Bob I know you know after you being one of the few successful owners on here.are you now thinking of setting up a stud farm

I phone bob. Fan gone on the laptop.what happened to your massive collaboration with elite racing club.were they too small an outfit for your plans of global equine domination

private bob 03 Sep 13 08:16 

Sep 3, 2013 -- 1:49AM, chavman wrote:

Kieran gallon ain't the go to jockey anymore if you want to land a touch.better up and coming jocks.simples as a lot of you are

chav, to land a touch now,the horse does not need to win,so you could still go to fallon for it to be unplaced,touch achieved.

More comedy gold here.....So let's think using some logic instead of being overly dramatic and I'm a shady character who wants to book a jockey to get my horse beaten so that I can lay it for bundles on here. I know what I'll do, I won't use a bit of common sense and get a low profile jockey who can do so and sneak it under the radar, I'll go for the highest profile name who was accused (and found innocent btw) of this kind of thing because clearly nobody will be scrutinising his every ride from now on will they? I don't actually think that's what they mean by the expression he's the "go to" man when they are on about jockeys.

Do some of you even stop to think about the nonsense you post up on here before doing so?

I think Falon would feel very insulted if people thought that all his sh!te rides were triers.

He'd probably take you to court for defamation and say he was following instructions.

He seems daft enough.

anytimeatall.

Ima Mug, i don't recall anyone saying that Fallon would never ride a winner again. Most of us know he's nowhere near as good as he was 10 years ago. You continue to argue otherwise when the evidence is right in front of your eyes.

hes one of the very few jocks to ride more than 200 winners in a season more than once,now he struggled to make 50

shyte =hanagan.

*prove*

ima sorry to ask this question but it's not fair to debate things with people if they're not right but you are all there aren't you?

There's 2 months left of the season and evening racing is practically finished. How many more winners do you think he's going to ride? Another 104?

Hanagan doesn't ride as many winners because he's moved from up north where Fahey was giving him a bucketload of winners to down south where he's committed to riding Hamdan horses. Similarly De Sousa is now committed to Godolphin when he wasn't 2 years ago. It's got nothing to do with priorities. Do you seriously believe Fallon isn't interested in the jockeys title if he could get the rides he needed to compete for it?

And how the hell is it unfortunate to compare him to Graham Gibbons? Far more unfortunate to make an argument about people's priorities changing in one breath and then using stats from last season to supposedly back up your argument in the next breath I'd say.

Bloody hell Ima....

There's nothing wrong with his riding he's as good as ever.

Would you risk putting him up on a horse that you'd got ready to win?

I'll make this really simple for you ima. You came on here absolutely bursting to gleefully tell us that this one winner proved your point about Fallon being good enough if the horse was. It was you who posted just the 50 winners so far then as if that was meant to impress everyone.

It's absolutely fine if you believe one ride completely vindicates your argument but if your barometer is going to be one ride then you have to accept it's also perfectly valid for people to use one ride to claim that he's useless. Personally I think the 350 losing rides provides a greater sample size to form an opinion that his level has fallen from where it used to be.

It was also you who called me premature about the number of winners he's ridden suggesting you believe he'll ride a lot more. You've now given a figure of 80. Given he's ridden 50 in just short of 6 months including 4 months of evening racing I think it's highly optimistic to believe he'll ride another 30 in 2 months but it's your opinion. The likelihood is that he'll struggle to finish in the top 20 this year and to hit 70 winners.

As for Fallon scaling things down his intention at the start of last season was to go for it. He was quoted at 7/2 to be champion jockey at the start of the 2012 season. Rather than him making any decision to not go for it the decision was somewhat made for him when more and more trainers started looking elsewhere.

The difference between Hanagan and De Sousa compared to Fallon is that whilst their number of winners have decreased their strike rates haven't. Hanagan's has remained at 15% for the last 3 seasons whilst De Sousa's has gone from 16% to 15% and up to 20% this season. That's despite the fact they've arguably gone up a level in the kind of competition they regularly face now compared to a couple of years ago. Fallon's has gone from 16%-14%-12%. Whilst the quality of horses he's riding may have fallen the number of favourites he rides compares very well to other jockeys with a similar number of mounts. He may often be riding in lower classes of races than he's used to but there's nothing to suggest he's getting on loads of unfancied horses in those races.

Rather than mocking Graham Gibbons I was pointing out to you that in 2 years Fallon has gone from challenging for the jockeys title to competing to get in the top 20. Do you think he's satisfied with that? Even in that Guardian interview the other week he was talking about things he can do to improve and more importantly rediscover some sharpness. He knows he's not riding at the same level he used to, I know it, most on here know it but you still seem unable to accept it.

ima_mazed66   

Perhaps those few big race winners weren’t expected? And anyway in those sorts of races the jockeys gets a good cut of the prize money for winning themselves.   

It's not the decent rides he gives that we're talking about anyway.

The fact remains that he isn't getting the quality rides that a jockey of his calibre should be getting.

Which speaks for itself.

Perhaps Stoute read him the riot act?

The fact remains that Stoute's owners had him stood down.

Dr Crippen,

I do know that many owners have felt let down by Fallon because he has failed to turn up to work the horse and at times used the stuck in traffic excuse and not made the track.
For many mud sticks whether its true or not and some trainers such as Sir Mark Prescott with his military style agenda does all he can to do Fallon down with owners and other trainers alike.
The fact remains Fallon has many fans amongst the racing fraternity but does not hold back to those who he thinks are overbearing and too uppity for their own good.
He lost his job at Ballydoyle not because of a fear of cheating but because of double booking and the constant attendance of controversy.
His standing as a decent human being has never been in question from those that know the man, nor has his extremely high standing as a jockey of very rare ability.

ima I'm bored with all this to be honest.

I'll be clear about this again. You came on here yesterday and posted that one winner proved that if the horse was good enough then so was Fallon. It didn't prove anything at all other than he rode a winner. You wanted us all to believe that one winner proved that he is as good as ever. My point about the 350 losers, and please get this into your head this time, gives a far greater sample size for people with an alternative view to choose rides to prove their argument about him. The number of losers Hughes and Moore ride have nothing to do with this. The whole point is you wanted to go overboard about one Fallon winner.

Your problem is that you have become so entrenched with your view that you're reduced to rushing to triumphantly post that your argument has been vindicated just because he has one winner. As far as I'm concerned he's not as good as he was but I don't have to rush on here and post that my view has been proved every time he rides a bad race. I've made a few general posts in the past about him not being as good as he was but I'm pretty sure Saturday was the first time I've posted about a specific ride of his. That of course is contrary to you who feels compelled to write multi million word essays to tell us all why he hasn't ridden a bad race whenever anyone on here dares to question him.

Another thing to get into your head about Hanagan and De Souza. Yes they are now riding better quality horses but in races against a lot more quality horses than they used to up north and also against more of the top jockeys day to day than they would have done. Putting it simply they are generally riding against a higher standard of competition. On the flip side Fallon is generally riding at a lower standard of competition. For example whilst most of the top jocks were at Goodwood yesterday he was at Leicester. Now if you're correct and he's as good as ever shouldn't he be thriving at that lower level? Quite obviously he's going to find it hard to win Group races but he appears to be riding enough horses with decent chances in the bread and butter stuff.

Have it your way about Graham Gibbons. The only mocking was of you with your "that's only the 50 winners" comment, again as if that was meant to prove you're right. It's a figure that isn't even good enough to get him in the top 20 when he hasn't been out of the top 10 in donkey's years. Though hey, he's as good as ever really isn't he See there's another laugh for you.

Now as you've bored me to death I'm out of this.

Oh right Marcee, so the er, winner that er, won yesterday didn't prove that the horse was good enough to er, win......OK right, got that.

So now you feel comfortable enough to tell me exactly what my point was do you? That takes some size of ego to do that but that wasn't my point anyway what you are wrongly claiming and I certainly didn't go "overboard" as that's just your spin on it once again, so I'll say it for you here again as I'm a fairly patient kind of bloke.

If the horse is good enough to win the race then so is Fallon. Yesterday's horse was good enough, as was Fallon and so it won. His ride today in the 3:20 at Lingfield wasn't good enough so it didn't win, unless you think it's Fallon's fault that his horse only finished 2nd there? Like I keep repeating to you Marcee, it really isn't that complicated.

The 50 winner mark as I could have sworn I have already mentioned was just pointing out that it's a key figure and the likes of Barzelona is on 52 with both Godolphin's yards behind him (albeit not exclusively) Queally's on 57 with the Cecil horses, Doyle is on 60 with Abdullah/Charlton and Spencer is on 64 winners with Pearl and Qatar behind him, so not exactly streaking away from Fallon are they yet are they all gone at the game too?

Of course the number of losers Hughes and Moore rides is significant because ALL jockeys ride more losers than winners in a season so it's a total nonsense to point that out regarding the number of losers Fallon has ridden, otherwise you would have posters coming on saying Hughes is sh1t because he rode 662 losers last season and whilst the figure might be true, he also rode 172 winners and ended up champion so if he was adjudged to be sh1t based on his number of losing rides then what does that say about the rest?

So do you think in general a jockey has to earn his fee more when riding a well bred and/or expensive Arab owned runner or a claimer on the AW at Southwell? The job as a jockey should actually be easier riding in the higher class races as the horse's ability means more can be left to the it before the jockey has to do his bit and yes the rivals might well be of an overall higher standard, but even at the top level they only have a very small number of serious rivals in a race, compared to the dog eat dog, survival of the fittest and competitive nature at the lower end of the scale. I'm sure if you asked Fallon which he found easier, riding for the like of Jimmy Fitzgerald, Eric Alston and others around the northern gaff tracks o mainly average to poor horses or in top class races on top notch horses for the likes of Cecil, Stoute and O'Brien then I think we can both guess his answer.

Didn't he ride a winner at Leicester then yesterday? As for thriving at the lower level, once again I ask what part of it's more about the horse than the jockey didn't you understand? Even at the lower level there are still some horses better than others and their OR and/or SP act as a good indication of their ability. His rides yesterday were on a horses rated 67 in a 0-75 handicap and was 3rd at 11/1 with 5 of the 9 higher rated and 5 a shorter price. He had another end up 4th rated 58 in a 0-60 handicap with 4 rated higher and at 7/1 was 4th in the betting and then lo and behold when he got on a favourite he won on it.

Again I will ask what part of scaling down didn't you quite understand? The year he went for the title he had 145 winners from 901 rides, then after accepting he couldn't chase the title last season he had 619 rides, so would it really shock you if I were tell you that with around 300 fewer rides he didn't beat that title chasing total? Or what about if I told you this season he's only had 408 rides so far, would it astound you to discover he hasn't beaten last season total so far? Please tell me you already understand these things and are just hoping I don't, so that you can sneak in more meaningless points.

Evidently I've bored you to death so much that but you can't help yourself from keep coming back! Have you ever noticed the lack of self awareness (no or course you haven't) when people get in a debate with someone else and then resort to the essay claims and being bored by the other person when they are just as guilty of that themselves?

Oh the irony (which aren't pills you take with your vitamins btw) so see you back again with your next reply eh?

Perfectly valid point Dr Crippen and I agree that the Top Cees ride was iffy but the Ballinger Ridge one wasn't and was just a human error. There's also a big difference between not being able to prove something in court and so returning a not guilty verdict and being laughed out of court and having the judge dismiss the case as a waste of time and taxpayers' money without it even reaching a verdict.

It does seem odd though that everyone else had the case dismissed against them by association since it was labelled the Fallon case, yet the BHA pursued everyone else and some were either warned off or even admitted their guilt. Fallon' situation was a failed sting by the News of the World (whatever happened to that fine upstanding newspaper?) that died a death because he constantly refused to take the bait but then made the c0ck up on Ballinger Ridge and they thought Christmas had come early.

The other cases were against a previously banned owner laying some of his own horses and others with connections to him like Fergal Lynch (he even admitted stopping one) Darren Williams and Karl Burke who were his jockes and trainer and all have all been banned as well as that owner being waned off again. Fallon had no connection with the owner, his horses or the Burke yard.

silvergreaser i trained greyhounds for over 30 years and had a reputation for being a good trainer
won plenty of finals  got money from the game and  trained loads of losers.
Was this an art form?
ps not one stewards enquiry