Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Watching it back Crowley was quite happy to put Havlin over the rails i would ban the **** for 6 months.
Show More
Riders have to try to go for an existing gap - how on earth else do they try to win races??
Schraderbrau 03 Jul 22 12:00
I don't understand the uproar with this one. The gap was briefly there
so isnt entitled to gpo through it?
I don't understand the uproar with this one. The gap was briefly there
so isnt entitled to gpo through it?
just rewatched for the 26th time ..i'll reiterate..
the hd on i seen there was a clear gap between crowley and the rail wen havlin made his move..the winner was mebbe 1/2L at worst from crowley he he started edging back toward rail,(wasnt deliberate imo) havlin by then had momentum and had to keep riding to hold his plaice...
if the stewards deemed havlin tried to barge his way through,why hasnt he been disq for dangerous riding?
the hd on i seen there was a clear gap between crowley and the rail wen havlin made his move..the winner was mebbe 1/2L at worst from crowley he he started edging back toward rail,(wasnt deliberate imo) havlin by then had momentum and had to keep riding to hold his plaice...
if the stewards deemed havlin tried to barge his way through,why hasnt he been disq for dangerous riding?
Poor from the RTV Replay programme, only showed the head on from when the 'damage' was already being done.
But I did record the live coverage and have been able to have a look back at it and imo, yes there was a big enough gap, however briefly, and as A_T put it above, Crowley gave a "sneaky look" over his left shoulder and appeared to gently ease his mount back in.
It looked a case of the ol' unwritten 'rule' between jockeys, "you don't try to get up my inside".
If I were Havlin, I'd be appealing.
But I did record the live coverage and have been able to have a look back at it and imo, yes there was a big enough gap, however briefly, and as A_T put it above, Crowley gave a "sneaky look" over his left shoulder and appeared to gently ease his mount back in.
It looked a case of the ol' unwritten 'rule' between jockeys, "you don't try to get up my inside".
If I were Havlin, I'd be appealing.
People are taking for granted that Crowley looking over his shoulder and seeing Havlin means that Havlin was already in the gap, which it doesn't. I believe that Havlin wasn't in the gap and after being sat there watching it for too long he only went for it when it was too late.
Incidentally how many drone shots do we see of races these days, here a drone shot would be very invaluable..where is it?????
Incidentally how many drone shots do we see of races these days, here a drone shot would be very invaluable..where is it?????
Here's ITV's analysis of the head on - Ed thought Jim had two "little glances" to his left!
https://twitter.com/itvracing/status/1543232699632082944
https://twitter.com/itvracing/status/1543232699632082944
Ban will overturned. The gap was more than a horses width and there for many seconds. Havlin said he waited a few seconds to make sure it wasn't a transient gap and then went for it. Crowley glanced over twice when he realised a horse was coming up his inside and then edged left. He should have maintained his distance from the rail and as he glanced it wasn't accidental. Seems to be covered by rules 53.1, 53.1.1 and 53.1.2
Chris Cook RP
Truly, these are the great days for people who like to talk about interference. There's an interesting new case practically every week and, just when you think you've seen it all, some major race will produce a new twist.
This weekend, we had the Coral-Eclipse, in which the interference came after the race was over, ooohh! And there was the bet365 Lancashire Oaks, when we all thought one jockey was in terrible trouble, only to find out the stewards had suspended the other guy, aaahhh! All the fun of the fair.
This Thursday brings an absolute blockbuster appeal hearing, because Kia Joorabchian is (quite understandably) not happy about the fact that The Ridler was allowed to keep the Norfolk Stakes at Royal Ascot after interfering with not one, not two, not three but four horses, two of which were his.
Because I was born under a lucky star, I get to listen in on such hearings on a weekly basis and it's common for there to be a lawyer or two involved. But this is such an interesting and important case that three of my favourite litigators are to be involved, one for Joorabchian, one for Hanagan and another for the BHA. If any of the spread betting firms were to open a book on the length of this hearing, I'd be a buyer at six hours.
The following Thursday, I expect we'll hear Rab Havlin's appeal against the five days he was given by the Haydock stewards on Saturday. You'll be aware that most onlookers expected Jim Crowley to get a suspension, rather than the guy whose horse got squashed between Crowley's mount and the rail.
But a significant proportion of those expressing a view took the side of Crowley. It looks as though we've stumbled across racing's own little culture war, Crowley's case being voiced by those who think it's simply wrong to go sneaking up the inner of another jockey. Havlin should have known better and gone wide, the thinking seems to be.
He should have known Crowley would have to close that door if someone tried to go through it. It might even have been a clever trap that Crowley laid...
I have no sympathy with this kind of macho thinking, a hangover from decades long gone, that suggests it's a magnificent insult to a chap if a rival sneaks through a gap he has inadvertently left. But the rules are silent on that specific point and so, unhelpfully, are officials; that silence allows the old, unwritten codes to persist.
I wish we heard more from the sport's officials, speaking at length and in detail about the standard of riding expected from jockeys and the sort of behaviour that will no longer be tolerated. I think it would be useful to hear it said in as many words, for example, that a jockey who leaves a gap on his inner absolutely must not close the door, once a rival has begun to take that gap.
That kind of clarity would be helpful to spectators seeking to understand the game, to stewards applying the rules and to jockeys seeking to ride within them. The BHA has long fought shy of saying anything more than is in the rules, for fear of causing confusion or argument or controversy.
But rules are tightly worded, or should be, and I think we need more from officials seeking to guide standards of race-riding in a certain direction. We need to hear about the philosophies behind the rules and how stewards are expected to apply them in certain situations. We need comment from time to time about things that arise which naturally were not envisaged when the rules were written.
First, however, I think we need a rewrite of the rules on interference. As they are, it seems clear they're not being respected. During Royal Ascot, total suspensions for interference exceeded those for whip infractions, but it's the whip rules that are currently being examined and redrafted after exhaustive process.
As for Crowley v Havlin, I'm trying to keep my mind open to the possibility that some other evidence exists of which we're not aware. There is likely to be footage of the incident from at least one angle that has not been shared with the public, probably shot from directly behind the runners.
I've seen in other cases how different an incident can look from behind, because horses are narrow across the front but very broad in the rear (stop giggling at the back, there). Gaps which appear wide when seen head-on can seem narrow when you're looking at a row of fat equine backsides with hooves flying out at you from beneath. It's a wonder, looking at races from behind, that any jockey is ever prepared to take any gap.
So perhaps that's the view which prompted the Haydock stewards to decide the gap in the Lancashire Oaks was "only briefly viable". Anyway, we don't have to guess because Havlin is pursuing an appeal and the matter will be reheard at great length, hurray.
If he wins, as many expect, the implication will be that Crowley was actually at fault. But Crowley won't then be punished. So there's the chance of the unsatisfactory outcome that no one may be penalised for a really serious bit of interference.
There has to be a better way of running this show, hopefully without changing the results of many more races than is our current practice. We need a new set of rules, understood by all and respected by jockeys, which I think means extending penalties to owners and trainers, for reasons I've mentioned before.
We need to give the benefit of any doubt to the victim of interference rather than the wrongdoer. We need to put the onus on horses in front to keep straight, giving those behind a fair chance to challenge them.
We need a fresh start on interference. But first, we need someone in a position of power to acknowledge the problem.
Truly, these are the great days for people who like to talk about interference. There's an interesting new case practically every week and, just when you think you've seen it all, some major race will produce a new twist.
This weekend, we had the Coral-Eclipse, in which the interference came after the race was over, ooohh! And there was the bet365 Lancashire Oaks, when we all thought one jockey was in terrible trouble, only to find out the stewards had suspended the other guy, aaahhh! All the fun of the fair.
This Thursday brings an absolute blockbuster appeal hearing, because Kia Joorabchian is (quite understandably) not happy about the fact that The Ridler was allowed to keep the Norfolk Stakes at Royal Ascot after interfering with not one, not two, not three but four horses, two of which were his.
Because I was born under a lucky star, I get to listen in on such hearings on a weekly basis and it's common for there to be a lawyer or two involved. But this is such an interesting and important case that three of my favourite litigators are to be involved, one for Joorabchian, one for Hanagan and another for the BHA. If any of the spread betting firms were to open a book on the length of this hearing, I'd be a buyer at six hours.
The following Thursday, I expect we'll hear Rab Havlin's appeal against the five days he was given by the Haydock stewards on Saturday. You'll be aware that most onlookers expected Jim Crowley to get a suspension, rather than the guy whose horse got squashed between Crowley's mount and the rail.
But a significant proportion of those expressing a view took the side of Crowley. It looks as though we've stumbled across racing's own little culture war, Crowley's case being voiced by those who think it's simply wrong to go sneaking up the inner of another jockey. Havlin should have known better and gone wide, the thinking seems to be.
He should have known Crowley would have to close that door if someone tried to go through it. It might even have been a clever trap that Crowley laid...
I have no sympathy with this kind of macho thinking, a hangover from decades long gone, that suggests it's a magnificent insult to a chap if a rival sneaks through a gap he has inadvertently left. But the rules are silent on that specific point and so, unhelpfully, are officials; that silence allows the old, unwritten codes to persist.
I wish we heard more from the sport's officials, speaking at length and in detail about the standard of riding expected from jockeys and the sort of behaviour that will no longer be tolerated. I think it would be useful to hear it said in as many words, for example, that a jockey who leaves a gap on his inner absolutely must not close the door, once a rival has begun to take that gap.
That kind of clarity would be helpful to spectators seeking to understand the game, to stewards applying the rules and to jockeys seeking to ride within them. The BHA has long fought shy of saying anything more than is in the rules, for fear of causing confusion or argument or controversy.
But rules are tightly worded, or should be, and I think we need more from officials seeking to guide standards of race-riding in a certain direction. We need to hear about the philosophies behind the rules and how stewards are expected to apply them in certain situations. We need comment from time to time about things that arise which naturally were not envisaged when the rules were written.
First, however, I think we need a rewrite of the rules on interference. As they are, it seems clear they're not being respected. During Royal Ascot, total suspensions for interference exceeded those for whip infractions, but it's the whip rules that are currently being examined and redrafted after exhaustive process.
As for Crowley v Havlin, I'm trying to keep my mind open to the possibility that some other evidence exists of which we're not aware. There is likely to be footage of the incident from at least one angle that has not been shared with the public, probably shot from directly behind the runners.
I've seen in other cases how different an incident can look from behind, because horses are narrow across the front but very broad in the rear (stop giggling at the back, there). Gaps which appear wide when seen head-on can seem narrow when you're looking at a row of fat equine backsides with hooves flying out at you from beneath. It's a wonder, looking at races from behind, that any jockey is ever prepared to take any gap.
So perhaps that's the view which prompted the Haydock stewards to decide the gap in the Lancashire Oaks was "only briefly viable". Anyway, we don't have to guess because Havlin is pursuing an appeal and the matter will be reheard at great length, hurray.
If he wins, as many expect, the implication will be that Crowley was actually at fault. But Crowley won't then be punished. So there's the chance of the unsatisfactory outcome that no one may be penalised for a really serious bit of interference.
There has to be a better way of running this show, hopefully without changing the results of many more races than is our current practice. We need a new set of rules, understood by all and respected by jockeys, which I think means extending penalties to owners and trainers, for reasons I've mentioned before.
We need to give the benefit of any doubt to the victim of interference rather than the wrongdoer. We need to put the onus on horses in front to keep straight, giving those behind a fair chance to challenge them.
We need a fresh start on interference. But first, we need someone in a position of power to acknowledge the problem.
Havlin said: “I’m going to speak to Rory (Mac Neice, solicitor) tomorrow (Monday), I didn’t want to bother him at the weekend, but it’s pretty clear to me that I want to appeal basically.
“I don’t have too much to say about it until I speak to Rory, but I’m 100 per cent that I want to appeal.
“I’m absolutely baffled (by the decision), I still can’t get my head around it. I think the whole weighing room rang me last night and nobody can get their head around it.
“I’m sure somebody will be able to throw some light on it, but I just want to speak to Rory and get him to look at everything and we’ll hopefully have a bit more to say tomorrow.”
“I don’t have too much to say about it until I speak to Rory, but I’m 100 per cent that I want to appeal.
“I’m absolutely baffled (by the decision), I still can’t get my head around it. I think the whole weighing room rang me last night and nobody can get their head around it.
“I’m sure somebody will be able to throw some light on it, but I just want to speak to Rory and get him to look at everything and we’ll hopefully have a bit more to say tomorrow.”
I'd repeat what I said earlier as the key point - if riders can't attempt to take an existing gap (and there was one) then how on earth can they try to pass other horses - is there a rule not on a horses 'inside' against a rail?
Obviously not. In that case no horse could ever make a move against a rail - clearly that would be ridiculous and many hundreds of winners will have come in recent memory by taking a gap against a rail.
Obviously not. In that case no horse could ever make a move against a rail - clearly that would be ridiculous and many hundreds of winners will have come in recent memory by taking a gap against a rail.
On the other thread we actually discussed a relatively recent case (on the dangerous riding issue) over jumps where the runner up tried to a take a far smaller against the rail gap.
In that case, the runner up was awarded the race after trying to take a small rail gap.
In that case, the runner up was awarded the race after trying to take a small rail gap.
Excellent article by Chris Cook and thank you for posting, Mr C.
That is a good article - and nice to hear that the majority are flummoxed by the decision, including the weighing room .... I'm Scottish - we're a bit sensitive - maybe it was a racist thing ;) ...... kidding
If a jockey was foolish or professionally incompetent to leave a gap on the inside esp next to the rail then tried to close it just as another jockey seized on the opportunity or about to come through that gap then the same jockey who initiated the gap ought to be punished (not the opportunist).
Imagine you as a driver of a vehicle on a straight road on the inside (in lane or not) or roundabout notices a gap infront and decided to drive forward (not edge right) only to be confronted by another vehicle on your right edging in? Whose fault is that?
I think it's an absolute no-brainer who's at fault. As for the above, I'll clearly deem Crowley the foolish or incompetent jockey leaving a gap then closing it just as Havelin was coming through. I think the BHA (Bloody Hopeless Authority) ought to be categoric about this otherwise a serious accident on the track is only a matter of time.
Imagine you as a driver of a vehicle on a straight road on the inside (in lane or not) or roundabout notices a gap infront and decided to drive forward (not edge right) only to be confronted by another vehicle on your right edging in? Whose fault is that?
I think it's an absolute no-brainer who's at fault. As for the above, I'll clearly deem Crowley the foolish or incompetent jockey leaving a gap then closing it just as Havelin was coming through. I think the BHA (Bloody Hopeless Authority) ought to be categoric about this otherwise a serious accident on the track is only a matter of time.
Never thought I'd hear the word opportunist used to describe Havlin
duffy 04 Jul 22 00:49
People are taking for granted that Crowley looking over his shoulder and seeing Havlin means that Havlin was already in the gap, which it doesn't. I believe that Havlin wasn't in the gap and after being sat there watching it for too long he only went for it when it was too late.
driver2 04 Jul 22 04:19
You should've gone to Specsavers duffy.
People are taking for granted that Crowley looking over his shoulder and seeing Havlin means that Havlin was already in the gap, which it doesn't. I believe that Havlin wasn't in the gap and after being sat there watching it for too long he only went for it when it was too late.
driver2 04 Jul 22 04:19
You should've gone to Specsavers duffy.
watch the replay..come back and tell me when havlin made his move there wasnt any gap..
and we nah the stwards are clowns.
and we nah the stwards are clowns.
Only a side on view or drone shot will shed any meaningful light on the gap at the time of Havlins move, being an I/R bettor, you'll know how difficult a single head on shot is to make an accurate judgment, I can't believe that in an age of drone shots one hasn't been produced for this.
It would be nice to hear a recording of the conversation in the stewards room too - if only there was some way of recording human beings talking to each other?
i seen the hd on after the race on sat..there was a 5-6ft gap when havlin made his move..even on SL replay havlin is within 1/2L minimum when crowley edges over.
there you go...clear as day..a big gap when havlin made his move and got near crowley when he edged back to rail..shocking decision.
crowley went from 5-6ft off the rail back to a yd from the rail.
Why wouldn't there have been a drone shot available, ITV have shown them before, what happened here?
the drone shot isn't the one you need it's the scout camera, said on the other thread saturday i suspect the rail is not dead true to the line and that crowley runs straight while the rail coming in closes the gap, won't know unless we see the rear shot but mr cook in his piece is also alluding to seeing the view the stewards had
"i suspect the rail is not dead true to the line and that crowley runs straight while the rail coming in closes the gap"
That is a very good point elise...I hadn't thought of that.....if true that would surely exonerate Crowley of any offence...
That is a very good point elise...I hadn't thought of that.....if true that would surely exonerate Crowley of any offence...
A drone shot would show the gap and when Havlin went for it, I agree to the suggestion that Crowley's horse does not appear to markedly come across at the time just before the interference and if you watch Eshaada in isolation you can see as much, however it's the view of the gap initially, whilst Havlin was sat there staring at it followed by the then interference that has suggested too many that it must be Crowley that was at fault.
if the rail isn't true then havlins gap was closing before he got through & whilst it existed initially he may have misjudged it, if so then it makes sense as to why havlin got the ban and not crowley
i suspect if he appeals we'll hear the details but the stewards should have cleared this up properly because their report makes little sense when you view it from the tv shots we got
i suspect if he appeals we'll hear the details but the stewards should have cleared this up properly because their report makes little sense when you view it from the tv shots we got
"the stewards should have cleared this up properly"
Spot on....because if that was the case......then what looked an extremely dangerous incident live on ITV risking the lives of both horses and jockeys, could have been explained to the viewing public and helped educate all and prevent those with a particular axe to grind from jumping on a particular band wagon(animal rights for example, if they have I don't know). That would mean possibly the racecourse admitting being partly to blame for the incident though?....we are all speculating at the moment, apart from in what we saw, until the facts come out in the hearing re the true line of the running rail.
Spot on....because if that was the case......then what looked an extremely dangerous incident live on ITV risking the lives of both horses and jockeys, could have been explained to the viewing public and helped educate all and prevent those with a particular axe to grind from jumping on a particular band wagon(animal rights for example, if they have I don't know). That would mean possibly the racecourse admitting being partly to blame for the incident though?....we are all speculating at the moment, apart from in what we saw, until the facts come out in the hearing re the true line of the running rail.
It also begs the question....should a jockey stay 5-6 ft away from and parallel to the rail all the way to the line, or take the shortest route from A to B if the rail is not staying straight?
They are all plastic rails,no course has a straight rail that
is truly straight,they all weave in and out a touch.
is truly straight,they all weave in and out a touch.
On a lighter note...come on Badosa....on BBC1......she's quite a looker and I'm a sucker for a looker 
That MO paid off for me yesterday with Maria who I got at 70 in running .....and before anyone asks.....for peanuts...but still nice for me 
It also begs the question....should a jockey stay 5-6 ft away from and parallel to the rail all the way to the line, or take the shortest route from A to B if the rail is not staying straight?
the latter would be a green light for jockeys lurching to the rail on bends because in theory that would be the straightest route
the latter would be a green light for jockeys lurching to the rail on bends because in theory that would be the straightest route
they do bend but in the case of haydock (and others) they sometimes funnel the finish, until you see the view the stewards had it's either a possibility that havlin fecked up or a possibility that the stewards did, sadly the stewards are not known for consistent accurate calls so we're not able to determine based on what we can see
Sorry A_T......I didn't mean bends .....thought it was obvious that I was talking about the straight as per the incident in question....hey ho
it's OK layemall I knew what you meant
looking at what "careless" riding can mean
Horse hangs in on bend without rider taking any
action.
arguably if the rail moved towards Crowley rather than the other way round then JC was guilty of that i.e. he didn't stop his horse from hanging into the bending rail and impeding Havlin
Horse drifts into another without rider straightening
it up, either by switching his whip, or, if that is
insufficient, by using his reins.
again that looks like something of which Crowley might be guilty
a lot depends on arbitrary definitions of "bend" and "straight"
whatever the case I don't believe Havlin did anything careless - Crowley almost certainly did
looking at what "careless" riding can mean
Horse hangs in on bend without rider taking any
action.
arguably if the rail moved towards Crowley rather than the other way round then JC was guilty of that i.e. he didn't stop his horse from hanging into the bending rail and impeding Havlin
Horse drifts into another without rider straightening
it up, either by switching his whip, or, if that is
insufficient, by using his reins.
again that looks like something of which Crowley might be guilty
a lot depends on arbitrary definitions of "bend" and "straight"
whatever the case I don't believe Havlin did anything careless - Crowley almost certainly did
if crowley is running straight and the rail comes out he's not required to run parallel to it to allow a gap to continue, the gap which may have been there is going to disappear and the rider behind is responsible for either clearing him before that constriction or he must decide to go around, in addition he's got a horse to his outer, but until we see what the stewards saw it's guesswork
there seems to be a school of thought that a jockey is entitled do whatever necessary to stop another coming up the inside. Nowhere was this better illustrated than Jason Weaver at Royal Ascot saying Coroebus was lucky in the SJPS because the rider of the horse in front kept a straight line and didn't stop it coming up the rail.
it's more about the actual circumstances at that track at that point in the race, each track being different and if the rail closed the gap then it makes sense to me as to why havlin got the ban, if it doesn't then the stewards are d1cks
if crowley is running straight and the rail comes out he's not required to run parallel to it to allow a gap to continue
if the rail comes out arguably it's a bend so Crowley falls foul of
Horse hangs in on bend without rider taking any
action.
if the rail comes out arguably it's a bend so Crowley falls foul of
Horse hangs in on bend without rider taking any
action.
it's not a bend, it's possibly a funnel finish, ive not said bend
still changes nowt, unless you can see what the stewards acted upon application of any rule is pointless, you need to see the race from all angles and they never supplied them nor did they explain it in the stewards report so that it made sense with what was shown on tv
Can anyone really argue they haven't seen many winners come up and win along a rail (inside run)?
Really?
Really?
no one is arguing on here that they can't as far as i can see
if the stewards fecked up i hope they sack the lot of them, but doubt the bha will ever have the b@lls to make an example of them no matter how many times they get it wrong
I can't accept that Crowley gets away with that scot free and Havlin 5 days.
nor can i on the head on, but im suggesting a reason as to why the stewards might have a different opinion with a different view, if that view is the same then havlin is probably going to win an appeal
I can't agree at all with the stewards when they say "Havlin was suspended for 5 days for careless riding as he persisted and
committed for his run into an insufficient gap which was only briefly viable between the running rail and
ESHAADA"
committed for his run into an insufficient gap which was only briefly viable between the running rail and
ESHAADA"
gap's there to begin with, they should explain it properly and as with usa stewards show all angles that they have to appease the public and clarify the decision
In America we would have seen the incident about 10 times immediately after the races and as you say elise from all angles. Problem with showing that is too many meetings on the one channel.
fine, but if we have a dq or in the case of this where it throws people into confusion they have an obligation to either show it or provide a way for it to be viewed so as to make it clear
easy enough for the bha site to have a full report with video, in addition they can then explain how they applied the rules and folk might have half a chance of working out what they are doing
easy enough for the bha site to have a full report with video, in addition they can then explain how they applied the rules and folk might have half a chance of working out what they are doing
Racing in this country could learn quite a lot from looking at other countries for many different things not just incidents such as enquiries.
run by amateurs, we've even got the media clueless and when people that watch racing day in day out can't figure out what has gone on how can new people to the sport be expected to buy into it when it makes no sense?
what other video evidence might there be other than head-on and the regular view. does an overhead even exist?
https://imgur.com/LKuOgjw
from this pic it's clear that Havlin was upsides Crowley no more than half a length down. what crowley proceeded to do was downright dangerous
https://imgur.com/LKuOgjw
from this pic it's clear that Havlin was upsides Crowley no more than half a length down. what crowley proceeded to do was downright dangerous
it's a rear view of the action, sort of like drone view but more rider height as opposed to overhead
they may also have a wider head on shot showing full track / maybe the final furlong rather than a close up
but then this lot could just be making it up like most weeks
OK.
my guess is that hasn't been released because it doesn't support the action the stewards took - if it did support them it would have been made available to the media.
it'll be looked at in the hearing and Havlin cleared. move along nothing to see here.
my guess is that hasn't been released because it doesn't support the action the stewards took - if it did support them it would have been made available to the media.
it'll be looked at in the hearing and Havlin cleared. move along nothing to see here.
kind of my point above we shouldn't be trying to work this out, it should have been made clear by them, the jockeys are pros isn't too much to ask for the bha/stewards to act like pros too
For the sport of kings there are some unpleasant and frankly sometimes dangerous long-held dinosaur-like and unhealthy attitudes as exemplifed here with 'no-one disrespects me by coming up the inside when i've left a gap'! Another that a lot of racing journalists and brosdcasters seem to go alone with is the notion that it's ok to keep a jockey hemmed in even if on a clearly better horse. This would be much more difficult to police and sometimes its a matter of riding the straightest line to the finisn legitamately but I do not find it 'sporting' or in keeping with racing ethics to deny a better horse a fair passage unless the jnockey has been an absolute arse. Arguably a hornets nest to try and arbitrate but still i dont like the assumption from commentators thats its always ok and sporting to do this.
To hem-in a jockey on a better horse is one thing and generally accepted and rightly not punishable in horseracing. However, if a jockey deliberately/knowingly closes a gap left open (intentionally or unintentionally) by the same jockey is a totally different thing ie a degree of safety to the jockeys and horses in question. As such, I think this must be deemed unacceptable and possibly dangerous too, and must be punishable with a ban as a deterrent for a similar offence in the future.
Glad to hear the Guys on the Weighed In Podcast feel as strongly about this as we do lads.
Another that a lot of racing journalists and brosdcasters seem to go alone with is the notion that it's ok to keep a jockey hemmed in even if on a clearly better horse. This would be much more difficult to police and sometimes its a matter of riding the straightest line to the finisn legitamately but I do not find it 'sporting' or in keeping with racing ethics to deny a better horse a fair passage unless the jnockey has been an absolute arse. Arguably a hornets nest to try and arbitrate but still i dont like the assumption from commentators thats its always ok and sporting to do this.
this attitude was on show at the Royal Meeting when a contingent (Jason Weaver amongst them) complained that Coroebus was "lucky" in the St James Palace because the jockey in front of Buick hadn't taken the opportunity to block him in and instead rode a straight line. The fact that this would have stopped the best horse winning didn't seem to come into consideration. All very unhealthy.
this attitude was on show at the Royal Meeting when a contingent (Jason Weaver amongst them) complained that Coroebus was "lucky" in the St James Palace because the jockey in front of Buick hadn't taken the opportunity to block him in and instead rode a straight line. The fact that this would have stopped the best horse winning didn't seem to come into consideration. All very unhealthy.
Far from canceling the ban they should have doubled it. How many lengths did he lose and then he goes on to win going away. He didn;t need to be going anywhere near an illusory gap on the rails, likely to snap closed at any moment.
This BHA continues to demonstrate that it doesn;t know what it is doing.
This BHA continues to demonstrate that it doesn;t know what it is doing.
I have a different view from you so the abuse comes out.
Well done.
Well done.
if you have a different view then you have impaired vision..same as the other doylems who said there was no gap.
image of the gap for any fkat-earthers lurking
https://imgur.com/a/ZAfhjor
https://imgur.com/a/ZAfhjor
simple way to debunk the flat earthers..ask em how theres a half moon.
That wouldn't work because every fecker of sound mind knows it's made of cheese and something would have obviously eaten the other half.
As anticipated ban overturned. Cowley no doubt feels empowered as no action taken against him. Next time after glancing round I expect him to put a jock over the rails if one dares to try and go up his inside.
Oh is that right? I am glad to hear that? What punishment will be given to the errant stewards?
I mean - I am glad to hear that - no question mark :D
Extract from the RPOSTS summary of today. The BHA said the decision to rescind the suspension was taken after a comprehensive review, while the Racing Post also understands that Jim Crowley, who partnered Eshaada, has been reminded of his responsibilities by the regulator, although no retrospective action was taken.
A BHA spokesman said: "Following a comprehensive review of the incident, it was determined that Mr Havlin did have a sufficient gap and had established his horse in that gap prior to the incident, and therefore did not commit a riding offence.
"No further charges will be made against any other rider arising from this incident."
A BHA spokesman said: "Following a comprehensive review of the incident, it was determined that Mr Havlin did have a sufficient gap and had established his horse in that gap prior to the incident, and therefore did not commit a riding offence.
"No further charges will be made against any other rider arising from this incident."
LoyalHoncho05 Jul 22 15:44Joined: 28 May 10 | Topic/replies: 10,284 |
Far from canceling the ban they should have doubled it. How many lengths did he lose and then he goes on to win going away.
The last sentence is irrelevant to Havlin's penalty.
He didn;t need to be going anywhere near an illusory gap on the rails, likely to snap closed at any moment.
Whether the gap was illusory is a matter of opinion, but whether it is "likely to snap closed at any moment" is irrelevant to the rules AND to Havlin's penalty
This BHA continues to demonstrate that it doesn;t know what it is doing.
Many on here would consider that on this issue it knows a bit more than the Haydock stewards
Far from canceling the ban they should have doubled it. How many lengths did he lose and then he goes on to win going away.
The last sentence is irrelevant to Havlin's penalty.
He didn;t need to be going anywhere near an illusory gap on the rails, likely to snap closed at any moment.
Whether the gap was illusory is a matter of opinion, but whether it is "likely to snap closed at any moment" is irrelevant to the rules AND to Havlin's penalty
This BHA continues to demonstrate that it doesn;t know what it is doing.
Many on here would consider that on this issue it knows a bit more than the Haydock stewards
How did the Haydock stewards get it so wrong? Common sense prevailed finally. And, Mr Crowley "has been reminded of his responsibility by the regulator." In other words watch your step, Mr Crowley!
Still riles me how Crowley had complete disregard for horse or rider not nice to see.
Crowley may have got away with it, but at least he's been warned and will hopefully think twice before repeating the offence.
Crowley total disregard for his own horse too,acey.Haggas can't be too impressed with that...
From an article by Greg Wood in Mondays Guardian.
On 31 August 2009, Tony Culhane rode a horse called Mazzola in a five-furlong handicap at Newcastle. About 10 seconds after the start, he shifted his mount left towards the rail, bumping a horse on his inside which in turn interfered with another against the rail, which fell. At the subsequent stewards’ inquiry, Culhane was banned for 14 days for dangerous riding and ordered to forfeit his fee.
Something approaching 130,000 races have been run in Britain since Culhane picked up his fortnight off, which works out at around 1m individual rides, and yet – officially, at least – his offence is the most recent example of dangerous riding on a British track.
The idea that dangerous riding simply disappeared from our racecourses overnight in 2009 is absurd. As the trainer John Berry put it last October, when he lodged an unsuccessful appeal against a local panel’s decision not to amend the result of a race at Pontefract: “I don’t think anyone believes there hasn’t been any dangerous riding in Britain in the last 12 years. You’d be living in cloud cuckoo land if you thought that.”
On 31 August 2009, Tony Culhane rode a horse called Mazzola in a five-furlong handicap at Newcastle. About 10 seconds after the start, he shifted his mount left towards the rail, bumping a horse on his inside which in turn interfered with another against the rail, which fell. At the subsequent stewards’ inquiry, Culhane was banned for 14 days for dangerous riding and ordered to forfeit his fee.
Something approaching 130,000 races have been run in Britain since Culhane picked up his fortnight off, which works out at around 1m individual rides, and yet – officially, at least – his offence is the most recent example of dangerous riding on a British track.
The idea that dangerous riding simply disappeared from our racecourses overnight in 2009 is absurd. As the trainer John Berry put it last October, when he lodged an unsuccessful appeal against a local panel’s decision not to amend the result of a race at Pontefract: “I don’t think anyone believes there hasn’t been any dangerous riding in Britain in the last 12 years. You’d be living in cloud cuckoo land if you thought that.”
here's our Jim trying his hardest to avert a disaster
https://imgur.com/a/tWfOrw6
https://imgur.com/a/tWfOrw6
If he had committed an offence the stewards would surely have dealt with it. Says it all for me.
Gratifying that LH always accepts the verdicts of the powers that be!! Role model!!
Couldn't care less if you are "gratified" or not. My form on here says otherwise. How else could I have stuck up for Robbie Dunne and criticised the female jockey? Not to mention my huge criticism of the BHA over their bungling of that case.
I say things as I see them.
You'll need to do much better than that sonny if you're going to heckle me.
I say things as I see them.
You'll need to do much better than that sonny if you're going to heckle me.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539