- Feb 26, 2007OK, having seen the article, I now ask for how the paper followed up on the
story; i.e., other than the late retraction. Namely, did they have a quick
reporting of "Stewarts find no foul" after that result (note that this is quite
different from a retraction). If so, I would state "Not Guilty!" with vigor.
If not, I would wait for other evidence, leaning toward "not guilty".
Reasoning: The jockey and horse, having been cleared, are not damaged. They
can participate in future events, earn more etc. The "millions" at stake come
form a known source: the betting public. There absolutely must NOT be a
chilling effect on information given to this public. Nor on the act of notifying
officials about questable events. I once stood in line at a betting window
behind the man placing the bets as part a cheating scheme exposed after the
fact. Obviously, the sooner this kind of information is published, the better.
As long as countering information is published on the same time frame, all is
As for Amy's usual role, it is clear that the defense strongly favor jurors
who have placed bets and/or understand the concept; the plaintiffs should go
all out to exclude such, and hope for people who think of horse racing as just
another sport, which would attact spectators even if betting was not allowed.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>