Forums
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 51 comments are related to the topic:
Skelton and litigation. Sunday Times David Walsh

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 2 of 2  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 51
By:
Theoneandonly
When: 02 Jan 22 21:49
The explanation that the BHA gave that he raised the invoice in the other company name for 'convenience' could potentially raise questions with the taxman!

I think a big problem in racing is some people treating owners that pump money into the game like mugs. With training 6 horses for the syndicate you would think he would have been getting 50-100k a year from then anyway, Plus they were looking to win big races and spend money to buy horses to go in skeltons yard which would have been perfect for him. Wonder why the BHA have suddenly changed their position on the matter?
By:
impossible123
When: 02 Jan 22 21:58
I think who "owners" are may have a reason for a change of position by the BHA - bloody hopeless agency!
By:
Chadfan
When: 02 Jan 22 22:39
Another potential PR disaster for horse racing. They keep coming.
By:
Deptford
When: 03 Jan 22 06:04
BHA are not fit for purpose.
By:
MythWA
When: 03 Jan 22 09:19
I was told that its a common practice that when a trainer recommends a purchase they automatically get a a share for free and their name is not mentioned in the owners credits in the media.
By:
Somerset Sam
When: 03 Jan 22 10:43
It's not good enough the skullduggery that goes on, like something out of a Dick Francis novel. But to play Devils Advocate if I may, I assume the owners had carried out their own due diligence and were content at buying the horse for £130,000 regardless of who the sellers actually were and that this was value in their own mind?

Would they have been as disgruntled if the horse had gone on to be the next Kauto Star?

Skelton's role stinks there is no doubt about that.
By:
Gagging
When: 03 Jan 22 12:22
A rock-solid absolutely clear 'conflict of interests' here from the outset - shame on the BHA for a muddled and wrong determination. Of course transparency was required - morally and legally. As clear as the virologists' letter to the Lancet in 2020 [and it's acceptance by editorial staff and many who should have known better throughout the medical world] - stating that the Covid pandemic could not have originated from a Wuhan laboratory which it likely or almost certainly did.
By:
barstool
When: 03 Jan 22 12:33
If the trainer has introduced the owner to the vendor "taking a drink" out of the proceedings is considered normal practice. It was alleged Skelton's former boss took a 10k tipple which an owner took exception to. Cannot remember the horse involved though.

I often wondered if Howard Johnson liked a drink.
By:
impossible123
When: 03 Jan 22 19:58
1/3 share of the horse in question conveniently equals to the cost of training fees. Merely a coincidence or staggeringly arrogant and disdain to the owners?

Why did he not put his hands up and cough up? The present predicament is character damaging and professionally tarnished irrevocably.
By:
sparrow
When: 03 Jan 22 20:06
Skelton just sounds like an old time con artist to me.
By:
dambuster
When: 04 Jan 22 16:47
I wonder if ITV Racing will question him about it ?LaughLaughLaughLaugh
By:
impossible123
When: 04 Jan 22 17:24
"I wonder if ITV Racing will question him about it"

ITV Racing with their sycophantic presenters and sponsorship? More chance of The Pope not being a Christian, I'd think. Neither the BHA, the authority supposedly overseeing and responsible for the integrity of the participants in horseracing.
Page 2 of 2  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com