- This topic has 29 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
So basically it’s "win if they do and win if they don’t"
What a brainy outfit.As smart as their critics.One of the worse ‘stewarding’ rules that was ever introduced to British racing was the rule where you have to run in a straight line for x amount of yards – until you reach the orange pole or something similar.
This rule gets broke in almost every single horse race without any punishment whatsoever.
Murtagh’s ban was because of the interference he caused to other horses/jockeys, yet no one is mentioning that he completely broke the ‘keep straight’ rule.
The only reason I say it’s one of the worst rules is, not because it’s a bad idea, but because it never gets punished. If you’re going to introduce a rule, and then not punish offenders when they break the rule, then why have it?
Watch closely flat racing over the next few days, and see how many jockeys ‘switch’ their horses inside or outside before they reach the ‘orange’ marker. Then take a look at the BHA website a few days later and see how many jockeys were fined or suspended for breaking this rule. It won’t be at all a surprise to see over 50 offences and yet not one punished.
Murtagh’s manoeuvre effectively wrecked the chances of half the field and fully merited 6 days.
It exemplified Ballydoyle’s cynical tactics over the years- pacemakers etc
On a broader note I see that Richard Hughes has effectively suspended himself for this week. Ahead of a ban next weekend, he has stated an intention not to take rides during the week for fear of another ban ruling him out of Goodwood. He describes this week’s racing as "being worth little money- it makes sense to take a break".
While I agree that sports should be able to discipline and suspend misreants and disagree with Hughes’s assertion that fines based on earnings should replace jockeys bans, surely there is something wrong with the current system?
A series of minor indiscretions lead to lengthy bans under totting up procedures,impacting upon retaining owners.
Given the way the fixture list has burgeoened and the amount of races the likes Hughes ride in, bans and totting up are almost inevitable. The likes of him already avoid winter AW for that reason.
- Total Posts 17716
On a broader note I see that Richard Hughes has effectively suspended himself for this week. Ahead of a ban next weekend, he has stated an intention not to take rides during the week for fear of another ban ruling him out of Goodwood. He describes this week’s racing as "being worth little money- it makes sense to take a break".
While I agree that sports should be able to discipline and suspend misreants and disagree with Hughes’s assertion that fines based on earnings should replace jockeys bans, surely there is something wrong with the current system?
The problem with the Fines system as floated by Hughes, whether or not it were to be modified by an income-linked element, is that it would inevitably hit the lower-earning jockeys more than the brand leaders. We would effectively have a situation where it was more cost-effective for the top jockeys to bend the rules, than their poorer colleagues. And that would hardly be equitable.
Reading between the lines of comments made by the BHA representative to Nick Luck in an interview following their meeting with Hughes, Kevin Darley et. al. it sounds as if the Fines idea has fallen on stony ground in any case.
I have to agree that the current situation looks increasingly like a bad compromise. Though the basic premise of the "best horse keeping the race" is British and Sporting, it does not sit well with the current rules, which can be broken without impunity at very little cost to anyone. Whilst a relaxation of those rules has its appeal, it would take UK Racing further away from harmonisation with how matters are conducted in France (absurdly draconian, and inconsistently applied) or America.
Does Ireland suffer from the same conundrum? If not, maybe we should look at the idea of harmonising with their rules, rather than looking further afield.
I mentioned on another site that Kieren Fallon was suspended on one occasion( I think it was at Doncaster) because he violated that rule and moved over to the rail before going the appropriate distance.However in that instance he was drawn on the outside and moved over to the outside rail immediately. He interfered with nobody but it made no difference to the stewards they still penalised him for moving off a straight line.How crazy can you get!Incidentally I believe that going off a straight line should be penalised but mainly in a finish and only if you interfere with others.At the start when the gates open many horses seem to shy in one direction or another and jockeys cannot prevent them from doing so.Especially two year olds who do not know what to expect when surrounded with other horses and shouting jockeys.In a recent interview some place Paul Hanagan explaines why he has not been suspended this year as he was in previous years.Worth reading if you can find the article.I think it might be in the Guardian.
Is the problem interpretation of existing rules?
Murtagh’s move should (imo) be seen as "intentional" and "dangerous". He knew Prime Defender was alongside but still made a deliberate and sharp manoever.
In my opinion, Baker should have been disqualified in the Summer Mile. Barging his way through on Premio Loco. Contact was made and Dettori had to stop riding for safety reasons. If it was for safety reasons, then it’s "dangerous" and surely it should not matter that Forgotten Voice was beaten at the time.
Existing rules are (imo) enough to disqualify these horses.
Not disqualifying these horses encourages more dangerous riding in valuable races, making it more likely bad injury will at some point result.
Would not like to see French or American rules, but we have taken it too far.
Value Is EverythingAgain I must disagree. In a sprint there is no excuse for letting a horse drawn 11 move to the rails. The other riders should have all held their ground if they broke smartly from the gate.Getting away fast from the gate is the secret to winning sprint races.If nobody broke smartly then Murtagh was right to angle over to the rail.Here in the US he would have been put last for his riding but in the UK apparently they just give the jockey a slap on the wrist. Coolmore will surely compensate Murtagh for any loss of income.
Is the problem interpretation of existing rules?
Murtagh’s move should (imo) be seen as "intentional" and "dangerous". He knew Prime Defender was alongside but still made a deliberate and sharp manoever.
In my opinion, Baker should have been disqualified in the Summer Mile. Barging his way through on Premio Loco. Contact was made and Dettori had to stop riding for safety reasons. If it was for safety reasons, then it’s "dangerous" and surely it should not matter that Forgotten Voice was beaten at the time.
Existing rules are (imo) enough to disqualify these horses.
Not disqualifying these horses encourages more dangerous riding in valuable races, making it more likely bad injury will at some point result.
Would not like to see French or American rules, but we have taken it too far.
Are the rules enough though?
http://rules.britishhorseracing.com/_do … s_2010.pdf
It’s an entirely puzzling system which appears to have no logic whatsoever, imo.
Catergory 1 – Dangerous Riding
g) Manoeuvring/changing direction, suddenly or
gradually (particularly on to the rail)The Dangerous Riding section also notes –
FOR DANGEROUS RIDING THE RIDER MUST CAUSE SERIOUS INTERFERENCE. SERIOUS INTERFERENCE IS WHEN INTERFERENCE CAUSES A HORSE AND/OR RIDER TO FALL OR VERY NEARLY FALL OR THE HORSE IS SEVERELY HAMPERED EG. UP AGAINST THE RUNNING RAIL, OR IS PUSHED OR NEARLY PUSHED OFF THE COURSE.
Category 2 – Careless Riding
f) Rider moves across to the rails at the start causing interference.
And that, which I assume is the section and reason Murtagh has been banned, although the interference took place outside of the Orange marker zone, is not considered "dangerous" because a horse hasn’t fallen, despite the fact Showcasing nearly went down and Prime Defender probably wasn’t too far away?
It seems to work on the basis of you don’t get severely punished if it "nearly happened" and you’ll get absolutely smashed if it did "happen." But, at the same time, I would have been absolutely fascinated to see what the stewards would have done if a horse had gone down.
- Total Posts 17716
In my opinion, Baker should have been disqualified in the Summer Mile. Barging his way through on Premio Loco. Contact was made and Dettori had to stop riding for safety reasons. If it was for safety reasons, then it’s "dangerous" and surely it should not matter that Forgotten Voice was beaten at the time.
My feeling on watching the replay was that Dettori turned Baker’s pretty reasonable rails manoeuvre into a three-act drama, playing up the interference in case his own horse managed to get placed, which in the end it didn’t.
At the time Baker went for that rails gap it was there. Dettori then closed the door on him, a little too tardily, whilst managing to make it look as if he was the aggrieved party. Don’t blame him for gamesmanship, but in this instance I believe that is what it was.
In my opinion, Baker should have been disqualified in the Summer Mile. Barging his way through on Premio Loco. Contact was made and Dettori had to stop riding for safety reasons. If it was for safety reasons, then it’s "dangerous" and surely it should not matter that Forgotten Voice was beaten at the time.
My feeling on watching the replay was that Dettori turned Baker’s pretty reasonable rails manoeuvre into a three-act drama, playing up the interference in case his own horse managed to get placed, which in the end it didn’t.
At the time Baker went for that rails gap it was there. Dettori then closed the door on him, a little too tardily, whilst managing to make it look as if he was the aggrieved party. Don’t blame him for gamesmanship, but in this instance I believe that is what it was.
My reading precisely Pinza, although George Baker was magnanimous about his ban.
Can’t see the "gamesmanship" issue. Frankie was already well beaten when the interferance took place. Was there a gap big enough to go for (before it closed)? In my opinion not, but can see it was marginal. So can’t blame Baker entirely. May be I’ve been a little too hard on him.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
Reported this lunchtime that Johnny Murtagh is not going to appeal, and is accepting the ban without further comment. So there’s an end to it.
Slightly tangential to this topic, but Boycie has written an excellent post, "Interfering on Interference".
http://boyciesbettingblog.com/betting-n … erence.phpI can’t be bothered registering there to tell him so though.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.