Fallon barred from British racing

[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.

[randallscott35]

Let's be clear here, this is the reason we are lucky that Betfair is illegal in the U.S. There is simply too much incentive in being able to bet against one horse in a race. Fixing a race where the favorite is 1-2 and will run up the track is easy on Betfair b/c you are simply betting against the horse, not choosing who will actually win. Do races get fixed in the US? Of course, but its a lot more difficult to do and I would guess it is generally rare. Over there, betfair has enabled people to fix at their hearts delight....But I also say that irregular betting patterns are easy tells, not unlike how Vegas views boxing lines when guys throw fights. Lest we forget, this game revolves around gambling, not the pretty horses running in circles----that is secondary.