- This topic has 68 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
A "bell" would do more damage than it’s worth, frightening the horses.
If it’s up to a staff member to count the number of laps, then what if he gets it wrong?
Value Is EverythingA jockey makes a genuine mistake and the debate lasts 3 pages with many castigating her and wanting a longer ban. Another jockey found guilty of deliberately not trying to win and gets just 3 replies and some think he has been treated harshly. Bizarre.
In this case Ken, it is impossible to differentiate between someone doing it deliberately and a "genuine mistake". How can you be so certain it was a genuine mistake? There’s also no way of telling whether Maguire’s was a "deliberate" act, he may have just (honestly) given up too soon.
When you agree with the stewards and sentence there’s less need to reply to a thread.
Value Is EverythingA "bell" would do more damage than it’s worth, frightening the horses.
If it’s up to a staff member to count the number of laps, then what if he gets it wrong?
…and presumably somebody somewhere would forget that the bell had been rung!
A "bell" would do more damage than it’s worth, frightening the horses.
If it’s up to a staff member to count the number of laps, then what if he gets it wrong?
Like I said, the authorities should be actively in control of these situations. If a staff member gets it wrong then they’ll have no one to blame but themselves and are therefore liable.
It is my belief that as well as dishing out punishment to individuals for misdemeanours, authorities also have a responsibility to do their utmost to protect and improve the image of racing, by being pro-active in certain situations such as this, and to eliminate problems wherever they occur if possible at all. That’s not to say jockeys don’t have responsibilities, of course they have. They must keep a clear head and be fully aware of the situation at hand. They must keep count.
As for the use of a bell, yeah, point taken. But didn’t they use to sound a bell or something at Ascot years ago as the runners swung round the bottom bend into the final straight? Or am I having some kind a memory fit?
In this case Ken, it is impossible to differentiate between someone doing it deliberately and a "genuine mistake". How can you be so certain it was a genuine mistake?
I don’t understand your line of reasoning here Ginge.
Everyone has the right to be believed and treated accordingly rather than notionally punished harder because they can’t actually ‘prove’ they’ve done nothing wrong. The world just doesn’t work like that. Courts don’t work like that. Hearings or tribunals don’t work like that.
If anyone thinks anything untoward has happened here, they need to present their evidence. Complete silence from the bookmakers and Betfair on this race implies that the ‘massive gamble’ is just a few quid here or there on the winner. We all know the bookmakers won’t lay early prices to any decent money.
Mike
What about a groundsman (with one as a back-up checker), after the field has safely passed what will be the 2nd last on the next circuit, putting up a 2 at the side of the second-last and a 1 at the last?
I feel it’s ridiculous to be considering the need to tell jockeys which fence they are jumping. If they can’t work that out before the race for themselves they shouldn’t be in the sport.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
What about a groundsman (with one as a back-up checker), after the field has safely passed what will be the 2nd last on the next circuit, putting up a 2 at the side of the second-last and a 1 at the last?
Good point. But then you’ll have to take into account the weather conditions and be careful with the kind of material any portable signage is made of, as a strong gust of wind can make the situation a little bit dodgy.
My ‘rigid’ hi-vis flag would be securely affixed and, equally important, it would be perforated throughout, to allow free flow of air and therefore less air-resistant, naturally, of course!
Let’s go the full monty and have Sat Nav installed on every horse.
The trouble with that option is that the jockey will come back in after the race and tell the Stewards that the furry dice got in the horse’s eyes, causing the fall.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
If a professional sportsman doesn’t know the duration of their contest then they shouldn’t be a professional sportsman or woman.
Well Somerset lost the T20 cricket final one year because none of the players knew the rules about run outs involving the batsmen who ran despite having a runner.
They should of banned the lot for life because they haven’t won a trophy since and it was a fair few years ago.Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
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.
I’m stunned the horse was allowed to run today after yesterdays fiasco.
Racing just loves shooting itself in the foot.
What about a groundsman (with one as a back-up checker), after the field has safely passed what will be the 2nd last on the next circuit, putting up a 2 at the side of the second-last and a 1 at the last?
Always surprised me why sections of the course which are no longer needed aren’t immediately dolled off. Even at Cheltenham there are massive gaps – I remember Balthazar King going the wrong side of the rails a few years ago with the race at his mercy.
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.
Spot on Ginge. Chances of that happening miniscule but you are speaking on behalf of all punters.
Just thought. If Eddie Ahern had ridden the Gardner horse yesterday would the racing media be jumping to his defence in the same way?
Double standards? Yes. Why?
In this case Ken, it is impossible to differentiate between someone doing it deliberately and a “genuine mistake”. How can you be so certain it was a genuine mistake?
I don’t understand your line of reasoning here Ginge.
Everyone has the right to be believed and treated accordingly rather than notionally punished harder because they can’t actually ‘prove’ they’ve done nothing wrong. The world just doesn’t work like that. Courts don’t work like that. Hearings or tribunals don’t work like that.
If anyone thinks anything untoward has happened here, they need to present their evidence. Complete silence from the bookmakers and Betfair on this race implies that the ‘massive gamble’ is just a few quid here or there on the winner. We all know the bookmakers won’t lay early prices to any decent money.
Mike
She is “believed”, is believed that she did not lose the race deliberately (volantarily). But Lucy is not innocent in all this Mike. She lost the race involuntarily. The fact that it looks exactly the same whether voluntary or involantary means the penalty for involuntary needs to be enough to deter anyone from doing it voluntarily.
I’m not asking for the girl to be hung or disqualified from riding completely; just another week to make it 21 days, possibly 28 days at most.
Racing is not a court of law and the offence arguably deserves a longer punishment for doing it accidentally/involuntarily anyway. There is no comparable offence in a “court or hearing or tribunals” where it looks the same whether deliberate or accidental.
Nearest I can come up with is involuntary manslaughter. (And no, am not comparing Lucy’s riding offence to involuntary manslaughter, just an idea of “voluntary and involuntary and deterrents”).
Involuntary manslaughter is: The unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, either express or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention.
Despite the involuntary nature of the crime it still carries sufficient penalty to deter others from committing voluntary manslaughter or murder.
Lucy’s offence (and it was an offence) should imo carry sufficient punishment to be a deterrent for jockeys thinking of doing it voluntarily.
Value Is EverythingHope 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.
Spot on Ginge. Chances of that happening miniscule but you are speaking on behalf of all punters.
Not sure it is "miniscule" Ivanjica. In fact I’d be surprised if some effort is not made, away from media’s gaze.
Must make myself clear though. Although possible, I believe sculduggery in this case is highly unlikely. But do think every effort should be made to try and make sure there was none and that sufficient derrent is handed out in suspension.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.