- This topic has 40 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
I’m not trying to play devil’s advocate here, but I think this was just a very poorly
judged race by Geraghty. I don’t think for a minute that it was cheating, in the sense
that he was going to hold the horse up to be so far back that he couldn’t possibly win
the race. If an experienced jockey like Geraghty, and an experience trainer like Martin,
decided to sabotage his chances, it wouldn’t have been done in what would have been such
an obvious way.I think the stewards were right that the horse didn’t ride his race to get the best possible
finish, but I think that was down to simply misjudging the winner getting away from them. How
many times have we seen a horse go off like a scalded cat, and be 20, 30 or 40 lengths clear
only to be caught by the whole field with 1/2 mile to go.The problem was that the winner just didn’t come back, in other words Geraghty made a balls of
it.I know a lot don’t like Geraghty, that’s neither here nor there, but I don’t believe that Geraghty
simply never put him in the race, so that he could finish a strongly running on 2nd….what would
that achieve? The handicapper would judge him as a horse that was better than his finishing position
and adjust him accordingly.He got it wrong, don’t we all at times.
I think your spot on BigG…..there was absolutely nothing to be gained from doing what happened on purpose…..Barry G (who regardless of what anyone thinks is one of the top 5 national hunt jockeys riding) ****ed up and I have no doubt he knows it. I just hope he takes his punishment on the chin and gets on with it but thats probably highly unlikely and there will likely be a very public appeal!
Those are some incredibly kind interpretations!
I think it makes perfect sense as a flagrant non-trier. It’s a safe assumption (given JP’s famous micromanagement of his horses) that Geraghty was told by owner/trainer that the horse would not be ‘off’ and to ride accordingly. With that in mind, you could argue the jockey was stitched-up by the trainer.
Geraghty dropped the horse out in an effort to simulate a typical “outpaced/outclassed, ridden after 3 out, kept on”. Unfortunately for Geraghty, the horse had been over-trained and still had plenty left when he went for his token shake of the reins.
At that point, Geraghty was screwed. Once the horse responded so generously to his first niggles, he could hardly stop riding for fear of making it look even worse. His only option from there was to keep pushing, revealing much of the ability of the horse he was trying to stop.
I think that’s a plausible explanation for the awkward second-placed finish. There was indeed nothing to be gained from that kind of ride, but that’s the point – Geraghty probably never expected things to pan out that way.
I think your spot on BigG…..there was absolutely nothing to be gained from doing what happened on purpose…..Barry G (who regardless of what anyone thinks is one of the top 5 national hunt jockeys riding) ****ed up and I have no doubt he knows it. I just hope he takes his punishment on the chin and gets on with it but thats probably highly unlikely and there will likely be a very public appeal!
There was a lot to be gained. The horse would have stayed on the same mark or maybe even dropped a pound, now that pound wouldn’t make much difference but it’s all them pounds over the course of the year that add up. The handbrake has been on this horse all year so the horse is probably at least ten pounds better than its opening mark but is lower now than it was at the start of the year. Tony Martin knows he has a 150+ horse here and he has successfully managed to get it a mark of 139 and the plan over the last few months was to get it race fit ahead of a punchestown handicap but at the same time protect its handicap mark where it would be backed in from about 12/1 to 2/1 and win by about 6 lengths. It dient have anything to gain yesterday but yesterday was only part of the plan to it pissing in at punchestown. Thankfully in this case it has backfired but unfortunately this behaviour during the winter worked in the cases of cause of causes and Minella Rocco. It will work for them more often than not, im just delighted it backfires on them the odd time.
I’m not going to comment on the ban as I haven’t seen the race, but the previous post is so full of holes it demands a response.
Noble Endeavour is a chaser, who has had a total of just four runs over hurdles in his career. Yesterday was his first run in a handicap hurdle and the first time he’s ever had a published hurdle handicap rating, which by the way is 139, not 130.
If as claimed this is a plan to win at Punchestown, it seems a particularly stupid one, as the only other hurdle contested by Noble Endeavour this winter, he won by 3 lengths. Clearly that mark wont be reduced after the Limerick race. His chase mark rose to career high of 143 after his previous second at Gowran Park. Still why let the facts get in the way of a puerile rant.
As for the case of Minella Rocco, the race he won was a non handicap, a race he was perfectly entitled to win having finished a close second in a Grade 2 novice chase at Ascot on his previous start. His handicap mark was raised by 9lbs to 152 after his Cheltenham success. The idea that somehow Minella Rocco was being set up for, well not sure what since the poster doesn’t say, is just the sad fantasy of someone that seems to have some sort of grudge against the connections that blinds him to the reality.
“The handbrake has been on this horse all year” – you really don’t have a clue do you?
While I do think it was a really bad ride on this occasion I think the punishment does not fit the crime, I do think this may have been a subconscious totting up process by the Stewards on the day, I have a feeling that the stewards were waiting for an opportunity to have a “word” with those particular connections, however as has been mentioned it’s consistency in the stewarding thats the problem, have a look at the concluding bumper on the same card yesterday, to my eyes at least Katie’s ride was almost identical to what they did Barry for yesterday but she was not even called in for a chat after.
I’m not going to comment on the ban as I haven’t seen the race, but the previous post is so full of holes it demands a response.
Noble Endeavour is a chaser, who has had a total of just four runs over hurdles in his career. Yesterday was his first run in a handicap hurdle and the first time he’s ever had a published hurdle handicap rating, which by the way is 139, not 130.
If as claimed this is a plan to win at Punchestown, it seems a particularly stupid one, as the only other hurdle contested by Noble Endeavour this winter, he won by 3 lengths. Clearly that mark wont be reduced after the Limerick race. His chase mark rose to career high of 143 after his previous second at Gowran Park. Still why let the facts get in the way of a puerile rant.
As for the case of Minella Rocco, the race he won was a non handicap, a race he was perfectly entitled to win having finished a close second in a Grade 2 novice chase at Ascot on his previous start. His handicap mark was raised by 9lbs to 152 after his Cheltenham success. The idea that somehow Minella Rocco was being set up for, well not sure what since the poster doesn’t say, is just the sad fantasy of someone that seems to have some sort of grudge against the connections that blinds him to the reality.
“The handbrake has been on this horse all year” – you really don’t have a clue do you?
He beat seabass by 3 lengths over a 2.5 mile hurdle. Now firstly seabass in an old staying chaser who has had two years off the track. Secondly that race he beat seabass in was only noble emperors third run over hurdles. He needed to get a hurdle mark and can usually only get one after three runs so Martin had to run him in a third hurdle race at some stage. He also needed to get that horse a mark which was not too low so he wouldn’t get in to whatever punchestown race was the plan but not too high so as to reflect its true ability. Then he runs it in a top class 3 mile hurdle to try get it dropped a couple of pounds and then runs it in a chase to protect the new lowered hurdle mark but keep it race fit. Then yesterday’s performance was all about just giving the horse a run around to keep fresh and fit ahead of a punchestown handicap.
I’m staggered that Geraghty has bothered to appeal the ban, if he’s successful it will be a highly outrageous decision.
As conspiracy theories go, this one is starting to rival 9/11.
I think I’ll leave it there.For it to be considered deliberate wouldn’t the jockey of the winner have to be in on it? They could not have been sure that he would tear off like that could they?
I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains
I've walked and I crawled on six crooked highwaysIf you look at the clock you’ll see that the 2.25 Limerick was the fastest race of the day by a margin of 4.80 seconds from the winner of the 2pm, and 13 seconds from the winner of the 5.20 race. As Noble Emperor was only 2.5 seconds (hand timed) from the winner it tells me that it would have won the first race by 10 lengths and the 5.20 race by a distance.
All above based on the the times alone obviously. In a nutshell, Noble Emperor put up the second fastest time of the day at Limerick.
This tells me first of all, that the ride was not injudicious. Barry got the pace absolutely spot on and was beaten by a horse better suited by the conditions and circumstances on the day.
Most of the horse’s winning had been over a further distance than two miles and in fact, 12 of it’s 13 previous races had been run at distances further than 2 miles. The other previous time was at Navan , a much stiffer track than Limerick. The horse lacked the tactical speed to lay up with the winner and was ridden to get it’s best possible position which was second.
If you look at the Triumph Hurdle from March 19th 2010, where Geraghty is 20 lengths behind Barizan as he and Soldatino approach the second last and listen to his post race interview with Lydia, when she asks was he ever worried about his position. He replied along the lines of , you can only ride your own race and if circumstances conspire against you there is little you can do. If Barry had gone hard earlier on, Soldatino he would not have won. That premise applies to Noble EmperorIf you look at the clock you’ll see that the 2.25 Limerick was the fastest race of the day by a margin of 4.80 seconds from the winner of the 2pm, and 13 seconds from the winner of the 5.20 race. As Noble Emperor was only 2.5 seconds (hand timed) from the winner it tells me that it would have won the first race by 10 lengths and the 5.20 race by a distance.
All above based on the the times alone obviously. In a nutshell, Noble Emperor put up the second fastest time of the day at Limerick.Of course the time was faster, it was the best race over two miles that day and the winner was carrying less weight than the winner of the other two mile races that day, so that point is irrelevant
And barry clearly didn’t get the pace spot on, he was full of running at the end, closing the gap from about 30 lengths to just 11 lengths.The winner was easing though or more tired than the runner up because of the earlier faster fractions.
The runner up was always going to close but Barry would have wanted the horse to pick up quicker or the leader to drop back earlier than what happened.Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
The winner was easing though or more tired than the runner up because of the earlier faster fractions.
The runner up was always going to close but Barry would have wanted the horse to pick up quicker or the leader to drop back earlier than what happened.A fair assessment Nathan, unfortunately for Barry, neither of the two happened.
Horses, and jockeys, are not machines, sometimes it just doesn’t work out.It will be interesting to see what is said at the appeal.
Barry never asked the horse for an effort until after jumping the second last, and by that stage the winner was approaching the last. In my opinion the ban will be significantly reduced but i believe it should stand.
Fair enough TWM, I’ve no problem accepting we might see this a bit
differently, nothing worse that a forum of clones. It’s been an
interesting debate
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.