Well done to the Stewards.

Probably wouldnt make the top 100 Geoff, but got to start somewhere I suppose.

THE RIPPLE EFFECT Brian O Connor www.irishracing.com

It’s an old racing cliché that they — and by ‘they,’ read stewards — only go after the little guy. But no one can accuse Limerick’s officials of having one rule book for minnows and another for big fish. Suspending Barry Geraghty, one of the finest jockeys ever produced by this country, for 30 days and banning a horse owned by JP McManus, unquestionably the country’s most powerful and influential owner, for 60 days qualifies as big guy stuff in any vernacular. So we’ve had the big splash: what everyone’s waiting on now are the ripples.
It is over four months since the first day of Fairyhouse’s Winter Festival yielded a handful of running and riding enquiries which seemed to suggest a new benchmark in terms of stewards taking action in relation to horses suspected of having fallen foul of the ‘non-trier’ rules. Action was taken in relation to two horses, including the McManus owned Shantou Ed, with penalties handed out to the trainers and jockeys, and both animals suspended from racing.

Two weeks afterwards, the penalties were lifted on appeal due to veterinary advice that wasn’t available to the racecourse stewards. A note of intent had nevertheless been put out there, one many hoped would set a tone for the winter. By any reasonable measure it was a false hope as any number of maiden hurdles and beginners chases in particular quickly returned to what many suspect is their underground function, which is to get horses handicapped.

This space was all set to point out how a Navan running and riding enquiry on Saturday into the performance of the maiden hurdle also-ran, Mash Potato, was a good example of the little-guy cliché, as the stewards “noted” the explanations of trainer Noel Kelly and jockey Steven Kelly who was encouraged to be seen to make more of an effort in future. And then just 24 hours later the Limerick stewards acted as they did in relation to Noble Emperor.

As to the obvious question about whether or not the penalties, which also included trainer Tony Martin’s €3,000 fine, were merited, one can only say that if the stewards hadn’t pulled them in to explain Noble Emperor’s performance then the question would have had to be asked as to why not.

Velocity Boy’s front-running ploy could hardly have been a surprise given he has a history of racing that way. But the field gave the winner a lot of slack with Cliff House appearing the first to meaningfully take up the chase, followed by Noble Emperor. Even coming to the second last, Geraghty’s body language was hardly animated, admittedly on a horse which has flattered to deceive in the past. But it was a performance which demanded questions to be asked.

That the steward’s panel asked them, and ignored an opportunity to duck a difficult decision when it was reported that Noble Emperor lost a shoe, is commendable. Significantly, they reported Geraghty as saying that the horse felt healthy at all times during the race. Weighing up the evidence they decided the ‘non-trier’ rules had been breached and acted accordingly, imposing penalties with consideration to both Geraghty’s and Martin’s records. In short they did the regulatory job entrusted to them, regardless of who was involved.

The short term ripples of this are obvious. The profile of those penalised, particularly Geraghty, means there is going to be intense interest in the possibility of appeals being lodged, and should they be, their eventual outcome. No sooner had the outcome of the Limerick enquiry been released than speculation about the nature of arguments that might be employed at any appeal was being floated around and not all of it mischievous.

Putting a figure of Geraghty’s stature out of action for a prolonged period of time on a ‘non-trier’ offence is a big deal in anyone’s language. It was little wonder the jockey described himself as “shocked” afterwards. But the real ripple-effect will be judged much more long-term rather than on a single incident.

The penalties in this case are the most noteworthy since that Winter Festival. Are we reasonably expected to believe that there haven’t been incidents in the last four months which didn’t require similar attention to the kind the Limerick stewards brought to bear on Noble Emperor?

This is another case with the potential to strike a tone for significantly longer than just one Sunday at Limerick. If this is the sort of benchmark for future running and riding enquiries, both in terms of rules breaches, and a preparedness to act even if it is some of the big fish doing the breaching, this Noble Emperor case could ultimately prove as important as it is already dramatic.

But we have been here before, with occasional ‘spectaculars’ disrupting long lulls of inertia which only fuels public scepticism about racing’s seriousness in relation to properly policing itself. No doubt, as the Curragh clock says, time will disclose all.

Racing’s habit of sliding around issues rather than confronting them is all over the BHA’s new interference guidelines with stricter penalties for jockeys who breach the interference rules.

Under the new set-up, Andrea Atzeni would get seven or eight days for his controversial St Leger winning ride on Simple Verse rather than the three he actually got at Doncaster. And that, we are led to believe, will be enough to dissuade Atzeni, or anyone else, from doing exactly the same in similar circumstances if the potential reward is judged worth it.

On the same day these new rules were outlined, there was also a BHA review of whip use which described how general breaches are declining but incidents were up in Grade/Group 1 races, those races which coincidentally are the ones jockeys most want to win, and which are the races most watched by the public.

It must take a strong stomach to present this stuff with a straight face.

In view of the non triers and the hazardous nature of NH racing, I'm surprised that so many people take the game so seriously.

It's rarely a matter of finding the best horse, in most cases the main consideration is whether the horse will be trying to win, going for the place money, or simply being run to get its H/C mark down.

Clearly in the example here there was only one horse trying to win.

The winner in its previous three runs was held up. Yet when it won its races before it led or was close up throughout.
So it wasn't off in its three previous runs but was trying to win this one.

It's exactly the same situation MJK.

ima

Let's focus on the ride by BG on Noble Endeavour (NE) and not any other race but just BG on NE please.

Assuming (hypothetically), I was given three sets of instruction that

(1) I "MUST" be at the bank before it SHUT at 4.30pm,
(2) I'd also go in with you (together) and
(3) it'd take me 30 seconds from our meeting point to reach the bank

If I'd see the time was 4.29 and 30 seconds and there was no sign of you at the meeting point would you think I'd wait for you to appear so that we'd get to the bank "together" or would it be more sensible and appropriate for me to be at the bank no later than 4.30pm?

The reason given by BG to the stewards despite genuine did not detract from the fact that BG made a monumental error in his riding judgement, and that was why BG was handled a monumental punishment to suit ie if one was unwilling/unprepared to do the sentence then one must not do the crime - very simple!

inrunninggg    04 Apr 16 17:03 

.....unlucky Barry, what happens when you sell your soul. by the way was at Cheltenham on the wednesday and everybody around me were slating him then,even more after going 5 wide on yanworth the whole way!

Except that didn't actually happen and the only reason he was out wide for a small part of the race was when runners to the inside went off the hurdles course proper between a break in the rails, almost running the wrong side and had to barge their way back in, which led to a domino effect with Yanworth the chief sufferer when twice taking a hefty bump and being knocked off balance and pushed out wide.

I  can't wait to see who repersents connections at the hearing , my moneys on the top brief who got Ted Walsh off

when your horse out next roida

and a yella stripe acrooss the hat

chavs off license got kestrel super strength on special again

Perhaps the Trainers Federation could think about that.

I would prefer to look at the benefits for punters.

Unfortunately, as we all know it isn't going to happen. However, it would be nice to think a few more decisions along the lines of Limerick might rock his boat a little.

Hopefully a few of the rancid flat trainers who hide behind a toff British accent will get the same treatment this season

This sums up Irish Racing & Stewarding, quoting from Kevin Blake's column on ATR site

It is a damning fact that of the just over 27,000 individual runs by horses in Irish racing in 2015, only 27 running-and-riding enquiries were called.

How many of these enquiries resulted in a ban that wasn’t overturned on appeal?

One. One ban from 27,000 individual runs.

This will be a truly mind-boggling statistic to anyone that watches the sport closely and is indicative of a near complete lack of willingness to police the sport effectively.

it's not mind boggling to those of us who watch it day in day out

OK 11kv no problem.

I understand that you are just trying to come up with a similar analogy impossible123 for example purposes and yes, there will come a time that you have to deviate from the original plan and take the initiative, but even if at some people you chose to do that, if you still left it too late then there's a good chance you still wouldn't get into the bank. Geraghty clearly left it too late to deviate from the original plan, so despite going from behind runners he ending up finishing 15L clear of the 3rd, that's my point about when a leader goes off into a big lead and none of the others want to be in 2nd and close the leader down with the rest being towed along, until eventually someone breaks from the pack when the leader doesn't come back to them.

And on that blog link that dodgydog put up, the write states that:

To briefly surmise what happened, the 2/1 second favourite Velocity Boy got off to a flyer in what could readily be described as a ragged start to the seven-runner contest (10 lengths separated first and last as the tape went up) and he quickly extended his lead to 15 lengths at the first hurdle with Geraghty tracking the leader of the pursuing bunch.

they should double his ban selling his sole , oldest trick in the book appeal try get some rides aintree , they otta through the book at him , he does it every other day and everyone knows why

ima

Like BG you are digging yourself into a deeper hole each time you try to explain or excuse BG atrocious judgement in that particular race.

If BG had "any" inclination or desire to win that race BG would have gone after the leader when or soon after the off knowing full well no other runner was going to provide "cover" for his mount, and even if there was cover at a distance to the leader (eventual winner) would have meant BG had little or no chance of winning the race himself - that was exactly what had happened, agree?

Please enlighten me what was the point of providing cover (his orders from the horse's trainer) for his mount when the 2nd 'fav' ie his main competitor, had that monumental lead over a minimum distance race of 16f? Also, ho'd give a monkey as to the distance BG's mount was to the 3rd when BG did not win the race or put his mount in a position capable/with a chance of winning the race?

How many times in a post race interview on TV, win or lose, a jockey would explain why an opposite/different riding plan as that suggested by the trainer was adopted/had to be implemented when the race itself had not panned out accordingly? Do you get my brief now?

An experienced seasoned jockey like BG who is not an idiotic person especially in his profession by any degree could have offered that "lame" excuse ie riding to orders, to the Limerick stewards and expected to be "exonerated" is beyond my comprehension? And for him to utter he was "SHOCKED" by the decision of the Limerick stewards beggars belief of the highest order in my book, and further implied to me BG had not understood the gravity of his appallingly bad misjudgement for a senior jockey of his calibre; BG is a puppet or muppet in his advancing age, if either, may I advise an early retirement otherwise racegoers/punters of his future mounts would incur more pain in their pockets.

More non triers on the flat imop.



Sadly there are two different types of flat racing and I would suggest there are less non jiggers over the jumps. Add to that, a horse running on the flat can and does, have two different ratings.


Iv'e said it before and I'll say it again, AW racing is not much better than an extended greyhound track, giving the non jiggers have less chance of being exposed. (IMHO)

ima
"I'm guessing here Geragthy didn't offer the excuse of riding to orders for the defeat as a whole and more why he rode the race he did for a certain part of it."

With due respect 'ima' you are still trying to defend the indefensible atrocious riding judgement of BG against Velocity Boy and your opinion/stance on this. If BG did not offer the excuse of riding to order - your new "conjecture" - why was it reported as such and the trainer fined a substantial amount with horse concerned banned from racing for 60 days?

For your info there was not a hope in hell BG could provide cover for his mount Noble Endeavour - the 'fav' - when the 2nd horse was 15/20l behind in a 16f race to the leader - Velocity Boy / 2nd 'fav' - and still had any chance of winning the race; BG did not even made a token attempt to improve his position until the 3rd hurdle from home by which time Velocity Boy had gone further infront - 20l+ - and too late for BG and Noble Endeavour to have any chance of winning, all things being equal; if this had happened in Hong Kong, India, Singapore, Malaysia, etc, I'd have little doubt BG would have been banned more than 30 days, assuming BG made his way (safely) past all the backers of his mount and into the Stewards Room - BG would probably have been physically assaulted prior!

This was a classic case of a jockey not riding to win on a 'fav' by letting the 2nd 'fav' an unassailable lead throughout citing "riding to orders" as the reason/excuse to the stewards.

And with due respect impossible123 you still seem to be ignoring the fact that I've said on several occasions it was a poor ride and I know full well Geraghty told the stewards he was riding to orders and told them what those orders were, so I'm not denying any of that and don't have any "conjecture" new or otherwise. What I'm suggesting is that was more his reason for riding the type of race he did (up until a certain point) rather than him offering that up alone as the excuse for the defeat overall. The fact the trainer has confirmed the orders proves it was the case and so I'm not actually saying it wasn't.

As for your general summing up of the ride being:

For your info there was not a hope in hell BG could provide cover for his mount Noble Endeavour - the 'fav' - when the 2nd horse was 15/20l behind in a 16f race to the leader - Velocity Boy / 2nd 'fav' - and still had any chance of winning the race; BG did not even made a token attempt to improve his position until the 3rd hurdle from home by which time Velocity Boy had gone further infront - 20l+ - and too late for BG and Noble Endeavour to have any chance of winning.....

You only need a minimum of one other horse to race up behind in order to get get cover, so if Geraghty's instructions were to hold the horse up, to get some cover and try to switch him off, bearing in mind that the horse can be keen, well he raced in fourth several lengths off the lead early on, so that ticks off the hold up part and he raced up the backside of the horse in third, which ticks off the get cover and switch him off part.

The part in bold above I have never disagreed with and stated that he overdid things according to his instructions, as at some point he was going to have to decide to chase himself when nothing else was able to tow him along. The steward's report also said Geraghty had confirmed the instructions adding that the horse "needs to be covered up and delivered late" and 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."

In other words, with the benefit of hindsight he obviously left it too late to ignore his instructions and try to chase down the leader himself after realising nothing else was going to, which is exactly what I've been saying all along.