- This topic has 36 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
Excellent post Stevecaution and pretty much summarises my view.
I actually think the rules are really good now – particularly spot on regarding no longer stupidly throwing out horses that win on merit.
There is clearly a ‘blind spot’ in instances like this with the 2nd/3rd horses but they’re rare enough and a price worth paying for getting the ‘right’ winner.
I’m sure that any implication that a jockey was prepared to risk seriously injuring his colleagues (or worse) in order to win races would no doubt be pretty quickly ‘talked through’ in the sanctity of the weighing room.
Mike
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.
Sometimes no one is to blame. Sometimes people or the horse are to blame and then we need stewards. We don’t know when it’s going to be the former or the latter so stewards are there for the duration. It’s quite bloody simple unless you thrive on childish extremes.
You 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.
Sorry Hammy, but you really need to familiarise yourself with the rules as they are now. Typically, given the scenario, Willie Haggas felt hard done by and was seething afterwards. You can understand that, particularly as he has been pretty much feeding off scraps this season, rather than getting a seat at the big banqueting table.
The rules clearly state that, unless the horse causing the interference has improved his place in relation to the horse interfered with, then the result should remain unaltered. In the case of
any
uncertainty, the benefit of the doubt is given to the horse who finished in front. I am sure Willie Haggas is well aware of the rules and, if the boot were on the other foot, he would have been more than happy to accept that his horse kept the race based on these rules.
I don’t quite understand what you are trying to say regarding the "savage way" comment and it’s indicative value regarding Mukhadram’s chance of getting back up. To my eyes Al Kazeem was always going to finish a little bit further ahead this time. I don’t have stats to hand but after watching racing for over 30 years I firmly believe that when a horse has his measure taken at that stage of the race, most times they don’t get back up, and there was no indication that Al Kazeem was losing momentum. We heard it touted before the race that the winner was the price he was because of the suspicion that, ideally, he’d want a little further, so it would seem doubtful he would have weakened. The OP stated that it was dangerous riding, I disagree and so did the stewards. Just after the race the entire Channel 4 team agreed that there was no way the result would be altered and that the Jockey might get a little holiday instead. I think five days was harsh for having "allowed your horse to wander across", when other jockeys got a four day ban for an utter dereliction of duty in obtaining the best possible for their mounts by allowing a horse to freewheel into an unassailable lead before making any effort to peg him back all too late. That is highly inconsistent in my mind.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
James Doyle – Saint or sinner ? Sinner if you didn’t back the winner.
I did back Al Kazeem, and have to admit that I did fear the worst for one fleeting moment. It looked bad on telly, even though there is little to suggest that the interference was deliberate on Doyle’s part.
Years ago, Al Kazeem would possibly have been disqualified.
However, the best horse ( by far ) won the race. Paul Hanagan admitted that he was done out of second place and that’s that.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
You 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.
Sorry Hammy, but you really need to familiarise yourself with the rules as they are now.
Typically, given the scenario, Willie Haggas felt hard done by and was seething afterwards. You can understand that, particularly as he has been pretty much feeding off scraps this season, rather than getting a seat at the big banqueting table.
The rules clearly state that, unless the horse causing the interference has improved his place in relation to the horse interfered with, then the result should remain unaltered. In the case of
any
uncertainty, the benefit of the doubt is given to the horse who finished in front. I am sure Willie Haggas is well aware of the rules and, if the boot were on the other foot, he would have been more than happy to accept that his horse kept the race based on these rules.
I don’t quite understand what you are trying to say regarding the "savage way" comment and it’s indicative value regarding Mukhadram’s chance of getting back up. To my eyes Al Kazeem was always going to finish a little bit further ahead this time. I don’t have stats to hand but after watching racing for over 30 years I firmly believe that when a horse has his measure taken at that stage of the race, most times they don’t get back up, and there was no indication that Al Kazeem was losing momentum. We heard it touted before the race that the winner was the price he was because of the suspicion that, ideally, he’d want a little further, so it would seem doubtful he would have weakened. The OP stated that it was dangerous riding, I disagree and so did the stewards. Just after the race the entire Channel 4 team agreed that there was no way the result would be altered and that the Jockey might get a little holiday instead. I think five days was harsh for having "allowed your horse to wander across", when other jockeys got a four day ban for an utter dereliction of duty in obtaining the best possible for their mounts by allowing a horse to freewheel into an unassailable lead before making any effort to peg him back all too late. That is highly inconsistent in my mind.
Why? I thought I made it clear enough in my post that I understand that under the modernized rules the horse was able to keep the race.
I just don’t believe that is a fitting result for the race. I think the winner should have been disqualified for markedly hampering another horse and affecting the result of the race.
.
Why? I thought I made it clear enough in my post that I understand that under the modernized rules the horse was able to keep the race.
I just don’t believe that is a fitting result for the race. I think the winner should have been disqualified for markedly hampering another horse and affecting the result of the race.
It doesn’t seem that we to me.
You say you understand the rules but then state the winner should have been disqualified for markedly hampering another horse and affecting the result of the race. You are plainly contradicting yourself in saying that, because, if you understand and accept the rules as they are now, then those rules say that, because Al Kazeem did not improve his position relative to Mukhadram, the result
has
to stand. The enquiry is only about the two horses involved and their relative positions, it does not matter if Mukhadram had been second, third or tenth, the only question is whether Al Kazeem would have been behind Mukhadram if that rival had enjoyed a clear run. The Stewards decided he wouldn’t have and I think most observers would agree that this was the case.
As for a fitting result, I am of the belief that the best horse on the day keeping the win is the most fitting result of all for horse racing. The alternative would have been Declaration Of War winning it, when he was only the third best horse on the day. If that is your idea of a more fitting result, then we obviously have different senses of what is best for the game. Of course, I respect your right to have your own opinion but based on the evidence of Saturday’s race and a very similar race between the two at Ascot, where Al Kazeem proved the stronger in the closing stages, I am as confident as I can be that Mukhadram would NOT have won regardless of the interference.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
@SteveCaution..you always talk a good and reasonably fair argument but don’t you think that an injustice has been done to a horse and jockey who were flat out to win when passed and almost at the same time hampered by a drifting horse a most dangerous situation for horses and jockeys..If Al Kazeem had clipped heels with Mukhadram both horses would have been on the floor, James Doyle was in the driving seat and he is culpable and deserves his ban, let’s just be thankful that all horses and jockeys came home safe in that race.
If Al Kazeem did drift then perhaps he was tiring and he was lucky to win, one things for sure Steve he won’t win the Arc running like that..leave that to Intello.
I know I’ve set myself up for an ear bashing here
Things turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out....
Why? I thought I made it clear enough in my post that I understand that under the modernized rules the horse was able to keep the race.
I just don’t believe that is a fitting result for the race. I think the winner should have been disqualified for markedly hampering another horse and affecting the result of the race.
It doesn’t seem that we to me.
You say you understand the rules
but then state the winner should have been disqualified for markedly hampering another horse and affecting the result of the race. You are plainly contradicting yourself in saying that, because, if you understand and accept the rules as they are now, then those rules say that, because Al Kazeem did not improve his position relative to Mukhadram, the result
has
to stand. The enquiry is only about the two horses involved and their relative positions, it does not matter if Mukhadram had been second, third or tenth, the only question is whether Al Kazeem would have been behind Mukhadram if that rival had enjoyed a clear run. The Stewards decided he wouldn’t have and I think most observers would agree that this was the case.
As for a fitting result, I am of the belief that the best horse on the day keeping the win is the most fitting result of all for horse racing. The alternative would have been Declaration Of War winning it, when he was only the third best horse on the day. If that is your idea of a more fitting result, then we obviously have different senses of what is best for the game. Of course, I respect your right to have your own opinion but based on the evidence of Saturday’s race and a very similar race between the two at Ascot, where Al Kazeem proved the stronger in the closing stages, I am as confident as I can be that Mukhadram would NOT have won regardless of the interference.
No I didn’t.
I do not need to understand the rules to know that the result on Saturday was in accordance with them. I accept that it was.
I just don’t agree that the rules that are in place are acceptable given the fact that the winner kept the race. He ruined another horse’s race and very nearly caused a nasty incident. He should have been thrown out. That’s my personal opinion not a statement of fact.
.
Why? I thought I made it clear enough in my post that I understand that under the modernized rules the horse was able to keep the race.
I just don’t believe that is a fitting result for the race. I think the winner should have been disqualified for markedly hampering another horse and affecting the result of the race.
It doesn’t seem that we to me.
You say you understand the rules but then state the winner should have been disqualified for markedly hampering another horse and affecting the result of the race. You are plainly contradicting yourself in saying that, because, if you understand and accept the rules as they are now, then those rules say that, because Al Kazeem did not improve his position relative to Mukhadram, the result
has
to stand. The enquiry is only about the two horses involved and their relative positions, it does not matter if Mukhadram had been second, third or tenth, the only question is whether Al Kazeem would have been behind Mukhadram if that rival had enjoyed a clear run. The Stewards decided he wouldn’t have and I think most observers would agree that this was the case.
As for a fitting result, I am of the belief that the best horse on the day keeping the win is the most fitting result of all for horse racing. The alternative would have been Declaration Of War winning it, when he was only the third best horse on the day. If that is your idea of a more fitting result, then we obviously have different senses of what is best for the game. Of course, I respect your right to have your own opinion but based on the evidence of Saturday’s race and a very similar race between the two at Ascot, where Al Kazeem proved the stronger in the closing stages, I am as confident as I can be that Mukhadram would NOT have won regardless of the interference.
The rules allow the best horse to keep the race but they dont mean the second best horse finishes second, the third finishes third etc. If you think its all about the winner, thats fine but I cant accept thats really in the interest of fairness all round.
The second aspect is that a law like that might encourage jockeys to be somewhat more reckless on occasion.
SHL
I just don’t agree that the rules that are in place are acceptable given the fact that the winner kept the race. He ruined another horse’s race and very nearly caused a nasty incident. He should have been thrown out. That’s my personal opinion not a statement of fact.
What was the explanation given by the horse to the stewards ?
No I didn’t.
I do not need to understand the rules to know that the result on Saturday was in accordance with them. I accept that it was.
I just don’t agree that the rules that are in place are acceptable given the fact that the winner kept the race. He ruined another horse’s race and very nearly caused a nasty incident. He should have been thrown out. That’s my personal opinion not a statement of fact.
OK Hammy, sorry for any confusion, I didn’t realise you think the current rules are unfair.
You are therefore claiming that Doyle’s actions were deliberate and constituted dangerous riding. I disagree wholeheartedly with that. What occurred was a dangerous
situation
, not caused by dangerous riding. The stewards decided this was the case and an entire team of television pundits agreed 100% with that before the enquiry ever took place.
Under the old rules Declaration Of War would have been the winner despite being the third best horse on the day. That is fine in the sense that it puts Mukhadram up into second but it is still unfair because Mukhadram would have beaten him without the interference, so his connections would still have been aggrieved. There is never going to be a perfect system but I firmly believe that the one that lets the best horse on merit keep the race is the sensible one and most punters would be happy enough if the boot had been on the other foot and Mukhadram were a worthy winner, allowed to keep the race because of the rules we have in place now.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
@SteveCaution..you always talk a good and reasonably fair argument but don’t you think that an injustice has been done to a horse and jockey who were flat out to win when passed and almost at the same time hampered by a drifting horse a most dangerous situation for horses and jockeys..If Al Kazeem had clipped heels with Mukhadram both horses would have been on the floor, James Doyle was in the driving seat and he is culpable and deserves his ban, let’s just be thankful that all horses and jockeys came home safe in that race.
If Al Kazeem did drift then perhaps he was tiring and he was lucky to win, one things for sure Steve he won’t win the Arc running like that..leave that to Intello.
I know I’ve set myself up for an ear bashing here
It was a shame that Mukhadram didn’t hang for second, he was worthy of filling that place and ran another terrific race. James Doyle did very little wrong and the Stewards did not class it as dangerous riding. You can have danger caused without any dangerous action being made, sometimes a small drift can cause a lot of trouble but that is the nature of horses travelling at top speed.
Anyway, regarding Al Kazeem being tired, I have to doubt it, given that he has won over a mile and a half on Good To Soft and had had comments regarding "kept on well/strongly" in his other races. I have noted that he has drifted in three of his wins once he has hit the front. Perhaps he loses concentration or tends to wander once in front?
Intello has a lot to prove to be an Arc contender. He is dropping back to a mile next time and the trainer has said he is not a definite Arc runner yet. I don’t think this year’s mile and a half colts are looking likely to put it up to the older horses on the evidence thus far and I think Al Kazeem would destroy Ruler Of The World if they ever meet. Intello won The Fielden stakes and that race has thrown up only one winner since, 4th placed Alta Lilea who has won a couple of little races but been well beaten in handicaps as well. To me, it depends if you think he beat a good field to win the French Derby, as to whether he looks like he can beat the older horses at the top level this year. I am not convinced that was a great renewal of the race and it seems strange to me that they dropped him back to a mile and Group 3 company for his next race. That seems very unambitious for a horse with Arc aspirations and it makes you feel sorry for poor Mars who keeps being pushed into Group 1 races as a maiden winner only. Is Intello as good as he is being put up to potentially be? Will he get a mile and a half? Can he defeat older rivals? Are this year’s 3yo students top of the class, or edging closer to the dunce’s corner with every race?
Al Kazeem has improved by a stone already this year and if we are to believe some pundits he has not even run over his best trip yet this season. He has won his last five races and never been out of the first two in his last eleven starts. He has proved that his first run after an injury break was not one that led to a "bounce" in his next race and he seems well over his problem. He will bypass the King George to be prepared for the Arc and I think he’s the one they all have to beat.
This whole controversy has overshadowed a remarkable comeback for the horse and a terrific training performance by a man who has had an otherwise fairly uneventful season. Time to give this horse the true credit he is due in a sport where the "Next Frankels" are falling like flies all around us.
"Ga’an the Al Kazeem, ya dancer!"
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
The winner was the best horse in the race.
The winner cost the 3rd horse 2nd place.
Whats the answer? Not promoting DOW to 1st place as the French would have, thats for sure.
@Stevecaution
Certainly think that Al Kazeem is an amazing horse and all credit deserved for his brave comeback from injury. I backed him at Newmarket when he romped in by 4 lengths in the Jockey Club Stakes last year. Strange but since then I’m always looking for one to beat him and if he does turn up for the Arc for me Intello is the winner.You might say that he has beaten nothing in all his races but he has done it without expending hardly any energy, mainly hands and heels wins and very impressive, I don’t think this horses potential has been fully exposed yet and really hope that he does take a tilt at the Arc this year to show what he is capable of.
I was there when he took the Fielden Stakes at Newmarket and he didn’t even break sweat, he’s a beautifully put together individual and when he commits for home I like the way he lengthens his stride and commits 100%. Hoping that Jim Bolger doesn’t enter Dawn Approach in the Prix Jaques de Morois as I might have my loyaltys split between 2 great horses.
There must always be a niggling doubt about Al Kazeem and the recurrence of his old injury with each hard fought win that he achieves and to go for the Arc Roger Charlton will have to have him 200% because he’s going to be up against it.
We all hang our colours on our favourite horses and it’s obvoius that Al Kazeem is yours Steve and I wish him all the luck. I always like to see a fairly fought out finish and the best horse win, when it’s messy like the Eclipse it takes something away, there’s always a doubt of what might have been.
Let’s hope his next race has no doubt over the result win or lose, and we can celebrate the best horse wining without the stewards getting involved.
That’s Intello for me Steve
Things turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...No I didn’t.
I do not need to understand the rules to know that the result on Saturday was in accordance with them. I accept that it was.
I just don’t agree that the rules that are in place are acceptable given the fact that the winner kept the race. He ruined another horse’s race and very nearly caused a nasty incident. He should have been thrown out. That’s my personal opinion not a statement of fact.
OK Hammy, sorry for any confusion, I didn’t realise you think the current rules are unfair.
You are therefore claiming that Doyle’s actions were deliberate and constituted dangerous riding. I disagree wholeheartedly with that. What occurred was a dangerous
situation
, not caused by dangerous riding. The stewards decided this was the case and an entire team of television pundits agreed 100% with that before the enquiry ever took place.
Under the old rules Declaration Of War would have been the winner despite being the third best horse on the day. That is fine in the sense that it puts Mukhadram up into second but it is still unfair because Mukhadram would have beaten him without the interference, so his connections would still have been aggrieved. There is never going to be a perfect system but I firmly believe that the one that lets the best horse on merit keep the race is the sensible one and most punters would be happy enough if the boot had been on the other foot and Mukhadram were a worthy winner, allowed to keep the race because of the rules we have in place now.
I can understand your point of view. If I had been completely convinced by Al Kazeem’s dominance I guess any other result would seem unfair to me too.
Having watched the race a few times more I don’t really think the winning jockey carved Mukhadram up intentionally -he had his whip in the correct hand and looked like going clear enough to take his opponents ground- the horse just drifted to the rail a bit. So if I’m understanding you correctly he would likely have kept the race under the old rules too. As I said though -and I accept it is entirely a minority view- I felt that Mukhadram might well get back into contention. His jockey did have to pull his nose up sharply when crossed by the winner which suggested to me that he was still keeping tabs on AK.
It wasn’t really a big deal to me either way tbh. I never had a bet in the race and was more interested in Mars’s performance as I’d tipped him in the Ante Post comp.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.