- This topic has 26 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
He says that he broke the rules on Swincombe Flame today because of the owners.
My question then, how much did the owners of the second placed horse lose because Kennedy cheated on the winner?
There’s something very wrong with sending sympathy his way – he’s every bit as corrupt as those recently banned for race fixing.
The BHA have got these whip bans all wrong, if a jockey deliberately cheats, do nothing to him but take the prize money off the owners. The jockey wouldn’t do it again that’s for certain.
And if a trainer cheats do nothing to him but ban the jockey and if the owners lay their own horse, ban the trainer?
Jockey hit the horse, nobody else.
DQing as well might concentrate the jockeys minds more though.
And if a trainer cheats do nothing to him but ban the jockey and if the owners lay their own horse, ban the trainer?
Jockey hit the horse, nobody else.
DQing as well might concentrate the jockeys minds more though.
I agree that disqualifying the horse completely would deter any jockey attempting to gain an unfair advantage but it would be a minefield for the bookies/exchanges.
I’m quite angry about this, people are talking about the Kennedy ban & the Robert Winston ban like they’re two sides of the same coin when they’re actually completely different.
In the case of Winston, than ban is crazy & stewards need to learn the difference between a stroke for encouragement purposes & one for corrective purposes. And the BHA need to accept the difference between the two.
If I were a jockey I might go out with a pair of spurs on, ‘for the owners’ of course!
PS Where is everybody? It’s like the Forum Celeste?
Before this starts in earnest and develops into a 10 page epic, I agree with Scamperdale that the two bans are not the same. The rest is debatable……
I don’t like the whip rules, I don’t like the punishments associated with them – but I’m not ignorant enough to fail to recognise that today W Kennedy was in breach of hitting the horse in an incorrect place. A technical breach, you might say, but a breach all the same.
There’s something very wrong with sending sympathy his way – he’s every bit as corrupt as those recently banned for race fixing.
quote]What kind of thinking is this?
Trying to win in the face of rules which are misguided and have no rationale based the BHA’s own research is the same as race fixing?
Get a grip of yourself.There’s something very wrong with sending sympathy his way – he’s every bit as corrupt as those recently banned for race fixing.
quote]What kind of thinking is this?
Trying to win in the face of rules which are misguided and have no rationale based the BHA’s own research is the same as race fixing?
Get a grip of yourself.He was trying to win the race in face of the rules? Is that seriously your argument?
Remember a few years ago the stink that got kicked up because a certain Frenchman handled a football in an important match that stopped Ireland from qualifying for the World Cup?
He was ‘just trying to win in face of the rules’ too.
It’s cheating. Deliberately riding a horse to not win, deliberately braking the rules to win. Handling a football so another team doesn’t win. Cheating is cheating.
The difficulty of allowing owners/trainers to profit from jockey’s breaking rules needs resolving – not sure how but it needs resolving.
Ideas?
I don’t think there is an answer, which is why the new system is clearly substantially flawed.
The jockey on the horse that came second didn’t seem to use his whip at all towards the end of the race [correct me if I’m wrong, I’ve only seen it once]. I had the feeling Will had ‘saved’ some whip use for the end of the race and his horse was getting up to go past the other horse. Didn’t Will say he lost count of how many times he had used the whip? What was he to do? Use the whip 7 times and get in trouble for not riding out a finish? I’m actually sick of all this mess, and am rapidly falling out of love with a sport I’ve loved for over 50 years. Two more horses having breathing operations, as well [albeit minor operations]. OK to operate on horses to make them go faster but not to hit them with a bit of foam. I don’t get it.
As I stated at the outset of the innumerable number of whip threads, this issue can only be resolved by disqualifying the horse.
The jockey is being put in an impossible position by some owners who would insist on gaining an unfair advantage by breaking the laws.
It returns us to the dark early days of jockeys becoming serfs.
You break the rules – you all get punished. Simple reallyThe jockey on the horse that came second didn’t seem to use his whip at all towards the end of the race [correct me if I’m wrong, I’ve only seen it once]. I had the feeling Will had ‘saved’ some whip use for the end of the race and his horse was getting up to go past the other horse. Didn’t Will say he lost count of how many times he had used the whip? What was he to do? Use the whip 7 times and get in trouble for not riding out a finish? I’m actually sick of all this mess, and am rapidly falling out of love with a sport I’ve loved for over 50 years. Two more horses having breathing operations, as well [albeit minor operations]. OK to operate on horses to make them go faster but not to hit them with a bit of foam. I don’t get it.
It’s pathetic, isn’t it? I’ve basically retired from punting other than ante-post Cheltenham stuff. Only bet I can remember having since October was Hidden Cyclone at Xmas time just so I could get on him for the RSA with any profits. You can lay horses on Betfair, stick them out the back for 5 or 6 outings, then rack up 2 or 3 wins on the bounce, but you can’t hit the horse more than 7 times.
Haven’t seen the ride today and the ban was for hitting the horse in the wrong place so this doesn’t apply, but the point still exists.
Haven’t seen the ride today and the ban was for hitting the horse in the wrong place so this doesn’t apply, but the point still exists.
First post wasn’t clear in haste. 2 days for hitting the horse in the wrong place, 5 days for frequency, plus loss of prize money for the two offences combined.
Could have been cautioned under the old rules, but it really isn’t a new rules issue. For once.
The question has to be asked as a wider point.
The already demonstrable behavioural change must continue, with the penalties introduced on 10th October being reinstated at the end of the Jumps season (or, as the BHA reserves the right, at any other point) should trends and attitudes reverse.
When will the High Holborn lunatics use their trigger as of the 10th November? If the Grand National is remotely close, chalk up bans in double figures for 2 or more jockeys.
Haven’t seen the ride today and the ban was for hitting the horse in the wrong place so this doesn’t apply, but the point still exists.
First post wasn’t clear in haste. 2 days for hitting the horse in the wrong place, 5 days for frequency, plus loss of prize money for the two offences combined.
Could have been cautioned under the old rules, but it really isn’t a new rules issue. For once.
The question has to be asked as a wider point.
The already demonstrable behavioural change must continue, with the penalties introduced on 10th October being reinstated at the end of the Jumps season (or, as the BHA reserves the right, at any other point) should trends and attitudes reverse.
When will the High Holborn lunatics use their trigger as of the 10th November? If the Grand National is remotely close, chalk up bans in double figures for 2 or more jockeys.
- Total Posts 17716
And if a trainer cheats do nothing to him but ban the jockey and if the owners lay their own horse, ban the trainer?
The former is already BHA policy, and the latter most certainly should be.
As I stated at the outset of the innumerable number of whip threads, this issue can only be resolved by disqualifying the horse.
The jockey is being put in an impossible position by some owners who would insist on gaining an unfair advantage by breaking the laws.
It returns us to the dark early days of jockeys becoming serfs.
You break the rules – you all get punished. Simple reallyBut the punishment already doesn’t fit the "crime". Why would an even more draconian one do so?
It’s highly questionable the "crimes" are even "crimes" in the first place.How would you disqualify Robert Winston’s horse? He doesn’t believe he broke the rules and his horse didn’t even win.
The whole solution revolves around the clowns ensconced at BHA headquarters, the sooner they go the better.
Footballers cheat and break the rules all the time throughout a match but their team don’t forfeit the match if they do, it would be just as ludicrous to disqualify horses for whip offences.
Don’t think even Roy, Stier & Co are that thick.I would like to see some sort of action from owners, trainers, jockeys and punters against these farcical whip rules, it’s gone on long enough, the BHA are ruining the game.
He says that he broke the rules on Swincombe Flame today because of the owners.
My question then, how much did the owners of the second placed horse lose because Kennedy cheated on the winner?
There’s something very wrong with sending sympathy his way – he’s every bit as corrupt as those recently banned for race fixing.
The BHA have got these whip bans all wrong, if a jockey deliberately cheats, do nothing to him but take the prize money off the owners. The jockey wouldn’t do it again that’s for certain.
It is a very perverse situation, in this case the jockey ultimately lost his share of the prizemoney because he hit the horse in the wrong place. That is an act for which he can be solely responsible, by claiming that his over-use of the whip was down to the owners, he looks to be trying to absolve himself of any responsibility. In truth, had he not have gone over the limit, he would not have hit the horse in the wrong place, "The last one was in the wrong place, they showed me".
Without the power to disqualify the horse, the incentive to break the rules when it suits connexions will remain.Unfortunately, TV presenters have a blinkered idea of winning rides, particularly winning rides in big races; as all being "excellent".
This was a very poor ride from Kennedy. There was no reason to wait so long to put Swincombe under pressure. Had he done so earlier and used the whip with more time between strokes – he’d have been a much easier winner, without need to go ballistic. Instead, he came in to the last with Featherbed Lane and lost ground on landing. Needing to break the rules to get up.
I backed Swincombe Flame (sadly only a saver) but would have no objection to disqualification.
To respond to Corm’s question:Stewards should have the power to disqualify any horse that (in their opinion) ONLY finished in that position due to the jockey breaking the rules. In exactly the same way as interference rules work now. With the added incentive (to stick to the rules) of witholding the jockeys purse. If the horse would have won anyway had the jockey kept to the rules the horse is allowed to keep the race.
Automatic disqualification of rule breakers can NOT be allowed, as it would be a Cheats Charter. With possibility of jockeys being paid to "stop horses". Deliberately breaking the rules to get disqualified. What easier way of losing a race is there than winning?
I’ve liked Will Kennedy, and it’s a shame I feel the need to criticise. (Should’ve won easier, hit the horse too many times and in the wrong place).
Kennedy deserved to do well here. Apparently, when Will came over to England his parents could not bring themselves to drive him to the airport. Will’s brother died after a riding accident.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.