General Chat

[Rhinestone_Cowboy]

Think it’s time the antepost rules were rewritten for extreme circumstances such as this and a virus, should be just if there are genuine injuries, horse not good enough for the meeting or a horse just not declared.

I completely agree with this and said similar when discussing the risk of Irish horses not travelling due to COVID-19. I deal a lot with contracts which always have a force majeure clause which essentially means if the contract cannot be fulfilled due to unforeseen circumstances nobody is liable and for me antepost terms and conditions should have something similar. In fact I would/will happily argue this case with bookies if any of Gordon’s don’t turn up and will follow up with IBAS if needed. I do not believe it was foreseeable that one of the best trainers in the game would likely be banned for sitting on a dead horse and I do not believe I should lose a penny if that prevents any of his horses from running at Cheltenham.

[Rooster Booster]

I completely agree with this and said similar when discussing the risk of Irish horses not travelling due to COVID-19. I deal a lot with contracts which always have a force majeure clause which essentially means if the contract cannot be fulfilled due to unforeseen circumstances nobody is liable and for me antepost terms and conditions should have something similar. In fact I would/will happily argue this case with bookies if any of Gordon’s don’t turn up and will follow up with IBAS if needed. I do not believe it was foreseeable that one of the best trainers in the game would likely be banned for sitting on a dead horse and I do not believe I should lose a penny if that prevents any of his horses from running at Cheltenham.

I don’t disagree but suspect their argument would be that it is the owner preventing them from running and not a force majeure . Other GE owners are choosing to run their horses which dilutes the case as well perhaps.

[ComplyOrDie]

I don’t disagree but suspect their argument would be that it is the owner preventing them from running and not a force majeure . Other GE owners are choosing to run their horses which dilutes the case as well perhaps.

Yes, I can unfortunately see this being the case.

[Redbridge]

I don’t disagree but suspect their argument would be that it is the owner preventing them from running and not a force majeure . Other GE owners are choosing to run their horses which dilutes the case as well perhaps.

Not every owner has the means to suddenly remove or has the options to relocate, there are many aspects to finding the means to remove animals.

[Rooster Booster]

Not every owner has the means to suddenly remove or has the options to relocate, there are many aspects to finding the means to remove animals.

Agree. Unfortunately that doesn’t apply to Gigginstown, but perhaps you are right and because not all owners have that ability the firms will take a charitable view and lump in gigginstown as well. Let’s hope so.

[Rhinestone_Cowboy]

I don’t disagree but suspect their argument would be that it is the owner preventing them from running and not a force majeure . Other GE owners are choosing to run their horses which dilutes the case as well perhaps.

Don’t get me wrong I’m not suggesting it is an open and shut case by any means, obviously it would not be easy to win, but I would definitely take it as far as I could. I didn’t back the Elliot 4+ winners but if I had I’d be taking that one all the way and be more confident of winning. There is no way the bookies should be making a profit from that bet under the circumstances.

[Atlantic Viking]

Moran article in the post

https://www.racingpost.com/news/latest/gordon-elliott-yard-sponsor-ends-contract-over-recent-events/476090

[Muswell]

Some much needed perspective

https://twitter.com/rteracing/status/1367076480841359362?s=21

[Diamond Geezer]

...................

[archie]

You'd like to think that there is behind the scenes contact between the IHRB and the BHA (and Gordon) to decide on what will work as a short/medium term solution that can be announced on Friday.

Personally, I'd be looking at:
- immediate suspension of licence to train with the facility to reapply on October 1st. That application to be properly reviewed and not automatically granted.
- horses transferred to the licence of an agreed person with the facility for an authorised person to oversee training at Cullentra.
- Elliott to be barred from racecourses but still allowed to work with horses preferably after some kind of course on horse welfare.
- a proportionate fine that goes to horse welfare charities.

[OverTheLast]

BHA regulator says horses currently based with Gordon Elliott should be able to run at Cheltenham

[ToniC]

Latest statement from the BHA on the matter is quite something. Massive fine, barred from the courses but not trainig for a bit, everybody moves on would be a preferable outcome.

[Redbridge]

Some much needed perspective

https://twitter.com/rteracing/status...841359362?s=21

I totally agree that we don't overstep the punishment to what is a none crime that could lead to complete ruination of a man life, that is guilty of poor taste and judgement, lets not push him over edge and leave him without hope and I have no wish to see someone make an even more rash decision on his own well being.

To put this into context about future sponsorship just look at FIFA and their criminal actions that have not harmed their brand long term.

Cut him some slack and leave a glimmer of hope for a future for a man that may have crossed many lines but training genius he will remain.

[Kevloaf]

Well this is worth reading...

BHA welfare chief: it is our intention to get the best horses to Cheltenham

Regulator says horses currently based with Gordon Elliott should be able to run

https://www.racingpost.com/news/late...&utm_term=Null

[Redbridge]

Latest statement from the BHA on the matter is quite something. Massive fine, barred from the courses but not trainig for a bit, everybody moves on would be a preferable outcome.

Repeat of Kev's above