Racehorse TALK

Thanks Arsenal.

The Monthly is a good read.

Coincidentally after posting that Woods logit link, I was amused to find this Woods piece the same month.

http://ausrace.com/archives/2001-August/009757.html

It may well contain defamatory material so I caution anyone against publishing it elsewhere.

However it turns out that Woods was actually that card counter who appeared in the Four Corners Waterhouse expose.

Many years later on that same forum RWW seemed to be extremely pasy-walsy with Woods.

Extremely ironic considering the earlier expressed sentiments.

For the record RWW apparently also tinkered with logits, courtesy of Professor David Edelman.

But there is no evidence he matched Woods' success. Edelman appears to now be in Dublin, while the former RWW on-course tote initative appeared to fall victim to Darwinism many years back.

jfc has a poster of Alan on his wall 

jfc

Could you distil that?

I'm not sure what part you want me to clarify.

Here's my earlier post containing links to the Four Corners episode Horses for Courses and subsequent court case.

http://www.racehorsetalk.com.au/index.php/topic,7560.msg133525.html#msg133525

What the link gave us, was what I couldn't quite grasp.

 

Alan Woods was making comments about RWW returning to the track after his life ban.

I think those comments can safely and accurately be described as unflattering to RWW.

I have no intention of elaborating further and falling foul of our draconian defamation laws.

I'd suggest you delete those links, jfc, not worth the risk.

Yet you posted this !

Considering Wood's post is nearly a decade old, and RWW later apparently palled around with Woods on that same forum, I think linking to that is safer than a lot of defamatory postings here.

As a consequence of simply trying to help innocents, I managed to successfully defend myself against 3 defamation threats against me, without ever resorting to legal help, so consider myself with above average practical knowledge on the subject.

Nothing wrong with that.

Had Alan Woods not been deceased I would not have referred to him as a crook, which he clearly was.

So it's ok to say he was a crook because he's dead  but not if he's alive 

Yes.

Due to defamation law.

So I would be defaming Ivan Milat if I called him a criminal, as he is still alive.

Geeze, no wonder wonder you have trouble working out your Betfair balance