- This topic has 87 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
When you start disqualifying horses, the reliability of results becomes as bad as in France, Japan and the USA. You just can’t disqualify horses as often as they do in those countries. If they do that, I’d say that horse racing will lose a large percentage of its fans and punters.
Can you see the stewards disqualifying Kauto Star, Denman or Long Run if they win the Gold Cup whilst being hit with excessive frequency by the jockey? What if the Queen has a winner at Royal Ascot but the jockey strikes the horse twice too many?
Disqualification has got to occur, and inevitably will after all these shenanigins finally pan out.
Sir Mark Prescott and Charlie Brookes have already mentioned it.
Jockeys would be put in an impossible position if irresponsibe owners such as Kingfisher stood to benefit.Automatic disqualification won’t work, otherwise it is a cheats charter. Jockeys being paid to "stop" a horse by deliberately whipping the horse too many times to "win" a race.
However, I would be in favour of winners/placed being disqualified if the stewards believe the horse would not have won/placed without the extra strokes.
Value Is EverythingI never heard you and your merry men slating Lesters Derby victory on
The Minstrel
.
You never heard me because I was at school.
The way that people look at things change over time.
A lot of things in the 70’s I no longer think are acceptable.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
Automatic disqualification won’t work, otherwise it is a cheats charter. Jockeys being paid to "stop" a horse by deliberately whipping the horse too many times to "win" a race.
However, I would be in favour of winners/placed being disqualified if the stewards believe the horse would not have won/placed without the extra strokes.
Why – if the stewards are to have discretion in such matters – can they not be afforded the same trust in judging whether a horse has been abused or not?
Or is is a case of "Rules are rules", but only when it suits one’s argument?Because (as in the past) jockeys, connections and media complained every time a horse was banned. They needed to know where they stood. The PJA have no problem with a
number
of strokes Reet. Some might have something to say about what
number
that is.
Value Is EverythingHowever, I would be in favour of winners/placed being disqualified if the stewards believe the horse would not have won/placed without the extra strokes.
Punters may as well bet on a roll of dice, half the stewards in the country would have disqualified Stewarts House and the other half wouldn’t. It may take some time to decide though, counting all the strokes out in the country, although I suppose that doesn’t matter in betting
And that’s not even taking into account the integrity/corruption angle.I must say though I admire your confidence in Roy/Stier/Stewards, just glad I don’t share it.
So, you are an advocate of the disqualificatiom option KF to prevent such chicanery?
That would be the worst case scenario and an end to any hope of a compromise,punters would leave in their droves.What my post is suggesting is that when fools make rules that are impossible to adhere to for many reasons,one has to exploit the situation whereby ones efforts are not in vain.Its not rocket Science,if i were a Jockey who had just ridden the Grand National winner but was penalised because i broke these whip rules i would expect connections to ‘see me right’,have you never heard of the ‘Old Pals Act’,its what loyalty is based on and in this instance when a group of people are working as a team,ie Owner,Trainer, Stable staff and Jockey its wrong that the latter is the only one to be punished,his team will ensure that the Jockey is reimbursed,no question.If we didn’t have these ridiculous rules there would be no need to go down this particular road,the BHA have opened a can of worms and its becoming a free-for-all.By the way did you used to give the bookie his money back when you won on what would be a disqualified ride in the past? No thought not! Is that not Hypocritical? Bloody right it is!
It would only be hypocritical to keep the money if you were aware in advance that someone was deliberately intending to break the rules. A bet is struck between a punter and a bookmaker, it is far more hypocritical to place a bet on a race run under conditions and rules with which you do not agree.
KF – As Pompete pointed out some time back several of us on TRF have been campaigning against what we would argue was excesssive whip usage for
years
.
You think you have the rights on reality KF?
Can I tell you what is REAL KF. The rules are REAL. Change and progress is REAL. Uncomfortable, yes, like all change, but REAL.Where were you 10 yrs ago when
Omerta
won the Irish national? I never heard you and your merry men slating Lesters Derby victory on
The Minstrel
. Was it acceptable in your eyes for these horses to be ridden so vigourously then? Of course it was,Why? Because nobody for one minute thought the horse was being abused and guess what it wasn’t.You lot are jumping on a bandwagon lead by spineless leaders of an organisation (BHA) who are ultimately guided by a Nanny state who in years to come will be the death of National Hunt racing on safety grounds and you are supporting it at the first instance,of course you all realise that being REAL racing fans moving with the times eh?
I think you’ll find a fair few who thought The Minstrel was abused, whatever the rules at the time. Gruesome exhibition from Piggott.
"Mighty M":3cbhfbk0 wrote:
I think you’ll find a fair few who thought The Minstrel was abused, whatever the rules at the time. Gruesome exhibition from Piggott.
No, nobody questioned the ride at the time and funnily enough in a poll of Lesters greatest rides
The Minstrels
Derby victory came 2nd only to
Sir Ivors
Derby win with
Royal Academy
in 3rd. Now for a horse so ‘Gruesomely’ ridden ‘Mighty M’,you would think he would have been scarred from it but again No!,he only went on to win the Irish Derby and The King George! He was an incredible horse who responded to Lesters urgings with the heart of a Lion,but hey that was REAL racing for REAL race fans,not for you faint hearted wimps!
The Minstrel
winning the 1977 Derby,had Lester not given his mount the full 14 strikes of the whip,Robert Sangster and his phenomenal bloodstock empire wouldn’t be what it is today,such was the importance of the ‘ride’ on that famous day!
Corm,Coggy,Ginge,Eclipse and the rest of you who falsely call yourselves REAL racing fans Dont look!
"KINGFISHER":1g78uzt2 wrote:
I think you’ll find a fair few who thought The Minstrel was abused, whatever the rules at the time. Gruesome exhibition from Piggott.
No, nobody questioned the ride at the time and funnily enough in a poll of Lesters greatest rides
The Minstrels
Derby victory came 2nd only to
Sir Ivors
Derby win with
Royal Academy
in 3rd. Now for a horse so ‘Gruesomely’ ridden ‘Mighty M’,you would think he would have been scarred from it but again No!,he only went on to win the Irish Derby and The King George! He was an incredible horse who responded to Lesters urgings with the heart of a Lion,but hey that was REAL racing for REAL race fans,not for you faint hearted wimps!
How do you know, did you interview everyone interested in racing? You mean nobody with a public platform criticised it and that is true, but that, and the fact that the horse ran well afterwards, don’t together mean that Piggott didn’t flog the horse mercilessly, because he did. Saying that is not being a wimp, it’s having a germ of humanity
"Mighty M":1w1tb760 wrote:
How do you know, did you interview everyone interested in racing? You mean nobody with a public platform criticised it and that is true, but that, and the fact that the horse ran well afterwards, don’t together mean that Piggott didn’t flog the horse mercilessly, because he did. Saying that is not being a wimp, it’s having a germ of humanity
Look ‘Mighty one’,if you find Lesters ride on
The Minstrel
gruesome,dont watch the first 20 mins of ‘Saving Private Ryan’ Ffs,that is as close to REAL as you would get in the REAL world,your likes are in the wrong sport,take up 10 pin bowling or something!
The ride was within the rules of the day, Lester was probably as good as Fred Archer in his day when the welfare of anyone or any animal in horse racing lasted as long as they were successful. Archer’s strike rate was phenomenal but he was utterly ruthless on horses and his fellow jockeys in his lust for glory. In the end the self-imposed degradation lead to his untimely demise.
If you had your way Mr Fisher I supposed you’d like to see jockeys drawing a feather while you tuck in to your poorly shot grouse?If you had your way Mr Fisher I supposed you’d like to see jockeys drawing a feather while you tuck in to your poorly shot grouse?
Comparing Fred Archer with Lester Piggott is like comparing a petit Chablis with a Grand Cru! Had you said Robert Earnshaw and Fred Archer,i wouldn’t have dissagreed.Its a good sign to have ‘Shot’ in ones Grouse by the way,its the REAL way to serve it! No doubt you are a veggie yourself Eclipse eh?
The Minstrel
winning the 1977 Derby,had Lester not given his mount the full 14 strikes of the whip,Robert Sangster and his phenomenal bloodstock empire wouldn’t be what it is today,such was the importance of the ‘ride’ on that famous day!
Corm,Coggy,Ginge,Eclipse and the rest of you who falsely call yourselves REAL racing fans Dont look! There’s an even better one than that Kingfisher
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOL4Sqk_0Ss
What a race! There’s something special about a big race where the jockey pulls out all the stops and makes all the difference between victory and defeat, now they want jockeys like Coleman to stop trying their best to win even when armed with only a foam stick, Shameful!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.