- Dec 2, 2017
- 29,293
- 17,863
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Lol this gave me a good chuckleGreg Radley, Ron dufficy and Gary Harley should have been moved on years ago. My guess is they come cheap. Paid with a free quaddie, red wine and cigars.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Lol this gave me a good chuckleGreg Radley, Ron dufficy and Gary Harley should have been moved on years ago. My guess is they come cheap. Paid with a free quaddie, red wine and cigars.
6 weeks for bowman
Adkins will miss longer than that.
joke.
Taking it to the most extreme to justify an under suspension? Logical fallacy mate.Sure but if Adkins died or paralyzed was Bowman going to get life? No
Taking it to the most extreme to justify an under suspension? Logical fallacy mate.
he get less than even the generous ones in here thought (although I think you didn’t think he should get much from memory)
although I’d be happy for a jockey to be stood down permanently if his negligence (or decisions) killed another jockey, not sure that’s such a bad thing. You’d be up for much worse in most other industries.
Chris Whiteley got two months for not giving his horse every chance
Huge Bowman gets 6 weeks for killing a horse and seriously endangering a jockey
Totally unacceptable
It’s really no different to the AFL suspensions. They can manufacture whatever result they want.They said it was careless - not even dangerous or reckless so under that designation he was never going to get the penalty you are looking for. It's a dangerous game and falls happen all the time.
As some of us said on the day you would see worse many times but it wouldn't get as much press as no horses came down.
I’d suggest you hold different values to most.Bowman was trying everything possible to win and as a result happened to generate the consequences you describe, perhaps through limited fault of his own.
Not giving a horse every chance is arguably a more serious offence in a sport that largely revolves around wagering.
Yes, arguablyBowman was trying everything possible to win and as a result happened to generate the consequences you describe, perhaps through limited fault of his own.
Not giving a horse every chance is arguably a more serious offence in a sport that largely revolves around wagering.
It’s really no different to the AFL suspensions. They can manufacture whatever result they want.
their gradings are all subjective, if they want to go hard, they can justify it. If they want to be soft, they can justify it.
I’d suggest you hold different values to most.
Other than those who run racing, I don’t think anyone would say tanking is worse than causing serious harm to another person
Bingo. Tanking in racing means racing no longer exists.Tanking in racing is FAR FAR worse than causing accidental harm to another person.
I disagree completely.Tanking in racing is FAR FAR worse than causing accidental harm to another person.
No one is suggesting that tanking go unpunished.Bingo. Tanking in racing means racing no longer exists.
Not a statement I’ve said many times before...but NSW stewards have got one right.
There you go - so probably 2 months if Adkins died.
Going back a fair way to find a decision to justify it too.Two wrongs don’t make a right. Joke of a decision. Wasn’t “careless” in any way shape or form. Was completely reckless.
AFL teams survive on spectators and tv viewers. Racing survives and exists for one thing, wagering.No one is suggesting that tanking go unpunished.
that’s hyperbole anyway. AFL teams have been investigated and fined for tanking (or not tanking but doing something exactly like tanking that the AFL won’t call tanking) and nothing came of it.
Harness racing is constantly being accused of it.
I disagree completely.
As I said, I doubt you’ll find too many people who agree that a rider not taking every chance, is worse than a rider carelessly causing serious injury
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Joke of a decision. Wasn’t “careless” in any way shape or form. Was completely reckless.
And AFL had the same things said at the time of the tanking claimsAFL teams survive on spectators and tv viewers. Racing survives and exists for one thing, wagering.
Stewards have dished out a punishment in line with exactly what they’ve done in the past. I’m not really sure what people were expecting to happen here.
Having a different set of morals doesn’t mean they don’t understand “the game”. It just means you value the money of the industry over damage to person. And others don’t.The people making those kind of calls don't understand the game properly.
Appeal to authority fallacy.Well the Stewards obvioiusly disagree - hence the length of the suspension
And AFL had the same things said at the time of the tanking claims
The industries going to shut down! They’ll lose their gaming licence! Betting agencies will sue!
it’s hyperbole.
Having a different set of morals doesn’t mean they don’t understand “the game”. It just means you value the money of the industry over damage to person. And others don’t.
Appeal to authority fallacy.
I’ve probably had more experience in the industry than you. So don’t be a condescending twatThe fact you are comparing tanking in the AFL to tanking in horse racing suggests to me you don't understand the latter sufficiently to comment.