- This topic has 51 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
The first past the post in the 11.13 at Auteuil has been disqualified because the jockey used the whip 9 times. It is reckoned to be the first such case in Europe.
The horse responded to the jockeys urging, reeled in the front runner, appeared to be fine afterwards but has been thrown out.
A sign of how racing is going to go? A horse that was capable of winning may not win in future. How long will punters be happy with that?
Rules are rules. All jockeys are aware of them. No excuses as far as I am concerned.
“A sign of how racing is going to go? A horse that was capable of winning may not win in future. How long will punters be happy with that?”
Don’t worry about it, I expect that jockeys will learn to count.
You probably won’t know if the horse was capable of winning or not.
The more I know the less I understand.
Horse racing: the only sport where you get punished if you try to win.
But a “tenderly handled” ride is OK. Especially in Ireland.
“Horse racing: the only sport where you get punished if you try to win.”
That’s palpably not true. Footballers diving, for example, is trying too hard to win and you get punished for it.
The obvious flipside is that if you allow the winner to keep the race, punters of the second are hard done by because they’ve lost to someone who’s broken the rules. As long as the rules are applied consistently you’re going to be on both sides of the fence at some time or another.
Back to the race in question, the question is would the horse have won if the rules were adhered to? If no then the horse wasn’t capable of winning within the rules, if yes then the jockey should have put the implement that shall not be named down sooner.
It may sound flippant saying ‘learn to count’ and I understand that in the heat of a finish the adrenaline takes over but part of elite sport is being able to think clearly under pressure.
Whether the rules are right is another matter altogether but we’ve done that one to death elsewhere.
Can there be a punishment for going just 1 stroke over “the limit”?
ie If the second has kept to the rules and finished a head behind the winner who’s gone 1 over the limit, could the placings be reversed?
Or would that be too much to adjudicate for the stewards? (either in all races or solely valuable races where most misuse seems to occur).
Value Is EverythingWe will never know if a horse was capable of winning within the rules, the jockey is bound to say yes.
The more I know the less I understand.
My solution would be to have a set of rules that were sensible, like the old rules. But sense seems to have ridden out of town.
Yes, the jockey broke the rules introduced this year. But did he do anything morally wrong? He has tried to win the race and as far as I am aware his horse was not hurt. He certainly looked like a willing partner.
This is where I disagree with Glad’s argument. Diving for a penalty in football has always been against the rules and is also morally wrong. The jockey today would have been praised for the ride last year. He has only done something “wrong” because of a change in the rules which has arguably not been introduced for racing reasons but to appease a group of people who do not want to be appeased. I somehow doubt they were watching the racing from Auteuil anyway.
“The question is would the horse have won if the rules were adhered to? If no then the horse wasn’t capable of winning within the rules”.
But this raises the question: do we want to breed that sort of horse out of the sport? To my mind, he showed a good attitude under pressure and wanted to win. Whereas the second past the post was a better traveller but weaker finisher. Do we just want racing to be dominated by “bridle horses” and take robustness out of the breed?
There is no one solution that placates all sides, so you are now really left at the point of where we are going to have to go with the option that is the lesser of two evils so to speak.
Sadly it is a self inflicted problem that began when the number of whip strikes to be used came into effect, they told us that it wouldn’t mean Stewards would be automatically reviewing finishes simply to count the number of strikes used….but we all know that was total bs because ostensibly a rider using the whip one over the limit visually as it happens live would look no different to one stopping at the limit, the only way to tell that a rule has been broken would be to go look at the replay and count.
In a big field race would the Stewards re-watch over and over to ensure they have viewed every jockey’s whip use? Of course not, so I wonder just how many jockeys have exceeded the limit but have not been punished simply because the horse they were riding wasn’t involved at the business end of the race.
I think disqualifying winners is the wrong way to go because it could open things up to be used in a nefarious way to get horses beat even if they win the race……I don’t want to get to a stage where jockeys are counting and then get to the limit and then put their whip down and hand ride and the horse stops responding (because lets face it there are plenty of horses out there that do respond to the whip) and loses by a short margin…..people will likely have less confidence in race outcomes and on placing a bet as a result.
The jockey should be the one punished and maybe it needs more draconian financial measure put in place
Stewards don’t need to count the whips are chipped to record it’s motion.
The more I know the less I understand.
I think hitting an animal is morally wrong. You hit your dog on the street once and someone takes notice you might lose your dog.
And if hitting a horse once above the limit is okay, why not hit a second time above the limit? Or a third time and so on…. If jockeys can’t count they’re in the wrong profession.Only reason we have the current rules is that stewards can’t be trusted to use common sense. In an ideal world, regardless of “number of strokes” jockeys guilty of minor breaches would be punished along current lines (or with more leniency) and those who have really thrashed horses excessively, particularly exhausted horses, would not only be disqualified but also get lengthy bans (far longer for amateurs who don’t suffer from bans in the same way as people who rely on rides for their livelihoods). All depends on discretion of those enforcing the rules though, and therein lies the problem.
How much difference 1 stroke of the whip has made is obviously impossible to judge accurately. Has different effects on different horses. Some occasions when getting the horse unbalanced could even have a negative response. However, it is usually a positive in making them go faster and if a jockey goes over the limit then he / she deserves punishment. So if the second has kept to the rules and only been beaten a very small amount, he surely deserves to get the race? Stewards have to make decisions based on probability, of whether the winner doing something wrong – interference – cost the second horse the race. Why should it not be the same if the winner doing something wrong – too much whip – cost the second horse the race?
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.