The home of intelligent horse racing discussion
The home of intelligent horse racing discussion

Ruby Walsh Appeal

Home Forums Horse Racing Ruby Walsh Appeal

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 30 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #20125
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Total Posts 17718

    Awaiting result… It seems Ruby Walsh‘s appeal was complex and highly technical, on the basis of safety – making sure he could change the lead leg to get right for the final fence.

    Much could hang on this one…

    #375779
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Total Posts 17718

    Walsh appeal LOST. And his five day suspension stands.

    #375786
    GingertipsterGingertipster
    Participant
    • Total Posts 26575

    It is a shame the rules could not allow one slap down the shoulder above the "limit" of eight strokes. So there isn’t such a feeling of "punishment not fitting the crime". But as the rules stand, I don’t see how Ruby thought he’d be successful.

    value is everything
    #375790
    seanboyce
    Member
    • Total Posts 255

    Walsh’s appeal did not dispute that 9 strokes were used. His argument was that one of those was necessary for ‘safety’.
    I don’t think he ever had a strong case and the appeal was very unlikely to succeed. Had he been successful the ‘safety’ defence would have become a loophole to be exploited in a range of circumstances. Panel were right (in the context of these rules) to uphold ban I think.

    What is interesting to consider is under what circumstances ‘safety’ would be accepted as a justification for any use of the stick. If the use works then the horse will hopefully avoid the situation the use was intended to address. Seems a Kafkaesque Catch 22 to me. The only time a jockey will be able to

    prove

    it was a safety stroke is when the horse fails to respond and crashes through the wing anyway. If the horse responds as the rider intends a steward will quite likely struggle to see it as a safety stroke rather than simply ‘correction’.

    #375796
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Total Posts 17718

    A very good point. As Walsh chose such a defence, this was the first test case for the "safety" use of the whip. Hard to see how BHA could have allowed such a defence to drive a coach and horses through their rules. Today’s outcome could hardly be any different.

    All of which begs the question: given that

    David Muir

    has expressed himself pro-whip "for safety purposes", does not the fact that safety cannot be an admissible defence … except as you say where an obvious disaster happens

    despite

    a "safety" whip manoeuvre … does not this show the RSPCA/BHA’s fair words on the whip’s safety usage to be without meaning?

    Are, in essence, the RSPCA and BHA encouraging poor horse welfare in drafting this rule as it stands, where emergency "safety strokes" are to all intents and purposes only allowable as part of the ration of eight or nine?

    Once again, this is an ambiguity caused by making the number of allowed strokes a rigid digit. Horse welfare – and racing generally – can only suffer as a result.

    #375797
    Eclipse First
    Member
    • Total Posts 1571

    For the safety defence to have any credence I presume that the defence would have to prove that the horse had jumped all other obstacles on the given leg and to do otherwise would have been hazardous. Or perhaps as the horse was so overly fatigued that jumping the fence on the wrong leg was hazardous.
    In either case it begs the questions; if the horse could only jump on one leg what jockey in his right mind would get on his back? or If the horse was that fatigued surely the safest course of action would have been to pull the horse up?

    Perhaps the simple answer is that Ruby took one hand off the rein when administering the stroke and was undone by a momentary lapse of concentration.

    #375798
    GingertipsterGingertipster
    Participant
    • Total Posts 26575

    Can you give examples where safety was put at risk by these new whip rules?

    In my opinion before these rules came in jockeys were using the whip as a corrective tool as an excuse not to do all they can to stop interference, relying on the whip too much. Given sufficient time, reins are the most effective steering tool. Even after correctly using the whip as first option, didn’t seem as though they were using the reins if a slap did not work. ie At times not wanting to lose valuable momentum took presedent over safety. From what I’ve seen, there hasn’t been as much interference since these rules came in. Am I right in that? Although they are neccesary at times and wouldn’t like them banned, whips arguably cause more interference than they stop.

    I am sure when the whip is neccessary to alter course, after jinking violently etc. eg at Chepstow’s paddock bend – it will be taken in to account by stewards. Seemed to me Ruby’s mount remained straight.

    value is everything
    #375808
    seanryan
    Member
    • Total Posts 41

    Would Ruby case have been stronger had the hit down the shoulder been the last stroke used ?

    There seemed to me to be some scope for future appeals in the way the BHA chose to defend the penalty i.e. one reason they did not accept it was for safety was because although corrective it was administered 15 strides from the fence.

    I wonder if they would accept the general principle that hits in excess of the limit – if administered for safety – can be disregarded ?

    If so then outlining the limited circumstances in which hits might be disregarded could allow all sides some scope for tweaks without backing down from the original report recs.

    #375809
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Total Posts 17718

    I wonder if they would accept the general principle that hits in excess of the limit – if administered for safety – can be disregarded ?

    If so then outlining the limited circumstances in which hits might be disregarded could allow all sides some scope for tweaks without backing down from the original report recs.

    They seem to accept the

    general principle

    (as do RSPCA) but don’t seem to accept the

    practice

    .

    Today’s ruling effectively said that the whip should only be used for safety purposes

    after all other expedients have been tried

    (such as what?) and that "corrective" strokes don’t count as safety, but as part of the 8/9 stroke allowance.

    Their reasoning was that Ruby’s

    Debatable Stroke

    (sounds like something out of the

    Morte D’Arthur

    !) was too far from the fence to be anything other than "corrective", and so it counted.

    The appeals panel today was certainly not looking for scope for agreement: rather, they were intent on closing off any possible face-saving loophole.

    #375810
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Total Posts 17718

    Lydia Hislop

    talking to Ruby Walsh after today’s failed appeal hearing:

    http://www.racinguk.com/video/watch/rub … -interview

    #375812
    seanryan
    Member
    • Total Posts 41

    The appeals panel today was certainly not looking for scope for agreement: rather, they were intent on closing off any possible face-saving loophole.

    That is a pity. It is a real shame if there is no will to understand the jockeys difficulty with the punishment arising from a marginal/technical breach of what is an arbitrary hit limit.

    BHA still seem to be at the "fixing the blame rather than fixing the problem" stage.

    #375814
    andyod
    Member
    • Total Posts 4012

    Can’t help feeling that some of you think that the jockeys are a bunch of crooks who would do anything to undermine or circumvent the rules,including Walsh and MacCoy(but surely they must be in cahoots with the trainers and owners). That being so why oh why do you follow the sport and bet on the horses?

    #375819
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Total Posts 17718

    BHA still seem to be at the "fixing the blame rather than fixing the problem" stage.

    As you re-tweeted yesterday (from Philip Davies MP) BHA are currently busy finding

    "solutions looking for problems

    ". Today’s ruling that "correction" does not equate to "safety" seems to narrow their rationale for keeping the whip at all, and is therefore bound to alienate the professionals even further.

    #375822
    Skelly
    Member
    • Total Posts 6

    Walsh appeal LOST. And his five day suspension stands.

    He knew the rules like the rest of the jockeys who keep breaking them

    #375827
    eddie case
    Member
    • Total Posts 1215

    Walsh appeal LOST. And his five day suspension stands.

    He knew the rules like the rest of the jockeys who keep breaking them

    You sound shrewd, there could be a job at the Benny Hill Authority for you.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 30 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.