Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Job done............
Show More
disgusting ride connections of second were on winner never put the horse in the race at all
We all know that horses don't always run on their merits but, Christ Almighty, there was never even a pretence of putting that horse in the race.
Youngsters get the book thrown at them when they make an error of judgement while someone with Geraghty's experience is allowed to get away with that. It stinks.
Youngsters get the book thrown at them when they make an error of judgement while someone with Geraghty's experience is allowed to get away with that. It stinks.
Good to see the usual nonsense arguments getting an airing again when this kind of thing happens from time to time.
A poorly judge ride when a leader goes off and nobody wants to lead the rest and do the donkey work for the field and close the leader down, until eventually someone realises "maybe I'd better think about doing it myself now" except often it's all too late.
A poorly judge ride when a leader goes off and nobody wants to lead the rest and do the donkey work for the field and close the leader down, until eventually someone realises "maybe I'd better think about doing it myself now" except often it's all too late.
It is hardly a nonsense argument when the jockeys give a 2/1 chance an uncontested furlong lead, and at no stage ever try to cut into it, until the race is over.
It does Ima but when you smell the coffee you make an attempt,it was after the 2nd last the horse was pushed in a relatively short home straight.
The nonsense jimeen is over the usual reasons why some on here are suggesting it happened.
ima is going to come gunning for the stewards now after these nonsense sanctions.
Well Ima,what do you make of that?
No nonsense by anyone,it was pure rotten.
Well done Limerick stewards,getting away with murder for God knows how long.
No nonsense by anyone,it was pure rotten.
Well done Limerick stewards,getting away with murder for God knows how long.
Trainer fined, jockey fined, punters robbed, but bookmakers still benefit.
No doubt overturned on appeal, but at least they took some action on the day.
That is IMO the worst I have ever seen. No jockey on the planet is THAT idiotic. To even put forward a " caught napping " excuse is tantamount to lunacy. Anything happened to the trainer? Now there is someone I would ban for life! I have just arrived home and logged on, so no monetary involvement , THANKFULLY!
Not sure why the trainer just gets a fine and the owner nothing at all.
"A clearly shocked and angry Barry Geraghty chose not to be quoted with regard to his 30-day ban. He's almost certain to appeal." = RP
I bet he's not as angry as the punters he robbed.
I bet he's not as angry as the punters he robbed.
Thanks for that Rob. I wonder what pot he will pay that from????
Its bloody obvious WHY it happened!!! Who trains the bstd???? No way was that jockey error!
I won't be gunning for the stewards at all when I have often argued over the irony of jockeys getting banned and/or fined for losing a race by dropping their hands when it was a mistake and they had actually been trying to win but just caught out when easing up early, and jockeys sitting so far out of their ground and getting beaten. Surely in both cases the stewards and anyone else can rightly argue that with both, that those incidents have cost the horses any chance of winning, yet previously the jockey dropping his hands would get the ban, whereas the one giving his horse far too much to do wouldn't.
My point here wasn't that Geraghty didn't deserve criticism or that the way he rode the horse wasn't responsible for it getting beaten because it clearly was. My issue was whether he did so for some of the nonsense reasons some on here suggested. Forgive me if I find it hard to believe that the horse's multi-millionaire owner was on the winner for a few euros with comments like "job done" when why not do it in the first race then where he owned the 6/4f? Or if you ride one to deliberately get it beaten, why not do so later on the card on the same owner's horse that went off odds-on?
The start of this race and how starters let plenty of races go off like this too needs to be looked at, as if it's OK to do so then why make so much fuss about starts at the big festival meetings? I don't know for sure if the winning jockey set out to try to make all but nicking as much distance as was allowed at the start kind of made his mind up for him.
As for what pot will Geraghty pay it from comments, well I hope for his sake it's a big one and big enough to cover not only 30 days of lost riding fees but his percentage of any prize money during those 30 days too, and especially as it now means he will be missing the Punchestown Festival so I hope he considers it as worthwhile. Or then again there just might not be anything here to consider.
Seems odd too that the connections of the 2nd were the only ones punished and therefore the stewards presumably think the rides given to all of the other runners were perfectly acceptable. So apart from Geraghty's obvious flaw in this race, maybe his next biggest mistake was to finish 2nd. Oh and just out of interest, if he had fallen at say any of the last few hurdles, do you think he would still have been banned and fined for an ill-judged ride? If he's given the horse too much to do then why would a fall change any of that? Or if he had actually fallen then would the jockey that ended up being 2nd have been fined instead?
My point here wasn't that Geraghty didn't deserve criticism or that the way he rode the horse wasn't responsible for it getting beaten because it clearly was. My issue was whether he did so for some of the nonsense reasons some on here suggested. Forgive me if I find it hard to believe that the horse's multi-millionaire owner was on the winner for a few euros with comments like "job done" when why not do it in the first race then where he owned the 6/4f? Or if you ride one to deliberately get it beaten, why not do so later on the card on the same owner's horse that went off odds-on?
The start of this race and how starters let plenty of races go off like this too needs to be looked at, as if it's OK to do so then why make so much fuss about starts at the big festival meetings? I don't know for sure if the winning jockey set out to try to make all but nicking as much distance as was allowed at the start kind of made his mind up for him.
As for what pot will Geraghty pay it from comments, well I hope for his sake it's a big one and big enough to cover not only 30 days of lost riding fees but his percentage of any prize money during those 30 days too, and especially as it now means he will be missing the Punchestown Festival so I hope he considers it as worthwhile. Or then again there just might not be anything here to consider.
Seems odd too that the connections of the 2nd were the only ones punished and therefore the stewards presumably think the rides given to all of the other runners were perfectly acceptable. So apart from Geraghty's obvious flaw in this race, maybe his next biggest mistake was to finish 2nd. Oh and just out of interest, if he had fallen at say any of the last few hurdles, do you think he would still have been banned and fined for an ill-judged ride? If he's given the horse too much to do then why would a fall change any of that? Or if he had actually fallen then would the jockey that ended up being 2nd have been fined instead?
I've seen plenty of horses with multi-millionaire connections not trying, ima. That argument is futile.
Just seen the replay BG deserves a lengthy ban for that,full enquiry including trainer i expect ?? did BG hear any noises from the horse or was it just between his ears,disgusting.
Ima. The " pot" reference was with regard to the trainer's fine. IMO it is the trainer who shoukd face the lengthiest ban. He is a complete bstd.
The Stewards enquired into the running and riding of Noble Emperor, ridden by B.J. Geraghty, and trained by A.J.Martin.
Evidence was heard from the rider and trainer concerned. A.J.Martin, stated that his instructions were to get some cover and try switch him off, bearing in mind that the horse can be keen. He added that the horse has disappointed in the past but should have enjoyed today's heavy conditions over two miles, despite having form over further.
He expressed satisfaction with the ride and that the lost shoe had no bearing on the run on today's ground.
Evidence was also heard from B.J.Geraghty who confirmed the instructions adding that the horse needs to be covered up and delivered late.
He added that the winner quickly established a good lead at the start and circumstance meant that he was unable to chase the leader until the straight as he was riding strictly to instructions.
He confirmed that the horse felt healthy at all stages.
The Stewards also received a report from the Turf Club Veterinary Officer who stated that Noble Emperor was post race normal, having lost a left fore shoe.
Having viewed the recording of the race and considered the evidence, the Stewards were of the opinion that the rider was in breach of Rule 212 having failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to give his mount the full opportunity to win or obtain his best possible place and having considered his record suspended him for thirty race days and ordered that he forfeit his riding fee.
Furthermore the stewards also found A.J.Martin in breach of Rule 212 and having considered his record,fined him euro 3,000 and suspended Noble Emperor for sixty days.
---------------
* The Stewards also interviewed many more of the jockeys and trainers - The text of which too long to post here.
Evidence was heard from the rider and trainer concerned. A.J.Martin, stated that his instructions were to get some cover and try switch him off, bearing in mind that the horse can be keen. He added that the horse has disappointed in the past but should have enjoyed today's heavy conditions over two miles, despite having form over further.
He expressed satisfaction with the ride and that the lost shoe had no bearing on the run on today's ground.
Evidence was also heard from B.J.Geraghty who confirmed the instructions adding that the horse needs to be covered up and delivered late.
He added that the winner quickly established a good lead at the start and circumstance meant that he was unable to chase the leader until the straight as he was riding strictly to instructions.
He confirmed that the horse felt healthy at all stages.
The Stewards also received a report from the Turf Club Veterinary Officer who stated that Noble Emperor was post race normal, having lost a left fore shoe.
Having viewed the recording of the race and considered the evidence, the Stewards were of the opinion that the rider was in breach of Rule 212 having failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to give his mount the full opportunity to win or obtain his best possible place and having considered his record suspended him for thirty race days and ordered that he forfeit his riding fee.
Furthermore the stewards also found A.J.Martin in breach of Rule 212 and having considered his record,fined him euro 3,000 and suspended Noble Emperor for sixty days.
---------------
* The Stewards also interviewed many more of the jockeys and trainers - The text of which too long to post here.
Cider Joined: 29 Aug 02
Replies: 29410 03 Apr 16 18:39
I've seen plenty of horses with multi-millionaire connections not trying, ima. That argument is futile.
Go on then I'll play along, and for what purpose?
Replies: 29410 03 Apr 16 18:39
I've seen plenty of horses with multi-millionaire connections not trying, ima. That argument is futile.
Go on then I'll play along, and for what purpose?
So they don't knacker the hcp mark. Big owners want winners at big meetings.
So, rather than apologise for an ill-judged ride, Geraghty attempt to explain it away by saying his instructions, from which he dared not deviate were, to sit upwards off 20 lengths off his chief rival and make no attempt to reduce the deficit until approaching the final hurdle. As excuses go, it wouldn't pass muster if it came from the mouth of a 7lb claimer, let alone one of the winning-most National Hunt jockeys of all time. Ban thoroughly deserved IMO.
I think today's ban will be overturned though. How is Geraghty to know that the horse in front will keep going? - he has beaten the rest of the field by a street.
Well it was a hcp. When a horse goes clear your best clue is probably to look how well the horses around you are going, as it turned out he was 25l+ better than all of them. He finished the race a lot quicker than he started it, so you can say he's misjudged the pace badly. 30 day ban for misjudging the pace is harsh though, i don't know how anyone can say for sure he wasn't trying to win.
Harsh????? They got off light ffs. They've been doing it forever. It wasn't a surprise to see it happening. The big shock was that the Stewards acted upon this daylight robbery though. The irony was the Limerick stewards having the balls to punish them.
Misjudged the pace?
The winner of the opening maiden hurdle over the same trip was only 4.4 seconds slower yet carried 11 lbs more.
Velocity Boy is rated 130. The pace was hardly scorching in Geraghty's race!
The winner of the opening maiden hurdle over the same trip was only 4.4 seconds slower yet carried 11 lbs more.
Velocity Boy is rated 130. The pace was hardly scorching in Geraghty's race!
Well done the limerick stewards for doing they job.The race looked rotten from the start.
I don't disagree with that dan hardcore so thought that would be the answer given anyway and don't doubt that for all of his money, JP McManus still gets plenty of enjoyment from backing a winner and especially one that he owns, regardless of whether he needs the money or not, yet the suggestion earlier in this thread was that the connections of the 2nd actually backed the winner just to make a few bob, which I find a little hard to believe really.
It was surely just a very misjudged race, we only know a certain amount of what is said between Jockey ,trainer and owner so most of this is conjecture..............
These people are multi millionares why would they draw attention to themselves in this way if they are at it week in week out...
However I had no interest in the race other than to watch it afterwards,so I'm probably talking bollox.
These people are multi millionares why would they draw attention to themselves in this way if they are at it week in week out...
However I had no interest in the race other than to watch it afterwards,so I'm probably talking bollox.
they prepped the horse in public imo . did the same with cause of causes . r moore could of gotten up on master speaker but felt he had forfeited too much ground , hesitated for a few moments until he realised he could pull the race out of the bag ,but, was then too late . bazzo wouldnt deliberately lose imo no way . schmitt happens
Apr 3, 2016 -- 8:26PM, 11kv wrote:
It was surely just a very misjudged race, we only know a certain amount of what is said between Jockey ,trainer and owner so most of this is conjecture..............These people are multi millionares why would they draw attention to themselves in this way if they are at it week in week out...However I had no interest in the race other than to watch it afterwards,so I'm probably talking bollox.
If Geraghty had held his hand up and apologised for riding an ill-judged race then I might, just might, have some sympathy for him.
However, not a bit of it. Rather [as the report on the Racing Post site confirms], he confirmed that the horse felt healthy at all times and told the stewards he was 'unable to chase the winner to the straight because he was riding strictly to instructions'.
One can only assume those instructions must have been along the lines of: "Allow your chief rival an uncontested 20 length lead and don't attempt to make any inroads until the final furlong or so." Clearly, Geraghty carried out those instructions to the letter and, consequently, his horse never stood a chance. That's unacceptable if you're a 7lb claimer having your first ride in public, let alone one of the winning-most NH jockeys of all time.
the bottom line is . if your bread is buttered by jp and he wants handicap plots with horses of limited ability . and you dont have the financial backing to say no sir the horse runs on its merits in my yard or not at all then this is what happens . you please the patron whom pays you your living
I'll give you one example ima, but there are countless others.
Bondi Beach debut win.
On toes beforehand, chased leaders, closer in 2nd after 2f, 5th 4f out, improved into 2nd 3f out, no impression on leader entering final furlong, kept on well under hands and heels inside final furlong to lead final stride, not extended (op 6/1)
http://www.racingpost.com/horses/result_home.sd?race_id=626359&r_date=2015-05-10&popup=yes#results_top_tabs=re_&results_bottom_tabs=ANALYSIS
Unfortunately for connections, they couldn't avoid the win on this occasion
Bondi Beach debut win.
On toes beforehand, chased leaders, closer in 2nd after 2f, 5th 4f out, improved into 2nd 3f out, no impression on leader entering final furlong, kept on well under hands and heels inside final furlong to lead final stride, not extended (op 6/1)
http://www.racingpost.com/horses/result_home.sd?race_id=626359&r_date=2015-05-10&popup=yes#results_top_tabs=re_&results_bottom_tabs=ANALYSIS
Unfortunately for connections, they couldn't avoid the win on this occasion
I don't have any issues with a ban for Geraghty, but what about the other riders and the starter in uniting to give the winner a fantastic start. Anyone watching that race could be excused for thinking the race was decided before the off.
Presumably as he was still on the snaff when it had become impossible for him to catch the winner.
And so what was the purpose of that then cider?
Normally when one of Ballydoyle's big priced runners beats one of their shorties, the claim on here is that they lumped on the bigger priced runner to win, yet that one seems to have gone unbacked opening at 6/1 and its SP being 7/1.
Either way I don't doubt for one minute that connections at times are shall we say, a little creative with what they do with their own horses, but once again I'm highlighting the suggestion here was that they supposedly backed the winner.
Normally when one of Ballydoyle's big priced runners beats one of their shorties, the claim on here is that they lumped on the bigger priced runner to win, yet that one seems to have gone unbacked opening at 6/1 and its SP being 7/1.
Either way I don't doubt for one minute that connections at times are shall we say, a little creative with what they do with their own horses, but once again I'm highlighting the suggestion here was that they supposedly backed the winner.
If you don't recall the race, watch the replay ima. The 'second string' was not supposed to win. Joseph gave Bantry Bay one of the hardest rides you'll ever see for a debutant. Heffernan had no alternative but to allow his mount to fall in, and scupper the pre-race plans...
I do remember the race well and backed the fav but I'm just not sure how that race relates to today's one.
You took issue with me cider regarding my comment of "Forgive me if I find it hard to believe that the horse's multi-millionaire owner was on the winner for a few euros" and that's fair enough but surely if in that Bondi Beach race if it wasn't "supposed" to win and they were on the fav, if they thought it had any chance of winning and upsetting the result then why not just not run it? It's not like it was the main danger in the betting and so gave them a better price on the fav.
Either way though they were on their own horse in that race and I've accepted that some wealthy owners still like a gamble and even more so on their own horses where they have a certain amount of control over that and knowledge of their own horse's chances, as opposed to the claim the connections today were on the winner, which isn't theirs and so that doesn't apply.
You took issue with me cider regarding my comment of "Forgive me if I find it hard to believe that the horse's multi-millionaire owner was on the winner for a few euros" and that's fair enough but surely if in that Bondi Beach race if it wasn't "supposed" to win and they were on the fav, if they thought it had any chance of winning and upsetting the result then why not just not run it? It's not like it was the main danger in the betting and so gave them a better price on the fav.
Either way though they were on their own horse in that race and I've accepted that some wealthy owners still like a gamble and even more so on their own horses where they have a certain amount of control over that and knowledge of their own horse's chances, as opposed to the claim the connections today were on the winner, which isn't theirs and so that doesn't apply.
I disagreed that having multi-millionaire connections was somehow a guarantee that every runner connected was trying. That assertion is clearly untrue, and the wealth of an owner is in no way an alibi for always trying.
My view is that certain connections are arrogant, and think they have carte blanche to do what they like on the racecourse.
Nowhere have I suggested that this was a carve up. Winning today was clearly not a priority, however.
My view is that certain connections are arrogant, and think they have carte blanche to do what they like on the racecourse.
Nowhere have I suggested that this was a carve up. Winning today was clearly not a priority, however.
was a bhent race simple as...only have to look at the ride the winner was given lto...
The trying angle (or not as the case may be) wasn't what I was arguing though cider and I've agreed that a multi-millionaire and their horse's connections might well set something up for the enjoyment of pulling off a coup with one of their own runners, but I specifically said about today's race:
"Forgive me if I find it hard to believe that the horse's multi-millionaire owner was on the winner for a few euros."
The winner not being one of theirs.
"Forgive me if I find it hard to believe that the horse's multi-millionaire owner was on the winner for a few euros."
The winner not being one of theirs.
why doesnt people like rich richie and jp try to make the world a better place instead of ingratiating themselves, show the world your decent people . all i see is the ghastly phillip green in your midst whose robbed bhs , the credit line and his pension fund and sold for 1 quid after racking up 2 billion debt . after 5 million pound partys etc . he should be in jail
I doubt very much if JP, the multi-millionaire in this case, had any money on anything in todays race. However there are many people between him and the horse who could very well have had a bet - stable connections, friends and all sorts of hangers-on.
it makes you laugh this ban will be over turned, the race they choose to get um is far from clear cut.They could of chose 20 other curtain non triers since xmas lol
the ones where jock tries like mad when the winners already home are my fav :-)
I half expected Jeremy beadle to pop out in the crowd after with a massive grin telling the short changed public it wasn't really a race and dishing out refunds all around
I half expected Jeremy beadle to pop out in the crowd after with a massive grin telling the short changed public it wasn't really a race and dishing out refunds all around
Myself and probably loads more backed the winner in running. Like a fool I laid some of the winnings off thinking at some stage the rest would catch up. I do feel a little sorry for backers of the 2nd horse because at no stage was he going to win and you knew your fate a long way out. But to ban the jockey 30 days ... That's a bit harsh and I have no doubt he will get that reduced.
wft
1650 post
do you really think the bookmakers want this sort of thing and who do you think the target is when a horse not running on its merits is allowed to ?
1650 post
do you really think the bookmakers want this sort of thing and who do you think the target is when a horse not running on its merits is allowed to ?
O'Brien was obviously happy to treat Found's
first public appearance since her defeat of Golden Horn (GB)
(Cape Cross {Ire}) as little more than a piece of work to get her
mind and body tighter for a long season ahead
From the TDN, so why then was O'Brien not find the jockey and horse band the same?
Stewards need to treat schooling the same in all cases.
first public appearance since her defeat of Golden Horn (GB)
(Cape Cross {Ire}) as little more than a piece of work to get her
mind and body tighter for a long season ahead
From the TDN, so why then was O'Brien not find the jockey and horse band the same?
Stewards need to treat schooling the same in all cases.
I posted in another thread last week about staying away from Tony Martin trained horses. I'm more surprised that people are actually surprised by the trainers antics.
"Shrewd" some experts would tell you. #moneynotdowntoday
"Shrewd" some experts would tell you. #moneynotdowntoday
Betfair Law........
says.......' Watch Barry win The National on Shutthefrontdoor....'
says.......' Watch Barry win The National on Shutthefrontdoor....'
The Trainer was fined under the non-trier rule having confirmed that he gave the jockey instructions as stated.
So my questions are: 1. Is a jockey required to adhere to a trainer's instructions or not?
2. As the trainer was found guilty under the non-trier rules,having instructed the jockey
to ride the way he did (and having stated to the Stewards that he was happy with the ride),wasn't that the
responsibility of the Trainer? Isn't it he who should be banned?
Jockeys who ignore trainers' instructions will soon find themselves out of a job!
So my questions are: 1. Is a jockey required to adhere to a trainer's instructions or not?
2. As the trainer was found guilty under the non-trier rules,having instructed the jockey
to ride the way he did (and having stated to the Stewards that he was happy with the ride),wasn't that the
responsibility of the Trainer? Isn't it he who should be banned?
Jockeys who ignore trainers' instructions will soon find themselves out of a job!
Barry Geragthy deserves to be ban 30 days - more if was outside Britain; BG, for a seasoned professional, rode a very ill-judged race with no plan 'B' despite "orders" and the winner showed no signs of coming back at any stage of the race; in a nutshell BG was not riding to WIN and the punishment is 100% justified, no question about that!
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539