- This topic has 17 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Having had no invesgtment in this race I am still astounded regarding its outcome.
I think that it was Fallon who was coming to challenge on Dubai Media who was not just hampered, but almost brought down by Dettori on the winner.
The 2 jockeys exchanged pleasantries after passing the post.
Despite the hampered animal running on again the placings remained unaltered.
Can someone explain this to me, as either the stewards need replacing or the rules need changing.
I am not having a pop at the jockeys concerned but this was nearly a really dangerous occurrence.
I just wonder if it had involved an apprentice rather than racings Mr personality, would the outcome have been the same ?Because the rules of British racing state jockeys can do whatever they want provided in the view of the stewards the interference was not deliberate, and provided they win/beat the horse interfered with by "far" enough, which they will obviously achieve if the interference is severe enough.
Well, for all I’ve exaggerated it a bit, it is roughly the truth.
The BHA lunatics think this is a fair system and believe America and France are "wrong" for disqualifying more horses as the result of interference.
…and because place, each-way, forecast, tricast and Placepot betting does not exist in the land of the rules maker…
Agree with the above, frankly we are a laughing stock on interference rules. Jockeys are only human and will continue to take advantage of poorly designed and applied rules.
Interestingly, if we do end up moving away from a levy and gross profits revenue stream towards a media rights model, we may see more sensible interference rules as the rationale for the current misguided rulebook is surely to reduce the number of enquiries and amendments therby increasing turnover, churn and finally payments to racing.
Tail wagging the dog.
- Total Posts 17716
I think the essence is rather more pragmatic: to do everything to ensure that if a horse would have won anyway it should keep the race, even if it’s caused interference on the way. Unless the stewards are convinced that the result would have been different without the interference, the result (in theory, and largely practise) stands.
You can’t seriously be suggesting that the ludicrous French rules, for example, provide a more common sense solution? (Even if they were consistently applied, which they are not.)
The French rules can be blasted all people want – but when you see the 1000 Guineas enquiry take so long when the margin is a nose, see SSB keep the July Cup for playing the bowling ball in ten-pin bowling – you surely know something is drastically wrong?
There are quite a few problems with our rules. The strangest one is about "interference" in relation to the winning post. For example, since when was interference 1f out in a 1m race not as significant as interference 4f out? And why is interference 1f out more significant? Do the stewards have scientific reason behind this rule – speed of the horses etc?
I would far rather see the French and American (though it doesn’t occur in all states) rules applied in Ireland and UK. It might annoy some punters but currently the rules take no account of horses who are interferred with and then dont finish in second and close enough to the winner. A jockey can knock out half the field and he’ll still keep the race if he wins by more than half a length, even if his actions have stopped horses which might have placed from finishing in the money. Why should the connections of those horses lose out on place money because of the actions of the winner. Sadly it looks like it will take a death or serious injury before racing’s rulers wake up to the fact that they’ve created a licence to "win at all costs".
- Total Posts 17716
Sadly it looks like it will take a death or serious injury before racing’s rulers wake up to the fact that they’ve created a licence to "win at all costs".
Do you have any evidence that the English rules result in more falls (proportional to the number of runners) through interference, injuries, and death either of horses or jockeys?
It is not a "licence to win at all costs". Many disqualifications occur, sometimes in the highest profile races. It is a punter’s licence to rely on the best horse on the day keeping the race, whilst jockeys pay the penalty in the form of fines and/or suspensions.
It is not a "licence to win at all costs". Many disqualifications occur, sometimes in the highest profile races. It is a punter’s licence to rely on the best horse on the day keeping the race, whilst jockeys pay the penalty in the form of fines and/or suspensions.
Many disqualifications occur? When exactly? We all know anything more than a neck means you can’t lose the race. If you lose it on the day, you will win it back on appeal. The Plumpton hurdle race last winter was the best example. Horse was demoted – it nearly took the 2nd out of the race – demoted on the day, decision reversed thanks to the 2l margin.
I can’t accept that the rules allow the best horse on the day to keep the race because you simply don’t, and can’t, know on many occasions. SSB almost knocked Showcasing down in the July Cup. No one knows if Showcasing would have won when removing his realistic chance according to his odds.
French and American racing take the rules too far one way, but so do ours the other way.
As it is our rules favour the guilty party. When interference takes place it’s always a matter of percentages. If the winner was the probable winner had it not taken place, he keeps the race. But why should the guilty party get the benefit? Surely if the victim had a good chance of winning (imo better than 33%) then places should be changed.
Also, as things stand, in major races it enables the "probable winning rider" (better than 50%) to make absolutely certain of winning (100%) by allowing his/her horse to "wander", interfere. Deliberate interference is not allowed, but it is virtually impossible to tell, and often jockeys don’t seem to try to stop interference taking place. Not wishing to do anything which negates his chance of winning.Value Is EverythingWhen interference takes place that stops a horse placing; why not take 1/5th or 1/4 (whichever is appropriate) away from winning connections and punters? And give it to the wronged party, if it finishes just out of the places.
Value Is EverythingIt is certainly true the French have had some ludicrous results (Dar Ri Me looked particularly unlucky) but this is rare and I would contend that this was poor application of an essential sensible rule…keep straight.
On the other hand and far more prevalent(Kempton on Monday for example) we have the correct application of flawed rules….essentially, you needn’t keep straight, make sure you pass the post first and have the whip in the ‘correct’ hand (cosmetic).Here’s the official stewards report:
The Stewards held an enquiry into possible interference inside the final furlong. They found that the winner BARQ (IRE) ridden by L. DETTORI, had interfered with DUBAI MEDIA (CAN) ridden by KIEREN FALLON, placed third. They considered that the interference was accidental, under Ruled B55 and took no further action.
They clearly considered this less significant than earlier incidents on the card. Callan got a 2 day ban for his riding of Into Wain, Buick a 1 day ban for his riding of Point Out. Both were found guilty of careless riding.
AP
It was quite clear Dettori’s incident was accidental, unless he had wing mirrors how could it be any different? I think we just have to accept sometimes horses will be unlucky as Fallons horse was here, it’s part and parcel of racing I’m afraid.
There is no perfect solution, American rules are farcical and French ones are to a lesser extent. The fault with our rules are different stewards at different tracks coming up with different results for basically similar incidents.
Results should stand on the day for betting purposes unless dangerous riding is involved and stewards enquiries done once a week at headquarters by a central panel.I believe the American rules came into play to remove the win at all costs from the scene.I find it fascinating to watch American racing. Horses run straight and true now.Whatever way they ran before I dont know, but read about Johnny Longden describing races in his hayday as the survival of the bravest and boldest. That was the jockeys i dont know about the horses.As for Frankies horse being effectively out of control when swerving, that explanation would give rise to much mirth and no sympathy in the stewards room at any decent track in the US.In effect if a horse can cause such havock at the track he should not be on it.If the jockey can not control him he should not be riding him.But who wants to hear such silly explanations when it is obvious that if he had not swerved he would have won anyway and no need to prove he is the best by winning honestly.
To the previous writer wing mirrors are only for use when you intend to cut off somebody or not to.They are not needed if you intend to ride straight!
In effect if a horse can cause such havock at the track he should not be on it.If the jockey can not control him he should not be riding him.But who wants to hear such silly explanations when it is obvious that if he had not swerved he would have won anyway and no need to prove he is the best by winning honestly.
I agree. They couldn’t very well chuck out Barq for (unintentional) interference after the precedent had been set elsewhere previuosly, notably with Starspangledbanner’s pre-meditated cutting up of several other horses in the first furlong of the July Cup had not been deemed sufficient carnage to affect the end result.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.