Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Dual Grand National-winning rider Leighton Aspell said he believed Philip Byrnes' controversial unseat from Redwood Queen at Wexford in May was a "deliberate act" in his evidence presented at an Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board (IHRB) referrals committee hearing on Monday.
The IHRB alleges that the jockey did not fulfil his obligation to allow his mount to run on its merits due to deliberately leaving the saddle on Redwood Queen, trained by his father Charles, at the final flight at Wexford on May 28. It also alleges the trainer acted in a manner prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct and good reputation of horseracing due to comments made to the Irish Field two days after the race in question.
The incident occurred when Byrnes was unseated from Redwood Queen, who drifted from 7-2 to a starting price of 13-2, at the final flight when two lengths clear of the field, leaving 1-3 favourite Beacon Edge to run out a 22-length winner of the 2m1f claiming hurdle on the card.
Although the raceday stewards took no action against Byrnes on the day, the IHRB subsequently said it would review the incident and announced in October that the father-and-son trainer-jockey combination were scheduled to appear before a referrals committee.
Despite the hearing commencing at 9.30am, it was not adjourned until 7.45pm with Justice Peter Kelly explaining that a decision won't be forthcoming until the transcript is available, which is unlikely to be this side of Christmas.
Head of raceday operations at the IHRB, Paul Murtagh, was first called to give evidence in front of a three-person referrals committee of Justice Kelly, Martin O'Donnell and John McGuire.
He detailed an interview conducted with Philip Byrnes in August in relation to the incident, in which Byrnes said he "received a bump" due to the way Redwood Queen shifted, before "slipping off her backside and next thing was on the floor" and he "made every effort to stay on".
Aidan Connolly, CEO of data analytics company Idiro, was then interviewed remotely in respect of the betting patterns of the race, evidence which Byrnes' legal team had earlier objected to, questioning its relevance.
They also objected to the admissibility of Aspell's expert testimony on account of him being an employee of the IHRB as a stipendiary steward, which they argued compromised his independence. However, the committee deemed it not appropriate to exclude either evidence.
Leighton Aspell: now works as a stipendary steward for the IHRB
Leighton Aspell: now works as a stipendary steward for the IHRB
Connolly described a "surge of money" for eventual winning favourite Beacon Edge between 20 and 30 minutes before the start of the race, resulting in the figure matched on him on the Betfair Exchange rising from €3,900 to €19,660.
He largely focused on the timing of what he called a "significant jump" in the market. While he said such a five-fold increase would be typical close to the off of a race, the timeframe made the move "beyond the norm".
In Aspell's evidence, he went through video evidence of the fall from a variety of angles at different speeds, describing the unseat as "very hard to explain" due to Byrnes losing a right stirrup despite "no deviation" from Redwood Queen. He gave the opinion that Redwood Queen made no error at the final flight, concluding that he could "only view it as a deliberate act".
Under questioning from the defence, Aspell admitted that he did not consider Byrnes' explanation in his interview with Murtagh when writing his report. He also disagreed with the defence's position that Redwood Queen veered right.
In Byrnes' evidence, he admitted to having a higher fall-rate than normal for a jockey and said his instructions on the day were to settle Redwood Queen in second or third. He attributed an unexpected change in approach by his mount as being a significant factor in the unseat.
Byrnes explained that he thought Redwood Queen was going to "flick through" the final hurdle in similar style to how she negotiated the previous obstacles, but he suggested that she "spotted something infield", causing her to look left. He then described that she "just let go and jumped into the air" before giving him a "bump in the backside", causing him to lose his irons and suffer the unseat.
Equestrian John Watson and former Irish champion jockey Davy Russell, who enjoyed great success when combining with Charles Byrnes during his riding career, gave evidence in support of the defence. Watson said Byrnes was "out of alignment with the horse", but was adamant the rider "was determined" and "made a good effort" to maintain the partnership.
Russell said he "disagreed wholeheartedly" with the accusation that the unseat was intentional, attributing it to "indecision from the rider" and referencing an "unwritten rule" in riding where you "don't bail out".
Theres so many things thats crazy in the above I wouldnt know where to start...but Aspell being employed by IHRB is one. The data analysis being two. Byrnes jnrs version of events and finally Davy chipping in. Panto season indeed
The IHRB alleges that the jockey did not fulfil his obligation to allow his mount to run on its merits due to deliberately leaving the saddle on Redwood Queen, trained by his father Charles, at the final flight at Wexford on May 28. It also alleges the trainer acted in a manner prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct and good reputation of horseracing due to comments made to the Irish Field two days after the race in question.
The incident occurred when Byrnes was unseated from Redwood Queen, who drifted from 7-2 to a starting price of 13-2, at the final flight when two lengths clear of the field, leaving 1-3 favourite Beacon Edge to run out a 22-length winner of the 2m1f claiming hurdle on the card.
Although the raceday stewards took no action against Byrnes on the day, the IHRB subsequently said it would review the incident and announced in October that the father-and-son trainer-jockey combination were scheduled to appear before a referrals committee.
Despite the hearing commencing at 9.30am, it was not adjourned until 7.45pm with Justice Peter Kelly explaining that a decision won't be forthcoming until the transcript is available, which is unlikely to be this side of Christmas.
Head of raceday operations at the IHRB, Paul Murtagh, was first called to give evidence in front of a three-person referrals committee of Justice Kelly, Martin O'Donnell and John McGuire.
He detailed an interview conducted with Philip Byrnes in August in relation to the incident, in which Byrnes said he "received a bump" due to the way Redwood Queen shifted, before "slipping off her backside and next thing was on the floor" and he "made every effort to stay on".
Aidan Connolly, CEO of data analytics company Idiro, was then interviewed remotely in respect of the betting patterns of the race, evidence which Byrnes' legal team had earlier objected to, questioning its relevance.
They also objected to the admissibility of Aspell's expert testimony on account of him being an employee of the IHRB as a stipendiary steward, which they argued compromised his independence. However, the committee deemed it not appropriate to exclude either evidence.
Leighton Aspell: now works as a stipendary steward for the IHRB
Leighton Aspell: now works as a stipendary steward for the IHRB
Connolly described a "surge of money" for eventual winning favourite Beacon Edge between 20 and 30 minutes before the start of the race, resulting in the figure matched on him on the Betfair Exchange rising from €3,900 to €19,660.
He largely focused on the timing of what he called a "significant jump" in the market. While he said such a five-fold increase would be typical close to the off of a race, the timeframe made the move "beyond the norm".
In Aspell's evidence, he went through video evidence of the fall from a variety of angles at different speeds, describing the unseat as "very hard to explain" due to Byrnes losing a right stirrup despite "no deviation" from Redwood Queen. He gave the opinion that Redwood Queen made no error at the final flight, concluding that he could "only view it as a deliberate act".
Under questioning from the defence, Aspell admitted that he did not consider Byrnes' explanation in his interview with Murtagh when writing his report. He also disagreed with the defence's position that Redwood Queen veered right.
In Byrnes' evidence, he admitted to having a higher fall-rate than normal for a jockey and said his instructions on the day were to settle Redwood Queen in second or third. He attributed an unexpected change in approach by his mount as being a significant factor in the unseat.
Byrnes explained that he thought Redwood Queen was going to "flick through" the final hurdle in similar style to how she negotiated the previous obstacles, but he suggested that she "spotted something infield", causing her to look left. He then described that she "just let go and jumped into the air" before giving him a "bump in the backside", causing him to lose his irons and suffer the unseat.
Equestrian John Watson and former Irish champion jockey Davy Russell, who enjoyed great success when combining with Charles Byrnes during his riding career, gave evidence in support of the defence. Watson said Byrnes was "out of alignment with the horse", but was adamant the rider "was determined" and "made a good effort" to maintain the partnership.
Russell said he "disagreed wholeheartedly" with the accusation that the unseat was intentional, attributing it to "indecision from the rider" and referencing an "unwritten rule" in riding where you "don't bail out".
Theres so many things thats crazy in the above I wouldnt know where to start...but Aspell being employed by IHRB is one. The data analysis being two. Byrnes jnrs version of events and finally Davy chipping in. Panto season indeed
Show More
conclusion will be on opinion only...impossible to prove was intentional.
aspell will open the door for an appeal in the event of a conviction, definite conflict of interest and an additional admission that he did not consider byrnes explanation when writing his report.
'Aidan Connolly, CEO of data analytics company Idiro, was then interviewed remotely in respect of the betting patterns of the race, evidence which Byrnes' legal team had earlier objected to, questioning its relevance'. 
on a more serious note the fact that they brought up the fact that he seemed to have a higher fall rate than is normal would make you question of it this was just the latest in a few of these 'unseats'.
on a more serious note the fact that they brought up the fact that he seemed to have a higher fall rate than is normal would make you question of it this was just the latest in a few of these 'unseats'.
At least he won't be jumping off at the last again in a hurry.
Of that we can be sure.
Other options are however available.
Of that we can be sure.
Other options are however available.
Expect a fudge tbh even though we all know what really happened.
Whether it was incompetence or unprofessional his name and integrity are shot. Unless he's riding for his dad - he'll be watched like a hawk - any respectable owner in the future will be thinking 3x before beginning an association with him or his dad.
I adhere to the Occam's Razor theory.
Betting patterns.....events.
Betting patterns.....events.
And the horsey individuals who spoke for them at the hearing. Paid or incredulous? The party has form!
Anyone with a working racing brain agrees 100% with Aspell and 0% with the brown envelope boxer. What's he sticking his beak in for? Oh hang on 2 peas in a pod. This scourge on the sport has been at it for decades. Passing this way of life onto his son says the type of individual we are dealing with.
While I would agree with you Slickster surely Aspell of all people giving evidence to convict a jockey of cheating is the ultimate hypocricy.
While I would agree with you Slickster surely Aspell of all people giving evidence to convict a jockey of cheating is the ultimate hypocricy.
Yes but the lesser of 2 evils especially with the concerned case. Whereas its irrelevant he's a 2 time national winner, when the fences were harder. Very hard to do what the sprog did without it being illegal over a hurdle. At the last. When it was the only option left. With the drift. With daddy's record etc etc...
The connections have form, and are not important to horseracing Ireland.
Poor horsemanship. A euphemism for "jumping off". What a pathetic decision!
If so, why not de-register the jockey for his incompetency or at least give him a year's abstinence from the tracks to improve? The betting suggested the horse was very unlikely to win!
This can only happen in Ireland. The connections have form. Pathetic!
If so, why not de-register the jockey for his incompetency or at least give him a year's abstinence from the tracks to improve? The betting suggested the horse was very unlikely to win!
This can only happen in Ireland. The connections have form. Pathetic!
That has never mattered to "hang em high" implausible
There was very little chance of any other verdict as forecasted on the day
The IHRB are self-appointed rulers of irish racing.
The membership of the IHRB is unknown.
Who are the membership of HRI - trainers, breeders, stallion owners, racehorse owners?
The IHRB get 10 million a year (through HRI) from the Irish government.
There have been many doping cases where the IHRB fined the guilty and then waived the fine.
The IHRB seldom publish the levels of banned drugs found in the drug offender samples.
The usual explanation accepted is the vet administered the drug and IHRB do not find vets guilty.
The membership of the IHRB is unknown.
Who are the membership of HRI - trainers, breeders, stallion owners, racehorse owners?
The IHRB get 10 million a year (through HRI) from the Irish government.
There have been many doping cases where the IHRB fined the guilty and then waived the fine.
The IHRB seldom publish the levels of banned drugs found in the drug offender samples.
The usual explanation accepted is the vet administered the drug and IHRB do not find vets guilty.
"In Aspell's evidence, he went through video evidence of the fall from a variety of angles at different speeds,"
Did they view it from this angle? Jump at 2:34.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwYN7mTi6HM&list=RDSwYN7mTi6HM&start_radio=1
Did they view it from this angle? Jump at 2:34.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwYN7mTi6HM&list=RDSwYN7mTi6HM&start_radio=1
"Proof" was always likely to be the problem and it was
Hello kincsem (54 consecutive wins!) there's a lot wrong with Irish racing administration. However, IHRB membership is a matter of public record (admittedly, you have to know where to look on its website). HRI is transparent in that respect, it has to be because it's a state body. See here https://www.hri.ie/corporate/about-us/company-structure/board-members
Daddy and sprog need to be given the cold shoulder by everyone else in the game. Of course you cannot get 100% proof. 99.9 wasn't gonna cut it. Just cos they were "found" innocent doesn't mean they are. As guilty as hell. As we all know. Horrible humans.
asire
Hello kincsem (54 consecutive wins!) there's a lot wrong with Irish racing administration. However, IHRB membership is a matter of public record (admittedly, you have to know where to look on its website). HRI is transparent in that respect, it has to be because it's a state body. See here https://www.hri.ie/corporate/about-us/company-structure/board-members
I do not think the membership of IHRB is public.
I can see the IHRB directors on their website and the people on the committees.
What I do not see is the membership of the IHRB.
The disciplinary commiettee has 34 people, and I see wealthy owners and breeders on the list.
I assume the current IHRB decide who is/remains/becomes a member.
They spend public money yet they are a private club.
Hello kincsem (54 consecutive wins!) there's a lot wrong with Irish racing administration. However, IHRB membership is a matter of public record (admittedly, you have to know where to look on its website). HRI is transparent in that respect, it has to be because it's a state body. See here https://www.hri.ie/corporate/about-us/company-structure/board-members
I do not think the membership of IHRB is public.
I can see the IHRB directors on their website and the people on the committees.
What I do not see is the membership of the IHRB.
The disciplinary commiettee has 34 people, and I see wealthy owners and breeders on the list.
I assume the current IHRB decide who is/remains/becomes a member.
They spend public money yet they are a private club.
Talking about being 100% and 'proof' is a red herring in this case.
Are stewards 100% sure or have proof when they amend a result - no, but they do still.
Are stewards 100% sure or have proof when they amend a result - no, but they do still.
Same as most legal trials it's about 'reasonable doubt' not 'proof' which is basically in most cases impossible to show.
This was as clear as day. "Beyond all reasonable doubt" should have applied. There was no doubt. What does byrnes have to do to get warned off?
I presume this case also used all possible evidence e.g. phone calls, bank accounts, betting accounts etc...
no, thought not.
no, thought not.
Daddy byrnes is at this sort of thing all his life. He KNEW he and the sprog would keep getting away with it. That's why he keeps ***king about.
I am not in favour of the secrecy of the IHRB.
The membership is a mystery, and punishment for drug offences is also a bit of a mystery, with many punishments waived.
There are many judges and other legal people in the IHRB membership.
They will know more about what proof is needed in cases like the one we are discussing.
The video of the Redwood Queen "fall" was seen around the world.
Irish racing is picking up a reputation as a weakly regulated Wild West.
The membership is a mystery, and punishment for drug offences is also a bit of a mystery, with many punishments waived.
There are many judges and other legal people in the IHRB membership.
They will know more about what proof is needed in cases like the one we are discussing.
The video of the Redwood Queen "fall" was seen around the world.
Irish racing is picking up a reputation as a weakly regulated Wild West.
Indeed kim, this could have been a good opportunity to send a warning shot - it's not just Byrnes lot either, plenty others.
If you need to be 100% then anyone can do this at any time going forward, this has now set a precedent.
When that jockey eased down the other day why didn't he say to the stewards, before you give me 28 days, I'm telling you that I thought I felt the horse go wrong so I dropped my hands....prove that I didn't.
When that jockey eased down the other day why didn't he say to the stewards, before you give me 28 days, I'm telling you that I thought I felt the horse go wrong so I dropped my hands....prove that I didn't.
Doubt the Irish racing fans couldn't care less compared to the Betfair racing forum?
Sickener of an outcome, but those who are using it to, as usual, blame all the ills in the sport on Irish racing are talking nonsense. A few weeks on here I highlighted the amount of easy unseat were seeing now, vast majority in the UK. And who can forget this https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2004/sep/17/horseracing.gregwood
Still posters on here do not understand the burden of proof required in a Court of Law.
If the IHRB had banned either Byrne they would have been taken to Court and asked to prove it.
Remember the outcome of the Top Cees Case?
If the IHRB had banned either Byrne they would have been taken to Court and asked to prove it.
Remember the outcome of the Top Cees Case?
I get that irons. Doesn't make it feel any better though. I would hope at the very least those on the panel acknowledged to each other he was guilty as hell, even if they couldn't 100% prove it.
Byrnes has been getting away with murder for many years,MJK and by the looks of things will continue to do so
Maybe the handicapper could give his horses, special handicap marks.
He would then do a Barney and have them "trained" elsewhere,the dealer.
A hideous individual
A hideous individual
It's a case of "Not Proven" and is laughable....the King has no clothes
If, for speculative instance, they excluded the horse from racing whilst disciplinary or/and legal action was ongoing, would that not be a deterrent. The whole case could be prolonged by legal jousting and any decision ultimately appealed to create further delay, and all the time the horse standing idle, unable to race, unable to be disposed of pending a legal outcome, all the while incurring training costs with no hope of running until cessation of legalities. Such cases could go on for ages and be very damaging for conns.
There can scarcely be a racing observer with the possible exception of Jolly Jack Ramsden who didn't think that Top Cees was stopped at Newmarket.
The Court decided otherwise.
It's a very risky and costly business taking Court action as The IHRB are well aware of
The Court decided otherwise.
It's a very risky and costly business taking Court action as The IHRB are well aware of
The entire IHRB are blind. This "cheating" behaviour was as clear as a crystal ball. The jockey Byrnes jumped off or he excreted grease going to and after jumping the last to cause him to "unseat" himself. If he was not both Epstein and Weinstein would be awarded the Nobel Prize for anti-paedophile and anti-rapist respectively.
Jockey Byrnes is as guilty as mad-Putin invading Ukraine.
Jockey Byrnes is as guilty as mad-Putin invading Ukraine.
imbecile 123 making a complete fool of himself again!
https://www.racingpost.com/news/ireland/ihrb-insists-redwood-queen-investigation-was-thorough-despite-it-declining-to-avail-of-bha-assistance-aIz3C4M2jnlr/
IHRB insists Redwood Queen investigation was 'thorough' despite it declining to avail of BHA assistance
The Redwood Queen unseating was on 28/05/25.
In a statement issued on Saturday, a spokesperson for the BHA, which was contracted to provide integrity monitoring services to the IHRB in a €350,000 five-year deal that was terminated in July last year, said: “The BHA’s integrity department flagged concerns about the situation on multiple occasions on the day of the incident.
“Firstly, the unusual betting patterns were flagged to the stewards and other IHRB personnel pre-race."
“The BHA’s integrity department then watched the race and, after the incident with the unseated rider, contacted the stewards, and subsequently the IHRB’s integrity department, to encourage them to seek an explanation from the rider. This message was then reiterated in the end-of-day report."
“The BHA also commenced preliminary betting enquiries. This included contacting various operators raising concerns and seeking a review of markets and bets placed, the results of which were relayed to the IHRB.”
was terminated in July last year
Does this mean the five-year contract with the BHA for integrity monitoring services ended in July 2025 after five years, or was the contract terminated early?
".... BHA's statement that it had repeatedly raised concerns on the day of the race and subsequent to the race. It is understood there was no further communication from the IHRB with the BHA in relation to the case and that the BHA integrity department was not invited to give evidence to the hearing."
And in today's The Irish Field 07/01/26
The IHRB's long-serving Head Of Security, Chris Gordon, recently left the organisation, as did his second-in-command, Declan Buckley.
Asked if these positions are to be filled, the IHRB said: "The roles of Head of Security and deputy Head of Security have been made redundant as part of a broader restructuring of the Racing Integrity and Regulation Department."
IHRB insists Redwood Queen investigation was 'thorough' despite it declining to avail of BHA assistance
The Redwood Queen unseating was on 28/05/25.
In a statement issued on Saturday, a spokesperson for the BHA, which was contracted to provide integrity monitoring services to the IHRB in a €350,000 five-year deal that was terminated in July last year, said: “The BHA’s integrity department flagged concerns about the situation on multiple occasions on the day of the incident.
“Firstly, the unusual betting patterns were flagged to the stewards and other IHRB personnel pre-race."
“The BHA’s integrity department then watched the race and, after the incident with the unseated rider, contacted the stewards, and subsequently the IHRB’s integrity department, to encourage them to seek an explanation from the rider. This message was then reiterated in the end-of-day report."
“The BHA also commenced preliminary betting enquiries. This included contacting various operators raising concerns and seeking a review of markets and bets placed, the results of which were relayed to the IHRB.”
was terminated in July last year
Does this mean the five-year contract with the BHA for integrity monitoring services ended in July 2025 after five years, or was the contract terminated early?
".... BHA's statement that it had repeatedly raised concerns on the day of the race and subsequent to the race. It is understood there was no further communication from the IHRB with the BHA in relation to the case and that the BHA integrity department was not invited to give evidence to the hearing."
And in today's The Irish Field 07/01/26
The IHRB's long-serving Head Of Security, Chris Gordon, recently left the organisation, as did his second-in-command, Declan Buckley.
Asked if these positions are to be filled, the IHRB said: "The roles of Head of Security and deputy Head of Security have been made redundant as part of a broader restructuring of the Racing Integrity and Regulation Department."
https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/racing/2026/02/06/concerns-flagged-about-un...
IHRB has no integrity. IHRB does not act in the interest of horseracing and punters. IHRB is clueless and mainly operate in the interests of their cronies associates.
IHRB needs to be restructured in its entirety or made obsolete or defunct. IHRB brings horseracing into disrepute and signifies professional incompetence.
IHRB needs to be restructured in its entirety or made obsolete or defunct. IHRB brings horseracing into disrepute and signifies professional incompetence.
Thursday’s referrals panel statement said: “We wish to say that when we first saw the ordinary video coverage of the incident, we were inclined to the view that the jockey’s fall was indeed very suspect and appeared deliberate and contrived.
“However, having had the advantage of hearing all of the testimony, and examining minutely, and in great detail, and from a variety of angles, all of the video and photographic evidence, we have come to the conclusion that such was not the case.
“We have had a considerable advantage over numerous pundits and commentators, who appear to have been quick to rush to judgment adverse to the jockey. Such conclusions were unfair to him.”
considerable advantage
“However, having had the advantage of hearing all of the testimony, and examining minutely, and in great detail, and from a variety of angles, all of the video and photographic evidence, we have come to the conclusion that such was not the case.
“We have had a considerable advantage over numerous pundits and commentators, who appear to have been quick to rush to judgment adverse to the jockey. Such conclusions were unfair to him.”
considerable advantage
Quite a contrast with how Shark had his life ruined via piece of tarpaulin covering a deceased horse not being secured properly.
Yep hard to stomach. Shark was guilty of a very minor indiscretion. Maybe a ton fine would have sufficed. And then these creatures. Stevie wonder knows what happened. Ihrb needs bringing to court for allowing these get away AGAIN. It's worse than embarrassing.
"considerable advantage"...with rose-tinted glasses perhaps.
IHRB is certainly not conducive to horseracing and punters. An absolute disgrace. The disassociation of the BHA and departure of their head of security and his deputy are also testament to the ineptitude and professional incompetence of the IHRB.
IHRB is certainly not conducive to horseracing and punters. An absolute disgrace. The disassociation of the BHA and departure of their head of security and his deputy are also testament to the ineptitude and professional incompetence of the IHRB.
Bejaysus kincsem, your final paragraph is very disturbing. Thanks for posting. How many people will now desist from playing Irish Racing as a result?
Feb 8, 2026 -- 12:32PM, impossible123 wrote:
IHRB has no integrity. IHRB does not act in the interest of horseracing and punters. IHRB is clueless and mainly operate in the interests of their cronies associates. IHRB needs to be restructured in its entirety or made obsolete or defunct. IHRB brings horseracing into disrepute and signifies professional incompetence.
No different from many Irish regulators then. And ignored by an ever useless media.
This has set a precedent, any jockey hauled in for an offence of dropping hands, easing down, all they have to say is, I thought the horse went wrong, prove I didn't and it's game over, actually, James Doyle pulled this off at Windsor where he said the horse veered or jinked last season too didn't he?
Basically, the authorities are dependent on the culprit holding his hands up, if they offer an excuse, it can't be PROVEN otherwise.
Basically, the authorities are dependent on the culprit holding his hands up, if they offer an excuse, it can't be PROVEN otherwise.
It might be like that if they apply the same standards that would apply in a law court. An Irish legal expert may confirm but I'm pretty sure that an individual doesn't have a legal right to be a licensed trainer or jockey. Those are internal matters I suspect.
The iceberg beneath the surface is the drug issue in Irish racing (in horses.)
IHRB monitors the drugs in horses situation.
If you read the books of William Jones (goldrushpublications.com) you will learn.
The outcome if IHRB tests a horse and finds prohibited drugs is not certain.
It seems that if you are a high-class well connected persaon you may be found guilty, fined, and the fine waived.
If you are not well connected (a low-life struggling to make ends meet) you are fined, pay the fine, and possibly are suspended.
If you are well connected you say the horse got the drugs from a salt lick, or the vet administered them, or they did not exit the horse's system in time.
One rule for us, a different rule for you, is how I think the IHRB operate.
IHRB monitors the drugs in horses situation.
If you read the books of William Jones (goldrushpublications.com) you will learn.
The outcome if IHRB tests a horse and finds prohibited drugs is not certain.
It seems that if you are a high-class well connected persaon you may be found guilty, fined, and the fine waived.
If you are not well connected (a low-life struggling to make ends meet) you are fined, pay the fine, and possibly are suspended.
If you are well connected you say the horse got the drugs from a salt lick, or the vet administered them, or they did not exit the horse's system in time.
One rule for us, a different rule for you, is how I think the IHRB operate.
Jim Bolger didn't mince words in his condemnation of it
If you are well connected you say the horse got the drugs from a salt lick, or the vet administered them, or they did not exit the horse's system in time.
I should have added - and are not guilty.
I should have added - and are not guilty.
What I don’t understand is why it has to be “proven”? If a ruling body has very good grounds for believing that improper conduct has been carried out they should rule accordingly. If there is subsequent court action just deem them to be unfit and improper persons to be involved in Racing and withdraw their licences pending their appeals whilst also suspending the horse. Then spin the process out with legal delays while their horse stands around in a stable unable to race, and a host of other owners horses too. Once they start taking their horses elsewhere what will the trainer do?
We are far too weak.
We are far too weak.
The problem with this case was that only Byrnes Jnr could have been suspended not his hideous father,Honcho.
The suspension could and probably would be challenged in Court and would succeed in doing so.
A horrible situation that the IHRB seem to have no interest of stopping
The suspension could and probably would be challenged in Court and would succeed in doing so.
A horrible situation that the IHRB seem to have no interest of stopping
It was fascinating (to me) that Byrnes was used in the advertising that was showed on RTV of various Irish trainers outlining what they had to offer in the way of ownership experience. Whilst this was all going on in the background. Who was funding that, and do the trainers get something for agreeing to participate 
I suppose they could make the same argument that was used to justify giving Mandy another chance. We asked Charles and he said he doesn't get involved in betting or passing information :) He said bad luck appears to follow him around though.
What I don’t understand is why it has to be “proven”?
This is what I thought also, I know it's not comaparing like with like exactly, but in football when a player is booked for simulation, if he didn't agree with it, it would be tough luck, he could argue that he'd been slandered by being accused of cheating but it would still be tough luck if the panel disagreed on appeal.
This is what I thought also, I know it's not comaparing like with like exactly, but in football when a player is booked for simulation, if he didn't agree with it, it would be tough luck, he could argue that he'd been slandered by being accused of cheating but it would still be tough luck if the panel disagreed on appeal.
The P/L is rancid from top to bottom with VAR being the biggest culprit of injustice
https://icyestretro.substack.com/p/point-blank-were-never-going-to-see?utm_s...
Paudy must have a full record of who was laying the byrnes horse and who was betting the one he was looking over his shoulder wondering why it hadn't overtaken him. Meaning he had to jump off to let it win.
If Beacon Edge (3's on) had run it's normal race it breezes on by between the last 2 flights and wins 10 lengths on the staff
It didn't.
It didn't.
You could look at who was Laying from now until Christmas with no significant evidence coming to light as Liquidity over there is virtually non existent.
By backing the winner by whatever means he chose,Byrnes Snr broke no rules.
It is hardly a secret that he is a thoroughly rancid individual.
It is merely an example of low grade racing in Ireland
By backing the winner by whatever means he chose,Byrnes Snr broke no rules.
It is hardly a secret that he is a thoroughly rancid individual.
It is merely an example of low grade racing in Ireland
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539