- This topic has 12 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Kevin Brogan was riding at Sedgefield today. He was stood down and his rides in the 4.00 and 5.10 (both for Ben Haslam and J.P McManus and both favourites) were taken by Jack Hogan, a conditional jockey claiming 5lbs.
No rules have been broken and I am not suggesting anything underhand has happened.
But is it fair for a conditional to take over from a fully fledged jockey?
If you had bet against the favourite in either of those races this morning, or if you are the connections of one of the other horses; all of a sudden you find yourself up against a favourite that is now 5lbs well in at the weights! Shouldn’t it be a like for like swap where possible?
Hogan won on the first of them. The winning margin was 3 lengths, so I suppose his claim did not make much difference. But what if the winning margin had been smaller?
When I worked at Ladbrokes in Market Street as a board man in 1985-88 (Saturdays and the summer holidays). there was a very old boy who used to smoke every minute of the day, and sit in the corner below me with his 1p Lucky 15s in hand. The only words he ever used to say was the following, which he’d utter whenever this happened:
“You gotta watch ’em. They change the jockeys”. Every day, without fail. (I was inspired to make a list of jockey changes on the sheets where appropriate – customer servcie was my middle name!).
I still do an impression of him – to myself – whenever I see this happen (eg Conflated last week).
He knew. Bless him.
As to CAS’s question…that’s the game!
The second one won by 9 lengths – so I don’t suppose the jockey change made much difference!
Changing a jockey will always be a requirement at times and not an issue, but regardless of which jockey is the replacement, the weight carried should remain the same…..not over and not under.
I suppose it works the other way around as well. I am sure I can recall a few occasions when fairly inexperienced claimers have been replaced by senior jockeys. I am guessing that is what the old boy in QF’s betting shop was getting at.
Difficult one. Whilst I’m sure the vast majority of cases are genuine, the potential for skullduggery is obvious. Trouble is you can always stand a jock down ‘in the interests of safety’ whether or not it is true and it’s impossible to argue against it or prove it. One of those things where if patterns start to emerge then it should be looked at.
I don’t really see it as a problem. The conditional jockey
has weight taken off to make up for his lack of experience.
Once he’s won enough his claim reduces and eventually disappears.
I’ll bet if he lost on a favourite there would be some complaining
they didn’t put an experienced jockey on.It was not any kind of problem yesterday. But say if the winning margin had been less than a length. Could we really say the 5lb change in the weights made no difference? If so, what is the point of the claim?
I take the point about inexperience but if a jockey has got down to a 5lb claim he/she must have ridden a few winners. And we all know there is a considerable difference amongst these jockeys. For some the 5lb claim is like stealing.
I realise it is a slightly unusual situation but the fact is the conditions of the two races changed. It is a not dissimilar situation to a reserve coming into a race.
Jockey changes occur all the time, there were plenty last week at Cheltenham. Should Sam Ewing have been deprived of riding Conflated in the Gold Cup? I don’t think so and you should have who you want as a replacement. There could be jockey availability or suitability problems. If concerned about betting leave it till late and the final jocks are announced.
How would you replace someone like McCoy like for like? It’s impossible.
Reserves are okay here but farcical in Ireland.If a conditional replaced a senior jockey in the Gold Cup or any graded race, he/she would not be allowed to claim.
I know it does not happen often but in the circumstances yesterday I do not think the conditional should be allowed to claim. But if they ride a winner it should not count towards reducing their claim.
I really cannot see a problem with leaving things as they are.
I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains
I've walked and I crawled on six crooked highwaysThis is what it says in the rules:
Substitution of Jockeys
A Jockey may not be substituted for another Jockey after the deadline for Declaration of Jockeys, unless:
the BHA are satisfied that the substitute Jockey can be weighed out for the Race and:
the declared Jockey is ill or unfit to ride;
the declared Jockey is not qualified to ride;
a meeting on the same day has been abandoned and the substitute Jockey was declared to ride at the abandoned meeting;
the substitute Jockey was declared to ride at another meeting on the same day and one of their declared rides is a non-runner;
the substitute Jockey was declared to ride another horse in the same race but the horse is a non-runner;
the substitute Jockey was not declared to ride because he had already been declared to ride at nine meetings in the week but subsequently did not ride at one or more of those meetings; or
the declared Jockey is due to carry 1lb or more overweight, or
the BHA otherwise consents
If a Jockey is prevented from weighing out because they are 4lbs or more overweight:
if the declared Jockey was entitled to claim a weight allowance, the substitute Jockey must also be entitled to claim a weight allowance; or
if the declared Jockey was not entitled to claim a weight allowance, the substitute Jockey must also not be entitled to claim a weight allowance,
So the like for like clause apparently only applies where the original jockey was ruled out because of being too much overweight. Difficult to see why that distinction is applied.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.