Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
DAVID BRIDGWATER is expected to be charged with actions prejudicial to the good reputation of racing after the BHA took serious exception to his comments following the Ludlow stewards’ decision to ban amateur Jake Launchbury for 21 days on Wednesday.
Bridgwater described the stewards as “idiots” and questioned their sobriety in the aftermath of the trainer's Launchbury-ridden Bally Sands throwing away a likely victory when the 16-year-old almost took the wrong course approaching the final fence.
The teenager did not seek to excuse himself and admitted to confusing the final fence for the water jump, which is positioned close to the winning line and bypassed on the final circuit.
Page Fuller, who followed Launchbury’s erroneous path on Petit Ecuyer, was suspended for ten days after it was concluded her mistake had prevented the horse from finishing second.
Quoted by a newspaper, Bridgwater said: “It was just a mistake. They asked me to go into the stewards’ room with him, and it was the same idiots there that were there when I was riding 20 years ago.
“He’s a 16-year-old kid, for God’s sake. He didn’t take the wrong course [and] he jumped the last fence. Okay, give him a week’s ban or something, but to give him 21 days, I think they must still have been p***** from lunch."
Those sentiments were not well received by the BHA, whose spokesman Robin Mounsey said on Thursday: “The comments attributed to David Bridgwater in today’s Guardian are wholly unacceptable. No sporting regulatory body would tolerate their officials being described in such an unjustified and derogatory manner. The BHA will be taking appropriate action on this matter.”
That action is likely to lead to an appearance before the disciplinary panel. If found guilty Bridgwater could expect to receive a four-figure fine, with the broken rule’s entry point penalty being £2,000.
Bridgwater on Thursday claimed not to have had any communication from the BHA, and said: “Until they get in touch with me I can’t comment.”
What good reputation is that then? Fairplay to the bloke - at least he was being honest!!
Bridgwater described the stewards as “idiots” and questioned their sobriety in the aftermath of the trainer's Launchbury-ridden Bally Sands throwing away a likely victory when the 16-year-old almost took the wrong course approaching the final fence.
The teenager did not seek to excuse himself and admitted to confusing the final fence for the water jump, which is positioned close to the winning line and bypassed on the final circuit.
Page Fuller, who followed Launchbury’s erroneous path on Petit Ecuyer, was suspended for ten days after it was concluded her mistake had prevented the horse from finishing second.
Quoted by a newspaper, Bridgwater said: “It was just a mistake. They asked me to go into the stewards’ room with him, and it was the same idiots there that were there when I was riding 20 years ago.
“He’s a 16-year-old kid, for God’s sake. He didn’t take the wrong course [and] he jumped the last fence. Okay, give him a week’s ban or something, but to give him 21 days, I think they must still have been p***** from lunch."
Those sentiments were not well received by the BHA, whose spokesman Robin Mounsey said on Thursday: “The comments attributed to David Bridgwater in today’s Guardian are wholly unacceptable. No sporting regulatory body would tolerate their officials being described in such an unjustified and derogatory manner. The BHA will be taking appropriate action on this matter.”
That action is likely to lead to an appearance before the disciplinary panel. If found guilty Bridgwater could expect to receive a four-figure fine, with the broken rule’s entry point penalty being £2,000.
Bridgwater on Thursday claimed not to have had any communication from the BHA, and said: “Until they get in touch with me I can’t comment.”
What good reputation is that then? Fairplay to the bloke - at least he was being honest!!
Show More
What penalty did sam walley bell end get when he cocked up at Fakenham a couple of years ago?
Getting like Jose criticising Premier referee's...... they all keep ''stum'' in the end !
12 days but was still able to ride Long Run in the King George as he is an amateur so the days count only on days when there are amateur races being run.
He deserves to get in trouble for those remarks and the kid deserves his ban, he cost punters who backed him dearly.
He deserves to get in trouble for those remarks and the kid deserves his ban, he cost punters who backed him dearly.
He's sixteen and obviously doesn't know the course that well. I backed it but it's just one of those things. They're learning.
Presumably these rules are in place to protect the punter. It would be nice if they enforced some of the other supposed rules with equal vigour.
Presumably these rules are in place to protect the punter. It would be nice if they enforced some of the other supposed rules with equal vigour.
He's had 4 rides this season, 21 days is hardly going to end his career. And anyone in any job would get in trouble if they called their superiors "idiots".
21 days of only days when there are amateur races on which will count as ban days won't be the same as the next 21 days though and could go on for far longer than that.
I'm guessing here the.mad.dog.man that you aren't governed by the BHA in your job but even if you are, you haven't actually put your real name to those comments anyway.
Many stewards are idiots though and I know to my own personal cost.
I'm guessing here the.mad.dog.man that you aren't governed by the BHA in your job but even if you are, you haven't actually put your real name to those comments anyway.
Many stewards are idiots though and I know to my own personal cost.
Punters who backed the horse had every right to be cheesed off but why should he get more than double the ban that Denis O'Regan got for not trying to achieve the best possible placing at Bangor on the Tony Martin horse the other day. Is making an error of judgement twice as bad as deliberate cheating?
can't speak yer mind in the u k then ...... whatever happened to freedom of speech ?
2015 and there are still organisations, governments and individuals trying to stop people stating the obvious .
Strange ? wouldn't yer law courts be able to deal with this ? isn't slander ? liable ? very embarrassing and somewhat primitive imvho.
2015 and there are still organisations, governments and individuals trying to stop people stating the obvious .
Strange ? wouldn't yer law courts be able to deal with this ? isn't slander ? liable ? very embarrassing and somewhat primitive imvho.
frances melly,so is italy 08 Jan 15 21:24
I think you're right to propose the incidents are quite analogous. The jock's explanations are though extremely different and sadly the implication is that Wednesday's jock is being victimised for honesty. For that reason the ban would merit a reduction.
If the stewards were still p*****d from 20 years ago Bridgy's alleged comment is justified, if they weren't, the comments were unwise and personal-sounding.... which won't help the jock....... in terms of the the ban!
I think you're right to propose the incidents are quite analogous. The jock's explanations are though extremely different and sadly the implication is that Wednesday's jock is being victimised for honesty. For that reason the ban would merit a reduction.
If the stewards were still p*****d from 20 years ago Bridgy's alleged comment is justified, if they weren't, the comments were unwise and personal-sounding.... which won't help the jock....... in terms of the the ban!
When speaking to the press, isn't there an 'off the record' code, and a 'yes you can quote me on that' code?
Perhaps Bridgwater was happy to be quoted, but you wouldn't be surprised if trainers (and jockeys) have often made disparaging comments about stewards to members of the press, but you don't usually get to read about what they said!
Perhaps Bridgwater was happy to be quoted, but you wouldn't be surprised if trainers (and jockeys) have often made disparaging comments about stewards to members of the press, but you don't usually get to read about what they said!
It must be very traumatic for the poor young rider, he obviously was too wary and nervous about the omitted last fence
I must commiserate for the poor young chap and am sorry it looked farcical to onlookers who have never ridden in a race
nuff said..
I must commiserate for the poor young chap and am sorry it looked farcical to onlookers who have never ridden in a race
nuff said..
I suppose they could have been 'kind' and given him 10 days on the basis that he managed to stay on the correct course and they couldn't be certain that the horse would have won anyway.
I know the horse looked sure to win, but given we're in an age when a horse can meet with serious interference before losing by a narrow margin, only for a stipe to come out and say: we couldn't be sure the interference cost the runner-up victory...
I know the horse looked sure to win, but given we're in an age when a horse can meet with serious interference before losing by a narrow margin, only for a stipe to come out and say: we couldn't be sure the interference cost the runner-up victory...
Agreed George just cos a horse looks to be leading at the last fence is not guarenteed victory it could well
have been beat on the run in ..Hindsight doesn't work for punters...
have been beat on the run in ..Hindsight doesn't work for punters...
Agreed George just cos a horse looks to be leading at the last fence is not guarenteed victory it could well
have been beat on the run in ..Hindsight doesn't work for punters...
have been beat on the run in ..Hindsight doesn't work for punters...
I'm a fan of Wood's and his refusal to board the gravy train, however, in this instance I would have reported it:
“It was just a mistake. They asked me to go into the stewards’ room with him.
“He’s a 16-year-old kid, for God’s sake. He didn’t take the wrong course [and] he jumped the last fence. Okay, give him a week’s ban or something, but to give him 21 days."
“It was just a mistake. They asked me to go into the stewards’ room with him.
“He’s a 16-year-old kid, for God’s sake. He didn’t take the wrong course [and] he jumped the last fence. Okay, give him a week’s ban or something, but to give him 21 days."
Excuse my ignorance in this as I have not looked at all 3 cases in great deal, but howcome Scudamore and Johnson both got 12 days for actually taking the wrong course and taking the horse out of the race, yet this young jock got 21 days despite actually taking the right course?? Doesn't seem fair or consistent to me.
I'm guessing it's because they pulled up their horses once realising their mistake and it wasn't deemed to be them losing races they probably would have won otherwise.
I would imagine the young kid's ban is right days wise if going by the rule book though.
I would imagine the young kid's ban is right days wise if going by the rule book though.
The stewards and the BHB are the ones who should be charge
The harshest punishment was that given to the rider of the second who was clearly confused by the leader going round the fence and surely she could be excused for thinking "are there some flags waving that he can see but I can't). Her problem was compounded by the leader veering back on track and almost bringing her down! It was that dangerous move that in my view merited a longer ban for the leader. I would certainly not have punished the rider of the second, nor would I have punished Lizzy Kelly yesterday for making sure that her mount ran to the line.
Small fish though sageform, looks like they are actually doing something. As stated everywhere else, would some of the others (bigger names) get the same ban? Absolutely not, and that is 1.01.
Another post removed from me, I cannot see what was wrong with it. Do the BHA not like a few home truths, and are watching with their beady eyes getting anything they can removed that puts them in a bad light? Maybe start the organisation from scratch if that's the case.
Another post removed from me, I cannot see what was wrong with it. Do the BHA not like a few home truths, and are watching with their beady eyes getting anything they can removed that puts them in a bad light? Maybe start the organisation from scratch if that's the case.
harsh ban, whilst clearly a mistake yes people that lost money could feel angry at his error, but it was just inexperience and the punishment is way over the top
db will get hammered as well now with a fine making it more unjust
pros pull fast ones daily yet a kid makes a genuine c0cok up and gets 21 days, the bha that cannot police the sport decide to flex their muscles because it's easy, i'd agree with bridgwater and add @rseholes to their description
db will get hammered as well now with a fine making it more unjust
pros pull fast ones daily yet a kid makes a genuine c0cok up and gets 21 days, the bha that cannot police the sport decide to flex their muscles because it's easy, i'd agree with bridgwater and add @rseholes to their description
I am not as anti the BHA as others seem to be. On the one hand we can have sympathy for young riders who make a silly mistake but on the other we also sympathise with punters who lose money as a result. Perhaps a stiffer test of experience/ability is required before these youngsters are allowed to ride on licensed tracks. I know that jockeys with the experience of Richard Johnson make mistakes as well but it is far more common among young amateurs. Better course layouts would help and the prevelance of fences being omitted for all sorts of reasons is a factor..
The Fear's earlier comment about David Brdigwater calling his superiors idiots is laughable. Bridgy I assure you does not have superiors. He has grown enormously in my eyes because of his comments.
Jockey makes mistake that costs punters but it's the stewards that are "idiots". Ok.
The point is the stewards are idiots because like the BHA who run (cough, cough) the sport they are just not consistent.
TheFear - did O'Regan cost punters by not even trying?
TheFear - did O'Regan cost punters by not even trying?
Agree with DB, hypothetical argument I know but they wouldnt dare ban any of the top jocks for that long should a similar mistake be made by them, sixteen year-old kid is just going to take it.
Chin-up anyone who done their dough, you'll soon have it back off the Dr!
Chin-up anyone who done their dough, you'll soon have it back off the Dr!
Jake Launchbury is a 16 year old kid, and therefore an easy target. A big name jockey who did that would've got 10-12 days tops.
When the rules give a greater ban for a genuine mistake (which the rider tried to correct) than deliberately riding a horse to not achieve the best possible placing then there is something fundamentally wrong.
I did have a good laugh at Bridgy's comments though, something that's been said many times on here . He might as well send them a cheque for the fine now and save himself a trip to Holborn.
When the rules give a greater ban for a genuine mistake (which the rider tried to correct) than deliberately riding a horse to not achieve the best possible placing then there is something fundamentally wrong.
I did have a good laugh at Bridgy's comments though, something that's been said many times on here
. He might as well send them a cheque for the fine now and save himself a trip to Holborn.
Ban well justified imo.
If he's old enough to ride, then he's old enough to know the correct course.
If he's old enough to ride, then he's old enough to know the correct course.
I am sure there are many examples in the past where the same ban has not been applied. He should go there and play the "discrimination" card imo, that would be funny (and obviously report it through The Guardian!
I haven't seen the O'Regan ride but it's got nothing to do with this situation. The jockey made a mistake and deserves a ban and trainers can't go round calling stewards "idiots". If one of Bridgy's jockeys or stable staff call him an idiot in the press do you think he'll laugh it off?
Of course it has something to do with it TheFear. If the BHA want to give out bans for wrongdoing that is fair enough, but as Gonzo has stated when someone does not even try on one and gets 10 days how can another one who has made a mistake, corrected it and still tried get over double. There is something wrong with that.
Am often intrigued by how this works one way but not the other. Could you imagine what Bridgewater would say if a steward said to a journalist...
" Can you believe that clown Bridgewater running that horse in that race when Stevie Wonder could tell it had no chance? Have you seen the way his horses jump - he has no idea! And as for using that Scudamore has a jockey! What is he on??"
I suspect "Bridgey's" cheeky chappie demeanour may not survive that but of course, as in other sports, officials have no right of reply.
The young lad made an honest mistake and has apologised. Bridgewater wading in like a recalcitrant teenager will help no-one
" Can you believe that clown Bridgewater running that horse in that race when Stevie Wonder could tell it had no chance? Have you seen the way his horses jump - he has no idea! And as for using that Scudamore has a jockey! What is he on??"
I suspect "Bridgey's" cheeky chappie demeanour may not survive that but of course, as in other sports, officials have no right of reply.
The young lad made an honest mistake and has apologised. Bridgewater wading in like a recalcitrant teenager will help no-one
I haven't seen the O'Regan ride but it's got nothing to do with this situation.
Of course it does. An experienced jockey deemed to have deliberately failed to make all efforts to achieve the best possible placing gets a ban less than half that of a 16 year old kid making a genuine mistake on his fourth ride under rules.
It demonstrates a significant issue with the rules the BHA have in place.
And, no, of course a trainer can't freely go around calling stewards "idiots". Bridgewater will be punished for it. It's still funny though.
Of course it does. An experienced jockey deemed to have deliberately failed to make all efforts to achieve the best possible placing gets a ban less than half that of a 16 year old kid making a genuine mistake on his fourth ride under rules.
It demonstrates a significant issue with the rules the BHA have in place.
And, no, of course a trainer can't freely go around calling stewards "idiots". Bridgewater will be punished for it. It's still funny though.
Stop speaking sense Doc, it does you no favours on here!
Non-trying is very hard to prove one way or the other. I don't think O'Regan is actually being accused of stopping one is he? Stopping one is Eddie Ahern 10 years.
hard to prove...
but more at than just Eddie ahern
like you say hard to prove it
too many questionable rides of late...............ill gotten gains by rogues of the game......
but more at than just Eddie ahern
like you say hard to prove it
too many questionable rides of late...............ill gotten gains by rogues of the game......
people who watch a lot of racing
get to know the dodge pots.....trainers and jockeys...lets face it they have that much money ,they dont know what to do with it..........
buying horses there big thing.......
get to know the dodge pots.....trainers and jockeys...lets face it they have that much money ,they dont know what to do with it..........
buying horses there big thing.......
Betting horses that drift from 2/1 early prices out to 5/1 in a 7 horse race today and the horse in question breaks last and finishes in the rear should warrant an investigation but rarely does. That trainer is spot on,they are idiots in general.
If you want to see how stewarding should be done and should be seen to be done,go to The Hong Kong Jockey Club website and click on 'Reports'.
There are so many ways to get horses beaten that any jockey who makes it obvious is incompetent. The best way is to go too fast early on and there is no way to prove it. The next easy way is to go round the outside in a competitive handicap.
If I were Bridgewater I would want it on record that I felt the actions of the Stewards were 'prejudicial to the good reputation of racing'.
Alternatively,that the reputation of racing is not good in the first place so how could it's reputation be damaged?!
Alternatively,that the reputation of racing is not good in the first place so how could it's reputation be damaged?!
"good reputation of racing"...
running races over wrong distances for years and doing nothing about it, they mean that good reputation?
running races over wrong distances for years and doing nothing about it, they mean that good reputation?
Bridgy's apology in the RP yesterday seems to me quite satisfactory and sufficiently fulsome to minimise any further sanctions for him.
I've not seen the incident yet,so obv. would not endorse any manoeuvres by the Apjok that constituted dangerous conduct, beyond that I hope the jock appeals it.
I've not seen the incident yet,so obv. would not endorse any manoeuvres by the Apjok that constituted dangerous conduct, beyond that I hope the jock appeals it.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539