- This topic has 15 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Should a horse be disqualified for the jockey weighing in a bag of sweets too light? This happens far too frequently for my liking in this country, how often does this happen in Ireland, America, Australia etc?
A horse can even be disqualified if the jockey walks past the scales and forgets, this shouldn’t be allowed when punters money is at stake.How accurate are the scales, can there be a total guarantee that are not more than 4ozs out, the weight which cost Andrew Thornton a race on Radar Love earlier this year?
Two or three years ago a claiming race which was a 2 horse one on paper ended up with one of the jockeys of one of the 2 horses weighing in 14lbs light, why and how did this occur?
The current situation is far from satisfactory and is leaving racing open to all sorts of skullduggery especially in the age of the betting exchange (if some’s not already occured) and needs seriously looking at imo.
"Far too frequently"? Really? Anyone got a list of objections lodged by the clerk of the scales in the last ten years? It wouldn’t take long to read imo.
My favourite example of a horse weighing in light was when Capricho dead-heated with Mine in the Bunbury Cup but was DQ’d and placed last after weighing in light after his trainer forgot to put the weight cloth in the saddle.
I was working in a bookmakers at the time and a punter wanted to know why we weren’t paying first past the post and official result (no bookmakers pay double result for objection by clerk of scales or for taking wrong course). I explained that the customer had no right to complain as the horse clearly wouldn’t have won anyway having only dead-heated despite being 9 lb light. He responded with ‘We’ll never know will we’. I tried to explain the finer points of handicapping and physics to him which led to me getting a bollocking off the shop manager for arguing with a customer.
My favourite example of a horse weighing in light was when Capricho dead-heated with Mine in the Bunbury Cup but was DQ’d and placed last after weighing in light after his trainer forgot to put the weight cloth in the saddle.
I was working in a bookmakers at the time and a punter wanted to know why we weren’t paying first past the post and official result (no bookmakers pay double result for objection by clerk of scales or for taking wrong course). I explained that the customer had no right to complain as the horse clearly wouldn’t have won anyway having only dead-heated despite being 9 lb light. He responded with ‘We’ll never know will we’. I tried to explain the finer points of handicapping and physics to him which led to me getting a bollocking off the shop manager for arguing with a customer.
You obviously weren’t working for Ladbrokes David. I was Ops Manager at the time and we ended up refunding on Capricho, which nearly had the Trading Director in tears! The argument at the time was that, since he was never carrying the correct weight, he had no chance of winning anyway.
I wasn’t I was at an independents, but thinking about it, I think they did refund all bets on him.
On second thoughts, we could easily have refunded because he was trained by Jon Akehurst, and therefore had no chance of winning before he lined up.
"Far too frequently"? Really? Anyone got a list of objections lodged by the clerk of the scales in the last ten years? It wouldn’t take long to read imo.
I bet it’s a darn sight longer than you would get in other countries, can’t be far off double figures just this year, you may find that acceptable, I don’t.
Are jockeys sometimes let off for being a few ounces over or are they always objected to? Can’t imagine a Derby winner being disqualified for the jockey being 3 ozs too light, how would Clare & Willie explain it to the masses and why some of them weren’t being paid out
I bet it’s a darn sight longer than you would get in other countries, can’t be far off double figures just this year, you may find that acceptable, I don’t.
Double figures? There have been precisely two cases this year, and that’s more than the average already. Surely if you’re going to slag off the system, you should at least come armed with some facts.
Are jockeys sometimes let off for being a few ounces over or are they always objected to? Can’t imagine a Derby winner being disqualified for the jockey being 3 ozs too light, how would Clare & Willie explain it to the masses and why some of them weren’t being paid out
No horse has ever been disqualified for being "a bag of sweets" light. The tolerance is one pound, which is exactly the same as Hong Kong. Adam Kirby weighed in one and a half pounds light. Given he only won by a length, you can hardly argue that he should have kept the race.
Double figures? There have been precisely two cases this year, and that’s more than the average already. Surely if you’re going to slag off the system, you should at least come armed with some facts.
No horse has ever been disqualified for being "a bag of sweets" light. The tolerance is one pound, which is exactly the same as Hong Kong. Adam Kirby weighed in one and a half pounds light. Given he only won by a length, you can hardly argue that he should have kept the race.
Looks like I’ve slightly more facts than you as you only seem to be taking into account winners, it also affects placed horses of which there’ve been a number this year as usual.
If Capricho had finished down the field it’s most unlikely anyone would have been the wiser nevermind got a refund.Think you need to be able to differentiate between "light" and "too light" as anything up to a pound we wouldn’t hear about anyway even if the distance was only a nose.
As you seem to be our Hong Kong expert on the subject maybe you can furnish us with some facts on how many horses have been disqualified there with the rule in the last year/10 years.Just because a rule is in place doesn’t mean you have to accept it without question like you seem to do although there’s nothing wrong with you doing that.
Here is the relevant rule:-
67.5 Rule (D)47 (weighing in) specifies requirements applying to a Rider on weighing in, including the items he must include in the scale.
67.6 To compensate for being required to wear a body protector, the weight of a Rider on weighing in will automatically be allowed at 2lbs less than the weight that is registered on the scale (factored into the calibration of the Weighing Room scales).
67.7 Where a Rider weighs in at 2lbs or more over the weight at which he weighed out67.7.1 the Rider must be re-weighed with the number cloth excluded from the scale, and
67.7.2 if he still weighs in at 2lb or more over, he will be reported to the Stewards but the horse will not be disqualified.67.8 All weights will be rounded down to the nearest 1lb unit.
67.9 The Stewards have power to disqualify the horse under Rule 14.2 where67.9.1 a Rider weighs in below the weight at which he weighed out by more than 1lb, or
67.9.2 a Rider does not present himself for weighing in.[/color:2xj99om4]
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/ … ighs-light
The interesting bit is para 3, in which it’s pointed out that the stewards had "no option" but to disqualify the rider. It’s certainly interesting that this was the first instance in 14 years of a jockey returning light by more than a pound in Hong Kong. Perhaps the punishment meted out there is a better deterrent against having an enormous jobbie pre race?
its true that HK Rule 113 (3) says:
"If a jockey cannot draw the correct weight the Clerk of the Scales shall
allow him one pound. If he cannot then draw the weight his horse shall
on a sustained protest/objection be disqualified for the race and the
jockey may be penalised."what puzzled me then and now about that particular decision was what it implied for the meaning of Rule 29 ( 8 ) which directs the Clerk of the Scales that
"…When weighing out or weighing in, no account shall be taken of fractions of less than a pound."
anything over 1 lb is a fraction of the next lb until it reaches another complete lb, when it ceases to be a fraction and you have 2lb in total.
so why was he done for 1.1 lb, when reading Rule 113 in light of Rule 29 suggests that you should be able to go to 1.999999999 etc lbs and everything to the right of the decimal point is of no account ?
http://www.hkjc.com/english/racinginfo/ … _instr.asp
best regards
wit
its true that HK Rule 113 (3) says:
"If a jockey cannot draw the correct weight the Clerk of the Scales shall
allow him one pound. If he cannot then draw the weight his horse shall
on a sustained protest/objection be disqualified for the race and the
jockey may be penalised."what puzzled me then and now about that particular decision was what it implied for the meaning of Rule 29 ( 8 ) which directs the Clerk of the Scales that
"…When weighing out or weighing in, no account shall be taken of fractions of less than a pound."
anything over 1 lb is a fraction of the next lb until it reaches another complete lb, when it ceases to be a fraction and you have 2lb in total.
so why was he done for 1.1 lb, when reading Rule 113 in light of Rule 29 suggests that you should be able to go to 1.999999999 etc lbs and everything to the right of the decimal point is of no account ?
http://www.hkjc.com/english/racinginfo/ … _instr.asp
best regards
wit
Wit,
surely that means that no account shall be taken of fractions of a pound up to and including the one pound tolerance, as a way of demonstrating said tolerance, rather than for fractions of a pound beyond that. Hope that makes sense!
hi rory
that’s obviously the interpretation they took – ie looking at absolute figures rather than divergences.
but if Rule 29( 8 ) is to apply the same way to weigh-in as it does to weigh-out (as its words say it must), then isn’t it saying that for Coeztee to be treated as hitting the stated 126 on weigh-out, he can actually be anything between 125.001 and 126.999 ? in other words that "126" is a range rather than a specific weight.
the reference to "one pound" in Rule 113 clearly is additional to what is allowed elsewhere in the rules. The question then is whether it is to be interpreted also according to Rule 29, making it a range (1.000 lb to 1.999 lb) rather than a specific weight?
on a hot day, can you lose 1.999 lb – and on a wet day can you gain 1.999 lb – between weigh-out and weigh-in due to natural factors ? or is the most only 1.000 lb either way ?
agree it seems not to have been argued that way though.
best regards
wit
By Colin Russell
THE BHA on Monday said it would not be carrying out checks on all weighing room scales after alternative equipment had to be used when a fault was discovered in the device at Musselburgh.
BHA communications director Jon Ryan said the problem was a "one-off incident" and that jockeys had been able to weigh out for their rides by using the spare scales in the changing room.
The fault was discovered when clerk of the scales Michael Hamilton checked the equipment before racing which resulted in the stewards giving permission for the riders to weigh in and out on the trial scales which are situated in the jockeys’ room.
Clerk of the course Anthea Morshead said: "They were varying quite markedly. One second they were minus two and then they jumped to zero or plus one, so we decided that it wouldn’t be possible to use them."
Last week jockey Adam Kirby blamed a problem with the scales at Sandown after he weighed in light, resulting in the disqualification of his winning mount and a three day riding ban. He claimed there had been two previous similar incidents at the same track.
Ryan said: "The electronic Avery scales at Musselburgh were found to have a fault when they were being checked and the procedures in place were to use the alternative scales which were in fact the old style ones in the jockeys’ changing room which had been serviced as recently as Apriland the clerk moved into there for the rest of the afternoon.
"It is seen as a one-off incident. No fault has been found with the scales at Sandown and none reported. It is just seen as a one-off incident which was handled with the procedures in place."
Those disqualifications cost me a few quid – I got the best in-running price about Radar Love on Betfair (£3 at 500) and I had a £2200 swing on the Meehan-trained thing (I’m terrible with names) in the Lingfield AW claimer (minus 700 instead of +£1500). That one sent me on tilt. Guess I should be grateful that I was at Bangor last Friday instead of in a betting exchange.
Apparantly, Andrew Thornton took a dump after weighing out on Radar Love and it had nothing to do with faulty scales. Wonder what he had for dinner the night before?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.