- This topic has 50 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
When things get dangerous Yeats (and this imo was dangerous) the punter is secondary.
You’re not seriously suggesting these rules are in place for the benefit of punters? Since when have the BHA ever done anything for punters benefit? The BHA want punters to lose, they get more levy, they want bookmakers to win not punters.
It just so happens the rules suit most sensible punters as well.
It’s always been a difficult area and always will be. The precedent set today could return and bite racing if a future instance does result in death or serious injury. If exactly the same manoeuvre caused a jockey’s death, they could not, based on today, disqualify the winner.
I’ll leave you to imagine the press headlines and the fallout for the sport
It’s always been a difficult area and always will be. The precedent set today could return and bite racing if a future instance does result in death or serious injury. If exactly the same manoeuvre caused a jockey’s death, they could not, based on today, disqualify the winner.
I’ll leave you to imagine the press headlines and the fallout for the sport
I didn’t see today’s incident but I felt the precedent was set already when Al Kazeem interfered with Mukhadram in the 2013 Eclipse. Several poster here, including Gingertipster, felt that Al Kazeem should have been disqualified because the interference was dangerous. The Stewards deemed that the interference hadn’t improved Al Kazeem’s finishing position with Mukhadram and he kept the race.
Was today’s offence worse than the Al Kazeem affair?
I must admit to preferring that the best horse on the day keeps the race wherever possible. I will never forget a thick bet I had on Henry Cecil’s Sabrehill at 13/8 and he won by four lengths but was disqualified because Michael Roberts caused a microscopic amount of interference as he gently rolled his mount out to begin his challenge. It would be laughable to disqualify a horse for that these days.
Of course safety is paramount but it’s a dangerous and unpredictable sport where jockeys are told that they must ride their horse to achieve the best possible position. If we create a culture of disqualification, jockeys will be afraid to go all out and we will see many more cases of the best horse not winning the race. It will also be an ideal excuse for not achieving the best position, citing concern for causing interference as the reason for not getting out soon enough, and there is already enough talk of non-triers and disguised ability as it is.
Meanwhile the Stewards are doing a sterling job of getting to the bottom of reasons why horses ran poorly.
Todays 4.05 at Doncaster:-
The Stewards considered the running of HOT STREAK (IRE), ridden by Oisin Murphy and trained by Kevin Ryan, which finished unplaced. The Stewards noted the explanation of the trainer’s representative that the colt ran flat. The Veterinary Officer reported that a post-race examination of the colt failed to reveal any abnormalities.
So, the horse was as flat as a witch’s diddy, that clears that up then and we’ll all sleep easier in our beds tonight.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
The best horse clearly won. Peslier could of got a baguette out of his jock strap and eaten it letting the others pass and still would of won but the others mainly Royston and his horse would of been happy to not press past and go for the line but do the in thing these days and stick the fav in a pocket for as long as possible.
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
The best horse clearly won. Peslier could of got a baguette out of his jock strap and eaten it letting the others pass and still would of won but the others mainly Royston and his horse would of been happy to not press past and go for the line but do the in thing these days and stick the fav in a pocket for as long as possible.
Then maybe Peslier should have stayed at the back of the field and out of potential trouble if the horse is that good?
He should of done Matron as the runner up Antiquarium and the horse that finish third were both way out the back from start into the straight. It depends though as some horses will lose motivation if not running in the middle of a pack or in a position they are most happy.
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
It’s always been a difficult area and always will be. The precedent set today could return and bite racing if a future instance does result in death or serious injury. If exactly the same manoeuvre caused a jockey’s death, they could not, based on today, disqualify the winner.
I’ll leave you to imagine the press headlines and the fallout for the sport
That presumes that it is always the winning horse or jockey who causes the interference, why would it just apply to the winner?
Every incident should be treated on it’s merit and for consistency and fairness the same penalty should apply whether a winner or not, which is why just the jockey should be punished unless it involves dangerous riding or the result is affected.
On the odd occasion in the past when a jockey has been unseated following an incident this has usually been the deciding factor that has led to disqualification, although whether that should be the deciding factor is questionable.
I’ve been waiting for many years for all these forecasts of all these serious injuries and deaths that are going to be caused by all this “dangerous” riding. I’m still waiting, it just doesn’t happen here.
If he had not of barged his way out would he have won? mmmmmm Don’t Know !!
Peslier barges out and wins and Jim Crowley on The Corsican doesn’t and we all chastise Crowley for a bad ride.Personally I think the best horse won on this occasion but you do see several incidents every day that bear relevance.
My opinion of a solution would be to disqualify the horse. This is the ony way you are going to stop jockeys making these kind of manoeuvres.
French rules may seem unfair to some but at least you know where you stand as far as disqualifications are concerned.
Plenty of people on here, myself included, could quote lots of examples where the best horse hasn’t won but to usea wellworn phrase “That’s Racing” !
I backed Antiquarium but at no time did I think I was going to get the race.
Something has to be done to avoid repeats of this but in my cynical mind I can’t see it happening.I’ve been waiting for many years for all these forecasts of all these serious injuries and deaths that are going to be caused by all this “dangerous” riding. I’m still waiting, it just doesn’t happen here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1378099/Reckless-riding-by-top-jockeys-ended-my-career.html
Can you imagine the furore and implications had this case succeeded?
The transcript from the case makes for some interesting reading and the judgement effectively boils down to “horse racing is inherently dangerous”. This was fifteen years ago and the incident itself was over twenty years ago. I wonder if a more dim view would be taken today in what is a more sanitised environment.
As the rules stand he kept the race; they are wrong and should be changed.
If you back a horse you are also backing the jockey; if the jockey lacks the foresight to avoid trouble in running, then tough 5h!t, he deserves to be disqualified. The punter will just have to apply an extra level of judgement and consider the likelihood that the jockey will get himself boxed in. Neither jockey nor punter should expect a bad rule to come to their rescue.
If a jockey knows with almost total certainty that a dangerous manoeuvre like the one under discussion will result in disqualification (+ fine and suspension),no matter how easily he wins, then he might just engage his brain a little earlier and try and avoid getting boxed in.
Not only would a much stricter rule reduce the likelihood of injury to other riders but it would actually encourage jockeys to exercise a higher level of skill. Trainers might eventually twig that they should employ jockeys less likely to get boxed in. All jockeys make errors: as the rules stand, they’re encouraged to try a potentially dangerous tactic to mitigate their misjudgement.If they changed the rules to disqualify any bit of a barge you would soon get fed up with races being spoilt by deliberate blocking in.
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
If they changed the rules to disqualify any bit of a barge you would soon get fed up with races being spoilt by deliberate blocking in.
Also like disqualification for whip use, an open door for corruption.
If they changed the rules to disqualify any bit of a barge…
If we have so little confidence in our stewards that we don’t think they’re capable of judging what’s dangerous and what’s just a bit of an accidental brush, then we might as well say to hell with it jocks, use whatever force you can muster to bash anything in your way sideways, we’re too afraid of making possibly contoversial decisions.
Contact in races is inevitable but just because a horse goes on to win comfortably should not mean all the sins of the rider must be forgiven. If this (at Goodwood) had been a slight brush then, even with the old rules in place, one might have hoped common sense would have prevailed and the result would have been allowed to stand. It wasn’t though,it was a deliberate action that resulted in more than a slight coming together of two horses, yet our rules emasculated the stewards from issuing a sufficient punishment to discourage jockeys from similar decisions. We should hand back that power to them. They’ll make bad decisions I’m sure (they always did in the past), but you shouldn’t revoke a good rule because of occasional mis-application.
Do you think a football referee should dismiss a foul on the grounds that, well, he only lightly kicked his opponents ankle? Of course not. Although that’s not really a fair comparison in this case. It may be better to say would you allow a goal to stand when the scorer has elbowed the front teeth off a defender leaving him bloodied and dazed simply because the defender wouldn’t have stopped the scorer finding the net anyway?Has anyone got the head on replay to stick up here?
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
As the rules stand he kept the race; they are wrong and should be changed.
If you back a horse you are also backing the jockey; if the jockey lacks the foresight to avoid trouble in running, then tough 5h!t, he deserves to be disqualified. The punter will just have to apply an extra level of judgement and consider the likelihood that the jockey will get himself boxed in. Neither jockey nor punter should expect a bad rule to come to their rescue.
If a jockey knows with almost total certainty that a dangerous manoeuvre like the one under discussion will result in disqualification (+ fine and suspension),no matter how easily he wins, then he might just engage his brain a little earlier and try and avoid getting boxed in.
Not only would a much stricter rule reduce the likelihood of injury to other riders but it would actually encourage jockeys to exercise a higher level of skill. Trainers might eventually twig that they should employ jockeys less likely to get boxed in. All jockeys make errors: as the rules stand, they’re encouraged to try a potentially dangerous tactic to mitigate their misjudgement.You are advocating a situation where it is fine for a jockey on an inferior horse, to try to box in a better horse in order to make it more likely the superior horse will not win because his jockey will be too fearful to try to get out in an effort to win the race.
A jockey can plan all he wants about how to execute a race but it rarely pans out exactly as expected, otherwise punters would be beating the bookie a lot more often than they do. If events transpire against you and you are short of room whilst sitting on the horse going best, it is going to be pretty much impossible to convince punters that the correct thing to do is just sit and suffer in the name of the rules, let the inferior horse win and then shout “Tough Titty” to the backers of your mount.
Maybe some viewers would be better watching Dressage if they want to see more controlled horses at work
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
There’s no denying that the situation you refer to will happen (and did happen in the days when the rules on dangerous riding were stricter). Which of the two “evils” is better? Dangerous riding is okay or unsportsmanlike riding is okay? There’s no perfect answer.
What might happen though is that eventually, jockeys who regularly hemmed in horses would find they too were on the receiving end of such treatment; they might all come to realise that employing such tactics is not a win/win situation for the jockey behaving in this way.Would you risk doing so if you thought the jockey you’d just stuffed might be able to do the same to you – maybe in a bigger race than the one you’ve just played around in?
The better jockeys – more capable of avoiding such trouble (admittedly not always possible, even for the best jocks), will rise to the top just as they did in times when rules were more stringent.
I’m sure all the tutors at racing apprentice schools will now be showing the Pesilier ride and saying, “there you go lads (or lasses) don’t bother trying to steer a more trouble free passage, don’t try and use too much brain, just barge your way through and win by a couple of lengths; that’s what great jockeyship is all about.”
You are advocating a situation where it is fine for a jockey on an inferior horse, to try to box in a better horse in order to make it more likely the superior horse will not win because his jockey will be too fearful to try to get out in an effort to win the race.
If I was the connections of the “inferior” horse or for that matter a punter, then I would expect my jockey to maximise my horse’s chance of winning. If that meant boxing something in then so be it, it happens every day of the week, it’s called good race riding.
A jockey can plan all he wants about how to execute a race but it rarely pans out exactly as expected, otherwise punters would be beating the bookie a lot more often than they do. If events transpire against you and you are short of room whilst sitting on the horse going best, it is going to be pretty much impossible to convince punters that the correct thing to do is just sit and suffer in the name of the rules, let the inferior horse win and then shout “Tough Titty” to the backers of your mount.
If events transpire against you then yes “Tough Titty”. What about the backers of a horse that had a chance of reaching the frame that gets intentionally interfered with and finishes one place out of the each way terms? How do you convince those punters that is OK to intentionally deny them a return? I’m sure it will be a great consolation to them to know at least the best horse won as their money goes down the swanee.
Maybe some viewers would be better watching Dressage if they want to see more controlled horses at work
As far as I could see the it wasn’t the horse that needed controlling
Apologies for the bold but I couldn’t find how to change to a different font colour to differentiate
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.