- This topic has 222 replies, 38 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
A combination of THE worst decisions I’ve ever seen made by a jockey during any race ever, and a horse that needs a set of dark shades.
The rider seemed to do everything in his power to NOT let he horse put his best foot forward, but I just feel it was unintentional. You can’t deny the horse is a nutter, and we all know there are jockeys riding that shouldn’t be; marry the two occasionally, and you’ll get controversy.
Very true indeed. And Mr Boyce is quite right to point out that this case has gone beyond
"controversy"
or TRF opinion(s).
The connections have already been found guilty by the Newcastle Stewards: the "referring on" is more like an automatic appeal, which will either confirm their decision and deal appropriate punishments, or revise it downwards in favour of the trainer/jockey concerned.
Should be an interesting BHA decision, and it’s not been made any easier by the large amount of publicity (supporting both sides) which the incident has generated.
I hope justice is done for all concerned, and feel
has
to be.
To think they’ve accepted all sorts of other explanations when the horse has been a saint, unlike the jockey, and then to hammer someone without a winner in five years aboard what was, on the day, a complete dog.
Where would that leave interpretation of a true non-trier?
Good effort today on an extremely tricky horse. 100% stand by my original thoughts about the ride the other day – in fact more convinced the horse wasn’t deliberately stopped after that run…
I still think the change in tactics dropping out a normally prominent racer are a little strange. I would back this horse off his current mark if I knew he’d make it in a smallish field.
Agreed CH
I just think it is clear that when those tactics are applied, the horse is an extremely difficult ride – too dificult, perhaps, for a jockey who hasn’t ridden a winner in half a decade.
There are
far
more deserving cases of people in the sport who should be hung out to dry and made an example of – of that I am
100%
certain.
Why is this event causing me so much consternation? Probably because at first sight I was quick to condemn the ride and believed the jockey was guilty of not trying. That’s pretty much the conclusion the Newcastle stewards came to and it now seems the BHA disciplinary panel will be steadfastly reluctant, as you might expect from this back-slapping, class-ridden, one-of-the-boys organisation, to be seen to be disagreeing with their Northern brethren.
But wait a moment, surely the due process should be all about arriving at the truth of the matter and where there is reasonable doubt as to guilt ensuring that the system is not afraid to reverse earlier miscarriages of justice.
I am convinced that the stewards made a mistake. They just saw things in black and white and failed to look at the whole picture. It would be helpful if we knew why the owner switched yards following the horse’s last Dundalk run. In the subsequent race at Leopardstown, and first run for the new trainer, the horse was ridden from the front by the new jockey and ran out of steam. Was it then an understandable decision by the new trainer to employ different tactics and hold the horse up for a late run? For all intents and purposes that was the correct decision. The only problem being that the jockey had no previous experience as to how this horse would react when being asked to race in this fashion. Given that the jockey had had very few rides anyway, and even fewer at Newcastle, surely it’s understandable that he was unable to race/course read as well as his counterparts and then he’s faced with the dilemma of trying to find a suitable gap, not let the horse run toward a non-existent gap and to try to judge the pace at the business end in order to get the maximum thrust as the line approaches. The simple fact is that the jockey was ring-rusty and I daresay nervous which might explain why he chose to take his horse away from everyone else prior to going into the stalls. We know he was away slowly and the slower ground was on his side. He could have maintained that position but instead he chose to drift over to where the faster ground was, suggesting that he had no intention of not running a true race.
It goes against my nature to be defending any skullduggery in racing but in this instance I’m convinced that all the circumstances surrounding this horse lead me to believe that the stewards have made a mistake.
KenThat rings a bell Marble. I don’t suppose your name is Miss Hill who used to teach me English at primary school all those years ago….she used to write the same thing in my exercise book.
Welcome to Marble’s latest venture….Learn to Write Proper Grammar via the Internet’s Premier Racing Forum. First lesson free.
Does anyone have any statistical data on the efficiency of the various stewards up and down the country in implementing the rules fairly and wisely?
A quick analysis of Sunday to Thursday shows that whereas the average post-race enquiries amounted to four and a half per meeting in the case of the Newcastle stewards they held nine enquiries on Wednesday only equalled by Carlisle.
Perhaps there’s a case for suggesting that, in order to prove their worth, Northern stewards tend to be overly-officious compared to their Southern counterparts…. or maybe it’s just the Northern air.Lol.
A cynic might suggest it is a reflection of the kind of jockeys/trainers/owners they have in the North.
More seriously, a higher level of consistency and professionalism in stewarding decisions could be achieved by a smaller representation at the course and a centralised panel of true experts communicating with the course by video conference. One imagines there would also be cost savings in these cash-strapped times.
It has been suggested. I have not been holding my breath.
Using the latest communications technology is all very well in principle, Prufrock, but who’s going to foot the bill for the Gin and Tonics, the BHA or individual race courses? Either way, it’s going to leave lots of former stewards well out of pocket losing their backhanders.
I jest, of course.
KOfficial Stewards at Newcastle on the day in question: W H Brown, Mrs J U Hales, J. Jeffreys, J Thompson, T R Norton, Mrs F A Clark.
Stewards Secretaries (Stipendiaries) Mrs J L Williams, and A Sharpe.
Would J.Jeffreys be any relation to that notorious Judge Jeffreys? If so, it’s a wonder Behan and Tyrell escaped being sent to the gallows.
Official Stewards at Musselburgh : Mrs J Gillies, G Maitland-Carew, J E Vestey, Mrs C Mitchell, Mrs P Arkwright, Sir J Gilmour, T E Dun, Marquise of Donegal.
Stewards Secretaries (Stipendiaries) A Smith and A Sharpe.
Now there’s a couple of names to be reckoned with…Sir J. Gilmour and The Marquise of Donegal. Is that one of the Vestey dynasty amongst them also? Isn’t it a shame we don’t see the likes of Nathan Hughes and The Ante Post King among them?
I would love to know how much these "amateur" stewards cost the business in terms of meals, expenses etc on a race day. Not negligible I would suggest. Why do we need 6 or 8 of them at a track in addition to the two stipes?
Extracts of an article from Turfcall:-
"He’s a very difficult horse to ride at home – I’m lucky to get him in and out of the gallops every morning. Before we got him off Sean Treacy, Sean said to be sure to have someone proper on him every morning. He’s headcase when he gallops and in the race I went for every gap I could."
J MARGARET CLARKE REPORTS FOR TURFCALL
CASELA PARK’S behaviour at present spells out his fear of people. Something bad has happened to him in his past, through this he has lost his confidence badly, ‘his mind set’ warns him that he may well be subjected to harm and hurt again, alerting his senses, to kick in fast, to manoeuvre his defences accordingly, every time he gets the slightest suspicion that something is going to scare and hurt him again.
JMC
(This statement now clarifies why Behan chose to circle alone behind the stalls and he did seem to get agitated when the stall handlers had to push him in.)“The plan was to go up the rail. The horse jumped out well and hung to the left, which I didn’t mind, but every time I went for him, his head came up to my face and he ducked and dived around me. I was told not to hit him. I couldn’t pull him up after the race. I get one ride every two years and I was dragged in for three hours by the stewards at Newcastle.”
Treacy, who saddled CASELA PARK to win twice in six starts before the five-year-old joined Tyrrell in the spring, confirmed that the gelding is a tricky sort to handle. “The horse had bolted under jockeys before I got him, I was told, and he was a very hard puller when I got him, as he bolted under every one else. He oozes ability but he has to be treated properly and I was delighted when Eamon got him, as I was told by a Curragh trainer that he would be looked after by Eamon. Having said that, I’m prepared to buy him back at the price I sold him for.”
If found guilty of the charge of breaching rule (B) 59.2 (d) BEHAN could be banned for between 28 and 90 days and Tyrrell could be fined up to £30,000.
Tyrrell, whose number of horses in training has dwindled from about 60 to almost nothing in recent years, branded the episode “ridiculous” and was in no way critical of BEHAN’S ride on CASELA PARK, who was having his second run for the trainer. He said: "The horse ran around underneath him and I thought he’d clip heals at some stage. I told him not to kill him or get milled to finish third, as we wouldn’t be able to go to Musselburgh – that’s not stopping the horse or anything – and the owner agreed."
- Total Posts 17716
Thankfully the BHA are there an if they feel it is right to do so can aquit these people.
What the jockey said is exactly what I saw.
I’m not surprised it looked so bad to some on here not everyone has ridden horse or seen how crazy some of them are at home and on the gallops etc.
But what excuse do the Stewards have……That horse was doing exactly what he described above and even if he could have let his head go God only know what he would have done next.
If I had been on that panel I would have simply said the horse was out of control and the Jockey did everything he could to get him through the race safely.
There’s been no gamble or dodgy laying and therefor nothing to gain.
Everything points to these people telling the truth and if the BHA can’t see the visual evidence that is there to back it up then they are all in the wrong job.
That’s my all until the big result comes through but I would like to wish both the trainers and jockey the very best of luck….
PS next time he’s off don’t forget to PM me
Behan quote….I get one ride every two years and I was dragged in for three hours by the stewards at Newcastle.
I’m not trying to take advantage of your misfortune, John, but do you think you should switch trainers? I mean to say, when I was a monitor at junior school if the teacher only let me sharpen the pencils once in a blue moon I’d begin to get a little bit of an inferiority complex.
It’s not as though you’d have much to lose is it? I mean a trainer that’s won less than ten grand prize money in the past four years is never likely to be joining the Cecils and Stoutes of this world, is he?
Maybe you need both need a fresh start to rejuvenate your careers and get your confidence restored. Be bold, take the bull by the horns and before you know it you’ll be knee deep in pencil shavings.
K
Poor horse shouldn’t be running then, he should be left to enjoy s quite life in the country.
3 predictions:
1. They’ll get done.
2. The horse will move stables.
3. The horse will win off its current mark if the old prominent racing tactics are reemployed.5 predictions:-
1) The BHA will overturn the stewards’ findings.
2) The horse will return to former trainer Treacy.
3) He will be eventually be sent over the jumps and win The Cheltenham Gold Cup.
4) TAPK will announce that he took 50’s shortly after this thread.
5) Matthew01 will come on here and write ‘What a fantastic ride by Sam Twiston-Davies’
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.