- This topic has 76 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
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.They’re now allowed 8 strokes throughout the race – no ‘after the last’ restriction
I despair with some of the postings occurring on this issue.
I could understand if you were irked because jockeys or horses safety was your issue.
It seems that your major concern is that you want jocks to simply be allowed to carry on using the whip until the race is over.
The world has changed guys, and in my respectful view, its about time you realised it. Heads, sand , etc etc.Unless I’ve missed an update somewhere, NH jockeys are only allowed 5 strokes after the last obstacle,
Amazing, all the talk from Reet over the last few weeks and he don’t even know the rules…what a mug….
- Total Posts 17716
Pete
Of all the whip threads on this forum, I might have made about 3 or 4 posts in total.
Clearly, I’m not as obsessed with the subject as you are, nor as keen to jump on someone who made it plain they weren’t sure about some aspect of it.
Now, go back under your bridge, uh?Amazing, all the talk from Reet over the last few weeks and he don’t even know the rules…what a mug….
Pete,it has to be said the REAL Mugs are those that genuinely think the BHA have a clue what they are doing,todays Grand Sefton categorically proves it takes a few more sweeteners than those clowns think to get a horse home around Aintree when there’s a battle royal between those trying to win. Soft ground at Aintree come April and the Sh*t will hit the fan,like i keep saying!
crippled sport.
Nonsense RD, complete nonsense. It’s what some negative people would like to think was happening but it is not.
BHA have a dilemma though. The only real way to get the culture change they want is to have the winner forfeit the prize if the jockey breaks the rules. As long as the winner keeps the race then the pressure/temptation is to say what the hell, take the medicine, and win the race.
BUT the negatives of disqualifying winners are numerous and significant.
Devil and deep blue sea territory, not sure of the solution.
It does seem ‘wrong’ and unfair on the runner-up that a jockey/horse combination (such as Coleman/Stewarts House) can be found guilty of having broken the rules (and possibly have gained unfair advantage) but can still keep the prize. If there was no betting on racing it’d be an easy call…but there is so it isn’t.
On Carberry. I thought he was too far behind for much of the race. Jockeys who habitually adopt that tactic cannot be giving the horse the appropriate ride
all
the time. I thought if he’d stayed closer to the pace throughout he’d have won that race comfortably today. Difficult to come from too far behind on that course in those conditions.
crippled sport.
Nonsense RD, complete nonsense. It’s what some negative people would like to think was happening but it is not.
BHA have a dilemma though. The only real way to get the culture change they want is to have the winner forfeit the prize if the jockey breaks the rules. As long as the winner keeps the race then the pressure/temptation is to say what the hell, take the medicine, and win the race.
BUT the negatives of disqualifying winners are numerous and significant.
Devil and deep blue sea territory, not sure of the solution.
It does seem ‘wrong’ and unfair on the runner-up that a jockey/horse combination (such as Coleman/Stewarts House) can be found guilty of having broken the rules (and possibly have gained unfair advantage) but can still keep the prize. If there was no betting on racing it’d be an easy call…but there is so it isn’t.
On Carberry. I thought he was too far behind for much of the race. Jockeys who habitually adopt that tactic cannot be giving the horse the appropriate ride
all
the time. I thought if he’d stayed closer to the pace throughout he’d have won that race comfortably today. Difficult to come from too far behind on that course in those conditions.
The solution is there shouldn’t be a solution! Nothing wrong with the rules before.Simple! Apart from that an excellent post,Carberry should have won.
I’d also add that I didn’t think it was a ‘great ride’ from Coleman at all. I thought he looked clumsy at best. If anyone gets pleasure out of watching a ride like that then I’m afraid we’re on different planets. Not only was he hitting when he should have been riding, several of his smacks were also poorly aimed. One in particular seemed to hit the horse on the back (and it didn’t look to be the end of the whip that made contact either) as he was flailing a bit IMO, probably out of tiredness/desperation.
I cannot understand why people put up rides where the jockey simply thrashes the horse home as indicative of a ‘great ride’.
It was a crap ride. He looked ungainly, broke the rules and lost his share of the prize money. Brilliant stuff.
That can’t be right. It seems a terribly harsh penalty for trying your best.
I once got 3 points and a £60 fine for ‘trying my best’ to get someones dog to the vet before it died. Harsh, eh? I expected it, though, because I knew full well that doing 60mph in a 40mph zone wouldn’t go unpunished. Coleman’s also aware of the rules.
The rules exist.
I’d also add that I didn’t think it was a ‘great ride’ from Coleman at all. I thought he looked clumsy at best. If anyone gets pleasure out of watching a ride like that then I’m afraid we’re on different planets. Not only was he hitting when he should have been riding, several of his smacks were also poorly aimed. One in particular seemed to hit the horse on the back (and it didn’t look to be the end of the whip that made contact either) as he was flailing a bit IMO, probably out of tiredness/desperation.
I cannot understand why people put up rides where the jockey simply thrashes the horse home as indicative of a ‘great ride’.
It was a crap ride. He looked ungainly, broke the rules and lost his share of the prize money. Brilliant stuff.
Come on Corm, every winning ride’s a great ride – even more so when the winning jock cops a ban. Get with it lad.
I find it fascinating that the vast majority of seasoned punters seem happy enough for a horse to be disqualified for giving another a bump, but appear to have no problem with a jock shredding the Rulebook with his whip.
We’re an odd bunch in this sport, no wonder the public don’t understand .
Coleman broke the rules (whether the rules are right or wrong is an irrelevance – they were the rules in place when the race was run) or, put another way, he cheated – but was still allowed to keep the race.
That cannot be right.
steeplechasing,
You’ve always said the public don’t want to understand.
As Alastair Down states in todays RP -When are the BHA going to take up the challenge of explaining the realities of racing welfare to the wider world?
So much drivel on here, no wonder Pinza left.
Some, Gingertipster, cormack, steeplechasing all consider themselves far better jockeys than either Carberry or Coleman, maybe they should get their licences out.
Gingertipster says "A tight finish over an extreme trip on heavy ground. Something some "real" racing fans said would be a thing of the past
"Didn’t one of the jockeys break the stupid whip rules you twit
Steeplechasing thinks it is perfectly feasible for any jockey to keep exact count of how many times he has used his whip over 3 miles over the National fences despite whatever may happen at Bechers, The Chair etc while they are risking life and limb
A fine race with a stirring finish tainted only by the BHA’s stinking whip rules.
What an embarrassing interview by Stier & Morris with Lydia prior to racing, they reminded me of a couple of programmed robots.
How anyone can support that pair along with Roy is beyond me.Eddie – I don’t consider myself a ‘better jockey’ than anybody, quite clearly.
You don’t need to have
been a jockey
to be able to critique a performance. Somewhat obvious that, I’d have thought.
If you’re fed up of ‘the drivel on here’ you know what to do.
you twit
Coleman broke the rules (whether the rules are right or wrong is an irrelevance – they were the rules in place when the race was run) or, put another way, he cheated – but was still allowed to keep the race.
That cannot be right.
As you have even previously conceded yourself, disqualification is a total non starter for a variety of reasons. Integrity, corruption, impact on betting, the punishment would not fit the crime.
Plenty of cheating goes on in football matches but the match is not lost by a player cheating, the player/team is penalised but the match is not lost.Eddie – I don’t consider myself a ‘better jockey’ than anybody, quite clearly.
You don’t need to have
been a jockey
to be able to critique a performance. Somewhat obvious that, I’d have thought.
If you’re fed up of ‘the drivel on here’ you know what to do.
you twit
Incidentally cormack why have you blocked Pinza from following TRF on twitter despite you inviting whip posts from him?
Eddie, what I’ve always said is that it’s impossible to educate a public who have neither the time nor the interest to be educated about racing.
Certainly, have a policy where racing presents itself in a different way then hope that the public grasp some of it in passing, but you cannot force people to take something in.
I’m out of the welfare debate, as such, because those on both sides are so deeply entrenched in their views that debate seems pointless.
I’ve passed no opinion on this thread as to Coleman being right or wrong in his whip offence, other than that his last couple of strokes, to my eye, seemed to make little difference to his mount.
My point on disqualification was simply an observation about the perception of punters versus how I think the public would see it. I backed Linnel like many others did, but I did not call for disqualification of the winner because I think it is swings and roundabouts from a punting viewpoint.
However, if my job was regulating racing and a significant part of the brief was to present it to the public as a sport that was fair and just, then I think there should be a rule which says that if, in the opinion of the stewards a jockey’s whip use has affected the result, then disqualification should be open to them as a punishment.
"
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.