- This topic has 67 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
As far as I’m aware stewards at the moment are briefed beforehand by the BHB handicappers about any potential bad behaviour by jockeys/trainers on the card (i.e. they get told to look out for horses who might not have been trying too hard in recent races), so in a way stewards are already more on the ball than the general betting public might give them credit for. But personally I don’t see that the outcome of the Black Oval case would have been any different.
they get told to look out for horses who might not have been trying too hard in recent races
<br>If they do, the previous stewards have not been doing their job properly, so maybe another reason for a professional panel
Quote: from Bosra Shambles on 10:43 am on Jan. 23, 2007[br]All I can say is I’m glad you aren’t a steward! It was an appalling case and for me 28 days is not enough of a ban.
28 years would be more appropriate…<br>
I would suggest that TDK is exactly the sort of person who the HRA should be looking for as a steward.
- Total Posts 17716
<br>Spot on, TDK.<br>The trainer’s view, from RP online;
"She’s a temperamental mare who will stop dead if you touch her,â€ÂÂ
A lot of hold-up horses drift early as Betfair users often lay them, expecting to be able to back them back at bigger odds after a furlong or two. The reverse often happens with front-runners (though this doesn’t work if the buggers fall over as I found out with No Guarantees) at Wincanton on Saturday!
The differences of interpretation here offer further evidence why, in the Fallon case, any element of "expert opinion" — should the prosecution produce it — would be worthless in court.
Facts:
1) On the rating I use Black Oval had 7 lbs in hand over the field. Even if we assume Black Oval is the biggest dog in training, do we believe that her temperament is so bad she couldn’t take advantage?
2) She was pulling double all the way up the straight. Given that fact – which is unarguable in my view – are we to believe that Black Oval’s rider was waiting to unleash her five yards from the line for a late swoop?
3) Her rider seemed more concerned keeping her from the leaders than getting near them. Bearing in mind Black Oval had 7 lbs in hand, are we to believe that he was not confident of victory at any stage, or are we to believe it was an inept ride, or is this a horse that no rider is capable of winning on (even with 7 lbs in hand)?
4) Plus let’s not forget the alarming drift on betfair. Are we to believe it’s normal for horses to drift so much, even horses with temperament, when – yes, again – the horse has 7 lbs in hand of his rivals?
If folk disagree with me or anybody else on this matter, then that’s fine. But what happened yesterday was bad in my opinion – and in the opinion of several people whose opinions I greatly respect – and I do not believe there was any injustice over what happened to the jockey and trainer.
Anyway, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. And no, I didn’t have money on the horse!
Very interesting to see such differences of opinion on this one and it really does highlight how tough these things can be to call.
A few observations from where I was sitting yesterday.<br>The drift was substantial and it was very rapid. I noted when reviewing the race that there were sound reasons for layers wanting to ‘get’ Black Opal. Her poor wins to run ratio and a running style that would not have been well suited to Wolves being two good reasons. I did also question though whether 9/1 was the kind of price you’d want to go to to lay her, given her overall form entitled her to go close or win. That is of course a subjective argument. I would lay her at 3 or 4 but wouldn’t lay her with your money at 10 in that race. Others of course can quite legitimately take a very different view.
A market drift on its own proves nothing. It is the ride that is at issue here.
Yes the mare is an infrequent winner and yes she has been held up in some of her recent runs. None of this proves that the horse is tricky or a dog or a dodgepot nor that she has to be ridden this way.
A low wins to run ratio is the norm rather than the exception amongst horses operating in this sphere and whilst previous tactics, temperament etc are all legitimate factors to include in the equation , none of them excuses a jockey from his primary duty in a race.
As the rules put it <br>Every horse which runs in a race shall be run and be seen to be run on its merits. This means the rider must comply with Instruction H18 and take and be seen to take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race, however it develops, to ensure the horse is given a full opportunity to achieve the best possible placing.
The question I posed yesterday was how anyone could judge that the ride given to Black Opal was consistent with that fundamental rule of racing.
I stopped short of reaching the conclusion that the stewards have. Partly because I genuinely don’t know what on earth Mernagh was doing all the way up the straight and partly because I have no wish to get sued.
I described the jockeys actions in the straight I think as ‘peculiar’ or ‘odd’ and at the time I felt it needed closer inspection as it looked very bad indeed from where I was sitting.
I do think therefore the stewards were absolutely right to take a close look at the ride. They will have viewed the race many more times and from different angles to those that we saw before reaching their conclusion.
The only question I have now is whether, if you accept the stewards verdict, the punishment is sufficient?
Can I also just say that the last thing the horse’s trainer needs is publicity like this.
Is it two winners that Carburton trainer S Parr has enjoyed since he took over from dual Cambridgeshire winning trainer, J Glover? And he’s losing horses to other local stables.
I think that’s right. You should look at how the horse has been ridden before and take into account what sort of tactics seem to be effective etc. All of that should of course be part of the context. I pointed out as much myself when reviewing the ride.
I personally have no issue with the horse being out the back early, or even with the fact that the whip was not used at all.
In the very next race we saw Neil Callan and Duran Fentiman go head to head on two horses who both respond better to hands and heels – especially Callan’s mount Gifted Gamble. Neither jockey was keen to hit their horse and I think I’m right in saying that Callan didn’t pick up the stick at all. No problem with that at all. It was very clear there that both riders were – and were seen to be – seeking to obtain the best from their horses.
What Mernagh has been banned for though is not overdoing the waiting tactics or misjudging the ride, he’s been judged guilty of deliberately restraining the horse to effectively preventit from running on its merits.
If there’s any other explanation for what he was doing on the horse in the straight then doubtless we will hear it.
Quote: from Bosra Shambles on 1:38 pm on Jan. 23, 2007[br]Facts:
1) On the rating I use Black Oval had 7 lbs in hand over the field. Even if we assume Black Oval is the biggest dog in training, do we believe that her temperament is so bad she couldn’t take advantage?
2) She was pulling double all the way up the straight. Given that fact – which is unarguable in my view – are we to believe that Black Oval’s rider was waiting to unleash her five yards from the line for a late swoop?
3) Her rider seemed more concerned keeping her from the leaders than getting near them. Bearing in mind Black Oval had 7 lbs in hand, are we to believe that he was not confident of victory at any stage, or are we to believe it was an inept ride, or is this a horse that no rider is capable of winning on (even with 7 lbs in hand)?
4) Plus let’s not forget the alarming drift on betfair. Are we to believe it’s normal for horses to drift so much, even horses with temperament, when – yes, again – the horse has 7 lbs in hand of his rivals?
If folk disagree with me or anybody else on this matter, then that’s fine. But what happened yesterday was bad in my opinion – and in the opinion of several people whose opinions I greatly respect – and I do not believe there was any injustice over what happened to the jockey and trainer.
Anyway, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. And no, I didn’t have money on the horse!<br>
I think you should look up the word "fact" in a dictionary boshrashambles ~ I don’t think it means what you think it means.
This horse is undoubtably a difficult ride but even so, i found the ride given to be ‘strange’…….. to say the least, especially when monitoring the betting patterns as well.
Maybe Dean made a mistake.
It is easy for us to say the horse wasn’t given a good ride but he is the only one that will know how much assistance the horse was giving him.
From from viewing it a couple of times i would call it a ‘strange’ ride.
<br>
Dean Mernagh has ridden Black Oval four times, first time she finished 2nd (25/1) beaten a head, second time she finished 2nd (10/1) beaten three quarters of a length, third time she finished 4th (6/1) beaten a length, and her latest start 3rd (8/1) beaten 2 lengths, you can argue that he has the best record of any jockey aboard her without winning as she’s now starting to look a little more consistent, she’s also had 56 starts winning once (her debut), finished 2nd three times and 3rd five times, Of the above four races I’ve backed her in two of those, when she was beaten a head at 25/1 and yesterday at 8/1, I’ve also backed her the times she’s run at Hamilton as I feel she’s one of those types that could win when she wants too and it’s probably best to back her for a small stake at big odds. I’ve seen her looking "unlucky" on a few occasions and for me that’s what happened again on this occasion.
Drifting in the betting means almost nothing to me and I wouldn’t take that into account in this case.
- Total Posts 17716
Sean
"What Mernagh has been banned for though is not overdoing the waiting tactics or misjudging the ride, he’s been judged guilty of deliberately restraining the horse to effectively preventit from running on its merits."
One could equally argue that, by restraining the horse until late on, he ensured the horse ran close to its best?<br> Having viewed the race, my opinion is that the horse is a difficult ride, continually hung its head from side to side without interference from the saddle, and didn’t condescend to run straight until in the clear 50 yds from home, which could well have been a reaction to the kickback. I am still at loss to see how trainer and jockey would, so obviously, put themselves in the parlous position they are now in for what amounts to a row of beans?<br>However, that is just my opinion; what isn’t just an opinion is that both jockey and trainer face severe financial loss because of this incident, and, far from gaining from it, it could prove career threatening for one or both. <br>While I accept that the authorities have a duty to ensure racing is seen to be clean, they also have a duty to its participants; and knee-jerk reactions, without proper investigation, do nobody any favours.<br> There are real problems in racing with horses not being run on their merits, problems that were there long before betting exchanges existed, which are given scant attention by either the authorities or the media, yet the whole focus remains on these cosmetic exercises against the less fortunate echelons. <br> Of course, punters do need a voice in racing, but, as this thread shows, it needn’t always be the ones who shout first, or loudest.<br>
Quote: from reet hard on 7:38 pm on Jan. 23, 2007[br]<br>One could equally argue that, by restraining the horse until late on, he ensured the horse ran close to its best?<br>
This is where we get into the grounds of the Harringay affair which led to the redrafting on the non-triers rule. At the appeal, the defence produced a vet which had operated on the mare for her wind to argue that Murphy’s sympathetic handling of the horse, actuallly allowed the horse to perform better than if the he had asked her for her effort under stronger pressure. When the appeals panel accepted his explanation, it was clear that the HRA had to rewrite the rules as it basically gave a trainer and rider the excuse to give a horse as tender a ride as they like, and argue that for whatever reason, the horse responded better to that sort of ride than what you might term a ‘typical drive.’ The issue is dealt with in greater detail in Harringay’s extended entry in Chasers and Hurdlers 2005/6. The new instructions under rule 155 read that every horse ‘shall be run and be seen to run on it’s merits’ and a new instruction H18 argues that a rider must make ‘timely, real and substantial efforts to obtain the best possible placing’.
If the stewards believe that rule 155 has been broken they can punsih the rider as they see fit under rule
156- Negligence – e.g. dropping hands, mistaking the race distance and either riding a finish too early or failing to ride a finish, taking the wrong course, asking for an effort of making some other permissible manoeuvre too late as a result of serious misjudgement or inattention.
157 – Intent – e.g. deliberately preventing a horse from winning, not riding out on a horse which would have on, intentionally restraining a horse or not letting it down, intentionally not asking a horse for sufficient effort, horse appears capable of reaching a challenging position but intentionally never asked to do so, using the racecourse as a training ground i.e schooling or conditioning in public.
158 – Failure to take all reasonable or permissible measures – e.g. rider suffers interference and then fails to ride out to the winning post on a horse that would have been placed first, second, third, fourth etc, rider fails to take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race, rider demonstrates a reasonable degree of effort during the race until prematurely easing his horse, which would never have finished in the first four but is allowed to coast home with not assistance from the rider.
In my opinion, rule 155 was broken so it was a case of under whic rule Mernagh should be punished. I can fully acknowledge the arguments made by people defending the ride but I think punishment under rule 157 was the most appropraite course of action for the stewards to take.
It will be interesting to see if connections decide to appeal, there certainly seems to be enough of a split on here and on the betfair forum to make connections think about it.
(Edited by davidjohnson at 8:25 pm on Jan. 23, 2007)
<br>Four questions occur to me –
1. Why would anybody pay training fees for a horse with a record of 55 straight defeats and running in the lowest grade of race.
2. Why would anybody employ Mernagh – putting aside any suggestions of corruption, his overall record of incompetence and error doesn’t inspire.
3. Why was this horse ever such a short price given it’s record. After all this wasn’t by any means the worst race it’s run in as it was beaten in bandit races this winter.
4. Is it really acceptable for a group of mainly amateur stewards to impose such punishments after a hearing that has to be fitted in between races and lasts at most half an hour. OK, there’s an appeal process, but the difference between the procedure used here and the detailed and time consuming investigations currently occupying the HRA and the police is frankly ridiculous.
My personal view on point 4 is a matter of public record, since I began writing about the need for matters of discipline to be taken out of the hands of local stewards many years ago in Odds On magazine. Ironically, it was a decision by the Wolverhampton stewards against a small trainer jockey combination that prompted my first article on the subject.
I do not believe it can be right for such large penalties to be imposed when the accused have no representation and no time to prepare a defence, regardless of how clear cut the case may seem.
To give a single example, the debate on here has included detailed discussion of this ride in the context of previous rides on the same horse – but it’s not possible that the Wolverhampton stewards had the relevant films to hand. Yet it can be argued that this is the key piece of evidence for any possible defence.
Regardless of your view on this case (I haven’t seen the race and make no judgement on it) – do you really believe this is an acceptable way for racing to handle this sort of incident?
AP
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.