- This topic has 76 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
….oh hang on a minute…not allowed that is it!
A tremendous ride, horse hanging into other, did his very best to keep it straight and then won the day in thrilling style in a great finish….
I’m sure I counted at least 12-13…
Poor lad!
Agreed Zam,great ride from Aidan Coleman,poor ride from Carberry,it looked to me like both jockeys broke the current rules through trying their hardest,both horses responded well and funnily enough both horses have lived to fight another day.Another perfect example of a race proving just how pathetic these new rules are and on this occassion emphasising how anyone thinks that 5 strikes after the last at Aintree on Soft ground was ever going to work is beyond me! The BHA spent 10 months of research and then think 5 after the last will suit all courses!
Those i call REAL supporters of racing knew this would happen.those with their heads up their Ar*es will come out with their usual drivel that rules are equal for all crap.I see the best price for next years jockey losing his percentage in the Grand National is now 1/5, says it all! To simply keep insulting those with differing views is generally the preserve of the morally bankrupt Kingfisher.
Get a grip mate, and grow up a bit !!I backed the runner-up but saw little wrong with Carberry’s ride – he was the victim of bad luck.
Approaching two out, he had the option of going outside the winner – he chose inside, as most jocks probably would.
Asked for a big one at the last, his mount put down on him instead and then lugged badly left trying to recover. The winner hung towards him from then – though Coleman had his whip in the correct hand – and the race was lost at the Elbow when Carberry had to switch.
Carberry’s poor luck rather than Coleman’s rule-breaking cost Linnel the race, imo. I found it interesting that Carberry put his whip down some way from the post after 5 smacks: the horse was running on and giving everything and good for PC that he did not give it one or two more fruitless strokes.
Never argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience, then onlookers might not be able to tell the difference. https://lazybet.com/
- Total Posts 17716
Didn’t have a bet in the race, but I’m convinced Carberry would have won allowed one more stroke; two at the most.
The jump at the last cost him momentum, as did the switch at the elbow, but he was gaining ground from thereon in, and I’d defy anyone to say categorically the horse wouldn’t have found more.Disagree Reet, I too backed the second (and third, and the winner (only saver
)). But I don’t think the whip made the difference. ie I don’t think Linnel would’ve won with one, two or five more slaps. The mistake and being carried accross the course did the damage. That and being a Arther Moore trained, Carberry ridden horse. Those from that particular combination rarely find much for pressure.According to RUK Coleman hit his mount 11 times and loses his prize money. Good, anyone who breaks the rules by that much deserves nothing. It’s also questionable whether hitting the horse so many times actually helped Stewarts House, wandering under pressure. Although may be it helped get in the way of his rival. Noticable Linnel ran on better after Carberry put his whip down.
The new rules were always going to be more severely tested under extreme conditions. Disappointing Coleman could not keep to them, but had we not had the new rules in place we may have seen 16 or more stikes with the whip. 11 is much better than 16+.
A tight finish over an extreme trip on heavy ground. Something some "real" racing fans said would be a thing of the past.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
When I said "anyone", I meant anyone sensible!
Didn’t have a bet in the race, but I’m convinced Carberry would have won allowed one more stroke; two at the most.
The jump at the last cost him momentum, as did the switch at the elbow, but he was gaining ground from thereon in, and I’d defy anyone to say categorically the horse wouldn’t have found more.Carberry only hit his horse 6 times, all from the Elbow (unless he hit it in the few rare times he was out of TV shot – and there’d be no reason to as he was in a nice rhythm) So if he’d thought another stroke or two would have helped, he had them in reserve.
Coleman only hit his horse 5 times from the Elbow – the final two strokes did not seem to make any difference – the horse didn’t quicken for either of them nor was he showing any signs of giving in.
Switching at the Elbow was the decider, far and away, rather than the whip, in my opinion.
Never argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience, then onlookers might not be able to tell the difference. https://lazybet.com/
A ban for Coleman and loss of winnings amounting to £2500.
That can’t be right. It seems a terribly harsh penalty for trying your best.
They should hand out those fines for non triers not the other way about.- Total Posts 17716
Steeplechasing
Unless I’ve missed an update somewhere, NH jockeys are only allowed 5 strokes after the last obstacle, which means Paul Carberry had used up his quota – and it showed.A ban for Coleman and loss of winnings amounting to £2500.
That can’t be right. It seems a terribly harsh penalty for trying your best.
They should hand out those fines for non triers not the other way about.But he didn’t try his "best". Had he tried his best he’d have kept within the rules.
Value Is EverythingSteeplechasing
Unless I’ve missed an update somewhere, NH jockeys are only allowed 5 strokes after the last obstacle, which means Paul Carberry had used up his quota – and it showed.Wasn’t the last fence figure done away with along with the (flat racing) furlong marker Reet?
Value Is EverythingSteeplechasing
Unless I’ve missed an update somewhere, NH jockeys are only allowed 5 strokes after the last obstacle, which means Paul Carberry had used up his quota – and it showed.There was an update. It was in all the papers, so it must be true. But maybe your preferred internet/press news, or racing news, provider did not think it was worth mentioning.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/oct/21/whip-jockeys-british-horseracing-authority
A ban for Coleman and loss of winnings amounting to £2500.
That can’t be right. It seems a terribly harsh penalty for trying your best.
They should hand out those fines for non triers not the other way about.But he didn’t try his "best". Had he tried his best he’d have kept within the rules.
If the rules were coherent on a 440yd run in at Aintree i’m sure he would have kept within the rules. These arbitrary rules are as far from coherent as they can be.
You either want jocks trying to win, or you don’t. Which is it GT?I see the best price for next years jockey losing his percentage in the Grand National is now 1/5, says it all!
I can see the headlines in the worlds press on National day 2012 now …
"Every jock that finished forfeited his prize money and received a 10 day or more ban for using his heavily cushioned whip 11 or more times during the four and a half mile race"
The loud guffawing from across the entire sporting world would be the ultimate humiliation for an already crippled sport.
I see the best price for next years jockey losing his percentage in the Grand National is now 1/5, says it all!
I can see the headlines in the worlds press on National day 2012 now …
"Every jock that finished forfeited his prize money and received a 10 day or more ban for using his heavily cushioned whip 11 or more times during the four and a half mile race"
The loud guffawing from across the entire sporting world would be the ultimate humiliation for an already crippled sport.
thats exactly what the jocks should do
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.