- This topic has 26 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The difficulty of allowing owners/trainers to profit from jockey’s breaking rules needs resolving – not sure how but it needs resolving.
Ideas?
Stop the owners and trainers prize money as well.
Before anybody bleats it is the jockey who breaks the rules my response is they employed the jockey in the first place therefore they have a shared responsibility. It is the same as with any other employer / employee relationship.
If the owners and trainers benefited from the win by backing the horse they are also "fined" the profit those winnings. It would be a very simple matter for the BHA to make disclosure of betting records a pre-requisite of an owners or trainers licence being granted.
What I would also love to see, although it is sadly unlikely to happen, is for connections of a beaten horse – who has complied with the rules – sue the connections of a winning horse who has cheated for the lost prize money. Obviously it would not be financially viable in a run of the mill race but in a big race it could be feasible.
.
.
.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 quite like these ideas. But surely the BHA have already gone down the route of using fixed numbers rather than stewards opinions in these circumstances. Perhaps they ought to "fine" the horse two feet or one twentieth of a second for each crack of the whip over the allotted boundary. That ought to demote horses by enough to give the "correct" result, so that owner, trainer, horse and jockey do not benefit from so-called cheating, yet does not demand a draconian disqualification which is probably not merited.
Kennedy did seem a little slow on the uptake after the last, especially as the rider of the 2nd rode such an abysmal finish (he seemed so annoyed with himself after the race I thought he was going to punch himself in face.)
I wonder whether he (Kennedy,) was trying to give the horse a breather before asking for a final effort. As Ginger said it then meant he had to throw the kitchen sink at the horse in the last 50 yards in order to get up by a short head.
I thought it was very poor jockeyship on both winner (desperate looking thrashes with the whip) and the second (seemed to take an age after the last to get himself into a posiition to drive the horse effectively).
Both very poor – Kennedy in particular poor with that flailing whip – EXACTLY the sort of thing that should be stamped on firmly. Let’s hope they both sit in front of a VCR (of sky+) and learn.
Odd the different perceptions of equally experienced punters – I thought it was fine ride (albeit outside the rules). In the van throughout off a decent pace, the winner just lost momentum after the 2nd last but responded well to the jockey’s whip use – though not pretty used with maximum force.
But young Kennedy gave the mare every chance to recover from what was quite a bad mistake at the last before switching his whip and giving her a couple more. He then put his whip down when many would have been tempted to keep up the rhythmical strikes.
He hit her again only, to my eye, when it seemed she simply would not get there under hands and heels having been given every chance to do so. To win as she did is evidence, I think, that Kennedy’s whip use was well judged and appropriate to the horse and the situation.
I have mixed feelings about the whip rules. The public must not be put off the sport by inappropriate use but racing’s foremost participants – jockeys, trainers and owners must feel fairly treated by the rules.
No organisation will realise its full potential if its ’employees’ feel their working conditions are unjust.
It’s a very difficult situation and I’m glad I’m not having to make decisions about resolving it. I believe that some form of ‘force index’ (FI) will need to be introduced.
For example, J Maguire’s FI on Ballabriggs in the National would, for me, be a 10. Frankie’s on Rewilding a 4. (I accept the examples are before/after rule change)
The number of strokes should then be multiplied by the FI – in Maguire’s case it would hold its full value – 15 strokes. In Dettori’s 23 X .4 = 9.2 – still over the allowance but the penalty would have been much less onerous.
I find it funny now that on a forum that’s heavily criticised people in the past for bagging jockeys for poor rides, we’re now in a position where they’re being slated for actually winning races!!
Now I apologise for this in advance because this is without doubt ‘pocket talk’ from me because this particular ride cost me today…..but…..for me James Millman rode an absolute shocker on a horse called
Now
in the 4.10 at Kempton….I only needed it to finish in the top three for a nice little return and in my opinion he ballsed it up big time….
Forget the Cooper, Kennedy and Winston bans they all tried their best to win races, two did and one went close….Millman’s was a terrible effort yet will go unpunished, where’s the sense in all that?
It’s becoming obvious that we must have a sport where the jockeys are all accomplished horsemen who know exactly what to do in every situation and with every single horse, and any jockey not up to scratch should not be allowed to ride. Then there won’t be any problems. Won’t be any racing of course….
It’s simple Moehat – they have an allotted number of strikes. They just count. Simple. If they can’t do it they shouldn’t be riding,
I don’t believe they can’t count. I do believe they ignore the count when necessary.
SC – I know what you mean – it’s difficult. But Kennedy hit the horse too often and in the wrong place. Basic errors.
If a jocket says he was following instructions then surely he can be used to follow up and prosecute those who gave him the instructions and promise him immunity for his full cooperation. If all jockeys came clean they would clean up the whole situation.Surely to give the jockeys instructions that lead to breaches of the rules is deserving of the same punishment,at least, as the jockey.
It’s becoming obvious that we must have a sport where the jockeys are all accomplished horsemen who know exactly what to do in every situation and with every single horse, and any jockey not up to scratch should not be allowed to ride. Then there won’t be any problems. Won’t be any racing of course….
Very good point moehat and exactly what I was thinking listening to the RUK presenters at Kempton on saturday criticise Kennedy for not doing this, that and the other, which they said if he had done he would not have to resorted to the whip when he did and thus would not have breached the whip rules.
Unfortunately like most human beings including racing presenters jockeys are fallible, doesn’t mean when they don’t ride the "perfect" race they should be met with draconian measures and doesn’t alter the fact the whip rules are a pile of poo.
A couple of things I’ve noticed about these anti whippers, they never make an allowance to what constitutes a whip these days and they never give any credit or namechecks to Paul Roy & Jamie Stier for the "wonderful" new whip rules they have introduced.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.