- This topic has 84 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks, 3 days ago by
.
- Posts
I am not talking only about the Byrnes case, Ginger. The pundits on RTV and SSR could have said more about Shoemark’s ride in the Guineas or Murphy’s ride at Newcastle without falling foul of any libel laws. They chose not to – and it is not unreasonable to suggest a desire to stay on good terms with high profile participants in the sport is the main reason.
The Byrnes case and the Kingscote Lingfield Derby trial case are different because there is a suggestion that the result has been deliberately affected. That is a far more serious accusation to make than the perfectly acceptable opinion that someone who was clearly trying to win rode a poorly judged race (Murphy) or indifferent race (Shoemark).
The latter two examples drew lots of comment online which was entirely acceptable. Even people who disagree would I hope concede that everyone was entitled to their opinion.
The fact that two high profile pundits claimed Murphy did nothing wrong (and talked over someone who suggested he had) and a raft of pundits saw nothing wrong with Shoemark’s ride shreds their credibility, in my opinion at least!
No one is suggesting they should have launched into some vicious attack on either jockey. They are human and are entitled to make mistakes. But to pretend they did not make a mistake is silly and borderline dishonest.
What is the point of these highly paid pundits even being there if they are not going to give an opinion?
Fair comment CAS. I can’t comment on RTV or SSR pundits because I no longer have those channels. Am surprised you say they didn’t criticise Shoemark’s ride in the Guineas, as there was plenty of it on ITV albeit not particularly from Fitzgerald.
It may not be a case of not wanting to criticise. More that pundits (particularly ex-jockey pundits) are often easier on jockeys mistakes because many supposedly have a greater understanding of how things can happen… And therefore are more forgiving than the average punter. ie Something we might see as an obvious error they might see as a very minor error and so are less likely to comment at all on “very minor errors”.
Value Is EverythingSound and timely advice from Brian O’Connor in his Odds and Sods column in The Irish Times on Friday
(article probably available to occasional readers)
“irish-racing-needs-to-professionalise-its-disciplinary-process-to-reassure-public”
Translated ” The cheating b@stards need banned and fined ” ….
Pick 3 on Saturday champion 2025/2026
The more I know the less I understand.
O’Connor is right. In today’s day and age it should be possible to have centralised stewarding panels.
I think poor internet connections in rural areas have been given as a reason for not having them but it must be possible to sort that out.
Even if it’s not on the day you could have a set of stewards watching each race and then acting on what they see , the more eyes watching them the less likely they are to try it , these lot have plenty previous , watch them go quiet for a few months until it it’s forgotten about then they’ll land another punt …
Pick 3 on Saturday champion 2025/2026
The issue was discussed on RTV’s Talking Points. The view from camera angle behind the runners does not look good for Byrnes.
It will probably still be difficult to prove he jumped off but I know what I believe!
I watched that clip a few times yesterday and also have my own opinion. It might not be different at all when compared to yours, CAS.
What makes things even worse is the way jockeys seem to protect each other and Adam McNamara’s arguments were quite pathetic, imo. But, as usual it is something difficult to prove, but just one question:If you try to jump off a horse on purpose, wouldn’t it look a 100% the way Philip Byrnes did it? What would be different compared to his technique?
Does that clip include Rishi’s suggestion of having a team of ex jockeys adjudicating over possible “dodgy” rides? That must be the daftest thing I’ve heard for a long time.
I can’t believe any action will be taken because you cannot say one way or another what happened.
The more I know the less I understand.
“If you try to jump off a horse on purpose, wouldn’t it look a 100% the way Philip Byrnes did it?”
Yes it would, and I’ve done it as a child, messing about on small ponies, slowly, over very small jumps on a soft sand arena just to see what would happen. If you kick your feet out of the stirrups and make no effort to go with the jump, you get “left behind” the movement, unbalanced and fall reasonably gently out the side door on landing or a stride or two after. (though a fall is a fall…I didn’t practise it very many times! I wouldn’t care to try it at race pace on summer turf over a hurdle). Getting left behind much condemned by riding instructors – not just for the falling off risk but because you tend to thump down on the pony’s back and inadvertantly yank it in the mouth trying to stay on (I didn’t yank mine in the mouth in my experiments as I wasn’t trying to stay on).
“I can’t believe any action will be taken because you cannot say one way or another what happened.”
Yep…it’s impossible to prove…as Rishi said at the start- slander and libel laws mean that you have to be able to prove that what you say is true.
Agree that the jockey panel idea is a no hoper though. I thought Adam McNamara’s comments were OK actually.
The handicapper can take a run into account if the horse reaches the last or even second last obstacle can’t they? Wonder what Redwood Queen’s mark will be.
Irish ratings were updated this morning, no change for Redwood Queen, she remains on 128.
Should we really need “proof” of deliberately falling off for a massive penalty to be given out if the rule is “correctly” worded?
A rule to ban jockeys for a long time and a potential heavy fine… Something like:
“For a ride not in keeping with being a professional jockey”.
Where any deliberate action does not need to be “proven”. Where the fine and ban could (not always but “could”) be very severe.…And another rule stipulating if found to be in breach of the rule again, then a second offence could result in an even greater fine and possibility of an outright ban. Because we don’t want jockeys making a habit of “insufficient effort”.
Again, deliberately jumping off should not need to be “proven” as it is not what the rule is about. Just “insufficient effort not becoming of a professional jockey”… should be enough in these cases.
That way surely there is far less need for the authorities to fear being sued?
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.