- This topic has 34 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
“Punishing the jockey alone will never succeed , when he (or she) can be covertly rewarded by a billionaire for getting his horse some black type , from breaching the rules.”
THIS.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"The trouble of the above is now the quickest way to stop a horse is give it a few too many hits. No need to find trouble in running etc appreciate this probably doesn’t happen at the highest level but there is bound to be skullduggery in the lower levels
Classic Sir Mark:
“I really don’t want to employ someone who can’t count up to seven.”
Can’t fault his logic tbh.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"The best way to stop it would be to demoted the horse that the rules were broken on.
Can’t think of anything worse than a tight finish were the winner has broken the rules to win yet gets rewarded for doing so. So unfair to the loser but it’s understandable why it happens as the punishment is worth it
It’s like robbing a bank, getting to keep the money but having to spend a week in jail. We would all be lined up outside the bank waiting for the doors to open.
The low grade racing would possibly be happy for a winner to be demoted for skull duggery reasons which is a shame as a blanket rule would be best.
In the big races I’d certainly thrown out the rule breakerGaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
Regarding punters, don’t most off course books pay out on FPTP and amended result anyway?
My view is that if you have to break the rules to win, you don’t deserve it and this rule can’t come a moment too soon.
Whether or not you agree with said rules is a different matter but you sign up to them by participating and if you don’t like them then campaign for them to be changed or go and make your living elsewhere.
“My view is that if you have to break the rules to win, you don’t deserve it…”
I agree completely; however, contrast this with football and other sports where, for example, tactical fouling goes on all the time and doesn’t result in forfeiture of the match.
It’s a fair point Glad and something that went through my head as I wrote it.
I think however that the best comparisons are sports such as athletics and motor racing as they have the same concept of multiple competitors on a track all trying to reach the line first.
You often get a bit of pushing and shoving in distance races in athletics which is accepted although DQs are pretty rare. Drugs are of course a far bigger issue but that’s a different story.
You often hear talk of a line between ‘fair racing’ and a punishable offence in motor racing. Time penalties are reasonably common in Formula 1 for breaches. F1 has the same issue as horse racing for what might be described as ‘questionable’ decisions by the stewards. It will always be subjective.
Actually, can you really compare racing to anything? We’re dealing with animals. A human running or driving a car is far easier to police than one riding half a tonne of thoroughbred.
“Don’t most off course books pay out on FPTP and amended result anyway?”
Yes, for now. Under the current rules, very few results are amended (as some high profile races have proved recently. The concession costs the bookmakers very little. It is a gesture of good will that is good for business.
If the rules on interference are ever changed making disqualifications more likely, or if results start to be amended because of misuse of the whip, I am not sure how long that gesture of good will would last. Although it sounds like the suggested new rule will not be invoked much, so maybe it will be OK.
Until recently, the interference rules were stricter in France and it was more common for results to be amended. I am fairly sure the British bookmakers only paid on the official result on French racing.
I think the point that jockeys need to carry whips for safety reasons is not clear cut. In my experience the use of the whip quite often makes the horse veer of a straight line e’g. The Ridler at Ascot and in that case could have resulted in a nasty accident.
Once again it will the interpretation and application of the rules by the Stewards that will be crucial, and on recent evidence it’s difficult to see everyone being happy with the outcomes.
Whatever they are doing they need to make sure punters are properly informed of the consequences for the bet they have placed.
I’m fairly certain it will be a first past the post rule for all as disqualification will happen post official result. The dreaded klaxon wont sound for a whip overuse.
That said though, it means any punter who has backed a promoted horse will not see any money for it, it will just be the connections of the horse. Unless bookies payout twice, something that does happen now but they are not going to want another rule in place that provides more possible situations of double payouts arising.According to a few jocks it’s going to be an extremely rare occasion that this happens now anyway as the rule will be in place and will be vehemently adhered to. It makes sense, why would you overuse the whip if you know the consequences are definite.
Hanagan should have pulled his whip through to the other hand at Ascot. It was dangerous because he used the whip incorrectly.
While proper use of the whip can win races, I believe the whip can lose races as well. I think this year’s Ribblesdale was a good example. Sea Silk Road got to the front under hands and heels riding from Marquand. He then gave her a back hander which caused her to drift to the left and lose momentum. By the time he got her organised again, she had been headed and got beaten despite closing again at the finish.
Henry Daly has just been on Radio 4, trying to explain the changes. Didn’t sound altogether convincing.
“Don’t most off course books pay out on FPTP and amended result anyway?”
It sounds like the bookmakers are not committing themselves to paying out on both results if there is a disqualification over a whip offence:
https://www.racingtv.com/news/bookmakers-wait-on-more-information-regarding-new-whip-policy
I give up with this lot running British racing. So many contradictions in these rules.
A sledgehammer to crack a peanut springs to mind. How many times in the last 12 months would a horse have been disqualified if the rules had already been in place?
Why is it acceptable to encourage a horse with the whip in the backhand position but not the forehand? Will any members of the General Public, who care and who object to use of the whip be satisfied that it will only be allowed in the backhand position?
The real matters that need attention continue to get sweet FA from the BHA. Look at the pathetic field sizes and prize money again today. How much evidence do the clowns require that there is far too much racing? I’m sure the way racing is run in this country is turning people off the sport.
Does anyone really trust anyone like the Haydock stewards who dished out the Havlin ban, to be always able to distinguish what a whip stroke constitutes and get it right?
Yet we had a BHA spokesman called Naylor stating that the BHA were not embarrassed at all by the Haydock farce and all stewards do a great job. They should have been embarrassed, millions of pounds at stake and clowns like that deciding where it goes.I know they don’t pay out if the wrong course taken or anything to weighing in/out incorrectly (the potential for betting skullduggery is obvious) so being selective isn’t without precedent.
It’s all very well saying that they can deal with this like doping where they work it out later and the betting result stands but everyone punting the second horse still loses out, as they do now. I accept that most punters have probably both lost out and benefitted from jockeys breaking the rules.
Depends how long it takes them to determine it, if it will be similar to any stewards enquiry now then disqualify them before the weighed in signal is given. I don’t think you can have any complaints not getting paid out on a horse that wouldn’t have won if the jockey stuck to the rules.
“Why is it acceptable to encourage a horse with the whip in the backhand position but not the forehand?”
Just watched a race at Yarmouth where Hollie Doyle gave the winner at least three good smacks with the whip in the forehand position.
I am not convinced the horse would have won otherwise.
“The real matters that need attention continue to get sweet FA from the BHA.”
Agree. One of the main issues is jockeys making no attempt to keep their horses straight. The rules should be far more strictly enforced on that issue rather than all this worrying about the whip.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.