Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Not sure whether they work Cormack, but checking back, race riding in Australia (Sydney) was perceived to be more rigorously ‘policed’.
Jockeys were not allowed mobile phones.
If they caused problems in a race (contact, cutting across etc.) there were disqualifications, including the horse losing the race.
Written instructions were necessary but possibly only if the horse was going to be ridden in a different way ie not front running.
If instructions were not followed trainer and rider would be questioned and fined/banned if stewards were not happy with answers.
All was published on the website after the meeting including photo finishes of each race.
It also seemed that trainers sometimes ran their horses over unsuitable distances rather than ‘winning’ ones, making it easier to follow form. Group end, if you look at a Sydney Cup horse that ran and won, he was in much shorter distanced races prior to the target race and priced accordingly at 100/1 plus.
This info about race riding in Australia (Sydney) was 2-3 years ago so perhaps things have now changed.Expect you are right in this instance Cormack, but riding instructions could be recorded as they are, I believe, in Australia. If deviated from, questions are asked and all is published after the race.
Far better system than the verbal instructions given on the qt over here.It isn’t that long ago when Adam Kirby said he was thinking of giving up race riding.
After this particular thread I would not be surprised if he did!!
Jockeys have to ride to instructions if they wish to continue. Until these instructions are written down and given to stewards prior to the race, and then trainers/jockeys are questioned if not complied with, and all is made public as Cormack15 suggests, these debates will continue unabated.oldjohn69
wrote
On the contrary he seems to be holding his own counsel on this and everyone else is getting up tight.
But he has not. That is the point. A journalist comments on one of his many rides, and he takes umbrage.
The Daily Mail reports his fury and says he wants nothing more to do with RUK whilst Lydia is around. The RUK issue a statement that he declined an invitation to elaborate or respond. Fair enough, he need not respond but he should have ignored. He certainly did not hold his own counsel.Pinza
wrote
The "perception" of insiders running the show for insiders is accurate. The only thing that’s illogical about what you say, is the underlying feeling that this state of affairs is somehow regrettable. It is not.
So the outsiders can leave them to it?
As
Cormack15
observed
I think the point people are making is that racing can seem such a closed shop that people find it difficult to identify with the sport.
Exactly. Racing is a sport and the horses and jockeys are athletes who should be trying to win. If an horse has the best form, and you put your week’s wages on it, and the only reason it doesn’t win is because it wasn’t allowed to, they clean up and you have lost. I know some think, including insiders, that the losers are just mugs, it’s only a game, more fools them etc.
I’m certainly not suggesting this was the case with AP’s ride because I don’t know. What I do know is that insiders sometimes decide the horse is not going to win when quite capable of doing so. You need outsiders to help prevent this, along with the other corrupt practices.
Lydia is one of a few journalists who is not afraid to speak her mind and ask awkward questions.
The rest are a bunch of smug sycophants.
It is stupid that AP and other jockeys are not prepared to discuss or explain. As for The Daily Mail comments, I wouldn’t expect anything else from that paper.
The media, dominated by the powerful, eventually demote or get rid of anyone who dares to investigate and challenge those who are in control, or those who are controlled eg AP.Maxilon 5
wrote
And my favourite ever quote from a racing writer:
"How many times during your gambling years have you been told that you’ll never beat the bookie, or win today, give it back tomorrow. Thousands of times, I’ll wager. But who are these people exactly? The one paced plodders of life. They have no success, courage, or sense of adventure themselves and get their kicks by telling you how wrong you have beem and how the whole world is really a massive conspiracy against the little working man. Dump these people immediately or they will drag you down into mediocrity with them. You will end up chained beside them in some moronic factory all yor life while the boss is living it up at Ascot with all the champagne and birds he can handle." (Ibid P13, Para 2)
I knew someone who used to say the above. I’m afraid I thought him a little arrogant.
Unfortunately, by the age of 61, he had lost everything. I felt sorry for his wife who knew nothing until their home was repossessed. At one stage he was worth millions.
Throughout history this has been the fate of many an aristrocat (and others) who have gambled their fortunes awayI also think the jockey made a genuine mistake but wonder why.
Was it because he thought he had passed the winning post?
Did he want to save the horse further exertion?
Had he been instructed to try and win but not by too many lengths?
If the latter was the reason – blame the handicap system!
Poor lad. I imagine he has had a rotten time since the race. We all need to remember our mistakes. He is very inexperienced. Perhaps the lesson punters could learn from this is to avoid betting on apprentice/conditional races and 7lb claimers.bluebock
The odds are certainly stacked against you ….. I’ve read plenty of books on the subject and looked at thousands of races over the last ten years but I can’t really say I understand the game all that much better
You will probably be advised that
if only
you read the form book correctly, and took into account the going, track, distance of race, trainer, owner, jockey, pattern of runs, length of absence off track, age and fitness of horse, time of year, etc., etc., ….
you
can make a reliable profit at betting.
Problem is, when a discussion arises on this forum over a particular horse, there seem to so many different formbooks with conflicting information in each.
You need only look at Zamorsten’s reply to Cavelino Rampante’s post for confirmation.ricky lake wrote:
any income from levy/ overseas rights should be used to fund the admin of racing ,
and no I do not mean prop up pension funds for the toadies that currently feed off racing
, but day to day regulation including a security /integrity service that does offer value for money
Same could be said about our Parliamentary system who feed of the taxpayer. From this government we have cuts in our public services, further privatisations planned, yet the same number of MPs, Ministers, Lords with their perks so far intact.
Asking the government to help out racing is equivalent to leeches assisting each other.reet hard
This idea that handicaps are the root cause of corruption is mistaken (imo), and there are probably as many strokes pulled in jurisdictions where they rarely have them (Certainly, if you believe such as Andrew Beyer).
You maybe right but surely there are a few advantages to not allowing an horse to run to ability.
First you have the 2 year olds who are not thought able to reach listed/group company (trainer’s opinion).
Next we have the seasoned campaigner. By reducing the handicap mark, not only is there less weight to carry, but the betting could be very profitable, assuming the horse complies by not winning when it’s not supposed to, and obliging when it is.
Other preventative measures towards possible reduction of corruption could be:
Trainers give written riding instuctions to jockeys and stewards.
Apprentices/conditionals are more closely monitored. It might be an idea for them to be placed with suitable trainers for a limited time, and then moved on periodically to gain further experience elsewhere.
I also believe it should be mandatory for all winning horses to be tested for medication.The Ante-Post King
We all see non triers everyday,its how they are disguised that makes it so difficult to identify! Most serious racing enthusiasts know half a dozen ways how a horse can be beaten without it screaming Non trier! Casela Park was an embarrassment of an effort,Point North isn"t that far behind and yet these Stewards cant see it! We"ll put this one down to "Another one gets through the net"! Darryls pushing his luck lately,Credit swap winning the Cambridgeshire proves that!
Nothing much will happen with regard to non triers until:
a) The handicap system is radically altered. What other sport lumps weight on athletes to stop them winning?
b) Jockeys are protected from the crooks the day they become apprentices/conditionals. I know this is difficult if already connected to them!
c) Penalties for corruption must be much more severe. No contact with the racing industry. No riding out for stables. No passing on trainer licences to wives or friends.
The BHA cannot prove clever corrupt rides easily but they could do much more to prevent this occurring on a regular basis.If not family connected, retained, or being in with the in crowd, you must do as told if you want to keep riding. It’s been the downfall of many good jockeys.
To
thedarkknight & Armchair Jockey
How can you both hope the BHA will punish the professionals who fix races?
The BHA probably have a list of known culprits but how can they prove it without a furore?
Casela Park was pretty obvious but just look at the defenders of that ride.thedarkknight
wrote
It was a poor ride – but the horse is a thorough sh1t imo and the jockey hadn’t ridden a winner for half a decade.
I’d be much happier with this "let’s get tough on non triers" attitude if we didn’t have much higher profile connections blatantly laying horses out (i.e not trying for a sequence of runs) in order to land a touch.
That happens on a regular basis, yet I don’t see these people being pilloried by Timeform or banned from the sport by the BHA.
It was a poor ride making the intention not to let the horse go through gaps obvious.
There are other jockeys far more skilled who can achieve the same result but how can the BHA prove this, especially if betting patterns appear normal?I don’t believe it’s good for racing to allow proven corrupt individuals back, even for one race, and regardless of it being for charity. There are other retired jockeys who could have ridden instead.
Surely, any criticism about this decision is not moral superiority. Where is the line drawn in what is acceptable and what is not? Is there a line?What is it with some of you?
We have a proven corrupt jockey who associated with a proven corrupt drug barron, who had a list of other jockeys and trainers who were also his friends.
Very fortunately for the sport of racing, this drug barron kept his mouth shut during his trial in court. He had a character reference from a trainer and comedian but was convicted and sent to prison.
Surely the racing authorities must realise that allowing proven corrupt individuals back in the fold only rakes up memories of what has past. And it is no good slating journalists who comment on this.When an individual has been proved to be corrupt, and worse still, a corrupting influence on others, I cannot understand how anyone can say they are a nice guy.
Yes, they may have surface charm but that is what makes them even more dangerous. Others are persuaded that what they are asked to do is ok, just a bit of harmless fun, everybody does it, and look what’s in it for you!!!
I agree that a proven corrupt individual should be given a second chance, but not within the arena where the corruption took place. By allowing them back in to the sport with their previous behaviour forgiven, forgotten, whatever; the wrong message is being sent to others. It’s incomprehensible that the racing authorities cannot see this.
