- This topic has 17 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Cercene in the Coronation Stakes. The jockey gets 14 days and connections keep the race. I think they got away with it okay.
Racing takes aim and spectacularly shoots itself in the foot again.
Who was offended by the ride? Did anyone even notice how many times he used the “whip”? How many people in the huge crowd at Royal Ascot were upset and made up their minds to never ever go racing again?
I have checked the relevant thread and no one here picked up on the Carroll’s whip use. Not one commenter. Instead, all the post race chatter was about the ride Crowley gave to his horse!
The subject of Megan Jordan’s ride was discussed on “Talking Points” on RTV last Sunday. The point was made that 10 “hits” with the whip by a female amateur jockey who does not ride very often are probably going to have far less impact than 5 hard hits by a professional male jockey. Yet the former loses the race because she has reached an arbitrary number which is somehow unacceptable on “welfare” grounds, when she has probably been administering little more than taps.
It is a ridiculous situation. Stewards should be given discretion instead.
agree with that CAS. If you can’t apply the rules, let’s say five minutes after the race has finished, then don’t bother at all. Would be interesting to see, how the runner-up’s connections have reacted to that. Isn’t that an automatic disqualification in France?
About Megan Jordan you’re surely right about the impact made by a female amateur using the whip, but I don’t think they’ll ever have separate rules for each gender.
They cannot apply discretion as they have painted themselves into a corner with a number and set penalty , and certainly not gender based because a bloke hits harder . Ten is probably enough tbh , not sure what more you get out of a horse from 10 onwards .
How many disquals so far , been hardly any so most are up with play.That report in the Post makes no sense. Carroll gets a 14 day ban and it says his ban is doubled because it was a Group 1 race. So presumably if it had been a lesser race his ban would have been 7 days.
But the Post also state that De Sousa, Probert and Lee, who went one over the limit, not two as Carroll did, all got an 8 day ban.
Strange set of rules where 8 x 2 = 14. Or where one over the limit gets you 8 days and 2 over the limit only 7 days.
Breaks the rules to win the race, then gets pinged, but keeps the race…..It wouldn’t happen in most other racing sports. It shouldn’t matter whether the best horse won – one of the most idiotic things said in defence of rule breakers……
Only last weekend, the winning car in a big 24 Hour race got a penalty for clashing with a back marker – was placed 2nd; in horse racing he’d have kept the race and got a 1 race ban for the next race back at the Nordschleife……
“The point was made that 10 “hits” with the whip by a female amateur jockey who does not ride very often are probably going to have far less impact than 5 hard hits by a professional male jockey”.
But a 14 day ban for somebody who only rides once in a blue moon and doesn’t rely on riding for their income is no punishment or deterrent. Perhaps this was also considered.
She was disqualified from first place as well, though. Unlike the other cases under discussion.
Is that really a proportionate penalty for her “offence”? Something which was so offensive that no one mentioned it at the time and ITV Racing’s own twitter account described it as a “top ride”.
It is racing drawing attention to itself and handing ammunition to its opponents, who will not be satisfied until the sport is banned.
Does anyone seriously believe she abused her horse?
Whether she abused the horse or not isn’t the point. Aside from extreme and rare incidents, I think few on this forum would class use of the whip as “abuse” but you either have rules and enforce them, or don’t have them. I agree that this should be consistant. Really, any jockey who wins by breaking the rules ought to be disqualified as it’s unfair on those who don’t but stewards are generally too cowardly to punish top connections. Banning amateurs is pointless though so I can understand why they feel obliged to impose more severe penalties. That said, I doubt they would have disqualified Mullins….
The rules are rubbish imposed by a totally inept BHA.
Jim McGrath summed up this latest farce well, in a tweet.
“Fascinating case for BHA’s whip review committee re yesterday’s York winner, My Dream World,”
“Used 9 times or 10 (heavens to murgatroyd!)? Each feeble tap delivered with all the strength of a junior disprin. Welfare issue- you’re having a laugh. Come in Mr Bumble.”As a retired dispenser can I just point out that junior dispirin must not be administered to anyone under 16 ( sorry, long retired but can’t get out of the habit of warning people about such things…).
Am I alone in thinking that bans should not be moved to allow riders to participate in big races? The possibility of missing a Group One should act as even more of a deterrent.
You’re not alone Gladiateur, I agree, it’s a farcical situation allowing them to move the start date of a ban.
Also in this case the ‘winning’ margin was a nose, but looked like a whisker, winner should be disqualified if jockey breaks the whip rules.Agree 100% Glad. Bans are irrelevant for amateurs and annoying for top jockeys but it’s general jobbing jockeys that suffer most because they actually rely on their fees to survive. Bad enough that top jockeys are treated the same but to give them preferential treatment is unacceptable.
Why wasn’t tonight’s Sandown winner disqualified, if it only prevailed by a nose? The jockey did something wrong according to the rules, otherwise there would be no ban. And I don’t care if he is Colin Keane who rides for Juddmonte, rules are there to be obeyed. Why does only the Whip Review Committee have the right to hear on this case? Is there no one else in Racing fit to decide over the length of the ban five minutes after the race?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.