- This topic has 56 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
This should have been in place yeears ago.
How can a jockey tell if a horse that has fallen is OK?
In principle I think that – like in eventing – it is a good idea. The welfare of jockey (who may not be thinking clearly) and horse must be paramount.
However I agree with Gerald that it asks questions about what happens to horses out in the country who have lost their riders. Are they banned from remounting to ride them back to the stables?
Also I would probably have allowed some latitude regarding falls at the last. If a horse and jockey are going to ride back to the stables it seems a bit daft to not allow them to collect prizemoney/bets for passing the post at the walk.
As there have (according to the RP) been only 16 instances of remounting in 2007 and 2008, with 10 of those earning prize money, it really isn’t that important IMO, but I back the decision.
As someone said, equine welfare led to the same rule in eventing, and that is no less a spectacle for it- in eventing (more so than racing), remounting was seen to be the ‘macho’ option, regardless of the horse.
Plus, it’s OK AP saying that he won £55k for his owners by remounting Blowing Wind- how much did he cost spread punters who’d sold the number of Grand National finishers that day?
And finally, can’t let a thread about remounting pass by without repeating old tale of the famous riding instructions given by Capt. Tim Forster to Charlie Fenwick on Ben Nevis just before the 1980 Grand National:
"Keep Remounting".
Logically and consistently, does this also mean that jockeys can’t remount and hack back to the unsaddling area, without a vet having had a look at the horse first?
Gerald, that’s correct, as referred to in the new Rule. Jockey also to be cleared by racecourse medical officer:
46. Remounting a horse
46.1 If during the race a horse is remounted and continues in the race it shall, on an objection by the Stewards under Part 7, be disqualified.46.2 No rider may remount after a race has started and ride back to the place appointed for unsaddling unless
46.2.1 he has been examined by a Racecourse Medical Officer, and
46.2.2 his horse has been examined by a Veterinary Surgeon.It’s precisely to deal with the situation of McCoy remounting in the National that they’ve decided to do this on ‘health and safety grounds.’
What would McCoy remounting on Blowing Wind have cost horse racing under a GPT-based levy system? Half a million, a million even?
No, best to ban him from remounting and only pay out on two places in a forty runner field.
That’s right Glenn. The headline on my orginal first draft of the release was actually "BHA to ban remounting in order to raise an extra £1m in Levy every 30 years or so."
Remarkably, this seems to have been announced without any consideration of the associated penalties having been made.
There is a current rule that requires riders to check that a horse isn’t injured before remounting, with the usual options of fines and bans available to local stewards.
But the recently produced new online rules haven’t been updated to reflect this PR announcement and the link to ‘forthcoming rule changes’ states there are no changes planned at present!
Logic would suggest that if the sole reason for remounting is to obtain prize money, then any penalty other than immediate disqualification is no deterrent at all. And if the horse isn’t to be disqualified, then the knowledge that connections have had a bet would also be an incentive to ignore the rule and get back on board.
AP
Hi AP – apologies, that’s my fault. I should have added the Penalty under Notes for Editors. The Notes for Editors on the Press Release, which covered the disqualifcation point, are below. Any remounted horses will be disqualifed, and the jockey suspended for four days. Additional suspensions would be incurred if the horse was remounted when injured, such as with Thyne Spirit at Cheltenham last year.
Notes for Editors:
1. The new Rule, B46, reads:
46. Remounting a horse
46.1 If during the race a horse is remounted and continues in the race it shall, on an objection by the Stewards under Part 7, be disqualified.
46.2 No rider may remount after a race has started and ride back to the place appointed for unsaddling unless
46.2.1 he has been examined by a Racecourse Medical Officer, and
46.2.2 his horse has been examined by a Veterinary Surgeon.2. The figures relating to the number of horses being remounted are below:
Remounted Prizemoney
2000 12 11
2001 22 15
2002 32 22
2003 29 24
2004 40 29
2005 11 7
2006 5 4
2007 7 5
2008 9 5
TOTAL 167 122 73%3. The HRA Press Release detailing the changes in 2005 can be found here:
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/inside_horseracing/about/press/regulationDetail.asp?item=083999It’s precisely to deal with the situation of McCoy remounting in the National that they’ve decided to do this on ‘health and safety grounds.’
What would McCoy remounting on Blowing Wind have cost horse racing under a GPT-based levy system? Half a million, a million even?
No, best to ban him from remounting and only pay out on two places in a forty runner field.
That’s right Glenn. The headline on my orginal first draft of the release was actually "BHA to ban remounting in order to raise an extra £1m in Levy every 30 years or so."
Hi Paul, old buddy, old pal.
Punters will only ever lose out due to this, as the bookie scoops the lot when a place isn’t filled. I don’t know how many of those 122 remounts that got prize money made the each-way placings, but even if it’s only ten a year that’s still a windfall for racing at punters’ expense.
I therefore have a suggestion: To remove all doubt about the motivation for this rule change why don’t you earmark all levy raised from it to help the punter? It could help pay for sectional times or weighing of horses, be used to pay for a punters’ rep at the top table or fund free entry to a fixture or two.
What do you say?
Totally disagree.
Jockeys are horsemen and sensible people. They can be trusted to make a rational decision as to the merits of remounting. This is nanny-statism of the worst kind and is symptomatic of how society is going.I can guarantee we won’t be following this lead in Ireland.
Well said Carv. I hope we don’t go down this road over here. Jockeys can and should be trusted to make a judgement call.
Well said Carv. I hope we don’t go down this road over here. Jockeys can and should be trusted to make a judgement call.
Not all jockeys can be trusted to make a call regarding the welfare of horses – the most recent example I can think of is a certain Mr B Connell in the bumper at Listowel on 17th September when he continued riding Tripolovitch, who was clearly seriously injured, yet the jockey refused to dismount.
And to compound the matter the Stewards did absolutely nothing about it, despite a complaint being made.
Hi Paul, old buddy, old pal.
Punters will only ever lose out due to this, as the bookie scoops the lot when a place isn’t filled. I don’t know how many of those 122 remounts that got prize money made the each-way placings, but even if it’s only ten a year that’s still a windfall for racing at punters’ expense.
I therefore have a suggestion: To remove all doubt about the motivation for this rule change why don’t you earmark all levy raised from it to help the punter? It could help pay for sectional times or weighing of horses, be used to pay for a punters’ rep at the top table or fund free entry to a fixture or two.
What do you say?
Howdo Glenn
I’ve looked at the 9 last year, and not one of the remounted horses finished in the placings for betting purposes. You could no doubt argue that one (Thyne Spirit at Cheltenham, subsequently injured, jockey banned for 10 days for failing to dismount/pull up a lame horse) might have ‘raised’ Levy, as no forecast dividend would have been returned. However, with no FC dividend stakes would have either been returned or settled on the winner, so no Levy ‘raised’ there either.
I am sure there will be times where it does cost punters, but as demonstrated looking at 2008 it’s going to be very rare indeed.
Regarding motivation for this rule, the suggestion came from BHA’s Welfare and Training Group, which should give you a clue.
Thanks to the feedback from this forum I fed a number of ideas into the Racing for Change projects and they are aware of systems such as Trackus,. It will be interesting to see what comes out and what changes happen. As for weighing, detailed estimates received by BHA toward the end of 2008 indicated that the installation and set-up costs of the equipment (at every racecourse) would total in the region of £2m, with ongoing maintenance costs upto £100k a year.
Balanced against this was the recognition that the benefits may be limited by the relatively narrow window of time for disseminating the information off-course prior to the race.
Given that, and the lack of £2m, they decided not to advance it until the funding situation changed markedly.
As for a punters rep, we are looking to establish a formal mechanism for consulting with punters, and I’ve met with Cormack15 to discuss the idea and am due to be meeting others. My initial view, and I’ll have to prepare a paper to present to our Board by the end of the year, was a regular meeting of a group, utilising both our website and TRF’s to keep people informed, minutes recorded, opinions canvassed etc. Any thoughts or views on that from you are welcomed – feel free to email or PM me.
always
make the correct decision, nor should they be expected to make such a decision.
You either allow it in all circumstances ‘at the discretion of the jockey’ or you don’t allow it at all.
Aside from possible injury to horse and rider – the true extent of which incidentally can sometimes manifest itself several minutes after the fall when the adrenaline and pain-subduing neuro-chemicals released during stern exercise have ebbed – the name of the game is
Jumping
and, again IMO, a fall should mean the horse has failed the test in that particular race and is disqualified.
always
make the correct decision, nor should they be expected to make such a decision.
You either allow it in all circumstances ‘at the discretion of the jockey’ or you don’t allow it at all.
Aside from possible injury to horse and rider – the true extent of which incidentally can sometimes manifest itself several minutes after the fall when the adrenaline and pain-subduing neuro-chemicals released during stern exercise have ebbed – the name of the game is
Jumping
and, again IMO, a fall should mean the horse has failed the test in that particular race and is disqualified.
The last point is particularly true. In the vast majority of cases with niggly injuries in particular, a horse can look quite ok when warmed up but can appear in great discomfort when just taken from the stable the morning after.
Just wondering though, is remounting going to be allowed in the case of unseated rider only?
SHL
Yes – if a jockey parts company from his/her horse after the start of race, whether unseated or a faller, he/she cannot remount and continue in a race under any circumstance.
Yes – if a jockey parts company from his/her horse after the start of race, whether unseated or a faller, he/she cannot remount and continue in a race under any circumstance.
That sounds completely unambiguous and is perfectly fair.
If the partnership cannot remain in tact for any reason why should the horse be allowed to complete and claim a prize.
As for owners not collecting prize money – tough, your horse was unable to complete the race without falling or unseating, so why should you claim any prize money?
As for punters the same applies, if your horse falls or unseats why should you then go on and collect?
I wonder how many of the objections being raised are being fueled by pocket talking.
If this rule change just prevents one single horse being ridden when injured then it will have served its purpose and, personally, if it were to cost me a winning bet I wouldn’t give a toss.
I am more concerned about the welfare of the horses than the welfare of my wallet.
Yes – if a jockey parts company from his/her horse after the start of race, whether unseated or a faller, he/she cannot remount and continue in a race under any circumstance.
That sounds completely unambiguous and is perfectly fair.
I wonder how many of the objections being raised are being fueled by pocket talking.
I would have thought pocket talking accounted for none of the objections unless people had crystal balls allowing them to know how the new rule would benefit them or not in future.
Personally I’m fairly sure the new rule will be slightly better for my betting but that doesn’t mean I’m necessarily in favour of it, I just hope racing doesn’t become a laughing stock at some time in the future because of it.
Regarding it being unambiguous, who decides what a faller is? (hopefully not local stewards such as the Plumpton ones)
If the jockey stays intact on the horses back is he allowed to continue whatever the horse does, splits etc?
Will the new rule be implemented in Ireland & France?Welfare of the racehorse is paramount.
I am in favour of the new rule; but can see problems.
The time this rule will be unpopular with punters is if a horse falls 30 lengths clear at the last fence. When there are no more obstacles; punters won’t be pleased. Can see even without obstacles it may hurt the horse to continue.
But….
What about when a horse falls and can not be caught? It runs loose without a jockey; Something which could well make any injury (from that fall) a lot worse. Am no expert. But I would say a horse running loose after a fall; is a lot more dangerous to the horse than if remounted for another 150 yrds (without obstacles).If it is not o.k. for a jockey to remount after the last fence; then should we allow horses to run loose after a fall? Something which can not be helped in jump racing.
Therefore, some may call for a ban on jump racing all together.Would a ban on remounting when there are still obstacles to jump be better? With existing proviso’s.
Am in two minds myself.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.