- This topic has 73 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Silvoir –
I wondered if the frequency that certain jockeys/trainers horses are left a few lengths at the start (and other tactics such as exagerrated hold up tactics) is monitored with a view to developing a case against repeat offenders who are clever enough to avoid gross and glaring offences but who consistently have and edge via subtler methods?
I greatly applaud the increased fines for late entry to parade ring in bigger races. As someone who has to travel a considerable distance at considerable cost to witness major race meetings it is very disappointing when you don’t get to see the horses properly. I’d suggest a totting up ‘scale’ on that too, with a long time period, so that some of the visitors to our shores who only run in higher value races and who might be happy to offset the 0.5% fine against the perceived benefit to them and/or their horse can be discopuraged further by higher fines for repeat offences.
All changes are heading in the right direction though and all to be appauded IMO.
Can I ask what the reasoning behind the change to the remounting rule was?
Thanks Cormack. Regards your first question, this is something that our Integrity Team have now started to do since the appointment of Mark Blackman as our Raceday Ingetrity coordinator. Some interesting thoughs of his on our blogs section:
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/goracing/blogs/integrity.asp
On the issue of parade ring lateness, all trainers, jockeys and racecourses have been reminded about this and it should be policed more thoroughly in 2010.
The change to the remoutning rule was following feedback from the sports participants. As the Racecourse Medical Officer will follow round the field, it wasn’t always possible for the jockey who’d been unseated to be checked out as quickly as ethe horse, so for safety reasons they can hack back once the horse has been checked, before being cleared to ride ahead of the next race (a process all jockeys that fall/unseat had to go through before the remounting ban came in).
I’m confused.
The "Increased Corruption Penalties" press release refers to Rule B(59) a) i) and Rule B (59) b) & c)
Yet in The Rules Of Racing there are no letter references in Rule B(59) just 59.1, 59.2, 59.3, 59.4 and 59.5
I’m confused.
The "Increased Corruption Penalties" press release refers to Rule B(59) a) i) and Rule B (59) b) & c)
Yet in The Rules Of Racing there are no letter references in Rule B(59) just 59.1, 59.2, 59.3, 59.4 and 59.5
Ah, got it. The references are in the Guie to Procedures and Penalties Booklet
http://rules.britishhorseracing.com/_documents/guide_to_procedures_2009.pdf
The revised penalties will be in the 2010 version, which is out by the end of March.
The revised penalties will be in the 2010 version, which is out by the end of March.
Just in time for the start of the Flat.
Coincidence? I think we should be told.
The revised penalties will be in the 2010 version, which is out by the end of March.
Just in time for the start of the Flat.
Coincidence? I think we should be told.
It’s the way it’s always been, and coincides with when any enw rules are introduced.
It’s the way it’s always been, and coincides with when any enw rules are introduced.
So Flat racing has
always
been considered bent?
Thanks for clearing that up.
Regards your first question, this is something that our Integrity Team have now started to do since the appointment of Mark Blackman as our Raceday Ingetrity coordinator. Some interesting thoughs of his on our blogs section:
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/goracing/blogs/integrity.aspInteresting article. Thanks for the heads up.
Prior to every meeting in Victoria, the stewards are given a 45-minute ‘race pace’ briefing by their equivalent of one of our handicappers… That level of briefing does not take place in Britain, and to be fair, with the volume of racing that is centrally governed here, it would require a huge investment in resources to do it.
I’m surprised about this in two senses. Firstly, that it’s not done already and, secondly, the claim that it would take huge investment to do it.
Timeform’s In-Play Race Cards used to carry a pace map [other form services may be available
], so presumably it wouldn’t be that expensive, and there are so many ex-Timeform handicappers on the BHA team these days the expertise required should already be in house.That’s a good blog from Mark Blackman.
Couple of things, though.
Armed with this depth of pace expectation, the stewards in Australia know exactly where each runner should be in the early stages of their race if its chance is to be maximised, on all known evidence.
In order to maximise a horse’s chance you need to know not only any suitabilities in run style but the pace at which the race is being run. If such a ruling over here led to horses being rushed up to contest a suicidal lead just because of something said, or unsaid, previously by trainers or jockeys then it would be counter-productive. Nothing I have read about its possible application over here (and it is an old idea) suggests this is appreciated properly.
The volume of racing and the resources that would be required to cover it are the main reasons why ‘speed mapping’ briefings are a long way off in Britain
He has to be kidding. Even without actual sectionals it would be easy to come up with something that worked. Lord knows, you have more than enough people – handicappers included – watching races to be able to input stuff manually even if you could not get it electronically out of the Form Book.
In order to maximise a horse’s chance you need to know not only any suitabilities in run style but the pace at which the race is being run. If such a ruling over here led to horses being rushed up to contest a suicidal lead just because of something said, or unsaid, previously by trainers or jockeys then it would be counter-productive. Nothing I have read about its possible application over here (and it is an old idea) suggests this is appreciated properly.
I’ve not read deeply enough into the Australian model to know for certain, but I’d like to hope that ample account is taken of horses that are;
1) genuinely tactically versatile (plenty are marked up over here as such on Timeform racecards and the like),
2) still too early on in their careers for their race-style preference to be established beyond too much doubt.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
They take into account all those things as far as I’m aware. However, clear changes of tactics – going from held up to front running, for example – need to be advertised in advance.
http://www.racingnsw.com.au/default.aspx?s=racingmeeting&meetid=18058&raceno=1&filter=Programmed&type=PreStewards&status=off#105148
So, I am on a horse which is usually held up. That may have been coincidental and just because the pace of the races the horse has contested happens to have been strong.
There is no pace early in a race and I send my horse into the lead. Except I don’t, as that would be a marked change of tactic and I should have flagged it up in advance. Instead I give my horse a bum ride rather than risk being hauled in front of the beaks.
Silvoir’s previous comment seems unambiguous on that score.
I’d imagine Pru a change of tactics isn’t always going to be penalised when the circumstances are as you mention them, though probably enquired into.
Refering to the 3.35 today at Lingfield there was potentially four front running possibilities in Silver Prelude, Thoughtsofstardom, Edith’s Boy and Simple Rhythm, clearly they can’t all lead so I doubt each jockey is going to be in for suspension once they let the first on the lead have it.
I assume the rule is there to protect the more obvious incidents like that of Bishopbriggs, whilst on the matter, can you tell me how the ‘looking into it’ is going on into Bishopbriggs if there is any ‘looking into it’ going on Paul?
I think you are right, tbracing.
However, a remark like "clear changes in tactics…..need to be advertised in advance" is unambiguous and indicates something very different.
I suspect the main reason why the Australian system "works" is that racing enthusiasts there – not least the stewards – appreciate the nuances of pace, which is much easier in a jurisdiction in which sectional times are freely and widely available.
- Total Posts 17716
Just my opinion, but the BHA would be better employed getting the tools they already have to work properly, rather than worrying about the wherewithal for more innovation.
Any race-reader worth his salt could identify enough non-triers to keep their security department on overtime, without even bothering with fripperies such as pace-mapping and sectional timing, and benefits would be quicker forthcoming and easier to prove than through some ‘ideal’ for the future.
That apart, they don’t have the best of records acting on Australian advice, anyway.
they don’t have the best of records acting on Australian advice, anyway.
This was a strange appointment then.
https://www.britishhorseracing.presscen … 10-c9.aspxIncidentally, there’s now an RSS feed for BHA press releases. A good innovation. More here:
https://www.britishhorseracing.presscen … wsAreaID=2
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.