Our Conor and Foxrock

Racing community closing rank?

BOC might as well send his hosses to Ingerlud for training..there isn't a Patriot in the land that would train for him.

I can see The Shark telling him to get lost alright.

The BHA are the problem now.

I wouldn't want to be BOC in a flash motor on a country lane meeting The Shark coming the other way with a Double of Bullocks.

a poor effort of scaremongering tbf.

ozy man juice who is BOC please?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzz

I always think of him with an O for some reason. thanks for the correction, Dickie.

a lot of people seem to confuse his name with brian o connell for some reason......welcome back virginfingers,how was kempton and the west end of finglas?

change the record, Dickie.

dickie has a pre programmed brain,it just repeats itself until a plug is put in his arse and a new script is uploaded.

ta for the lay 2day twatser,££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££...

Hey  Richters , thats no way to speak to your money machine....

You can be afraid with our conor anyway.....because when the owner employs the worst jockey in the race.....he cant really expect to win......our conor is a million to one in the champion hurdle......

Can,t ya give ould Ratty a digout there Workrider,

Walnut can i have some of that 1000000/1 your offering please and thank you?

wonks, are you out paddock watching in Meydan, straddled in flowing white robes and puffing on a hookah?

(that's a smoking contraption as opposed to a lady of the night btw)

this golf is good to watch, beats hell out of the stroke play we have to endure week in week out.

A quicker death maybe,still a bit of a lottery element in just 18 holes but best of golfers.

Nah Foggy i leave the exotic dreaming to you mate.....

Pa , Compo digs his own holes , sorry for the pun....

Back on topic CV Byrnes post at 21.48 on the Cheltenham forum (TTT thread)is interesting and personally hope it's true.

Have to say much rather the normal format in the golf oz.

For me huddys...the casual golf viewer...its a Thursday....and here I am actively involved in watching and punting a golf tournament, that isn't a major.  Stroke play, I wouldn't be bothering tuning in till Sunday.

MCIlroy doing what McIlroy always does,the DJ876 of golf.

Ye the boy wonder comes up short again,

wr is in abit of a sulk again!to use his captain's parlance,he has a fondness for the the smutty cliches and retorts when hes put under the cosh.

The Chairman will be having a word in private.

or should i say "brilliant"

A digout for Wonky's vocabulary;

brilliant adjective
1. giving off or reflecting much light

Synonyms: beaming, bedazzling, brilliant, candescent, clear, dazzling, effulgent, fulgent, glowing, incandescent, lambent, lucent, lucid, luminous, lustrous, radiant, refulgent, sheeny, shining, shiny, splendid........

u have got to hand it to wildman,the way he handles his underling, 1st lieutenant wonky. praises this bird brain relentessly as a knowledgeable gambler and race goer and yet can keep this mug on side when he blanks him on his local course.

Who will be on Foxrock in the 4 miler?

I have both backed. Whoever rides Foxrock, will no doubt be better than the pilot on OC. Small field will help Mullins though, at the least limit the amount of possible problems.

Will Katie ride Foxrock?

I'd say you're way off here Borneo,you seem to be suggesting that there is a chance the BHA (I am assuming that's what you're insinuating from your thread on main forum) won't allow any Barry Connell runners at Cheltenham.
What they will do about Fenton's other intended runners is debatable but can't see what your basing this suggestion on??

I think Katie according to Ted Callit , he said recently that she had rode the winner of the race before , i'm nearly sure thats what he said after winning at navan when asked by the man with the mike....

#You're basing

Thread Titled-Barry O'Connell
wildmanfromborneo • February 20, 2014 11:36 PM GMT
He is in trouble,fair chance the BHA won't allow his horses run in Cheltenham pending an investigation.

What has Barry done?

WIldmanfromborneo,
Are you able to elaborate on your suggestion without facing libel charges?
Why would the BHA object to OC and Foxrock participating at Cheltenham?

The BHA are different than The Turf Club as evinced by the Kieran Fallon case.

This infamous list has thrown up a stark pattern which may make them act.

I thought the withdrawal of the two horses was a preemptive strike.

Blocking Foxrock or Our Conor from running would be the BHA effectively implying that Barry Connell as well as the owner has a case to answer.

I understand that owners have responsibilities but that would be stretching it a bit to me.

It is possible that The Tullow Tank might have been barred and maybe Connell might pull them out of England Aga Khan style in protest. But that is the way I would see it unfolding if Foxrock and Our Conor don't run.

as well as his trainer* apologies

The owner normally would have few responsibilities in this regard but in this case they think they have some damning evidence.

ah right, interesting... I'll watch with interest as always.

but in this case they think they have some damning evidence.

In your time honoured fashion, this is disingenuously presented as fact, whereas it is nothing but idle speculation.

Nothing idle about been caught in possession of illegal steroids among other substances ozy.

Has Barry Connell been caught with illegal steroids?  I must have missed that.

The words " they think " are put in there so as not to present it as fact.

The Turf Club have this infamous list,they have found a common denominator,they think it is highly significant,I personally don't.
The point is the BHA may think its significant and the BHA is a law onto themselves,we know they have no problem banning individuals before anything is proven,they are different from the Turf Club.

Kieran Fallon Robert Winston and Kirsty Milczarek were all treated disgracefully by the BHA but none had any comeback.
Irish courts consistently rule against authority,British courts rarely do so for all the obvious historical reasons.

in order to not present it as fact it should be written as:

but in this case I think that they think they have some damning evidence

You are not privy to their thoughts, only your own.

Were you ever in a band called The Kursaal Flyers ?

Classic retraction from Borneo,as the folly of his initial suggestion dawns on him.

He clarifies now(3 days after making the initial suggestion), I don't believe this thread has any substance and was merely informing the forum of my exclusive knowledge of the BHA's thought process.

The "Common Denominator" theory was his most absurd theory yet and thread is a shameful character assassination of a gentleman that contributes so much to the sport and its associated charities.

Where's the retraction.
The thread was a warning to ante post punters.

Your final supine suggestion that because someone contributes to a sport and its associated charities they are above questioning.
Its not character assassination to point out that there is a list of trainers,they have discovered a common denominator and that the BHA are a law onto themselves.

As you well know,the subtle retraction is how you now suddenly distance yourself from the theory.

"The Turf Club have this infamous list,they have found a common denominator,they think it is highly significant,I personally don't"

There is no distancing at all.
The only relevant point is the BHAs stance,its their opinion that counts not mine.

The Turf Club are terrified of being sued,the BHA are not.

I think you were out of order to infer throughout the thread that the common denominator of the trainers on the list is the owner without once mentioning the apparent absurdity of the theory. 3 days and 1300 views is a considerable delay prior to clarifying your personal opinion on a thread initiated by yourself which had many negative connotations.

"This infamous list has thrown up a stark pattern which may make them act.
I thought the withdrawal of the two horses was a preemptive strike."

Perhaps it wasn't intentional but statements like this can be interpreted as having an implication of guilt.

I find it difficult to believe that the sole purpose of this thread was as a genuine warning to Ante-post punters but if you insist that it was?I shall take your word on it.

I have posted many times on the dreadful way jockeys are treated,I even think that Eddie Ahern was hard done by.

I don't like the BHAs idea of justice,financially ruining jockeys and pursuing them vindictively all over the world,to me they are liable to do anything.

The BHA have made some people disqualified persons but unlike the Turf Club they act on it,as a potato merchant found to his cost at Cheltenham.

I didn't think the Turf Club had the list Wildman.......might be a while before receive it off the department of Agri.

The Turf Club might not have the list alright but they know the stables the agriculture lads visited.

I have great sympathy for the Turf Club,they are trying to deal with a wily character who has form in the suing department,has already received an apology from the Irish Times in this case,have no doubt his legal people are threatening action again.

The Turf Club are engaged in a ludicrous court case at the moment,they could knowing the idiosyncratic judges win but have to pay their own costs,this is the judiciary looking after their old colleagues.

Wildman, what punishment (if any) would YOU have given Ahern, and how do you think convicted cheats in general should be punished (if at all)?

PS There is a thread about Ahern currently running on the HR forum, you may feel it more appropriate to give your answer on there given the recent news about him being granted permission by the TC to work for David Wachman.


(the same question has already been directed at JR Hartley, and he gave his honest answer).

I wouldn't have found him guilty,they certainly had a case against him but to me it was circumstantial and not proven.

The spread betting "circumstantial"? Please elaborate.

I actually can't remember the exact details although I followed the case avidly.

Eddie Ahern is a fellow countryman of mine and like me from the North Riding.

I'll let Greg Wood refresh your memory then...

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2013/may/26/eddie-ahern-bha-ban-justified

Apologies George B but you have kind of found me out,I need you to put up that article for me.

I'm not trying to find anyone out, Wildman. This is a forum and it's a current news topic about Ahern being permitted to work for David Wachman, despite being DQ'd by the BHA and what goes with that.

Greg Wood -

Given that he had just been found guilty of the most serious offence any jockey can commit, Eddie Ahern did not struggle for support last week after he was banned for 10 years by the British Horseracing Authority for deliberately stopping a horse in a race at Lingfield Park.

First from the stalls was the Professional Jockeys Association, with Paul Struthers, its chief executive, widely quoted as saying that while the PJA "agrees that corrupt conduct cannot be tolerated within a sport where integrity is absolutely vital", Ahern "is adamant that he is not guilty of the corrupt [sic] charges found against him".

Hayley Turner, meanwhile, seemed to sum up the mood in the weighing room in her column on Racing UK's website. "Eddie has obviously made a massive mistake and one which he has quite rightly paid dearly for," Turner said, "but it is hard to feel any anger towards him because – take away what happened – and he is a nice guy and one of the most popular guys in the weighing room."

Ahern has lodged an appeal against both the BHA disciplinary panel's finding in the case and the penalty it imposed as a result, which was two years more than the "entry point" ban for deliberately preventing a horse from running on its merits. He may stand some chance when it comes to the penalty, although many punters would take the view that a life ban with no chance of a return to race-riding is the only appropriate penalty for stopping a horse.

In terms of the panel's finding, though, and Ahern's insistence that he is not guilty, what, exactly, is "one of the most popular guys in the weighing room" asking us to believe?

The ride at the centre of the case was on a horse called Judgethemoment, in a two-mile race at Lingfield. Ahern was slowly away from the stalls, but then charged into a huge lead while stoking his partner along as if the race was a sprint. No racehorse in history could sustain such a pace for two miles, never mind a 65-rated handicapper. Judgethemoment started to tie up with well over half a mile to run, and soon dropped back through the field to finish a distant last of the seven runners.

Ahern's case is that while he concedes the ride was extremely poor, it was not corrupt. Jockeys are human and can make mistakes, just as the best strikers can occasionally miss the most open of goals. The problem, however, is the evidence supplied by betting firms, because Ahern will need to persuade the appeal panel that it was, in effect, just a bizarre coincidence that this particular ride coincided with his good friend Neil Clement placing one of the largest bets of his life against Judgethemoment.

In all, Clement placed 11 bets with a spread-betting firm called Star Spreads in a little over three months, but the bet against Judgethemoment – which won him £8,500 while risking a maximum loss, had Judgethemoment won the race, of £41,500 – was bigger than the other 10 put together. Clement was banned for 15 years by the panel, and is not expected to lodge an appeal.

The panel does not need a case to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and makes its decisions according to the balance of probability. Ahern's inept ride and Clement's immense bet might not, if viewed in isolation, swing the balance against them. In conjunction, however, the chance that Clement, by coincidence, could have taken such a strong view against Judgethemoment on the exact afternoon, and in the precise contest, when Ahern rode possibly the worst race of his life, is tiny.

For a man who acquired the nickname "Betfair Eddie" from his weighing-room colleagues not long after the exchange matched its first bet, Ahern's grasp of basic probability does not seem too strong. Popular with his colleagues though he certainly is, Ahern's ride on Judgethemoment was disgraceful and for a jockey of his standing and experience, a 10-year suspension seems perfectly fair.

All I meant was I am poor on computers.

The panel don't have to prove beyond reasonable doubt but when you are taking a mans livelihood away I feel you should be sure.
A poor ride by a jockey is linked to someone laying it for big money,for me you should have to prove Ahern received some financial benefit,this they failed to do,they had his bank account details,his telephone records yet still failed.

phone records?

Records revealed that Ahern and Clement were in regular contact, with Ahern calling or texting Clement 265 times over the seven-month period until the end of February 2011. Clement called or texted Ahern 163 time in the year up to November 2011. The pair also met frequently.

Damning evidence alright but still no sign of any financial benefit for Ahern.

Inside information has always been a factor in betting circles , often involving jockeys .  The shrewder jockeys / insiders never leave a traceable trail , using phones etc is toxic in situations like that .

Being a bit corrupt applies to a lot of people , but if you add in stupidity its hard to feel sorry for anyone caught with their pants down .

Having said that I saw another well known Irish jockey riding foreign last week , and he is barred from riding in UK .  And his case was as bad or worse than Aherns . And probably more continuous .

But it goes to show you the mentality of racings circling wagons Kelly that they have no problem employing a disqualified cheat?.

Anybody caught cheating in racing are treated sympathetically by the natives, the way they look at it is that poor little Eddie was just very unfortunate to get caught.

You could be right wildman.
Dramatic new developments could throw everything up in the air.

BHA to visit Philip Fenton's yard

BY GRAHAM GREEN 3:25PM 24 FEB 2014

THE steroids controversy surrounding trainer Philip Fenton took a dramatic turn on Monday when the BHA revealed it is sending a drug-testing team to his County Tipperary stable.

However, the regulatory body at the same time stressed that should the results come back clear, it would not necessarily mean Fenton's Cheltenham raiding party led by Gold Cup third favourite Last Instalment would be allowed to run at Prestbury Park in a fortnight's time.

In addition to carrying blood tests, hair samples - which can detect a banned substance over a much longer period - will also be taken for analysis, with the results of the tests available next week. The trainer will also be interviewed.

The other Fenton-trained horses being tested are leading Coral Cup contender Dunguib, Champion Bumper entry Value At Risk, and The Tullow Tank, whose owner Barry Connell last week announced would miss the festival owning to the furore - prompting bookmakers to refund ante-post bets - but yet to be scratched from the Neputune Investment Management Novices' Hurdle and Sky Bet Supreme Novices' Hurdle.

Regarding the impending visit, Fenton told the Racing Post: "The BHA are more than welcome to come to my premises and I will assist them in every way I can."

Regardless of the outcome of the BHA's visit, Connell reiterated that The Tullow Tank will not be running at the festival.

Connell said: "I made my statement and that's final on the matter."

Fenton is facing court proceedings over anabolic steroids seized from his yard by Ireland's Department of Agriculture officials two years ago, but the case has been adjourned to March 20, six days after the festival.

Routine tests on Last Instalment following his Hennessy Gold Cup victory at Leopardstown on February 9 returned negative results, but while the BHA now has a better grasp of the the controversy that has rocked Irish Racing through co-operation with the Turf Club, it has still to decide whether Fenton's team will be permitted to line-up at Cheltenham, and the drug-testing is part of an information-gathering exercise.

Paul Bittar
Paul Bittar: "we want to take steps which serve to uphold public confidence in the relevant races"


PICTURE: Dan Abraham/BHA
Paul Bittar, chief executive of the BHA, said: "Following the adjournment of the court case, we want to take steps which serve to uphold public confidence in the relevant races at the Cheltenham Festival and the sport in general.

"The testing of the Fenton-trained horses will form a part of the decision making process as to how best to achieve this objective.

"Any development or set of circumstances which brings the integrity of our sport into question is of considerable concern. The events of 2013 highlighted the need to increase the deterrent against the misuse of drugs and medication, and in particular anabolic steroids.

"Since then significant steps have been taken towards achieving a set of international minimum standards, with a number of jurisdictions adopting a zero-tolerance policy regarding the use of steroids in racing.

"Although the inspection at Philip Fenton's yard took place in Ireland over two years ago, and therefore before recent upgrades in deterrents in this country, there is no room for complacency.

"We consider it incumbent upon all involved with British and Irish racing, not just the authorities, to demonstrate their opposition to the misuse of drugs and medication, in particular anabolic steroids, and be open and transparent about all practices."

i think if u have a zero tolerance policy and are serious,the bha have no option but to suspend any runners from fenton's yard in britain until fenton is cleared of any wrong doing.