Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 44

Thread: Hayley the-profit-Turner

  1. #21
    Senior Member Grasshopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    12,316
    Thanks
    677
    Thanked 477 Times in 368 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Warbler, it was Jair Du Cochet she backed against Best Mate, in the Peterborough Chase.
    Spouting shite on here since 2006.

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Posts
    Many

    To remove these adverts please either login or join if you are not a member.


     

  3. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    8,179
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 77 Times in 70 Posts
    She probably backed them both, as her reason for doing so was superstition, but it was definitely the King George that I remember
    Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. So long Holly. _ Harry Limes

  4. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    11,199
    Thanks
    320
    Thanked 311 Times in 215 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by LUKE View Post
    Can you give me one example of insider dealing from the 160 bets and suggest an appropriate punishment.The rule is a nonsense and out of touch with modern realities
    Whether the rule is a nonsense or not is irrelevant. It's the rule.
    Two's company, three's allowed.

  5. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    11,199
    Thanks
    320
    Thanked 311 Times in 215 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by LUKE View Post
    John Magnier had £10000 on Secreto to beat El Gran Señor in the Derby at 16/1.
    He wasn't a jockey.
    Two's company, three's allowed.

  6. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Waterford
    Posts
    6,934
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 56 Times in 50 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Orchid View Post
    Whether the rule is a nonsense or not is irrelevant. It's the rule.


    Fair enough -rules is rules but tell me where the insider dealing is.

  7. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    229
    Thanks
    25
    Thanked 69 Times in 37 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Grasshopper View Post
    Warbler, it was Jair Du Cochet she backed against Best Mate, in the Peterborough Chase.
    Quote Originally Posted by Warbler View Post
    She probably backed them both, as her reason for doing so was superstition, but it was definitely the King George that I remember
    I remember the Jair du cochet one but in truth im sure she did have a tenner on something against him everytime he ran.
    Man who catch fly with chopstick .... accomplish anything.

  8. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    11,199
    Thanks
    320
    Thanked 311 Times in 215 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by LUKE View Post
    Fair enough -rules is rules but tell me where the insider dealing is.
    Any bet struck on the basis of inside information is tantamount to insider dealing on the basis that it's trading to your own advantage on the basis of confidential information. Of course the industry/sport is rife with it and the sport would die if trainers and owners weren't allowed to bet. But jockeys simply aren't allowed to bet. I'd be hugely [and pleasantly] surprised if most jockeys didn't have a way round the rule...

    She almost boasted on TV that she'd backed a 20/1 winner that she'd ridden on the gallops in the run up to the race. In fairness to her, she did reveal this information before the race (and after she'd backed it).
    Two's company, three's allowed.

  9. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Waterford
    Posts
    6,934
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 56 Times in 50 Posts
    Please don't take this personally but you are simply incorrect -riding a horse in a gallop at home will tell you a certain amount but a racecourse presents a different test and success isn't guaranteed for every Nashwan there are probably a dozen Killer Instincts.

  10. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Waterford
    Posts
    6,934
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 56 Times in 50 Posts
    In my experience very few stable lads make betting pay and are usually over optimistic about their own horses and stable.

  11. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Chew Valley
    Posts
    3,342
    Thanks
    234
    Thanked 159 Times in 130 Posts
    While she technically held a license at the time, she wasn’t riding professionally. Her average stake was £10. This is a ridiculous storm in a teacup and should result in nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

    It’s certainly not akin to insider dealing/market abuse.

  12. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    11,199
    Thanks
    320
    Thanked 311 Times in 215 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by LUKE View Post
    Please don't take this personally but you are simply incorrect -riding a horse in a gallop at home will tell you a certain amount but a racecourse presents a different test and success isn't guaranteed for every Nashwan there are probably a dozen Killer Instincts.
    I agree that there is no guarantee of success but it remains access to private information from which to attempt to profit.

    Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with jockeys being allowed to back [to win] something they're riding but how do you police less honest betting activity among jockeys?

    I may be wrong but I presume that's why there's a blanket ban on them betting?
    Two's company, three's allowed.

  13. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    11,199
    Thanks
    320
    Thanked 311 Times in 215 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BennyB View Post
    While she technically held a license at the time, she wasn’t riding professionally. Her average stake was £10. This is a ridiculous storm in a teacup and should result in nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
    I agree although it is unclear if her betting activity continued after she resumed riding. That will probably be clarified when the result of the investigation is published.

    Quote Originally Posted by BennyB View Post
    It’s certainly not akin to insider dealing/market abuse.
    Not in the sense that insider dealing can involve so much more than large sums of money but it's the same principle.

    It may be like absent-mindedly walking out of a shop without paying for something compared with organised shoplifting but the law sees it the same way. The difference is in the sentencing when/if found guilty.

    I agree a slap on the wrist will probably suffice but they also need to send out a clear message along the lines of the wonderful ironic French prase 'pour encourager les autres'.

    I reckon they'll fine her a grand or two.
    Two's company, three's allowed.

  14. #33
    Senior Member Grasshopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    12,316
    Thanks
    677
    Thanked 477 Times in 368 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Orchid View Post
    Any bet struck on the basis of inside information is tantamount to insider dealing on the basis that it's trading to your own advantage on the basis of confidential information.
    Not sure I can buy into that argument, DO, as it would effectively exclude owners from backing their own horses.
    Spouting shite on here since 2006.

  15. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    11,199
    Thanks
    320
    Thanked 311 Times in 215 Posts
    I think we actually agree, GH. In theory, if they're going to blanket ban jockeys from betting they should also do so for owners and trainers, essentially anyone connected to the horse or yard. You see it elsewhere. Go into the entry conditions for a competition from a grocery brand or C4 or ITV etc and the T&Cs will specify anyone connected with the company is disallowed from entering (for transparency reasons), so the poor wee underpaid minion on the production line doesn't get the chance to win a holiday of a lifetime or even just a £5 book voucher.

    But I think they simply accept that it wouldn't work and that the sport/industry would pretty much die if they did. Restricting the ban to jockeys allows them to be seen to be doing something.
    Two's company, three's allowed.

  16. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    11,199
    Thanks
    320
    Thanked 311 Times in 215 Posts
    It will be interesting to see if the episode gets a mention on the ITV racing shows this weekend.

    I don't imagine Turner will be allowed to comment for legal reasons (so probably won't appear) but Chapman has his reputation of 'asking the hard questions'.

    I'd say it's odds-on he goes native on this one and ducks it.
    Two's company, three's allowed.

  17. #36
    Senior Member Grasshopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    12,316
    Thanks
    677
    Thanked 477 Times in 368 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Agree it's a tricky one, DO.

    Agree the game would die on its arse, if owners were prevented from betting their own horses.

    Agree preventing jockey's from betting is about as much policing as can reasonably be deployed, without causing a wider issue.

    You we're right - we agree!
    Spouting shite on here since 2006.

  18. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    11,199
    Thanks
    320
    Thanked 311 Times in 215 Posts
    Two's company, three's allowed.

  19. #38
    Senior Member Grey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Brussels
    Posts
    8,298
    Thanks
    262
    Thanked 291 Times in 194 Posts
    So much sweetness and light in the air this morning...

  20. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    11,199
    Thanks
    320
    Thanked 311 Times in 215 Posts
    Rhyming slang?
    Two's company, three's allowed.

  21. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    11,199
    Thanks
    320
    Thanked 311 Times in 215 Posts
    I notice Chapman gave the case a mention in his news roundup this morning. Fair play.
    Two's company, three's allowed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •