- This topic has 68 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
When did she realise her mistake because oddly she immediately pulled up passing the post.
What a slap in the face for backers of the horse yesterday if the horse is allowed to run again today at Plumpton with her in the saddle.
Well, the punishment is a joke. 14 days is not 14 days for everyone. She only had 4 rides in the last 14 days and a total of 63 the entire 2014/15 season. So how many racedays is she going to miss???? This is not going to hurt her as much as it hurt the punters yesterday.
Anyway, if she thought that there was another circuit to go, why did she pull up immediately and didn’t ride on for another half a furlong or so? And if we allow jockeys to make mistakes then let me ask one question: Why doesn’t she know the difference between the numbers FIVE and numbers NINE???? I think that every jockey on the planet would be able to tell you if he has jumped just FIVE or NINE hurdles. It is a huge difference between those two numbers.
Last but not least, well done to the people who backed the winner from 10/1 the previous night down to 3/1. Your winnings were NEVER in danger!
Well done!!!By the way, Sirop de Mente is entered for today, will be ridden by Lucy Gardner and is the 2/1 favourite as I’m writing this reply.
Well look, there’s only two scenarios here.
1) She genuinely believed there was a circuit to go.
2) She’s part of a gambling plot involving the winner who was apparently backed from "10-1 to 3-1 the previous night".
If 1) is correct a 14-day ban for stupidity is entirely appropriate. If 2) is correct, a ban of many years would be entirely appropriate. It just depends on what you believe. In the face of any evidence to the contrary, I have to believe Gardner.
Mike
It depends whether you see the 14 days as a deterrent or a punishment. No days ban is enough of a deterrent for Lucy I’d guess because the shame of it will mean she’s highly unlikely to ever do it again. As a punishment, I think it’s about right. She’s going to need 14 days off before she can pluck up courage to face the public again I’d guess.
Anyway, you can’t deter from mistakes imo.Completely agree.
Ginge, you state that ‘mistakes are going to happen whether it is 14 days or 50 days off’ then end by saying ‘sorry but 14 days is not enough of a deterrent’. You cannot ‘deter’ people from making mistakes, it cannot be done: all humans make mistakes. All you can do is adjust the punishment levels for those mistakes to reflect current thinking.
On your point that there is no way of differentiating between deliberately not riding a finish and mistakenly not riding a finish, well that may be true. However if anyone was found to be guilty of the former, the 14 days could be increased to 14 years with few tears from me.
Maguire’s sin is infinitely the worse for me. He was taking it easy for whatever reason to school a horse in public. That is defrauding punters. There’s no hint of impropriety in anything Gardner did.
Mike
I’ve agreed with you Mike, that “You cannot ‘deter’ people from making mistakes, it cannot be done”. However…
You say “There’s no hint of impropriety in anything Gardner did”. Sorry but you are clearly wrong. What Gardner actually did yesterday would look exactly the same if she did it deliberately as it would if it were a mistake; therefore yes, there is a “hint”. If you disagree, then please tell me how the ride would look differently?
Nobody is going to be found guilty of doing this type of thing deliberately unless there is a clear paper trail. Very much doubt there is a quantifiable paper trail on every occasion of a guilty party.
Therefore, any suspention for a “mistake” must be sufficient deterrent to stop someone doing this deliberately.
Not asking for years, at least 21 days, may be a month.
Value Is EverythingYou say “There’s no hint of impropriety in anything Gardner did”. Sorry but you are clearly wrong. What Gardner actually did yesterday would look exactly the same if she did it deliberately as it would if it were a mistake; therefore yes, there is a “hint”. If you disagree, then please tell me how the ride would look differently?
I sort of see your point in that obviously such a ride would look the same. How can it not? But this is not a ‘grey area’ situation. She’s either 100% guilty of doing something very corrupt, or she’s 100% innocent. That was what I was implying: unless there’s evidence of the former, one has to accept the latter.
Of course, she could have attempted Sam Waley-Cohen’s classic Otage De Brion defence of “I thought he’d swallowed his tongue”. Worked for him!
Mike
You say “There’s no hint of impropriety in anything Gardner did”. Sorry but you are clearly wrong. What Gardner actually did yesterday would look exactly the same if she did it deliberately as it would if it were a mistake; therefore yes, there is a “hint”. If you disagree, then please tell me how the ride would look differently?
I sort of see your point in that obviously such a ride would look the same. How can it not? But this is not a ‘grey area’ situation. She’s either 100% guilty of doing something very corrupt, or she’s 100% innocent. That was what I was implying: unless there’s evidence of the former, one has to accept the latter.
Yes, it is a “grey area situation” because there is no way of knowing. We can say Lucy is in all probability innocent because the vast, vast majority of jockeys would not do such a thing. And yet (because of the ambiguity of what she did) the suspention must be enough to deter jockeys from doing it deliberately.
Value Is EverythingWhen was the last time a jockey ever made the same mistake? Has it ever happened before? Mick Fitzgerald appears a bit confused, twice he’s said she stopped riding a circuit early.
Should be a minimum of a months ban, 14 days is just not sufficient punishment.
A masterful display from Sean Boyce and Mick "Punters Pal" Fitzgerald on ATR just now. Fitz said he hope the "not nice side of racing turning up" by which he presumably means aggrieved punters venting their anger on course. Boyce is ex-Ladbrokes so we all know where his loyalties lie.
By the end of their typically rider sycophantic banter, we are all meant to believe that Gardner is actually the victim in all of this and there is no telling what mental effect this could have on her.
It was indeed a strange race, and as somebody has already pointed out the eventual winner was heavily backed throughout the day. I agree with gingertipster, it is impossible to be 100% sure there was nothing "dark" at work yesterday. However if they were at it they are even more stupid than we think as there are less obvious ways of stopping a horse.
As a punter I feel a sort of loyalty with fellow punters who struggle to make any sort of profit out of our hobby on a daily basis. When punters are robbed of a winner like I am sure many were yesterday to the tune of many thousands of pounds, the very least the racing media can do is show some sort of sympathy with those punters and not dwell on how sorry we should all be feeling for the jockey.
Patrick Mullins gave the favourite in the Fairyhouse bumper on Saturday a ride which was arguably also worthy go a ban but got away with it – unlike the punters that backed him in their droves.
Maybe the easiest solution in a situation like Gardner’s is to void the race for betting purposes – that way the integrity of the sport cannot be called into question and the punters are protected from the sheer incompetence or otherwise of the rider. Of course the bookies to whose join so many in our industry dance will never sanction that unless they actually benefit (i.e. void a losing book).
I wonder if Mick Fitzgerald organised a betting coup with one of his famed syndicates and the ride made a similar error would he be so generous of spirit?
The young lad at Ludlow got 28 days, she got 14 days why the difference ? Maguire misses Cheltenham etc for something that is an opinion as it cannot be 100% proven what he was doing, it’s nearly as bad as football refereeing now with things being made up as they go along.
For a start I’d check all the betting accounts for yesterdays race just to see if something had been going on then at least a full investigation has been done rather than the whitewash we’ve seen.
If you were going to PRETEND to assume there’s another circuit to run, you wouldn’t pull up straight after the line. You’d carry on for half a furlong or so, then make it appear as if the horrible truth had dawned on you, and pull up. Lucy pulled up just after the line, so you’d assume truth dawned as she could see the winner ride out the finish in front of her.
Not wishing to defence Lucy Gardner, but Brian Harding has just given Duke Of Navan a shocking ride to get turned over at 1/3 at Ayr.
Hasn’t cost me a lot of hard earned (£22 total stake yankee) but has stopped me winning £250. SO YES I AM POCKET TALKING!
But I have to say what he has done at Ayr is just as bad as what Gardner did to a punter. He has given the eventual winner a 15 length advantage plus has to concede him a penalty (bizarrely electing to follow the 3rd fav instead of his nearest rival in the market).
I am sure connections will say there was one aim today, get around in one piece, but if that is the case they are not running the horse on his merits and should be dealt with by the stewards.
Far be it from me to suggest anything untoward, however a newbie watching that race would be forgiven for thinking there was.
The wonder horse was the bookies friend again today. Backed down to 11/10 he managed to get 2nd again. Of course both performances are okay, especially for a smaller stable. But two runs on heavy in the space of 24 hours are quite demanding to say the least. I wonder when they will turn him out again. Anyway, no one will trust the horse next time. But probably the jockey.
Folks …you have to get used to racing without betting …things happen , things go horribly wrong ,
You have to watch it , and accept it , not everything is a conspiracy ….I would say 14 days is right and all the shame/embarassment that goes with it
Unless you bet on the AW in which case all the above applies
If you were going to PRETEND to assume there’s another circuit to run, you wouldn’t pull up straight after the line. You’d carry on for half a furlong or so, then make it appear as if the horrible truth had dawned on you, and pull up. Lucy pulled up just after the line, so you’d assume truth dawned as she could see the winner ride out the finish in front of her.
When the winner pulls up in front of you there is no point in "pretend"ing. Look more suspicious if a jockey did continue further, because it would be obvious he/she was pretending.
Suspect Gardner heard the crowd and/or commentator once she got close to the line, but realised it was too late or saw the winner pull up.
Hope the Authorities look in to whether anyone of the Gardner family (trained by Sue Gardner) or owners had bet on the well backed winner yesterday.
Value Is EverythingThere is a basic level of competence that owners and punters have the right to expect from any jockey.
Being able to know what circuit you are on is surely part of that basic level of competence.
I can’t think of any valid excuse for being confused about something as simple as being able to count from one to five and I believe the punishment should be harsh for what amounts to gross incompetence.
Give the girl a break I hear? Very noble sentiments but there is no room for sentiment when someone is taking money out of your pockets.
I had no money invested in this but as a matter of principle I believe that what occurred was a long way past the bad rides we see from time to time and is just negligence that is totally avoidable and inexcusable.
I remain unconvinced that harsher penalties will make no difference to this type of ride occurring in the future. Jockey’s knowing they face six months, instead of two weeks, for such an offence are much more likely to make sure they don’t fall short in this very basic demand that they know when the race is on the last lap.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
I take a different view. I think the racecourse authorities are the ones in charge and the buck stops with them. I believe it is their duty to confront the problem head-on and eradicate it once and for all.
I too remember the Stalbridge Colonist incident in the Scottish National when I was still in my short pants, and to find this kind of incident still occurring decades on is simply not acceptable, granted Lucy Gardner’s mistake was different in that she thought they had another circuit to go rather than her riding a finish a circuit too early. As Yeats says, there have been many incidents of the latter kind down the years and not many of the kind of mistake Lucy made. But as Betlarge says, they are basically the same kind of error of misjudgement.
It’s easy for us to say Lucy should have been able to count the number of hurdles jumped, count the number of circuits and known they were near the end of the 2 ¼ mile+ race and so on. However, in the high-pressured situation of a race I imagine it is not that simple when things are happening around you at speed, with maybe horses making mistakes or falling and impeding you, or indeed horses running off the course in front of you! I imagine Lucy got distracted by Jamie Moore’s horse hanging badly and eventually dumping him on the far side. As a result she must have lost her concentration momentarily and lost count, with confusion then set in. I suspect it’s harder to keep tabs on things on a tight, unique ‘figure-of-8’ track like Fontwell too! It is no surprise a similar sort of thing has happened there in the past, and it involved a much more experienced pro jockey at that.
In my view, racecourse authorities ought to undertake steps to ensure this kind of thing does not happen, as far as practicable. They should create and adopt some kind of a warning system for the jockeys that is nearly fail-safe, foolproof and idiot-proof. For example, how difficult is it to attach some kind of a mechanical device to the side of the judge’s box, with a hi-vis (rigid) flag which can be hoisted just as the runners have set out on the final circuit, so that when they come round into the finishing straight the jockeys can clearly see the flag high up in the air, signalling the end of race and so must ride out a finish? How difficult is it to do something like that in this day and age? In this way, some pressure would be taken off the jockeys and the ball is in the other court.
Of course, if then any jockey should still infringe the set rule, there could be no excuse and he/she must be dealt with appropriately. In the event of a mechanical failure rendering the hi-vis flag undeployable, then there would be contingency plans in place such as stationing a staff member at the bottom of the home straight with an appropriate flag and/or a bell.
The Lucy Gardner incident and other similar ones are just embarrassing and they do nothing but put the sport we love in a poor light. Stupid mistakes they may be, but I believe they are not unavoidable. Anyone can make a stupid mistake on their own but if they had someone else monitoring and overseeing their actions the whole time then those mistakes would be far lessened and even totally eliminated. In racing we have the racing authority in control and it should do just that – be in control!
So come on, whoever is in charge, sort it out. After all, we are in the 21st century now, not the 19th.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.