Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Wow 
Show More
Mart, with your astute race reading skills', surely you'll be laying the bollox of B G ridden J P M shorties !
be very interesting looking at comparison markets on they lay and win i bet the lay is much bigger when they loose and the win market id strong when they win often see last min plunges and even in running bets come cruising then u see a bet going on the lay then finds zilch almost pre- meditated
hal i wd not trust them with a fiver piggy bank
hal i wd not trust them with a fiver piggy bank
McCoy tried for his life on everything until getting the green and gold gig, Geraghty gone exactly the same way, such a crying shame but corruption rife everywhere you look in life unfortunately now. Lydia will be pleased about todays events!
Not sure the jockeys were the only ones mugged by the leader today.
I watched the race and whilst miles clear it traded over 2.0 for a long, long way. There were plenty of arm-chair judges sitting quietly also...
I watched the race and whilst miles clear it traded over 2.0 for a long, long way. There were plenty of arm-chair judges sitting quietly also...
never a truer work spoken doorman99 everyone can see it slap on the wrist wd cut it need a 10 year ban imo
This is bonkers
Why now has to be the question?
Everyone who follows the jumps must know that JP horses get held up
Whatever the reason
Its wooly thinking from the stewards to say the horse wasnt given a ride to get its best placing and give BJG a hefty ban
Either the stewards knew there was a gamble on the winner, it was 9/2 this am according to oddschecker
And as such a conspiracy to ensure an artificial result
Which should lead to a lifetime ban for all involved
Or they are in effect saying mr Geraghty you can not ride a jp horse held up out the back anymore
What is it that the stewards are trying to say here?
Surely not that this one ride out of hundreds of mcmanus horses getting beaten out of sight being held up out the back of carp jumps races ridden on bottomless ground, that this one ride wasnt given the best possible placing..
Its Bizzarre
I said it before and i will say it again
The handicapping system is rotten
Handicap races should be the heritage hcaps we see every saturday or in the festivals
For the better horses for big prizes
These hcaps at the gaff tracks need abolishing
I realise that racing needs to create bookie fodder but if a track is to run a handicap then the rules regarding official ratings need
changing
No horse gets a mark until its true ability has been revealed
ie it finishes within 2 lengths of a winner on both codes
flat and jumps
Any french imports get automatic top weight in any handicap they are entered
Any horse gets automatic top weight until its true ablility has been revealed in the relevant code
none of this running in a chase off your hurdles rating malarkey
Then you could say ok mr geraghty you can run this horse out the back of as many races you like but until you win one that horse is running off top weight.
Should make the waters less muddy
Why now has to be the question?
Everyone who follows the jumps must know that JP horses get held up
Whatever the reason
Its wooly thinking from the stewards to say the horse wasnt given a ride to get its best placing and give BJG a hefty ban
Either the stewards knew there was a gamble on the winner, it was 9/2 this am according to oddschecker
And as such a conspiracy to ensure an artificial result
Which should lead to a lifetime ban for all involved
Or they are in effect saying mr Geraghty you can not ride a jp horse held up out the back anymore
What is it that the stewards are trying to say here?
Surely not that this one ride out of hundreds of mcmanus horses getting beaten out of sight being held up out the back of carp jumps races ridden on bottomless ground, that this one ride wasnt given the best possible placing..
Its Bizzarre
I said it before and i will say it again
The handicapping system is rotten
Handicap races should be the heritage hcaps we see every saturday or in the festivals
For the better horses for big prizes
These hcaps at the gaff tracks need abolishing
I realise that racing needs to create bookie fodder but if a track is to run a handicap then the rules regarding official ratings need
changing
No horse gets a mark until its true ability has been revealed
ie it finishes within 2 lengths of a winner on both codes
flat and jumps
Any french imports get automatic top weight in any handicap they are entered
Any horse gets automatic top weight until its true ablility has been revealed in the relevant code
none of this running in a chase off your hurdles rating malarkey
Then you could say ok mr geraghty you can run this horse out the back of as many races you like but until you win one that horse is running off top weight.
Should make the waters less muddy
be someone else tomorrow , theres plenty on here who say nothing who prey it continues aswell
Tony Martin managed to overturn the punishements imposed over the running of Bobby's Diamond last November by the acting stewards at Fairyhouse.
They produced some post-race endoscopic evidence that showed the horse had blood in its trachea region - and that was good enough for the appeal panel!
http://www.turfclub.ie/web/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4327:aj-martin-trainer--pt-enright-rider-appeal-fairyhouse-28th-november-2015&catid=45:referrals-a-appeals&Itemid=173
But it didn't end there though, cuz on the same day the acting stewards had also banned JP's Shantou Ed and punished the trainer / jockey, and yes you've guessed it, at the appeal they produced post-race evidence that showed the horse had a recent haemorrhage in the alveoli and the bronchi.
That was good enough for the appeal panel!
http://www.turfclub.ie/web/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4326:pa-fahy-trainer--ap-crowe-rider-appeal-fairyhouse-28th-november-2015&catid=45:referrals-a-appeals&Itemid=173
They produced some post-race endoscopic evidence that showed the horse had blood in its trachea region - and that was good enough for the appeal panel!
http://www.turfclub.ie/web/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4327:aj-martin-trainer--pt-enright-rider-appeal-fairyhouse-28th-november-2015&catid=45:referrals-a-appeals&Itemid=173
But it didn't end there though, cuz on the same day the acting stewards had also banned JP's Shantou Ed and punished the trainer / jockey, and yes you've guessed it, at the appeal they produced post-race evidence that showed the horse had a recent haemorrhage in the alveoli and the bronchi.
That was good enough for the appeal panel!
http://www.turfclub.ie/web/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4326:pa-fahy-trainer--ap-crowe-rider-appeal-fairyhouse-28th-november-2015&catid=45:referrals-a-appeals&Itemid=173
11kv 03 Apr 16 16:38
Ima will be leading the appeal...................
I won't actually and as I've said elsewhere on another thread, it always amuses me that a jockey will get a ban if easing up and gets touched off, yet when they let one shoot off miles ahead and then only start riding once it's all too late, more often than not nothing happens despite in both instances it was their actions that cost the horse any chance of winning. Aren't both just as bad as each other win it comes to a misjudgement?
sparrow 03 Apr 16 16:49
Ima says it's all about the horse.
I don't actually but don't be too hard on yourself, as you're not the first to have trouble processing basic English and then retaining that information, so as a result tend to misrepresent what I say.
hulk23 03 Apr 16 17:06
a ban which puts chief apologist ima very firmly in his place.
Hardly, when the ban was under 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.
I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that the ride he gave the horse cost it any chance of winning and the stewards clearly agree on that. Where the differences occurs is between those who think it was a dishonest ride and those who think it was a poorly judged one. When Roger Loughran celebrated too early on Central House a few years back and ended up 3rd instead of winning, wasn't deemed to have failed to obtain his best possible place? Yet I doubt there are too many who think it was deliberate, despite presumably being done under the same rule as a non-trier.
Ironically, the bottom line is that in my view Geraghty is too good a jockey that if he was supposed to get the horse beaten, he wouldn't have made it look as bad as that by design. Instead a combination of the starter giving the winner a soft lead when letting them go without a proper line up, Geraghty's orders being to let his horse have a lead and cover it up (so once the winner pinches that lead then at best he covers it up behind the 2nd) wanting something else to give him a tow to claw back the winner, then leaving it too long when that didn't happen and maybe expecting the winner to come back to him too.
I've no problem with stewards handing out bans like this for poorly judged rides, yet is that the same as deliberately stopping one? If so then why have other jockeys effectively had their careers ended by bans of several years when deemed to have stopped a horse and this ride only gets 30 days?
Ima will be leading the appeal...................
I won't actually and as I've said elsewhere on another thread, it always amuses me that a jockey will get a ban if easing up and gets touched off, yet when they let one shoot off miles ahead and then only start riding once it's all too late, more often than not nothing happens despite in both instances it was their actions that cost the horse any chance of winning. Aren't both just as bad as each other win it comes to a misjudgement?
sparrow 03 Apr 16 16:49
Ima says it's all about the horse.
I don't actually but don't be too hard on yourself, as you're not the first to have trouble processing basic English and then retaining that information, so as a result tend to misrepresent what I say.
hulk23 03 Apr 16 17:06
a ban which puts chief apologist ima very firmly in his place.
Hardly, when the ban was under 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.
I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that the ride he gave the horse cost it any chance of winning and the stewards clearly agree on that. Where the differences occurs is between those who think it was a dishonest ride and those who think it was a poorly judged one. When Roger Loughran celebrated too early on Central House a few years back and ended up 3rd instead of winning, wasn't deemed to have failed to obtain his best possible place? Yet I doubt there are too many who think it was deliberate, despite presumably being done under the same rule as a non-trier.
Ironically, the bottom line is that in my view Geraghty is too good a jockey that if he was supposed to get the horse beaten, he wouldn't have made it look as bad as that by design. Instead a combination of the starter giving the winner a soft lead when letting them go without a proper line up, Geraghty's orders being to let his horse have a lead and cover it up (so once the winner pinches that lead then at best he covers it up behind the 2nd) wanting something else to give him a tow to claw back the winner, then leaving it too long when that didn't happen and maybe expecting the winner to come back to him too.
I've no problem with stewards handing out bans like this for poorly judged rides, yet is that the same as deliberately stopping one? If so then why have other jockeys effectively had their careers ended by bans of several years when deemed to have stopped a horse and this ride only gets 30 days?
Ima - I think the thing is Geraghty has looked like he has been on many non jiggers in the past few months. You have the right to have an opinion as does everyone else, but for some reason every jockey to you seems to be 100% honest. There are corrupt rides every single day and some are more obvious than others, I just get the feeling that if a jockey came cruising with a double handful, not pushed or got the whip out and got beat, you would probably still come on and find a way to defend the jockey.
The fact that Martin trains the horse speaks volumes.
Martin would have had no say into how that horse was ridden. Don't know how it works in England but in Ireland the trainers of JP's horse have no idea if the horse is off or not until they are at the start. That's a fact!
As for the race today, the winner got a soft lead and if Barry was to try and chase him down from a mile out he would have given his horse a horrid hard race. You saw what happened Mr Cosmopolitan when he tried to lead the chase. The winner finished full of running and would have been caught regardless. You see worse rides every day of the week.
They will appeal and get a reduced penalty.
As for the race today, the winner got a soft lead and if Barry was to try and chase him down from a mile out he would have given his horse a horrid hard race. You saw what happened Mr Cosmopolitan when he tried to lead the chase. The winner finished full of running and would have been caught regardless. You see worse rides every day of the week.
They will appeal and get a reduced penalty.
Horse would have won doing handstands given any sort of ride. Martin knew, BG knew.q
I'm well aware though Magic__Daps that not all rides see the jockey give it their all and am equally aware of why it is often the case that they don't. It's just that I'm not of the view that every beaten ride was dodgy or that a jockey must be bent and/or useless if they do get beaten, when far more often it's a case of a judgement error or luck in running.
Ironically whenever I have been critical of a ride (although it's usually been on a judgement issue rather than ability) I've be accused of double standards and told so it's OK for me to criticise a ride but nobody else can, yet when a take the view that a ride was bad luck or whatever, I'm somehow chief apologist, so I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.
Regarding me supposedly defending a beaten jockey in your double handful scenario above, this is where I understandably have an advantage over everyone else regarding knowing my own views and what I say, as one of my biggest complaints with jockeys is not kicking on and putting a race to bed when they can, as often the other main rival jockey at the time will accept defeat if the better travelling horse goes on, but will keep rowing away on their mount if it doesn't, just in case.
Especially jump racing where I like to see a well travelling horse take it up around the second last and go to the last with a buffer of a lead, so that they can even afford a mistake and still win. Again ironically when I said that once regarding Reve De Sivola and Zarkander, where the later was running all over the former but didn't go on and was beaten, I basically got told I was talking rubbish.
Although I get that you only gave that particular double handful scenario for example purposes and were generally suggesting that I will defend jockeys regardless, but that isn't actually the case, although I will admit that I will usually feel I see a reason why I think something has happened, as opposed to taking the easy option and just saying it was bent regardless.
Ironically whenever I have been critical of a ride (although it's usually been on a judgement issue rather than ability) I've be accused of double standards and told so it's OK for me to criticise a ride but nobody else can, yet when a take the view that a ride was bad luck or whatever, I'm somehow chief apologist, so I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.
Regarding me supposedly defending a beaten jockey in your double handful scenario above, this is where I understandably have an advantage over everyone else regarding knowing my own views and what I say, as one of my biggest complaints with jockeys is not kicking on and putting a race to bed when they can, as often the other main rival jockey at the time will accept defeat if the better travelling horse goes on, but will keep rowing away on their mount if it doesn't, just in case.
Especially jump racing where I like to see a well travelling horse take it up around the second last and go to the last with a buffer of a lead, so that they can even afford a mistake and still win. Again ironically when I said that once regarding Reve De Sivola and Zarkander, where the later was running all over the former but didn't go on and was beaten, I basically got told I was talking rubbish.
Although I get that you only gave that particular double handful scenario for example purposes and were generally suggesting that I will defend jockeys regardless, but that isn't actually the case, although I will admit that I will usually feel I see a reason why I think something has happened, as opposed to taking the easy option and just saying it was bent regardless.
it was dishonest ima
or maybe you didn't notice him taking a tug early on
maybe over three miles , maybe
not over two when the heavily backed leader is 20 clear
or maybe you didn't notice him taking a tug early on
maybe over three miles , maybe
not over two when the heavily backed leader is 20 clear
it was so blatant even the irish stewards had to act :-)
In reply to Bigwilly, the horse stays 3 miles in a bog! How it would have had a hard race over two at Limerick is beyond me.Horse was on the bridle until Geraghty decided to make his move. Just as the winner was back in his box!
I would like to ask one more question. Is Geraghty a good judge of pace? My answer unreservedly would be yes. Therefore I quite understandably draw only one conclusion. Bnet.
Correct evilroyslade.Why keep the horse so far off the pace at limerick?Well done to the stewards for doing they job.
Would he really need to take a tug when already 20-odd lengths behind the leader hello :-) if trying to get his horse beaten?
Or if by "early on" you mean right at the start, well the starter gifted the winner an easy early lead and if Geraghty's instructions were to give his horse cover then he would give it a tug, wouldn't he?
Or if by "early on" you mean right at the start, well the starter gifted the winner an easy early lead and if Geraghty's instructions were to give his horse cover then he would give it a tug, wouldn't he?
I didn't actually give those instruction out myself and didn't just pluck that phrase out of thin air either.
The Turf Club report said: "Tony Martin stated that his instructions were to get some cover and try switch him off, bearing in mind that the horse can be keen."
"Evidence was also heard from Barry 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."
The Turf Club report said: "Tony Martin stated that his instructions were to get some cover and try switch him off, bearing in mind that the horse can be keen."
"Evidence was also heard from Barry 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."
It all boils down to who was going the right pace. Was it conceivable that the leader had gone too fast and would come back on that ground at that pace. Could BG have miscalculated how bad the ground was?
If you can definitively answer no to both questions, then the ban is quite correct.
If you can definitively answer no to both questions, then the ban is quite correct.
The race he won at punchestown he was not held up 20 lenghts off the pace.The winner is a good horse.
At last a ban that actually means something.
Really important for the sport and in particular punters that the ban is not overturned. If it is it would raise serious questions as to who is actually running Irish racing.
Really important for the sport and in particular punters that the ban is not overturned. If it is it would raise serious questions as to who is actually running Irish racing.
Your saying your right and the stewards at limerick and most of racing public are wrong Ima , do you realise what your saying
you have lost a fair bit of credibility here
you have lost a fair bit of credibility here
In my view the ban is entirely reasonable;the problem is that it is so unusual for the Stewards to take any action against blatant non triers.If they toughened up and stood jockeys down/fined trainers/prohibited the horse from running again in the near future whenever such incidents are identified then it would not be an isolated incident and could force the sport into cleaning up its act.
A seasoned experienced jockey like BG should/could/would have been able to "adjust/tweak" his riding plan accordingly ie depending on how the race is panning out, and in this case BG was guilty of not doing that - in this race it looked bad and it was bad!
The "action" of the starter was immaterial - I'd seen worse in England where Peter Scudamore "stole" lengths at the off on a front running horse like Sabin Du Loir on many occasions - why? It did not precipitate the riding of BG ie it was not responsible for the mount of BG being beaten so far - BG was culpable for his "inaction" to deal with the situation at hand and upon him.
The "action" of the starter was immaterial - I'd seen worse in England where Peter Scudamore "stole" lengths at the off on a front running horse like Sabin Du Loir on many occasions - why? It did not precipitate the riding of BG ie it was not responsible for the mount of BG being beaten so far - BG was culpable for his "inaction" to deal with the situation at hand and upon him.
The ride given by Geraghty was extremely poor & you have to question the "fairness" of the race; irrespective of what he told the stewards about wanting cover, holding the horse up & riding explicitly to instructions; it doesn't wash with the majority of punters who could see what was happening. He simply did not give the horse any sort of chance of winning and as a seasoned professional he surely must have anticipated he would need to alter the riding instructions given him (isn't a top jockey supposed to interpret a race whilst involved in it and react accordingly) and should have taken some remedial action long before he did to at least eat into the lead given to the eventual winner.
He cannot have any complaints; I wonder if this will affect future race riding within the Emerald Isle for the non-jiggers at least in the short term; if nothing else it suggests the local stewards offered a shot across the bow although when the appeal is heard will be interesting to see if the ban is upheld
He cannot have any complaints; I wonder if this will affect future race riding within the Emerald Isle for the non-jiggers at least in the short term; if nothing else it suggests the local stewards offered a shot across the bow although when the appeal is heard will be interesting to see if the ban is upheld
I see Shutthefrontdoor has come in for some support. Barry will be a hero once more if he gets this one home.
If back to last years form, and Jonjo working his ' magic' after a disappointing run last time out, has a decent chance imo.
If back to last years form, and Jonjo working his ' magic' after a disappointing run last time out, has a decent chance imo.
Shutthefrontdoor did not look as if he stayed the distance last year (good ground I believe) hence what chance if ground is softer? Also, his form this year is not encouraging.
Looks like the "untouchables" halo is slipping , hopefully the UK stewards will take note and act accordinly
Pity the stewards at Navan on Saturday did not pay as much attention to the bumper that finished the card , given the race was run exactly the same
attheraces appearing to go with the "poor Barry" argument
sewter, I think he's employed by ATR on their website!
But hey, let's be thankful for small mercies, at least the RP didn't ask Colin 'he stopped riding, but didn't ease up' Russell to do an analysis again on another controversial ride!
But hey, let's be thankful for small mercies, at least the RP didn't ask Colin 'he stopped riding, but didn't ease up' Russell to do an analysis again on another controversial ride!
* not forgetting of course, BG has the atr slogan on his breeches!
Rather ironic that it is the LIMERICK stewards who have (indirectly) 'had a go' at J P McManus (OWNER of the horse) -
- given that LIMERICK is his local course - along with Tipperary.
- given that LIMERICK is his local course - along with Tipperary.
hello :-) 04 Apr 16 02:18
Your saying your right and the stewards at limerick and most of racing public are wrong Ima , do you realise what your saying
you have lost a fair bit of credibility here.
No, what I'm saying is the stewards clearly haven't decided he deliberately stopped the horse but that they have deemed him not to have ridden it to obtain the best possible chance or winning or finishing in the best possible position or whatever the official wording of that rule is. I've already said it was a poor ride and the way it was ridden didn't give it the best chance of winning, but I've also already said that description applies whether it was a dishonest ride or an incompetent one.
Why didn't Eddie Ahern get 30 days? Why didn't Jason Behan get 30 days? Wasn't it because the authorities deemed them to have deliberately stopped the horse from winning via the type or ride given? If they thought that about Geraghty then why wasn't he banned and warned off for several years like they were?
I'm afraid to say you are the one maybe losing a bit of credibility considering I've not said I have any problem with the ban and have also clearly said these kind of rides are as bad as easing up and getting caught on the line. My use of the word "nonsense" wasn't to suggest it was actually a good ride and Geraghty wasn't in any way at fault, it was used to suggest it was nonsense to say connections were on the winner.
impossible123 04 Apr 16 11:19
A seasoned experienced jockey like BG should/could/would have been able to "adjust/tweak" his riding plan accordingly ie depending on how the race is panning out, and in this case BG was guilty of not doing that - in this race it looked bad and it was bad!
The "action" of the starter was immaterial - I'd seen worse in England where Peter Scudamore "stole" lengths at the off on a front running horse like Sabin Du Loir on many occasions - why?
With your first point above, if a jockey's riding instructions are to hold a horse up and given it some cover because it can race a bit keenly and one runner goes off into a 20L lead, then how does he adjust/tweak that without completely ignoring his riding instructions from the very start? I appreciate and agree that sometimes they have to go to plan B and use a bit of common sense after a certain while and Geraghty did that when pulling away form the rest, although he clearly left things far too late to trouble the winner.
Regarding your second point about Scudamore, pointing out an additional example of something being wrong doesn't then made the other one any less wrong. The starter yesterday basically made the winning jockey's mind up for him regarding how he would ride his mount due to the soft lead he gifted him at the start.
Your saying your right and the stewards at limerick and most of racing public are wrong Ima , do you realise what your saying
you have lost a fair bit of credibility here.
No, what I'm saying is the stewards clearly haven't decided he deliberately stopped the horse but that they have deemed him not to have ridden it to obtain the best possible chance or winning or finishing in the best possible position or whatever the official wording of that rule is. I've already said it was a poor ride and the way it was ridden didn't give it the best chance of winning, but I've also already said that description applies whether it was a dishonest ride or an incompetent one.
Why didn't Eddie Ahern get 30 days? Why didn't Jason Behan get 30 days? Wasn't it because the authorities deemed them to have deliberately stopped the horse from winning via the type or ride given? If they thought that about Geraghty then why wasn't he banned and warned off for several years like they were?
I'm afraid to say you are the one maybe losing a bit of credibility considering I've not said I have any problem with the ban and have also clearly said these kind of rides are as bad as easing up and getting caught on the line. My use of the word "nonsense" wasn't to suggest it was actually a good ride and Geraghty wasn't in any way at fault, it was used to suggest it was nonsense to say connections were on the winner.
impossible123 04 Apr 16 11:19
A seasoned experienced jockey like BG should/could/would have been able to "adjust/tweak" his riding plan accordingly ie depending on how the race is panning out, and in this case BG was guilty of not doing that - in this race it looked bad and it was bad!
The "action" of the starter was immaterial - I'd seen worse in England where Peter Scudamore "stole" lengths at the off on a front running horse like Sabin Du Loir on many occasions - why?
With your first point above, if a jockey's riding instructions are to hold a horse up and given it some cover because it can race a bit keenly and one runner goes off into a 20L lead, then how does he adjust/tweak that without completely ignoring his riding instructions from the very start? I appreciate and agree that sometimes they have to go to plan B and use a bit of common sense after a certain while and Geraghty did that when pulling away form the rest, although he clearly left things far too late to trouble the winner.
Regarding your second point about Scudamore, pointing out an additional example of something being wrong doesn't then made the other one any less wrong. The starter yesterday basically made the winning jockey's mind up for him regarding how he would ride his mount due to the soft lead he gifted him at the start.
There is something very wrong if we are to believe the idea that a supposed top jockey goes out with a plan and then is unable to adjust when it is falling apart in front of him. The Stewards would have been entitled to have fallen about laughing at this stage.
Why do ATR need Geraghty? A complete waste of money. Since joining JP his blog has gone from useful to pointless.
Why do ATR need Geraghty? A complete waste of money. Since joining JP his blog has gone from useful to pointless.
onlooker, the stewards aren't Limerick stewards..they tend to travel around
ffs
ffs
Tony Martin gets fined €3,000 (about time) yet the ban could cost Geraghty anything from €50k to €150k plus. yet he was riding to instructions and yet Martin is allowed to carry on pulling the wool over punters and stewards eyes
dodgydog 04 Apr 16 13:37
onlooker, the stewards aren't Limerick stewards..they tend to travel around ffs
-----------
Is that the case?
Because it certainly is NOT the case in England.
Punters have been clamouring for 'Central Stewarding' for decades here - But it has NOT happened.
Well, actually - on looking up Turf Club regulations - it turns out that we are BOTH correct.
A minimum of two Stewards attend - drawn from a panel of 4 Flat, or 4 Jumps, lists.
"A further two will be appointed by the committee of the racecourse involved."
onlooker, the stewards aren't Limerick stewards..they tend to travel around ffs
-----------
Is that the case?
Because it certainly is NOT the case in England.
Punters have been clamouring for 'Central Stewarding' for decades here - But it has NOT happened.
Well, actually - on looking up Turf Club regulations - it turns out that we are BOTH correct.
A minimum of two Stewards attend - drawn from a panel of 4 Flat, or 4 Jumps, lists.
"A further two will be appointed by the committee of the racecourse involved."
differentdrum 04 Apr 16 13:34
There is something very wrong if we are to believe the idea that a supposed top jockey goes out with a plan and then is unable to adjust when it is falling apart in front of him. The Stewards would have been entitled to have fallen about laughing at this stage......
Yes they sometimes have to use a bit of common sense but it depends on what those specific orders are. If a jockey is told to go out and make all, yet another horse goes tearing off in front and far too fast, or if he's told to track the leader and hit the front 1f out yet at 2f out the leader has fallen into a hole, you would like to think in those instance the jockey could use his initiative and break from his strict instructions.
I suppose Geraghty could have ignored his instructions from the very start once the leader was gifted an early lead, yet if he did so and his horse ran too keenly due to no cover, and closed down the leader too soon, ending up going by it and finding nothing at the business end and was passed again, not only would you expect the trainer not to be best pleased but no doubt Geraghty would have been crucified on here for ignoring his riding instructions if they became publicly known.
The starter created a problem for Geraghty by giving the winner such a soft early lead, whereas if he didn't and Geraghty could have covered his horse up in 3rd, with the 2nd being say 2-3 lengths off the leader, then we might have seen a different story. That's not to say the winner might not have still won anyway but maybe just not as easily.
There is something very wrong if we are to believe the idea that a supposed top jockey goes out with a plan and then is unable to adjust when it is falling apart in front of him. The Stewards would have been entitled to have fallen about laughing at this stage......
Yes they sometimes have to use a bit of common sense but it depends on what those specific orders are. If a jockey is told to go out and make all, yet another horse goes tearing off in front and far too fast, or if he's told to track the leader and hit the front 1f out yet at 2f out the leader has fallen into a hole, you would like to think in those instance the jockey could use his initiative and break from his strict instructions.
I suppose Geraghty could have ignored his instructions from the very start once the leader was gifted an early lead, yet if he did so and his horse ran too keenly due to no cover, and closed down the leader too soon, ending up going by it and finding nothing at the business end and was passed again, not only would you expect the trainer not to be best pleased but no doubt Geraghty would have been crucified on here for ignoring his riding instructions if they became publicly known.
The starter created a problem for Geraghty by giving the winner such a soft early lead, whereas if he didn't and Geraghty could have covered his horse up in 3rd, with the 2nd being say 2-3 lengths off the leader, then we might have seen a different story. That's not to say the winner might not have still won anyway but maybe just not as easily.
Carrot1960 you are one deluded poster if you think Martin had any part in this. He wouldnt have known if the horse was off or not until they left the parade ring never mind having an input into tactics. FranK Berry does all that. You obviously dont know how the green and gold operate.
So who do you blame for all the other horses from the yard who run for the "owners" and not the punters
In this instance Martin would have had little input.
I think Martin is good at his job. Placing of horses and knowing their ability is what training is all about and it is why 95% of trainers are failures. They have no idea about handicaps and placing horses.
Its pretty obvious which horses are not off in maidens etc so its your fault if you are on a non jigger.
I think Martin is good at his job. Placing of horses and knowing their ability is what training is all about and it is why 95% of trainers are failures. They have no idea about handicaps and placing horses.
Its pretty obvious which horses are not off in maidens etc so its your fault if you are on a non jigger.
big willy is totally correct on this one..and im sure bg will be sorted for loss of earnings as will harvey for the fine..
Of course the trainer would be aware of whether the horse was "off" or not; that really is a fatuous comment to suggest he would have no knowledge of intentions for the day
no geordie how may have been but prob not..thats how it works.last word from frank berry
ima
For goodness sake stop blaming the starter - Noble Endeavour was only a few lengths behind at the off but it got progressively bigger. In a nutshell BG did not make any token attempt to address the eventual result.
BG has a "brain" and the experience to ride a race ACCORDINGLY; if the winner had been "helped" by the starter as claimed by you BG could so easily have adjusted his riding there and then like most professionals in any field to deal with the situation at hand to limit damage ie eventual finishing position, but BG clearly did not; BG could not just blame it on the trainer because he's an experienced, seasoned professional.
I hope BG does not appeal but just learn from it; if BG does appeal BG will/could be ridiculed further by the general public - his riding of Yanworth against Yorkhill was not "lauded" by most in the racing fraternity either. Clearly, BG rode a very badly judged race - in other words he left his racing "brain" behind!
For goodness sake stop blaming the starter - Noble Endeavour was only a few lengths behind at the off but it got progressively bigger. In a nutshell BG did not make any token attempt to address the eventual result.
BG has a "brain" and the experience to ride a race ACCORDINGLY; if the winner had been "helped" by the starter as claimed by you BG could so easily have adjusted his riding there and then like most professionals in any field to deal with the situation at hand to limit damage ie eventual finishing position, but BG clearly did not; BG could not just blame it on the trainer because he's an experienced, seasoned professional.
I hope BG does not appeal but just learn from it; if BG does appeal BG will/could be ridiculed further by the general public - his riding of Yanworth against Yorkhill was not "lauded" by most in the racing fraternity either. Clearly, BG rode a very badly judged race - in other words he left his racing "brain" behind!
impossible123 04 Apr 16 12:56
Shutthefrontdoor did not look as if he stayed the distance last year (good ground I believe) hence what chance if ground is softer? Also, his form this year is not encouraging.
Plenty of winning form in Soft/Heavy going.
First run this season was a Hurdle race - a well used strategy !!
Second run - Jonjo stated the reason for the poor performance was that the horse had an infected foot.
Has since pleased on a racecourse gallop.
Jonjo on record as stating he thought the horse ran much too free last year, and as a result didn't last the trip.
This time, he hopes Shutthefrontdoor will be ' more professional '
Shutthefrontdoor did not look as if he stayed the distance last year (good ground I believe) hence what chance if ground is softer? Also, his form this year is not encouraging.
Plenty of winning form in Soft/Heavy going.
First run this season was a Hurdle race - a well used strategy !!
Second run - Jonjo stated the reason for the poor performance was that the horse had an infected foot.
Has since pleased on a racecourse gallop.
Jonjo on record as stating he thought the horse ran much too free last year, and as a result didn't last the trip.
This time, he hopes Shutthefrontdoor will be ' more professional '
Facts
I hope Shutthefrontdoor runs more professionally however, I do believe this year's National is of a higher grade than last with several new up-and-coming horses in the picture eg the Last Samuri, Ucello Conti, Gallant Oscar, Bishops Road, and Silviniaco Conti (well handicapped if staying the distance).
I hope Shutthefrontdoor runs more professionally however, I do believe this year's National is of a higher grade than last with several new up-and-coming horses in the picture eg the Last Samuri, Ucello Conti, Gallant Oscar, Bishops Road, and Silviniaco Conti (well handicapped if staying the distance).
If BG's horse was meant to win there's not a chance in hell he would have left himself in such a poor position. This is what punters want (I contend) every horse ridden as if it's off for it's life.
I can see the sense in Ima Mazed's argument. It may be that the stewards have been wanting to hit the JP operation with a severe slap on the wrist, but I really think 30 days for BJG, in this specific instance, is harsh, and 4-5 days would have been enough.For sure, it wasn't his finest hour but there are circumstances that make that ride at least somewhat forgiveable.
The winner is a decent horse who, imo would have won regardless but has a history of pulling too hard and going off too quick for his own good. At times in the past he's fallen in a hole,but when he doesn't he's very decent so what do you do in Geraghty's case? Go after him from the start and maybe they both pay the penalty? It cannot be easy knowing how best to ride against a horse like this. As a general rule,Tony Martin does like his horses dropped out and switched off( whether gambled on or outsiders) so the instructions seem plausible. So it's not hard to imagine BG opting to drop him out and if Velocity Boy keeps galloping then at least he has ridden to instructions. Of course he could have made a move earlier than he did but to me this looked like poor judgement rather than a deliberate intent to lose. And why was only BG suspended? Surely all the other jockeys were equally guilty of ignoring the winner. Why just punish the second?
The winner is a decent horse who, imo would have won regardless but has a history of pulling too hard and going off too quick for his own good. At times in the past he's fallen in a hole,but when he doesn't he's very decent so what do you do in Geraghty's case? Go after him from the start and maybe they both pay the penalty? It cannot be easy knowing how best to ride against a horse like this. As a general rule,Tony Martin does like his horses dropped out and switched off( whether gambled on or outsiders) so the instructions seem plausible. So it's not hard to imagine BG opting to drop him out and if Velocity Boy keeps galloping then at least he has ridden to instructions. Of course he could have made a move earlier than he did but to me this looked like poor judgement rather than a deliberate intent to lose. And why was only BG suspended? Surely all the other jockeys were equally guilty of ignoring the winner. Why just punish the second?
impossible123 04 Apr 16 15:27
Facts
I hope Shutthefrontdoor runs more professionally however, I do believe this year's National is of a higher grade than last with several new up-and-coming horses in the picture eg the Last Samuri, Ucello Conti, Gallant Oscar, Bishops Road, and Silviniaco Conti (well handicapped if staying the distance).
I believe you already know my opinion regarding The Last Samuri
It was a 16f race and not 20/24f; BG should have cottoned on to the inevitable "impending" result ie finishing position - not stewards - by the 3rd hurdle from home; BG made it looked bad from the start to the finish, and in my view it was a just penalty by the Limerick stewards.
How many is only a few lengths impossible123?
I make it at least 7L and 3 positions behind when the starter let them go when some of the runners were barely on the course proper and coming sideways onto it. You shouldn't already be in 4th position like Geraghty was before the race has even started.
I've also covered why Geraghty probably didn't adjust his tactics in an earlier post in the thread, when saying if the starter had them form anything remotely resembling a straight line, as opposed to the winner being 7L clear of Geraghty right from the start and about a dozen lengths of the back markers, then he could have still covered up his horse in 3rd or 4th when only 1 or 2 lengths off the lead.
When nothing else wants to chase the leader and Geraghty's orders are to cover up his horse to get it to settle, then he obviously has a dilemma early on regarding does he disregard his orders and close down the leader himself, or obey them and sit off behind and hopefully track another runner towing him along to do so. Neither of which would have been as much of an issue with a more even start by the whole field.
That's not to say he didn't still leave it too late to make up his mind what to do, but obviously he was hoping he would get that tow but like I said elsewhere in the thread, often when one goes well clear then nobody else wants to do the donkey work for the others by being in 2nd and closing down the leader whilst they rest get towed along, until eventually someone decides they had better do something and Geraghty ended up pulling well clear of the 3rd but all too late.
Another prime example of this that has been largely overlooked despite happening on the same day was Adrien Du Pont in the 2:35 at Ascot yesterday, where not only was it a Nicholls/Twiston-Davies horse that was 13/8F, but also a Grade 1 winner the time before. In both races the winners had such a big buffer of a leader, that they could even afford the jumping mistakes they made at the last too, which would probably have been significant had something else been upsides.
I make it at least 7L and 3 positions behind when the starter let them go when some of the runners were barely on the course proper and coming sideways onto it. You shouldn't already be in 4th position like Geraghty was before the race has even started.
I've also covered why Geraghty probably didn't adjust his tactics in an earlier post in the thread, when saying if the starter had them form anything remotely resembling a straight line, as opposed to the winner being 7L clear of Geraghty right from the start and about a dozen lengths of the back markers, then he could have still covered up his horse in 3rd or 4th when only 1 or 2 lengths off the lead.
When nothing else wants to chase the leader and Geraghty's orders are to cover up his horse to get it to settle, then he obviously has a dilemma early on regarding does he disregard his orders and close down the leader himself, or obey them and sit off behind and hopefully track another runner towing him along to do so. Neither of which would have been as much of an issue with a more even start by the whole field.
That's not to say he didn't still leave it too late to make up his mind what to do, but obviously he was hoping he would get that tow but like I said elsewhere in the thread, often when one goes well clear then nobody else wants to do the donkey work for the others by being in 2nd and closing down the leader whilst they rest get towed along, until eventually someone decides they had better do something and Geraghty ended up pulling well clear of the 3rd but all too late.
Another prime example of this that has been largely overlooked despite happening on the same day was Adrien Du Pont in the 2:35 at Ascot yesterday, where not only was it a Nicholls/Twiston-Davies horse that was 13/8F, but also a Grade 1 winner the time before. In both races the winners had such a big buffer of a leader, that they could even afford the jumping mistakes they made at the last too, which would probably have been significant had something else been upsides.
hooray hooray. the green and gold is not exempt from the punishment....they need to watch more of the green and gold horses... esp ones being eased out of the places when they cant win....happens on regular basis.
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!
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!
Where would you put it in a list of top 10 green and gold non jiggers. Not the worst ive seen
Probably wouldnt make the top 100 Geoff, but got to start somewhere I suppose.
I was at Leopardstown the meeting before Christmas and a guy told me he had heard a rep of JP had been approached by a steward telling him that due to many complaints from the public they would be watching his runners more carefully. I thought at the time thus sounded ridiculous and passed it off as a mad rumour. It may still be but after his runners were done (ok they got off) and now this I'm beginning yo think that maybe it wasn't so ridiculous after all.
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.
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.
Ima I'm only having a bobble hat m8 no harm meant I know you know your onions.......
no harm meant I know you know your onions.......
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 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.
Unfortunately prize money available for the most part (remember most horses are low grade handicappers) and the handicapping system means that horse racing is ripe for trainers, jockeys & owners to try and manipulate things to gain an advantage.
Until there are fundamental changes then we will continue to have creative methods used by those involved and as always the punter is the bottom of the food barrel so effectively pays for all the others.
Until there are fundamental changes then we will continue to have creative methods used by those involved and as always the punter is the bottom of the food barrel so effectively pays for all the others.
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!
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!
No lack of judgement on the part of Geraghty. Plain and simple non trier. As is often the case with horses from the yard.
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.
.....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.
It must take a strong stomach to present this stuff with a straight face.
Excellent line..
Excellent line..
I can't wait to see who repersents connections at the hearing , my moneys on the top brief who got Ted Walsh off
has anyone watched the winners ride last time it ran? says it all.
chequered colours,brown for your underpants and blood red yer hole
Adrienne Du Pont was a whole class above the rest of the field.
chavs off license got 
kestrel super strength on special again
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.
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.
Will probably get it reduced to 2 days after the appeal!
Hopefully a few of the rancid flat trainers who hide behind a toff British accent will get the same treatment this season
if the milk is floating on your tea and smells funny it has gone off
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
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
here's the blog link..good read as usual..
http://www.attheraces.com/blogs/kevin-blake/04-April-2016
http://www.attheraces.com/blogs/kevin-blake/04-April-2016
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.
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
T0 blame the starter is quite clearly ridiculous. It may not have been the most even start but there are plenty worse than that. The horse had a much bigger lead by the first hurdle without going anything more than an average pace. The other jockeys let it go and were all at fault. What made the Geraghty ride much worse than the others was that he deliberately stayed behind the 2nd and 3rd when they were no longer travelling when it was quite obvious he needed to go after the leader. Whether that's misjudgement or something worse I'm not going to comment on but quite clear that the ban was deserved. He'll probably get it reduced on appeal but it shouldn't be.
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.
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.
And you impossible123 are seemingly ignoring the fact that I have several times in the thread admitted it was a poorly judged ride from him. That part has never been in question from me.
Just as you seem to be ignoring the fact I have said he waited too long before deciding nothing else was going to tow him along and so he would have to go after the leader himself, which he did when pulling 15L clear of the 3rd but only after he had waited too long. What that shows was that he eventually got more vigorous with his mount despite it being all too late. As you saying about him not going after the leader soon after the off, knowing no other runner was going to give him cover, well the flaw in that argument was that other runners did actually give him cover.
Oh and congratulations on the hat-trick too for ignoring the fact I've several times conceded that sometimes jockeys have to use their initiative and go to plan B, but I also said it depends specifically on what their orders are and whether plan B needs to be implemented right away or not. Obviously if orders are to set out and make all and you miss out the start then a jockey might decide it's best not to go from last to first early on in one burst or swoop and instead try to pick off runners as and when. That's entirely different though to being able to follow orders from the very start but then deciding to go to plan B for whatever reason.
I'm guessing here Geraghty didn't offer the excuse of riding to orders to for the defeat as a whole and more why he rode the race he did for a certain part of it. So for instance, if the stewards (like you) asked him why didn't he go after the leader from the start and he replied his orders were to cover up and hold up the horse, then that explains why he didn't immediately go after the leader, it doesn't excuse any overall misjudgement though.
Just as you seem to be ignoring the fact I have said he waited too long before deciding nothing else was going to tow him along and so he would have to go after the leader himself, which he did when pulling 15L clear of the 3rd but only after he had waited too long. What that shows was that he eventually got more vigorous with his mount despite it being all too late. As you saying about him not going after the leader soon after the off, knowing no other runner was going to give him cover, well the flaw in that argument was that other runners did actually give him cover.
Oh and congratulations on the hat-trick too for ignoring the fact I've several times conceded that sometimes jockeys have to use their initiative and go to plan B, but I also said it depends specifically on what their orders are and whether plan B needs to be implemented right away or not. Obviously if orders are to set out and make all and you miss out the start then a jockey might decide it's best not to go from last to first early on in one burst or swoop and instead try to pick off runners as and when. That's entirely different though to being able to follow orders from the very start but then deciding to go to plan B for whatever reason.
I'm guessing here Geraghty didn't offer the excuse of riding to orders to for the defeat as a whole and more why he rode the race he did for a certain part of it. So for instance, if the stewards (like you) asked him why didn't he go after the leader from the start and he replied his orders were to cover up and hold up the horse, then that explains why he didn't immediately go after the leader, it doesn't excuse any overall misjudgement though.
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)
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.
"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.
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
Think you'll find BG didn't make any obvious attempt to close on leader until the 2nd last flight
the leader travelled well throughout and won hands and heels head in chest didn't it??
Ban to BG ,who appears a different jockey/man riding for JP as he was with Hendo, and not in a good way,should be upheld no question about it.
Think you'll find BG didn't make any obvious attempt to close on leader until the 2nd last flight
the leader travelled well throughout and won hands and heels head in chest didn't it??Ban to BG ,who appears a different jockey/man riding for JP as he was with Hendo, and not in a good way,should be upheld no question about it.
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.
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.
look its odds on according to those Kevin Blake stats that this ban will be reduced to 4/5days..so what r we talking about..I believe it was a poor decision by stewards(30days) and if anything will protect these connections even more so in future when its overturned..we saw the same running & riding offences @ fairyhouse yesterday & nothing was done particularly with Brosna George who was noted by the stewards in running and who accepted the riders explanation that the horse never travelled a furlong behind the leaders..I accept that most horses are just useless & cant even lie up half speed in maidens but the handicapper can do a lot more by not given them marks. The Turf Club have a performance warning system on horses & there has been only one warning this year so far on a horse called Brought Joe Home..there was 9 performance warnings in the whole of 2015..horses who don't show enough in maidens shouldn't get a mark until they at least show they can lie up & finish a race..I would dish out Performance warnings more often, its a good concept but under used. I believe horses should show or be allotted some ability rating before they can even step on a racetrack. there is plenty schooling races around the country and barrier trails would be a great idea as in Australia for flat horses..The Irish scene is a complete embarrassment and has been for a while..the whole sport seems a mess across both sides of the Irish Sea..and on a more serious note £9 for a double cheeseburger @Uttoxeter
ima
"In other words, with the benefit of hindsight he obviously left it too late to ignore instructions.........."
In this case one does not need hindsight to be critical, judgemental and correct as it was evidently clear the leader, given form, race distance, betting market, allowed a very soft starting advantage, and plus the "aggressive inactivity" of the pilot (BG) of the eventual 2nd /'fav' to any Joe Public the leader would never be caught, period!
I hope the stewards' decision to ban BG for 30 days, etc, would not be rescinded but like most here I think it would given past history. Nonetheless, it brought into attention the clear evidence/picture of how unprofessional a lauded, seasoned and experienced jockey could become if not riding to win, but just to orders.
"In other words, with the benefit of hindsight he obviously left it too late to ignore instructions.........."
In this case one does not need hindsight to be critical, judgemental and correct as it was evidently clear the leader, given form, race distance, betting market, allowed a very soft starting advantage, and plus the "aggressive inactivity" of the pilot (BG) of the eventual 2nd /'fav' to any Joe Public the leader would never be caught, period!
I hope the stewards' decision to ban BG for 30 days, etc, would not be rescinded but like most here I think it would given past history. Nonetheless, it brought into attention the clear evidence/picture of how unprofessional a lauded, seasoned and experienced jockey could become if not riding to win, but just to orders.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539