- This topic has 19 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Once again jockeys carry the can for officials incompetence and receive 10 day bans. Allowed them to race the entire 3 miles yet against all available evidence stopped the race on the run in, which led to one jockey being unseated after his horse jinked at the flag waver. Would have been safer to complete the race, a poor decision from the clerk of the course.
If you want to stop a race surely it makes more sense to deploy flag wavers in front of a fence rather than them leaning over the rails where they might not be seen or dashing out of nowhere on the run in and frightening all and sundry?
I think they were right to stop the race and voiding it was the right decision.
As it turned out, Red Giant was hacking up and they came home single file, so they could have easily completed the course using half of the run-in.
But what if there were three or four horses involved in a driving finish spread across the track? Horses weaving right and left under the whip spooking at flapping green screens and the sounds of poor Johnny Go’s death throes sounds pretty dangerous to me.
So, I think that was a good percentage call from the Perth staff but the decision to ban the jockeys is an absolute shocker. The first flagman was so far away from the action that the jockeys had very little chance of seeing him. By the time they got to the second flagman on the run-in, the race was effectively over. Not fair at all – hopefully they appeal the decision.
From a karmic point of view, one could be justified in having mixed feelings about the misfortune of ‘winner’ Red Giant – a rancid Candlish duckeggs smash-up. Hopefully the horse’s handicap mark is inflated to its proper rating in light of this new evidence. Given the stable’s M.O. in campaigning this horse, I’d suggest the BHA should do Red Giant zero favours.
But what if there were three or four horses involved in a driving finish spread across the track? Horses weaving right and left under the whip spooking at flapping green screens and the sounds of poor Johnny Go’s death throes sounds pretty dangerous to me.
On that basis the race could have been stopped after one circuit when the screens were already around the stricken horse, he did fall at the first fence. They decided to continue to see what would happen and common sense would have seen the race being completed. Doubt what actually occurred was safer for horse, rider or others. They left the decision too late.
And if the flag deployment was done correctly why did Will Kennedy avoid a 10 day ban just because he happened to see the last one having missed the previous two? I also suspect it is easier to see any waving flags and take avoiding action if you are bring up the rear rather than fighting out a finish on the run in.
You’ve also get to question 2 officials putting out the theory that the decision was vindicated by Stephen Mulqueen being unseated from his horse jinking at the screens, when the jockey states the horse jinked at the flagman, you think they would have asked him that in the enquiry.
I’m surprised that Clerks are not instructed to use the most obvious communications tool they have in these situations – the PA system.
As soon as the decision is taken, the race commentary should be stopped, a recorded message started with something like: “Code yellow: jockeys pull up.” and play this full volume on repeat ensuring there are working speakers placed at intervals all the way up the straight.
What happened at Perth? Did the commentary continue? If so, I’d appeal of I were a jockey on the basis of mixed and confusing messages.
The racecourse commentator (think it was Darren Owen yesterday) only became aware the race was voided as they jumped the last.
They needed to give the race every chance of finishing before abandonment.
Decision to void the race was made in plenty of time for jockeys to pull up well before the screens. Trouble is the earlier flag men were in a poor position and jockeys apparently did not see them.Have jockeys been told previously where flag men will be in these circumstances? If so, have jockeys told the authorities previously they would not be seen? If (and only if) aware of where flag men were going to be and if jockeys representitives did not voice their concerns beforehand – then it is still the jockeys fault.
In the mind of jockeys – if believing there only one solitary flag man on the run-in they could (in the short thought timespan) easily have thought it a sabateur. That said, it has to be the responsibility of jockeys to pull up and if not “punished” at all then jockeys in future may not pull up and something far worse happens. imo Jockeys should get a ban but circumstances need to be taken in to consideration. So, if jockeys were not told (or made aware of) where the earlier flag men would be, then 10 days is far too much. Hopefully reduced considerably on appeal, together with an investigation in to where flag men should be.
Value Is EverythingThis incident is more interesting to me than the entire Flat season!
I hope the three jockeys appeal because I wouldn’t be surprised if their suspensions were considerably reduced by the BHA due to the extenuating circumstances. The local stewards were tied by the letter of the law: the jockeys saw the last flag, ignored it and received the standard ban.
However, the extenuating circumstances are that by the time the decision to void the race had been taken it did not allow for the correct deployment of the first two flag persons and it is accepted the jockeys did not see them. For the partnerships occupying the first three places the sudden and dramatic appearance of the last flag person on the run in was enough to spook one horse and present insufficient time for skilled and highly competitive sportsmen who were fully committed and engaged to either stop or take the water jump. The rider in fourth did have time to compute the scenario.
In a future similar circumstance, given the circumference and layout of Perth, the Clerk of the Course may have to err on the side of voiding a race at the end of the penultimate circuit so as to not cause severe difficulties for jockeys (that lead to a harsh suspension).
However, in such a situation were a stricken horse and the personnel attending it be able to get off the course before the finish its inevitable that some people will be saying the CotC acted too hastily! Therefore, I attach no blame to the wonderful Harriet Graham for yesterday because her intention was to allow the race to be completed if at all possible. Poor Johnny Go was not on the racing line when the remaining runners took the water for the last time and it was only after they embarked upon their final circuit that she received word he and those treating him would not be able to move. At that point there became no alternative but to stop the race because Harriet could not possibly predict what type of finish would ensue. It transpired to be processional but could just as easily have been a tight four-way go.
From a karmic point of view, one could be justified in having mixed feelings about the misfortune of ‘winner’ Red Giant – a rancid Candlish duckeggs smash-up. Hopefully the horse’s handicap mark is inflated to its proper rating in light of this new evidence. Given the stable’s M.O. in campaigning this horse, I’d suggest the BHA should do Red Giant zero favours.
Would it be cynical of me to hypothesise that the result might have stood had the winner not been so well supported?
What possible benefit is there to any jockey to continue if it is obvious the race has been stopped?
The fact is the stopping of the race was poorly managed by the racecourse but as usual the jockeys carry the can.
If the race was to be stopped it should have been at the third last fence at the latest, with two or three flagmen in front of the fence. There would be no excuse for any jockey then and all viewers, commentators etc would have known. No danger to anyone tending the stricken horse on the run in as well.
Some good points. Whatever review springs from this, a consistent approach needs to apply at all tracks.
I remember a few years ago they bypassed a fence on the 2nd circuit of the National and a 20+ strong field had to funnel through a tiny gap to the right. If you applied Perth’s logic (not saying you shouldn’t) then that race would have been voided too.
What possible benefit is there to any jockey to continue if it is obvious the race has been stopped?
After all the ‘stopped riding’ and ‘mistook winning post’ calamities of the last few years, I expect jockeys will keep kicking unless they’re 100% sure it’s void.
I’m surprised that Clerks are not instructed to use the most obvious communications tool they have in these situations – the PA system.
As soon as the decision is taken, the race commentary should be stopped, a recorded message started with something like: “Code yellow: jockeys pull up.” and play this full volume on repeat ensuring there are working speakers placed at intervals all the way up the straight.
What happened at Perth? Did the commentary continue? If so, I’d appeal of I were a jockey on the basis of mixed and confusing messages.
The speakers would have to be placed all round the course because it may be necessary to void a race at any spot, I can’t see courses appreciating the cost. Even then, in the midst of thundering hooves with the wind whistling in their ears, would jockeys hear the message? I suspect the course commentary is just a vague background noise to them. A better idea might be to display ‘RACE VOID’ on the big screen as jockeys have fallen into the bad habit of viewing themselves in action. But this would also only cover a small part of the course.
Having people in highly visible clothing jumping around like lunatics whilst waving brightly coloured flags appears to be the only way to deter jockeys from continuing and even then they take a deal of convincing to stop.
Some good points. Whatever review springs from this, a consistent approach needs to apply at all tracks.
I remember a few years ago they bypassed a fence on the 2nd circuit of the National and a 20+ strong field had to funnel through a tiny gap to the right. If you applied Perth’s logic (not saying you shouldn’t) then that race would have been voided too.
It’s totally different, LS. Perth incident was right by the finishing line.
Value Is EverythingWhat possible benefit is there to any jockey to continue if it is obvious the race has been stopped?
The fact is the stopping of the race was poorly managed by the racecourse but as usual the jockeys carry the can.
If the race was to be stopped it should have been at the third last fence at the latest, with two or three flagmen in front of the fence. There would be no excuse for any jockey then and all viewers, commentators etc would have known. No danger to anyone tending the stricken horse on the run in as well.
Agreed on points one and two with the proviso that if poorly managed the intention that led to it was good (to try to complete the race). Perth did try to stop the race at the third last but only there because by the time the decision to void had been taken and relayed it happened to be the first/next fence a flag person had remote chance of getting into position at. But even then the first two flag persons couldn’t get into proper position in time. Once a decision to void has been made the further out the race is stopped the better.
I don’t think we should over-elaborate what needs to be done for a solution. Don’t need more employees or new sound systems. Just put the flag guys in a place jockeys can see them before the last fence. Preferably waving whilst stood in a line diagonal to the course in such a way that strongly encourages jockeys to miss the fence and pull up.
Don’t think we should criticise too much, a stricken horse right by the winning post is extremely rare. When extremely rare things happen mistakes are more likely. Racecourses (all racecourses) and jockeys (all jockeys) should know next time.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.