General Chat

[Pendil]

....watching ATR for the last few hours there is real anger and disgust at Elliott’s actions. The picture is there for all to see, Elliott has provided his explanation which I think has made the situation far worst. He’s not simply rested his backside on the poor animal to conclude a phone call, it looks to me like he’s sitting astride it.

I’m all for giving the bloke a fair trial, but the evidence at hand is strong enough to impose an immediate suspension whilst the investigation takes place. From a personal perspective, I’m sure I’m not alone in having lots of bets tied up on Elliott horses and it just makes a nonsense of all the time and monies that go into assembling a portfolio.

it’s a sad day for the sport.

It was the thing that caught my attention when I eventually saw the photo. The act of sitting astride a fallen horse would not be an easy thing to do for a casual sit to answer a phone. It looks posed and therefore a considered act. GE guilty of a lack of taste and it will cost him and haunt him for the rest of his life, rightfully or wrongfully IMO

[germanshepherd]

...but they could suspend whilst the investigation is conducted and the BHA are free to immediately impose their own sanction/suspension.

They said there's no precedent for that and the BHA can block entries and decs they can't suspend him.

[jack1092]

...but they could suspend whilst the investigation is conducted and the BHA are free to immediately impose their own sanction/suspension.

No there is no precedent in Irish Racing for it + they cannot do it.
Also, BHA say they are not able to suspend him, they are though, free to block entries + dec's (basically the same to my eye lol).

Worth listening to Nick Luck's podcast.

[riccirich]

For people less clued in on possible sanctions etc, what does this mean for his cheltenham horses?

if he is banned will his horses still be able to travel if he lodges an appeal?
if he steps down as head trainer and somebody else in his yard takes control will they still be able to travel or would the horses have to be moved to a different trainer for them to still go to cheltenham?

personally I dont see why the owners should be punished for elliotts stupidity and their horses should still be aloud to run at the festival.

[ComplyOrDie]

No there is no precedent in Irish Racing for it + they cannot do it.
Also, BHA say they are not able to suspend him, they are though, free to block entries + dec's (basically the same to my eye lol).

Worth listening to Nick Luck's podcast.

So they can't suspend the guy who was in the picture but they can ban owners horses who haven't done anything wrong? Sounds unlikely to me, despite what they 'can do'.

[Eggs]

No there is no precedent in Irish Racing for it + they cannot do it.
Also, BHA say they are not able to suspend him, they are though, free to block entries + dec's (basically the same to my eye lol).

Worth listening to Nick Luck's podcast.

....ah, so a glimmer of hope for the Festival. The BHA could suspend any new entries, given the Cheltenham entries are already in.

[ryanh97]

....ah, so a glimmer of hope for the Festival. The BHA could suspend any new entries, given the Cheltenham entries are already in.

I believe they can suspend declarations from that trainer as well. Would be incredibly harsh on the owners and I envisage there could be law suits from that as someone else mentioned

[jack1092]

So they can't suspend the guy who was in the picture but they can ban owners horses who haven't done anything wrong? Sounds unlikely to me, despite what they 'can do'.

Look, it was Lydia Hislop on his podcast relaying what was told to her by BHA. Have a listen. No power to suspend, but power to refuse entries or declarations, "but that is a very high bar legally from them. That's how she understands it from their response to her questioning.

[jack1092]

I believe they can suspend declarations from that trainer as well. Would be incredibly harsh on the owners and I envisage there could be law suits from that as someone else mentioned

They can, i said that in the original post as did GS...

[Muswell]

BHA would need to have deep pockets if they took that route

[archie]

If either authority bans him prior to a hearing and he's then found not guilty, they are up the creek without a rowing implement. It's not like an industrial tribunal where you can suspend someone on full pay. He will have to keep a low profile for some time but it's a high risk policy to take any action beyond not allowing him entry to racecourses.

The injured party here is Gigginstown and they seem content to move on.

[ryanh97]

https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2021/mar/01/gordon-elliott-horrific-dead-horse-photo-racing-comment?__twitter_impression=true

A very fair piece from The Guardian

[Splinterboy82]

Any ban & appeal (look at Burns, still trained a DRF winner under appeal) means he’ll technically still be able to have runners at the festival. Think the main question here is all about owners brand reputation. Let’s use Cheveley Park as the best example. They have 4 high profile entries including the most talked about horse in training with him. They’re in the NH game for the love, not money. They run one of the biggest breeding operations in the world. If I was working in PR at that company, none of those would be running due to brand reputation - because even if they are moved, story by association / link is still negative PR. That’s how big corporates work. I personally do not think we’ll see Envoi Allen, Sir G, Ballyadam or Quilixios at the festival. Really hope I’m wrong - fear branding & business will come over fun & passion though

Tony Calvin just made similar point to what I was trying to get across on Weighed In podcast - even if the individuals want to stand by them (and appreciate Gigginstown statement), the brand effect could just be irreparable....

Whatever your personal view on this today, it’s just completely ruined this years festival build up for me...

[TCH29]

If either authority bans him prior to a hearing and he's then found not guilty, they are up the creek without a rowing implement. It's not like an industrial tribunal where you can suspend someone on full pay. He will have to keep a low profile for some time but it's a high risk policy to take any action beyond not allowing him entry to racecourses.

The injured party here is Gigginstown and they seem content to move on.

Archie, the injured party is anyone who works or cares about racing. He’s brought the sport into disrepute.

There’s nothing to be found not guilty of. He sat on a dead horse without any remorse on display. Even if his explanation is true (which I don’t believe at all), absent mindedly sitting on a dead horse to take a phone call isn’t much better than jokingly posing for it. Both display a callous and careless approach to a horse’s live and neither reflect the care so many others have for horses in their care. Why even take the damn call in the first place at that moment of gravity. Horses die, we all know that. But you have to treat the situation as it deserves. Perhaps this is representative of his approach to animal welfare in general? What evidence is there to say it isn’t. Actions and words and all that.

He did it and admitted it. He has to be suspended and licence revoked immediately (if nothing else but to show the sport cares about the welfare of its animals) and then an investigation can be held. If there are found to be mitigating circumstances, his punishment will be light and licence reinstated. There are zero legal risks to that approach. As part of having a licence he will have signed up to standards of conduct, amongst other things, that place him at the behest of the IHRB. He operates under the IHRB; their duty is to protect the sport and they have the authority to do suspend him. He’d have nothing to fall back on legally.

[Garrison Savannah]

The horse is dead. The chatter about horse welfare is over-reactionary nonsense.