- This topic has 81 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
The BHA should withhold his earnings until his restitution is satisfied. The restitution should be paid in this order: 1) owner’s %, 2) trainer’s %, 3) all punters who have be aggreived by proving a wager has been placed. All claims whould be submitted to the BHA for payment.
Moving forward, the BHA should have a regulation stipulating that all jockey negligence will be resolved in this manner. This would allow punters to retain proof of wager for the claim.
Even for a thread that has attracted a number of off-the-wall ideas, this is truly insane.
The idea of a skint, stable-working, 17-year-old claiming jockey being liable for several million pounds of ‘compensation’ to on-line punters worldwide is certainly a novel concept.
Could he then opt for a ‘lifetime ban’ option instead?!!
Mike
I’m with Mike. That was a totally unworkable idea.
The idea (was it Ginger’s?) of the handicapper showing no mercy to eased-down horses seems like the best one to me. It would address the root of the problem. Perhaps eased-down winners could be met with a default additional three or four pound rise to their amended ratings.
Of course, there would have to be some circumstances that would be exceptions to the rule. Some trouble would come with defining ‘eased-down’ I suppose. Also, I would not want to see weary horses twenty lengths clear at the end of a chase being vigorously driven out.
I don’t think a default number is neccessary TYF. I just think if a jockey wins hard held, giving the handicapper no clue as to how much it had in hand… Connections surely can not blame the assessor if cautious, upping it 21 pounds or more. Of course in future races there’s nothing to stop the handicapper dropping it if proving not up to the new rating.
For those without a rating yet an option of refusing a rating already exists. So why not extend it to those already with a rating? Take the original rating off the horse and refuse a new one until running in a conditions race on its next start.
I am not in favour of any blanket rule to enforce jockeys to ride out for safety reasons; weary or injured horses. And there’s also those who pull themselves up when in front (eg Character Building) needing to be put in front right on the line.
Value Is EverythingProbert’s comment smacks of a "lack of accountability".
Here’s a novel idea – Jockey Restitution.
Allow him to ride. Why give him a 28 day "holiday". He should be held accountable for his negligence like any other occupation.
The BHA should withhold his earnings until his restitution is satisfied. The restitution should be paid in this order: 1) owner’s %, 2) trainer’s %, 3) all punters who have be aggreived by proving a wager has been placed. All claims whould be submitted to the BHA for payment.
Moving forward, the BHA should have a regulation stipulating that all jockey negligence will be resolved in this manner. This would allow punters to retain proof of wager for the claim.
The idea that restitution should be made to anyone is ludicrous, even more so to punters. When you place a bet you are doing it on the full package. Part of that package is that the jockey may make a cock up. You take that into account when placing your bet. If you can’t handle that then you shouldn’t bet.
Ludicrous, hum
. Tell that to the connections and punters that were "done" by the negligent ride. I could only imagine they were delighted with their loss.What I’m talking about rider accountability.
Do you think for a moment that a jockey would not ride to the line if the he would be held to account for the financial losses if he didn’t?
As a punter, you expect intergity in the game. I understand that you put your money down and take your chance (BTW, I had no punt on). However, we’re not talking about taking up a bad position on the turn or getting blocked for a run; we’re talking about not riding out to the line. No cock up there, just negligence.
As an owner, I’ve lost thousands in purse money due to negligent rides. All I could do is sack the jockey, but never had any recourse for lost earnings. Not cryin’ the blues, just noting that others are negatively effected. Additionally, I’m sure the training and stable staff (who do receive a bonus for wins) couldn’t have been too pleased.
Ludicrous, no not really, just a different/fresh perspective of holding a jockey accountable for his ride. If you have a better way, I’m sure we’d all be interested to hear what it is.
The BHA should withhold his earnings until his restitution is satisfied. The restitution should be paid in this order: 1) owner’s %, 2) trainer’s %, 3) all punters who have be aggreived by proving a wager has been placed. All claims whould be submitted to the BHA for payment.
Moving forward, the BHA should have a regulation stipulating that all jockey negligence will be resolved in this manner. This would allow punters to retain proof of wager for the claim.
Even for a thread that has attracted a number of off-the-wall ideas, this is truly insane.
The idea of a skint, stable-working, 17-year-old claiming jockey being liable for several million pounds of ‘compensation’ to on-line punters worldwide is certainly a novel concept.
Could he then opt for a ‘lifetime ban’ option instead?!!
Mike
Mike, I appreciate your good natured response (as well as KenH’s). Though, I wouldn’t call it insane. Yeah, maybe a bit out of the box, but perhaps that is what racing needs to restore integrity to it.
Let’s stay on point, we’re talking about a journeyman rider, not a a "claimer" or amatuer.
Call it a starting point, the powers that be could work out an appropriate financial accountablity percentage to the connections and punters.
The simple fact is that when you start hitting jockey’s in the pocket for negligence, you will get their attention and I’d be willing to bet that every horse will get ridden to the line.
I’m with Mike. That was a totally unworkable idea.
The idea (was it Ginger’s?) of the handicapper showing no mercy to eased-down horses seems like the best one to me. It would address the root of the problem. Perhaps eased-down winners could be met with a default additional three or four pound rise to their amended ratings.
Of course, there would have to be some circumstances that would be exceptions to the rule. Some trouble would come with defining ‘eased-down’ I suppose. Also, I would not want to see weary horses twenty lengths clear at the end of a chase being vigorously driven out.
TYF, one thing that life has taught me is that nothing is "unworkable", just have to determine the solution to a greater or lesser degree. I figured my "solution" would be met with some degree of derision, but sometimes that what happens when you think out of the box. Fair play. Though, I can state with absolute fact, the current punishment in place hasn’t fixed the problem with not riding out.
But you (or Ginger) do make a valid point of the handicapper backing off horses who win by large margins. Treat a win as a win, regardless if its by 10 lengths or by a nose.
Probert’s comment smacks of a "lack of accountability".
Here’s a novel idea – Jockey Restitution.
Allow him to ride. Why give him a 28 day "holiday". He should be held accountable for his negligence like any other occupation.
The BHA should withhold his earnings until his restitution is satisfied. The restitution should be paid in this order: 1) owner’s %, 2) trainer’s %, 3) all punters who have be aggreived by proving a wager has been placed. All claims whould be submitted to the BHA for payment.
Moving forward, the BHA should have a regulation stipulating that all jockey negligence will be resolved in this manner. This would allow punters to retain proof of wager for the claim.
Sorry Scanman, any "solution" needs to be legally viable. What if a jockey drops his hands in the Grand National? Amount of compensation would be unworkable.
Value Is EverythingBut you (or Ginger) do make a valid point of the handicapper backing off horses who win by large margins. Treat a win as a win, regardless if its by 10 lengths or by a nose.
Can’t treat every win the same. Horses need to be fairly handicapped. If horses were put up too much for winning by a short margin – you’d get no jockey/connections wanting to win a race until it’s big money. You’d be in danger of encouraging connections to stop horses, and we don’t want that. There’d be no point in a horse turning up if overly burdened by the handicapper.
Value Is EverythingI think 3 months is fair, aren’t jockeys much more severely punished for such offences in Australia & Hong Kong etc? Think it might help to focus their mind a bit more.
There was one Group 1 race this season where the jockey dropped his hands and almost got beat. A Great Australian horse ridden by an Australian. So even Australians so used to having draconian laws in their country – can ease up prematurely. You’d have thought his mind was "focus"ed that day.
This will happen again no matter what the punishment. The question is: Is there something the BHA can do to dull the pain of the punter?
Value Is EverythingThough, I can state with absolute fact, the current punishment in place hasn’t fixed the problem with not riding out.
How many jockeys have had a month’s ban for not riding out and then gone on to repeat the feat then?
I don’t think other jockeys feel the impact of a colleague getting 28 days ban. Like most people they are mainly concerned with themselves and would only fully appreciate the furore and following suspension if they went through it themselves.
There will never be a scenario where a jockey has to pay for losing bets on a horse he has managed to prevent from winning. It is a non starter logistically. Making up lost prize money to the owners would be somewhat more feasible but, only up to a certain, probably modest, level.
I don’t know what the stats are for jockeys penalised for failure to ride out a race, compared to the number of races that take place but I imagine it must be low. Until we see numerous repeat offenders after 28 day bans, we cannot claim that the system is not working as it stands.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Probert’s comment smacks of a "lack of accountability".
Here’s a novel idea – Jockey Restitution.
Allow him to ride. Why give him a 28 day "holiday". He should be held accountable for his negligence like any other occupation.
The BHA should withhold his earnings until his restitution is satisfied. The restitution should be paid in this order: 1) owner’s %, 2) trainer’s %, 3) all punters who have be aggreived by proving a wager has been placed. All claims whould be submitted to the BHA for payment.
Moving forward, the BHA should have a regulation stipulating that all jockey negligence will be resolved in this manner. This would allow punters to retain proof of wager for the claim.
Sorry Scanman, any "solution" needs to be legally viable. What if a jockey drops his hands in the Grand National? Amount of compensation would be unworkable.
Ginger, fair points. I’m just not a "status quo" kind of guy. There’s always ways to improve the sport. Where there is the will, there is a way. Legally, through the rules of racing, amend the rules to hold negligent rides to "some" financial account. Once again, to some account, understanding that a jockey could not cover the turnover on a race such as the National. There has to be enough "pain" to ensure that failing to ride out is removed (or highly discouraged) from the sport.
FWIW using your Grand National scenario, do you really think a jockey would not ride out in race of such great prestige, particularly if he knew there would be a substantial financial penalty if he failed to do so? For me, no chance.
My suggestion was not the end all/be all. It was a starting point. Food for thought. And while my "solution" was fairly commented on, none of those who were critical bothered to offer their solution. If one is not part of the solution, they are part of the problem. If a problem is not perceived to exist, then alright. I’m just curious to hear how others would solve this problem.
But you (or Ginger) do make a valid point of the handicapper backing off horses who win by large margins. Treat a win as a win, regardless if its by 10 lengths or by a nose.
Can’t treat every win the same. Horses need to be fairly handicapped. If horses were put up too much for winning by a short margin – you’d get no jockey/connections wanting to win a race until it’s big money. You’d be in danger of encouraging connections to stop horses, and we don’t want that. There’d be no point in a horse turning up if overly burdened by the handicapper.
Maybe, there in lies the problem, considering too many variables. There can be a problem with overthinking a process.
It would seem to me that the most critical point of a horse’s rating would be it’s inital assessment. After that, let the chips fall where they may.
But for the sake of understanding the handicaping process, help me with this example taken from Sedgefield’s bumper yesterday:
Enchanted Garden wins an open bumper by 1 length and receives a rise of 9lbs.
Master Rajeem wins an open bumper by 7 lengths and received a rise of 8lbs.Not counting the jockey’s allowance, Master Rajeem carried 9lbs less than Enchanted Garden. Why?
Though, I can state with absolute fact, the current punishment in place hasn’t fixed the problem with not riding out.
How many jockeys have had a month’s ban for not riding out and then gone on to repeat the feat then?
I don’t think other jockeys feel the impact of a colleague getting 28 days ban. Like most people they are mainly concerned with themselves and would only fully appreciate the furore and following suspension if they went through it themselves.
There will never be a scenario where a jockey has to pay for losing bets on a horse he has managed to prevent from winning. It is a non starter logistically. Making up lost prize money to the owners would be somewhat more feasible but, only up to a certain, probably modest, level.
I don’t know what the stats are for jockeys penalised for failure to ride out a race, compared to the number of races that take place but I imagine it must be low. Until we see numerous repeat offenders after 28 day bans, we cannot claim that the system is not working as it stands.
1 repeat in the last 2 years – Peterjohn Carberry. 3 others to include Probert, Newman, and Fallon. That’s just based on a web search. 5 total, seems like 5 too many. Therefore, I stand by my "quote".
Like the others, you don’t address jockey accountability and put forth a solution.
There was one Group 1 race this season where the jockey dropped his hands and almost got beat. A Great Australian horse ridden by an Australian. So even Australians so used to having draconian laws in their country – can ease up prematurely. You’d have thought his mind was "focus"ed that day.
This will happen again no matter what the punishment. The question is: Is there something the BHA can do to dull the pain of the punter?
If it’s the race I’m thinking of is it more than a coincidence it took place in this country?
As usual Gingertipster you seriously underestimate the intelligence of some of the people running racing in this country.
You think handicappers such as Phil Smith are incapable of taking into account when winners are prematurely eased and you also consider stewards incapable of differentiating when a horse needs to be ridden like Character Building or is too weary to be ridden out.Which was the last horse to lose a race it should have won because the jockey failed to ride it out because it was too weary?
As for punters, KenH covered it perfectly in an earlier post,
"When you place a bet you are doing it on the full package. Part of that package, is that the jockey may cock up. You take that into account when placing your bet. If you can’t handle that then you shouldn’t bet".
Like the others, you don’t address jockey accountability and put forth a solution.
I don’t offer any ‘solution’ because I don’t see a problem that exists. I think a 28-day ban is about spot on. This particular error is made by one or two jockeys a season. Hugely increasing fines/bans would not change this. Human error is part of our DNA; waving a big stick at it makes no difference.
It’s also worth pointing out that this will cost Probert more money than just 28 days of missed rides and prizemoney. As any jockey who has been injured will tell you, once your face is out of circulation you are soon forgotten. Probert will know that as he sits watching others who are available take his rides, a percentage of them will be lost for good.
Your ‘liability’ idea is nonsensical. Self-employed workers in many trades hold legal liability insurance in case bad things happen as a result of mistakes they may make at work. To expect jockeys to hold the same for bets liability would mean massive premiums as potentially they face multi-million-pound payouts on every ride.
And why stop at the Probert-type cases? What about a jockey who takes the wrong course? Is he liable? What about a jockey who fails to weigh in? Who rides an incompetent finish? Who gets unseated because his balance is poor? Or who just rides an ill-judged race? All these are genuine mistakes like Proberts.
You say that you have lost thousands due to the ‘negligence’ of jockeys – and you are just one owner. What about all the other owners (and then multiply a million-fold for all punters). There would be a thousand potential cases a week! And who decides liability? A court? If so, does that sit a hundred times a week? At who’s expense? How will UK law be changed to accomodate all this?
Occasionally, jockeys are going to do really, really stupid things. If these are not borne of corruption and are genuine mistakes then I don’t see the point of crippling their careers for some puerile sense of "revenge".
My solution is that punters should be liable for their bets. Really, if you cannot hack the idea that people will make the odd crass mistake in this sport (or any other!) you shouldn’t be anywhere near it.
Mike
I could live with human error providing that incidents like the Probert case were rare. No, what dissuades me from betting is the connivance between all those in Racing to confound the betting public.The BHA naturally want jockeys ”on side” and will not punish them severely for fear they may break ranks and go blabbing to the media.
I could live with human error providing that incidents like the Probert case were rare. No, what dissuades me from betting is the connivance between all those in Racing to confound the betting public.The BHA naturally want jockeys ”on side” and will not punish them severely for fear they may break ranks and go blabbing to the media.
You’re David Icke and I claim my ten pounds.
Mike
. Tell that to the connections and punters that were "done" by the negligent ride. I could only imagine they were delighted with their loss.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.