View Full Version : Fradd case
Homer J.
18-09-2002, 16:28
Wednesday, September 18, 2002
Race-fixing trial to hear secret tape of Fradd, court told
MAGDALEN CHOW
Prev. Story | Next Story
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbie Fradd: not guilty plea
A secretly recorded tape of former champion jockey Robbie Fradd talking to a Hong Kong Jockey Club clerk in a riders' changing room will be produced as evidence at his race-fixing trial, a court heard yesterday.
The prosecution revealed this as South African Fradd denied in court pulling up his horse to prevent it from racing to the best of its ability in January.
Barrister Kevin Egan, for Fradd, told District Court Judge Maggie Poon Man-kay that the former Hong Kong champion rider entered a not guilty plea on the charge of cheating at gambling.
Fradd, 37, is accused of preventing his horse Winning Dragon from "running to the best of its natural ability" during a race at Happy Valley on January 16 and dishonestly influencing the outcome of the race.
He is said to have won money for himself or "any other person unascertained" in connection with the placing of bets with the Hong Kong Jockey Club on the outcome of that race. The horse finished third. Government lawyer Marco Li Kwok-wai said the prosecution would produce a surveillance tape recording of the conversation between Fradd and a jockey club clerk in a jockeys' changing room.
Mr Li told the court there would be 16 prosecution witnesses, including a horse racing expert and an associate professor from the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
The professor will testify in relation to the amplification of the conversation recorded on the audio tape, the court heard.
Mr Egan told the court the defence will challenge the expertise of the horse racing expert. "This so-called expert they are calling has been for the last three years working as a part-time steward at a dog track in New Zealand. As far as I know, dogs don't carry jockeys," he said.
He said the defence would also subpoena a panel of stipendiary stewards of the Hong Kong Jockey Club, who are required to watch each race and report any misconduct, to testify during the trial.
They include chief steward John Shreck and honorary stewards Arjan Sakhrani, a High Court judge, and Simon Ip Sik-on, a senior partner of the law firm Johnson Stokes & Master, the court heard.
Judge Poon fixed a trial date for November 4 and a pre-trial review date on October 21.
Fradd was released on $150,000 bail and was allowed to leave Hong Kong with a 24-hour advance notice to the Independent Commission Against Corruption.
Outside court, Mr Li said the racing expert, Gavin Whiterod, has more than 10 years' experience of horsing racing.
Tim McNally, the Jockey Club's executive director, corporate & legal services, denied there were listening devices maintained or controlled by the club's security division within the jockeys' room.
Gavin Whiterod would never have seen a jockey in NZ give a horse a run!!
What would he know about HK racing?
A desperate measure by the ICAC (yet again) and a good indication of the weakness of their case.
The tape recording will be of some interest, but overall, it smells of another ICAC storm in a tea-cup. Haven't they got better things to do?????
Gavin Whiterod was the former chief stipe in the Auckland area , he quit this job several years ago & currently lives in Levin . His new job is checking the brands on all the greyhounds before the first race.
Saturday, November 9, 2002
Fradd pulled back horse, court told
Expert witness in race-fixing trial accuses jockey, but trainer says mount was out of its class
PATRICK POON
Former champion jockey Robbie Fradd pulled back his mount during a race so it would drop from second to third place, the opening day of a race-fixing trial heard yesterday.
The comments came from New Zealander Gavin John Whiterod, who was testifying as an expert witness for the prosecution in the District Court.
Prosecutor Nicholas Adams earlier told the court that Fradd had won money for himself or "any other person unascertained" in connection with the placing of bets with the Hong Kong Jockey Club on the outcome of the race. The horse finished third.
Fradd, 37, denied one count of cheating at gambling.
He was arrested by the Independent Commission Against Corruption in February along with 20 others on suspicion of race-fixing.
Mr Whiterod, who said he had 20 years' experience in the racing industry, said that after watching the tape of the January 16 race at Happy Valley, he found Fradd "prevented his horse Winning Dragon from running to the best of its natural ability".
He said the South African rider had failed to take advantage of the opportunity "to move the horse forward to the gap behind the leading horse", adding that the horse should have been able to grab second place. The horse began as an even-money favourite to win the North Island Handicap, the court heard.
"He [Fradd] should have moved up to the gap. I believe he was restraining the horse . . . and [held] it back slightly and he had looked to his right several times," Mr Whiterod said. "I believe that he should be able to observe the gap between the leading horse and Winning Dragon . . . He elected not to take the gap and another rider moved forward."
Mr Whiterod said he believed Fradd had begun pulling back when Winning Dragon was more than two lengths behind the winner. The court heard Fradd's horse finished three and a quarter lengths behind the winning horse, Victory Marble.
But Winning Dragon's trainer, John Size, testified that although he was not satisfied with Fradd's riding that day, he did not criticise him after the race.
Mr Size said he believed that the poor performance of the horse in the race was due to its young age - the horse was only three years old - and its lack of experience. He said it was only Winning Dragon's third start.
The trainer also said the horse had not been up to racing in Class Two of the handicap system and that it had also been unfamiliar with the track condition on that night.
Mr Size said Winning Dragon was categorised in Class Four when it was brought from Australia in July last year. It jumped to Class Two after it won its second race on December 23.
He said he had been satisfied with Fradd's riding of the horse in the previous two races.
The court also heard that on February 6, Fradd again rode Winning Dragon and placed first in the Pacific Ocean Handicap - a Class Three race at Happy Valley.
He was arrested and charged with the offence after the race.
The trial continues before Deputy Judge Colin Mackintosh on Monday.
His new job is checking the brands on all the greyhounds before the first race.
is that really true JB. sounds like the last step on the way to the gutter. it is still unbelieveable the prosecution is using such a lightweight as their "expert witness". also if the charge was true why could they not have more than one "expert witness"??
Yes Hobbes its true ,the HKJC scoured the world looking for a horseracing expert & come up with this bloke....former stipe now a greyhound brand checker , i wonder how much they are paying him for his time ?
The JC/ICAC needs to produce some some strong evidence to sway me from believing Fradds being set up .
Shallow Hal
09-11-2002, 18:37
This is like finding some drunken doctor living out his last days in Angeles (PI) to testify for the prosecution in the OJ trial. The only thing the ICAC has that could carry any weight at all is the so-called secret tape from the jocks' room. But things said in that arena can be open to a wide interpretation??
You would think that, with the big betting teams in Hong Kong, at least 1 of them wouldnt get a knock on the door asking to see if the horse had been backed, or worth backing, on the night?
Surely this would be better evidence than than something coming from a doggy brander?
The secret tape was apparently ruled inadmissible - and the mail is that it was ruled inaudible prior to that - and this case likely to collapse by lunchtime Monday...
I'm tipping the ICAC are fucked without the tape.
And if the HK stewards didn't query it, why would anyone take this NZ dope as being credible?
"I heard that it might collapse on Monday, due to the weakness of the prosecution case following the exclusion of some vital evidence."
jrb
Tuesday, November 12, 2002 --- Fradd case groundless, argues lawyer
The prosecution has not linked the jockey's performance to any betting on the race, the court is told
PATRICK POON
The race-fixing case against jockey Robbie Fradd should be thrown out because the prosecution had failed to prove a link between his horse's performance and any bet placed on the race, a court heard yesterday.
Defence counsel Kevin Egan, making an application for no case to answer, said there was no link in the prosecution's case between the way Fradd had ridden Winning Dragon and money staked on the outcome of the race.
Fradd is accused of pulling back his mount during a race in January so it would drop from second to third place. But yesterday, Mr Egan said Fradd had restrained the horse "for tactical reasons" to avoid using up energy.
He said the prosecution was relying only on an expert witness' opinion that Fradd should not have restrained his horse.
Fradd, 37, denies one count of cheating at gambling.
He is alleged to have won money for himself or "any other person unascertained" connected with placing of bets with the Hong Kong Jockey Club on the outcome of the race.
He was arrested by anti-graft officers in February along with 20 others on suspicion of race-fixing.
Deputy Judge Colin Mackintosh is expected to give his ruling today in the District Court on whether Fradd has a case to answer.
Mr Egan said the defence would call six witnesses, including Fradd and stipendiary stewards, if it was ruled his client had a case to answer.
Asked by Deputy Judge Mackintosh to provide precedents in support of his request for a ruling on whether Fradd had a case to answer, Mr Egan said he could not because: "Nobody would have brought this charge in these circumstances."
New Zealander Gavin John Whiterod, who has 20 years' experience in the racing industry and earlier testified as an expert witness for the prosecution, told the court that after watching a video of the January 16 race at Happy Valley he found Fradd "prevented his horse Winning Dragon from running to the best of its natural ability".
Mr Whiterod said the South African jockey had failed to take advantage of the opportunity "to move the horse forward to the gap behind the leading horse", adding that the horse should have been able to grab second place. Winning Dragon finished third.
The horse began as an even-money favourite to win the North Island Handicap, the court was told.
When Mr Egan cross-examined Mr Whiterod before giving his submission yesterday, the witness admitted he had never been to Happy Valley racecourse to watch races live.
Mr Whiterod also admitted the role of stipendiary steward in New Zealand was different from that in Hong Kong and that he had no experience in "judging of this kind" when he was a stipendiary steward in Auckland between 1995 and 1998.
He had previously worked as a stipendiary steward in another part of New Zealand, the court heard.
Mr Whiterod said he was only aware in court yesterday that he was alone in criticising Fradd when Mr Egan put to him that the Jockey Club's chief stipendiary steward, John Schreck, four other stipendiary stewards and two honorary stewards, including a High Court judge and a solicitors firm's partner, had not queried Fradd's riding.
In Saturday's South China Morning Post, it was reported that Winning Dragon's trainer, John Size, told the court he was not satisfied with Fradd's riding on the day of the race. In fact, he testified that he was not satisfied with the outcome of the race. We apologise for the error
Homer J.
13-11-2002, 19:40
Wednesday, November 13, 2002
I had to hold horse back for safety, says Fradd
PATRICK POON
-------------
Former champion jockey Robbie Fradd told a race-fixing trial yesterday he had restrained his mount during a race to avoid it running out of energy, describing it as a tactical decision.
The South African rider testified after Deputy Judge Colin Mackintosh ruled in the District Court that he had a case to answer to the charge of cheating at gambling.
Fradd said it was impossible to let his mount, Winning Dragon, run as fast as it could and it was necessary to hold it back.
He also said he did not want to run on the heels of the horses in front as it would be dangerous.
Answering criticism from prosecution expert witness New Zealander Gavin John Whiterod, who said Winning Dragon should have filled in the gap behind the leading horse, the jockey said: "It would definitely have been wrong if I had done that."
The prosecution alleges Fradd, 37, won money for himself or "any other person unascertained" connected with placing bets with the Hong Kong Jockey Club on the outcome of the race on the night of January 16. Fradd denies one count of cheating at gambling.
He was arrested in February along with 20 others on suspicion of race-fixing.
The jockey said he had expected Victory Marble, which won the race that night, would be leading the race and that another horse, Merry Merry, which took the gap, would also tend to lead because they were older and more experienced.
Winning Dragon was a three-year-old and the race was its third start, the court heard.
Fradd denied placing any bet on the race for himself or anyone else.
John Matthew Schreck, the chief stipendiary steward of the Hong Kong Jockey Club, said he disagreed with Mr Whiterod and said Fradd's restraining of the horse was "perfectly legitimate" and "justifiable".
Mr Schreck, who has had 33 years' experience as a stipendiary steward for jockey clubs in Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong, said he was disappointed that Mr Whiterod did not go to the Happy Valley racecourse to watch the races, the track and other facilities before judging Fradd's riding.
He said the charge against Fradd was wrong.
Mr Schreck said although Winning Dragon was an even-money favourite to win the North Island Handicap on that day, it did not mean it would definitely win. According to statistics, only 27 per cent of favourites won their races.
Four other Jockey Club stipendiary stewards - Jamie Andrew Stier, Kam Shiu-bor, Tony Lam Tsun-hin and Martin Maxwell Knibbs - also testified that they did not question Fradd's riding and believed he was only "settling the horse" in the early stage of the race.
The hearing continues today.
I realise the stewards have to cover their arses after taking no action themselves, but if that report of their evidence is half way accurate, this case is a dead duck. One has to wonder why the case was brought at all when the prosecution must have realised that its evidence was about as conclusive and convincing as an Elvis sighting. Perhaps there is some more arse covering going on, trying to justify an expensive investigation ?
Another ICAC "wafwotam" .... what a f#@!*# waste of time and money !
it would seem the ICAC have zero chance of getting a guilty verdict in this case. in fact they have absolutely no case. if the audio tape was garbled / inaudible the case existed only in their demented minds. unf.....believeable
Thursday, November 14, 2002 --- Verdict today for former champion jockey on trial for race-fixing
Defence counsel criticises the ICAC for bringing the hearing against Robbie Fradd -- PATRICK POON
Former champion jockey Robbie Fradd will learn his fate today when a verdict is given in his race-fixing trial.
Deputy Judge Colin Mackintosh heard final submissions and is due to deliver his verdict in the District Court this afternoon.
In his final submission, defence counsel Kevin Egan criticised the Independent Commission Against Corruption for ignoring the opinions of five stipendiary stewards of the Jockey Club and bringing the case to the court.
Mr Egan said the prosecution had failed to provide any evidence about the link between the alleged false practice and the alleged gambling.
He also said Fradd had no criminal record and had never been charged with an offence in the 18 years he had been involved in horse racing.
The 37-year-old South African jockey denies one count of cheating at gambling. He is accused of having won money for himself or "any other persons unascertained" connected to placing bets with the Hong Kong Jockey Club on the outcome of the race on the night of January 16.
The charge accuses him of having "prevented his horse Winning Dragon from running to the best of its natural ability". Fradd was arrested in February along with 20 others on suspicion of race-fixing.
A New Zealand racing expert, Gavin John Whiterod, had earlier told the court that Fradd had failed to take advantage of the opportunity "to move the horse forward to the gap behind the leading horse", adding that the horse should have been able to grab second place.
The court heard the horse began as an even-money favourite to win the North Island Handicap.
However, the Jockey Club's five stipendiary stewards, including the chief steward, John Matthew Schreck, had testified that they believed Fradd's riding on that night was "legitimate" and believed that the rider was "merely settling the horse".
A Jockey Club spokesman yesterday refused to comment on whether Fradd could continue riding in Hong Kong if he was convicted of the charge.
The spokesman said Fradd's riding licence with the Jockey Club had expired on June 30 this year. Since then, Fradd had not been allowed to ride in Hong Kong, although he was allowed to leave the territory to return to his native South Africa to take part in races.
do these idiots even know what a horse or a races or anything related is? this would put most normal people of bringing charges like this again but i assume we can expect another case in the near future when the HK/HKJC decides it must be seen to be actively stamping out any form of corruption or race fixing. maybe this was a stunt to increase the betting publics confidnce in the racing and so to increase turnover? cant think why else they would try such a case.
Hong Kong Jockey Club Response to Robbie Fradd's Case
14 November 2002
The Hong Kong Jockey Club is pleased that the trial of Jockey Robbie Fradd is over and that verdict of 'not guilty' has been passed.
"The only evidence of Mr Fradd pulling a horse came in the form of opinion evidence by an expert witness from New Zealand," said Mr Timothy McNally, the Club's Executive Director of Security and Corporate Legal Services.
"There was no evidence of a conspiracy; there were no incriminating conversations produced; there were no physical surveillance logs or observations of suspect parties presented; there were no telephone logs implicating suspect relationship; no receipts or financial records introduced."
"The only evidence of criminal activity afoot was opinion evidence from a former stipendiary steward who acknowledged he had no prior experience or direct knowledge of Hong Kong racing."
Mr McNally continued: "The expert witness operated in New Zealand under a very different control structure. He possessed minimal knowledge concerning the Happy Valley track, knew little about our ratings or class structure, and his testimony revealed little awareness of the prior form or tactics used in racing this horse, Winning Dragon."
Mr Winfried Engelbrecht-Bresges, the Jockey Club's Executive Director of Racing said: "Racing is a highly specialised sport in which countless variables are the difference between winning and losing. Because of this the Hong Kong Jockey Club employs a panel of stewards to police racing and uphold its integrity. This team is rightly acknowledged to be one of the very best in the world and we have every confidence in it."
Mr McNally pledged that the Jockey Club would continue to work closely and cooperatively with the ICAC. "This matter," he said, "will not cause any barrier to our future working relationship. In fact, I hope it makes it an even stronger one. We need to mutually improve the means of sharing information and educating our personnel on the best practices to reduce the risk of corrupt activities. I believe this responsibility exists with both parties. We must be accountable to the Hong Kong people to ensure that we maintain a high level of public confidence in the integrity of racing."
Another reputation dragged through the mud and now what? Is Fradd ever likely to get back into HK racing? He is a former champion and has done nothing wrong. You'd think he'd be sweet to re-apply and come back. But history is against him - innocent or not. The ICAC are lucky all the innocent people they've crucified in public cannot take legal action and sue the bastards.
The least they could do is give him his licence back but thats doubtful ?
Steppin Short
15-11-2002, 06:49
The HKJC should re issue a licence to Robbie Fradd for the time that he spent on the side-lines prior to the expiration of his licence. From memory feb till june.
Then they should allow Fradd to re-apply for a licence.
Another case of egg on the face of the ICAC.
Robbie Fradd has been proven to have done nothing wrong, now the HKJC only needs to show the balls to give him back a licence. It seems that there may be one big problem and that is the Chinese Press - who would crucify Fradd if he looked like riding less than to there liking.
HKJC are paranoid about bad publicity esspecially in the Chinese papers.
So where does that leave Fradd.
We shall sit, and watch, and wonder what the powers to be at the HKJC decide.
i think ivan allan wouldnt want this guy back in hk racing after the several abysmal rides he gave FKP. and i would agree with allan, fradd has his own agenda and doesnt do things properly. the real reason why fradd didnt ride winning dragon well is because he's a crap jockey.
Shadey, you might be interested to know that Ivan Allan - a lawyer himself - has been one of Fradd's staunchest supporters throughout this ICAC nonsense.
http://sport.scmp.com/usr4/Mac/gspt/CCLUB1b.jpg
Club will now try to repair reputation dented by trial
'I think that we will have to talk to all of our jockeys about this and clarify the position,' says Engelbrecht-Bresges
Whilst he was found not guilty, Fradd was hardly given a glowing tribute from His Honour Deputy Judge McIntosh, who said that his actions in holding back Winning Dragon had brought heavy suspicion on him. He also declined to make an order for costs in Fradd's favour.
It seems to me that His Honour has had a bit each way here. He slated the ICAC case, as he should have - it was woeful. That being so, and in view of the fact that the stewards took absolutely no action in relation to the ride, then surely Fradd should not have been subject to this judicial slur. Now the HKJC is placed in a position of having to consider relicensing a jockey whose riding has "brought heavy suspicion" on him. How can the HKJC countenance relicensing such a jockey, when the appearance of integrity is of the utmost importance to the industry and the punters' confidence in it.
On the other hand, why should Fradd be penalised by an ill conceived and executed case against him which he appears to have defeated without too much difficulty ? He has already suffered an apparent injustice resulting from the damage to his reputation, such as it was, and the fact that he has been unable to ride in HK for many months pending his trial.
The horns of a dilemma.
Mr Crapola
15-11-2002, 20:24
How can Deputy Judge Mackintosh agree with that expert? witness and not "attach much weight" to the stewards report and opinions ?? Perhaps the ICAC should turn their attention on Mackintosh !
I see that Mr McNally got his melon in the paper again. Not bad for a f..cking bouncer !!
Quite so - if Whiterod was "logical and consistent" and his evidence "powerful, cogent and compelling" as he was according to the Judge, then doesn't that make the stewards incompetent for not doing something about Fradd's ride immediately ? They didn't even question it at the time.
Personally, I find it very hard to understand how a fellow with Whiterod's experience can purport to give expert evidence on a matter such as this when he admits that he hadn't even visited the track and had made no study of racing at Happy Valley, one of the most idiosyncratic tracks I have come across anywhere in the world. This Whiterod sounds like he would string up every jockey who ever made an error of judgment or a mistake in race riding.
Relieved Fradd looks to the future - and asks to be given new licence
South African ace to meet Jockey Club officials today for talks following his acquittal in high-profile court case
Hopeful: Robbie Fradd, his name cleared yesterday, now hopes for a licence renewal. SCMP photo
ALAN AITKEN
Acquitted jockey Robbie Fradd will seek to be relicensed to ride in Hong Kong at a meeting with Jockey Club officials this morning.
"We have a number of things to discuss," Fradd said outside the District Court yesterday following his acquittal on a charge of cheating at gambling. One of the things I want to talk about is how my position stands with regard to the Jockey Club and riding here again."
Fradd, who has been suspended from riding in Hong Kong since his arrest by the Independent Commission Against Corruption on February 6, declined to comment further until after this morning's meeting. The Jockey Club is expected to hold a press conference later today.
Winfried Engelbrecht-Bresges, the Jockey Club's director of racing, said last night that Fradd had requested the meeting without specifying his reasons. "However, I would expect that Robbie will want to discuss his future. We will examine this with him and take it from there," he said.
Fradd, who was champion jockey in the 1999-2000 season, has been riding in Hong Kong for five years and has continued his highly successful career in his native South Africa during the period of his suspension here.
Jockey Club officials have been strongly supportive of Fradd during the past nine months, but the licensing decision was made potentially more difficult yesterday when Deputy Judge Colin Mackintosh said the jockey's riding aboard Winning Dragon at Happy Valley in January had brought "heavy suspicion" on him.
The Deputy Judge agreed with an opinion that Fradd had prevented Winning Dragon from running to his best ability because he restrained the horse for a portion of the race. That judgment was a bombshell for the sport in Hong Kong.
"All I want to say is that I'm glad the whole thing's over," Fradd said after the verdict was returned in the District Court at Wan Chai.
"It should never have gone this far, but I'm glad it's over. I want to thank my legal team, headed by Kevin Egan and Andrew Lam and their whole team. And I would also like to thank all the people who have given me so much support through the last nine months while this has all been going on."
Fradd's ride was never questioned by the stipendiary stewards operating on the night of the race and chief steward John Schreck and four other stewards testified this week that they still accepted the riding of the horse.
"The stewards' report did not address the matter of restraining the horse, so in all the circumstances theirs was not an opinion to which I attached much weight," Deputy Judge Mackintosh said.
"Mr Schreck's detailed report does not address the issue of restraint of the horse, but the whole tone of the report is that the allegation of restraint is unfounded.
"The object of an act of malpractice is to deceive the stewards and Mr Schreck admits that the stewards are not infallible. The closest view was from the tower where the cadet steward was stationed and being a cadet he would not be as experienced in identifying malpractice."
However, the judge said the prosecution had not proved that Fradd "had won money for himself or for any other person unascertained, in connection with the placing of bets with the Hong Kong Jockey Club on the outcome of a horse race on January 16, 2002, by a false practice" as specified in the charge.
The judge said the prosecution case asserted that, since horseracing exists for the purpose of gambling, that the only reason for such an action was gambling-related but said he would not accept that as the only possibility.
Fradd, fellow jockey John Egan and 19 others were arrested by the ICAC on February 6 in Operation Green Grass, an investigation into allegations of "horse race rigging and illegal bookmaking activities allegedly facilitated by corruption."
The two jockeys were then alleged in an ICAC statement to have "accepted advantages from illegal bookmakers as rewards for supplying stable racing information and manipulating race results". Egan has yet to return from Britain to face an ICAC charge. On August 7, Fradd was charged with one count of cheating at gambling by preventing Winning Dragon from running to his best ability and therefore dishonestly influencing the outcome of the race.
Deputy Judge Mackintosh said that the case hinged on two broad issues - one of false practice, and a second of Fradd having won money for himself or some other person - and the second had not been proved. However, he said the prosecution had proved that, during a 200-metre to 300-metre section of the race, Fradd had restrained Winning Dragon.
"By his own evidence Mr Fradd acknowledged that it was a deliberate decision to give away his position behind the leader. Mr Fradd claims to have restrained the horse for legitimate reasons," the judge said, and continued that he agreed with the expert prosecution witness that "the only tenable conclusion to be drawn is that it was designed to give away an advantageous position. I reject Mr Fradd's assertion that it was a tactical move."
The prosecution expert, Gavin Whiterod, a greyhound steward in New Zealand and former racing chief steward in Auckland, had been attacked for his inexperience of Hong Kong racing during cross examination by Fradd's counsel, Kevin Egan. The judge said, however, he considered Whiterod to have been "logical and consistent" and his evidence "powerful, cogent and compelling".
"It was appropriate to look outside Hong Kong for an independent expert. Given the extent of Mr Whiterod's criticism, it is not necessary that he be an expert on Hong Kong racing and he gave an opinion based on his experience and the evidence of the horse's six races," he said.
Whiterod alleged Fradd prevented Winning Dragon from going forward into a gap behind the leading horse, Victory Marble, and deliberately left a gap with the result that Merry Merry had the chance to move in front of Winning Dragon. The judge said "Mr Whiterod maintained this was not just a poor ride and that it had been a deliberate act, not just to restrain the horse but be caught behind Merry Merry."
Fradd should never have been charged over the Winning Dragon ride - what the ICAC should have got him on is the diabolical ride on Fairy King Prawn in the Dubai Duty Free in 2001 - absolutely criminal - open and shut case !
thats the insanity of the whole thing, and why many people assumed the ICAC must have more evidence than just the ride.
if the ICAC wanted to get someone for pulling a horse then im sure those on this forum could have found plenty of rides by plenty of jockeys that where open/shut cases.
[ November 15, 2002, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: Scarper ]
Absolutely e.g. my favourite rider D. Whyte on that first up NZer in the last on Wednesday night - what the hell was he doing on it ? He gave his own mount no hope by taking on Crocker (finished about 24 lengths last), but took all the gas out of my good thing for the night !
Deputy Judge Colin Mackintosh said the jockey's riding aboard Winning Dragon at Happy Valley in January had brought "heavy suspicion" on him.
The Deputy Judge agreed with an opinion that Fradd had prevented Winning Dragon from running to his best ability because he restrained the horse for a portion of the race. That judgment was a bombshell for the sport in Hong Kong.
I don't really care if Fradd is guilty or not. What bothers me is what on earth were the stewards doing? According to the Deputy Judge, they had failed their job miserably.
Jockey Club officials have been strongly supportive of Fradd during the past nine months,
To me, it means that the JC was effectively saying to Fradd: "We screwed up real bad. Let's get out of this mess together, mate."
[ November 15, 2002, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: masun ]
cheesebeast
16-11-2002, 06:41
To me, it means that the JC was effectively saying to Fradd: "We screwed up real bad. Let's get out of this mess together, mate."
That's if you side with the judge - assuming the judge doesn't know a heck of a lot about the finer points of racing, it appears he reached his conclusions based on the "expert" witness provided by one Gavin Whiterod.
I think the judge is big noting it a bit and may have stepped out of line. Together with his one expert witness I don't think he's qualified to make the statements that he did.
To some extent the stewards may have been painted into a corner, it's just another element of the bizzare nature of the whole case, initially the JC have to come out in support of the ICAC, then in court they're on the side of the defendant. :confused: :confused:
The ICAC are really the ones coming out of this looking like complete idiots - they clearly have way too much power.
We'll see how chummy the JC are with Fradd when it comes to them granting or refusing a licence I guess.
What odds he gets his licence back, folks?
Sometimes I think what we need is an independent racing commission which oversees the JC.
The Fradd case is a good example. His ride on the night was somewhat suspicious. OTOH, there's no clear evidence that there were any criminal intents. This sort of cases should be studied by an independent panel of experts who don't have to cover their asses like the stewards.
As far as we punters are concerned, such an independent commission would allow us to air our grievances. For example, when we're not satisfied with the ride of a certain jockey, we can lodge our complaint to the commission. When the number of complaints reach a certain number, the commission will look into the case to see if everything has been dealt with properly
Not that the commission will deal with complaints against riders only. It can also look into other matters that have bothered us, e.g. screw ups in the 6-up & TT payouts.
The whole point of my argument is the JC is too big and there's too much money involved. Like all organisations, it may at times be more interested in protecting its own interest rather than the interest of the people it's supposed to serve. We punters really need an independent body to make sure that we are getting a fair deal.
Masun, Hobbes - tell me one place in the world where a so-called independent body has been an improvement in racing administration....not that I believe any body is independent. As long as they point to the ground, we all have arses to cover.
The judge in this case is fine example. Isn't the judiciary expected to be impartial?
There was no admissible evidence in the Fradd case and ICAC shd have been kicked up the arse for bringing it to court. But the DEPUTY judge has protected the ICAC/govt side - I wonder how judges get promoted? - by proceeding with the matter, finding there was a case to answer and therefore saving them total embarrssment and Fradd's costs, for the moment. ie a de facto punishment for Fradd from ICAC has occurred in that he has been denied HK riding for 9 months and $1 mill in legal costs. Fair fine that.
In addition, by finding him not guilty under the charge - and the judge had no alternative to that if he was to hold his head up in legal circles - he has attempted to, a) give the HKJC a stiff arm jolt and b) throw a spanner into the relicensing works, by saying Fradd hooked the horse. When Fradd is relicensed today, it will the HKJC spitting back at the ICAC.
The ICAC know ZERO about horseracing & should do themselves a favour & keep there heads out.
Instead the JC should get someone else to do there dirty work.
I remember being locked in a room with 4 of these dopes & the one in charge said theres only 2 kinds of winners in horseracing - lucky punters & cheats....he went on to say lucky punters all lose in the end.
Horny Harry
16-11-2002, 16:06
I expect that we will see a lot more front running rides from now on? Shane Dye may be in trouble... :rolleyes:
tell me one place in the world where a so-called independent body has been an improvement in racing administration....not that I believe any body is independent.
don't know of any fedora but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea to make the attempt.
When Fradd is relicensed today, it will the HKJC spitting back at the ICAC.
it will be "interesting" if he is relicensed but surely not today. i cannot remember the JC ever making such decisions on a raceday.
i am usually in favour of wiping out any jockeys + TRAINERS on any hint of wrongdoing but do feel sorry for fradd. was he really totally guiltless??
not that I believe any body is independent. As long as they point to the ground, we all have arses to cover.
OK, Fedora, what would you like to see happen then? Forget this Fradd case, are there times that you're unhappy with the JC's decisions? I know for sure that there are many on this forum who feel the JC's decisions are at times questionable. For example, there are those whose accounts have been closed simply because they have won too much money. At the moment, there's nowhere these aggrieved parties can turn to. Shouldn't there be some sort of bodies which allow these punters to challenge the JC's decisions?
The judge in this case is fine example. Isn't the judiciary expected to be impartial?
I believe the judge acted in an impartial manner. Remember he acquitted Fradd. How can acquitting Fradd be interpretted as protecting the ICAC/govt side??? As far as I can tell, most people interpreted this as a slap on ICAC's face.
If you have zero confidence in HK's judicial system, if you believe in some sort of conspiracy theory that the JC/ICAC/judiciary/govt are always trying to protect each other, why waste time studying HK racing at all? Wouldn't your time be better spent on countries whose systems you can trust?
I expect that we will see a lot more front running rides from now on? Shane Dye may be in trouble...
Apparently Dye hasn't been affected...he kept Century Star at the back and won the race comfortably.
cheesebeast
16-11-2002, 22:41
The Licensing Committee today held a meeting to consider the application from Robert Fradd for a Club Jockey's Licence. The Committee considered submissions put by Robert Fradd in support of his application, evidence from Mr John Size, the Trainer of WINNING DRAGON, the written statement of Mr Gavin Whiterod which was obtained by the prosecution for use in the court case, and viewed the patrol video of Race 309, the race in question.
The Committee on the evidence placed before them were satisfied with the riding by Robert Fradd of WINNING DRAGON in Race 309, and that he did not breach any rules of racing.
The Committee also considered the performance statistics of Robert Fradd whilst licensed as a jockey in Hong Kong together with his entire disciplinary record. It was decided Robert Fradd be granted a Club Jockey's Licence for the period 20 November 2002 until 30 June 2003, inclusive.
One interesting detail of the case, as revealed by today's SCMP article headlined "Fradd's Lawyer says ICAC misinterpreted meeting", is that:
quote:according to a transcript of the conversation prepared by a linguist for the anti-graft body, Mr. Chow stretched out five fingers and said: "Five thousand, five" after Fradd the paper. What I am curious to know -- and also wonder if the ICAC has bothered to ask the same question -- if a jockey who believes he has good inside info would bet just 5,000 bucks on a horse. Even for a small potato like me, if I believe I have genuinely good inside info, I'd surely bet more than that.
[ November 16, 2002, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: masun ]
Fradd's back....something out of the wreck for him. And chewy-on-your-boot ICAC.
This has put an end to another amazing horseracing story.
Masun since the ICAC brought up a greyhound brand checker & labelled him a horseracing expert , who knows who there expert linguist may really be ?
The Licensing Committee have now held a meeting to consider the application from Robert Fradd for a Club Jockey¡¦s Licence. The Committee considered submissions put by Robert Fradd in support of his application, evidence from John Size, the Trainer of WINNING DRAGON, the written statement of Mr Gavin Whiterod which was obtained by the prosecution for use in the court case, and viewed the patrol video of Race 309, the race in question.
The Committee on the evidence placed before them were satisfied with the riding by Fradd of WINNING DRAGON in Race 309, and that he did not breach any rules of racing.
The Committee also considered the performance statistics of Fradd whilst licensed as a jockey in Hong Kong together with his entire disciplinary record. It was decided Fradd be granted a Club Jockey's Licence for the period 20 November 2002 until 30 June 2003, inclusive.
HKJC News
PS I beleieve the linguistical expert was found in a library somewhere in Kowloon studying the phonetical interpretations of of Lyre Birds in South Western Tasmania. ( Unfortunatly the only book ever written on this subject was German)
http://animaltrial.com/lyre-superbbirda.gif
[ November 16, 2002, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: imaufo ]
Saturday, November 16, 2002 Fradd's lawyer says ICAC misinterpreted meeting
Pre-race video shows the South African jockey taking a piece of paper from an attendant during a 'garbled' conversation
Robbie Fradd (top) takes a piece of paper from a jockeys' room attendant in a secret recording. The tape was never submitted as evidence. SCMP photo
The ICAC wrongly accused former champion jockey Robbie Fradd of corruption after misinterpreting a conversation captured by a camera hidden in the Hong Kong Jockey Club's changing room, his lawyer said yesterday.
Releasing the video to the South China Morning Post, Fradd's solicitor, Andrew Lam Ping-cheung, said it recorded a conversation lasting less than a minute between the South African jockey and Godwin Chow, a race-day jockeys' room attendant.
The tape was never offered as evidence during the race-fixing trial, which ended on Thursday when District Court Deputy Judge Colin Mackintosh acquitted Fradd, 37, of one count of cheating at gambling.
Mr Lam said the conversation occurred just half an hour before the 10.30pm race at the centre of the accusations.
In the tape, Mr Chow is seen handing Fradd a piece of paper from his trouser pocket.
According to a transcript of the conversation prepared by a linguist for the anti-graft body, Mr Chow stretched out five fingers and said: "Five thousand, five" after giving Fradd the paper. But Fradd's reply was unclear. He could have said: "Five thousand what? Win or a loss?", or "Five thousand five. Win was a loss".
Mr Lam yesterday criticised the ICAC, accusing the anti-graft body of misinterpreting his client's actions and gestures during the recorded meeting.
Fradd was accused of having won money for himself or others by placing bets on the outcome of the January 16 race at the Happy Valley course. He was alleged to have prevented his horse, Winning Dragon, "from running to the best of its natural ability".
In an interview with the Post yesterday, Fradd said his 12-year-old daughter, who lives in South Africa with his wife, told him she had been teased by classmates who called her father a cheat. But he said the classmates' parents who had read the news online now understood that the allegations against him were wrong.
"I have good support from my family. The case is done," he said.
Fradd said he would return home to South Africa tomorrow. Asked if he would continue riding in Hong Kong, Fradd said he had talked to the Jockey Club's licensing committee about renewing his riding licence in Hong Kong, but admitted he might stay in South Africa.
Director of Public Prosecutions, Grenville Cross, yesterday defended the decision to proceed with a prosecution against Fradd.
In a letter to the Post, he said: "I formed the independent opinion that there was a reasonable prospect of securing a conviction on the available evidence."
Fradd was denied costs and faces an estimated legal bill of $1 million.
patrick.poon@scmp.com
as masun points out below the $5,000 is laughable. i think zero chance any expat jock would do anything for such a pissant sum.
the ICAC would have made even bigger fools of themselves if they tried to suggest he threw the race for that amount
Saturday, November 16, 2002 --- RACING
'There will always be doubt in people's minds, but if they know you then you haven't got a problem'
ALAN AITKEN
SCMP: What has been the impact of this on you, personally?
RF: Quite big in a way, in the sense that you're known all over the world as a cheat, which I think is wrong and which is not the case. It took since February to wind this up, whereas it shouldn't have happened in the first place. Personally it has had a bit of an effect, definitely. My little daughter went to school, for instance, back home and some little kid . . . said, 'Your dad's a cheat'. That's not nice. It goes a bit below the belt."
SCMP: What has been the professional impact of this case on you?
RF: Look it depends on if you're a racing person or not. You know, if you understand the game, you'll know it's just not possible. But for people that don't understand the game then they all turn around and think racing is crooked, which is not fair. Racing is a sport. You had that [BBC] programme, that Panorama they did, it's all negative, none of it's basically true. I don't think so, anyway. As a professional it's all over the world that you're branded as a cheat, which is a bit harsh.
SCMP: Has it disrupted your career?
RF: Not back home in South Africa. Back home everybody is very supportive of me, they gave me rides, they didn't comment about anything. They believe there was nothing in it and they knew I was innocent because they know me.
SCMP: What has been the effect on you financially?
RF: Oh, it's been a big struggle. It has cost me a lot. When you earn good money in Hong Kong, obviously the stakes money is very good here and, you know, you're used to that. Then suddenly you're not earning that, then you've got travel expenses to come back and forth, hotel bills, bail money, legal costs. It all adds up so it has been a bit of a strain.
SCMP: Are you going to continue with legal action to regain your costs?
RF: I'm going to leave that part of it to my legal team, Kevin Egan and Andrew Lam. It would be nice if I could get it back because I think I deserve to get it back. [It's only right] for the prosecutor or ICAC to pay the costs because I'm acquitted of everything, I'm not guilty. There should be no need to pay. I didn't ask for this.
SCMP: Were you surprised that the case went as far as it did?
RF: Very much so. I thought when they asked me to come back to get cleared or whatever, I thought that would be it. I came back, I was positive I would be cleared and then they put this charge on me, for what reason I don't even know. Only they know. I never ever thought it would go this far, not at all. And a lot of other people as well, even in the legal department, never thought it would go this far.
SCMP: All in all, how difficult have the last nine months been for you?
RF: Pretty difficult. Thing is now getting your name back and showing people you haven't done anything wrong. It's been difficult because there will always be doubt in people's minds about certain things, but, like I said, if they know you then you haven't got a problem. But yeah, it's been tough.
SCMP: With Thursday's not guilty finding, do you feel vindicated or that it only went halfway?
RF: I think it went halfway. I couldn't say I agree with the judge's comments, however, obviously he's got to make a decision and that's up to him but I don't agree with him. I've done nothing wrong. I gave the horse the best ride I could have and I think he needs to be more knowledgeable about racing.
SCMP: If you rode Winning Dragon again in the same race, same circumstances today, would you ride it the same way?
RF: Sure. Why not? I thought I gave him a great ride.
SCMP: Have you applied for a licence to ride in Hong Kong?
RF: Yes, I have applied and now it's totally up to the Club. Let's hope that I can get one and start off again. When, I don't know. I went in and thought I'll do it quickly and put my application in and see how it goes from there. I'm available immediately if they want me.
SCMP: If you are relicensed in Hong Kong, do you think that what has happened will have a negative bearing on your future career here?
RF: I think that's up to me. It depends on how I handle it. It obviously will be in the back of your mind, however it's something that you have just got to face. Just work harder, ride better - show people that it isn't worrying you. But I'm sure there will be certain times when it will. You know, people maybe make a comment or something, but that's racing in general. People like to comment when things don't go their way, so I'll just have to put up with that and ignore it.
SCMP: Has there been anything positive to come out of this from your point of view?
RF: Yes there has. The positive part is that when things like this happen, you have a lot of people that . . . your phone doesn't ring, they don't want to know you. I have had good support from the Jockey Club in the sense of professional support. They knew I had done nothing wrong, and they got behind me and gave me support because they knew I had done nothing wrong. And the evidence that the club gave was purely professional - no-one was taking my side or doing favours for me. That's the way it was, it was very professional evidence but the judge didn't seem to see it that way. But, no, I've had good friends rally around me. You get to know who your friends are and which people to avoid. That's the positive thing - my family has been behind me 100 per cent and I think the good support I got was the positive in the whole thing . . . from everybody.
SCMP: Given the conclusion that the judge reached regarding your ride, is there an important change now that jockeys in Hong Kong must think about - that they can't ease a horse during a race without it being called into question?
RF: I'm sure it will be obviously addressed by the club to the jocks. But, in the same sense, you can't change racing in Hong Kong, the way they've been doing it for however many years. The stipes are there, let them police it. Use their own discretion whether it's a suspect ride or you should have moved up. You can't be thinking if there's a gap in front of two lengths maybe I need to get closer. Maybe if you're not experienced, like if some of the young kids start doing that and stop doing something else, then it can be dangerous. And if you do that and your horse is not used to it, then they can have nothing left in the finish, too. What the judge had to say was probably his lack of knowledge of racing that told a little bit there but, anyway, you can't say every time someone doesn't fill a gap that you're going to be called in front of a disciplinary committee in the legal system, in a court of law. I mean, that's pathetic. I think the stewards are going to just say to the guys, 'Don't get dangerous about it but use your own judgment'.
SCMP: You had a great association with Hong Kong's current star, Electronic Unicorn, before all of this. Losing that ride has been one of the professional costs you've suffered but would you hope to ride him again if you are relicensed ?
RF: It depends on if and when the Licensing Committee lets me come back. I would love to get back on Electronic Unicorn, sure, but if the owner and trainer have decided to use someone else and they stick with him obviously it's difficult. You can't take a guy off - it wouldn't be fair - but I'd love to get back on him, sure. I'd love to get back on any of the horses here that I've been associated with, that I've had success with. I'd love to get back on Winning Dragon again, too.
SCMP: Is there any lesson that you have taken from any of this or anything final you'd like to say?
RF: Just to certain press people, thanks for the support, a lot of the stuff they wrote was positive. I'd like to thank [trainer] John Size for giving his professional opinion of what he thought. He was called as a witness for the prosecution during the trial but he told the truth, that that's the way the race was run, that he was happy with the ride and I appreciated that. And I did appreciate the support from my friends and other riders here in Hong Kong. At the same time, when I come back, I'm just going to have be a bit careful, you know. I'm a friendly kind of guy but I'll just have to be a bit careful about certain things you say because they can get misinterpreted, so I will be a bit careful. At the same time, I won't worry too much about that, I'll just try and concentrate on my riding, my job in hand.
Saturday, November 16, 2002 --- RACING
Chinese press give low-key reaction to judge's ruling --- PHILLIP WOO
Most of the local Chinese press adopted their usual conservative tone yesterday in their coverage of the Robbie Fradd acquittal, with the six major Chinese newspapers giving only a general report of Deputy Judge Colin Mackintosh's ruling and reaction from the principals. None of the six expanded on the wider implications as the norm with such cases is to see follow-up criticism or opinion articles printed over the ensuing week or two, or none at all.
The only opinionated coverage of the case yesterday came from The Sun. Its main story, blazed in the centre of page four in the general news section, was a wrap-up of the court hearing headlined "Fradd not guilty - appeal to recover million in court fee", with a sub-heading of "Jockey Club stands up for itself, not enough evidence to prove charges". However, there was also a more outspoken article at the bottom of the page with the headline "Fradd: so many years riding in Hong Kong and never did anything bad".
This article, by an unnamed news reporter, quoted Alex Tsui Ka-kit, the former deputy head of operations at the Independent Commission Against Corruption, as saying: "The ICAC and Department of Justice's insistence on pursuing charges against Robbie Fraad was nonsense. It was a waste of the public's money. The Jockey Club is the professional in this racing aspect. The Club had believed that there was no problem. They're not going after the big shark here but picking on the small potato. It is not fair to the defendant, the justice system and the Jockey Club."
Along with the article, there was also a picture of Fradd shaking hands with his solicitor Andrew Lam Ping-cheung.
The other Chinese newspapers carried virtually identical coverage of the court proceedings and a statement prepared by the Jockey Club saying it was "pleased" with the verdict of not guilty.
In the Apple Daily, the case was given half of page nine in the general news section and the report was headlined "Fradd not guilty of holding back horse" with a sub-heading of "Restraint of Winning Dragon is a mystery".
"Fradd not guilty but judge suspicious of ride" was the headline in the Oriental Daily News, with sub-headings "Hard to believe he was settling the horse - court fee dismissed" and "Insufficient evidence". The report appeared on page 30 of the news section and took up two-thirds of the page.
The Hong Kong Daily News was the only Chinese paper to lead the coverage on its front page, devoting the bottom two-thirds of the page to the case. The lead story was headlined "Fradd not guilty of holding back his mount" and came with the sub-headings "Scolded for ride" and "Judge criticises Jockey Club for conservative analysis of race". There was also straight reporting by the Sing Pao Daily News on page 14 of its news section. Its story took up a third of the page and was headlined "Fradd not guilty - judge says he should be scolded".
Ming Pao News featured three articles spread over half of page four. Its lead article had the flashier headline "Fradd holding back - can't prove money involved - not guilty". The sub-heading was "Judge points out false practice happened". The second article was headlined "Club faces criticism" and the third ran under the headline "Jockey Club urges ICAC to pursue any further action immediately".
The Sing Tao Daily devoted half of its court page to the case under the headline "Fradd held horse in false practice but not guilty". The sub-heading read: "Judge says prosecutor unable to prove any monetary benefit was given in case", while the newspaper also featured a picture of a relieved Fradd smiling while being questioned by the press outside the District Court following his acquittal.
I believe the judge acted in an impartial manner. Remember he acquitted Fradd. How can acquitting Fradd be interpretted as protecting the ICAC/govt side??? As far as I can tell, most people interpreted this as a slap on ICAC's face.
Actually, Masun, you would find that most in the legal profession in HK see it as an attempted good save of ICAC rather than a slap. There was NO case yet the matter was heard through to the end. Had he wished to slap ICAC, the judge would have found no case to answer when Fradd's legal counsel made that application on Tuesday. Then Fradd's costs would also have been 1-1,000,000 to be awarded instantly instead of having to go back to court to get them as he will now.
Having sat through the case in court, I will state categorically that Fradd would have been found guilty by this judge if he thought he could do it and not be a laughing stock. Instead, he did the best he could: not guilty but a case to answer, "I thought you stopped the horse" and no costs - hoping that the taint of being said to have stopped the horse would be enough to stop him being relicensed in HK. It once probably would have been, and even might have been a chance this time if the beak had not taken the liberty of stomping all over the JC stewards and ensuring a backlash from the club.
the judge would have found no case to answer when Fradd's legal counsel made that application on Tuesday.
agree fedora and could stir up some more hornets if fradd appeals for costs until he gets them.
the whole thing was a farce. $5,000 is laughable -- what morons would think he is going to pull a horse for $5k ?? even allowing for the chinese style of counting in units of $10,000 i would still doubt it is close to enough.
Sounds to me like a case of the dumb leading the blind. Whiterod may have been a red hot steward in the land of the long white cloud (how many jocks did he rub out there for pulling them up, not taking runs, trying to get a horse to settle etc. ?), but I've seen nothing which entitles him to any greater expertise than John Schreck and his boys. If anything, his credentials are far less impressive. I'm no wrap for Schreck as a person - always thought he was a bit of a show pony, but he's a good steward, although Ray Murrihy is a better chief steward. Whatever, I would cetainly rather have him looking after my interests as a punter than the dynamic duo of Whiterod and Mackintosh.
Handy Harry
29-11-2002, 07:15
Riding the appropriately-named Wonderful Win to victory in the second race at Happy Valley last night, jockey Robbie Fradd slotted home the last remaining piece of his comeback jigsaw puzzle.
Victorious trainer Dennis Yip Chor-hong said he had booked Fradd for Wonderful Win because he thought he would be strongly motivated for a winner. "Well, he was right about that!" said Fradd after returning to the cheers and high-five salutes of the Valley crowd.
The South African scored at his 11th ride back from the nine months of suspension from Hong Kong race riding that stemmed from his arrest during the ICAC Operation Green Grass last February.
"It's great to break the ice - now I've got a week and a half to think about it all," said Fradd, who was found not guilty of a charge of cheating at gambling just two weeks ago, and will now serve a three-day ban he incurred during his first day back riding last Sunday.
"It was nice - the horse won well, he was always in the right place and the speed was just nice for him," Fradd said of Wonderful Win, who may not be the best horse he has ever ridden but a winner he will surely remember.
While Fradd took the spotlight for emotional reasons, jockeys Weichong Marwing and Eric Legrix held pride of place numerically with doubles apiece.
Legrix combined to win a pair with trainer Peter Ng Bik-kuen on Honour Supreme (race six) and Victory Warrior (race eight). Both sprinters scored with comfort, but especially the three-year-old Honour Supreme, who overcame a wide gate to breeze home.
http://racing.scmp.com/english/images/news/lead28112002.jpg
vBulletin v3.6.2, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.