- This topic has 12 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
What did he think he had under him a rocket. That must be the one of the worst rides I have ever seen.
Injudicious, and that’s being kind. Horse always seemed to be traveling well, could have laid up much closer
I don’t see why there needs to be an enquiry. He just misjudged the race. Jockeys can’t get it right every time.
Speaking of awful rides watch the first at Tramore today what the jockey was doing on Utmost Zeal I have no idea.
"Burroughhill"]I don’t see why there needs to be an enquiry. He just misjudged the race. Jockeys can’t get it right every time.
It’s their job to get it right, that is what they are paid for unless I am missing something. If you owned the horse and paid the training fees and everything that goes with it I doubt you would be saying that
It’s their job to get it right
Exactly, and that should be the concern of an employer not an enquiry.
That said, I do wonder how anyone can expect a utopian sport where everyone gets everything right all the time. It must be such a pain for you having to take your place in an imperfect society…
never saw the ride, but am interested by the comments here on the lines of "how a horse performs is a private matter between jockey and trainer / owner".
contrast the approach in HK (Michael Cox, SCMP):
=========
Apprentice Dicky Lui Cheuk-yin will be the centre of an upcoming inquiry into his handling of Numero Uno in a Class Three handicap at Sha Tin, where he appeared to endeavour to break a land speed record in the first half of the race.
Whether Lui’s navigation was a case of impropriety or just gross incompetence, he has questions to answer and looks like spending a stretch on the sidelines after his sub-21 second split set up the race for backmarkers to storm home.
Racing is a sport where the protection of the customer and the perception of its integrity is paramount, so whatever Lui’s motives were – whether they be sinister, or he just had no idea how fast he as going, or was unable to control his mount, it doesn’t matter – there’s still a responsibility under the rules to give his horse every possible chance.
It goes without saying that Lui’s "death by lactic acid" tactics didn’t give Numero Uno much hope of catching his breath, let alone achieving the best possible result.
So hard questions will be asked by stewards, and this is where racing differs from other sports – not just because its funding comes primarily from wagering, but that on-field inconsistencies are investigated and, "But sir, it was an honest mistake," or, "I just had a bad day," aren’t valid excuses.
The fact the race winner Racing Hero was heavily backed in the final minutes of betting, and is a horse that requires pace in a race, doesn’t even need to be used as evidence – Lui went way too fast, gave his mount zero chance and his tactics helped facilitate a favourable result for others.
=======================as always Wit ,,very succinct post …customers do matter , cant help feeling though that without exchanges the matter would be a lot more simple to make sense of
However that’s British racing as we have it ….if you bet on it , you accept the risks warts and all
imo
I watched the race myself and said to my da Russell must be sitting on a machine as h didn’t seem one bit worried until very late on.
No need for an enquiry at all – A) he misjudged what he was sitting on or B) the horse didn’t just pick up as he expected on the ground. Jockeys get it wrong sometimes.
Didn’t watch the race until reading this thread and just watched it on the ATR site.
Have to say he got it woefully wrong.
There is an illuminating interview with Davy Russell on ATR’s Youtube where he waxes lyrical about the style of Ruby Walsh and Barry Geraghty. In particular he talks of how Ruby uses his legs to squeeze his horse along whilst appearing to sit motionless. He says when you see Ruby moving his hands there is something wrong either mechanically or the horse simply isn’t putting a shift in.
I cannot help but think Davy has tried to emulate Ruby’s style and because of this he can at times sit too far out of his ground as if he is obsessed about not appearing to push and shove before it is absolutely necessary.
The ride on Stuccodor bears this out. It was also ironic that the horse he sat in behind was a Gigginstown one – presumably he regarded his old boss’ horse the chief danger, underestimating the front too.
Seeing Davy Russell’s name next to an odds on shot would normally temper enthusiasm where my betting is concerned.
It’s their job to get it right
Exactly, and that should be the concern of an employer not an enquiry.
That said, I do wonder how anyone can expect a utopian sport where everyone gets everything right all the time. It must be such a pain for you having to take your place in an imperfect society…
Ha Rob if only we lived in a perfect world. My job does not allow me to make mistakes as I dare say does most peoples.
However I am human and make mistakes. However when I do make a mistake I get in trouble for them and like most jobs if I continue I lose my job.
My point is, some kind of enquiry or explanation should have been forthcoming.
As Wit post shows different jurisdictions view things differently and I beleive their stance is the correct one and it is above board and I dare say the betting public have more faith in their racing than what I have in ours.
Please before any tells me to pack it in I love the sport and will continue to follow it and moan, I would just like it more transparent
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.