- This topic has 81 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
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.
Indeed, hence when these rare (and oh so awfully obvious) mistakes do occur the baying mob call for the miscreant to be hanged, drawn and quartered, or if kind: string-em-up it’s the only language they understand, guv
I expect little from jockeys other than a shaky hope they ride the horse correctly (RP synonym ‘brilliant ride’) and allow the horse the chance it’s entitled too. It’s not quite as extreme a case as ‘in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king’ but certainly ‘he who makes the least mistakes is corporal’
I, like everyone else, detest these Probert-type balls-ups but can’t get animated about them; they are, as has been mentioned by others, just one shockingly glaring example of the myriad ways a jockey can make a mistake
As glaring as the ‘gimme’ dropped catch in cricket; the ball going through the ‘keepers legs in football…feel free to add crass errors in other sports
28 days ban? A nice, tidy, round four-week period that seems appropriate. It could be 56, 365, lifetime: it will still happen…rarely
Finally, I don’t believe for one second the vast majority of lazy finishes are designed to pull the wool over the handicappers’ eyes: the ‘don’t win by too far’ nudge-nudge-wink-wink-know-wharra-mean subterfuge of myth, nope they are just er…lazy and I hope Mr Probert received a stern bollocking and damned good dressing down in addition to his lunar month in the cooler
As glaring as the ‘gimme’ dropped catch in cricket; the ball going through the ‘keepers legs in football…feel free to add crass errors in other sports.
I am not one of the "’ang ’em and flog ’em an’ ‘ang ’em again" brigade Drone, but what you describe is totally different.
Dropping a "gimme" or ball going through the keepers legs are (unless deliberate) all within the rules of the game.
Dropping hands
is
a deliberate act albeit not for a deliberate result of losing the race. It is an act
against
the rules of the game.
Value Is EverythingThere 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 easedIf connections see they’d be (on average) better off in future races – then they’ll be more inclined to want their jockeys to push a horse out to the line.
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?
There was a case at Cheltenham this season (forget its name) where a horse came to challenge and badly lost its action on the run-in. The commentator (I believe Richard Hoiles) mentioned it in running. Even with the jockey doing the right thing by dropping his hands – it still finished third.
In the unlikely event a horse wobbles or exhausted on the run-in Eddie, it should not be persevered with, whether going to win or not.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".
Value Is EverythingLike 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.
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.
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
Alright, 28-day ban is enough. It would seem to be the consensus. I don’t agree and think a greater deterant can/should be achieved.
You kind of went of the rails with your response, so I will try to bring it back to the "failure to ride out" topic of this thread.
Liability can and should be achieved. You are correct that jockeys are self-employed and if held to a greater standard should carry some type of insurance. What has been repeatedly lost in my posts is "some" type of financial accountability. Once the owner and trainer (and staff) are compensated for their loss; then cap the penalty at a reasonable number. I’ll say 20,000, but others could have a different number in mind to a greater or lesser extent. I will cede that punter comsensation would be near impossible to achieve, so I’ll put that aside. Therefore, give the "penalty" to a racing charity (injured jockeys, retired horses, etc…..).
I have trouble with what you term a "crass mistake" with rider negligence. There is a difference.
"Failing to ride out" (for a win) is such an rare infraction, but when it happens it brings out so much unnecessary negative attention to the sport. The type of attention we could do without.
Interesting topic this one. I appreciate all the responses to my posts. Normally, I just read the forum. Good bunch of lads here, and while we don’t always agree, I did enjoy the banter back and forth. I think I got stuck into this one because, as an owner, I’ve been on the sour end of a few really poor rides that cost me a tidy sum. But my skin is thick and have rolled with it.
Great forum – great sport. Looking forward to Cheltenham.
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.
Based on the number of rides over the period you mention, the incidents are an infinitesimal percentage, rather than the epidemic that seems to be suggested by some. How can you say I am not addressing jockey accountabilty? The guy is stood down for 28 days and has loss of earnings as well as being pilloried by the public. I would say that is doing a pretty good job of bringing him to account for his error. To consider putting forward an alternative solution, two things are necessary.
1. Definite proof that the problem is becoming more widespread and that the current system is not a sufficient deterrent .
2. Possession of a sensible, enforceable, alternative that has a realistic chance of being acceptable to all parties involved.
Pardon me for believing that the current system is not broken and for not choosing to put forward some Walter Mitty notion that would see a jockey having to ride until he was 70 to clear his debt to losing punters.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
I think I got stuck into this one because, as an owner, I’ve been on the sour end of a few really poor rides that cost me a tidy sum.
I would hope that jockeys in question didn’t ride for you again.
I would also assume that Probert will also lose a few rides, not only from this owner, but with others as different jockeys will now get his rides for the next 28 days and in a number of cases keep them.
Interesting topic this one. I appreciate all the responses to my posts. Normally, I just read the forum. Good bunch of lads here, and while we don’t always agree, I did enjoy the banter back and forth. I think I got stuck into this one because, as an owner, I’ve been on the sour end of a few really poor rides that cost me a tidy sum. But my skin is thick and have rolled with it.
Great forum – great sport. Looking forward to Cheltenham.
Scanman, as an owner, how did you deal with the situation? Did you and your trainer have some heated words with the jockeys in question, or were you magnanimous about it at the time?
Interesting topic this one. I appreciate all the responses to my posts. Normally, I just read the forum. Good bunch of lads here, and while we don’t always agree, I did enjoy the banter back and forth. I think I got stuck into this one because, as an owner, I’ve been on the sour end of a few really poor rides that cost me a tidy sum. But my skin is thick and have rolled with it.
Great forum – great sport. Looking forward to Cheltenham.
Understandable reactions but, of course, for every horse that loses because of a riders actions another horse and set of connections gains.
How would you feel if your horse gained a victory due to another jockey not riding out?
I think I got stuck into this one because, as an owner, I’ve been on the sour end of a few really poor rides that cost me a tidy sum.
I would hope that jockeys in question didn’t ride for you again.
I would also assume that Probert will also lose a few rides, not only from this owner, but with others as different jockeys will now get his rides for the next 28 days and in a number of cases keep them.
Neither jockey (one flat, one jumps) never rode for me again.
Probert’s ride will soon be forgotten. He will suffer some loss, but experience has shown me that he’ll pretty much pick up where he left off with different owners and/or trainers.
Interesting topic this one. I appreciate all the responses to my posts. Normally, I just read the forum. Good bunch of lads here, and while we don’t always agree, I did enjoy the banter back and forth. I think I got stuck into this one because, as an owner, I’ve been on the sour end of a few really poor rides that cost me a tidy sum. But my skin is thick and have rolled with it.
Great forum – great sport. Looking forward to Cheltenham.
Scanman, as an owner, how did you deal with the situation? Did you and your trainer have some heated words with the jockeys in question, or were you magnanimous about it at the time?
TYF, that’s a great question.
On both occasions, I was somewhat livid, but had to reel in that emotion and act professionally. The racing community is pretty small, so it was handled separately and quietly with both parties. I had a quiet word with the jockeys on both occasions because I wanted to hear if they had any information that would explain the ride. After providing nothing that would mitigate the ride, I watched the replay numerous times and then discussed it with the trainer.
Karma being what it might be, we won a couple of nice races with both horses shortly thereafter.
"Failing to ride out" (for a win) is such an rare infraction, but when it happens it brings out so much unnecessary negative attention to the sport.
No it doesn’t. People in racing often say things like this but the reality is that such transgressions don’t even register in the ‘real’ world. Such minor affairs tend to go virtually unreported – perhaps 20 seconds on Sky Sports News and a couple of lines in the racing pages of the nationals.
Walk down the street and ask anyone who’s not interested in racing about ‘the David Probert ride’ and precisely 100% of them will not have a clue what you’re talking about.
Outside of racing, it doesn’t create any ‘negative attention’ at all.
Mike
Interesting topic this one. I appreciate all the responses to my posts. Normally, I just read the forum. Good bunch of lads here, and while we don’t always agree, I did enjoy the banter back and forth. I think I got stuck into this one because, as an owner, I’ve been on the sour end of a few really poor rides that cost me a tidy sum. But my skin is thick and have rolled with it.
Great forum – great sport. Looking forward to Cheltenham.
Understandable reactions but, of course, for every horse that loses because of a riders actions another horse and set of connections gains.
How would you feel if your horse gained a victory due to another jockey not riding out?
Yes, that is true. Someone will always gain due to someone else’s failure. I just don’t think that’s a justification for the failure. I also think the 28-day ban isn’t enough, but I think we kind of beat that into the ground.
I put forth an unconventional idea that was disagreed with. That’s fine. That’s the beauty of the forum.
Now to your question. As an owner, it hasn’t happened yet. I imagine I would have mixed feelings. As a punter, I felt incredibly lucky because I
have been
on the winning side of a jockey not riding out. But by the time I got up to the walking ring, I was hoping that the guilty jockey was still in one piece.
Some of you might remember this. I was at Bangor a few years ago and it was the next to last race, a conditional jockey’s hurdle. I had a decent bet on Monsieur and was standing near the last hurdle. Jeanry had a clear lead as they jumped the last, so after watching I made my way back to the hill. A few moments later, I heard this mighty roar. Evidently, Chris Timmons stopped riding and got caught on the line by Monsieur (Matt Griffiths). Obviously suprised by the noise, I quickened my pace to find out that my punt was a winner. I already had a rather profitable day, but this was kind of the cherry on top. I was visiting a number of racecourses that week, so the extra money came in handy. In case you are interested in the news report: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/racing … ungle.html .
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.