- This topic has 51 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
First disqualification on these shores from a race ran on…..er Thursday of last week!
Nine times!!
Is there actually a figure above the maximum which warrants disqualification?The more I know the less I understand.
Nine times is a bit ridiculous. Did he completely forget the rules?
Disqualification several days later is no use to anyone who backed the second past the post.
Nine times, it seems to me as if he isn’t familiar with any whip rules. Nut, why wait another five days to disqualify him? As Cork stated, what about the punters who backed the runner-up?
They should benefit from the rule, too.The stewards must have been well aware of the whip being used 16 times not long after the race. Maybe they had a shall we, shan’t we meeting which took a considerable amount of time.
The more I know the less I understand.
I think the stewards are not able to issue a disqualification on the day. If a jockey goes three over the limit, the case has to be referred to a disciplinary panel.
This issue was raised when the new rules were introduced but the BHA ignored the concerns. It almost affected the King George at Ascot. If Crowley had used the whip one more time, the winner would have been disqualified – but only days later and Westover backers would not have collected.
Did a little bit of invetigation and based on the following, it would seem pretty clear to me that there is no reason why the Stewards on the day shouldn’t have been able to disqualify him without it being referred up the chain.
Disqualification provision
Addition of (L)47.11:
(L)47 A horse shall be disqualified from a Race already run if:
…
47.11 its Jockey has been found in breach of Rule (F)45 and the number of strikes (excluding those found to be clearly and unequivocally for safety purposes) is 4 or more above the permitted level.CORK ALL STAR says
Disqualification several days later is no use to anyone who backed the second past the post.
The “first past the post” labelled the winner until disqualified 4 or 5 days later was 4/1. You say those backing the second past the post would not be able to collect, tickets probably thrown away. But those on FPTP would keep their winnings. I know I’d would in that situation.
You've got to accentuate the positive.
Eliminate the negative.
Latch on to the affirmative.
Don't mess with mister in between.Kind of thought disqualification would be on same day, before Mr and Mrs Mug Punter had gone home.
You've got to accentuate the positive.
Eliminate the negative.
Latch on to the affirmative.
Don't mess with mister in between.Seems evidence from LD73 indicates this was an umm arr situation or they did not do their job on the day.
The more I know the less I understand.
I suspect what is happening that computer data on the whip strikes are reviewed after race day.
The more I know the less I understand.
With the level of tec we have available now, Stewards should be more than able to call upon all the evidence they need to render a decision after an enquiry on the day of the incident but then again this is a sport that starts some of its races with a man with a flag who presses a button that releases a glorified elongated piece of knicker elastic that has been stretched across the course
“Breaking the rules” and “morally wrong” are wholly different ideas.The first is a matter of interpretation and, like when breaking the law is in question, something to be decided on the evidence by those authorised to decide.
Morally wrong has no meaning whatsoever on its own. When someone uses it, in any context not just racing, what they are saying is simply that from my moral preferences it is wrong. No more, no less. And of course we have different moral standpoints as for example outside racing we currently see that there are those who do, or do not, regard the Hamas killings and the Israeli government response as morally equivalent. And those who do not see them as morally equivalent tend either to feel that Hamas was justified or that the Israeli respsonse was justified.
On the matter of whipping horses in races, the only point of practical importance is the judgement by whoever is authorised to make it as the whether the rules as they stand were broken. Whether we think the rules are good or not is a separate debate and one’s position on that may be from a practical viewpoint (eg they might or might not make racing potentially less unpopular) or one’s own moral standpoint (eg one believes that it is unacceptable to hit a horse, or perhaps any animal, at all, or acceptable within the bounds one regards as reasonable. Much the same as the debate over whether Parlimament should legislate as to whether parents’ should or should not have the right to smack their childen).
Whatever one’s moral position, it seems clear that the jockey concerned did break the rules and was presumably punished appropriately. No doubt if he feels either that he didn’t break them, or that the punishment is too severe in the specific circumstances, he will have the right to appeal.
Poor ride and deserved to be thrown out. Not only did he exceed the count, he gave little or no time for a response and was slapping wildly at the horse’s neck approaching and at take off at the last. Exactly the sort of reckless whip use that should be punished by DQ.
Entirely the correct decision , but why doesn’t the disqualification happen immediately to assist punters ?.
Insanity to try and defend the ride from Ms. Sly . We all know the rules , and this isn’t even close.Presumably Coggy,
Because the authorities believe the press will not cover what’s happened at all (or less coverage) if the punishment is given days after the event…
Or
The authorities believe the on the day stewards are incapable of making these decisions.
Or
The technology and / or man power is not in place to police the whip rules enough to do it on the day.
Value Is EverythingWould it be possible for a rule to be brought in similar to the one I suggested in the last post on the previous page?
It was exactly this type of offence I was thinking of.
Anyone else got any suggestions of a whip rule change that could disqualify horses on the day if a jockey goes over the limit?
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.