- This topic has 17 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Given the number of comments regarding McCoy’s ride on Get Me Out Of Here I am assuming this ‘masterclass’ from Russell has somehow slipped under the radar.
I share a similar view to Gary O’Brien on ATR. If the horse lost its action, he would have been better off pulling the horse up.
ATR seemed to give this plenty of air time. I didn’t see anything wrong with the ride, the horse looked like he wasn’t loving the ground IMO, and considering the meeting was abandoned after the fourth race due to patchy ground, I think Russell was right not to give the horse such a hard time.
JohnJ
Horse stumbled down the back straight and lost his action. Could and probably should have been pulled up there and then.
I’m a big fan of Russell’s but some of his rides would leave you scratching your head sometimes. Contrast the rides on Far Away So Close and Zagan at Punchestown last week.
Quite simple this one;
The jockey was in the wrong. Quite baffling that the stewards accepted the jockey’s explanation that the horse lost its action.
WELL WHY DID HE WHIP THE HORSE AND RIDE THE ANIMAL OUT IN THE LAST TWO FRULONGS?
Bit of crossed wires here I think. I’m not sure that Davy Russell ever used the term ‘lost its action’. I think he said the horse was never travelling well and was hating the ground.
When replaying the race I think I commented that the horse ‘appeared to lose its action at one point’. Kevin O’Ryan on course described it as ‘stumbling’.
The horse came back onto an even keel and made up much of the ground it lost over the next few furlongs of the race and was close enough turning in to get up into 3rd place in the end. So the pulling up argument is a red herring I think.
For me, I can see why there was an appetite for some explanation. The stewards, rightly , sought out Russell for an explanation.
From there the question for me would be is the jockey’s explanation credible? Is it consistent with what we know?
For me, personally, the answer is yes. His explanation is credible. It’s consistent with what we know about the horse’s form under rules, with what we saw with our own eyes (Kevin O’Ryan thought the horse was in trouble after two flights), with the prevailing conditions and with subsequent events (meeting was abandoned after just one more race due to unsafe ground). Enjoyed the discussion on air though and Gary took a different view to me re the pulling up argument which made for a good debate I thought.Saw plenty of horses stumbling during the races that took place and not the greatest surprise that it was abandoned. Therefore the stewards had little alternative but to accept Russell’s explanation.
Don’t go along with the he should have pulled up theory, hindsight is a wonderful thing and plenty of horses have won despite hating the ground.Sean
You state ïs the jockey’s explanation credible". That’s where a lot of people would differ with you I’m afraid. It’s a case of the boy who cried wolf and if jockeys elect to ride their horses in a certain manner, how can you expect the public not to be sceptical as to whether said horse was ridden on its merits.
It’s not as if Russell’s record is unimpeachable in this respect, Made In Taipan at the same course last year, Mask Of Darkness in Hexham who the BHA looked into.
I agree with you that it wasn’t necessary to pull the horse up as it was conceivable that he could still run on into a place or even win, if as was stated that he wasn’t handling the ground. However, that is taking on trust what the jockey said.
As for the theory from the co host that the horse was hating the ground in keeping with horses sired by Presenting, not to mention his partisan remarks, I would highlight the fact that the dam is a major influence in how horses handle certain ground and Fourstargale, the dam of First Lieutenant relished soft ground and recorded both her wins on testing ground. Before he made his debut on the track proper also, First Lieutenant was successful in a point to point on testing ground and enjoyed that ground according to his previous handler.
Just to avoid any confusion whilst I post as ratpack on BF forum it is someone else on here.
Sorry for interrupting.
Absolute racing certainty thaat the horse will gag up on heavy ground at some point in the future. thatw ill be when they say he’s strengthened up, been taught by Monty Roberts to alter his action to a special heavy ground prance or that old favourite he’s had a wind op!
Ratpack, I understand that some will disagree with my conclusion. That’s fine. For me, personally, I find the explanation given credible.
There was no hint of anything untoward in the market as far as I can see, indeed the horse was extremely strong in the betting. The horse ran third. The winner was put up the day before by Dave Duggan as being a good horse worth following and the runner up was 2/2 with wins in a PtP and bumper prior to yesterday. The runner up was ridden by Andrew Lynch who earlier on ATR said it was the horse he was most looking forward to riding (he had four good chances on the card and had already ridden a winner). The performance of the horse, the market activity, the relative merits of the horses that finished in front of him, the form of the horse coming into the race, the jockey’s explanation all form context in which to assess the ride. In the light of all of that context for me, personally, the explanation is credible.
The stewards (and we for that matter) have no way of predicting what the horse may or may not do in the future.Sean , I think you protest a bit too much ….but in fairness you do have a point , it was bad racing conditions there , the fact that both of your pundits tipped him as a a good bet , the ladbrokes rep interview , can all be viewed with some coloured glasses as far as I am concerned
The Market just reeked of a funny race , from the off he drifted on betfair continually in running , his for me is the most significant benchmark , its as if someone somewhere knew something , he drifted to 1.9 and evens within seconds ….this is a telling sign
I thought your explanation and coverage yesterday was excellent , but something does not ring quite true here , and for me as an onlooker I would not be surprised if this horse behaves a lot better in heavy ground sometime in the near future
cheers
R
I think it was a poor ride full stop as I suspect time will show this horse is a galloper who is unlikely to show a great change of pace. If he was injured he should been pulled up – if not Russell should have been much stronger in the saddle from an earlier stage – he could have done that without resorting to the whip.
Davy Russell seems to be a guest on the Get On show more often than any other Irish NH jockey. I have never heard Sean Boyce criticise any of his rides.
Even more surprisingly there was no comment about the 3.15 at Thurles today where the Stewards should have called in every jockey bar the winner.
Why should Russell have been more forceful? The horse is a only a five year old novice, his future lies over fences. Should Russell have hammered the horse home for the sake of winning a 10k novice hurdle when the owner paid over a quarter of a million euros for the horse.
If I was the owner I would have been more concerned about the welfare of the horse.
JohnJ
Kevin O’Ryan thought the horse was in trouble after two flights
From the greatest spoofer and aftertimer in racing, true insight indeed. If we could have heard that opinion live I would give it more credence. Sadly that is as likely as Micheal Stoute writing a tell-all autobiography.
FWIW, I didn’t have a problem with the ride.Jonathan Mullin wrote in today’s RP that First Lieutenant was injured at Fairyhouse due to the false patches of ground on the inner course. It would seem that Fairyhouse now have an issue with drainage work that was carried out on the inner course, this will not effect the upcoming festival.
JohnJ
Fairyhouse should have their Grade 1s taken off them if they can’t produce proper safe ground. They will argue that the problems are with the inner track but there’s too much money at stake for trainers, owners & punters for this farcical situation to arise again. First Lieutenant was bought for a massive sum of money (1/4 of a million IIRC) and plenty of punters would have had their fingers burned the last day. There’s also the issue of jockey safety if horses are stumbling and losing their action on false ground.
Move the big races to a proper track like Leopardstown or Punchestown until Fairyhouse get their act together. Punchestown had to cancel the festival about ten years ago when they got their drainage sorted.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.