- This topic has 36 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
Paul Hanagan lucky not to come off Mukhadram.
It should not matter whether James Doyle had the whip in his "correct hand". Looking at the head-on, looks as if Al Kazeem was (once ahead) pointed in the direction to tighten up Mukhadram. Doyle had his head down at the time, may be it was "accidental", but there is no knowing.I’d be 80% sure Al Kazeem would’ve won anyway, but is it ok for a rider to make 100% certain a real trier (Mukhadram) can not get back at him?
James Doyle gets 5 days off for "careless" riding.
Lucky boy.
I call it "dangerous"!Value Is EverythingDon’t be silly!
Why would any jockey on a horse who is clearly on top of an opponent and as you admit yourself, highly likely to beat that opponent, waste time trying to deliberately interfere with that horse and quite possibly impede his own path to the winning post when it’s highly likely other horses are coming with a fast finish on the outside?
Sometimes horses are unlucky in a race, it happens all the time, part and parcel of the game I’m afraid.
I’ve only seen the race + head on one time each but my initial reaction was that Doyle gave the horse an excellent ride and simply kept his horse straight – in fact if anything he allowed him to drift ever so slightly left.
Will need to watch it again though.
Lee
James Doyle gets 5 days off for "careless" riding.
Lucky boy.
I call it "dangerous"!Surely it can only be ‘dangerous’ if it’s a deliberate act?
If it’s deliberate then we must assume that Mr Doyle is perfectly prepared to risk injury/death to a fellow jockey in order to win a race.
Mike
I’d need to watch it again but I think Al Kazeem rolled towards the rail slightly when Doyle stopped using the whip when he’d got the upper hand, and I think the other horse did the same at the same time. There had been a lot of messy races prior to that, albeit earlier in the race.
I think Ginger is looking at this through "I backed Mukhadram" spectacles. Incidents always look worse when they occur close to the rails with the inherent danger they present. James Doyle had his whip in the correct hand and had to balance the need of keeping his own horse’s momentum going in order to obtain his best position, against the idea of yanking his mount away from Mukhadram and losing impetus in the process. He did his best in my opinion and it’s frankly ridiculous to suggest that you would take a horse’s measure and then try to pin him to the rails. I believe a 5 day ban was harsh and Doyle is pondering an appeal. I can’t understand why the Stewards can’t just accept that sometimes these things just happen in horse racing and it’s not really anybody’s fault. The rules allow the best horse to keep the race but there is this mentality that when there is an aggrieved party, in this case Mukhadram’s connections, then there has to be a scapegoat, so the jockey gets whacked with a ban for no other reason than he is guiding an unpredictable animal, rather than a sports car with steering wheel, brakes and indicators.
I think Ginger owes James Doyle an apology for questioning his integrity and if Timeform were due one on TAPK thread, then I expect we will see one here shortly.
In my opinion Al Kazeem was always slightly more in touch than he was at Ascot and was always going to win from a fair way out. I think he would have won by about a length or so. I’m looking forward to seeing him step up in trip and am on at 9/1 for The Arc where he is now as low as 4/1 with Stan James. You can still get 6/1 and I think that is pretty good given that we know he’s being aimed at the race and the three year old form is looking shaky outside of potential improver Intello and there is a lot of dead wood in the older horses as well. Come the day of the race that betting list will be decimated and barring injury we know we have a big improver lining up on our side.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
I think Ginger is looking at this through "I backed Mukhadram" spectacles.
Incidents always look worse when they occur close to the rails with the inherent danger they present. James Doyle had his whip in the correct hand
and had to balance the need of keeping his own horse’s momentum going in order to obtain his best position, against the idea of yanking his mount away from Mukhadram and losing impetus in the process. He did his best in my opinion
and it’s frankly ridiculous to suggest that you would take a horse’s measure and then try to pin him to the rails.
I believe a 5 day ban was harsh and Doyle is pondering an appeal. I can’t understand why the Stewards can’t just accept that sometimes these things just happen in horse racing and it’s not really anybody’s fault. The rules allow the best horse to keep the race but there is this mentality that when there is an aggrieved party, in this case Mukhadram’s connections, then there has to be a scapegoat, so the jockey gets whacked with a ban for no other reason than he is guiding an unpredictable animal, rather than a sports car with steering wheel, brakes and indicators.
I think Ginger owes James Doyle an apology for questioning his integrity and if Timeform were due one on TAPK thread, then I expect we will see one here shortly.May be you should apologise to Hanagan Steve, for thinking so little of his (and other jockeys) safety?
Oh and…
BTW Steve, do you remember last year’s Matron Stakes? Most TRFers thought Duntle should’ve kept the race. I disageed, in a small minority in favour of demotion –despite
having a good bet on the filly. My opinion is consistent, I hope nothing to do with whether I back the horse or not.
Value Is EverythingHow and when did Doyle realise it was a 2 horse race (one you say he was 1/4 to win)? Maybe he had the benefit of hindsight like you Gingertipster
I am always puzzled why any punter would show concern for jockey safety and "possible" serious injury caused by reckless riding, don’t think jockeys would put up with dangerous riding from each other and there’s always the failsafe of the stewards and authorities watching on.
After all Gingertipster, how many jockeys have suffered serious injuries in the last 10 years in Britain caused by dangerous riding from other jockeys?
Paul Hanagan lucky not to come off Mukhadram.
It should not matter whether James Doyle had the whip in his "correct hand". Looking at the head-on, looks as if Al Kazeem was (once ahead) pointed in the direction to tighten up Mukhadram. Doyle had his head down at the time, may be it was "accidental", but there is no knowing.I’d be 80% sure Al Kazeem would’ve won anyway, but is it ok for a rider to make 100% certain a real trier (Mukhadram) can not get back at him?
James Doyle gets 5 days off for "careless" riding.
Lucky boy.
I call it "dangerous"!Cant say I agree with you with regard to the Jock but I dont believe the places should have been left unaltered.
The question asked and answered was whether the winner improved his placing. He did not but as he certainly effected the finishing position of the second and third, I believe Al Kazeem should have been demoted to third. Might seem tough but I think that would be more like justice for all concerned.SHL
My initial thought was "Doyle almost put Hanagan over the rails" and I stand by that. The penalty to the jockey should be harsher.
Not sure the Hamdan horse would have won but definitely lost 2nd place as a result. This shows the rules to be flawed. In my opinion they need to be amended to deduct the difference in prize money between 2nd and 3rd place from the winners purse and add this amount to the purse of the horse who was interfered with.
For pattern races the sales catalogue should state the interfered with stallion was 2nd rather than 3rd.
The rules seem to currenty need you to finish no less than a half length adrift for a result to be amended. That may need reviewing however at least now we dont have to endure farcical decisions such as the one that cost Nureyev the 1980 Guineas.
Having watched this race again and again I can’t believe that Al Kazeem was allowed to keep the race. James Doyle deserves his suspension for dangerous riding, we could have been looking at a serious accident for both jockey and horse and Paul Hanagan was lucky not to be thrown over the rail and the horse not to have been brought down.
Jacqueline Quest lost the 2010 1,000 Guineas in favour of Special Duty in the Stewards Room for wandering across the course, no dangerous riding there just a tired horse and yet stewards reversed her placing.
Mukhadram was denied any chance to fight his way back into the lead, although I believe he was a beaten horse once passed he would most certainly have taken 2nd place and that is where the Stewards should have focused their attention.
Out of interest take a look at this replay of the race on You Tube
put it into PAUSE MODE and go to FRAME 1.52 in the race where you get a good shot of the two jockeys for about 1 or 2 seconds, FREEZE FRAME and then decide if James Doyle looks here at this split second in time like a jockey intent on keeping his horse in a straight line, he has taken his eye of the ball and the horse has drifted into Mukhadrams path.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljOn8gG7_rw
In that freeze shot Hannigans head was down but Doyle was looking across at Mukhadram…
How not to ride a finishThings turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...Mukhadram was denied any chance to fight his way back into the lead, although I believe he was a beaten horse once passed he would most certainly have taken 2nd place and that is where the Stewards should have focused their attention.
As the rules stand they do not have any responsibility to focus their attention in that direction.
…FREEZE FRAME…
I’m sure a lot of jockeys would change what they did given the chance to ‘freeze frame’. Races aren’t run in a series of freeze frames.
In my opinion James Doyle could do little to stop Al Kazeem’s suddenly movement towards the rail. Having seen the head on I was surprised he even got a ban, but I can appreciate others may see it differently.
Rob
The best horse won
Mukhadram would not have got back up.
A 5 day ban is excessive when you consider what riders in Ireland received 4 day bans for the other evening
Mukhadram should have finished second but this is horse racing. Somestimes no one is to blame.If the jockey is not to blame then who is? The horse? Then he(the horse) should be disqualified and the jockey be given no penalty.If we accept that neither the horse nor the jockey is to blame then we don’t need stewards or rules.I believe that there is always someone responsible (known as blame)when they are on the track.
I think Ginger is looking at this through "I backed Mukhadram" spectacles.
Incidents always look worse when they occur close to the rails with the inherent danger they present. James Doyle had his whip in the correct hand
and had to balance the need of keeping his own horse’s momentum going in order to obtain his best position, against the idea of yanking his mount away from Mukhadram and losing impetus in the process. He did his best in my opinion
and it’s frankly ridiculous to suggest that you would take a horse’s measure and then try to pin him to the rails.
I believe a 5 day ban was harsh and Doyle is pondering an appeal. I can’t understand why the Stewards can’t just accept that sometimes these things just happen in horse racing and it’s not really anybody’s fault. The rules allow the best horse to keep the race but there is this mentality that when there is an aggrieved party, in this case Mukhadram’s connections, then there has to be a scapegoat, so the jockey gets whacked with a ban for no other reason than he is guiding an unpredictable animal, rather than a sports car with steering wheel, brakes and indicators.
I think Ginger owes James Doyle an apology for questioning his integrity and if Timeform were due one on TAPK thread, then I expect we will see one here shortly.May be you should apologise to Hanagan Steve, for thinking so little of his (and other jockeys) safety?
Oh and…
BTW Steve, do you remember last year’s Matron Stakes? Most TRFers thought Duntle should’ve kept the race. I disageed, in a small minority in favour of demotion –despite
having a good bet on the filly. My opinion is consistent, I hope nothing to do with whether I back the horse or not.
A couple of things we need to get straight here.
I am not naive in any sense of the word and it’s a bit cheeky for you to suggest I am. It is also scurrilous to even suggest I have no concern for jockey safety and that is a cheap shot to throw into a post.
I backed Al Kazeem and I was paid out, so there is no incentive for me to defend the jockey other than that I believe he did very little wrong.
If, as you claim, the jockey was deliberately trying to hamper another contender and, in doing so, willingly put his own life in danger
and
risk losing the race, all for a nice little bit of cash, then that is your prerogative.
If a jockey has deliberately tried to hem an opponent in, with the resultant interference we saw, I would say that has to go down as dangerous riding. The actual report reads:-
The Stewards held an enquiry under Rule (B)11.6 into possible interference inside the final furlong. Having heard their evidence and viewed recordings of the race they found that the winner, AL KAZEEM, ridden by James Doyle, had interfered with MUKHADRAM, placed third, ridden by Paul Hanagan, and that the interference had not improved AL KAZEEM’s placing. They ordered the placings to remain unaltered. The Stewards found Doyle in breach of Rule (B)54.1 and guilty of careless riding in that he had allowed his mount to shift right handed towards the rail badly hampering MUKHADRAM.
That is not dangerous riding and it is an example of where I think the rules are flawed as they stand. The stewards have decided James Doyle "allowed" his mount to shift across. I am no riding expert but it seems pretty hard and often looks dangerous when jockeys make sudden movements when going full tilt riding a finish and what would 2 amateur and unpaid Stewards have suggested that James Doyle do in a split second, going at the speed he was, whilst riding to gain the best position as he has to under other racing rules?
I didn’t see Duntle’s race but I have been subject to plenty examples of both sides of the coin under the new and old rules and I much prefer the idea of the best horse on the day keeping the race where it is possible. I remember a horse of Henry Cecil’s called Sabrehill who I had £200 on at 13/8 about 20 years ago and he brushed another horse when coming out to make his challenge before winning by 6 lengths. He was placed last after the inquiry and I accepted that those were the rules at the time despite it being totally farcical. I wouldn’t want those rules back and I believe we have to accept that sometimes horses are unlucky and we don’t need to nail a jockey to a cross to make it right.
It’s your right to disagree but I don’t think we need to be questioning anyone’s ability to judge a scenario, nor do we need to allude to a lack of concern for the welfare of the sport’s participants.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Having watched this race again and again I can’t believe that Al Kazeem was allowed to keep the race.
James Doyle deserves his suspension for dangerous riding, we could have been looking at a serious accident for both jockey and horse and Paul Hanagan was lucky not to be thrown over the rail and the horse not to have been brought down.
Jacqueline Quest lost the 2010 1,000 Guineas in favour of Special Duty in the Stewards Room for wandering across the course, no dangerous riding there just a tired horse and yet stewards reversed her placing.
Mukhadram was denied any chance to fight his way back into the lead, although I believe he was a beaten horse once passed he would most certainly have taken 2nd place and that is where the Stewards should have focused their attention.
Out of interest take a look at this replay of the race on You Tube
put it into PAUSE MODE and go to FRAME 1.52 in the race where you get a good shot of the two jockeys for about 1 or 2 seconds, FREEZE FRAME and then decide if James Doyle looks here at this split second in time like a jockey intent on keeping his horse in a straight line, he has taken his eye of the ball and the horse has drifted into Mukhadrams path.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljOn8gG7_rw
In that freeze shot Hannigans head was down but Doyle was looking across at Mukhadram…
How not to ride a finishYou and me both Jac, and unlike everybody else it seems I actually thought Mukhadram looked like he was rallying at the time of the incident. You can tell he was still keeping tabs on the eventual winner by the savage way the former was pulled to hand by his jock when shoved into the rails.
Personally I thought the fact the winner kept the race to be a poor indictment on the rules of modern racing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.