- This topic has 34 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Thought it was a disgusting thing to watch, an embarrassment to racing.The sort of thing that brings the sport into disrepute.How anyone could have enjoyed watching that beats me.
He pulled up, knackered, before the last then spotted he was the only other finisher (behind the winner) so decided to jump the last after all. The horse was fine but not the brightest move to jump with a horse that five seconds earlier he’d considered too tired to finish the race.
You’re getting worse cormack, are you sure you’re involved in the right sport?
The horse was as tired as Outlaw Tom in a number of his races.
He did not pull it up because it was knackered, at least get the facts right.The jockey eased up on the horse going to the last because he knew there was nothing behind him, however this caused the horse to ease up and lose momentum, he did not have enough momentum to jump the fence and wisely aborted.
Safer for both horse and jockey to retrace steps and have another go.
What nonsense.
Think you owe Cormack an apology.
You could, for example apologise Eddie for accusing me of not getting my facts right, when my facts tally exactly with the stewards (who had interviewed the jockey) reading of events. Or did you see or hear something they missed?
As for Outlaw Tom, I can assure you if he was pulled up because the jockey had decided he’d had enough and was then asked to jump a fence almost immediately after I’d be pretty fed up.
I’m not saying it was a major issue yesterday
, I just gave my opinion the jockey made a poor decision that he may have lived to very much regret, it could well have developed into a major issue for him. An observation based on the facts of the case as reported by the jockey and the stewards.
There seems a determination to get meetings on at all costs, but was it a borderline decision to give the go ahead to racing?
It was obviously heavy going, but as long as the jockeys set a sensible pace and pull up when necessary, there should be no problems.
Are some of you saying racing should not take place on heavy going because the horses will get more tired than usual? Maybe we should just cancel any races over 3m on heavy going.
It was not an "ugly spectacle" at all. All jockeys did the sensible thing, including the second jockey and pulled up. Whether he should have back tracked and attempted to jump the last is debatable. However, if he had believed there wasn’t an opportunity to do that, there would have been a greater temptation to try to force the horse to jump the fence first time.
....and you've got to look a long way back for anything else.
cormack, if the horse was knackered the stewards would not have endorsed the jockeys action, the horse was tired like thousands of others in the past that have continued to jump fences.
If you watch a recording of the race, the jockey looks behind him after jumping the second last and sees no one else his still going, he then eases down to pop the last but the horse immediately eases down himself and loses all momentum. A wise move by the jockey to not continue to immediately jump the fence, he thought about it and then decided to jump the fence.
Have you seen all the footage Eddie, including that from behind?
If the horse wasn’t pulled up I am a dutchman.
Interesting debate right now on ATR Forum. Including debate on rule 46.4 which states that a horse in a steeple chase or hurdle should not jump any more fences after being pulled up.
cormack, it depends on the interpretation of pulled up. Pulled up to me means taking your horse out of the race with no intention of continuing.
Think Chapman has gone a tiny bit over the top about the issue.
It’s just one race.A bit of sense from Outlaw Tom’s assistant trainer though
Ha ha, yes indeed. I suspect I’ll be bodily thrown out of Arlary one of these days!
Yes, it does depend on the definition of pulled up Eddie. But come on, the horse
literally stopped
and the jockey turned the horse and walked away from the fence. If that isn’t a PU then I don’t know what is.
Anyway, I’ll agree to differ.
Venetia Williams take on things.
http://www.sportinglife.com/racing/news/article/465/9693899/venetia-williams-believes-jockey-callum-whillans
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
As a former event rider that ride in the eventing world would have been ‘yellow carded’ for being dangerous and pressing a tired horse. In racing there seems to be no such thing as pressing a tired horse, should the horse have jumped the last, had a slow rotational fall (as in eventing) due to being tired, the jockey could well have been killed. This sort of fall is rare in racing as the horses fall at speed and the jockeys are most usually thrown well clear (with the exception of the old Aintree Grand National fences which caused rotational falls). This lad got away with it.
Let’s put ourselves in Callum Whillans’ young shoes for a minute.
He’s a young jockey trying to make his way in the game. He’s secured a conditional jockey position at one of the top NH yards in the country. He’s riding a stamina laden, heavy ground performing horse who probably only has ideal conditions two or three times a season.
In Callum’s shoes….he pulls up, the owner goes mad for losing out on 8 grand prize money and he sees his riding opportunities reduce somewhat between now and the end of the season. ( I don’t imagine this was his immediate thoughts when he was coming to the final fence by the way.)
He took a risk. These guys and girls take a risk every time they get jocked up. Yes they sometimes make mistakes and their decision making is incorrect but….I say it again….put yourselves in Callum’s shoes. It’s fine to criticise his actions after the event. Unfortunately he didn’t have the option of a replay and a couple of a hours to think about things.
If we are going to critciise anyone let’s focus our attention on the racecourse, were conditions raceable? Or the trainer or his/her representative? Any of the horses yesterday could have been pulled out by connections before racing if they felt conditions were unraceable.
Ultimately the jockey was only following orders and trying to obtain the best result for the horse and connections.
I thought the race was ugly and said so starting a similar thread immediately after the finish on JFF.
At that point I didn’t know Gorgeous Liege had finished.
That said, I’ve witnessed similar at Uttoxeter (including over hurdles!) and when there’s a lot of money involved, I don’t have a problem with a jock giving the horse a moment or two to fill its lungs, then popping the last and trotting to the finish. This was for 8 grand second money…
But I do question the wisdom of having a marathon at Ffos Las in winter.
Regarding the Ffos Las winter going: if memory serves, during the first couple of seasons after opening the concensus was that the course was one of the few, along with such as Doncaster and Musselburgh, that would be likely to produce ‘decent’ ground during wet spells; now it’s being compared to Uttoxeter!
Either the ground has undergone serious compaction or, more likely, the mistake in those early days was one of drawing binding conclusions from insufficient data
Rather than pick on the jockey, I think we should be looking at the wisdom of running races on ground/distance combinations that see a small percentage of the field able to complete the race.
I am not a big fan of these long distance races on gutters, it’s rare that I’ll watch one longer than the Gold Cup trip.
Every year the Grand National takes place and we know that half the field won’t finish the course. Last year the ground was good to soft and the fences supposed to be reduced to hurdles, in the opinion of some. Only 18 of the 40 runners managed to complete the race.
In 2001 the Grand National took place on atrocious conditions and only 4 of the 40 runners completed the race. Is this acceptable, that only one horse in ten can get round?
Every now and then the distance and going will conspire to make the conditions harsh enough that very few get round. I don’t watch those races but people do watch and bet on these events. If they have had a bet they are surely entitled to expect the jockey to obtain the best position the horse can attain.
The jockey either broke the rules or he didn’t and it was deemed that he hadn’t. Rather than blame him, we should be asking if it is right that a situation where races are run, knowing that the majority of the field won’t get round, is an acceptable state of affairs for Horse Racing.
The Grand National is obviously going to be the first casualty of any ruling that horses should be limited to a certain distance on bad ground.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Rather than pick on the jockey, I think we should be looking at the wisdom of running races on ground/distance combinations that see a small percentage of the field able to complete the race.
I am not a big fan of these long distance races on gutters, it’s rare that I’ll watch one longer than the Gold Cup trip.
Every year the Grand National takes place and we know that half the field won’t finish the course. Last year the ground was good to soft and the fences supposed to be reduced to hurdles, in the opinion of some. Only 18 of the 40 runners managed to complete the race.
In 2001 the Grand National took place on atrocious conditions and only 4 of the 40 runners completed the race. Is this acceptable, that only one horse in ten can get round?
Every now and then the distance and going will conspire to make the conditions harsh enough that very few get round. I don’t watch those races but people do watch and bet on these events. If they have had a bet they are surely entitled to expect the jockey to obtain the best position the horse can attain.
The jockey either broke the rules or he didn’t and it was deemed that he hadn’t. Rather than blame him, we should be asking if it is right that a situation where races are run, knowing that the majority of the field won’t get round, is an acceptable state of affairs for Horse Racing.
How would you know prior to the race and without hindsight?
The Ffos Las race had only 10 runners and I suspect the spread of runners to finish prior to the race would be about 4 but the race could have had 18 runners with more finishers.
How many finishers will also be dependent on how fast they go, if they’d gone much slower, more may have finished although that wouldn’t have suited the winner.
Until it became just another long distance chase 2 or 3 years ago the 2001 National was my least enjoyable National to watch although it was a one off and who would have predicted only 4 finishers prior to it or a pile up at one fence? The spread of finishers in the race was in double figures.
Is 18 finishers out of 40 runners bad? Maybe they are going faster because the fences are softer causing one or two extra fallers and some jockeys to pull up when having no conceivable chance in the race.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.