- This topic has 50 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
If all jockeys rode races the way that Peslier did on Saturday the sport would start to resemble tenpin bowling. I’ve always liked him [is it Ascot that rides particularly well?] but was pretty disgusted by the way he barged his way through in that race. I guess that some of the journeyman jockeys can’t afford to risk lengthy bans.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Gingertipster wrote:</div>
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.
You’ve got the wrong end of the stick again Yeats.
When things like this happen the “punter is secondary”. ie Safety of jockeys and horses comes FIRST and “first” by a mile. What might be best for punters comes a distant second and therefore should not come in to it. Whether the best horse won should not come in to it. This was not a case of making a small gap bigger, there was no gap. When a jockey smashes his way out he/she must be disqualified; otherwise in any important/valuable race jockeys are not going to sit and suffer (as Crowley did on The Corsican).Value Is EverythingIt’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
No doubt in my mind Joe that when a very similar incident does end up with death of either jockey or horse they will call it “dangerous” and disqualify the winner. Trouble is that will be too late. Seems horses need to be brought down for them to call it “dangerous” and/or disqualify… It is going to result in more jockeys acting dangerously in future. The fact Saturday did not result in serious injury was just luck.
Value Is EverythingGinger, that’s where the effect of precedent comes in. Supposing exactly the same manoeuvre next week resulted in a jockey’s death. Yes, the stewards this time would classify it as dangerous, but let’s suppose they do and the dead man’s family seek manslaughter charges on the basis of the stewards’ ruling. The defendant’s lawyer would, quite rightly raise Peslier’s case and argue that if that move was not dangerous, then the exact same move by his client could not be, as precedent determined it. Dangerous riding cannot be retro-classified depending on the outcome. The category a riding offence falls into should be decided by the act, not by the result of the act.
Extreme, I know, but that seems to me to be the corner the stewards have painted themselves into.
Ginger, that’s where the effect of precedent comes in. Supposing exactly the same manoeuvre next week resulted in a jockey’s death. Yes, the stewards this time would classify it as dangerous, but let’s suppose they do and the dead man’s family seek manslaughter charges on the basis of the stewards’ ruling. The defendant’s lawyer would, quite rightly raise Peslier’s case and argue that if that move was not dangerous, then the exact same move by his client could not be, as precedent determined it. Dangerous riding cannot be retro-classified depending on the outcome. The category a riding offence falls into should be decided by the act, not by the result of the act.
Extreme, I know, but that seems to me to be the corner the stewards have painted themselves into.
Agreed, “the category a riding offence falls into should be decided by the act, not by the result of the act”. However, I think it is impossible to say two incidents are “the exact same move”, differences/excuses will always be found and it only needs to be minutely different for them to call it “different”. Sadly, where as we’d see one incident as “luck” not to come down… it can always be argued “the other jockey had time to avoid coming down”.
Value Is EverythingYou’ve got the wrong end of the stick again Yeats.
When things like this happen the “punter is secondary”. ie Safety of jockeys and horses comes FIRST and “first” by a mile. What might be best for punters comes a distant second and therefore should not come in to it. Whether the best horse won should not come in to it. This was not a case of making a small gap bigger, there was no gap. When a jockey smashes his way out he/she must be disqualified; otherwise in any important/valuable race jockeys are not going to sit and suffer (as Crowley did on The Corsican).You need to learn to read Gingertipster
But for your benefit I will repeat, the interference rules are not in place for the benefit of punters, if they were, everyone else in racing, owners, trainers and not least jockeys would be up in arms.
Can you answer this question? Do you really believe the current interference rules are in place for the benefit of punters at the expense of the safety of jockey and horse?
The BHA don’t do things for the benefit of punters, no better example than the Ascot farce the previous Saturday.
As it is what you and few other scaremongerers on here consider dangerous riding is not the view of the vast majority in horse racing including the BHA and long may that continue.
By the way The Corsican’s race was a valuable race and although you now say Crowley sat and suffered, you said the other day he made a pigs ear of it
It’s fascinating to see how much the interpretation of the rules has changed in such a short period of time. This is part of a letter from the Racing Post regarding the disqualification of a horse in the Melrose Handicap at York in August 2000:
Malcolm Wallace, the Jockey Club’s director of regulation, says the York stewards acted correctly in disqualifying Jardines Lookout
THE decision last Thursday of the York stewards to demote Jardines Lookout from first place provoked considerable comment in the press, and in the Racing Post in particular.
The impression delivered to the reader was that the verdict was in some way incorrect or irrational. In fact, the York stewards interpreted the incident entirely correctly, a view which appears to be endorsed by the fact that the connections of Jardines Lookout, having taken advice, decided on Wednesday not to proceed with their appeal against the decision.
In pulling out to make his run, Mick Kinane made a manoeuvre, thereby causing interference, when it ought to have been obvious to him that interference would be the result, and consequently he was found guilty of irresponsible riding.
When considering cases of irresponsible riding, the stewards must decide whether the level of interference suffered by other horses and riders can be described as `minor’.
If this is the case, the stewards then consider, like they do with cases of careless and accidental, whether or not the horse causing the interference improved its placing as a result. If they are not so satisfied, the placings remain unaltered.
However, if the level and nature of the interference is deemed serious enough to represent a threat to the safety of other horses and riders, the horse causing the interference must be placed behind those that suffered interference.
As a result of Kinane’s manoeuvre on Jardines Lookout, at least two other horses were impeded to a degree where it could be considered their safety was jeopardised.
You can watch the TV coverage of the race here:
Jardines Lookout is on the inside rail about four from the back on the home tunr, in grey and red colours.
Having read that letter and watched the film, I’m sure you’ll be in no doubt that Dartmouth would have been disqualfied 15 years ago.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>stevecaution wrote:</div>
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
I don’t know how anyone could be comfortable with the idea of deliberately boxing another horse in, far less condoning it as “good race riding”. It is every bit as much cheating as the act of bustling through in the effort to win the race.
I want to watch horses race and see the best horse on the day win wherever possible. If you want to watch jockeys fannying around trying to box each other in, all in the name of good race riding, and see some cuddy lift the pot then that is your prerogative. I suspect the latter scenario would kill the sport in terms of being “Horse Racing” and punter confidence would be eroded.
In any set of rules there will be winners and losers in terms of how the rules impact the result. Someone finishing 4th instead of third will feel aggrieved but I believe that principle of applying the rules as one horse against the other in direct relation to how their relative finishing positions it the most logical and the fairest way to police the sport. In my mind it is far better than the ridiculous scenario where Knockando was placed third after being first past the post back in the day. Because there was a dead heat for second that day, the rules at the time required Knockando to be placed behind the horse suffering minor interference. Had the horse gained second place outright, the result would have been allowed to stand.
The rules back in 1987 meant that a horse could be disqualified for causing just an inch worth of interference in certain circumstances and I find that utterly farcical. The current rules are much better in my opinion. The rules are what they are at the moment and long may they continue. If anyone doesn’t think they are correct, then the answer is simple, don’t have a bet. For owners who don’t like the rules, the answer is simple, don’t enter your horse. It is worth considering that the rules that go against you one day, may just come up and save you another day when your horse is the one who caused interference but keeps the race because common sense prevailed and the best horse kept the race, while the jockey was punished for his transgression.
Opinion will always be divided but accidents and tragedies will happen from time to time whatever the rules are and I would hardly say the current rules are causing an epidemic of carnage across the tracks of the UK.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>aaronizneez wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>stevecaution wrote:</div>
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
I don’t know how anyone could be comfortable with the idea of deliberately boxing another horse in, far less condoning it as “good race riding”. It is every bit as much cheating as the act of bustling through in the effort to win the race.
I want to watch horses race and see the best horse on the day win wherever possible. If you want to watch jockeys fannying around trying to box each other in, all in the name of good race riding, and see some cuddy lift the pot then that is your prerogative. I suspect the latter scenario would kill the sport in terms of being “Horse Racing” and punter confidence would be eroded.
Well I’m not sure what sport I’ve been watching for all these years. If there are two horses following a leader and it’s getting to the business end of a race are you really suggesting that A – the jockey on the horse one off the rail should let the horse on the rail out (not keeping it boxed in) and B – It’s OK for the jockey on the rail just to barge his way out regardless of the consequences? I can hear the conversation between trainer and jockey now
Trainer : Why did you let that other horse off the rail son?
Jockey : Well he’s the best horse guvnor
Trainer : Oh well that’s alright then
I’m not sure I know a jockey of any worth that would do scenario A but I do know at least one that would do scenario B. The first is certainly not cheating the second certainly is.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>stevecaution wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>aaronizneez wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>stevecaution wrote:</div>
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
I don’t know how anyone could be comfortable with the idea of deliberately boxing another horse in, far less condoning it as “good race riding”. It is every bit as much cheating as the act of bustling through in the effort to win the race.
I want to watch horses race and see the best horse on the day win wherever possible. If you want to watch jockeys fannying around trying to box each other in, all in the name of good race riding, and see some cuddy lift the pot then that is your prerogative. I suspect the latter scenario would kill the sport in terms of being “Horse Racing” and punter confidence would be eroded.
Well I’m not sure what sport I’ve been watching for all these years. If there are two horses following a leader and it’s getting to the business end of a race are you really suggesting that A – the jockey on the horse one off the rail should let the horse on the rail out (not keeping it boxed in) and B – It’s OK for the jockey on the rail just to barge his way out regardless of the consequences? I can hear the conversation between trainer and jockey now
Trainer : Why did you let that other horse off the rail son?Jockey : Well he’s the best horse guvnor
Trainer : Oh well that’s alright then
I’m not sure I know a jockey of any worth that would do scenario A but I do know at least one that would do scenario B. The first is certainly not cheating the second certainly is.
You are getting silly now, so we will leave it there.
The rules are what they are, if you can’t deal with that then don’t bet.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
I would disagree with who is being silly,but as you indicate I will leave it there after this post. You are quite correct in saying the rules are what they are, it’s who is interpreting them that is the problem. The stewards on the day didn’t think the move was deliberate, others myself included thought it was. If the stewards had decided it was deliberate then I am told the horse would have been disqualified as per the current rules ( Dangerous Riding 53.3)
It’s fascinating to see how much the interpretation of the rules has changed in such a short period of time. This is part of a letter from the Racing Post regarding the disqualification of a horse in the Melrose Handicap at York in August 2000:
Malcolm Wallace, the Jockey Club’s director of regulation, says the York stewards acted correctly in disqualifying Jardines Lookout
THE decision last Thursday of the York stewards to demote Jardines Lookout from first place provoked considerable comment in the press, and in the Racing Post in particular.
The impression delivered to the reader was that the verdict was in some way incorrect or irrational. In fact, the York stewards interpreted the incident entirely correctly, a view which appears to be endorsed by the fact that the connections of Jardines Lookout, having taken advice, decided on Wednesday not to proceed with their appeal against the decision.
In pulling out to make his run, Mick Kinane made a manoeuvre, thereby causing interference, when it ought to have been obvious to him that interference would be the result, and consequently he was found guilty of irresponsible riding.
When considering cases of irresponsible riding, the stewards must decide whether the level of interference suffered by other horses and riders can be described as `minor’.
If this is the case, the stewards then consider, like they do with cases of careless and accidental, whether or not the horse causing the interference improved its placing as a result. If they are not so satisfied, the placings remain unaltered.
However, if the level and nature of the interference is deemed serious enough to represent a threat to the safety of other horses and riders, the horse causing the interference must be placed behind those that suffered interference.
As a result of Kinane’s manoeuvre on Jardines Lookout, at least two other horses were impeded to a degree where it could be considered their safety was jeopardised.
You can watch the TV coverage of the race here:
<iframe width=”1170″ height=”878″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/YsMWukLyQqM?feature=oembed” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=””></iframe>
Jardines Lookout is on the inside rail about four from the back on the home tunr, in grey and red colours.
Having read that letter and watched the film, I’m sure you’ll be in no doubt that Dartmouth would have been disqualfied 15 years ago.
Have you got the head on Alan? On second thoughts we don’t need it do we to see the injustice done here, there were plenty of other races similar as well.
No wonder they had to change the rules, you say there is no doubt that Dartmouth would have been disqualified 15 years ago but you could turn that on it’s head and say just how many injustices like Jardine’s Lookout would have been averted with today’s rules in place.
And bear in mind there was never any possibility of Dartmouth being disqualified on Saturday as no stewards enquiry was even announced prior to the weigh in. I do find that fact baffling though.
Yeats,
I don’t think the head on was ever shown even at the time, probably because the incident took place so early in the straight that it wouldn’t have been visible. Kinane and connections were furious at the time because Eddery had got away with what seemed an identical move two days earlier in the International. I was pretty furious too as I had a £7000/700 Jardines Lookout – apologies for the aftertiming – but that’s why this particular race stuck in my memory.
I would disagree with who is being silly,but as you indicate I will leave it there after this post. You are quite correct in saying the rules are what they are, it’s who is interpreting them that is the problem. The stewards on the day didn’t think the move was deliberate, others myself included thought it was. If the stewards had decided it was deliberate then I am told the horse would have been disqualified as per the current rules ( Dangerous Riding 53.3)
Spot on.
Value Is Everything<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>aaronizneez wrote:</div>
I would disagree with who is being silly,but as you indicate I will leave it there after this post. You are quite correct in saying the rules are what they are, it’s who is interpreting them that is the problem. The stewards on the day didn’t think the move was deliberate, others myself included thought it was. If the stewards had decided it was deliberate then I am told the horse would have been disqualified as per the current rules ( Dangerous Riding 53.3)Spot on.
Exactly – he new what he could get away in the UK.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Gingertipster wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>aaronizneez wrote:</div>
I would disagree with who is being silly,but as you indicate I will leave it there after this post. You are quite correct in saying the rules are what they are, it’s who is interpreting them that is the problem. The stewards on the day didn’t think the move was deliberate, others myself included thought it was. If the stewards had decided it was deliberate then I am told the horse would have been disqualified as per the current rules ( Dangerous Riding 53.3)Spot on.
Exactly – he new what he could get away in the UK.
It would be a bad jockey who didn’t know the rules of the country he is riding in.
However to say he got away with it is hardly true, seeing he got a 7 day ban, something that will cost him considerably more than the jockey’s percentage of 46 grand.
Some jockeys just have the hunger to win even if it costs them in the pocket.
One thing that should be encouraged as much as possible on our idiosyncratic tracks are false running rails in the straight. Just look at the difference they have made at tracks like Chester, Dundalk, Goodwood (when they have one) and even Newmarket.
Cut away rails make a massive difference to the amount of interference in races and the more there are, the better
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.