What with Fallon always being in trouble, now Kirsty. It's got the makings of a Soap. Bet RfC hadn't thought of that one.
Fallon has acted somewhat unethically, that is, of course assuming there was an agreement in place there in the first place and even that's merely heresay at the moment... In simple terms, it has happened before (that is; breaking agreements to move to pastures greener) in all walks of life as well as racing and it'll happen again. The owners are making themselves look like they are throwing their toys out of the pram and I fully expect them to loose this trivial case and Fallon to be riding on Saturday. Who knows, maybe even winning the race
Fallon is a far better jockey than Murtagh around Epsom, Murtagh has been very fortunate with the mounts he has had in the Derby, 3 steering jobs in Sindaar, High Chaparel and Motivator. Fallon hasn't been so lucky and has had to produce rides of pure genius to get the likes of Oath, Kris Kin and North Light home! Dylan Thomas would have won the Derby had he not had that muppet Murtagh onboard, a jockey who only won 1 race from 8 riding Dylan Thomas, that's a ridiculous strike rate when partnering a horse good enough to win a KG and an Arc. Fallon on the other hand rode Dylan Thomas 6 times and won on him 6 times, and had he been on him in the Derby he would have beaten Sir Percy with ease
Peslier?? I've clearly been on Jupiter for the past few days. If I play for Stoke City and Spurs want to sign me I'd agree. However if just before I go to Spurs to sign the verbally agreed contract Barcelona ring my agent and say they want to sign me, I know where I'd be going. Fallon is entitled to make whatever decision he wishes and having to adjust your plans at short notice is part and parcel of sport. Yeah they have a right to feel aggrieved, but that's it
This is utterly farcical. It's a good job that Lester Piggot never rode for that owner. Since when does a spoken promise become a written contract??
I've been following this thread with great interest and it's nice to see that some people feel strongly about moral obligations. At the end of the day though there is well known technical term that describes this sort of situation. I think it's "Tough ****"
The decision to go to court is surprising. Verbal contracts have always had weight in law, even though not as enforceable as they used to be. I see this as more as a private issue between Fallon and Native Khan's connections. Emotionally we all feel as we do at a point in time, dependent on circumstances and events. Both parties will have their points of view, and many will see Fallon as a character with poor moral fibre; others will see it as the "way of the world"- especially in professional sport. I don't see that Fallon's ability as a jockey comes into this, and there's probably more to it than meets the eye. Doubtless Fallon's glass house seems to be bigger than the owner's, but in which direction will the judge throw his stones?
How good is this. One week nothing is happening around here, now all of a sudden, we have informed debate by the "glitterati" of the now deceased BBC 606 site. Well done gentlemen. I know next to nothing of Fallon's personal life, I barely know of his riding record, but from an outsider's point of view, he's a huge attraction. He's a name. He definitely draws in followers, who have but a small inkling of what goes on in the UK. While he may have had a gentleman's agreement, I don't think it holds too much water in the racing world. I expect him to ride for AOB in the Derby. To deny him the chance of a ride, smacks of restraint of trade.
My understanding of this case is that the owners of Native Khan claim to have a written undertaking of some description from Fallon saying that he will ride their horse. In the eyes of the law that would be a contractual commitment, in which case they have every chance of obtaining an injunction. Whilst a verbal contract is theoretically binding, it would be very hard to prove without independent witnesses and bringing a legal action is not cheap.
i would be astounded if they appeal this decision, it would have to be heard today or fallon could have them back in court for potential loss in earnings.
these owners are quickly turning into the laughing stock of racing, on what basis do these clowns think the judge is going to overturn this decision. Are they going to provide new evidence, maybe draw up a contract and forge Fallons signature because i dont see how the judge can overturn the decision after having already made a decision based on the evidence provided to him/her.
Also why would a judge want to open up the judicial system to this kind of thing when there is the court of arbitration which was specifically set up for disputes relating to sporting matters.
