July 5, 2007 at 13:17 #4538
In light of the authorities deciding that Dettori’s actions were so severe that he deserves to be banned for a fortnight, am I alone in thinking that given the distances involved in the Queen Anne and that Dettori has improved his placing by flagrantly disregarding the rules that his mount should be disqualified?July 5, 2007 at 13:31 #106199
In light of the authorities deciding that Dettori’s actions were so severe that he deserves to be banned for a fortnight, am I alone in thinking that given the distances involved in the Queen Anne and that Dettori has improved his placing by flagrantly disregarding the rules that his mount should be disqualified?
This is a discussion that has been going on for a while.
My opinion is why should the horse be punished, why should the horse lose the race when he did nothing wrong.
You have to remember, under the HRA rules regarding reversing placings and disqualifications, a horse can only be disqualified if it prevents another horse from winning in the eyes of the stewards. Therefore as Ramonti didn’t interfere with any other horse or prevent any other horse from winning then under the rules of the HRA it was impossible for them to disqualify Ramonti.
The person that broke the rules was Frankie Dettori and he has been punished accordingly. In my opinion the decision to ban Dettori and leave Ramonti as the winner was the only decision they could make and the correct one.
MikeJuly 5, 2007 at 13:44 #106201
I would be dead against any disqualification for such minor offences despite the 14 day ban, suspension of the jockey is sufficient. We’re already far stricter than the likes of Ireland and America regards whip use.Think racing would become a farce, Soldiers Tale and Maze would be 2 others to have suffered the same fate at Royal Ascot.
Thought it was a cracking ride from Frankie to pull the race out of the fire personally.
I’ve no interest in lots of races being decided by stewards rather than horses. People would just stop betting on horse racing.July 5, 2007 at 14:01 #106204the welsh wizardMember
- Total Posts 352
The argument against disqualifying horses whose jockey’s have been found guilty of whip mis-use often seems to be along the lines of "Why punish the horse, he/she has done nothing wrong". I do not see any reason in this argument. Take for example, the hands and heels apprentice races that go on under Flat and NH rules. If a jockey picked up his stick and whacked his mount 7 or 8 times, while the other jocks stuck to the rules and rode with just hands and heels, then I wouldn’t think that any reasonable person would object to that horse being disqualified (In actual fact, under current Rules of Racing, it couldn’t be). Why then, should it be any different, if one horse’s rider breaks the rules regarding whip abuse in order to secure victory, especially if he has done so by such an extent that he lands a 14-day ban? It defies all logic that horses whose riders have broken the rules are allowed to keep the race.July 5, 2007 at 14:02 #106205
Maze and Soldiers Tale wouldn’t have been affected. Their riders haven’t been banned for a fortnight. I don’t belive that innapropriate use of the whip, which the authorities decide is punishable by a 14 day ban is a ‘minor offence.’ Whilst you may praise Dettori for pulling the race out of the fire, isn’t there a possibility, or likelihood even that the riders of the placed horses could have got that extra bit out of their mount if they’d have shown the disregard for the rules that Dettori did.July 5, 2007 at 14:16 #106209Happy JackParticipant
- Total Posts 515
Re: potential disqualification of a horse like Ramonti, the question that has got to be asked in these cases is thus: how can it be conclusively proved that thrashing seven bells of b*ggery out of a horse makes it run that little bit faster than if it was hit fairly and within the laws, or just given a very strong hands and heels ride. I don’t think it can. Every horse responds to the whip in a different way and a law disqualifying horses that were hit outside of the rules would be unworkable.July 5, 2007 at 14:17 #106210
Maze and Soldiers Tale wouldn’t have been affected.
Why not, their riders broke the rules and won by small margins.
welsh wizard you say it defies all logic not to disqualify horses whose riders break the rules when in effect the opposite would be the truth. are you suggesting every horse whose rider commits any piece of careless riding is disqualified?
Does a football team automatically lose the match if they commit a lot of fouls?
I think this is a case which the authorities have very much got right.July 5, 2007 at 14:26 #106212
Also, what yo have got to remember is that it works perfectly well when the roles are reversed.
By that I mean, if a horse wanders about and interferes with another horse with the jockey not being able to do anything about it, then the horse gets disqualified and the jockey suffers no punishment – which is absolutely correct, why should a jockey be punished if a horses veers aross the track and bumps another horse.
So on the other hand, why should a horse be disqualified if it does everything asked of it, runs a straight line and wins a race on pure merit, even though the jockey exceeded the amount of times he is allowed to use the whip.
The rule on disqualifying horses and giving jockeys bans for whip abuse or careless riding etc is very clear and 100% correct in my opinion, though I also totally agree that it does look a bit contradictory that a jockey can break a rule and the horse keep a race. But like I said, a horse can break a rule and the jockey doesn’t get punished so it works both ways.
MikeJuly 5, 2007 at 14:29 #106213
I’ve answered that point with the sentence that follows the one you have quoted.
I’m not saying that minor offences that are punishable by up to 3 days or so should see horses disqualified, but when was the last time a jockey was banned for 14 days for a single offence, Not one that comes under the totting up procedure, but one that was so bad that the rider was banned for a fortnight.July 5, 2007 at 14:43 #106215
I’m not saying that minor offences that are punishable by up to 3 days or so should see horses disqualified, but when was the last time a jockey was banned for 14 days for a single offence, Not one that comes under the totting up procedure, but one that was so bad that the rider was banned for a fortnight.
david, I don’t know how you can differentiate, Soldiers Tale won by a head and Murtagh got 6 days for his whip use, would he have won without it? and Maze won by a neck and Ffrench got 2 bans for careless and whip use.
Don’t think there would have been an outcry if Frankie had got the same ban as Murtagh.July 5, 2007 at 14:45 #106216witParticipant
- Total Posts 2155
isn’t it a question of first asking why the rule / instruction is there, and then tailoring the sanction in that direction ?
shouldn’t get too anthropomorphic about the horse – its not like it doesn’t get fed if its disqualified, though i suppose it might be deprived of a level of activity at stud.
but "not punishing the horse" doesn’t wash as a reason – if it did, why then "punish the horse" for being drugged, taking a longer wrong course, or whatever ?
while i wasn’t looking, i see that the hra seems finally to have put up a pdf of the rules and instructions of racing:
the one-line introduction says that "The Rules of Racing are in place primarily to ensure a level playing field and to protect the safety and welfare of the horse and rider."
for a whip offence the sanction is "just" side-lining of the jockey from some future rides. there’s not even any automatic forfeiture of the jockey’s economic benefit from the ride.
to me the hra is therefore clearly saying that whip abuse is a "safety and welfare" issue, and not a "level playing field" issue.
if it was a "level playing field" issue, whip abuse would be punishable by disqualification of the horse, which of course would impact others than just the jockey, in particular stretching out as far as punters.
but at the moment the " x times in the last furlong" threshold obviously isn’t regarded in the same light as an " up to x mg of prohibited substance is OK" threshold – its just not seen as capable of affecting the "level playing field"
whether the hra is in fact right in being so dismissive of th ability of whip abuse to impact "level playing field" is for those very much closer to horses to say….
witJuly 5, 2007 at 15:01 #106217GrasshopperParticipant
- Total Posts 2316
“whip” is such an evocative word……..if only someone had had the foresight to call it “the cajoler” when they were first introduced.
I can sympathise with both arguments, though I would have thought that if the JC deem that ‘abuse’ can ‘improve’ a horses position, then I would have though that logic – and the laws of physics – would dictate that it absolutely has to affect the the position of the second horse also.
I concur with DJ and wit on this – in such circumstances, the placed horses are effectively being penalised, as is the jockey and anyone who has backed the combination. If its a level-playing they want, the existing rule solves nothing.July 5, 2007 at 15:15 #106219
It isn’t me that is differentiating, it is the authorities. Hence why one offence was deemed worthy of a 6-day suspension whilst the other over twice as long.July 5, 2007 at 15:22 #106220davidbradyMember
- Total Posts 3901
I have always been an advocate of excessive whip use being sufficient for a horse to lose a race. This is because I don’t believe that the current system of bans for certain numbers of days is anyway near sufficient to deter jockeys from thrashing a win out of a horse, particularly in the higher class races.
However, if horses losing races is deemed too harsh, then I have stated before on the forum that I would like to see a system in place whereby jockeys were banned for a certain number of days but that those days MUST contain a race of AT LEAST EQUAL STATURE to the race where the offence took place.
So if the Ramonti ride was deemed to warrant a 14 day ban, then Frankie misses the next 14 Gr1 days racing (lets say in UK & Ireland only) which, assuming the day before Irish Derby Day is the first day, those days would be:
[list:wuv9z6db]30-Jun Pretty Polly Stakes (IRL)
01-Jul Irish Derby (IRL)
07-Jul Eclipse Stakes
11-Jul Falmouth Stakes
13-Jul July Cup
15-Jul Irish Oaks (IRL)
28-Jul King George Diamond Stakes
01-Aug Sussex Stakes
04-Aug Nassau Stakes
12-Aug Phoenix Stakes (IRL)
21-Aug Juddmonte Intl Stakes
22-Aug Yorkshire Oaks
23-Aug Nunthorpe Stakes
02-Sep Moyglare Stud Stakes (IRL)[/list:u:wuv9z6db]
If the races had to be in that particular country, then instead of the races at the Curragh, he would miss
[list:wuv9z6db]08-Sep Betfred Sprint Cup
15-Sep St Leger
28-Sep QE2 Stakes
29-Sep Meon Valley Fillies Mile
05-Oct Middle Park Stakes & Chevely Park Stakes[/list:u:wuv9z6db]
Obviously 14 days is pretty severe if Frankie (or any jockey) were to miss all those races BUT you’ld have to think that jockeys’ attitudes would change if these were the potential consequences of misuse of the whip.July 5, 2007 at 15:25 #106221
It isn’t me that is differentiating, it is the authorities. Hence why one offence was deemed worthy of a 6-day suspension whilst the other over twice as long.
Thats because Dettori’s offence was far worse than the guys who got a 6 day suspension. Excessive use of the whip normally carries a maximum ban of 7 days, but Dettori’s whip abuse was deemed to far more severe than the norm. In fact, I think it was quoted that he hit the horse 25 times in the space of 2 furlongs, and even worse was not giving the horse time to respond.
The incident was referred to the Horseracing Regulatory Authority by the Ascot stewards who warranted the incident worthy of more punishment than they could impose. The stewards can only impose a maximum of 7 days, but obviously the HRA can impose what they like.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.