- This topic has 18 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Briony Frost made a winning return at Goodwood yesterday. All well and good. The jockeys were somewhat hamstrung after that race given that they couldn’t then jump in a car, light aircraft or helicopter and go on to the jumps meeting taking place elsewhere.
In Ireland you can ride at another meeting on the same day.
I’m pretty sure a jockey could mount a legal challenge to this ruling as it seems unfair and seeing as you can ride at two meetings (both sides of the border?) in Ireland, totally unworkable.
I doubt any of the jockeys could have got another ride at Goodwood so a very expensive day for most of them.The only jumps meeting was at Ffos Las. A very long drive from Goodwood. I doubt they would get there in time.
I am not sure about the arrangements for landing helicopters or light aircraft at either course. I assume the terrain makes it impossible at Goodwood.
It looks like a situation where the jockeys were content to accept one ride as a one-off.
Both courses can accommodate helicopters.
I’ve checked that one out before starting the thread.
I’m more concerned about the legality of telling someone not racing at two meetings on the same day is for their own good.
The point I am making is not the distance or the logistics, the other course could be a few miles away or on the other side of the country or indeed as yesterday in Wales. It could have been either code. It affects all the jockeys the same. Some can afford the luxury of one race others maybe cannot.How often does the situation arise? The only other examples I can bring to mind are at Epsom and York (for the Jump Jockeys Derby and Nunthorpe).
Presumably the jockeys involved are OK with it. No one is forcing them to be involved.
As I understand it, the one meeting ruling was introduced during the Covid era and has been retained afterwards in agreement with the jockeys.
The situation arises everyday cas, if you can only get one ride at a racetrack. One, it costs you money to get there. Two, it costs you money if you don’t place. Three, you could have gone to get another ride at another meeting. This rule affects different jockeys in different ways. Ask Luke Morris, ask Briony Frost. Top jockeys cannot go where they want to and neither can journeymen jockeys.
I have thought this through, not everyone is bothered by it but all jockeys and trainers are affected by it. I really do not think citing welfare to restrain someone’s right to make a living potentially would stand up in a court of law.Certainly the jockeys association are in favour of retaining the one meeting rule but some jockeys aren’t. I think Marquand springs to mind but I could be wrong.
I like the rule. Jockeys do enough travelling without having to dash between meeting and it provides more opportunities for the lesser jockeys.
However I do agree that it wouldn’t stand up to a legal challenge.
I understand SS but the rule was introduced with the approval of the Professional Jockeys Association. Presumably the majority of jockeys are happy with it.
Choice is the fundamental issue here.
What is to stop Colin Keane riding in a race at Yarmouth and then going to Windsor and riding there? Nothing in law as far as I can see.
So how then can you tell everyone else they cannot? This ruling is flawed as far as I can see.
I would love to know what an owner thinks and a jockey and a trainer.
There would be differing views but not everyone would have the right to put that differing view into practice it would seem.
As for giving lesser jockeys the opportunity to ride, the numbers of runners at certain meetings does not back that up. Perhaps horses are not running in certain races because connections are waiting on the availablility of a desired jockey who is engaged elsewhere.I’ve never been a fan of deciding what’s best for other people – unless leaving them to have the freedom to do what they like endangers others.
What if, in an unrestricted environment, a jockey, having their 12th ride of the day, in the last race at an evening meeting, loses control of their amount and causes a pile-up?
Questions would be asked.
Freewill has its limits in a society where our actions can impact on others as well as ourselves.
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"“I’ve never been a fan of deciding what’s best for other people – unless leaving them to have the freedom to do what they like endangers others.”
So why start now?
Being able to go and ride at two meetings in one days seems a very basic freedom to curtail.
In a restricted environment it has not stopped jockeys endangering other jockeys through reckless riding.
I do not think anybody wants to ride in every race at two meetings in any case.
If this nanny state can protect us from ourselves, we will all be safe.How many jockeys have suffered over the years from the constant riding out, wasting, travelling and riding in races day in, day out for weeks maybe months at a time.
It’s relentless which is why they now have a few jumps only days to give the flat jocks a break.
You can’t just leave it to individual jockeys to decide whether to go to more than one meeting. Beyond the few at the top how many riders can afford to turn down a mount at a second meeting? They risk cheesing off connections if they turn down a ride which could harm their career so regardless of whether they want to dash off to an evening meeting or not they feel compelled to do so.
“What if, in an unrestricted environment, a jockey, having their 12th ride of the day, in the last race at an evening meeting, loses control of their amount and causes a pile-up?”
Never been a fan of “What ifs” without plenty of evidence to back it up.
eg How many times has something occurred similar to the above example?Why shouldn’t a Newmarket based jockey have 2 or 3 rides at Ascot in the afternoon and then follow up with 2 or 3 rides at a Newmarket evening meeting on his way home?
Freedom of choice should be the key. And while they’re at it they should put sauna’s back in the weighing room. By all accounts removing them has not been good for jockey’s safety and health.
I see both sides of the argument.
But, as I tried to point out, if a fatigued jockey takes a ride at the end of a long two-meeting day (and they might have felt compelled to do so for reasons patriot1 highlights) and is responsible for a pile up, all of a sudden individual free will doesn’t look so clever.
When you ride a racehorse in a horserace it’s not just yourself you put at risk.
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"Those citing, “Wouldn’t stand up in court,” obviously have a lot of experience with sports law, do they?
A professional sporting body governing the sport and the sport’s best practices for both competition and safety have a lot of leeway compared to something governing plumbers.
You see similar rubbish come out in other sports with, “Should get the police involved for that tackle!” People talking out their rumps.
We’ve got this far in a balanced and reasoned manner with little or no mud slung.
So the likes of Tom Marquand questioning restraint of trade is “People talking out their rumps.” Welcome to the discussion. Takes all sorts and you are welcome.
We have governing bodies at odds over several policies which contradict each other and you cannot see a conflict of interest which would struggle if tested by law?“We’ve got this far in a balanced and reasoned manner with little or no mud slung.
So the likes of Tom Marquand questioning restraint of trade is “People talking out their rumps.” Welcome to the discussion. Takes all sorts and you are welcome.”Must say I thought the same – I think there have been fair points made on all sides regarding an issue which, for me, is far from clear cut.
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"
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.