Irish Sports
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
03 Nov 23
15:07
Joined:
Date Joined:
05 Jun 08
So, after three-and-a-half years since the Yuften/Tony The Gent claimer shenanigans in Dundalk in March 2020 the IHRB will offer no evidence to the scheduled two-day enquiry scheduled for next week thanks to the production of the winning ace of hearts veterinary report by the horse's connections last month. Make your own mind up if this is "normal" legal process or someone taking pleasure in delivering a serendipitous/lethal coup-de-grace to the under-fire IHRB with evidence that, presumably, had been in their possession in the days when Covid had just shut down the country.
So many unanswered questions but I can't see the IHRB surviving this fiasco.
So many unanswered questions but I can't see the IHRB surviving this fiasco.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 4
|
By:
Why did it take three and a half years for submission of expert veterinary evidence to the IHRB?
|
|
By:
I thought this case was (or should have been) about the betting on the day. Veterinary evidence should have been secondary to the prime reason for the original referral: unusual betting patterns. (It's possible the late (welcome) vet report provided the fig leaf IHRB needed to escape a case they failed to prove.)
|
|
By:
To me the vet report asks more questions than it answers.
Judging by the betting patterns connections knew the horse wasn't right but ran it anyway . Surely that's a welfare issue and hopefully they have some rules concerning running a horse that's injured or sick. This case should not have been dropped and they may bring in a rule now stating any evidence not in their possession within a month of being charged is inadmissible. But they are a shambles of an organisation anyway so I don't hold out much hope. |
|
By:
The is a piece by Mark Costello on page 3 of the 11th November 2023 The Irish Field titled Yuften case 'far from satisfactory'.
I was wondering who, what, why, it was 'far from satisfactory' and towards the end of the article it says "The Referrals Committee, chaired by Justice Siobhan Keegan, said: "The Referrals Committee can well understand that the outcome of this case does not answer all questions and is far from satisfactory in circumstances where serious carges were laid. However, he Referrals Committee must act within the Rules of Racing and cannot assume additional functions." I am still a bit confused about what is/was 'far from satisfactory'. In discussing the IHRB's case the article says "Ït was also alleged that Mr John O'Shea, a professional gambler, with knowledge of an intended breach of Rule 212 (a), backed Yuften to lose the race with a betting organisation using the account of a third party. It was also alleged that Mr Noel Hayes, an associate of Mr O'Shea and an owner in the Hogan stable was involved in the conspiracy." What I find distasteful are the words in the above quote "professional gambler"; "an associate of"; "involved in the conspiracy". It looks like there was an attempt to colour the picture by using words with negative connotations. At this stage I must mention that in my Texas Hold 'Em poker playing days I met John O'Shea and Noel Hayes, and probably played against them in tournaments, a few times at the same table. |