Taking the Jocks riding fee and percentage away IS THIS THEFT ?

correct.

seaside, surely he or she has entered into an agreement to abide by their rules?

My opinion is that a court of law would say that the rules are so unfair to a jock that they would not uphold them.

To give an example

You can ride a horse but you can not breath all the time you are sat on it.

The jock has to ride the horse to earn his money so he has to agree

Years ago companys would pay there workers in tokens that could only be spent in there shops.

To my mind it's the same situation.

I have always had an interesting the law and judgements handed down from the high courts.

My advice to a jock is that he has a very good case and I am sure there would be a lot of Barristers who would like to put there case.

If there is any gray area I'm sure it would be preventing owners trainers from compensating the jockey.

You would assume that the HRA checked this, but you could not be sure with this lot.
How does a jockey know where the furlong pole is in the Cambridgeshire for example/ Could be ten yards either side.
I would like to see this tested in court.

Racing imposes harsh penalties for trying too hard; while "easy" rides seem to go undetected.

The clowns are ruining the game IMO.

Rides the winner, loses £53,000 and banned for 5 days......tad harsh I think...but rules is rules. He'll laugh about it later........  [smiley:crazy]

I cant see how they can enforce a owner not compensating Soumillon??. Would this have any chance in a French or Belgian Court?? and how much money would be wasted trying to monitor and prove this abroad??



Clearly Bonkers

Would it pass the man on the Clapham omnibus test?  A ban for a specified period is universal.  Losing a specified fee is universal. ( Although what happens in the case of an amateur is not clear ) Losing the prize would seem to be universal in theory only.  This is because losing the prize can mean a loss of a few hundred pounds to many thousands of pounds for what is exactly the same offence.  I might suggest that the man on the Clapham omnibus is likely to think practice is more important than theory.  Therefore, losing the prize would make the rule unlawful in that it is not reasonable.

Please excuse my..........................but where does the £53.000 go ?

No one seems to know, that is the $64000 question, who knows the definitive answer?

Disqualify the horse.

Which means no winning percentage for the jockey, of course.

Ramruna that is too simple.  You may have overlooked the matter of a ruling elite wanting to look good to the generally disinterested public, but not leave themselves vulnerable to litigation.  Your suggestion may solve many problems, but would almost certainly open up the ruling elite to litigation.  Losing £50,000 winning prize would pale against the potential loss of the disqualification of a Derby winner.

Footballers supposdly get fined all the time by their clubs for their umpteen misdemeanours. For years I've wondered whether these 'fines' actually took place as I'd imagined it potentially represented some sort of illegal action that could be challenged in court. Can't ever recall a case of that type going to court though.

whodareswins, disqualification already happens in racing and is commonplace in other sports. Ask Usain Bolt.

It is the apparently arbitrary fine that is open to challenge.

What I may have overlooked is that racing is run by a bunch of clowns who overcomplicate everything. As Soumillon asked, which of the myriad of poles was the furlong marker and which just one of umpteen adverts? As Hughes asked, why two then five rather than just seven? What happens if the last is omitted in a jumps race? Does the second-last become the marker?

Have a simple rule, and disqualification the penalty.

Re whodareswins & the Clapham Omnibus test: the prize money is not inherently Soumillon's (or any other jockey's) property at the outset.  It only becomes his property if he fulfils the prerequisite conditions by which it then passes to him - in this case to ride to, and abide by, the current Rules of Racing.  By taking the ride he has implicitly accepted the terms of those conditions.

Simple,stick to the old rules.

I see Soumillon is now endorsing a strike - presumably because he is well aware the talk of him going to Court (and winning) was all bravado

if say Wayne Rooney after getting sent off was told his wages for the match was being with-held and he was banned from playing in the next 5 matches there would be a public outcry. or Usain Bolt was suspended from the next 5 grand prix meetings for making a false start and his attendence fee with held. getting sent off in a football match is breaking the rules as is making a false start in a 100 metres race

A great analogy from sonnyboyx22 no other sportsmen are treated like this,that these brave men are subjected to such bullying is immoral.
I agree entirely with Seaside and hope some racing legal eagle takes up the cause.

The much better analogy was Usain Bolt false starting in the 100 metres. Broke a rule, was eliminated and end of story.

jezebel the jockey will have been seen to have accepted the rules only if they are reasonable, and of course fair to all.  Is it reasonable for one person to knowingly be fined ( which is what withholding the prize is )a higher amount for exactly the same offence as another person when no mitigation is allowable?  I might suggest it is not reasonable.  Merely because the rule makers says it is reasonable does not make it so.  The Government makes the law, but the Government loses several times when challenged in Court.

Ramruna it is not that I disagree with you, and you are correct disqualification happens in sport.  The example of Usain Bolt is a good one.  Usain Bolt started before the gun had been fired.  He had gained an unwarranted advantage over others in the race.
I may be wrong, but I do not recall the claim being made that striking a horse more than 5 times in the last furlong gives a comptetitor an advantage.  If that claim were to be made by the BHA the number would be challengable, and the BHA would have to support its case if it could.  The challenge could come from either a connection of the disqualified horse, or from those who believe that there is no room for violence in sport.

Whodareswins, if using the whip more than five times (or at all) gives no advantage then what are the jockeys complaining about?

Incidentally, did not the BHA claim to have consulted trainers and jockeys before changing the rules? If so, it looks like the latter did not properly realise the practical difficulties that would arise. In fact, it looks like no-one did.

sonnyboyx22, Wayne Rooney has indeed been banned from three matches as a result of being sent off, effectively ruling him out of the Euro 2012 Group stage.

Now, I'd agree the whip rules are too complicated to be practicable in the heat of a race, and the penalties are both too harsh and are misdirected.

Simple rules, and disqualification are what is needed.

Ramruna  Are The BHA claiming that striking the horse more than 5 times inside the last furlong does give an advantage?  I have not heard that claim.  You may believe it is reasonable to assume it.  I do not disagree.  But I have not heard the claim. 

The jockeys are complaining that they are being made subject to rules that are basically unfair.  They seem not to have an issue of a ban for breach of rules - they have an issue of the severity of that ban for what they seem to beleive is a minor infringement.
They are also complaining that they lose their riding fee when they have entered into a contract with a third party namely the owner to ride a horse for that fee.
They would appear to be claiming that they are being treated unfairly in that they also lose their share of the prize which the BHA and stewards acting on the BHA's behalf know will not be the same to all at the time of issuing the sanction, but they do know at the time of issueing the sanction what the fine will be.
There is also a claim that the limitation on 5 strikes in the last furlong restricts their ability to ride a race to the best of their ability as while the limit is 7 strikes 2 of those 7 must be outside the final furlong.
Simple rules maybe an answer, but at present neither the rules nor the understanding of the rules are simple. Disqualification under simple rules such as you must not start before the official signals are clear and enforceable because they are reasonable and fair to all.  Or you must stop when the official requests you to such as with the waving of the yellow flag the other day.  Jockeys are annoyed over that, but maybe more with themselves than the rule.
A simple rule would be you may only strike a horse x during a race, but even that leaves itself open to challenge.  Why allow any strikes?  Or I had used up my quota of strikes a mile from the finish, and would be banned if I employed another stroke nearer the finish. 

I do agree that if abuse of the whip is explicit in a ban then disqualification should follow, because it is clear it is abuse.  Frankie Dettori may be more cautious with the whip in Group 1s if he knew the horse would be disqualified.  He seldom is banned in non Group 1s for whip abuse.

I can understand them not getting their share of the prize money (although I don't particularly agree with it, under the current rules), but to my mind, removing their riding fee is a joke.