That's Why Racing Is Dying..

I dont believe that is why Racing is dying though,it just needs to be brought up to date.

if you think that was dangerous riding you need a new hobby.

I recall a Shane Foley one in Ireland last year, it was even worse. Kept the race.

So is dangerous riding only applied if the horse or jockey is either killed or maimed , anyone who has ever sat on a horse and sees one come over the way that did knows what sheer terror is like..I firmly believe the TWO reasons it was not d'q, one bookies paying out double result, two the word DANGEROUS is a no no word that scares the daylights out of the BHA . We cant have THAT word been branded about re racing, whatever will people think!

DANGEROUS is a no no word that scares the daylights out of the BHA . We cant have THAT word been branded about re racing, whatever will people think!

Probably right there.

Rico-Dangleflaps Joined: 07 Sep 18
Replies: 1266216 Jun 22 15:53 
if you think that was dangerous riding you need a new hobby.




Then you haven't read the rule correctly.

dangerous is a deliberate manoeuvre..you think he deliberately steered it across the track?

Second rate riding by a second rate Jockey.

Yes I did rico and used the whip all the time in the wrong hand whilst doing so.

53.1.2 riding in a way that is far below that of a competent and careful Rider and where it would be obvious to such a competent and careful Rider that riding in that way was likely to endanger the safety of a horse or Rider.

wasn't a deliberate manoeuvre imo but he deliberately didn't correct the horse from hanging after it started...went on for about 1/2f
win at all costs riding

the fickle wording means nowt..it has to look bad and be bad and deliberate before dangerous is applied.

It hasn't been applied for many years now and I would like to know why there is never a situation that warrants it.

even then they wouldn't call it dangerous, haven't got the bollox

was that southwell 1 over jumps with craig nichol about 2 months ago...steered right across to the rail knowing it would cut off the other horse
blatant as it gets
not called

They did chuck a 'dangerous' one out I remember a couple of months back, but they did it because the other looked like it was coming to win when nearly knocked over the railings - winner was lengths clear, but they reversed it.

May have been quite few months ago, as I can't remember the horses involved now..

.
https://www.attheraces.com/form/horse/The-Questioner/IRE/3293203

southwell in march

I must have missed that one under Rule 53 stu and if so the first for years.

That was the one, was DQ'd.

wasn't called dangerous sparrow though it should have been

demoted to 2nd should say really.

I think the only difference I can see is the chance of the 2nd ptp as to why they applied the rule different. It was judged to be coming to win it, hence again the rule they emphasise.

Yes I remember that one at Southwell but hadn't realised the disqualification.  Still many years had passed since a previous one.

As you say wonders the Southwell one definitely should have been deemed dangerous.

my recollection of the southwell one is that it was deemed careless riding and the horse was demoted to 2nd (not dq'd/dangerous) as they deemed it had improved its position as a result of the interference, i also seem to rem that they went to appeal and they'd had it turned over and they were now the winner?

elise.....Race 7 - 4:30pm
THE WATCH OFF THE FENCE ON attheraces.com HANDICAP HURDLE RACE (CLASS 5)

An enquiry was held to consider the placings in this race following interference inside the final ½ furlong when the winner, THE QUESTIONER (IRE), ridden by Craig Nichol, interfered with HILLVIEW (IRE), placed second, ridden by Sean Bowen. The Stewards considered that the interference had improved THE QUESTIONER (IRE)’s placing as HILLVIEW (IRE) lost all momentum as a result of the interference when appearing to be gaining ground at a critical stage of the race. The placings were revised as follows: First: HILLVIEW (IRE), Second: THE QUESTIONER (IRE). Nichol was suspended for 4 days for careless riding as he failed to take sufficient corrective action to prevent his mount from drifting right-handed and causing Bowen to be tightened for room against the rail and to take a check.

**Following an appeal to the Disciplinary Panel heard on 7 April 2022 the placings were revised as follows: First: THE QUESTIONER (IRE), Second: HILLVIEW (IRE) **

Maybe wrong but i think there used to be a offence of 'irresponsible riding' which warranted disqualification.

The other irony is that they didn't even apply the 'likely placings' rule properly in that race above.

Hence why it got overturned later.

Improper riding, not irresponsible
Careless/Improper treated the same in terms of determining the result, but the latter carries a heavier sanction for the jock

There certainly was a category called irresponsible riding and a breach of that would see the horse disqualified and placed last. I suffered from this when Jardines Lookout was DQ after winning the Melrose Handicap at York in August 2000. Kinane was found guilty of causing interference to two rivals over three furlongs out when moving off the rail and that was enough for the stewards.

do u know when they got rid of that anorak, i would have guessed it was further back than 2000? when cropstick mentioned it i was thinking the 90s lol

At least they were satisfied that the persuader was referred to as a pro cush

Not a specific date, I just remember that there was a complete overhaul of the rules, designed to simplify the process, probably around the time the BHA came into being, which was mid 2007. That was about when it became clear that a jockey could get away with almost anything, as long as the winning distance was big enough - which meant about half a length on the flat!

The change was made in about 2003. They reduced the riding offences from the previous 6 to just three. I'll dig out the details.

ok ty both, i was thinking it was yonks back

Here it is............https://www.britishhorseracing.com/press_releases/interference-rules-simplified-and-harmonised-with-the-irish/

Here also is the definition of Hanagan's dangerous riding NOTE THE "OR"

(i) Dangerous - a rider is guilty of dangerous riding if he causes serious interference by:

(a) purposely interfering with another horse or rider or
(b) riding in a way which is far below that of a competent and careful rider and where it would be obvious to such a competent and careful rider that riding in that way was likely to endanger the safety of a horse or rider

For dangerous riding the rider must cause serious interference

Last time dangerous was enforced 2009

The winner clearly cost Brave Nation 3rd spot.

Totally agree with the OP , the impotent way the stewards and authorities react to what we saw in the first race is a huge turn off ...

What on earth do you have to do to lose a race ?

They just won't do owt. Hanagan taking a 10 day ban for a Royal Ascot winner. He should only have one. Of no financial difference to me but that was just awful. And..

The third was taken out good and proper, being the meat in the sandwich.
The fourth not third.

Dr. He took em both clean out. The third would have won a minute with a clear.

When you see the way Dwyer and Mulrennan were welcomed back into the fold and Mulrennan as an ambassador as well,tells you all you need to know.

I agree 100% with the opening poster.  Blatantly irresponsible riding and ridiculous stewarding.  I remember fifty odd years ago they took a race away from a stable because the race had been started a minute too early.  Now you can put lives at risk and still win the prize.

This is really simple to sort, doesn't require dangerous riding to be found on the day (that can be done later). You just have a rule that if a horse has caused interference that has cost another even 1 place then that horse is placed behind the 1 interfered with - even if it wins by 10 lengths. The best horse (interferer) will keep the race in most instances as it is usually the first 2 but it will clear up really messy incidents like this.

I would simply like to hear from the BHA as to why the Stewards are not using Rule 53. Are they being leaned on by the big bookmakers because of the inconvenience caused by disqualifications?

The Stewards called for a review of an incident inside the final ½ furlong involving the winner, THE RIDLER, ridden by Paul Hanagan, CRISPY CAT, placed third, ridden by Silvestre de Sousa, and BRAVE NATION (IRE), placed fourth, ridden by James Doyle. Having considered where the incident took place, the effect of the interference and the distances between the horses involved at the finish the Stewards were satisfied that the interference had not improved the position of the winner, THE RIDLER, and therefore ordered for the weighed-in to be given once the riders had passed the scale. Thereafter an enquiry was held to consider interference approximately ½ furlong out when the winner, THE RIDLER, ridden by Paul Hanagan, interfered with CRISPY CAT, placed third, ridden by Silvestre de Sousa, and BRAVE NATION (IRE), placed fourth, ridden by James Doyle. The Stewards found that Hanagan had allowed his mount to drift left-handed away from the whip, only correcting after the incident had occurred, carrying CRISPY CAT off its intended line, causing de Sousa to take a check, before THE RIDLER continued to drift left-handed, forcing Doyle to take a considerable check off the heels of THE RIDLER. Taking into account that CRISPY CAT could have, in the Stewards’ opinion, finished in second place and the degree of risk for Doyle as a result of the interference, Hanagan was suspended for 10 days for careless riding.

Hanagan rode like a 10lb claimer, I couldn't believe how bad it was, from a professional point of view it certainly reflects badly on him.

Yes that was a shocking piece of riding continuing to whip the horse on the wrong side as it was hanging badly.

Bad riding yes, but 10 days suspension and not dangerous riding?

I'd also like to see a review of the ridiculous (imop) situation where the winning distance seems to determine the outcome of most enquiries. A horse can be virtually knocked over but if its not a short distance it loses by then the result stands. Most jockeys don't ride vigorously after their mount has suffered interference so the winning distance becomes immaterial in those instances. Also if an athlete is bumped into near the finishing line after been sprinting towards the line its very difficult to get going again. Its the same for a horse.

Spyker. Until a couple of seasons ago that was the rule in France. I think the French had the best

compromise between our virtually non-existent interference rules and .at the other extreme, the U.S.

rules. Unfortunately the French changed their rules to be in line with us.

Clearly the interference cost the 4th a placing as well as (in the opinion of the Stewards) the 3rd

and as a result cost connections a great deal of money.

Perhaps a partial solution would be to re-distribute the purse money to compensate the horses that

lost placings.

I've been saying it for years now.. the revision to the rules in the 1980's that divorced jockey offences from where the horse finishes needs reverting back to how it used to be. IE: if a jockey commits an offence above a certain level then the horse is D/Q.

What we have today, in such a horribly spoiled society, is jockey's willing to win at all costs. We cannot have that.

Yesterday if the jockey concerned wasn't trying to win at all costs, then he was grossly incompetent and thus riding standards need improving. A revision to the old way of doing things would tighten up the way a lot of jockeys ride.

roggrain...

I actually wrote to the BHA last year suggesting that when a horse costs another a place but still wins on merit, the offending horses gives up the difference in prize money to the sufferer. BHA held desk replied back saying 'Thank you for your input'.

UK racing is run by clowns.

It's funny how these sort of things only seem to matter when it's a big race though - there's been so many numerous stupid stewards decisions that sometimes barely get a post on here - but when it's a big race suddenly it's an urgent issue to resolve.

Either we're bothered about this on every race, or not at all IMO.

But does anyone here think it should have been deemed dangerous riding?

Sparrow, when I've been wronged by something in racing (especially bnt jockey rides) I've given up trying to get answers on here - most of the time no-one cares.

The Knight, I had a similar response from the BHA when I suggested that horses' blindfolds should have

to be removed before the starter lets them go.

stu, I agree with what you say about not bothering about the everyday stuff but with regards to this particular race it seems to me that most posters don't want to give an answer on Rule 53 just like the stewards.

Just for comparison - that other race we discussed on here, where the winner was demoted, I actually lost on that race (backed the fptp).

It was a stupid decision to replace based on 'finishing position' (though they could have argued dangerous). Appeal turns it around also in what would have been my favour.

Can I do anything? Simple answer is no.

Sparrow. Yes, I do. I'm not a Horseman but I think you will agree Ruby Walsh is. After the race he said

that horses are not steered by the whip but by the reigns and that Hanaghan had the horse on a loose

reign throughout the incident and should have tightened the reign on the right to correct the wander

but made no attempt to do so until after the line. I don't believe Hanaghan is an incompetent jockey.

he knew exactly what he was about. That has to be considered dangerous. If horses had been brought

down we all know the potential consequences and so does Hanaghan but he chose deliberately to take

that risk.

As in America, if interference causes any horse to lose any place, the horse that caused the interference should be placed behind the horse that lost a place

Big Cat - yes, indeed US rules are a lot stricter.

Ironically I once lost a US bet when my horse (very short priced and lumpy bet I recall) brushed against another for a couple of strides before going on to win about 5 lengths clear!

But I wouldn't want that over here either - way too strict!

Yes the penalty for interference in the US is correct, but the threshold for interference is way too low. The benefit of doubt should lean towards 'result stands'

It's absurd that a jock is NEVER sanctioned for dangerous riding. The consequences of which are inevitable

Thanks roggrain as I hadn't heard what Walsh has said. Personally I prefer the American rules because they are not based on opinions as to whether a horse might have won or placed. As they say a foul is a foul no matter who might have won.

But if that was applied sparrow (and would be an option) how many would complain about their horses getting chucked out when clearly the best horse in a race...?

Plenty would stu but thats because they have got used to that ruling. However, some of us recall far stricter rules in this country but I think racing has to deal with this win at all costs attitude that can do so much harm.

Roggrain.

I didn't hear Ruby yesterday,
But on viewing my thoughts were along those lines.
It is irrelevant that Paul continued with his whip in his right hand.
The problem was that he did not have hold of the right rein to correct the direction he was running in.
It was a case of win at all cost.

sparrow, genuine question, what do you think the result should have been, and where should the winner have been placed?

elise, I think that the stewards should have disqualified the winner under rule 53.3.  If not then I have to ask why the rule is there.


53.3 When a horse or its Rider has caused interference by dangerous riding in any part of a race the horse shall, on an objection to the Stewards under Part 7, be disqualified.

PART 7 - DISPUTES AND OBJECTIONS - (B)71 to (B)79
78. Consequences where an objection is made
78.1 This Rule applies where an objection made under this Part has not yet been finally determined, including where it is subject to appeal under Part (A)7.
78.2 Pending the determination of the objection or appeal
78.2.1 any prize which a horse affected by the objection or appeal may have won (or may win) in the race must withheld until the objection or appeal is determined, and
78.2.2 any stake payable by the owner of any other horse must be paid to and held by the Stakeholder for the Person who may be entitled to it.
78.3 If a matter is the subject of an appeal to an Appeal Board, the matter shall not be regarded as having been determined until
78.3.1 the appeal to the Appeal Board is disposed of, or
78.3.2 any further enquiry resulting from the appeal has been completed.
78.4 Where the Authority or the Stewards have disqualified a horse which has won or been placed in a race
78.4.1 the horse must be removed from the placings and is not be entitled to any prize, and
78.4.2 the other horses are to take positions accordingly.
78.5 Where the Authority or the Stewards have changed the placing of a horse under Rule 53, 54 or 55 (including where they have placed the horse last)
78.5.1 the horse is only entitled to the prize for the position in

have the connections of another horse objected?

No idea, elise.  Just quoting the rules as they are written.

the obj rules not really in play, the thing with this was that the stewards didn't need to go to dq/dangerous, they had the power to amend simply under the rules as they stand if they felt the winner improved its position

I don't think Part 7 actually applies here but the confusion stens from the Rule 53 part regarding disqualifications.

* stems from.  I would agree about disqualifying as you state but they will not do it if the horse wins further than a head or similar. Nevertheless we are running away again as to what if anything constitutes dangerous riding.

the term dangerous would most often be associated with a deliberate or conscious attempt to foil another rider rather than a drift/fail to correct, so to be dangerous you're looking at rider A putting rider B through a rail or swerving violently by pulling on the reins to take his ground and perhaps bring him down

im not sure im in that camp, he was not correcting a drift caused by his whip use maybe, but i don't think he set out to crash into other horses, it's just my opinion, i do think horses were affected and i would maybe have thought improper rather than careless might have been a possibility, but under either of those they could still have demoted if they felt he improved his posn

in essence the line for me that is wrong is the guidance on whether they need to say he improved his posn to be able to demote, to my eyes if another horse is not allowed to gain its true running then perhaps that should be the first question rather than them giving the benefit to the winner / hampering horse

One for sure elise is that the rule hasn't hardly ever been used and is not likely to because all excuses are accepted when faced with such a charge.

I think as elise is rightly pointing out - it's about intentionality for the jock to deliberately cause a dangerous situation.

This area is a little like the yellow/red card situation in football - and tricky also.

I'm not doubting its tricky but then so is deciding whether a horse might have won or not and that is why I prefer the American rules which act as a deterrent to such tactics.

once they deem it not deliberate (as in he didn't yank on the reins or look to his left then aim at the 2nd horse) they are therefore left saying the best horse won, so the interference against 4th & 3rd is allowed to pass (as in it didn't improve its posn in this case)

they're almost saving dangerous for the day a rider carves someone up by attacking them, which to be fair they didn't even do in the FT incident, so as the guide is written they're only going to use it in very rare instances if not never

we may see it as a dangerous act but in their checklists/line of approach an uncorrected drift is careless or improper, so they'd need to rewrite all the rules for them to be able to include an uncorrected drift as part of the dangerous, if they want to safeguard riders maybe they should

if this is just about penalising horses that win when they cause interference, then all that needs to happen is to adjust the "did it improve its posn", to "did it hamper another horse from running to its best finish", so if the order of finish was affected by the winner as per yday then they must revise (not give benefit of doubt to the fptp)

I once backed a horse in the U.S. and was astonished to find it was DQ'd for unseen by me, minor interference five furlongs out.  It was a bu**er but I accepted it for what it was of course - an absolute deterrent against any kind of careless riding that might put others at serious risk.
This really is a health and safety at work issue and should be treated as such, i.e., with a view to eradicating all accidents on the track completely.  Allowing results to stand doesn;t do that, nor does retrospective banning of the jockey.
If we are to believe Sir Michael Stoute in the interview with Ryan Moore and the Queen;s racing manager she smiled in appreciation when Ryan Moore admitted to deliberately flaunting the rules and taking two days to get one of hers up.  And so did the great man himself  so this approach is ingrained through the echelons of racing like Blackpool is through rock.
How can that be healthy or safe for other riders and horses?

roggrain..bl**dy hell, how spooky.

In my email to the BHA about D/Q's I also suggested that the starter do the following when any horses have the hood on in the stalls. Starter says 'Jockeys.. hoods off. Jockeys, GO' with the Go and the start only coming when all hoods off, which still means no horse would be without the hood in the stalls for longer than 2 seconds.

A third idea I put forward was that tracks be made to re-introduce horses going down past the stands BEFORE the race if the way to the start is in the opposite direction. Aside from letting racegoers see the horses a bit more, it might calm horses down a touch and lead to less stall problems than we now have.

We always used to have the horses go down past the stands but then 'saving the ground' became all important. I can accept that on heavy going but at the moment it is Good to Firm!

At the tracks, though, you still hear the course commentator saying 'horses are going straight to the start'. Why? the standard practise at most tracks is to do just that so why announce it as if it is an exception?

UK racing is run by clowns who bury their heads in the sand rather than admit errors.

I think the rules were looked at maybe 30 years or longer ago when a hot fav of Cecils was thrown out after winning by 5L at Newbury when barging its way out and jockey was found guilty of irresponsible riding, the same rule was applied to a Alex Scott horse which won by 3 or 4L on Plate day (think was ridden by carson which would have given him a six timer) at Nwcstle,. This all prompted a review of the rules at the time and has evolved since. Forgive me if dates are a bit out as it was a time ago.

I recall backing Iktamal at Newcastle, it won easily and got thrown out after brushing past another runner.

Ttas right Cider, i also backed it which is why i remember the incident but couldnt recall the name, was an absolute disgrace when thrown out and am sure it was the catalyst of looking at the rules.

Was that Vacarme with Lester on board? Think it was '83.

No, the pivotal race which prompted what was a long look at the rules before they were changed was probably the 1980 2,000gns at Newmarket. The French horse, Nureyev, won the race entirely on merit but was D/Q'd because it gave a fairly hefty bump to Posse around halfway.

The result was not affected because Posse recovered but wasn't good enough and finished down the field. From there the dissent over divorcing jockey offences from the result started to really gather pace. But, nowadays, it is an opportunity to win at all costs and the disgraceful ride given to The Riddler on Thursday is an example. That was a dangerous / reckless ride and the yellow-bellied stewards could have D/Q'd had they gone down that road.

DQ'd horses are re-instated as winners at appeal as often as not

Simple Versa vs Bondi Beach in the St Leger; the latter was promoted at the track but demoted at an Appeal.

The Knight,

Posse finished third past the post in the 1980 2000 Gns, not down the field. He was beaten a neck and three quarters of a length by Nureyev and Known Fact and promoted to second after the stewards enquiry.

Andriv, could have been Vacarme but something in back of my mind thinks it started with an 'S'

The race @ Goodwood,Godatone was 3rd and promoted
to 1st.Vacarme & Creag an Sgor were 1st & 2nd.

Big test for racing here. Is the infrastructure in place to avoid a clash between delayed Ayr and Ascot? I say NO

SP Book %
124  - 169

TheAnorak...yes. my bad mistake there.

I knew that but I think I became muddled as I was typing with how Posse got the bump someway down the field during the race!

I still remember, though, that the D/Q was pivotal in kicking off the debate about divorcing jockey offences from the finishing result. And also that the French thought the D/Q went beyond racing!

The thing for me was that Hanagan's horse didn't just dive over and block the run of the others , it was gradual imo and therefore he had time to correct its wayward passage put took no action to stop it , and by hitting it with the whip in his right hand was encouraging it to cross over and imo thats dangerous riding.