|
By:
look at it another way BB...owners of horses ridden by jockeys that stick within the rules would benefit
not advocating money be taken away from the prize fund if 600k is the value of the race, 600k is to be distributed |
|
By:
Not harsh on owners at all. They ultimately give instructions and are more than capable of issuing them. It's a team. That's the same as saying it's harsh on the rest of the squad when a defender gives away a penalty.
|
|
By:
Yes, wsb, very easy to just adjust the distribution. 2nd gets 1st, 3rd gets 2nd etc.
|
|
By:
For wanting to win, pathetic. Dodgy jockeys all over the gaff pulling horses left right and centre getting away with murder.
|
|
By:
i dont know many owners who give jockey's instructions before a race, so i would say harsh on them
|
|
By:
You really think the owner tells the jockey how many times to hit the horse, The Headmaster?
Good god. |
|
By:
the football analogy must be one of the worst comparisons i have seen on here
|
|
By:
No I don't BB. But I know if the rule was in place they could, would or should remind them how many times not to hit them.
Get it? |
|
By:
|
|
By:
It's really simple, the dealer. Deal with the transgression as a team transgression. I think that would change the culture.
Do you not? |
|
By:
*refuse to use them if they transgress the rules
|
|
By:
i personally think your talking nonsense with regards that and imo hitting the owner isnt the answer
|
|
By:
Correct wsb.
|
|
By:
if you'll pardon the pun
|
|
By:
Well then you are never going to effect change, the dealer. What was your solution, out of interest?
|
|
By:
So why have they not fined the girl who won the Foxhunters for not using the whip enough lol, god watch every American Horse racing they beat the crap out of them off the home bend now that is serious.
|
|
By:
i dont know the solution but i do know if i owned a horse that a jockey decides to break the rules by striking it too many times, then the punishment should be on the jockey, not the owner. whatever that punishment should be is of course open to debate because the present situation isnt working
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
dealer...stop using that jockey then
and the trainer insists on using him/her, remove your horses from that trainer that is the ultimate punishment for a jockey no owner will use a jockey that is willing to compromise prize money |
|
By:
Any jockey who got a horse disqualified for using too many stokes would find it hard getting good outside rides in future. Especially in big races.
They'd never live it down. We might find one or two getting disqualified at the start, but the message would soon sink in. Overuse of the whip in a finish would be a thing of the past. |
|
By:
if you are the owner of the winner that the jockey has digressed on then you are. the assumption being of course that in todays example you are saying it wouldnt have won had he only hit it the designated amount of times. its very hard to prove one way or another.
i do agree that it cant go on the way it is but imo that isnt the solution |
|
By:
I think it is naive beyond belief to assume that such a policy would do anything other than alienate people within the sport, The Headmaster. I understand the point you are making, but I think it is a ridiculous idea.
|
|
By:
well you wouldnt use them but you are still punishing owners when he first digresses and imo that just isnt right
|
|
By:
no I think native river probably would have won for 8 smacks but I don't feel its overly relevant
we are trying to get jockeys to ride to within the rules for the welfare of the sport |
|
By:
My solution would be to fine the jockey their percentage of the prize money and give them a suspension which would increase every time they commit a whip offence. If the owner chooses to compensate the jockey for a significant win then they are hit in the pocket but wouldn't lose all their prize money for a transgression which (whatever you choose to believe) is essentially beyond their control. The jockeys would be far less likely to offend if the suspensions were longer than they are currently.
|
|
By:
*the horses ffs
been a long week |
|
By:
What is this idea that jockeys will do whatever they want with no regard to the trainer or owner who has put them up? I find that hard to swallow and don't understand who is being 'alienated'.
|
|
By:
I think if dickie was banned for 3 weeks and fined all his prize money he would still have ridden native river the same
|
|
By:
give it a while to sink in and after a handful of 4, 5 or 6 figure prize money re-distributions, there would be no jockeys breaking whip rules or riding to win at all costs
|
|
By:
I guess because he won fairly comfortably it doesn't get much attention and like most I don't think it affected the result at all.
But imagine if he had won a short head and Nico had used his whip correctly within the rules. Surely, like in a normal stweards eqnuiry where they have to decide if an infringement caused by poor / illegal jockeyship cost the other horse a race the stewards should have the option of disqualification. Still be a grey area (eg. what if he won a neck and only went one over the allowed number of strikes) and open to debate like most stewards decisons (see the Imperial Cup last week) but at some point there will be a high profile race where a whip transgresser gets home by a whisker and there will be a big furore. |
|
By:
Totally agree wsb. Jockeys will continue to take a bullet for the team while we separate them from the other connections. The team analogy again. Connect the dots and you find the answer imo.
|
|
By:
unclepuncle (see my earlier post)
There were 3 I posted that cheated and won by half length or under, this week and got whip bans, when the 2nd home lawfully stuck to the rules of racing. I am sure there were others. Katie Walsh really gets to me, because she has had several high profile whip bans and couldn't care less again this week and was flagrant in her cheating. |
|
By:
dont think johson will be bothered one jot
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Still a grey area these whip rules. And what is the point in having whip rules if the result is allowed to stand. Agree with unclepuncle don't think it affected the result at all here but what if a horse wins by a neck and jockey went over allowed number of strikes. No point in having whip rules if jockeys are just going to ignore them and win at all costs.
|
|
By:
Nothing will ever work unless there is some sort of downside to the owners by a jockey transgressing.
You could severely penalise the jockey but there would still be pressure from the owners in big races for the jockeys to be one who takes it for the team when need be. It would be the ones who stick by the rules who get jocked off when they stick to the limit when the money is down or it's a big race. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Break the whip rules and disqualification follows.
Now who in their right mind is going to break the rules and lose the race? Nobody, so there's the answer. |
|
By:
Maybe a group of connections hammering the lay button?
|
|
By:
Yes totally agree, SD. Consider the horse, jockey, owner and trainer as a single unit and we'll start seeing some improvements.
|