- This topic has 16 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 16 years ago by
.
- Posts
Following the debate of the "Laura Probert" suspension this week I wondered what anyone made of the Charlotte Kerton 42 day ban announced yesterday.
Don’t want to appear as though we’re being chauvinistic or overly critical of lady riders … I’ve seen Charlotte ride in the past and been quite impressed … unlike Laura, inexperience cannot be claimed for a girl with over 100 rides to date … but the circumstances surrounding this particular ban make quite interesting reading.
Back in January she received a 10 day ban on the back of two rides within a matter of a few days that brought her to the attention of the stewards.
A very odd ride aboard Timeteam at Lingfield on Jan 22nd went unpunished despite press and media comment as the horse’s price drifted markedly before the off both on course as well as on Betfair … this was the first and only run with George Prodromou before the horse joined David Evans.
A few days later on 27 Jan Charlotte received the 10 day ban for a distinctly lacklustre effort aboard Trip Switch at the same course.
Fast forward to 16th April and the ride on Valmari at Kempton which caused the lengthy ban … view the replay on Racing UK and judge for yourself … the Racing UK commentary team were very quick to pick up on it post race and felt that it looked very suspect … was it, as they suggested, just a case of attempting (albeit a rather ham fisted one) to continue the horse’s slide down the ratings back to a more tempting and potentially winnable h’cap mark ? Certainly, Charlotte’s mitigating factor in her defence was original and not one that could have been offered by any of her male counterparts !!!
View the replays for yourself on ATR and Racing UK and make your own mind up
Deary me
For a start, it’s a wonder the horse even bothered exiting the gate under that amount of prompting. Extraordinary. Duly falls out stone last, seems to settle in an instant, (not bad for a hard puller!), then takes a pull for good measure
Follows the procession that is the race
into the home stretch before…..wait for it……delivering three AIR SHOTS of the whip that fell a good 12 inches short of the horses rump!
It was a shocker before the coup de grace, to be fair!Downright insulting more than anything else.
EDIT: Just read her defence…. period pains my umm….arse.
If the painful area was her right armpit, I’d of understood!
Ken’s thread 10th January 2009 entitled PMT…….
At the risk of being accused of chauvinism, I appreciate this is a delicate subject, but has anyone done any stats. on female jockeys to eradicate the myth or otherwise that their monthly cycle interferes with their riding abilities?
I vividly recall a recent ATR interview with a certain well-known female jockey and thinking at the time that it might be an idea to give her mounts a bit of a swerve for a few days. And so it proved.I got a bit of a rollocking at the time but now we have it straight from the horse’s mouth. Either that or she’s been reading my posts.
Having once upon a time been married to and on the receiving end from someone who suffered quite badly with PMT I can assure readers that there’s far more to it than just pains. It disrupts the co-ordination, thinking responses, moods etc., hence my thread above and without prying into a female jockey’s intimate history I think it’s important to bear in mind that this is an additional risk factor when you back a female jockey’s mount. On the other hand, there is also another time in the cycle when they are in the peak of condition and definitely worth following.
Very difficult subject to discuss but I do believe it’s a fact of life and worthy of consideration and some debate within the BHA and disciplinary panels.Ken
Lets just get one thing out of the way quickly if this ride breaches the rules it’s claimed to have, the punishment is an absolute joke. 42 days for deliberately not trying? Try 4 years and the punishment is starting to get into the right range.
But, as ever in these type of cases, I just love how the horse has been banned from racing for 40 days. The purpose that serves has never made sense to me.
I’m puzzled by the leniency of the punishment for cheating.
As for Charlotte’s excuse, if you’re not fit to ride don’t ride.Shoot the messenger. I’d have no doubts this rider is under higher pressures to produce such rides, good first step BHA, now get to the route of the problem………
Let’s face it, she’s been on the scene for eight years now with barely a handful of winning rides and from what I’ve seen of her she just ain’t up to the mark in terms of style or strength. Perhaps her time-out might help her to focus on whether her ‘skills’ might be more usefully served in a non-racing capacity.
If, as some suggest, she is riding to ‘questionable’ orders then the fact that the Stewards now have her in their sights is only likely to make her a less attractive proposition as a ‘job’ jockey.
I wonder if her ‘health’ explanation will have been received sympathetically by other female jockeys or might they think she’s played the inequality card to their detriment?I think Danielle Hodson, who recently became the 36th American steeplechase rider to reach 100 wins and is currently #2 on the standings, would laugh at Kerton’s explanation. Neither she nor any other good female jockey I’ve seen (Blythe Miller, Anna Napravnik, Rosemary Homeister, Chantal Sutherland, etc.) seem to have any difference in performance throughout the month. I also think Kerton deserves at least a year for intentionally holding back a horse, particularly as she is experienced enough to know better.
The Panel’s full reasons now published by BHA. Think it’s fair to say that they reject Kerton’s explanation anyway so not sure we need worry too much about how much period pain was affecting her. The issue of the penalty is very real though. These are entry level penalties and given the pretty blatant nature of what’s gone on I do think a harsher penalty might have been appropriate for both trainer and jockey.
Having looked now at the full reasons from the Panel and looked at the previous ‘form’ I’m surprised how little attention this has received. Are we really that blase about this kind of thing, or is just that the individuals are not very high profile? I’ve done a piece on my blog about it but can’t see much, if anything, in the media generally?
Chris Cook wrote a good piece about it in the Guardian. Interesting that no other journalist was present at the disciplinary enquiry. Shame RUK never sent anyone to report on it, I recall their presenters being extremely critical of the ride at the time, a shame there was no follow up.
I think you will find Journalists are not admitted to disciplinary enquiries. They are secret courts.
I don’t believe that is the case anymore, hence why Cook was able to report various facts from the case before the BHA published their findings.
You will find the Guardian are always first to report BHA proceedings. Someone in the organisation leaks the information.
The day may come when Journalists are allowed to attend but don’t hold your breath.I don’t know if this one was open or not but a number of panels have been open to journalists. The BHA also put out a press release with all of the panel’s findings too. That’s why I was surprised it wasn’t more widely picked up given what the panel’s findings reveal about what was done out on the track and the subsequent attempts to avoid responsibility.
I’m all for innocent until proven guilty but once found guilty, particularly given these circumstances here, I’m surprised there wasn’t wider comment about what happened and about the penalties.It is normal for the BHA to issue a press release with the findings.
What panels were open to Journalists?Can’t imagine any circumstance where Disciplinary Panel findings would not these days be published and it’s entirely normal for them to be issued in press release form, but of course they’re normally available on the website too.
As for which ones have been open, you’d have to check with Silvoir.
Follows the procession that is 
It was a shocker before the coup de grace, to be fair!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.