Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Inquiry hears brother of Mullins vet stood to win €3,342 from Faugheen lay bets
By Jon Lees
UPDATED 3:38PM, JUL 16 2018
The brother of the main vet used by Ireland's champion jumps trainer Willie Mullins placed a series of lay bets on Faugheen to lose the 2016 Champion Hurdle 48 hours before the horse was ruled out of the race.
Michael Brennan, brother of vet Tim Brennan, wagered a little more than €2,000 after depositing €2,400 in his Betfair account, which would have netted him a potential profit of €3,342, a BHA inquiry in London heard on Monday.
Tim Brennan, who has worked for Mullins for more than a decade, is charged with conspiring with his brother to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice by passing on inside information about an injury picked up by Faugheen before it became public.
He is alleged to have obtained information as the horse's vet before it became public that might have been used to gain an unfair advantage in the betting market and/or enable or assist his brother to cheat at gambling.
Tim Brennan denies the charges while his brother has refused to cooperate with the BHA investigation, as a result of which he was excluded from the sport in October 2016.
Back bets on Arctic Fire
Outlining the BHA case, Philip Evans QC said Faugheen was the 1-3 favourite for the Champion Hurdle when Mullins announced the horse would not make the Cheltenham Festival in news made public by the Racing Post at 1.26pm on February 17.
Michael Brennan placed his first bet nearly 48 hours before the news broke at odds ranging from 1.49 to 1.98, which were "significantly better than the odds with the bookmakers".
Evans claimed: "This came as a consequence of the knowledge that this horse was not going to run; would be withdrawn."
Brennan then placed eight back bets on stablemate Arctic Fire before the announcement.
The panel was told this betting pattern was "out of character" and heard Michael Brennan had previously placed only two lay bets, in 2014, one of which was on another Mullins horse who missed the 2014 Cheltenham Gold Cup.
'A very central issue'
Contacted by Betfair, Brennan denied receiving any inside information and said he believed Faugheen's odds were too short. He said he heard the news of the horse's withdrawal only after it was announced, adding the horse's difficulties were common knowledge.
Faugheen was reported to be in discomfort after the Irish Champion Hurdle on January 24 and was ridden out for the first time on February 15, a date Evans said was "a very central issue for the inquiry".
Tim Brennan's phone records show he spoke to Mullins three times on February 15, with one call lasting more than nine minutes, during a two-hour window between 11am and 1pm, when Faugheen was believed to have exercised.
The vet made a call to his brother at 12.53pm, which lasted three seconds. Evans claimed this invited the inference that the call was returned. The lay betting began at 1.05.
Tim Brennan told investigators he could not recall speaking to his brother on February 15 and that he was made aware his brother had laid the horse only when he told him.
By Jon Lees
UPDATED 3:38PM, JUL 16 2018
The brother of the main vet used by Ireland's champion jumps trainer Willie Mullins placed a series of lay bets on Faugheen to lose the 2016 Champion Hurdle 48 hours before the horse was ruled out of the race.
Michael Brennan, brother of vet Tim Brennan, wagered a little more than €2,000 after depositing €2,400 in his Betfair account, which would have netted him a potential profit of €3,342, a BHA inquiry in London heard on Monday.
Tim Brennan, who has worked for Mullins for more than a decade, is charged with conspiring with his brother to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice by passing on inside information about an injury picked up by Faugheen before it became public.
He is alleged to have obtained information as the horse's vet before it became public that might have been used to gain an unfair advantage in the betting market and/or enable or assist his brother to cheat at gambling.
Tim Brennan denies the charges while his brother has refused to cooperate with the BHA investigation, as a result of which he was excluded from the sport in October 2016.
Back bets on Arctic Fire
Outlining the BHA case, Philip Evans QC said Faugheen was the 1-3 favourite for the Champion Hurdle when Mullins announced the horse would not make the Cheltenham Festival in news made public by the Racing Post at 1.26pm on February 17.
Michael Brennan placed his first bet nearly 48 hours before the news broke at odds ranging from 1.49 to 1.98, which were "significantly better than the odds with the bookmakers".
Evans claimed: "This came as a consequence of the knowledge that this horse was not going to run; would be withdrawn."
Brennan then placed eight back bets on stablemate Arctic Fire before the announcement.
The panel was told this betting pattern was "out of character" and heard Michael Brennan had previously placed only two lay bets, in 2014, one of which was on another Mullins horse who missed the 2014 Cheltenham Gold Cup.
'A very central issue'
Contacted by Betfair, Brennan denied receiving any inside information and said he believed Faugheen's odds were too short. He said he heard the news of the horse's withdrawal only after it was announced, adding the horse's difficulties were common knowledge.
Faugheen was reported to be in discomfort after the Irish Champion Hurdle on January 24 and was ridden out for the first time on February 15, a date Evans said was "a very central issue for the inquiry".
Tim Brennan's phone records show he spoke to Mullins three times on February 15, with one call lasting more than nine minutes, during a two-hour window between 11am and 1pm, when Faugheen was believed to have exercised.
The vet made a call to his brother at 12.53pm, which lasted three seconds. Evans claimed this invited the inference that the call was returned. The lay betting began at 1.05.
Tim Brennan told investigators he could not recall speaking to his brother on February 15 and that he was made aware his brother had laid the horse only when he told him.
Show More
mr combustible i do think the bha should go to the police/cps on occasion. We can't have a situation where serious criminals get involved and they think their only "downside" is a bha hearing. A friend of mine used to know a couple of individuals from the travelling community involved in racing. These guys were so "serious" the police would need back up if they entered their campsite to speak to them. How can bha and their investigators deal with people like that.
Plus didn't a cricketer go to prison for spot-fixing? We just need some sharp operators at the bha advising the police/cps.
Plus didn't a cricketer go to prison for spot-fixing? We just need some sharp operators at the bha advising the police/cps.
people who think the brother's actions make the vet guilty give the rest of us great hope at our future prospects of making money on betfair ,,,
a non layer of horses lays at double the odds a clear favourite without any input from a member of staff of a horses non participation. And then refuses to cooperate to clear his name.
100% guilty to acting on insider info.
was it the vet who passed the info? the refusal to cooperate and show the phone records to exonerate the vet says it all.
guilty.
100% guilty to acting on insider info.
was it the vet who passed the info? the refusal to cooperate and show the phone records to exonerate the vet says it all.
guilty.
a non layer of horses lays at treble the odds a clear favourite without any input from a member of staff of a horses non participation. And then refuses to cooperate to clear his name.
100% guilty to acting on insider info.
was it the vet who passed the info? the refusal to cooperate and show the phone records to exonerate the vet says it all.
guilty.
100% guilty to acting on insider info.
was it the vet who passed the info? the refusal to cooperate and show the phone records to exonerate the vet says it all.
guilty.
if they had lots more on the vet, what you have put makes sense as part of an overall case. But when it's the major thing they are relying on? Very flimsy imo.
lots more as in what?
its down to simply..did the vet inform his bro.?
if no,brother exonerates him by showing his phone records.
by refusing he's putting his whole career in jeopardy.
its down to simply..did the vet inform his bro.?
if no,brother exonerates him by showing his phone records.
by refusing he's putting his whole career in jeopardy.
did the russians poison the skripals?
possibly..
if so,would you expect the russian agents to dispose of the perfume bottle containing the novichok by discarding it nearby?
possibly..
if so,would you expect the russian agents to dispose of the perfume bottle containing the novichok by discarding it nearby?
Willie Shafter. 18 Jul 18 16:00
pablo-fanque 18 Jul 18 15:39
i've not been following this thread or the ins and outs , but
out of interest , why did he want a call back ?
why not just talk there and then ?
BROTHER PROB WAS WITH PEOPLE.
--------------
The BHA inference - in fact, part of the case is that ... He DID/would call back.
Lots of people have arrangements with others/relatives whereby the say - "let it ring three times, and I will call you back - straight away"
Often because the recipient is on a better/cheaper phone deal than the caller.
pablo-fanque 18 Jul 18 15:39
i've not been following this thread or the ins and outs , but
out of interest , why did he want a call back ?
why not just talk there and then ?
BROTHER PROB WAS WITH PEOPLE.
--------------
The BHA inference - in fact, part of the case is that ... He DID/would call back.
Lots of people have arrangements with others/relatives whereby the say - "let it ring three times, and I will call you back - straight away"
Often because the recipient is on a better/cheaper phone deal than the caller.
The fear, there is nothing to stop the BHA going to the police when the feel their resources cannot deal with the matter but I doubt the police will want to become involved.
The only reason they got involved in the Old Bailey trial was because someone at the BHA had previously worked at City of London police so still had contacts. City of London police took a lot of persuading to take the case and it was suggested that the BHA gave them some funding which is totally against the rules.
It would be like me going to the police and offering them money to investigate someone I don't like.
There were so many **** ups in that case, the Australian expert Ray Murrihy who did not realise the rules in UK were different to Australia, when he came to London he was seen drinking with the BHA investigator Paul Scotney in O'Neills Wardour Street but he said in evidence they did not talk about the case!! Independent Prosecution witnesses should not be associating with a BHA person. Scotney got drunk at a party and told people he was out to F*** Fallon. North Yorkshire police followed two jockeys from Leeds/Bradford to Spain but did not follow them when they arrived in Spain so never found out where they were going.
Timeform Jim McGrath was a prosecution witness and saw nothing wrong with the rides, CPS did not like this so did not use him, his statement should go into the unused material which should be disclosed to the defence. They hid this and only came to light after the trial had started.
Mr Justice Forbes said the evidence given by Ray Murrihy, the senior Australian racing steward who was the prosecution's sole expert witness, contained "significant limitations and shortcomings".
During the trial Mr Murrihy had said: "It was not incumbent that I verse myself in UK or other jurisdiction rules."
The judge yesterday commented: "This is an extraordinary admission given that he was purporting to give evidence about 27 races run in the UK according to UK racing rules."
The investigation, headed by the City of London Police, involved more than 500 interviews. It took more than 1,300 statements and provided nearly 40,000 pages of evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service.
--------------------------------------------------------
rucial to the collapse of the Kieren Fallon race-fixing trial was a meeting between racing expert and TV pundit Jim McGrath and four police officers, including acting Det Insp Mark Manning, on 28 March 2006.
The meeting was tape recorded and notes were also made by Mr Manning.
Jim McGrath of Channel 4
Jim McGrath contradicted the prosecution's main witness
The notes should have been released to the defence during "primary disclosure" as they prepared for the trial earlier this year.
They were not and disclosure officer Det Con Stephen Gibbs spent three hours being cross-examined about why they had not been disclosed.
The tape of the meeting was reviewed in September, during the "secondary disclosure" process.
Det Con Gibbs delegated the task of listening to the tape to Det Con David Price, who said there was nothing in it that warranted it being disclosed.
Details of the meeting with Mr McGrath were only finally disclosed to the defence on 4 October 2007, the same day the jury was sworn in.
Mr McGrath's expert comments on the 27 races on the indictment clearly contradicted the views of the prosecution's star witness Ray Murrihy, and crucially undermined the Crown's case.
What was already looking a pretty weak and highly circumstantial case soon became untenable.
An innocent mistake?
But why was Mr McGrath's evidence kept secret for so long?
Was it, as the defence claimed, a sinister cover-up by the police? Or was it simply incompetence and an example of a faulty system of disclosure?
Det Con Gibbs said he had very little excuse as to why he had not disclosed the material, other than he had been "very busy" at the time of primary disclosure - June 2007 - and the McGrath notes were among 17,000 items logged on the computer as part of the City of London Police's Operation Krypton.
Initially he downplayed the importance of Mr McGrath's views and said he was a "form analyst" rather than a racing expert.
George Carter-Stephenson QC in a scene from TV drama The Verdict
Have you been caught out in trying to bury a piece of potentially useful evidence for the defence?
George Carter-Stephenson QC
But George Carter-Stephenson QC, counsel for jockey Fergal Lynch, rounded on him: "Is there a wish among the police to denigrate Mr McGrath's expert status?"
Det Con Gibbs replied: "Certainly not."
Mr Carter-Stephenson then obtained the following embarrassing admission from the officer: "I didn't disclose those notes and in hindsight I should have done.
"Like everyone I'm subject to human fragility. Looking at them now, in the cold light of day I should have done."
But Mr Carter-Stephenson would not let it lie.
He read out a series of excerpts from what Mr McGrath had told the police about the 27 races, all of which contradicted Mr Murrihy's opinion and therefore undermined the prosecution case.
Highlighting horses ridden by his client, Mr Carter-Stephenson began with CD Europe, which Mr Lynch rode at Southwell on 18 February 2003. It lost.
'Unlucky'
"A former high-class horse. Inconsistent form. Final appearance for Mick Channon," he quoted.
About South Atlantic, which lost a race at Thirsk on 10 May 2003, he quoted: "Badly drawn", "unlucky", "did not get the breaks".
Then he focused on Kristikhab, which ran at Carlisle on 16 July 2004: "Regressive juvenile. Finished last in previous run. This horse would not have had much of a chance even against weak opposition. Ran poorly, missing the break."
Fergal Lynch
Jockey Fergal Lynch's riding was praised by McGrath
As for Bond Babe, which ran at Ripon on 31 August 2004, Mr McGrath had said: "Drawn on stand side, [Mr Lynch] never stopped riding it, given every chance."
About Familiar Affair, which Mr Lynch rode to victory on the same day, Mr McGrath said: "Fair chance. Made all. Always going to win. Whip used."
Finally they came to Bond City, which lost on the same day, Mr McGrath said: "Ran better than form."
Mr Carter-Stephenson turned to Det Con Gibbs and said: "Have you been caught out in trying to bury a piece of potentially useful evidence for the defence?"
"That is definitely not the case," he replied.
'Not deliberate'
Later Det Con Gibbs stressed again that the failure to disclose had been a mistake on his part but was certainly "not deliberate".
Jim Sturman QC, representing jockey Darren Williams, asked Det Con Gibbs: "Are you taking the rap for an officer who instructed you not to disclose?"
"No. Believe me I would not risk my police service or going to court by perjuring myself," he replied.
Det Con Price then gave evidence about why he had not recommended the McGrath notes be disclosed when he listened to it as part of the review in September.
John Kelsey-Fry QC, for Mr Fallon, said: "You knew that Mr McGrath was expressing opinions which were contrary to Mr Murrihy's views and the prosecution case?"
Det Con Price replied: "Yes."
Cross examination
Mr Kelsey-Fry then said: "But you chose to say it was not disclosable?"
Det Con Price responded: "I didn't say it was not disclosable. I was under the impression that it had been disclosed."
Mr Kelsey-Fry: "I'm sorry?"
Det Con Price: "It had already been through the disclosure process."
Mr Kelsey-Fry: "You knew it had been through the disclosure process?"
Det Con Price: "Yes, and it had been disclosed as unused material."
Mr Kelsey-Fry knew, as did the whole court, that the McGrath notes had not been disclosed at all, even as unused material, and he seized on the opportunity and tore into the hapless witness: "So why was he [Det Con Gibbs] asking you to see if it was disclosable?"
Det Con Price mumbled a reply.
"What on earth were you doing?" shouted Mr Kelsey-Fry.
Is system flawed?
Mr Price sought to restate his position, but the jury must have been baffled by his evidence.
A police officer takes a computer from Kieren Fallon's home
Nothing incriminating was found at Kieren Fallon's home in Cambridgeshire
What this trial has emphasised is that the system of legal disclosure is deeply flawed.
As pointed out in court, the police investigated the case and stored a total of 17,000 items relating to it on their computer system Holmes (Home Office Large Major Enquiry System).
The police draw up the evidence for the prosecution, and then the police and the Crown Prosecution Service decide what evidence needs to be disclosed to the defence.
Naturally, not all of the 17,000 items on the system needed to be disclosed, as many of them were irrelevant to the trial.
But under the current system, all the defence can do is demand that anything relevant is disclosed. They must rely on the police and the CPS.
Det Con Gibbs and Det Con Price, although they were both police officers, were asked to check the material and find any material which might "undermine the prosecution case".
The fact they failed to disclose Mr McGrath's evidence may simply have been incompetence, but it does not bode well for the system.
As Mr Carter-Stephenson pointed out during the trial, it is impossible for the defence to know if there is any information that could be useful to them which the prosecution has not disclosed.
The only reason they got involved in the Old Bailey trial was because someone at the BHA had previously worked at City of London police so still had contacts. City of London police took a lot of persuading to take the case and it was suggested that the BHA gave them some funding which is totally against the rules.
It would be like me going to the police and offering them money to investigate someone I don't like.
There were so many **** ups in that case, the Australian expert Ray Murrihy who did not realise the rules in UK were different to Australia, when he came to London he was seen drinking with the BHA investigator Paul Scotney in O'Neills Wardour Street but he said in evidence they did not talk about the case!! Independent Prosecution witnesses should not be associating with a BHA person. Scotney got drunk at a party and told people he was out to F*** Fallon. North Yorkshire police followed two jockeys from Leeds/Bradford to Spain but did not follow them when they arrived in Spain so never found out where they were going.
Timeform Jim McGrath was a prosecution witness and saw nothing wrong with the rides, CPS did not like this so did not use him, his statement should go into the unused material which should be disclosed to the defence. They hid this and only came to light after the trial had started.
Mr Justice Forbes said the evidence given by Ray Murrihy, the senior Australian racing steward who was the prosecution's sole expert witness, contained "significant limitations and shortcomings".
During the trial Mr Murrihy had said: "It was not incumbent that I verse myself in UK or other jurisdiction rules."
The judge yesterday commented: "This is an extraordinary admission given that he was purporting to give evidence about 27 races run in the UK according to UK racing rules."
The investigation, headed by the City of London Police, involved more than 500 interviews. It took more than 1,300 statements and provided nearly 40,000 pages of evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service.
--------------------------------------------------------
rucial to the collapse of the Kieren Fallon race-fixing trial was a meeting between racing expert and TV pundit Jim McGrath and four police officers, including acting Det Insp Mark Manning, on 28 March 2006.
The meeting was tape recorded and notes were also made by Mr Manning.
Jim McGrath of Channel 4
Jim McGrath contradicted the prosecution's main witness
The notes should have been released to the defence during "primary disclosure" as they prepared for the trial earlier this year.
They were not and disclosure officer Det Con Stephen Gibbs spent three hours being cross-examined about why they had not been disclosed.
The tape of the meeting was reviewed in September, during the "secondary disclosure" process.
Det Con Gibbs delegated the task of listening to the tape to Det Con David Price, who said there was nothing in it that warranted it being disclosed.
Details of the meeting with Mr McGrath were only finally disclosed to the defence on 4 October 2007, the same day the jury was sworn in.
Mr McGrath's expert comments on the 27 races on the indictment clearly contradicted the views of the prosecution's star witness Ray Murrihy, and crucially undermined the Crown's case.
What was already looking a pretty weak and highly circumstantial case soon became untenable.
An innocent mistake?
But why was Mr McGrath's evidence kept secret for so long?
Was it, as the defence claimed, a sinister cover-up by the police? Or was it simply incompetence and an example of a faulty system of disclosure?
Det Con Gibbs said he had very little excuse as to why he had not disclosed the material, other than he had been "very busy" at the time of primary disclosure - June 2007 - and the McGrath notes were among 17,000 items logged on the computer as part of the City of London Police's Operation Krypton.
Initially he downplayed the importance of Mr McGrath's views and said he was a "form analyst" rather than a racing expert.
George Carter-Stephenson QC in a scene from TV drama The Verdict
Have you been caught out in trying to bury a piece of potentially useful evidence for the defence?
George Carter-Stephenson QC
But George Carter-Stephenson QC, counsel for jockey Fergal Lynch, rounded on him: "Is there a wish among the police to denigrate Mr McGrath's expert status?"
Det Con Gibbs replied: "Certainly not."
Mr Carter-Stephenson then obtained the following embarrassing admission from the officer: "I didn't disclose those notes and in hindsight I should have done.
"Like everyone I'm subject to human fragility. Looking at them now, in the cold light of day I should have done."
But Mr Carter-Stephenson would not let it lie.
He read out a series of excerpts from what Mr McGrath had told the police about the 27 races, all of which contradicted Mr Murrihy's opinion and therefore undermined the prosecution case.
Highlighting horses ridden by his client, Mr Carter-Stephenson began with CD Europe, which Mr Lynch rode at Southwell on 18 February 2003. It lost.
'Unlucky'
"A former high-class horse. Inconsistent form. Final appearance for Mick Channon," he quoted.
About South Atlantic, which lost a race at Thirsk on 10 May 2003, he quoted: "Badly drawn", "unlucky", "did not get the breaks".
Then he focused on Kristikhab, which ran at Carlisle on 16 July 2004: "Regressive juvenile. Finished last in previous run. This horse would not have had much of a chance even against weak opposition. Ran poorly, missing the break."
Fergal Lynch
Jockey Fergal Lynch's riding was praised by McGrath
As for Bond Babe, which ran at Ripon on 31 August 2004, Mr McGrath had said: "Drawn on stand side, [Mr Lynch] never stopped riding it, given every chance."
About Familiar Affair, which Mr Lynch rode to victory on the same day, Mr McGrath said: "Fair chance. Made all. Always going to win. Whip used."
Finally they came to Bond City, which lost on the same day, Mr McGrath said: "Ran better than form."
Mr Carter-Stephenson turned to Det Con Gibbs and said: "Have you been caught out in trying to bury a piece of potentially useful evidence for the defence?"
"That is definitely not the case," he replied.
'Not deliberate'
Later Det Con Gibbs stressed again that the failure to disclose had been a mistake on his part but was certainly "not deliberate".
Jim Sturman QC, representing jockey Darren Williams, asked Det Con Gibbs: "Are you taking the rap for an officer who instructed you not to disclose?"
"No. Believe me I would not risk my police service or going to court by perjuring myself," he replied.
Det Con Price then gave evidence about why he had not recommended the McGrath notes be disclosed when he listened to it as part of the review in September.
John Kelsey-Fry QC, for Mr Fallon, said: "You knew that Mr McGrath was expressing opinions which were contrary to Mr Murrihy's views and the prosecution case?"
Det Con Price replied: "Yes."
Cross examination
Mr Kelsey-Fry then said: "But you chose to say it was not disclosable?"
Det Con Price responded: "I didn't say it was not disclosable. I was under the impression that it had been disclosed."
Mr Kelsey-Fry: "I'm sorry?"
Det Con Price: "It had already been through the disclosure process."
Mr Kelsey-Fry: "You knew it had been through the disclosure process?"
Det Con Price: "Yes, and it had been disclosed as unused material."
Mr Kelsey-Fry knew, as did the whole court, that the McGrath notes had not been disclosed at all, even as unused material, and he seized on the opportunity and tore into the hapless witness: "So why was he [Det Con Gibbs] asking you to see if it was disclosable?"
Det Con Price mumbled a reply.
"What on earth were you doing?" shouted Mr Kelsey-Fry.
Is system flawed?
Mr Price sought to restate his position, but the jury must have been baffled by his evidence.
A police officer takes a computer from Kieren Fallon's home
Nothing incriminating was found at Kieren Fallon's home in Cambridgeshire
What this trial has emphasised is that the system of legal disclosure is deeply flawed.
As pointed out in court, the police investigated the case and stored a total of 17,000 items relating to it on their computer system Holmes (Home Office Large Major Enquiry System).
The police draw up the evidence for the prosecution, and then the police and the Crown Prosecution Service decide what evidence needs to be disclosed to the defence.
Naturally, not all of the 17,000 items on the system needed to be disclosed, as many of them were irrelevant to the trial.
But under the current system, all the defence can do is demand that anything relevant is disclosed. They must rely on the police and the CPS.
Det Con Gibbs and Det Con Price, although they were both police officers, were asked to check the material and find any material which might "undermine the prosecution case".
The fact they failed to disclose Mr McGrath's evidence may simply have been incompetence, but it does not bode well for the system.
As Mr Carter-Stephenson pointed out during the trial, it is impossible for the defence to know if there is any information that could be useful to them which the prosecution has not disclosed.
To be fair...he is correct. The odds were way too short.
Free the man.
Free the man.
Thanks, mr combustible. If this was a criminal case could the brother have been forced to come to trial and give evidence? Cheers.
Very interesting post mr c; it's almost unbelievable that the bha employed someone like Scotney as head of integrity.Frankly he shouldn't have been trusted to check badges at the bottom of an Ascot escalator.As for Aussie d ickhead Murrihy you couldn't make him up. If it weren't so serious it would be very amusing ...one wonders at the intellect of senior officers in the police service at that time and I wouldn't hold my breath that it's any better nowadays.
By the way what is the determination for a bet being deemed out of character and what are the processes for following up on it? (as opposed to simply grassing the individual to the BHA)
Because there has to be thousands of similar ‘out of character’ bets placed everyday on here.
Because there has to be thousands of similar ‘out of character’ bets placed everyday on here.
If there was a criminal trial I do not think it would have been held in UK as any alleged crime was committed in Ireland.If it was a UK trial they would have had to extradite the parties as I doubt they would have come voluntarily and I think any extradition request on a matter like this would not get very far.
One would think that this should be an Irish Turf Club matter rather than BHA as all involved are in Ireland. The only UK element is the race he was entered in. This may be mentioned in the verdict tomorrow. What locus do the BHA have to hear the case?
Yes in a criminal trial the brother could be forced to give evidence but very unlikely as he would be regarded as a hostile witness and you would not normally call a hostile witness as you cannot be sure it would help your case.
What could have happened if the Irish Police were involved would be to get a production order for his telephone records and that would have helped in reaching a decision to prosecute.
My answers may not be 100% accurate as I am not a lawyer. I did work
in the criminal justice system for 30 years before retiring.
One would think that this should be an Irish Turf Club matter rather than BHA as all involved are in Ireland. The only UK element is the race he was entered in. This may be mentioned in the verdict tomorrow. What locus do the BHA have to hear the case?
Yes in a criminal trial the brother could be forced to give evidence but very unlikely as he would be regarded as a hostile witness and you would not normally call a hostile witness as you cannot be sure it would help your case.
What could have happened if the Irish Police were involved would be to get a production order for his telephone records and that would have helped in reaching a decision to prosecute.
My answers may not be 100% accurate as I am not a lawyer. I did work
in the criminal justice system for 30 years before retiring.
EastLower Gooner 19 Jul 18 14:10
By the way what is the determination for a bet being deemed out of character
laying £2000 when rarely lay anything..laying evens a 1/3 chance.
By the way what is the determination for a bet being deemed out of character
laying £2000 when rarely lay anything..laying evens a 1/3 chance.
appreciate your replies mr c - thanks a lot, helps to explain it for us laypersons
In fairness the police were not helped by the Senior Prosecutor in the case Jonathan Caplan QC. He owned horses in Hong Kong and I think he knew Murrihy from his time out there. It was his decision to bring in Murrihy as the expert.
Caplan took the verdict very badly and did not shake hands with defence counsel when the trial collapsed.
Defence and Prosecution counsel normally go for a meal after a lengthy trial, Caplan did not attend , his junior did, I cannot remember his name.
Caplan took the verdict very badly and did not shake hands with defence counsel when the trial collapsed.
Defence and Prosecution counsel normally go for a meal after a lengthy trial, Caplan did not attend , his junior did, I cannot remember his name.
Mr Combustible - would the name of Caplan's junior be a matter of public record? Thanks for your post(s) - good to read and thanks for reminding us all of the High Court debacles.
But that’s just based on the numbers within your Betfair history.
An out of character bet should incorporate a lot more information.
Do you see where I’m going with this? It might seem out of character on here but when looking at all facets of a person’s life it’s perfectly normal behaviour.
I would like know how Betfair actually investigate and report stuff like this.
Just wondering how many on this thread have been investigated by Betfair w/o your knowledge.
An out of character bet should incorporate a lot more information.
Do you see where I’m going with this? It might seem out of character on here but when looking at all facets of a person’s life it’s perfectly normal behaviour.
I would like know how Betfair actually investigate and report stuff like this.
Just wondering how many on this thread have been investigated by Betfair w/o your knowledge.
gooner..noone bar a Rampton inmate lays nigh on evens something trading 1/3.
Blackbarn yes it would be on the record. He may have been Nicholas Griffin, he was a decent guy. Caplan was a typical arrogant QC
you'd have the chance to prove it if it wasnt out of character, shirley
feary...if you laid france to win world cup at evens then no problem.
if you lay £2000 @ 3/1 it would aroused a little suspicion.
if you lay £2000 @ 3/1 it would aroused a little suspicion.
There's little doubt the brother knew something, and acted on it,but then again lots of people knew that all was not well with Faugheen.
At the time he lived only a few miles from the Closutton yard and had plenty of contacts there so its far from certain that he was told to lay the horse by Tim Brennan.
There's nothing unusual about 2 brothers phoning each other or that a call lasted only 3 seconds.
If you had a successful large bet on,say, a Greek volleyball match following a tip off from a good source and then got a phone call from a member of the Greek Volleyball Association who wanted you to show them your phone details, bank transfers etc. would you provide them with all the info or just politely tell them to FO, if the resulting punishment was a suspension from attending all Greek volleyball matches in the future?
At the time he lived only a few miles from the Closutton yard and had plenty of contacts there so its far from certain that he was told to lay the horse by Tim Brennan.
There's nothing unusual about 2 brothers phoning each other or that a call lasted only 3 seconds.
If you had a successful large bet on,say, a Greek volleyball match following a tip off from a good source and then got a phone call from a member of the Greek Volleyball Association who wanted you to show them your phone details, bank transfers etc. would you provide them with all the info or just politely tell them to FO, if the resulting punishment was a suspension from attending all Greek volleyball matches in the future?
if my brother relied on the GVA for some of his work i might, aye
If you had a successful large bet on,say, a Greek volleyball match following a tip off from a good source and then got a phone call from a member of the Greek Volleyball Association who wanted you to show them your phone details, bank transfers etc. would you provide them with all the info or just politely tell them to FO
his brothers career and future is on the line.
his brothers career and future is on the line.
I'm hearing that Tim Brennan has been completely exonerated by the BHA... no surprise surely
Cleared - Chris Cook - Guardian Racing Editor - Tweeted - according to ATR
Willie Mullins' long-serving vet Tim Brennan has been cleared of committing a corrupt or fraudulent practice following a two-day BHA inquiry into whether he passed on inside information about an injury picked up by Faugheen that ruled him out of the 2016 Champion Hurdle.
Brennan was accused of passing on inside information to his brother Michael, who laid Faugheen for the Champion Hurdle, but a disciplinary panel concluded that it "has not been proved to the appropriate standard that Timothy Brennan was the source of any confidential information to his brother".
Brennan was accused of passing on inside information to his brother Michael, who laid Faugheen for the Champion Hurdle, but a disciplinary panel concluded that it "has not been proved to the appropriate standard that Timothy Brennan was the source of any confidential information to his brother".
the world is a cesspit of cover ups and corruption.
Can he claim damages? A solid by the book vet wrongly accused of being a criminal. Got to be looking at 6 figures surely.
Yep, Tim Brennan has been cleared of committing a corrupt or fraudulent practice following a two-day BHA inquiry into whether he passed on inside info about an injury picked up by Faugheen that ruled him out of the 2016 Champion Hurdle; a disciplinary panel concluded it had not proved to the appropriate standard that Tim Brennan was the source of any confidential information to his brother.
Now, who passed on inside info regarding the well-being of Faugheen that caused him to miss the 2016 Champion Hurdle? Must be someone from within the Mullins's stable? Will this person/s be brought to book? This stable has form as long as one's arm.
Now, who passed on inside info regarding the well-being of Faugheen that caused him to miss the 2016 Champion Hurdle? Must be someone from within the Mullins's stable? Will this person/s be brought to book? This stable has form as long as one's arm.
wouldnt you think the bha would employ someone bright enough to clarify that there wasnt much chance of a satisfactory conclusion.
you got money you got a good chance of getting away with murder
can understand their decision...but would of thought the refusal to substantiate the phone call situation would have swayed it to 'balance of probability'.
Just coincidence then that he phones his brother(3 rings) on leaving stable and moments later his bro gets out his biggest laying boots on Betfair.
It was always going to be the outcome. It was the vet that was accused of passing on information, not the brother acting on it.
There was no way they could prove the information (if indeed there was any) came from the vet.
As stated, it is a tight community with loads of staff an family connections between the brother and the Mullins camp. So information could have come from anywhere.
There was no way they could prove the information (if indeed there was any) came from the vet.
As stated, it is a tight community with loads of staff an family connections between the brother and the Mullins camp. So information could have come from anywhere.
There was no way they could prove the information (if indeed there was any) came from the vet.
then it beggars belief that a top barrister couldnt foresee this outcome.
then it beggars belief that a top barrister couldnt foresee this outcome.
does the brother get his betfair account suspension lifted and the brass he "won" ?
In a court of law it wouldnt have had a prayer but agree with Willie if you go with " the balance of probability" should have nailed it.
But nice for any cheating/thieves out there to continue without too much worry.
But nice for any cheating/thieves out there to continue without too much worry.
Are the BHA actually running the Brexit negotiations by any chance - the words ’organise’ and ‘pi*s up in a brewery’ spring to mind.
Is there any point of most of these cases? They get good old Jimbo done second time around and all he then does is give the licence to his missus so just carry on regardless. May as well just let them all do whatever they want. When you see very, very suspect rides day in day out and nothing seems to get done at all, the BHA may as well disband as it literally ain't fit for purpose.
Anyway - go and find out how much they "spend" per year on their useless "integrity" department. It's just another Governing Body who literally do what they want and go after who they want, and are generally clueless. Expect someone to get Mr Rust on RUK/ATR later and blow some smoke up his @rse telling him what a wonderful job he is doing.... At least they are all earning their huge pensions...
Anyway - go and find out how much they "spend" per year on their useless "integrity" department. It's just another Governing Body who literally do what they want and go after who they want, and are generally clueless. Expect someone to get Mr Rust on RUK/ATR later and blow some smoke up his @rse telling him what a wonderful job he is doing.... At least they are all earning their huge pensions...
19 Jul 18 17:45
does the brother get his betfair account suspension lifted and the brass he "won" ?
Probably. I know someone who got warned off and got paid in full.
does the brother get his betfair account suspension lifted and the brass he "won" ?
Probably. I know someone who got warned off and got paid in full.
5% commission is still better than nothing, I guess.
Surely we're all wrong lads
When we were talkin about the Hillside Girl farrier tother night,Domino said the BHA were doin a brilliant job!!
When we were talkin about the Hillside Girl farrier tother night,Domino said the BHA were doin a brilliant job!!
posy 17 Jul 18 18:02 Joined: 18 Oct 03 | Topic/replies: 9,687 | Blogger: posy's blog
Unless some compelling evidence is provided long odds on he'll get away with it, although i'd suggest it's long odds against that he's as clean as a whistle.
The bha have no hope whatsoever when confronted with a top defence legal team
Unless some compelling evidence is provided long odds on he'll get away with it, although i'd suggest it's long odds against that he's as clean as a whistle.
The bha have no hope whatsoever when confronted with a top defence legal team
EastLower Gooner 19 Jul 18 17:30
Can he claim damages? A solid by the book vet wrongly accused of being a criminal. Got to be looking at 6 figures surely.
--------------
' A solid by the book vet wrongly accused of being a criminal'
--------------
Irish authorities have clarified that no suspicions are harboured about the champion jumps trainer Willie Mullins, following news that a vet is accused of possessing unauthorised drugs while he was visiting Mullins’s stable in Carlow.
Tim Brennan appeared in Kilkenny district court last week facing 14 charges and is due to appear again for a procedural hearing later this month.
An initial report on the subject referred to the substances being discovered during a February 2015 search of Mullins’s premises by the department of agriculture and the Turf Club, which regularly conduct joint searches of racing stables. However, it is believed that the substances in question are alleged only to have been in Brennan’s jeep and there is no suggestion of any banned substance being found in the stable itself.
According to a summons seen by the Guardian, Brennan is charged with possessing five drugs which are not authorised for use as animal remedies under Irish law.
These are quinidine sulfate, used in cases of irregular heartbeat, P-Block, a painkiller, Cortalone, an anti-inflammatory, Catosal, used to tackle B12 deficiency, and Hemo 15, which can be used to assist post-exercise recovery or to treat anaemia.
-----------------
ONE of Ireland's top equestrian vets has pleaded guilty to possession of unauthorised animal medications.
Tim Brennan (44), who is the vet for the multi-title winning racing stables of champion trainer Willie Mullins, pleaded guilty to four charges at Kilkenny District Court.
The charges, brought under Animal Remedy Regulations, followed a joint operation by the Department of Agriculture and the Turf Club.
Mr Brennan of Mill House, Upper Grange, Gowran, Co Kilkenny pleaded guilty to three charges of having possession of unauthorised animal medications and one charge of failing to keep proper records in respect of a named animal remedy.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/top-equestrian-vet-pleads-guilty-to-possession-of-unauthorised-animal-medications-36322975.html
Can he claim damages? A solid by the book vet wrongly accused of being a criminal. Got to be looking at 6 figures surely.
--------------
' A solid by the book vet wrongly accused of being a criminal'
--------------
Irish authorities have clarified that no suspicions are harboured about the champion jumps trainer Willie Mullins, following news that a vet is accused of possessing unauthorised drugs while he was visiting Mullins’s stable in Carlow.
Tim Brennan appeared in Kilkenny district court last week facing 14 charges and is due to appear again for a procedural hearing later this month.
An initial report on the subject referred to the substances being discovered during a February 2015 search of Mullins’s premises by the department of agriculture and the Turf Club, which regularly conduct joint searches of racing stables. However, it is believed that the substances in question are alleged only to have been in Brennan’s jeep and there is no suggestion of any banned substance being found in the stable itself.
According to a summons seen by the Guardian, Brennan is charged with possessing five drugs which are not authorised for use as animal remedies under Irish law.
These are quinidine sulfate, used in cases of irregular heartbeat, P-Block, a painkiller, Cortalone, an anti-inflammatory, Catosal, used to tackle B12 deficiency, and Hemo 15, which can be used to assist post-exercise recovery or to treat anaemia.
-----------------
ONE of Ireland's top equestrian vets has pleaded guilty to possession of unauthorised animal medications.
Tim Brennan (44), who is the vet for the multi-title winning racing stables of champion trainer Willie Mullins, pleaded guilty to four charges at Kilkenny District Court.
The charges, brought under Animal Remedy Regulations, followed a joint operation by the Department of Agriculture and the Turf Club.
Mr Brennan of Mill House, Upper Grange, Gowran, Co Kilkenny pleaded guilty to three charges of having possession of unauthorised animal medications and one charge of failing to keep proper records in respect of a named animal remedy.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/top-equestrian-vet-pleads-guilty-to-possession-of-unauthorised-animal-medications-36322975.html
Will Mullins use the vet again now that the vet's been found not guilty of giving inside info to his brother who is related to a member of the Mullins's family?
You made me eat crackers and cheese last night scary now you have done it again
Scones yum yum
Scones yum yum
A whitewash if the BHA do not pursue this matter further giving info did flow from Closutton stable to an unscrupulous individual/s who profited fraudulently on the Betfair Exchange on the info received.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/top-equestrian-vet-pleads-guilty-to-possession-of-unauthorised-animal-medications-36322975.html
They say - 'A picture speaks a thousand words'
They say - 'A picture speaks a thousand words'
Impossible please tell me how the BHA can pursue it further.
They lost.
They lost.
Inside info what about the big players were do they get there info from?Joe from the bookies.
I understand the BHA lost the case. But they lost because they were insufficiently professional and/or diligent ie they did not address every eventuality possible; they were working on the premise/presumption either the vet and/or the vet's brother were responsible (only) - they had a closed mentality, and nothing else. What about the aider and abettor of this fraudulent behaviour? The info could only have come from the Closutton stable where Faugheen was housed.
The BHA who police horse racing need to establish with certainty how this fraud was perpetrated, and identify the individual/s responsible. If necessary, pursue it thro the Law Court to do so - this is not rocket science, and can only be good for horse racing. The culprit/s must be bang to rights, legally and lawfully; obtaining money fraudulently is a criminal offence. Maybe those 'betfair' users negatively affected financially could seek redress from the court with info supplied by the BHA, and possibly police (mobile data). Otherwise, this despicable behaviour will carry on and on with impunity.
The BHA who police horse racing need to establish with certainty how this fraud was perpetrated, and identify the individual/s responsible. If necessary, pursue it thro the Law Court to do so - this is not rocket science, and can only be good for horse racing. The culprit/s must be bang to rights, legally and lawfully; obtaining money fraudulently is a criminal offence. Maybe those 'betfair' users negatively affected financially could seek redress from the court with info supplied by the BHA, and possibly police (mobile data). Otherwise, this despicable behaviour will carry on and on with impunity.
The well-being of a racehorse is not a state secret impossible123. You appear to be under the impression that stable staff are prohibited by some mysterious law from talking about the horses in their yard.
Horses get injuries and setbacks all the time. Its not a crime to talk about it when it happens.
Why do you not protest against betting exchanges and the facility to lay horses in long term ante-post markets?
Horses get injuries and setbacks all the time. Its not a crime to talk about it when it happens.
Why do you not protest against betting exchanges and the facility to lay horses in long term ante-post markets?
Firstime you may add in those who lay horses which have already fallen. Why is that allowed one may ask.
the disclaimer re that is under the race conditions..caveat emptor.
Indeed. Caveat emptor also applies to antepost markets as has always been the case.
Rather than trying(and failing miserably) to impose some draconian laws against staff associated with stables, the BHA need to take a look at the elephant in the room that is the betting exchanges
Rather than trying(and failing miserably) to impose some draconian laws against staff associated with stables, the BHA need to take a look at the elephant in the room that is the betting exchanges
First time visor - I agree but what would you do?
With regard to the antepost markets, surely the exchanges have simply exposed the deceit that has always existed in these markets. Indeed it could be argued that any such deceit is now more easily and earlierly (I invented a new word there
) exposed.
With regard to the antepost markets, surely the exchanges have simply exposed the deceit that has always existed in these markets. Indeed it could be argued that any such deceit is now more easily and earlierly (I invented a new word there
) exposed.
That's true. But with horses, the people who work with them will always know more about their well-being than the general public knows. This will never change.
Most of these people have no interest in making money out of it but, human nature being what it is and the fact that there is a facility there to accommodate them, some will seek to profit from it. Again, this is never going to change.
Nobody is forcing us to bet antepost. We know the risks. We cannot change human nature. Antepost markets are in-play from the moment a market is opened and non-runners will get matched as quickly as fallers get matched in day-to-day in-running markets.If we want the choice to bet antepost or wait until raceday then we all need to stop bleating on about the unfairness of so-called "insider trading".
Most of these people have no interest in making money out of it but, human nature being what it is and the fact that there is a facility there to accommodate them, some will seek to profit from it. Again, this is never going to change.
Nobody is forcing us to bet antepost. We know the risks. We cannot change human nature. Antepost markets are in-play from the moment a market is opened and non-runners will get matched as quickly as fallers get matched in day-to-day in-running markets.If we want the choice to bet antepost or wait until raceday then we all need to stop bleating on about the unfairness of so-called "insider trading".
firsttimevisor - I believe we are in, what one of my American bosses used to call, violent agreement.
the vital phone records were not available refused to provide them but you will get a ban if you dont provide them, so a get out clause for any further inquiries dont think you will see many more now the bar has been set
That's true. But with horses, the people who work with them will always know more about their well-being than the general public knows. This will never change.
spot on..will happen everyday...but will bring it to the authorities attention when your thickasshit and lay 3 times the price.
spot on..will happen everyday...but will bring it to the authorities attention when your thickasshit and lay 3 times the price.
What puzzles me is why it was deemed appropriate for the BHA to be conducting this inquiry in the first place. The vet and his brother both I assume live in Ireland ,the horse is trained in Ireland and Betfair operate in Ireland. The fact the race is at Cheltenham is I'd suggest irrelevant.
maybe they had zero confidence in the irish authorities to do owt
@Firstmeadvisor
The well-being of a racehorse is not a state secret impossible123. You appear to be under the impression that stable staff are prohibited by some mysterious law from talking about the horses in their yard.
Horses get injuries and setbacks all the time. Its not a crime to talk about it when it happens.
Why do you not protest against betting exchanges and the facility to lay horses in long term ante-post markets?
First, this is where you are wrong, anyone who is licensed is duty bound not to share inside information in a positive or negative manner unless it is put in the public domain. To pass on such information for reward is a breach of license and will see you warned off if caught. That said every lad in every yard and every jockey has punters, it's the ones passing on negative info the BHA have an issue with and want to stamp out. The solution is simple, ban the facility to lay horses running in the UK, problem solved.
The well-being of a racehorse is not a state secret impossible123. You appear to be under the impression that stable staff are prohibited by some mysterious law from talking about the horses in their yard.
Horses get injuries and setbacks all the time. Its not a crime to talk about it when it happens.
Why do you not protest against betting exchanges and the facility to lay horses in long term ante-post markets?
First, this is where you are wrong, anyone who is licensed is duty bound not to share inside information in a positive or negative manner unless it is put in the public domain. To pass on such information for reward is a breach of license and will see you warned off if caught. That said every lad in every yard and every jockey has punters, it's the ones passing on negative info the BHA have an issue with and want to stamp out. The solution is simple, ban the facility to lay horses running in the UK, problem solved.
If it can be proved that the vets brother acted on inside information to defraud the clients of Betfair it is Betfair who should then pursue him through the criminal courts on behalf of their clients for fraud.
After all they reported it and have a record of all the bets that were matched by the vets brothers money.
This would be the perfect outcome and would be in everybody’s interest the stables, the BHA, Betfair but most importantly punters who place bets in good faith.
After all they reported it and have a record of all the bets that were matched by the vets brothers money.
This would be the perfect outcome and would be in everybody’s interest the stables, the BHA, Betfair but most importantly punters who place bets in good faith.
On a side note has anyone found out who was laying the Mullins big diifters/running badly ones at Leopardstown?
MJK 20 Jul 18 10:57
On a side note has anyone found out who was laying the Mullins big diifters/running badly ones at Leopardstown?
-------------
Yes - That would be far more interesting.
The Irish Authorities DID hold an investigation ... and fairly sure that they quickly concluded ............
'Nothing to see here.'
On a side note has anyone found out who was laying the Mullins big diifters/running badly ones at Leopardstown?
-------------
Yes - That would be far more interesting.
The Irish Authorities DID hold an investigation ... and fairly sure that they quickly concluded ............
'Nothing to see here.'
Domino14,I am not talking about licenced individuals passing on information to third parties for reward. My point is that stable staff are,quite rightly,as free as the rest of us to talk as openly as they like.
They are not signed up to a vow of silence. They don't have their phones confiscated or monitored. They are allowed to socialize outside of their own yard. Their homes are not bugged.They live in a free society, just like the rest of us do.
I agree with you though as to the solution.Ban antepost betting on exchanges and the biggest problem is immediately solved
They are not signed up to a vow of silence. They don't have their phones confiscated or monitored. They are allowed to socialize outside of their own yard. Their homes are not bugged.They live in a free society, just like the rest of us do.
I agree with you though as to the solution.Ban antepost betting on exchanges and the biggest problem is immediately solved
i think that's called throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
happysandwich • July 20, 2018 10:43 AM BST
If it can be proved that the vets brother acted on inside information to defraud the clients of Betfair it is Betfair who should then pursue him through the criminal courts on behalf of their clients for fraud.
Betfair can't pursue anyone through the criminal courts. The Gambling Commission has the power to prosecute for cheating and would have been informed by Betfair of all the circumstances. The Gambling Commission have used their power to prosecute once in 12 years or so. They dgaf about punters. In this case it is quite clear what happened and even the least informed jury could be convinced of this. The legal argument would be largely about whether using this kind of inside information is cheating.
If it can be proved that the vets brother acted on inside information to defraud the clients of Betfair it is Betfair who should then pursue him through the criminal courts on behalf of their clients for fraud.
Betfair can't pursue anyone through the criminal courts. The Gambling Commission has the power to prosecute for cheating and would have been informed by Betfair of all the circumstances. The Gambling Commission have used their power to prosecute once in 12 years or so. They dgaf about punters. In this case it is quite clear what happened and even the least informed jury could be convinced of this. The legal argument would be largely about whether using this kind of inside information is cheating.
First time visor
Domino14,I am not talking about licenced individuals passing on information to third parties for reward. My point is that stable staff are,quite rightly,as free as the rest of us to talk as openly as they like.
They are not signed up to a vow of silence. They don't have their phones confiscated or monitored. They are allowed to socialize outside of their own yard. Their homes are not bugged.They live in a free society, just like the rest of us do.
Again you are WRONG. Every licensed has a stable staff agreement form and they are LICENSED to be stable staff by the BHA, in return they get a racing pass, to take horses racing and have access to the non public areas of a racecourse. Stable Staff are licensed and are bound under the sames rules as owners, trainers and jockeys. SO NO, THEY CAN'T TALK AS OPEN AS THEY WANT, If they do and get caught they can be warned off. If they pass on information that is not in the public domain which leads to racing being brought into disrepute or under a cloud of integrity, they can and they would get warned off.
Stable staff are not allowed to pass out information that is not in the public domain although many often do. Some trainers even have their staff sign a confidentiality agreement, which if they breach is instant sacking. Godolphin make all their work riders sign one.
Domino14,I am not talking about licenced individuals passing on information to third parties for reward. My point is that stable staff are,quite rightly,as free as the rest of us to talk as openly as they like.
They are not signed up to a vow of silence. They don't have their phones confiscated or monitored. They are allowed to socialize outside of their own yard. Their homes are not bugged.They live in a free society, just like the rest of us do.
Again you are WRONG. Every licensed has a stable staff agreement form and they are LICENSED to be stable staff by the BHA, in return they get a racing pass, to take horses racing and have access to the non public areas of a racecourse. Stable Staff are licensed and are bound under the sames rules as owners, trainers and jockeys. SO NO, THEY CAN'T TALK AS OPEN AS THEY WANT, If they do and get caught they can be warned off. If they pass on information that is not in the public domain which leads to racing being brought into disrepute or under a cloud of integrity, they can and they would get warned off.
Stable staff are not allowed to pass out information that is not in the public domain although many often do. Some trainers even have their staff sign a confidentiality agreement, which if they breach is instant sacking. Godolphin make all their work riders sign one.
At the end of the day, where there is a will, there is a way anything else is economical with the truth and determination; to stop this sharp practice is not rocket science just the will is needed. But we are talking about the BHA (Bloody Hopeless Authority) headed by a former executive of a betting behemoth who is far from whiter than white,..does he have the will? Undoubtedly NO, in my opinion otherwise this despicable and fraudulent behaviour would have been history some time ago.
The £64k question is who/which major stable be next to profit from Betfair Exchange about a horse's well-being and/or running plan with impunity? A stables with previous form most likely; probably queuing up to do so after this impotent attempt by the BHA.
The £64k question is who/which major stable be next to profit from Betfair Exchange about a horse's well-being and/or running plan with impunity? A stables with previous form most likely; probably queuing up to do so after this impotent attempt by the BHA.
Could things like this have been stamped out years ago if Binocular s pheonix like resurection from the dead had been investigated deeply?
Did this not start the making of our beds?
Did this not start the making of our beds?
The only way you end corruption is BAN the laying on horse racing. You basically ban betting exchanges.
cobblers domino if i knew a 1/3 fav was not going to run i could make a killing going in my local bookies and backing all the rest at inflated prices ffs
Yes Domino but youd have to ban all the bookies also because they have been laying with inside knowledge and knowledge of skull-duggery for yonks
Dave1357
“Betfair can't pursue anyone through the criminal courts. The Gambling Commission has the power to prosecute for cheating and would have been informed by Betfair of all the circumstances. The Gambling Commission have used their power to prosecute once in 12 years or so. They dgaf about punters. In this case it is quite clear what happened and even the least informed jury could be convinced of this. The legal argument would be largely about whether using this kind of inside information is cheating. “
Thanks Dave, I didn’t know that..
I was probably thinking more a private prosecution by Betfair after this case on behalf of their clients who were matched by the vets brother.
As you said “even the least informed jury could be convinced of this.â€
They would do themselves and the racing world a power of good.
Or is that a dream?
“Betfair can't pursue anyone through the criminal courts. The Gambling Commission has the power to prosecute for cheating and would have been informed by Betfair of all the circumstances. The Gambling Commission have used their power to prosecute once in 12 years or so. They dgaf about punters. In this case it is quite clear what happened and even the least informed jury could be convinced of this. The legal argument would be largely about whether using this kind of inside information is cheating. “
Thanks Dave, I didn’t know that..
I was probably thinking more a private prosecution by Betfair after this case on behalf of their clients who were matched by the vets brother.
As you said “even the least informed jury could be convinced of this.â€
They would do themselves and the racing world a power of good.
Or is that a dream?
Domino14,I've been away for a few days hence the late reply. Here is BHA Rule 36.2 - Communication of Inside Information.
"A person must not communicate inside information directly or indirectly to any other person for any material reward, gift, favour or benefit in kind".
So it is ok for racing staff to voluntarily converse with others about horses. But it's not ok to prostitute that information.
"A person must not communicate inside information directly or indirectly to any other person for any material reward, gift, favour or benefit in kind".
So it is ok for racing staff to voluntarily converse with others about horses. But it's not ok to prostitute that information.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539