Fallon barred from British racing

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

This is the first I've heard about this ... and all I know is what I've read here ... but ...

... from the apparent thoroughness of the investigation conducted by the British police ... I wouldn't wager that anyone named as a suspect is completely innocent.

'Tis a shame ... thoroughbred racing doesn't need any more beatings than it has already endured.

Exactly! When police do an extensive investigation and then make an arrest, it's not very often that the suspect is innocent. Once in a while the person is innocent, but it's probably about 1% of the time. If you think he's innocent, you sure aren't playing the odds.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Exactly! When police do an extensive investigation and then make an arrest, it's not very often that the suspect is innocent. Once in a while the person is innocent, but it's probably about 1% of the time. If you think he's innocent, you sure aren't playing the odds.

Duh me! Duh me!
Key words seem to be "innocent until proven guilty".
Seems you've already convicted him...1% or not.
Thank you.
God has spoken.
As for me, I'll wait for the trial, God.

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Duh me! Duh me!
Key words seem to be "innocent until proven guilty".
Seems you've already convicted him...1% or not.
Thank you.
God has spoken.
As for me, I'll wait for the trial, God.

I'll wait for the trial too. It seems everyone connected to anything is guilty today. When they investigate and they are not guilty they get a little story on page 50.

[my miss storm cat]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Duh me! Duh me!
Key words seem to be "innocent until proven guilty".
Seems you've already convicted him...1% or not.
Thank you.
God has spoken.
As for me, I'll wait for the trial, God.

I love this post..... can i frame it?

[brockguy]

I find it hard how the evidence will be so watertight that he will be proven guilty. Surely with Coolmore's backing, they will get the best guys available to get him out. I seriously doubt that his chances are 1% or less of being innocent..

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Duh me! Duh me!
Key words seem to be "innocent until proven guilty".
Seems you've already convicted him...1% or not.
Thank you.
God has spoken.
As for me, I'll wait for the trial, God.

I have no idea if he's guilty or not. I was responding to a couple of the others who said he's probably innocent. It's pretty unlikely that he's innocent but it's certainly possible. He certainly deserves a fair trial. He could be one of the few that is innocent. The odds are against it, but it is possible.
I have an open mind. The last time I served on a jury, I would have voted to acquit the defendant. I was an alternate so I didn't end up getting to vote but I would have voted to acquit if I had the chance. It was a federal trial. It was one of those cases where the government was totally overstepping their bounds. The guy shouldn't have been charged with anything. He really didn't do anything criminal. There were some legitimate civil issues that he could have been sued for but I didn't see any criminal behavior.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I have no idea if he's guilty or not. I was responding to a couple of the others who said he's probably innocent. It's pretty unlikely that he's innocent but it's certainly possible. He certainly deserves a fair trial. He could be one of the few that is innocent. The odds are against it, but it is possible.
I have an open mind. The last time I served on a jury, I would have voted to acquit the defendant. I was an alternate so I didn't end up getting to vote but I would have voted to acquit if I had the chance. It was a federal trial. It was one of those cases where the government was totally overstepping their bounds. The guy shouldn't have been charged with anything. He really didn't do anything criminal. There were some legitimate civil issues that he could have been sued for but I didn't see any criminal behavior.

So many times, we cloud our judgements with previous experiences that really have nothing to do with the current ones.
Throw that baggage away so that "fairness" can be addressed in this circumstance.
At this point, he's innocent.
If there is guilt to be found, I'm sure it will be presented.
Until then....
No findings.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

So many times, we cloud our judgements with previous experiences that really have nothing to do with the current ones.
Throw that baggage away so that "fairness" can be addressed in this circumstance.
At this point, he's innocent.
If there is guilt to be found, I'm sure it will be presented.
Until then....
No findings.

You are very foolish if you assume that someone who is arrested is innocent after there has been an extensive invetigation. You think that you know more that the authorities who have investigated the case for months? If you think he is innocent, then you are basically saying that the autorities that did the investigation are either corrupt or incompetent. You ae being hypocrtical. You are judging the authorities as doing a bad job even though you have no evidence of that.
You ae confused about the whole presumption of innocence deal. If you are on a jury, you are suppose to presume innocence until you hear all the facts of the case. At that point, you then need to decide if enough evidence has been presented to find the defendant guilty as charged. It is important for jurors to assume innocence unless guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is because the burden is on the govenrment. If the government does not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, then jurors must acquit the defendant.
We are not jurors on the Fallon case. We are simply observers. I have no reason to think the autorities have bungled the investigation. If I hear evidence of a bungled investigation, then that would be a different story. As of right now though, I haven't heard anything about a bungled investigation.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You are very foolish if you assume that someone who is arrested is innocent after there has been an extensive invetigation. You think that you know more that the authorities who have investigated the case for months? If you think he is innocent, then you are basically saying that the autorities that did the investigation are either corrupt or incompetent. You ae being hypocrtical. You are judging the authorities as doing a bad job even though you have no evidence of that.
You ae confused about the whole presumption of innocence deal. If you are on a jury, you are suppose to presume innocence until you hear all the facts of the case. At that point, you then need to decide if enough evidence has been presented to find the defendant guilty as charged. It is important for jurors to assume innocence unless guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is because the burden is on the govenrment. If the government does not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, then jurors must acquit the defendant.
We are not jurors on the Fallon case. We are simply observers. I have no reason to think the autorities have bungled the investigation. If I hear evidence of a bungled investigation, then that would be a different story. As of right now though, I haven't heard anything about a bungled investigation.

Rupert.
Let's get this straight.
I'm foolish to assume someone innocent until proven guilty? Right?
Where did I state that the investigators were corrupt or incompetent?
Bring up a quote if you can...
Your words are like something that comes out of my hindend after I've eaten lots of beans...and they stink as bad.

If you are unable to provide that which I've requested, an apology from you is in order.
If you insist on spouting nonsense and are unable to admit your moronic assertions...just do me a favor...ignore all of my posts.
I will do the same with yours from here on out....like fart echoes in a toilet.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Rupert.
Let's get this straight.
I'm foolish to assume someone innocent until proven guilty? Right?
Where did I state that the investigators were corrupt or incompetent?
Bring up a quote if you can...
Your words are like something that comes out of my hindend after I've eaten lots of beans...and they stink as bad.

If you are unable to provide that which I've requested, an apology from you is in order.
If you insist on spouting nonsense and are unable to admit your moronic assertions...just do me a favor...ignore all of my posts.
I will do the same with yours from here on out....like fart echoes in a toilet.

I think we are just speaking two different languages. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I am not saying that I would convict fallon of anything as of right now. If I had to decide right this minute whether Fallon was guilty or innocent, I would find him innocent. I wouldn't sentence a man to be punished without overwhelming evidence of his guilt. As of right now, I don't know the facts of the case and I am not on a jury deciding Fallon's fate. If I was deciding his fate, I would not convict him unless the evidence showed that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. As of right now, I don't even know what the evidence is. So I agree with you about not convicting someone before hearing the evidence. However, we are not deciding his fate on this message board. We are simply discussing the case. All I was saying was that if I am going to be realistic, I have to assume that the authorities have some fairly strong evidence against Fallon. They did an extensive investigation. That does not mean that I am in favor of convicting Fallon before I hear the evidence.
I think I probably misunderstood what you were saying. You were probably sayong the same thing that I am saying: That we should give Fallon the benefit of the doubt until we hear the evidence. We should respect the notion of innocnet until proven guilty. If that's what you are saying, then I agree with you. However, that is different from saying that you actually believe that he is innocent. If you are saying that you actually believe that he is innocent, then I would have to think that you think the investigators messed up. Although you never actually accused the investigators of messing up, if you actually think that Fallon is innocent, then I would have to assume that you belive the investigators messed up. Why else wold they be trying an innocent man? I think that was where our misunderstanding was. I thought you were saying that you actually believe he is innocent, but in hindsight I think you were simply saying that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

[Bigsmc]

Hey Brock,

Help jog my memory. Wasn't Fallon on a horse last year with a huge lead and he was basically wrapped up on him and allowed another to catch him at the wire? Wasn't that the ride that pretty much dragged him into the investigation?

My memory sucks and I could completely have that wrong, but I remember seeing video of it and thinking wow, how is he going to explain that one.

[brockguy]

Originally Posted by Bigsmc

Hey Brock,

Help jog my memory. Wasn't Fallon on a horse last year with a huge lead and he was basically wrapped up on him and allowed another to catch him at the wire? Wasn't that the ride that pretty much dragged him into the investigation?

My memory sucks and I could completely have that wrong, but I remember seeing video of it and thinking wow, how is he going to explain that one.

yeah youre spot on here. Ballinger Ridge is the name of the horse, yeah it was a shocking ride but in fairness to him, the horse didnt want to quicken again and he lost on a bobbing finish.. I believe he was caught on tape telling undercover journalists that Rye (who beat him ) would win... not very clever but Rye was the 8/11 fav with Fallons horse 15/8.