RP home page: Lee Motty

Murphy was suspended for 4 days for careless riding as he had allowed his horse to drift right without sufficient correction.

^ this, Mottershead, not ya licky 'rse 'young lion' shyte.

Surely - Mottershead is only at the Racing Post to satisfy the 'Diversity in Racing' criteria.

The price of the paper alone is a back door burgle in itself.

if Saxon Warrior had won it would have been ' O Brien battalions down Lion with team tactics'

Yet cheating to win by careless riding is not mentioned in this case because the winners fit into the British racing media agenda

What the rules are doing, and I'll have point this out as I fear none of the sycophantic racing journalists are going to, are creating these situations whereby jockeys are failing to correct their mounts when they are veering off a straight line, because the jockeys know that as long as they win by more than a couple of pixels, they are highly likely to keep the race, albeit they may get a small holiday, in this case 4 days.

4 days is nothing compared to what was at stake in terms of prize money and the horse's future stud career.

It should also be pointed out that in this particular instance, it appeared the horse was drifting right as a result of the jockey's whip use, yet the jockey continued to flail away, presumably in full knowledge that he was veering towards his main rival.

Does it matter?

The answer is a emphatic 'YES' imo, because the rules are putting jockeys in danger.

Buick could be  like a dodgem car driver up the straight at Ascot when riding for Gosden

It was the same story then regarding criticism for careless riding

One of the first questions that should be asked in a stewards enquiry imo is:

What action did the jockey take to correct his mount?

If the answer to that question is 'nothing' or 'next to noting', or even if it could be argued the jockey caused the interference (for example by continuing to whip away on an already drifting horse),  than disqualification should be a formality, imo.

You would then get jockeys doing all they can to keep their mounts straight.

one thing none of the so called experts in the racing media have pointed out is the way the track at sandown turns not far after the winning line(same as York).I think this was a factor in the horse 'drifting' towards the inside rail at the end of the race just like many do at York.Overall the best horse won,yes the jockey should of pulled his whip through but you think he's going to change his hands yards from the line?

He would if he knew the threat of disqualification is a REAL one and not just a remote one.

not really,stop riding in a close finish and you've lost.On the other hand keep riding and if you win you might get dsq depending on the distance won which is the situation we have.Its no different to football where defenders deliberately give away a penalty-don't make the tackle and attacker scores-give away penalty and he could miss.

Jul 8, 2018 -- 10:44PM, warhan wrote:

one thing none of the so called experts in the racing media have pointed out is the way the track at sandown turns not far after the winning line(same as York).I think this was a factor in the horse 'drifting' towards the inside rail at the end of the race just like many do at York.Overall the best horse won,yes the jockey should of pulled his whip through but you think he's going to change his hands yards from the line?

Very true about the bends and finishes.

Not really, because the rider imo would be conscious / mindful from the outset of riding a finish to avoid contact.

Under the current rules, you get what happened yesterday and is recorded on the BHA website:

"...had allowed his horse to drift right without sufficient correction."

horses make contact all through the race,leaving the stalls-positioning after first furlong-approaching home turn.many races are won and lost at the start but very few people note this.as for 'allowing his horse to drift right' if the horse wants to go that way theres not really a lot the jockey can do about it especially if the track is turning that way yards after the line.watch how many times horses make a beeline for the stables approaching a turn and the jockey has to virtually pull the horse up in order to prevent that,you think they are going to do that yards from the finish line

Murphy was quite rightly (imo) banned because he failed to take sufficient measures to correct his drifting mount, not because of this crap about the course "turning away".

But if you have rules that might as well state that as long as you win more than a couple of pixels then anything goes, than this is the sort of jockeyship / gamesmanship you encourage, imo.

not crap,FACT.look at the layout of sandown,york.if you think horses know its the end of the race why did both roaring lion and saxon warrior continue to race around the bend for another 2 furlongs?John Gosden pointed this out straight after the race when interviewd in the stands

I sort of suspected you might have been hanging on Gosden's every word. Next you'll be telling me Cracksman nearly got beat at Epsom because he banged his head on the stalls.

never had you down as one of the bitter people on here when others disagree george

bye for now

warhan, give me another example of when this has happened at Sandown, as you obviously think this "turning away" at Sandown is quite pronounced and causes horses to run off a straight line?

I've now read this sycophantic piece of dogsh*t from Mottershead.

Apparently Murphy drove Roaring Lion home stylishly in a manner that reminded Mottershead of Walter Swinburn. Hmmm.

To these eyes it looked like he whipped his mount across the track which resulted in interference to his main rival, for which he was given a 4 day ban. No mention of the ban in Motterhead's licky 'rse piece, though. Fancy that.

Would someone be kind enough to give me an example of a big race won by Swinburn, where he whipped his horse across the track and did nothing to correct his mount, and for which he was subsequently given a ban?

I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer.

Keep asking this but have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation. Why is it that after a stewards enquiry has been announced the first thing people say is that it was a head or a neck so it will keep the race? Why is there only, it seems, a disqualification if its a nose or short head? Let's say the first past the post in a race has knocked the second sideways resulting in the second losing a length, bus is beaten half a length, how is it fair to let the winner keep the race as it has won by half a length, not a nose? Sick to death of the winning distance being the deciding factor in a stewards enquiry.

George,

Here's the film of Swinburn continuing to hit Centurius with the whip in his right hand as the horse hangs left at Royal Ascot. The horse was disqualified, Swinburn got a six day ban and he missed the ride on Shergar in the Irish Derby.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt3kj2aHHmA

To be fair, the horse was a dog, and I'd agree that this was a very rare example of Swinburn riding in this manner. But you did ask!

Anorak, I asked for a race that Swinburn had won, he finished second on that one. But thanks for the link anyway, as the ride was dealt with appropriately, ie disqualification, and as you suggest, it's unlikely Swinburn rode in that manner again.


MJK, that is the whole point, jockeys have got it into their psyche, that as long as they win by more than a nose it's highly likely they're going to keep a race should inteference occur, and as a result we're seeing poor jockeyship or gamesmanship even, whereby jockeys are doing nothing / little to keep their mounts straight, 'safe' in the knowledge they will probably keep the race.

And all we get from pundits, instead of questioning the safety aspect of this which is a direct consequence of the current rules, is the 'best horse won anyway' line, and jockeys are even playing on this, you hear them in interviews saying 'the best horse won anyway', as if to excuse their lack of effort in keeping their mounts straight.

Agree George, the 'best horse won anyway' one is up there with the 'he wouldn't have won anyway' quite after a poor ride by the jockey. In both cases its not the point being made.

Imo there will come a day, say in a major race like the Eclipse where so much is on the line (prize money / stud career), or perhaps on a major gamble round one of the gaffs, when a jockey will be flailing away while his horse is drifting off a straight line, but because the jockey has it in his / her psyche that as long as they win by more than a nose it's virtually certain they'll keep the race, they won't worry about correcting their mount and the outcome will be jockeys / horses ending up on the ground with tragic consequences. And that will be the day the BHA has blood on its hands.

GEORGE -

They are not riding  Motorbikes .... with INSTANT millimetre REACTION Steering built-in

A nothing post, onlooker, bereft of any relevance.

I've been watching some of those old replays of July Cups and Eclipses, and what's striking is how sympathetically the whip was used in the majority of the races, with no sign of horses veering all over the shop when under pressure. Not surprising though given the threat of disqualification was a more potent one in those days with jockeys more conscious of riding with more care and consideration.
Jockeyship was definitely of a higher standard in those days imo.

PS And before anyone pipes up, yes I've watched the old replays of Lester on Roberto and The Minstrel.

So what are you saying to me, onlooker, there shouldn't be any onus on jockeys to keep their mounts straight cuz they're riding half a ton of horse?

A yes or no answer will suffice.

No - GEORGE

What I am saying is that ... Correcting a horse's hanging direction is not as straightforward, and simplistic, as you intimate.

To merely 'stop riding' will still not stop the horse hanging.

That is what I mean when I posted ... 'They are not riding  Motorbikes .... with INSTANT millimetre REACTION Steering built-in'

simon clare praised the rules, a very clear sign that the rules are wrong

stuart williams agrees with your point of view george, ive seen him state it on twitter

what if the hanging is being caused by the horse drifting away from the whip, as appeared to happen on Saturday, you're telling me the jockey shouldn't at least attempt to rectify the situation in order to prevent the interference?

I never intimated anything about how easy it is correct a horse's hanging direction, what I'm saying is the current rules are encouraging jockeys not to do anything, as we saw on Saturday, a 4 day ban is nothing compared to what was at stake.

Indeed, TheFear

I should emphasise I'm not necessarily criticising the jockeys, if they can bend the rules in their favour then why wouldn't they.

It is the interference rules that are the problem, they are essentially saying to jockeys, imo, that you can cause interference and get away with it, so long as you win by more than a couple of pixels, albeit you may get a short holdiday.

Jul 9, 2018 -- 2:15PM, aec wrote:

MJK, the relevance of the winning distance is that stewards have to decide ,on a balance of probabilities, whether the interference has improved the placing of the offender in relation to the sufferer. That is but one factor (others are distance from post ;how well the horses were travelling ; seriousness of interference ). It is not out of the question for a horse winning by 1l to be disqualified but it is less likely that the stewards will be satisfied, in such circumstances, that the sufferer would have won. The over emphasis on the distance by TV is simply lazy journalism based on the fact that most interference is of

A good piece about Saturday's interference from Julian Muscat in today's RP, though I would have gone further and pointed out the potential for carnage when a jockey continues to whip an already hanging horse and arguably exacerbates the situation. It's not just about getting to the winning line first, there is a serious safety aspect to it as well imo.

We both agree (and why wouldn't anyone?) that a 4 day ban is no deterrent to any jockey who senses a Group 1 victory.

Muscat suggests that in such situations as we saw on Saturday, the horse keeps the race but forfeits all winning prize money. I'm not convinced by this, particularly where Group 1s are concerned given the prize money fades into insignificance relative to potential stud earnings.

In conclusion, I'd say the current rules can only work if jockeys are seen to be doing all they can to keep their mounts straight.

One of the first questions asked in any SE should be:

What did the jockey do to keep his/her mount straight?

If the answer to that question is nothing, or they've exacerbated the situation by continuing to whip an already drifting horse, then disqualification should a formality imo.