Hi xmx,

still do a multiple every day, L15 or 31 usually. Always ew, not enough runners most days for a heinz. Do the multis on 365 now.

Stay lucky.

i never refuse a pint look forward to it

Philip Makin has tweeted that he drove GG to Kempton that day and he never got a smell of alcohol during the 4 hour trip.

THE SPORTS CHAMPION JOCKEY
has been stood down for failing drink test ,failed drug tests ,lied about both incidents,was seen/other jocks heard about him been completely bladdered 12 hrs before racing,but every jock in uk quite happy to ride in a race with him a week after he lost control of a horse in a paddock just averting a serious incident to racing staff and public

the fact is he was absolutely shoite faced 12 hrs earlier and the stewards were tipped off

If Tylicki had got up and walked away from the incident would have never heard another murmur.

Sadly its risks jockeys take everyday of their lives. This smacks of a rallying cry of how much damages can we screw out of the situation for the unfortunate Tylicki.

Opens a right can of worms if found in Tylickis favour.
If you are looking to go up the inside as a professional jock you know the risk you are taking and 9/10 any good jock is going to close the door on you.

A very bad week for the weighing room in general
In both cases Frost/Dunne and Tylicki/Gibbons it doesnt come up smelling of roses from an outsider looking in.

yes agree geoff - looks bad - then there's the Skelton case, the Jim bolger doping accusations - not to mention what we see day in day out of dodgy rides, unfit horses, a few owners who dominate the sport and can what they want - hot on the heels of Gordon Elliot as well. Yet nobody seems to criticise the powers that govern the sport for allowing this culture - its a rotten arrogant culture and clique - and they are just getting the headlines they deserve imo and ironically its us punters who are vilified for giving opinions that are largely in the best interests of the sport (albeit with some pocket talking occasionaly :))

you can also point the finger at the media and pundits, none of whom have the b@lls to ask the right questions for fear of themselves being alienated, don't rock the boat or we won't let you in so it effectively condones the poor management of the sport and hides the dirty side of racing

geoff m

If you are looking to go up the inside as a professional jock you know the risk you are taking and 9/10 any good jock is going to close the door on you.

Because it's been permitted. Why so, however? "Close the door" appears to be a euphemism for taking action to deliberately impede an an opponent.

crowley made me laugh, he was done for improper (one of the early ones) then appealed and got it down turned to careless

geoff m 02 Dec 21 13:52 
Yep happens ever day in race riding. How can Moore  give that evidence and keep a straight face







What is your opinion of the "dangerous riding" rule" Geoff and how would you define it?

maybe one of them should have called thommo as a witness / character reference

racing,moore and rsacing media in a nutshell
bloke in a wheelchair for life
bloke getting sued for 6 million plus
star prosecution witness says on the stand

I,M BORED WITH IT ALL , CAN I GO HOME NOW,

Moore has made himself look a fool or a liar with his statement.
Gibbons says he was only a half horse width from the rail, which means there was never room for Freddie to go up the inner. The head on must show if Gibbons version is true or not?

Freddy Tylicki incident was 'easily avoidable', Jim McGrath tells High Court

By Chris Cook, Senior reporter
7:00PM, DEC 2 2021
 
The mid-race collision which paralysed Freddy Tylicki was "easily avoidable", Jim McGrath told the High Court on Thursday. The veteran broadcaster and racing analyst was speaking on day four of a hearing to determine whether Tylicki's injuries were the result of negligence on the part of his fellow jockey Graham Gibbons, who denies it.

While watching footage of the race, McGrath called attention to what he said was "a discernible movement" by Gibbons, changing his grip on the reins and resulting in his mount, Madame Butterfly,  moving back towards the inside rail. In McGrath's view, this was what led to Nellie Deen, under Tylicki, running out of room some seconds later.

"What is the only real possible outcome if the jockey on the outside continues with that manoeuvre?" McGrath asked the court. "Trouble with a capital 'T', and not just for Mr Tylicki. Mr Gibbons has tightened the lead at the head of a packed field.

"Now, sometimes jockeys make split-second decisions, they have to. My gripe with the situation is at this stage of the race, Mr Gibbons is on the best horse and was well positioned, he was half a mile from home, there was nothing really to be gained by doing what he appears to have done. It was easily avoidable."

Patrick Lawrence QC, defending Gibbons, argued with McGrath, suggesting the footage showed "no trace of any significant lateral movement of Madame Butterfly towards the rail" before the collision. "There is in my opinion," McGrath said.


Lawrence questioned whether McGrath was qualified to make the claim that Gibbons had been guilty of dangerous riding. "What is it in your life," the barrister asked, "that entitles you to give expert evidence to this court as to whether his riding was far below that of a competent and careful rider?"

"My experience as a race-reader and commentator and my knowledge of the rules," McGrath replied. When Lawrence insisted that did not amount to "sufficient expertise", the irritated McGrath called attention to the solicitor Rory Mac Neice, sitting behind the barrister and alongside Gibbons.

"Mr Mac Neice works regularly for the PJA," said McGrath. "The PJA thought I was sufficiently experienced to ask me to help in the case of a jockey, Richie McGrath. They clearly thought I had some experience and knowledge that was worth presenting to a tribunal.

"Off the back of that, they asked me to be involved in two more cases. I declined. I'm not a gun for hire. Like Ryan Moore said yesterday, to me this is tiresome and unpleasant, I don't take any pleasure in being here saying these things. Yes, I do think overall I can give a reasonable opinion to the court."

The hour-long exchanges between the pair ended on a testy note, when Lawrence asserted: "This was an incident of a type that is very commonplace, a clash between two horses close to the rail. What is remarkable is the severity of the injuries but ultimately it was no more than a racing incident and your evidence that Mr Gibbons was guilty of dangerous riding is without any foundation."

"Absolute rubbish," McGrath responded.

Mac Neice found himself being dragged into the evidence again while the defence's expert, Charlie Lane, was on the stand. Edward Faulks QC cross-examined him about three other races mentioned in his report, one of which resulted in a ban for Moore, an expert witness for Tylicki this week. Lane said those races had been suggested to him by Mac Neice as alternative examples of careless riding.

Ryan Moore fends off suggestion of bias from Gibbons' counsel in High Court

Faulks pointed out that, as an expert, Lane's first duty was to the court and queried whether it could be right for him to include three races "cherry-picked" by solicitors acting for Gibbons. "The only race [besides the Kempton one] the court was shown this week was a race involving Mr Moore, an expert witness for the claimant. Did you think it was just a coincidence that his only suspension for careless riding that year was among the three races chosen?"

"I think it may well not have been," Lane replied, "but I don't know. I didn't ask, I'm afraid."

Lane said he was a steward of 30 years' experience, who had started out at Kempton and still officiated there occasionally. He said he knew the stewards who had been on duty on the day of the incident but did not see that as an obstacle to his offering a fair appraisal of their verdict of accidental interference, with which he agreed.

Faulks questioned him as to whether the stewards should have adjourned their inquiry, in view of the fact the four jockeys who had fallen or been unseated were not available to describe events. Lane said: "To me, what you see on the film is sufficient for the stewards to reach a decision. I accept there may be others who would disagree."

In a passage of evidence which may be of concern to racing's regulator, Lane agreed with a number of propositions put to him by Faulks that jockeys might not always be frank and open when speaking in a stewards' inquiry. The questions arose from Tuesday's testimony by Pat Cosgrave that, in addressing the Kempton stewards, he had been trying to abide by a jockeys' "code of conduct . . . to not get involved or say too much".

"Jockeys may be taciturn in terms of what they say happened about a race," Faulks suggested. "It may not always be easy to get as full a picture as you would want from a jockey."

"I agree," Lane said.

The week-long hearing is set to conclude on Friday with closing arguments for both sides. An immediate verdict is not expected.

"Lane said he was a steward of 30 years' experience, who had started out at Kempton and still officiated there occasionally. He said he knew the stewards who had been on duty on the day of the incident but did not see that as an obstacle to his offering a fair appraisal of their verdict of accidental interference, with which he agreed."

Which begs the question, why aren't the stewards that were on duty on the day giving evidence?

Are they still comfortable with their decision on the day?

Do they feel in retrospect that they should have referred the enquiry onto the BHA given jockeys involved weren't able to give evidence?

Were they "panicked" into making a decision on the day, as Mr McGrath suggested?

Whether you agree or disagree with the current rules and their interpretation by the stewards, there has been a widening between UK rules and those in other jurisdictions, in the last 20 years.

In the US for example, you often see jockeys pulling their mounts off others in the stretch, even when it lessens their chance of winning.

Because such manoeuvres, intended or otherwise, often cost them the race (although US rules have come more into line with ours in the last couple of years).

There's a balance to be found between horse and rider safety, and the principle of allowing a result where the best horse wins.

As a punter I favour the more egalitarian principles that our rules have embraced in recent times.

McGrath was also an expert witness for the prosecution in the Fallon,Lynch,Williams trial. His statement was not helpful to the prosecution as he stated he did not see anything suspicious about the rides so the prosecution did not use him and the statement became part of the unused material which should be disclosed to the defence.

However through incompetence or something more sinister his staement was not disclosed until after the trial started and it was one of a few reasons the case collapsed at enormous expense to the taxpayer.

Fallon had brought an application to dismiss shortly before the trial but that failed, if the Judge and Fallon's team were aware of the undisclosed statement of McGrath it is likely the application would have succeeded and the Trial would never have taken place.

Youve only got to watch Rubys analysis of races where he praises the jocks who close the door on rivals. Altho there is a fine line between good proffesional riding and dangerous riding .