- This topic has 29 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Just listening to the post-race analysis on RUK and I can’t see why Lydia is intent on making such a mountain out of a molehill. There was barely any interference at all. I didn’t back the horse but well done to Murtagh for making the move.
Shame Lydia didn’t make quite the same fuss earlier in the week when Richard Hughes suggested that jockeys should be fined £250 instead of receiving a ban. Most sane people would have fallen about laughing. Unfortunately, she totally bottled it but fortunately Cunningham was on hand to restore a modicum of sanity.
Best Horse Won IMO.
But Murtagh was a wee bit careless but the rules are their are no rules of riding in UK+IRE so when Huge Stud Fee’s are involved its nothing to break them
- Total Posts 17716
JOHNNY MURTAGH is set to miss the King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes at Ascot this month after being handed a six-day ban for careless riding after his winning ride on Starspangledbanner in the Darley July Cup.
The 2-1 favourite took the Group 1 prize at Newmarket on Friday thanks to a driving finish from Murtagh, but there was a sting in the tail for the jockey when the stewards banned him for his manoeuvre in taking Starspangledbanner to the far rail after coming out of stall 11.
The ban starts on July 23, two days before the King George, and will also rule Murtagh out of the firsttwo days of Glorious Goodwood the following week.
Murtagh was expected to ride Irish Derby winner Cape Blanco in the King George, but trainer Aidan O’Brien will have to make fresh plans unless Murtagh makes a successful appeal against the ban.
Is Lydia giving it socks to AOB.
Heard the boys on Timeform Radio have a good laugh especially since Aidan Calls here
OLIVIA
Murtagh’s move effectively put half the field out of the race. The Stewards must have thought it serious, otherwise they wouldn’t have banned him for those particular six days. Not that Coolmore or Murtagh would care, as has been said already they have created another high fee stallion. This is an organisation that pushes the rules of racing to the limits. No doubt relying on their effective and high priced lawyers and their equally effective and ruthless p.r. operation. Would Starspangledbanner have won without the move from Murtagh? Not from that draw I would suggest.
And to forestall the usual responses re Coolmore I didn’t have a bet on the race, though I was at the track.
richard
Totally agree Richard.
Ruined Prime Defender’s chance by forcing him towards the rail and used him (whether intensionally or not) to interfere with other horses. In my opinion Murtagh was very lucky the stewards saw it as "careless" and not "intentional". His actions ensured Starspangledbanner got the lead on his side at a meeting that greatly favoured prominent runners.
If I had my way he’d be disqualified. Allowing places to stand will only encourage others to do the same in valuable races.
6 days for Murtagh is insufficient deterent.
The Hills team missed a trick, Winston should’ve objected to Starspangledbanner with Prime Defender, allowing Equiano to get the race.
In both Jubilee and July Cup Starspangledbanner made a b-line for the rail, a rail may be important to the horse and had he not been able to get there, might not have shown the same form.
Value Is EverythingIt was careless and it had a knock on effect right through the field. But Murtagh wanted the lead and the rail more than any-one and he was getting it no matter what. The reason this type of thing happens in that style is because there’s no risk of disqualification. Lets face it he could bring half the field down and still keep the race.
And a 6 day ban? I want a change to the rules. Forget penalising jockeys just in days. If the stewards see this interference as worthy of warranting a 6 day ban, which is very high in Britain but very low compared to what he would get elsewhere, ban Murtagh for 6 days plus the next 6 Group 1 races in Britain. If the 6 days then correspond with a Group 1 race so be it. He’d still have 6 more Group 1 races to miss.
Just listening to the post-race analysis on RUK and I can’t see why Lydia is intent on making such a mountain out of a molehill. There was barely any interference at all. I didn’t back the horse but well done to Murtagh for making the move.
Shame Lydia didn’t make quite the same fuss earlier in the week when Richard Hughes suggested that jockeys should be fined £250 instead of receiving a ban. Most sane people would have fallen about laughing. Unfortunately, she totally bottled it but fortunately Cunningham was on hand to restore a modicum of sanity.
Lydia didn’t bottle it.
She interviewed Hughes, giving him the chance to express his opinions. Had she been too agressive / confrontational, Hughes would’ve clammed up. There was no point in doing so. After the interview both Cunningham and Lydia made it clear they did not believe a fine would be big enough deterrent.Value Is EverythingIf this race had been in France there is no way Starspangledbanner would’ve kept the race. Ginger is quite right Murtagh is lucky the stewards only saw it as careless. I’m not sure I share their view.
PS! I didn’t have a bet in the race.
1. Where did the incident take place in relation to the winning post?
2. How were the horses involved in the interference going at the time of the
incident?
3. How serious was the interference ie. how much momentum did the sufferer
lose and/or how much ground was lost?
4. If the sufferer had had an uninterrupted run to the line, might it have finished in
front of the interferer?
If NO – order placings to remain unaltered
If YES ie there is some doubt – proceed to question 5.
5. How easily did the interferer beat the sufferer?[/size:kmc3f56f]The British stewarding system.
It’s always good to have a review of this every so often.
It’s good fun answering the questions for this type of incident.
1. 5f+ out.
2. As well as you would expect.
3. For Showcasing and Prime Defender lengths.
4. At that stage, yes.
5. Does it matter when they had no chance?I do wonder if the stewards looked at the dangerous riding rule for this incident because the more I think about it, at least, the more it seems appropriate.
Lets face it coolmore are in this as a business so they will push the rules to the limit to get results if they take a few slapped wrists along the way so what as long as they are successful they wont bother.
Don’t quite understand why the media are pointing out that Murtagh will miss the King George. Surely it is more significant that he will miss the Sussex Stakes on Rip Van Winkle (assuming it is still on the Wednesday).
Wasn’t it the numpty jockeys in behind that followed him that caused much of the damage.
I got that impression from the Timeform radio that they said the Jockeys in behind were "braindead"
Thereis no way the stewards are going to change the order of finishing without changing the rules to how they apply in France,USA and thus come into line with the rest of the western world where the rules are clearly stated and adhered to.I have been watching horses wander all over the place after the tapes go up and nothing is made of it except when a high profile incident occurs.In Murtagh’s case if the other jockeys got out from the gate fast enough as happens in the US there would be no chance for Murtagh to get to the rails .
Richard ,how do you square your comments with the sporting decision of Coolmore to keep the horse in training and lose 2.5 million Aus.$. on stud fees,next year, as a consequence? Is that crass commercialism,seeing as the horse has already won his Group One races in England? As the man said when all you have is a hammer every problem is a nail.
Andyod,
If I have understood the Coolmore press release on the Sporting Life website correctly, the plan is to keep SSP in training for the rest of the UK/Irish season. About three months max. There is no mention of keeping him in training next season.If he wins another major race that may well increase his stud value. If he runs well without winning, it will not decrease his current likely stallion fee value.
So from a commercial stand point it’s a no-brainer. Sacrifice 3-4 months of stallion fees with the opportunity to increase those fees if he wins again.
Frankly, I don’t think it is a sporting decision, more like a sensible, low risk business decision.
richard
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.