There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Farce.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 27
|
By:
animal wellbeing is a secondary concern in this race.
|
|
By:
Winner broke the rules, the 2nd didn't and lost by a nose. Can't be right.
|
|
By:
The only way to address this issue is to disqualify those whose riders have cheated.
|
|
By:
Totally agree brigust. On tope of the slaughter it's another great advert for racing.
|
|
By:
As we all know the sport as a whole has been a farce in many ways for a long time now. Paul Bittar is the last hope and he is going to need a miracle to sort this mess out.
|
|
By:
Just during the time the camera is actually on him (i.e. not counting anytimes you can't see) Jacob hit's the winner 10 times after the last:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/horse-racing/17453652 The existence of a rule that palpably rewards people who break it is ludicrous. |
|
By:
i think we cud have possibly seen the last national as we know it...dead gold cup winner....winning jockey who breaks rules for race and trainer wins championship...mmcririck scenario come to fruition in worlds biggest race.....
|
|
By:
i think we cud have possibly seen the last national as we know it...dead gold cup winner....winning jockey who breaks rules for race and trainer wins championship...mmcririck scenario come to fruition in worlds biggest race.....
|
|
By:
Still not certain Ballabriggs would have definitely won last year, but for being whipped half-unconscious.
I hope Jacob didn't break the rules today. |
|
By:
I thought if you break rules the jockey gets no prize money ect, i haven't kept up with these new rules, i find them quite idiotic horseracing is being ruined by stupidity
|
|
By:
did jacob actually break the whip rule?
|
|
By:
Yes. Watch it & see.
|
|
By:
They aren't bothered about rules, horses dying etc, simply money.
|
|
By:
Fantastic ride!
|
|
By:
Captain Christy is spot on, but then it's always been that way. Horse welfare has never been a priority compared with money.
|
|
By:
Has he actually been found guilty or is it just 'our' views?
|
|
By:
Its a tough one this. I backed Sunnyhillboy and I agree breaking the rules and winning the race but nothing happens witht he result is a tough one.
The problem with racing is there are many people who would have bet Neptune Collonges and watched it win and then have it thrown out. In some races where connections have a punt on one and it wins breaking rules then the bet return can be bigger than the prize money but if you start throwing out winners for hitting too many times then it may also spend the end of racing for the man on the street punter. |
|
By:
My suggestion to combat this was to deduct 0.25 lengths per extra whip and amend the result after the weigh in (i.e. prize money only affected). It's only a matter of time before the same thing will happen in the Derby where the difference that nose will make will be be measured in millions.
|
|
By:
But as I was saying prize money is so poor that connections who have it right off on a horse and tell a jockey forget the rules get the horse home and we will sort you out a drink have more interest in the bet than the prize money.
|
|
By:
In my opinion the rules are stupid. No-one would suggest DJ was over hard on his horse, I don't think he picked it up until the run in. No, its the rules that are stupid and should not be there.
As grown-ups we should all be able to recognise when a horse is beaten up, like Ballabrigs last year, and that definitely did not happen this year. Scrap the stupid rules and start using common sense. |
|
By:
Exactly was nothing wrong with the old rules, if you abuse the whip you get banned.
|
|
By:
But as I was saying prize money is so poor that connections who have it right off on a horse and tell a jockey forget the rules get the horse home and we will sort you out a drink have more interest in the bet than the prize money.
I agree quantize. I've argued in the past the penalties should be stiffer on gambled horses. I'm in favour of it being banned altogether as per my original argument shown below. Suppose we both own a horse, we race each other regularly along the beach for a grand and neutral spectators come along and bet with each other. After each race we try to agree weights to add in an attempt to level things out for the next race. No whips are used. Now, would there or would there not be a result in each race? Suppose now we both decide to carry whips. There's several things that can happen 1) Neither of them respond to the whip. 2) The two horses respond in different degrees to the whip which hands one of us an advantage. 3) They respond the same to the whip. This hands whichever one of us is prepared to be the cruelest an advantage. In case 1 the whip is pointless. In case 2 all that will happen is the weights will be jiggled to account for the whip advantage so what was the point of introducing it in the first place? In case 3 we would have to introduce whip guidelines so no one could gain an advantage through cruelty. Interpreting these guidelines isn't exactly easy, so what will we do? a) Just ignore whipping with respect to the result, b) employ a drunk to administer the guidelines for each race or c) just not bother with whips at all. Surely both us would see that introducing whips caused problems while the only thing it introduced was a cruelty aspect? And WTF would the neutral observers want it introduced? In what way would it help their betting? If anybody sees a flaw in the above logic feel free to spell it out for me. I've heard all the cr@p about the whip being needed to keep the horse straight (if that's true let it be used only to straighten the horse as in hands'n'heels races, but more often than not it's the whip that horses veer away from). As things stand, you don't see non-triers being whipped unless you include airshots or the token slap once all chance has gone. When the money's down though, jockeys are only too willing to break the guidelines and will often even use the whip to ensure their horse takes their nearest challenger's ground. Banning it would not only remove an aid to cheating but would make for more consistent form and improve racing's image. |
|
By:
If you banned the whip now for all newcomers so they are not taught to respond then in a few years it would not be needed at all.
Horses would be bred to not need whips as well. Im unsure if thats the way to go though. |
|
By:
I think the jockey on the second only rode hands and heels cos his horse veered badly away from the whip though, costing him ground, and prob daren't risk another smack, even though in retrospect, as he had the rail to help, might have been worth one more before the line, might have made the difference.
Don't think he used it at all in the last hundred yards or so. |
|
By:
under the designated imo
|
|
By:
You really are on the bones of your arse rico,shame but plenty predicted such for a failed sociopath,Ikeaman and stewB right behind you,one of you turn off the lights on the way out!!!
TIA. |
|
By:
🆘
|