- This topic has 12 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Didn’t get a reply on the Stewards Cup thread, so thought I’d ask on here.
Adam Kirby couldn’t make 9st 3lb on Gulliver yesterday, and put up 1lb overweight. As he was beaten a neck, this quite possibly may have cost connections and backers the Stewards Cup.
Earlier this month at Sandown, Dane O’Neil couldn’t make 9st 7lb (!) on Maydanny, put up 3lb overweight, and surely cost connections and backers the race.
This sort of thing seems unacceptable and highly unprofessional to me. Or am I being naive and unfair?
BUY THE SUN
Not harsh at all. If a jockey can’t do the published weight, punters should be made aware of that well in advance. Even at the 48-hour declaration stage, if needs be.
As for connections, why can’t they find riders capable of doing the correct weight? There are plenty of good jockeys just waiting for a chance to prove themselves.
Agreed. Its not as if these were light weights either.
I have seen no mention at all of Kirby on Gulliver, in what was the biggest race of the day, and always referred to as “one of the biggest betting races of the season”, save for noticing it detailed on the RP result analysis. Seems quite an important detail to just ignore to a horse beaten a neck. I’d be pretty annoyed if I had backed Gulliver.
As the rules stand, is it just ‘Ho-hum, one of those things, move on’? Seems ridiculous. I’d be reluctant to back Kirby or O’Neill again for risk of this re-ocurring.
BUY THE SUN
I agree Tatling in that it brings an extra undesirable element of uncertainty into proceedings, and will certainly have a big impact for connections and punters on occasions. But what can realistically be done to prevent it?
I suspect it often goes right down to the wire as to whether the jockey can make the weight, and things may look very different at 48 hours, 24 hours and race time. Connections might also prefer a jockey who “knows” their horse for the sake of the difference of a pound or two.
Marlingford – I would suggest a points totting up / fine system for jockeys unexpectedly not making weight. If connections don’t care and prefer to use the pilot anyway, it should be declared as Gladiateur suggests.
Its absolutely critical information surely?
BUY THE SUN
Tatling – Not disputing the importance of the information.
So expected overweight would be declared at the time of race declaration, and would then need to be carried even if the jockey ended up lighter? It would then just be anything exceeding that which was punished (for want of a better word)?
Yes Marlingford, I think that sounds ideal actually. That would focus everyones mind, from connections selecting pilots, to Jockeys being honest about their weight.
Imagine if you’d had a monkey e/w on Maydanny earlier in the month, only to find he was carrying 9:10 instead of the 9:7 he should have according to the handicap. I don’t think its right or fair.
BUY THE SUN
Thanks Tatling. I suspect there would be some devil in the detail of setting when jockey penalties would apply and their severity, but agree it’s worth looking at further.
Maydanny didn’t carry overweight at Sandown, it’s an error in the result produced by the Racing Post. Other sources of information, including the official result on the Racing Admin website, show that he ran with his correct allocated weight.
That is confirmed by the subsequent actions of the official handicapper, who raised Maydanny from 100 to 102 for finishing second. If he’d run with 3lbs overweight, meaning he’d run second off 103, his new mark would have been 105.
Well thats a shambles if that is the case. Although if you are correct (no reason to doubt you) this incorrect data gave me a nice winner in the Golden Mile, as it was the entire reason I backed Maydanny. I feel very fortunate now, and a little annoyed in principle. Not now the satisfying winner it was, just a lucky one.
Very poor indeed from the RP. I would not be happy if I were Dane O’Neill, and would be advising them to correct this information. It did seem odd he put up 3lb OW having to make a seemingly relatively comfortable 9st 6lb (I believe the current published weights are subject to a none-published 3lb COVID no-sauna increase).
However, the point of the thread still remains. As an owner yourself AP, how would you feel / react to Kirby in the Stewards Cup on Saturday? Philosophical or furious?
BUY THE SUN
Well the 1lb OW put up by Kirby wouldn’t have been a surprise – he hasn’t ridden at less than 9st this year. And I’m not sure where you get 9-3 from in your initial post, as Gulliver was set to carry 8-13. But in a race with 28 horses declared and a day with five meetings, given a horse that the trainer presumably feels needs a strong ride, the options would be very limited.
Personally, I had the same problem with a horse I owned, Salute. He was set to carry 8-4 in a £20k race at Kempton, but we opted to stick with his usual rider despite 2lb OW. I took the view that someone that knows the horse well is more important than a couple of pounds weight. He was beaten by a neck, but I remain certain that if we’d used a rider capable of doing 8-4, but had never ridden the horse before, he’d have got nowhere near so close.
One question – why in the Stewards Cup is the top weight set at 9st 10lbs? Why not 10st? A small change that is not going to have any effect on a mature sprinter, but would certainly ease the problem of overweight.
Yes Kirby hasn’t done lower than 9st according to the post website
Hes not a small guy and that’s likely the lightest he can do
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.