity and dont have to go through what the IRHB have to deal with which is complex and unprecedented.

They BHA seem a lot slower and less vocal when it comes to the sheikh who has been found in a British court to have drugged,kidnapped and imprisoned his daughter on British soil and this was before he kidnapped his other daughter and the recent Panorama programme which had the BHA under so much pressure up to the GE photo breaking,this is why they rushed a statement after a day

It is a clear rule in the BHAs code of ethics that an owner must be a fit and proper person in racing and outside of racing but their silence is slow and deafening on this one,while they acted in one day about a fella sitting on a dead horse in another juristriction but have sat on the drugging and kidnapping on their own soil for two years after the court case.
The only way the BHA have intervened was to take the horses that was in her name over to the Sheiks name while his wife is in hiding on British soil in fear for her life and which a British civil court found to be well founded.

The BHAs rushed to usurp the irish racing authority after one day and could not liase with them privately was disrespectful and there was no need for it except to snatch at the opportunity to bury their own inaction and refusal to deal with the Sheikh story

It would have been like the IRHB rushing in when Nicky Henderson admitted giving illlegal drugs to the Queens horse and the IRHB rushing in to to release a statement to say he could not run his horses in ireland and tell owners to move their horses from NH if they wanted to do so before the BHA gave their verdict.
Didnt matter as it happend because the BHA waited until the main festivals were over to give him his three month ban when all his horses are out in the field.

This post is about the BHA hypocracy on how fast they move on two cases of bringing the game in to disrepute

Sheikh Mohammed has not been convicted of any criminal offence in the UK, or anywhere else for that matter. If the BHA had photographic evidence of him kidnapping women they would probably be quicker to act.

Silly Gilly

Coneygree wrote: »

Tips? Saint Calvados for the Coral Cup

Tips for Gordy's sentence. Any info?

tipptom

Silly Gilly wrote: »

Sheikh Mohammed has not been convicted of any criminal offence in the UK, or anywhere else for that matter. If the BHA had photographic evidence of him kidnapping women they would probably be quicker to act.

Strange that you are on another forum telling everyone of how thick everyone on this forum is and their disguting betting habits and running down Elliots family because they are panel beaters

The cherry on top is that a vegan,feminist crusty jumps to the defence of Sheikh Mohamood and his criminal violence against women to further your object of getting racing banned.Talk about warped

What you think of the Triumph,hard to work out.

Silly Gilly

tipptom wrote: »

Strange that you are on another forum telling everyone of how thick everyone on this forum is and their disguting betting habits and running down Elliots family because they are panel beaters

The cherry on top is that a vegan,feminist crusty jumps to the defence of Sheikh Mohamood and his criminal violence against women to further your object of getting racing banned.Talk about warped

What you think of the Triumph,hard to work out.

Triggered much?

I didn't run down panel beaters or Mr Elliott's family by the way. Panel beating is a fine profession. You never saw a photo of Gordo's father straddling a customer's car.

The Rooster

Looked at the pic again for the first time since it went viral. It is horrendous.

Given the unique circumstances of photographic evidence and admission of guilt by Elliott, BHA were completely right to issue a provisional temporary ban. The fact they may have done stuff wrong in the past doesn’t mean they shouldn’t take the correct course of action this time.

Hopefully no more than a 2 or 3 month ban tomorrow, which Elliott accepts and doesn’t appeal.

Silly Gilly

The Rooster wrote: »

Looked at the pic again for the first time since it went viral. It is horrendous.

Given the unique circumstances of photographic evidence and admission of guilt by Elliott, BHA were completely right to issue a provisional temporary ban. The fact they may have done stuff wrong in the past doesn’t mean they shouldn’t take the correct course of action this time.

Hopefully no more than a 2 or 3 month ban tomorrow, which Elliott accepts and doesn’t appeal.

I think the horse's lifeless stare juxtaposed with the grin on Elliott's face is the worst part myself. Fair play to you for at least admitting the issue.

Allinall

Mod edit

Silly Gilly

Mod edit

Shemale

Mod edit

Silly Gilly

Mod edit

ShamoBuc

Mod note

Kindly cut out the more personal and off topic posts please.

Thank you.

eagle eye

Two extreme sides in this thing, the he should be hung drawn and quartered side and the he shouldn't be punished crew.
Fact of the matter is he did something where the optics are awful. He has to be punished for it, the severity will be decided by looking at the reaction to it. I think he'll be banned for 12 months.

Has Jessica Harrington had anything to say about it? I'd like to hear her opinion.

tipptom

The Rooster wrote: »

Looked at the pic again for the first time since it went viral. It is horrendous.

Given the unique circumstances of photographic evidence and admission of guilt by Elliott, BHA were completely right to issue a provisional temporary ban. The fact they may have done stuff wrong in the past doesn’t mean they shouldn’t take the correct course of action this time.

Hopefully no more than a 2 or 3 month ban tomorrow, which Elliott accepts and doesn’t appeal.

They have a case from their OWN juristiction sitting on their table for the last two years that is ongoing and had come to a frenzy after the panorama programme a few weeks back

A British High Court ruled as fact that the Shekh drugged,abducted,imprisoned,tortured and intimidated his two daughters and his wife,the sheikh appealed this to the supreme court and lost,all on British soil

The same BHA rules and criteria say you have to be a fit and proper person for British racing and "the subject should not be the subject of any adverse findings in any Civil Proceedings.

So they dont deal with or make any comment on a person in their own juristiction who has drugged,abducted,tortured and intimidated three women beside the BHA office in Portman Square but rush out a statment about a another juristiction within a day while that authority was dealing with it.
By the way in their rush to try and bury their own story they tried to intimadate owners in another country to leave Elliots yard and have now had to row back on that.

It was not the correct action and there was no need for it while the IRHB was dealing with it,Elliot was been dealt with but they seized the opportunity to bury the Sheikh story


Which case do you think the BHA should be dealing with first,considering Elliot is not even licensed by them and was been dealt with by its own authority,the guy in another country sitting on a dead horse or the fella who repeatedly drugs,abducts,tortures and intimidates women etc in their own country under their own rules?

The Mig

eagle eye wrote: »

Two extreme sides in this thing, the he should be hung drawn and quartered side and the he shouldn't be punished crew.
Fact of the matter is he did something where the optics are awful. He has to be punished for it, the severity will be decided by looking at the reaction to it. I think he'll be banned for 12 months.

Has Jessica Harrington had anything to say about it? I'd like to hear her opinion.

We might get to hear her side of the story when she gets her next winner at the end of April

tipptom

eagle eye wrote: »

Two extreme sides in this thing, the he should be hung drawn and quartered side and the he shouldn't be punished crew.
Fact of the matter is he did something where the optics are awful. He has to be punished for it, the severity will be decided by looking at the reaction to it. I think he'll be banned for 12 months.

Has Jessica Harrington had anything to say about it? I'd like to hear her opinion.

Have not met one person in racing or outside it who thinks he shouldnt be punished for what he done and the bad look his idiotic move has brought on the industry

The Harringtons had nothing to do with this.

Edgware

Silly Gilly wrote: »

Sheikh Mohammed has not been convicted of any criminal offence in the UK, or anywhere else for that matter. If the BHA had photographic evidence of him kidnapping women they would probably be quicker to act.

What offence has Elliott been convicted of?

byronbay2

eagle eye wrote: »

Two extreme sides in this thing, the he should be hung drawn and quartered side and the he shouldn't be punished crew.
Fact of the matter is he did something where the optics are awful. He has to be punished for it, the severity will be decided by looking at the reaction to it. I think he'll be banned for 12 months.

I would be absolutely disgusted if he was that severely treated. What he did was crass and stupid but (imo) this incident is another example of a social-media witch hunt where people who have no real interest in the subject jump on the "outrage" bandwagon.

I personally think that a fine and awareness-training course would suffice but expect him to be suspended for a few (2-3) months, at the worst possible time for him. In reality, losing those wonderful Cheveley Park horses that he has brought along with such skill and dedication should really be punishment enough!

Widdensushi

eagle eye wrote: »

Two extreme sides in this thing, the he should be hung drawn and quartered side and the he shouldn't be punished crew.
Fact of the matter is he did something where the optics are awful. He has to be punished for it, the severity will be decided by looking at the reaction to it. I think he'll be banned for 12 months.

Has Jessica Harrington had anything to say about it? I'd like to hear her opinion.

He won't be banned for 12 months, his employees etc will get some consideration, 2 to 3 months, he has already been punished in spades.

Edgware

tipptom wrote: »

Have not met one person in racing or outside it who thinks he shouldnt be punished for what he done and the bad look his idiotic move has brought on the industry

The Harringtons had nothing to do with this.

He has to be and deserves to be punished but it hardly deserves a punishment more severe than that dished out for pulling horses or having banned substances in the stables

Silly Gilly

Edgware wrote: »

What offence has Elliott been convicted of?

None. I'd agree with tipptom that it is hypocritical from the BHA but it is a hugely hypocritical industry at the best of times. The Sheik story was not plastered on the front pages of tabloids. It's on the Guardian and even then you have to join the dots to implicate racing. Elliott's mistake was a visceral image of contempt for the very animals his livelihood is built on. A picture paints a thousand words.

This is now about racing's reputation with the general public. It is why I'd have thought he is going to get longer than 2 to 3 months.

Limestone1

tipptom wrote: »

Have not met one person in racing or outside it who thinks he shouldnt be punished for what he done and the bad look his idiotic move has brought on the industry

The Harringtons had nothing to do with this.

you shouldn't be meeting people these days:) but leaving aside the facetiousness: The people, outside racing, that I have spoken to are mostly confused that the photo has generated so much publicity. i.e whats the big deal .......

tipptom

Edgware wrote: »

He has to be and deserves to be punished but it hardly deserves a punishment more severe than that dished out for pulling horses or having banned substances in the stables

It shouldnt but the baying mobs thirst will have to be sated.

This is why i have symphaty for a change for the IRHB,this offence should be way lower than the offences you say and there is no cruelty or welfare issue

Its unprecedented and complex and though i think they could have dealt with it wednesday or today they were right to wait ,now that thing are calmer i think everyone with a bit of sanity would settle for 6 months

I just hope the red tops are not sitting on something for maximum effect on Sunday to get it going again

Widdensushi

Silly Gilly wrote: »

None. I'd agree with tipptom that it is hypocritical from the BHA but it is a hugely hypocritical industry at the best of times. The Sheik story was not plastered on the front pages of tabloids. It's on the Guardian and even then you have to join the dots to implicate racing. Elliott's mistake was a visceral image of contempt for the very animals his livelihood is built on. A picture paints a thousand words.

This is now about racing's reputation with the general public. It is why I'd have thought he is going to get longer than 2 to 3 months.

Enslaved humans are acceptable, sitting on a dead horse is not, good to know, I must buy a couple of!!!!!!So I won't be a moral despicable.

I says

Look he’s paying a heavy price for his stupidity and his staff also for his acting the gob5h1te. I don’t know him from Adam but this looks like the act of someone who is still immature. He’ll get a year and a hefty fine for this. The image is dreadful there is no excuse for it. As a wise man offered me this advice as a young fella
When you’re 20 act 20, when you’re 30 act 30 and when you’re 40 stop acting the bollox.

Widdensushi

I says wrote: »

Look he’s paying a heavy price for his stupidity and his staff also for his acting the gob5h1te. I don’t know him from Adam but this looks like the act of someone who is still immature. He’ll get a year and a hefty fine for this. The image is dreadful there is no excuse for it. As a wise man offered me this advice as a young fella
When you’re 20 act 20, when you’re 30 act 30 and when you’re 40 stop acting the bollox.

It's only an image, of a presumably well treated animal beyond care, he seems immature I agree, but a year ban for posing for a photo, no evidence of a mistreated animal etc, would be a total overreaction, I presume you are recommending hefty jail sentences for any owners of mistreated living pets?

frank8211

CH3OH wrote: »

I don't believe anyone can defend what Gordon did.
It was in bad taste and disrespectful to the horse that helped him and his staff earn a living.
I struggled to find what he could be charged with. The Gardai said there was nothing to answer.
The IHRB website just states:
"The Referrals Committee of the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board is scheduled to convene on Friday 5th March 2021 to hear evidence and consider an investigation which was carried out relating to Mr. Gordon Elliott (Trainer)"

Lydia hislop writing on Sportinglife website suggests that Gordon will have to answer the IHRB tomorrow at 09:30 as they meet "to consider its case against Elliott, most likely under Rule 272 (i), addressing “behaviour… prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct or good reputation of horseracing”

I hope that he gets a fair hearing tomorrow.
I certainly don't believe that he deserves to receive an excessive punishment such as losing his licence.
He is guilty of showing incredible disrespect to the horse - nothing more. I believe that the punishment should fit the crime.
A big financial penalty, and/or donation to a relevant charity and re-education on appropriate behaviour.

Just my sixpence worth.

But there is the stuff to come out and being held until after that is resolved