Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Very good news . BHA were extremely precipitate in approving the transfer of the existing flat fixtures without carrying out any proper consultation .
The July consultation showed them that AW had reached saturation point as far as racegoers and viewers were concerned and the endless trash was a turn off .
Unless the BHA revoke its rule on race distances I cannot see how this can now go ahead . The size of the track makes floodlights on the round course impossibly expensive on one hand and environmentally impossible on the other due to a nature reserve and some homes.
Also if Catterick comes along and gets the go ahead plus leasehold fixtures the old we need an AW racecourse in the North point disappears.
If we have fixture saturation for the AW and a limited pool of AW fixtures for an increasing number of racecourses then Southwell does look doomed and Lingfield will surely have to get its turf track in proper order and run far more of its summer fixtures just on turf.
Sad news but he clearly hated chasing when with Emma lavelle and this was an accident waiting to happen – a serious error of judgment to run him over fences I am afraid .
For Wayward Lad fans – footage of his last race – a win in the 1987 Whitbread Gold Lsbel Chase ( now the Betfred Bowl ) is now up on Youtube – and how magnificently the old boy jumped that day as ever .
<a href="http://
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHAj98SHrjM“>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHAj98SHrjMEclipse First – you clearly either have not read the BHA ruling or fail to understand it .
I was pretty appalled by their reasoning yesterday but most of all by the submissions of the BHA Q.C that if Hughes had got 10 years that should be upheld too on the basis of a reciprocal agreement .
What was wrong ?well I see it this way
1 As the reasons revealed the Indian stewards had actually left the International Racing Agreement in 2007 as because unlike all the other signatories they deny people appearing before them legal representation. Hence , the line peddled by the BHB that they could only interfere if the proceedings had been in breach of natural justice was wrong .
2 The Panel however upheld the ban via a backdoor route namely that the Indian authorities were however a recognised racing authority by the BHA and therefore the ban would apply unless disapplied by the BHA . It strikes me as objectionable that a foreign racing authority can back out of the standards required by the International Racing Agreement (IRA)and still have its bans enforced but so be it . What is plain , however is that the reasons for disapplying a ban are therefore at large . The Panel accepted this but then proceeded to apply an approach akin to the IRA .
3 Hence , the Panel adopted far too narrow an approach saying that the application for the ban not to apply should be considered against the need for reciprocal arrangements to be enforced and on the basis of whether Hughes received a fair hearing . Why should the indian authorities be entitled to what in effect are the limits of the IRA when they won’t sign up to it .
4 Hughes’ challenge was based on four points (a) that he was not allowed legal representation (b) the absence of the trainer at the appeal (c) the emphasis on the riding instructions and (d) the disproportionate penalty
The panel found that (a) could be dismissed on the basis that Hughes had signed a waiver ( that strikes me as nonsensical – any such waiver of putting your rights to a fair hearing before your domestic authority is offensive and seeks to usurp the domestic authority’s powers ) (b) that it did not make any difference as the representative put Hughes’ points with clarity and energy . ( Frankly, that strikes me as equally specious – a trained advocate by that very training is likely to be more persuasive – that is the very reason for having the rule in this country that legal representation is appropriate
As for the absence of the trainer – who said he was ill and then turned up saddling runners in the afternoon. This was said not to be unfair as there was no evidence from the earlier hearings that their recollection of the instructions was in dispute . This strikes me again as specious. The findings against Hughes were based on his apparent failure to rush the horse up and control it if it ran keen . Questions could clearly have been asked of the trainer to address the original panel’s findings and to deal with them . The fact the representative apparently did not think of this illustrates that a lawyer might have done
As for the over emphasis on riding instructions as distinct from in effect the non-trier rule they said this had been carefully investigated and that the could not retry the case themselves . I think that a point should have been made but does not appear to have been that we should simply not be enforcing breaches of this rule as it reverses the burden of proof .In effect , not riding to instructions is regarded as meaning non-trying which the jockey then has to disprove . This is totally offensive to our ideas of justice . The BHA should not even have upheld a suspension based on this rule under the IRA let alone by the back door
Finally, they held that the proper test to the penalty was perversity ( i.e no reasonable authority could have reached it ) rather than proportionality ( a proportionate response to a legitimate aim ) and held that 50 days met either test . Which in the light of the effects on a jockey’s earnings and potentially their career strikes me as quite astonishing if proportionality is the test as it should be .
Furthermore, the effect of the Indian stewards ruling for a domestic jockey would be a 15 day ban – for a foreign jockey 50 days . This is discriminatory and the BHA at most should therefore have held that an equivalent ban should apply – either 15 days or on the 15 days when Mumbai was racing . Otherwise it has a disproportionate effect on a foreign jockey.
I hope Hughes and his lawyers appeal to the Appeal Board which has a better record .
HF is much the most likely winner but Zarkandar should not be underrated . Nicholls knows when a horse will improve a ton and the slow pace would have been much against the horse . He was also having his first run and no other horse has done that and won in 40 years.
That being said Darlan was cantering and might have hacked up and Get Me Out of Here might have gone beyond recall but for being so badly hampered .
The most likely danger to HF is Binocular . At his best on the 2010 CH run he is not far off HF’s best ratings and today he looked as if he was close to it , travelling and jumping with a fluency and zest not seen since his CH win .
Congratulations to Richard Hills. Last October he took over the reigns of an also-ran in the twilight of his career and transformed it, in the eyes of the public at least, into a horse that’s head and shoulders above a £2m Group One field.
You couldn’t fault today’s display – a master-class of ground-saving tactical genius. We salute you Sir!
ROFL !!!!
An "also ran" fresh from a Group 1 win on the bridle !
Youmzain is head and shoulders the best horse in that race. The jockey lost him the race – end of story . Channon is clear he should have won and he is right . Had he followed Ajtebi round he would have won comfortably .
I thought it was a terrible ride . Last year Hughes and Channon tried to ride him a bit closer to the pace and he was in a perfect position and flattened out. The year before he had a dream run up the rail and ran really well .
This year he had a full Dubai prep . The opposition was weaker and the jockey rode a stinker off a slow pace . Ajtebi saw the risk and pulled his horse wide . Had Hills done the same he would have avoided the traffic problems tracked EA through and judging by the fact he made up four lengths in half a furlong he would probably have won .
Hughes lost the ride when the horse ran way below form . I wonder what Hills has to do to lose it ? He has ridden two stinkers on the horse.
I digress but that was the one thing about Lester unlike those bridle jockeys- when he looked like he had a double handful – he generally did !
That made his ride on the horse in the Arc look inspired
Stuck last on the inside off a slow pace and rode it straight into a pocket.A shockingly bad ride
Given a riding lesson by the apprentice on the winner .
Imago Mundi was brought over as a lead horse for Multidimensional.
Very sad news about Wingwalker . What did he die of ? Did it explain his erratic running style ?
I think you will be in a minority.
Pilsudski always ran below form there in my opinion and his efforts there were overrated – Youmzain is consistently underrated as he can be an in and out performer . Despite his comfortable defeat of S of F in July he stayed on 125 .
Ah but you haven’t answered my question ?
On ground similarly described as good to soft Zarkava was over a second faster than Helissio – despite meeting trouble in running and jinking out of the stalls and it was a two length defeat
Moreover, I think Pilsudski was never at his best around Longchamp I mean he only beat Oscar Schindler a neck that day – and a few weeks later Singspiel beat Helissio in Japan – admittedly on a road.
I think some serious overrating went on in the late 90s
Aidan – Helissio was rated 134 – would you have backed him to beat Zarkava giving her 12lb …
I suspect Youmzain has improved markedly this year and was value for 2lb or so higher yesterday had he not been given such a poor ride , the other thing is that she won well within herself . I suspect there was plenty more in the tank – moreover she lost three lengths at the start
They can give good reasons for rating her 127 – is that a true reflection of her ability – I doubt it .
