- This topic has 44 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Rachel has had a mare of a year , let’s face it since APT,s GC she’s done nowt , she rode a finish , fine/ban move on
I wonder how much longer she will continue riding? She is 34 soon. Honeysuckle has retired and A Plus Tard looks a shadow of the horse he was last year. De Bromhead’s novices did not do much.
Nina Carberry and Katie Walsh were both about 34 when they retired.
@Cork All Star let’s not compare Rachel to other female jockeys, let’s compare her to jockeys in general?
I have only just had the chance to view this race.
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in my mind that she rode a finish a circuit too soon.
Mistakes happen , and she should have admitted her error and received the appropriate punishment.
Her explanation to the stewards beggars belief , and in my view is tantamount to bare faced lying.
I am glad that the IHRB are to investigate it further , and would hope that her punishment is increased as appropriate for her conduct in front of the stewards.Surely she must have viewed it since and thought why did I do that, not the fact she rode the finish out a lap early but the blatant lie she told. It does beggar belief.
The more I know the less I understand.
Jockeys lie all the time and always have done so in stewards enquiries, usually in an attempt to either keep or get a race. Their involvement in any enquiry should be minimal and regarding the result of a race, none.
There is lying and there is lying, sometimes you can blag it but to me, and I should imagine most other watchers she had no defence.
The more I know the less I understand.
Jockeys lie all the time and always have done so in stewards enquiries, usually in an attempt to either keep or get a race. Their involvement in any enquiry should be minimal and regarding the result of a race, none.
Respectfully , I take your point Yeats.
However , in any form of quasi judicial forum , if your “evidence” is clearly unreliable / false , then any future interactions are inevitably , and understandably , likely to be viewed appropiately with cynicism.Rachael on the short go.
Followed home by all for Rachel.
On the offending horse last week, despite the money for it, she’d come up short on it over shorter twice before. She’d likely subconsciously realised the only way to win over three miles would have been to finish a lap early.You can’t ban Rachael for five days!
I mean…it’s Rachael!
Good, tbh.
Great jockey, but the rules need to apply to everyone.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Here is the wording of the Rule that IHRB confirmed that she broke:
Rule 212A(iv): “Any rider who fails to obtain their best possible placing as a result of negligent misjudgement (including a misjudgement of the winning post or the number of circuits, easing their mount without good reason or stopping riding) shall be guilty of an offence under this sub-rule.
Now what part of that rule was too difficult for the race day Kilbeggan Stewards to do their job? I wonder what (if any) sanctions were brought against them?
She clearly broke the part of the rule of misjudgement of the winning post and rode a finish to go clear, so by Lady Rita responding to her urgings the mare has used some unneccesary amount of energy that could have been used at the end of the race instead……who knows it may have even prevented her from making the bad mistake 3 out as well.
The Saldier result was also reversed so justice finally prevails all round……..wonder if any of the Stewards at Kilbeggan were also involved with that daft decision too.
“I wonder what (if any) sanctions were brought against them?”
Probably none but there should be. It was an inexplicable decision.
I think Blackmore is lucky to only get 5 days. She did not merely misjudge how many circuits she had done, she also provided a misleading explanation to the stewards which they said they did not find convincing in their summary.
10 days would have been more appropriate.
Lucky is an understatement. I keep wanting to give her the benefit of the doubt but every time I view it I think nope.
The more I know the less I understand.
I would hazard a guess and say that 5 days was to say the least rather lenient – I looked at the BHA Rules and found this:
RULE (F)37 NEGLIGENCE BY RIDER
2.2 Mistaking the race distance and either riding a finish a circuit too early or failing to ride a finish
1st Offence: Entry Point 10 days – Range 10-14 days
2nd Offence: Entry Point 28 days – Range 21-42 daysYeah that’s a bit weird. Either they believe her explanation and she should get 0 days, or they do not and she should get 10-14.
5 days says “we’re pretty sure you’re trying it on, but we can’t prove it, so let’s split the difference eh?”
It’s weak and encourages deceit rather than owning up.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.