Freddie Tylicki

Good luck to the chap.  I doubt whether any amount of compo will be able to replace what he has lost.  I hope he is still pursuing his agent career, successfully.

yes good luck to Freddie, but this is gooing to cause huge ramifications accros all competitive sport not just horse racing

Maybe it will wake up the stewards.

Hope so they need to.

not only stewards but jockeys as well

stewards dont see anything..non racing person says reckless..

only in this fcked up silly world.

will footballers now sue for career ending tackles keano and haaland for instance

Stewards need to go down the USA route, interference = disq

Will cut out the win at costs rides.

Freddy Tylicki has succeeded in his claim against Graham Gibbons over the 2016 fall at Kempton that paralysed him, the High Court ruled on Tuesday. Judge Karen Walden-Smith issued her judgement at 2pm, declaring: "The actions of Mr Gibbons were . . . undertaken in reckless disregard for the safety of Mr Tylicki."

Tylicki said he was "delighted" by the news in a statement issued through Stewart-Moore solicitors. "It has taken five years for me and my legal team to overcome the injustice of the stewards' inquiry which took place at Kempton immediately after the race," the former jockey said.

"Today's result has finally provided me with closure and I look forward to putting this all behind me and moving on with my life. I hope though that this judgement acts as a reminder that competing in a dangerous sport like horseracing is no justification for competing with a reckless disregard for the safety of your fellow competitors."

The sum of money which must now be paid in compensation has yet to be determined.

The judgement is sure to be much scrutinised and fretted over in the coming days, being the first occasion on which a jockey has made a successful claim for damages against another jockey for a midrace incident. In particular, there will be questions about the future of the indemnity insurance available to jockeys and what it might mean for the sport if such insurance were to become unavailable.

This story is being updated and more news will follow shortly. You can also follow the Racing Post on Twitter (@RacingPost) to get the latest alerts

Dec 21, 2021 -- 2:56PM, ballyregan wrote:

will footballers now sue for career ending tackles keano and haaland for instance

There have been cases in the past, Elliot v Saunders springs to mind.

*all costs

Agree with westdag.

My agreement with wesdag was regarding the win at all cost rides.

Guess there will be an appeal

A pleasing outcome for Freddie and I am not at all surprised by the Judgement.

Can't see how this judgement has been arrived at. Sparrow makes an excellent point regarding the insurance of jocks now.

who the hell is going to insure an apprentice or even amateurs now.

So Gibbo was insured?

i'm surprised he won, not because gibbons made a mistake but because they had to convince a judge that the stewarding was incorrect first. the verdict is as much about the bha /stewards as it is about that incident and if they did their jobs properly and had the b@lls to use dangerous riding more often rather than soft call it to keep the jockeys onside they'd perhaps not have had any of this happen, that's before they even touch on drugs / alcohol and the testing

If you drive a car recklessly or without due care and attention on the road you get punished. It looks like the judge has taken the same view for horse race riders. Not surprising when tested in a Civil Court were only probable cause is needed.

All the money in the world could not compensate Freddie for what he has lost....The guy was riding on a crest of a wave then had it all snatched away in an instant.....Fair play to the man for making another career in the game, i am a big fan.

Blackrock 21 Dec 21 15:05 
Can't see how this judgement has been arrived at. Sparrow makes an excellent point regarding the insurance of jocks now.




It was from the Racing Post article Blackrock but I agree the insurance situation has to be looked at.

The initial stewards' enquiry was pretty certain to be subsequently judged inadequate as Tylicki was unable to have any input.

which then leaves the question given the seriousness of his injuries why didn't they refer it and have the bha conduct a full review in the aftermath, simple fact is they are inept

Rico-Dangleflaps 21 Dec 21 14:54 
stewards dont see anything..non racing person says reckless..
only in this fcked up silly world.

I think the stewards took what might have seemed the easiest option on the day given the circumstances. This is what I posted on the day:

GEORGE.B 31 Oct 16 17:31 
The stewards report is up on the BHA site, no mention of the incident that led to the clipping of heels, where FT went from being in a gap to being squeezed out.
All that matters is the wellbeing of the jockeys, but that stewards report is unsatisfactory imo.

GEORGE.B 31 Oct 16 18:43 
Unfortunately, there was a clear incident that led to the clipping of heels, with Tylicki being squeezed out of a gap having seemingly had room initially on the rail. The incident that led to the clipping of heels has been, for whatever reason, ignored by the stewards in their report.

In my view, a thorough review of what happened needs to be undertaken, if only to see if any lessons can be learnt (for example rail alignment on the bend) that may prevent such a shocking incident occurring again.

It appeared Tylicki had his mount part of the way upsides the mount of Gibbons, but then the camera angle changes and you see Tylicki having to stop riding and lose his position which in turn unfortunately led to the horrific incident.

Obviously what matters is the jockeys wellbeing, but some of us were watching live and can't just turn a blind eye to a stewards report that leaves questions unexplained.

I wonder how much this has cost and where any compo will come from ?

gibbons may have indemnity insurance, but whether they will pay out if he's been found negligent or it falls outside of his cover is going to be another question, be very interesting to see where it places the bha if he hasn't got cover too, they might be in the firing line yet

Pleased for Freddie.  But this shouldn't rely on someone being at fault or the IJF - if we want to see young men and women risking themselves in this game there should be an industry-wide system to ensure those who are injured in the pursuit of it are looked after, without years-long court battles.

whos going to insure a jockey

You can reckon on costs of about £75k before it gets to Court and about £30k a day in Court. Which is why a lot of Civil cases get settled before Court, often by Mediation. The only sure winners are the Lawyers.

elise - the insurance is there to indemnify him precisely because he's been negligent and has been found legally liable! Ye Gods!


ballyregan21 Dec 21 14:56Joined: 19 May 21 | Topic/replies: 1,980 | Blogger: ballyregan's blog
will footballers now sue for career ending tackles keano and haaland for instance

Yes, and they should succeed - "ordinary" fouls are part of the game and are part of the risks that players implicitly consent to when playing. Egregious, reckless "tackles" such as that are not part of the game and players do not consent to that.

longbridge21 Dec 21 16:24Joined: 25 Nov 10 | Topic/replies: 2,997 | Blogger: longbridge's blog
Pleased for Freddie.  But this shouldn't rely on someone being at fault or the IJF - if we want to see young men and women risking themselves in this game there should be an industry-wide system to ensure those who are injured in the pursuit of it are looked after, without years-long court battles.

That's a no fault system and COULD be applied to every/any activity. It's expensive.

I have been sick and tired of watching races with interference and stewards ignoring it and the 'experts' on the tele telling me there was nothing in it and the best horse won ......perhaps this will now stop.

Is it fair to say that in recent months we were seeing results changed following interference that might not have been changed previously under the current rules?

So in light of this case happening had the BHA off the record already been taking steps to tighten the interference rules, or rather attempt to send a message to jockeys that they need to do more to prevent interference?

So what will happen to the interference rules as a result of this case?

Are we going to be seeing more DQs, and will the double result concession be gone within months?

indemnify for an error yes or as you say an ordinary foul, indemnify for dangerous, or wilful or poss under the influence, not quite as sure they'd say yes

Are we going to be seeing more DQs, and will the double result concession be gone within months?

Small price to pay if it results in safer riding.

The US should be the model to follow imo, if you interfere with a horse, you get put behind it.

I will believe it when I see the dangerous riding rule recognised and actually used by the stewards.

elise21 Dec 21 16:35Joined: 04 Jan 03 | Topic/replies: 33,849 | Blogger: elise's blog
indemnify for an error yes or as you say an ordinary foul, indemnify for dangerous, or wilful or poss under the influence, not quite as sure they'd say yes

Having spent 43 years in the legal liability insurance game I suspect I'm a bit better qualified than you to comment.

There is no possibility of an insurer seeking to avoid providing indemnity in these circumstances. None whatsoever.

well after 43 years paris you'd probably know that acting unlawfully or under the influence often does have clauses on an insurance policy

These are Third Party not First Party insurances.

gibbons has been dead unlucky. shane foley recently could have put 4 jockeys in hospital or the morgue but he was given a very lenient ban for a far worse offence than gibbons

Wesdag 21 Dec 21 16:37 
Are we going to be seeing more DQs, and will the double result concession be gone within months?
Small price to pay if it results in safer riding.
The US should be the model to follow imo, if you interfere with a horse, you get put behind it.

Wesdag, it begs the question why they ever went down the route of giving the benefit of the doubt to the "offender", and these rules have been adopted by other countries like France in recent times.

The answer seemingly is so that the "best horse" is the winner.

But when you go down this route, then jockeys will take chances or try to bend the rules if they *know* the chances of being DQ'd are much reduced.

This is just a general observation, I'm not specifically referring to this case.

Yeah, the "best horse" argument has always been a bit of a stupid consideration imo.

If so, why has it needed to interfere? Why has the jockey not prevented it?

Insurance payouts in Ireland are much higher than the UK and jockeys riding in Ireland cant get insurance.

one day we,ll be looking at manslaughter charges

If a horse unexpectedly hangs sharply or swerves suddenly -is the jockey on the hook for that from now on ?

It's time for professional stewards made up 100% of ex-jockeys, maybe run from High Holborn a la VAR. Hold on, maybe not.

Dec 21, 2021 -- 7:40PM, Vubiant wrote:

If a horse unexpectedly hangs sharply or swerves suddenly -is the jockey on the hook for that from now on ?

If it purely down to the horse then of course not.

Vubiant - "If a horse unexpectedly hangs sharply or swerves suddenly -is the jockey on the hook for that from now on ?"

Probably not, given that Gibbons was found guilty of somewhat more than that.

It would seem that Ryan Moore's written report on his opinion of the incident did have some bearing on the outcome, combined with what the judge saw for herself from the various angles:

Moore's report has not been made public but an excerpt in the published arguments for Tylicki describes Gibbons as exerting "considerable tension on the right rein" while rounding the bend, and continues: "He would only have done that in order to encourage Madame Butterfly across Nellie Deen's racing line," a reference to the two horses involved.

and published today from the judge's decision:

"He exerted real pressure on the right-hand rein of Madame Butterfly in order to bring her across Nellie Deen's racing line and did not stop bringing her in close to the rail, even after the first collision. Even if, which I do not accept is credible, Mr Gibbons was unaware of the presence of Nellie Deen until he heard the shout of 'Gibbo' from Mr Tylicki, he certainly knew of the presence of Mr Tylicki and Nellie Deen at that time and he does nothing to pull Madame Butterfly off the rail in order to give Mr Tylicki a chance."

Naturally, what happened to FT was dreadful and no money can replace what he has lost. I am not in a position to judge a race-riding offence and if the judge has weighed up the evidence in favour of FT then so be it.

But, and no doubt I will be buried here for saying this, but there is something about what FT did once recovered (so to speak) from his fall that niggles at me.

I can well recall a 'fund giving page' appearing on the web for him just after the terrible incident and I gave a small sum myself. In the end, the sum obtained for him was well north of £300k.

Now, the appeal was for money to help FT out with his increased living expenses but not long after he received the cash he bought a racehorse. Sad Sad to say, to my old fashioned eye, that seemed just a little off-kilter. Should he now receive the £6 million claimed, should he refund the giving page the £300k+?

Fair point !

No it isn't.

He doesn't name the horse, nor provide any evidence that the money raised was used to buy a racehorse.

It looks like the horse(s) were owned in partnership /syndicate, so who knows where the money came from?

And even if some of the money was used to buy a racehorse, so what? Who said that the money couldn't be used to get him out and about and enjoy life a little?

What a joke of a decision. Gibbons was there to win not move out the way to let Tylicki get a free run up the rail.

But isn't that to condone a win at all costs approach -no holds barred and bugger the consequences ?

Carrot - which videos of the race have you watched that leads you to that conclusion. Have you seen all the videos seen by the court?

Actually i watched the videos the race and the replays which have since been taken down .

if we,re going down this route then surely we,re going to have to hand out draconian bans to prevent in happening in 1st place rather than reacting to a major accident, the irish jock in that group race at leop last season for instance could have put a couple of jocks over the rail,so you must be looking at 3 to  6 mmonths in future for such tactics

All the jocks know to be wary of coming up someones inner. Are we now saying that the jocks must move across, out of the way if another jock tries to go inside?

So a judge who knows practically nothing about racing, has decided Ryan Moore was a credible and helpful witness, aiding Freddies case. If Ruby Walsh had been a witness, btw a far superior jockey to Moore, had been a witness, he would have said don't try to come up my inner, go the long way round.

Maybe the judge would have been more impressed by RW and a different verdict given?

I think this is why it was probably a good thing that the judge was an 'outsider' with regard to horse racing, so she could examine the incident for herself and listen to what was being said by witnesses, without being influenced by old bullsh*t 'macho' perceptions like "don't try to come up my inner" or else...

If Ruby's reading this btw, I bet he's impressed that Blackrock thinks he knows Ruby's thoughts and can speak for him.

Ruby has gone on record as saying 'don't come up my inner or else.'

But he would he say it in a court of law after being presented with the video evidence?

George B,  So, if you give a homeless guy some cash and see him go off and buy some scratchcards, would you be happy?

I'd be hoping he'd hit the jackpot, The Knight.

Good for him.

And if not scratch cards, maybe a few cans of Kestrel Super Strength, obviously for 'medicinal' purposes.

Opened a right can of worms .Everytime a bit of interference causes a fall are we going to see litigation for any injury .

Surely the owner now has a right to compensation given the verdict??

You will end up with journeyman jocks trying to squeeze into a gap where far superior female riders have closed the door and end up in court.


Ohh oops we already have.

it seems the level of injury caused now dictates the penalty. if ft had fallen off but emerged unscathed, thats it and all forgotten. there were 1000 worse rides than gibbons this year alone. all racing bores(huge majority) will now drone on about it changing the way riding offences are judged and things will improve because of it. by all means but this is bollox

The judge stated in her concluding remarks that her ruling is confined to the particular facts of this case:

"I stress that the threshold for liability of negligence is a high one. The finding does not set a precedent, either within horseracing or in sport generally."

Agree with Mitolo. If Freddie had got up and walked away or off a few days with injury .We wouldnt have heard another thing.

WOuld have all been self policed by the weighing room .Yea right.

If Crowley smelt alcohol on Gibbons breath in weighing room prior is he complicit/liable ?? neglect duty of care to himself and fellow riders by not reporting ??

What next two metre lanes down the home straight

Definition of dangerous riding (unchanged):
A rider is guilty of dangerous riding if he causes serious interference by:

Purposely interfering with another horse or rider, or;
Riding in a way that is far below that of a competent and careful rider and where it would be obvious to such a competent or careful rider that riding in that way was likely to endanger the safety of a horse and rider
Please note: Consequent to the penalty range for careless riding increasing to 14 days, the range for dangerous riding has now increased from 10-28 days to 14-28 days. It remains the case that a rider found guilty of dangerous riding will be disqualified from the race.

Does anyone know when this rule was last used?

Some of the comments on here are laughable. No it does not "open the floodgates". What it will do (and sadly it's taken a tragic event to provide the catalyst) is prompt the BHA to properly regulate the matter of improper riding.

It had become "Wild West" gradually with jockeys almost being incentivised to interfere on the basis that a wider winning margin made a DQ less likely.

Whatever your views on USA racing the fact is that jockeys are incentivised to avoid interference as they know DQ will follow same. And they do. Ours aren't. And they don't.

Tylicki was waiting to happen. If any good comes out of the case it's that because of it it's less likely to happen again.

The Knight21 Dec 21 22:16Joined: 02 Sep 01 | Topic/replies: 951 | Blogger: The Knight's blog
Naturally, what happened to FT was dreadful and no money can replace what he has lost. I am not in a position to judge a race-riding offence and if the judge has weighed up the evidence in favour of FT then so be it.

But, and no doubt I will be buried here for saying this, but there is something about what FT did once recovered (so to speak) from his fall that niggles at me.

I can well recall a 'fund giving page' appearing on the web for him just after the terrible incident and I gave a small sum myself. In the end, the sum obtained for him was well north of £300k.

Now, the appeal was for money to help FT out with his increased living expenses but not long after he received the cash he bought a racehorse. Sad Sad to say, to my old fashioned eye, that seemed just a little off-kilter. Should he now receive the £6 million claimed, should he refund the giving page the £300k+?

Well **** me poor Freddie is going to spend the rest of his life in a wheel chair and your worried about your Tenner going towards buying a Racehorse for the guy which would give him a great deal of pleasure?.....You could not make it up ffs.

Yes indeed you should be buried.

Indeed, acey.

IF the damages are at or near the reported £6M the vast majority will be for future care costs. The "pain and suffering" element will be c. £250,000. Would you swap being confined to a wheelchair for the rest of your life for such a sum?

why are people burying theknight again?

Keep up bally.

what is wrong with theknights point of view acey?

Thanks for the info parispike - it is always revealing to get an expert in the field telling us what's what.  Serious compliment intended.
As for the suggestion that the BHA ( presumably ) should institute an industry wide compensation/insurance system for injured jockeys - that's I another great idea but if after twenty years or so of having female jockeys and they still can't provide separate changing/hygiene/welfare facilities for both sexes, at each racecourse, then I don't hold out much hope.

Thank you LH - appreciated.

A compensation scheme is perfectly feasible (there may be one already) but if benefits of up to  c £6M (which are necessary to fully fund catastrophic injuries of the type Freddie suffered) are envisaged it would be VERY expensive. Also trying to effect one immediately after the Tylicki/Gibbons case may not be the most propitious time to convince an underwriter! Also needs to be recognised that it's a no fault scheme so claims are more likely than in a civil case where it's necessary to demonstrate breach of duty/negligence.

Premiums would be funded by jockeys out of riding fees - inevitably this will lead to demands for increased  riding fees to offset....