- This topic has 95 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
- Total Posts 17716
I wonder, would it be considered “bringing racing into disrepute” by the BHA Mafia, if I were to suggest that any punters who won money on the ironically named Orthodox Lad this afternoon might like to contribute some of their winnings to the jockey, to allow him to appeal against his 15 day ban for winning the race?
Mr Fox is not a wealthy man, but a journeyman jockey who would probably be glad of a little popular support. And the sooner these new rules are challenged, the better.
How long will it be before there are no jockeys riding on a particular day because they’re all banned?
What possible grounds has Fox to appeal against his suspension?
Hughes has a valid reason to appeal – Fox has no excuse, end of.
- Total Posts 17716
Employment act. Provisions thereof. Unfair confiscation of earnings. It’s going to be challenged sooner or later, so the sooner the better.
Fifteen days and confiscation of fee and winning percentage for four smacks over the odds with a cushioned, aerated whip? Can they be serious? On that scale, eating peas with a knife (on horseback) must be worth at least a week.
In this case, as Fox claims 3 pounds, he won’t be losing anything at all – it’s his trainer-mentor Michael Attwater who will! Perhaps the first court challenge must wait, as this one is a bit complicated…
Orthodox Lad betting shows.
Opened 14/1
3.00 16/1
4.00 14/1
5.00 14/1
Live Show
12/1 11/1 10/1 9/1 17/2 8/1 15/2
SP 15/2
Data from Horseracebase.com
I think Kieren will be well looked after Pinza
- Total Posts 17716
I think Kieren will be well looked after Pinza
Half of me hopes so. The other half is worried about the creeping corruption within the sport that this foolish new "rule" will inevitably produce.
He may well be looked after but let’s hope if he repeats the offence he’ll wish he hadn’t.
He may well be looked after but let’s hope if he repeats the offence he’ll wish he hadn’t.
Well said.
Some people are going to have to get in touch with reality at some point. Fox like every jockey knows the rules he didn’t just excede them he was way over the top.
The only problem I have is if a horse wins a race because of a jockeys misuse of the whip that horse should be disqualified, its absurd and completely defeats the object of the excercise that a winner winning by a breaking of the rules is allowed to remain a winner.
- Total Posts 17716
He may well be looked after but let’s hope if he repeats the offence he’ll wish he hadn’t.
You sound almost triumphalist about the prospect. On this scale, what do you think should be done to jockeys who break serious and important rules concerning improper, careless and dangerous riding,
Corm
?
Currently they’d not get 15 days for any but the most serious dangerous riding offences… personally, I shudder at this anomaly.
- Total Posts 17716
How long will it be before there are no jockeys riding on a particular day because they’re all banned?
If that’s a jest,
Moe
, it’s not particularly funny – because it’s almost too likely!!
I agree Paul – he has absolutely no grounds for appeal. End of.
I also noted the betting. It is for exactly this reason that the BHA should have included disqualification of the winner alongside punishing the jockey. As I have already said innumerable times this puts the jockeys in an impossible serf like situation, where they will be damned by the authorities for excessive use, or damned by unreasonable connections if they don’t.
The rules are set by the governing body and are imposed by those it delegates its authority to. It is simply not a case of opting to decide whether you accept them. You simply cannot decide in life generally, or in this instance, in horse racing, which of the rules you agree to abide by, and those you exempt yourself from.
I personally cannot see any likelihood of success in a legal challenge to the rules either.
Employment act. Provisions thereof. Unfair confiscation of earnings. It’s going to be challenged sooner or later, so the sooner the better.
Fifteen days and confiscation of fee and winning percentage for four smacks over the odds with a cushioned, aerated whip? Can they be serious? On that scale, eating peas with a knife (on horseback) must be worth at least a week.
In this case, as Fox claims 3 pounds, he won’t be losing anything at all – it’s his trainer-mentor Michael Attwater who will! Perhaps the first court challenge must wait, as this one is a bit complicated…
It might be better to wait until someone has a case that has a realistic chance of winning. Once the rules have been introduced and the jockeys are riding when those rules are in force, a flagrant breach of those rules is just that. A sensible lawyer/barrister will attack when he has grey areas, this is a cut and dried breach of the rules.
- Total Posts 17716
The only problem I have is if a horse wins a race because of a jockeys misuse of the whip that horse should be disqualified, its absurd and completely defeats the object of the excercise that a winner winning by a breaking of the rules is allowed to remain a winner.
Ian
, I agree with you. The rule as it stands is totally illogical. But you must realise, given the growing resistance to this unscientific, arbitrary half-measure as it stands, that the very idea of
disqualification of the horse
is totally unacceptable to owners, breeders and trainers, as well as jockeys. It will not happen.
Though a total ban on the whip
might
happen, especially as it seems that using the thing for safety reasons is, despite what most people thought, apparently a banning offence – as witness Richard Hughes’s 6 day ban this afternoon.
Employment act. Provisions thereof. Unfair confiscation of earnings. It’s going to be challenged sooner or later, so the sooner the better.
Would you expect a footballer to use the same course of action if he got sent off and subsequently suspended?
Methinks you doth protest too much.
Rob
- Total Posts 17716
Eclipse First
, under Employment Laws it’s the rule itself which can be challenged as inequitable, as well as any grey areas within it.
If the BHA made a rule, say, that all Redheads would be fined their winnings such a rule could be challenged. It wouldn’t need an Auburn-haired person to challenge it on the grounds of "grey areas" (if you see what I mean!)
- Total Posts 17716
Employment act. Provisions thereof. Unfair confiscation of earnings. It’s going to be challenged sooner or later, so the sooner the better.
Would you expect a footballer to use the same course of action if he got sent off and subsequently suspended?
If he got fined three week’s wages unilaterally to be donated to the FA, I think I would, Rob!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.