Spencer dirty bar

definitely deliberate

Moore did not need to go for the gap but Spencer has intentionally carved him up. Should be disqualified.

14 DAYS AT LEAST.

yep, looked up at screen.   saw moore coming to win the races and pulled over in front of him.
automatic dq.  dangerous.

Moore's fault plenty of room on the outside

Dangerous riding.

Disgraceful from Spencer.

utter disgusting barsteward - dangerous riding deliberate act

Jul 22, 2016 -- 3:37PM, tim6 wrote:

Moore's fault plenty of room on the outside

At the time he made his move, there was plenty of room up the rail as well.

No financial interest but if that dosen't get chucked punters are as well giving up.

Blatently deliberate dangerous riding....should be disqualified and long ban.

what a rank & disgusting ride by Spencer and Namroodah should also be chucked out!

Without a doubt, he should be stood down for that manouvre.  That could have been seriously dangerous. 

Too compound it, it was deliberate.

On the other hand, God knows what Moore was doing going for that gap, when he had the whole of the Ascot turf to make his challenge.

agreed Sam, it might be Moore gave it plenty to do, but if Frank hadn't blocked him out he would have won.

red box odds on now, I wouldn't trust the stewards to do the right thing though

the only two things to look at are 1) spencer looking at the big screen and then immediately 2) pulling his over to block moore.
that's it, should take no longer than 5 minutes.

I backed Spencer, and have cashed the mother out = great ride (if slightly hazardous)

why are prices going up on irish rookie, when it can't get the race.?

i have said this before jockeys cause interfernce on purpose they get result 2 day ban but make about £1000 and horse unusally get demoted to me hate to say it will take death of jockey or seriuos injury for anything to be done although feel this has to be demoted

Steve Jones ‏@Templegate_tips  · 4m4 minutes ago 

If Namhroodah doesn't get chucked out it could become a free for all - case for saying it's dangerous riding from Spencer, surely

Similar in my book to the Berry / Moore incident at RA where you could see Berry pulling on his right rein to close the gap on Moore, but the gutless stewards didn't DQ him (though did ban him for ?8 days.

This is more clear-cut and is dangerous riding imo.

But will Moore just laugh about it (in disbelief) again as he did at RA?

Spock glad you cashed out, but please don't describe that as a "great ride".  That was disgusting and Spencer deserves a significant ban for that. 
It simply shows he has no regard for the safety of his fellow jockeys!

Long ban please before somebody gets killed.

Against seemingly everyone, taking a bit of 3s to keep it.

9

Thrown it out completely?

Folk need to calm down a bit, no doubt the majority of people decrying Spencer have backed the favourite (which would've won, absolutely no doubt about it).

Jockeys on here are criticsed at the drop of a hat for not trying, here we have a jockey who has tried too hard to win.

If Moore thought there was daner of him being out over the rail etc then he would've taken a huge pull.

calm down, calm down.

revised

chucked out. to 3rd.

Not deemed dangerous riding

pish they bottled the dangerous riding - should have been placed last

Agreed, Dave.

So they actually have managed to give the wrong ruling despite having it given to them on a plate.

They all do it these days....they just don't make it as obvious by looking at the big screen before they do it!

Oily Bell - Spencer entitled to close the gap before Moore gets there

yip, should hav ebeen placed last and a long long ban for him, that was hollywood death race stuff

Spencer, is getting a bit of a record for this.  He did something not too dissimilar yesterday when he could so easily have got Sophie killoran over the rails, of forced her to clip heels, in a race at Yarmouth.

The bloody idiot needs a serious talking to!

Why throw it out then if it wasn't dangerous riding?

Spencer would get slated if he had let moore up the inner yet gets slated for closing the gap as well.
Sometimes the jockeys cannot win.

Fair enough if it was deemed dangerous but it wasn't.

Shocking - as dangerous a piece of race riding as I've seen and I've seen a few.

No bet on the race,

Jul 22, 2016 -- 3:53PM, jamesdean wrote:

Why throw it out then if it wasn't dangerous riding?Spencer would get slated if he had let moore up the inner yet gets slated for closing the gap as well.Sometimes the jockeys cannot win.Fair enough if it was deemed dangerous but it wasn't.

It was dangerous - the stewards have once again shown themselves to be utterly incompetent.

Jock looking up at big screen, sees horse closing up the rail so manoeuvres his horse to block the closer from getting through and nearly puts him through the rail

barstewards don't think it's dangerous

Somerset Sam
Date Joined:    11 Mar 02
Add contact | Send message
22 Jul 16 15:48


there was daner of him

Stewards enquiry...use of word daner for danger...hold all tickets

Biggest shock I got was to see Spencer set the pace, has he recently got a  brain transplant

Jamesdean, he looked up at the screen when he sensed him coming and deliberately decided to chop him off. 
I doubt if he would have pulled a stunt like that if it had been Fallon coming up his inside - he would have most likely got a whip across the face or better still yanked off his horse (a la Gary Bardwell, I think)

ps: whatever the cost it might be to any punter privately, I don't think any one who loves horseracing endorses dangerous riding.

Spencer knew what he was doing, it was dangerous and deliberate.

Spencer never without controversy , bad for racing imo.

Of course he knew what he was doing. Moore was silly for even attempting to got up the inner but nothing is being said of him.
Spencer has tried to be clever, Moore was silly. Say what you like but I'm sure connections would've wanted Spencer to make that move.

Before anyone starts getting on their high horse I'm not saying anyone wants to see anyone hurt during a race but the flip side is you want to see your jockey doing all he can within reason. Think they have an unwritten rule in the weighing room about not attempting to go up the inner when there's not much room.

If you backed Moore's horse, I'd be more dissappointed with his choice to go inside rather than outside than anything Spencer done.
It's all about opinions...

Think he chose inside because saw spencers drifting away from the rail, going outside could have been dangerous too

Whichever way he went Spencer would have followed him imo

Spencer had the whip on the right and was coming off the rail until he saw Moore coming up the inside

Possibly

But if he went outside he would've had more room and more than likely would've won rather than come 3rd.

always what looks the banker of the day gets in bother
i never had a bet but what a howler one must
wander after the 1st 3 favs going in it was a rescue package

Yeah the interference probably wouldn't have been race ending if he'd come up the outside for sure.

3 days holiday for spencer

If Paul Barton didn't deem that deliberate, he'll never deem anything deliberate. But then he is an ex-jockey.

How on earth this steward can say Spencer's riding was inattentive, therefore deemed careless, beggars belief.  Spencer saw him coming, had a good look and manouvred his horse in front of Moore on Irish Rookie!

I think Mr Barton needs a drink to clear his evidently addled mind!

FFS what is the point, we knew after the decision that he would come on and say that Spencer didnt know he was there.
It is clear to 99% of the population that he looked at the big screen and shut the door based on what he saw

Hilarious stuff

I am not sure what RUK are hoping to achieve by muddling the issue with several other races that have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on this particular incident

The Stewards found Spencer in breach of Rule (B)54.1 and guilty of careless riding in that, having shifted away from the rail he allowed his mount to drift back towards it without appearing to be aware that IRISH ROOKIE (IRE) was on his inside. They suspended him for 3 days as follows: Friday 5, Saturday 6 and Sunday 7 August 2016.

'allowed his mount to drift back towards it'  aye ok

is that short for pulled the head off the horse to shut the door

Come racing, bent as f@ck!

Not only just 3 days, but the "big" meeting he misses is the Shergar Cup !! No penalty at all

Stewards are just as bad, no other sport is run this bad.

Incidents such as these highlight how racing in this country can sometimes leave quite a sour taste in the mouth.  The French authorities, The Hong Kong Jockey Club and several other racing authorities are quite clear on where they stand on such incidents.  If William Buick could be given an initial 15 day ban for his ride on Highlands Queen in the Prix de Diane (an incident which wouldn't have had any bearing on the final outcome of the race) it is quite extraordinary that our lily-livered stewards think something as blatant as today only merits a 3 day ban.

The message it sends out is - "it is ok to cheat or even endanger your fellow competitors safety!"  If you have a mandatory 30 day ban for jockeys who pull this kind of stunt, not only will it send a clear message to the weighing room, but arrogant ****s like Spencer will think twice before doing it again.

Ascot stewards are clearly inept. Just 3 days for Spencer is a disgrace. Kinema should been thrown out at the Royal meeting and who can forget the Rule 4 fiasco with Spectacular Bid

you can't come on and say "without appearing to be aware that IRISH ROOKIE (IRE) was on his inside" without looking either completely ridiculous, inept or worse.

the fact that he went to the rail was because he was 100% aware IRISH ROOKIE (IRE) was on his inside, having just seen IRISH ROOKIE (IRE) on his inside on the big screen.

Someone should have had the guts to ask Paul Barton, straight out, "In your view, did Jamie Spencer pull on his right rein, or did he not?".

If he answers 'no', then he's either blind, or else too weak to be a stipendiary steward.

If he answers 'yes', then he has to explain how they reached the conclusion that Spencer 'let' his horse drift back towards the horse on the inside, and that the interference was therefore just 'careless'.


It's all very well RUK falling over themselves to express their appreciation for a head steward coming out and giving an explanation on their channel, but when that explanation doesn't fit what everybody with a pair of eyes has seen, it's just a pathetic farce, imo.

I wonder if Spencer said in the enquiry that he "wasn't aware".  That would make a liar as well as a c-nt.

In the words of Paul Barton "that's just the way the rule works" says it all, we all no it's wrong, Spencer is a lier or cheat and gets 3 days to put his feet up. Racing has enough problems and this just fuels the fire. Anyone with any ounce of knowledge about racing knows what went on there but once again, nothing to see, move on, come racing.

Fuels what fire? This is all a bit ott is it not?

It will be forgotten about by tomorrow

jamesdean I have only once before seen a jockey deliberately try to put a fellow jockey through the rail - this isn't a trivial matter.

Well you've still only seen that once then Dave because if you think Spencer tried to put Moore through the rail then
we were watching a different race.

What? he deliberately pulled his horse on to Moore's horse - are you blind?

So let me get this right

You honestly think Spencer tried to put Moore and the horse through the rail?  Are you serious?

He's tried to block his path, nothing else.

Deliberately put him through the rail ffs, seriously

Jamesdean, you are naturally entitled to your own opinion or interpretation of events, but I am somewhat (though I have no idea who you are) that someone I imagine is very keen on racing seems to think this is a trite matter.  I am afraid, it is a cardinal sin and there is absolutely no place for it in racing! (I doubt James Tate (Namhroodah's trainer or Saeed Manana's racing manager would have been back-slapping James Spencer fater the race and saying well done.  I also doubt if his fellow jockeys in the weighing room would have considered his manouvre a laughing matter. I suspect they would have had a simple sentence to describe him following that race - a capital ****!!!   

Might I ask you, have you ever sat on a horse or ridden a horse at the speed racehorses go?  What on earth do you think might have happened if Irish Rookie had jinked (which is a natural movement for a horse,if it see's an object or another animal crowding its space? or if both horses had clipped heels? We could have easily ended up with a severe accident which could have meant a badly injured jockey or a filly with a broken leg - which would have had to be put down.

Ahh ffs, here we go. The old "have you ever sat on a horse, how many derby winners you ridden boll0cks"

You too are intitled to your opinion WJ.

You doubt James Tate would be saying well done, I don't. I think if Spencer kept the race all connections without exception would be patting him on the back behind closed doors. Jamie's been cute and tried to block Moore's path. I agree it may have been careless/silly call it what you will. But if you think as Dave does that he's intentionally went out his way to harm Moore or the other horse then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

james doing saeed manana no favours by stating "I'm sure connections would've wanted Spencer to make that move".

personally i'd have thought he would have been quick to distance himself from that kind of thing ....


although it would have been an interesting stewards - ok, jamie what was that all about ?

nothing to do with me guv, saeed manana told me to do it.

This is getting silly

It has gone from Spencer trying to win a race by blocking (albeit carelessly) Moore's run to "saeed told me to do it"
I think you'd be very naive to think connections would not be happy with Spencer had he kept the race.
Try not to confuse that with them wanting to hurt anyone or that being the go to tactics before the race please.

Jamesdean, apologies if my you have misconstrued my argument.  It is most certainly NOT a "what do you know about horses argument." Suffice to say, "carving" or "chopping" any other rider up in that sort of circumstance is a cardinal sin.  Many a rider has ended up a paraplygic in less dangerous circumstances.  It is simply playing dirty.  It isn't "cute" as you seem to think it is.  It is blatant CHEATING with complete disregard or contempt for safety.  All the best to you and come to think of it, have you ever considered applying for a stewards job? Sounds as though you will fit in like a glove and make a good fist of it!

I've viewed the replay a few times and am having trouble spotting the exact moment Jamie looked at the screen.  Is it a subtle look and more obvious in the head-on (which is not available on the S/life replay)..?

Yep it's fairly obvious on the head on replay.

Fran Berry on Kinema at royal ascot in a similar incident got 7 days for careless, and he was bit more discreet about than Spencer imo!

from racingpost.com

Martyn Meade, trainer of Irish Rookie, was understandably frustrated with the outcome.

"That was the last thing she needed - we came here for an easy race and for her to enjoy it," he said. "Luckily she seems okay but could easily have got a puncture wound."

Of Spencer's actions he said: "That was appalling and intentional as he has pulled his horse into us. Ryan said he couldn't believe it and said it was a disgrace. If she had room she would have won "

Spencer was blessed they gave him 3rd. As blatant as you can get that was.

wouldn't mind reading a transcript of ryan and franks chat after they passed the post

Is there an unwritten rule that only deems it dangerous if the jockey actually comes off and breaks his neck?

If she had room she would have won FFS talk to Moore he had a choice half the track or a small gap which would you choose

I was at the track and the incident was replayed from all angles on the big screen. Whilst Ryan would have won if he'd challenged on the outside the opening that presented itself on the rails was a perfectly fair one to take advantage of.In Spencer's defence a lot of horses were finishing races whilst drifting off a straight line however taking that into account he was very lucky to only get 3 days.

TIm6,
Second time that Moore has made that wrong choice in recent weeks

In France Irish Rookie would have got the race.

Just seen the Bell / Barton interview. Very poor imo.

Clearly questions needed to be asked about the stewards' opinion that they thought it was 'only' careless and that Spencer was unaware that Moore was coming up the rail.

What did they think Spencer was looking at when he kept looking to his right before pulling his horse across?

Even on the scout angle, you can see Spencer's head turn to the right just prior to him pulling his mount towards the rail, at the point when he must have sensed Moore was coming.

There was a point when I thought Martin Dixon was going to press Barton more bout the offence being only careless, but that came to nothing, and it is was all rather cosy

What does it take for a steward to decide that interference was intentional? If they're waiting for a jockey to give verbal evidence... "yes sir, I deliberately steered my horse into the path of my rival so as to improve my chances of success", they'll be waiting forever. May as well rewrite the rules to take out all references to 'intentional', as they are never going to apply them. As James Millman was saying on RUK the other day, it's pointless having jockeys in to ask them their opinions - just have stewards use the evidence of the various cameras. Jockeys' views are pointless. Can't fault Moore in this, imo. He waited to see what Spencer and his horse was going to do - Spencer showed no sign of switching his whip - there was a gap 2 horse-widths wide - which would have stayed that way without his illegal manoeuvre. Why blame Moore? He's entitled to go for that gap - it's plenty wide enough for one horse. Spencer has a clear preference for using his whip in his right hand. If he hadn't, he would have used it in his left and kept his filly running on the rail in the first place.

Ged I think that as jockeys face bans, they have to be allowed to say their bit.  However, when the visual evidence was as damning as yesterday it should be disregarded.

another doozy of a ride from Jamie there, running into the back of every horse in the race

connections considering an appeal according to today's paper

If Spencer appeals his ban which he wonnt he might get more

i wonder if they can extend his ban if the trainer appeals but he doesnt?

TIME TO LIMIT JOCKEYS TO 4 RIDES PER DAY ..  out at 7 am still in business at 9 pm at night .no  more double shifts chasing all over various countries  tired out of their minds  Exhausted ..
needs to be stopped for sake of the game .. need only ride top horses ,and spread some good further down the system .,

as an apprentice not jock .. got paid for travelling one way .. to the job ,,got there quick  ..  coming back by slowest means ..for nothing ..

Oldgit - Irish Rookie would NOT have got the race in France. The winner is disqualified and placed behind the horse that he caused interference with i.e. Irish Rookie 2nd and Jamies mount placed third.