There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
2 instances of jockeys being found guilty by the KEMPTON STEWARDS of not taking all permissible measures to obtain the best possible placing:
September 9th: J Nason on First Summer, given a 14 day ban.
December 3rd: T Murphy on Packing, given a 14 day ban.
In my opinion, Murphy's ride on a horse having its 3rd run for a mark, looked highly suspect.
What's caused my ire here is what happened to the 2 trainers of these horses.
Sean Harris, on course that evening, was given a £3000 fine and his horse banned from running for 40 days.
J Osborne, who was not on course, was only fined £290 for failing to inform his representative of the rider's instructions.
So had Harris not been on course on Sept 9th and not informed his rep of the riding instructions, he could have saved himself £2,710?
Now had Osborne been on course, he could have said he was unhappy with the ride his horse was given and Murphy solely would have taken a hit for the ride.
My opinion is: because the ride on Packing appeared quite blatant, as the trainer wasn't present, it should have been referred to the BHA so an explanation from the trainer could be sought.
September 9th: J Nason on First Summer, given a 14 day ban.
December 3rd: T Murphy on Packing, given a 14 day ban.
In my opinion, Murphy's ride on a horse having its 3rd run for a mark, looked highly suspect.
What's caused my ire here is what happened to the 2 trainers of these horses.
Sean Harris, on course that evening, was given a £3000 fine and his horse banned from running for 40 days.
J Osborne, who was not on course, was only fined £290 for failing to inform his representative of the rider's instructions.
So had Harris not been on course on Sept 9th and not informed his rep of the riding instructions, he could have saved himself £2,710?
Now had Osborne been on course, he could have said he was unhappy with the ride his horse was given and Murphy solely would have taken a hit for the ride.
My opinion is: because the ride on Packing appeared quite blatant, as the trainer wasn't present, it should have been referred to the BHA so an explanation from the trainer could be sought.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 14
|
By:
*Shaun Harris
|
|
By:
Expect Jamie went to school with most of the BHA so it's a non starter him getting too much of a tug
|
|
By:
Trainer not at the track and rep apparently not informed of riding instructions - he gets off with a relatively small fine.
Trainer blames jockey - he gets off with no fine and his horse escapes a 40 day ban. Trainer defends the ride / says instructions carried out - usually explanations noted OR rarely, as in the case of Harris, £3K fine and horse banned from running for 40 days. |
|
By:
Jamie knew not to turn up
Jamie Osbourne - High Profile owner Shaun Harris - not |
|
By:
As Osborne says though in this day and age could they not have rung him? In=joke perhaps he was tied up
 |
|
By:
George - I havn't read the respective BHA reports but has Harris' previous record had an influence here
 |
|
By:
Osborne has been under the spotlight more than once.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/2240711.stm http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/horseracing/3029287/Trainers-to-face-inquiry-over-Kenyon.html |
|
By:
I was just wondering! - Anyway the two trainers were found guilty of offending different rules with different financial penalties. Harris' fine was the entry level amount for his offence. Not sure about Osborne's.
|
|
By:
Met Shaun and his Mother on a recent UK visit ,lovely people and couldn't have done enough for me even though they hardly knew me .Shame the way some people are treated compared to others.
|
|
By:
blackbarn, Osborne has received NO penalty for how his horse was ridden, he has NOT even been asked about it by the stewards / BHA. His fine was for failing to inform his representative of the riding instructions for the jockey.
We have a situation here where there have been 2 horses who were found by the Kempton stewards not to have been ridden to obtain the best possible placing. One trainer who was at the track was fined £3000 and his horse banned from running for 40 days; the other trainer (Osborne) who just because he wasn't present when his horse ran, will not even be asked why, on its 3rd run for a mark, it was ridden in the way it was and the jockey alone has been punished. How can one trainer be dealt with in such a way, while the other trainer does not even have to face a single question? |
|
By:
George - I understand your point perfectly and do not disagree. Your original point though was the disparity in the penalties and I was merely trying to understand/explain why that might be. The reason being that they were charged with different offences. I have to say that the Harris BHA Appeal hearing does make interesting reading.
|
|
By:
Mar 11 1997/Cheltenham/15:15 Result
Smurfit Champion Hurdle Challenge Trophy PU 9 Large Action (IRE) O Sherwood 12-0 J Osborne 7/2f Pulled up after 2nd, lame opened 4/1 £5000-£1000 £11250-£2500 £6750-£1500 £0-£0 £7000-£2000 £2000-£500(x4) £4000-£1000(x3) £8000-£2000 £20000-£5000 £40000-£10000 £2700-£600 £4500-£1000(x2) £9000-£2000(x2) £2500-£500 |
|
By:
Jamie Osborne pulled Large Action up after the second thinking he was lame, and although it was first suspected the horse pulled a muscle, a veterinary inspection revealed nothing.
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/make-a-stand-goes-to-the-front-and-stays-there-1.51561 |
|
By:
Apologies blackbarn, the reason for the disparity in the penalties was obvious, my original and only point is to highlight the totally different ways in which these 2 trainers have been dealt with after one of their runners have been found not to have been ridden to obtain the best placing.
One is fined £3000 and his horse banned from running for 40 days, the other does not even have to answer a single question. |