- This topic has 38 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
It was a marvellous finish to a wonderful race Tom. But am afraid you broke the rules, “encouraging” your horse too many times and imo not enough time between strokes to allow the horse to respond. The almost rat-a-tat-tat finish was not neccessary.
This thing jockeys seem to either say or mean about “Had I not hit the horse one less time it would not have won”, is simply not true. The horse is responding and can not go any faster for 14 than it can 10 well spaced encouragements on a run-in.
Value Is EverythingJockeys are happy to take the ban.
Look at Cue Card in the King George, jockey had to hit him 11 times to beat the (non stayer) VautourGaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
Jockeys are happy to take the ban.
Look at Cue Card in the King George, jockey had to hit him 11 times to beat the (non stayer) VautourNo, the jockey didn’t “had to hit him 11 times to beat” Vautour Nathan. Had Brennan spaced the whip strokes out better he’d still have won without breaking the rules.
Value Is EverythingWhat annoys me is the arrogance to blatantly flout the rules and then complain about the penalty. The rules are hardly ambiguous and they are not just breaching them by one or two but by seven or eight.
Completely irrelevant and a red herring to bring up five furlong races, surely the six on the flat rule, covering five furlongs to two miles five furlongs, is for the benefit of simplicity as would you really be upset if races below one mile were only allowed three or four smacks. All flat jockeys know they have six and jump’s seven.
Take away the rider’s percentage of the prize money and keep the lengthy bans and they may learn.
They won’t adhere to the rule in a big race unless the penalty is harsh enough. Breaking the whip rules should result in DQ. That’d stop the disregard for the rule immediately.
The answer of course is not to allow the whip at all…so blatantly obvious and one day people will look back with incredulity at how long it took to a) introduce some control and b)realise we don’t really need the whip at all….but we’ve been here before on the forum so I won’t enter into lengthy devisive debate. You all know my view.
No, the jockey didn’t “had to hit him 11 times to beat” Vautour Nathan. Had Brennan spaced the whip strokes out better he’d still have won without breaking the rules.
What’s this based on? Scientific evidence or a hunch?
That’s 2 thrilling races on consecutive weekends thoroughly enjoyed by everyone watching, marred by the BHA and their excessive whip rules.
Rules are always going to be broken if the rewards outweigh the downsides.I heard Kelso moved the final fence closer to the winning line to help the jockeys stay in the guidelines.
If you go to back a certainty always buy a return ticket.
chalk jockey
The ‘guidelines’ had nothing to do with Kelso’s decision to rearrange the chase course. The reason they moved the last fence was to give a separate run-in for the chase and hurdles courses.
Rob
What’s this based on? Scientific evidence or a hunch?
Based on knowledge of someone who makes a living by race reading.
…And what is your assertion – that hitting a horse 11 times makes it go faster than a better spaced out 8 – based on Yeats?
Value Is EverythingThey won’t adhere to the rule in a big race unless the penalty is harsh enough. Breaking the whip rules should result in DQ. That’d stop the disregard for the rule immediately.
The answer of course is not to allow the whip at all…so blatantly obvious and one day people will look back with incredulity at how long it took to a) introduce some control and b)realise we don’t really need the whip at all….but we’ve been here before on the forum so I won’t enter into lengthy devisive debate. You all know my view.
No, imo no need for automatic DQ David.
a) Bring in professional stewards.
b) Keep the bans and fines as they are.
c) Bring in a rule where if the stewards panel believe the horse would not have won without breaking the rules – then reverse the placings. With benefit of the doubt going to the one keeping to the rules.Value Is EverythingBased on knowledge of someone who makes a living by race reading.
…And what is your assertion – that hitting a horse 11 times makes it go faster than hitting it 8 times (when better spaced out) – based on Yeats?
I prefer to leave it in the hands of the experts (the jockeys) I didn’t see anything wrong with either ride and neither did 99.99% of people watching.
It’s an absolute disgrace that stipendary steward should describe the ride as “A win at all costs ride”.
Why did no one criticise the rides prior to the bans?c) Bring in a rule where if the stewards panel believe the horse would not have won without breaking the rules – then reverse the placings. With benefit of the doubt going to the one keeping to the rules.
So based on that Gingertipster if you were the stewards panel would you change the result in either Cue Card’s or Soll’s race?
I know you fancied Soll, Ginger, So if the stewards Threw Soll out and lets say you back him at £50 ew what would you say?
And obviously bookmakers Move swiftly away from first past the post.
c) Bring in a rule where if the stewards panel believe the horse would not have won without breaking the rules – then reverse the placings. With benefit of the doubt going to the one keeping to the rules.
So based on that Gingertipster if you were the stewards panel would you change the result in either Cue Card’s or Soll’s race?
Both Scudamore and Brennan did not give adequate time between strokes and (because of that) ended up hitting their horses too often. Take a look at Brennan going in to the last – four quick encouragements; and Scudamore half-way up the run-in again several encouragements in quick succession. No doubt in my mind both jockeys knew their actions would get them in trouble. Had they also known their actions would result in placings being reversed in all liklihood IT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED, they would’ve instead kept within the rules AND STILL WON.
Value Is Everything<P>What’s this based on? Scientific evidence or a hunch?</P>
<P>Based on knowledge of someone who makes a living by race reading.</P>
<P>…And what is your assertion – that hitting a horse 11 times makes it go faster than a better spaced out 8 – based on Yeats?</P>But if you were right everytime you would’nt be on a paperboys wage who is a part time toilet cleaner.
Brennan must have thought the horse need the amount of strokes to win the race or do you know more than him as well.?
Maybe you should be in charge of the BHA with your far superior knowledge to that of everybody else.
Salt and vinegar on my fish and chips, cheers……
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
I know you fancied Soll, Ginger, So if the stewards Threw Soll out and lets say you back him at £50 ew what would you say?
I had just a saver bet on Soll Follyhoog, but Cue Card was quite a big win.
Value Is Everythingc) Bring in a rule where if the stewards panel believe the horse would not have won without breaking the rules – then reverse the placings. With benefit of the doubt going to the one keeping to the rules.
So based on that Gingertipster if you were the stewards panel would you change the result in either Cue Card’s or Soll’s race?
Both Scudamore and Brennan did not give adequate time between strokes and (because of that) ended up hitting their horses too often. Take a look at Brennan going in to the last – four quick encouragements; and Scudamore half-way up the run-in again several encouragements in quick succession. No doubt in my mind both jockeys knew their actions would get them in trouble. Had they also known their actions would result in placings being reversed in all liklihood IT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED, they would’ve instead kept within the rules AND STILL WON.
To be fair you haven’t answered the question. So if you were the stewards panel and you had the rules you want ie the result is affected in your opinion by the excess whip the result is changed, would you change either result in Cue Card’s or Soll’s race if the jockeys rode the same?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.