There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 263 comments are related to the topic:
Alphonse Le Grande disq on tues
Alphonse Le Grande disq on tues
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 263
|
By:
rights or wrongs of the rules, if you break them you have to accept the penalty. If you backed the second, who will soon become the offical winner in all the record books but you lost your bet, it's utterly farcical.
|
|
By:
It's been happening for years, when stewards decisions are appealed and upheld. Where was your post about this?
|
|
By:
whole different scenario, stewarding is all about opinions/interpretation of a contradictory rule book, the 10 strike rule is pretty black or white and absolutely no reason it can't be dealt with in 5 minutes.
|
|
By:
the 10 strike rule is pretty black or white and absolutely no reason it can't be dealt with in 5 minutes.
No it isn't cuz there will be disputes over whether or not contact was made |
|
By:
as i said earlier if the arm goes up and down it was an intended strike.
|
|
By:
gutted if you backed bashful boy at 40,s an bigger with slybet,finished 9 th would have got paid out for 8th
 |
|
By:
Here's the thing, if this number was the end of it, fair enough
But we can be fairly sure it isn't because they have already reduced the number once in terms of how many strikes are permitted ie on the Flat, down to 6 from 7 Hey, who's known for saying this? Know the outcome, see the journey? When you know the final destination is the banning of the whip, you can see where this is heading. |
|
By:
Whatever your thoughts on the whip, horses don't come pre-programmed to race and often they have to be asked, and most will respond generously, which helps make the sport the thrilling spectacle that it can be.
As long as the whip is not a welfare issue and is used correctly, then its use should be permitted within limits, but not limits that are constantly being eroded in the name of 'perception' until the day its use is outlawed. |
|
By:
This is all about implementation of an existing rule. I'd agree though that by not dealing with it instantly it will bring the whip rule as a whole back into the public eye and almost certainly not in a good way.
|
|
By:
George B, i most frequently agree with your posts. But , If I interpret correctly (20.24) , you suggest that a dispute over the number of strikes may (and often is) disputed. But that was not the case here. I have only got back a few hours ago but, as I understand it, the "winner" ACCEPTED he was over the limit. This supports the post you highlighted. There is no reason at all why a stewards panel cannot reach an admitted/obvious (not disputed as to whether the strikes hit or not) decision as compared to a complex interference issue. I accept this may lead to jockeys simply disputing it to keep the race but.... I have declared my interest on the second so...............I think this will lead to a change. Too late for me!!
|
|
By:
The on course Stewards are not permitted to disqualify a winner for any infringement of the whip rules. They are required, if they think appropriate, to refer to "head office" and the "whip review committee".
|
|
By:
The stewards have opened a can of worms -how many winners will be disqualified the week after the Cheltenham festival.
|
|
By:
Eddie - The "can of worms" is already open. What does Chelters have to do with it.
|
|
By:
There was nothing wrong with the rules in the first place.
Tin hat on |
|
By:
Blackburn -if you can't work out what Cheltenham has to do with it I can't help you.
|
|
By:
DonegalPrince, not disputed on this occasion as you correctly say, but should on-the-day disqualification be brought in, then it will be.
Different circumstances but there is a famous example of 'strike's being disputed - Dean Mckeown and the alleged 'air' shots...Did he make contact or not? |
|
By:
* 'strikes'
|
|
By:
George your make your points very well.
|
|
By:
Thank you, dealer
|
|
By:
This is looking like it's going to be the first high profile DQ under such circumstances.
If I were the owner and money wasn't an issue, then I would be looking to challenge the decision in a court of law on the grounds that the financial penalty incurred is unjust, and also to get a legal precedent for use of the whip. And the basis of my case would be that there is no welfare issue here. |
|
By:
When I say financial penalty I obviously mean the loss of tens of thousands of pounds in prize money.
|
|
By:
Sorry GB , I hope I made clear that I agree with you on the dispute point. Where DQ on the day introduced NO jockey would accept it. They would be daft to do otherwise. I think a key point is the attitude of bookmakers. If they agree on Tuesday to pay out on the "winner" on the "double result" point then a lot will be sorted (on course punters still knacked of course). I suspect some will. Most won't. I shall have to see if my £ x k is paid. Not going to lose sleep about it because I accept the vicissitudes of life. But... I could have done a lot for the economy of London with the winnings!!!
|
|
By:
Once again sorry GB. Just seen your 2135 post. At the risk of sounding a know all, I was a lawyer for 40 years and I have no doubt at all that a DQ verdict by the BHA would be upheld. The decision has to be, in very broad and non legal terms, irrational. Judicial review would be the process. In essence, were the rules "reasonable " (in the legal sense)? There are 100's of pages of legal text on the issue but when the BHA said "we do this to protect the welfare of horses", that would be the end of it. No court would interfere. Many would say it is unjust, one way or the other, but no court would interfere. Hope we both win a few £ next week at Ascot. I have Economics at a decent price and then that is me finished on the flat. Save for Del mar...................and by God the "2nd" would have paid for a good bit of my trip there!!
|
|
By:
You are correct, DonegalPrince. Apparently the Aga Khan case regarding the Oaks DQ set a legal precedent, as Willie Mullins later found to his cost when he tried to challenge the Be My Royal DQ.
Dismissing Mullins' judicial review challenge, the judge ordered him to pay legal costs on an indemnity basis, the highest level available. He said a previous case involving the Aga Khan, which decided the Jockey Club was not susceptible to public law remedies by way of judicial review, was "clearly binding", and an application for indemnity costs was "appropriate". https://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/racing/arid-10044778.html |
|
By:
Dismissing Mullins' application for judicial review, made on the basis that the case raised important issues of public law, the judge said: "Review of the disciplinary decisions of the Jockey Club and its organs is a matter of private law, not public law."
The ruling is an important one for all sporting bodies, who have long been considered "private". http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/horse_racing/4349250.stm |
|
By:
swiftynifty 12 Oct 24 20:20
whole different scenario, stewarding is all about opinions/interpretation of a contradictory rule book, the 10 strike rule is pretty black or white and absolutely no reason it can't be dealt with in 5 minutes. Hold ya horses there Swifty, Kevin Blake just rode into town... Kevin Blake @kevinblake2011 · 4h Many have concluded that the Cesarewitch winner will definitely be disqualified, but have a close look at this. I think the 10th and final use of the whip might well have missed the horse and if so, it won’t be counted. It’s certainly worth a close look with better quality pics. https://x.com/kevinblake2011/status/1845168890545848584 |
|
By:
swiftynifty12 Oct 24 20:25
as i said earlier if the arm goes up and down it was an intended strike. Kevin Blake @kevinblake2011 · 3h For clarity, there have been cases in the past where the Whip Review Committee have found that what had initially been perceived as a whip strike on the day didn't actually make contact with the horse, so it was discounted. That is the case that is likely to be made here. |
|
By:
yes i remember that GB. I am utterly biased of course. But I think we are roughly ad idem. IF the rules are valid. then I say there is np reason they should not be enforced on the day. Whether or not thy are legit/just etc ...well various opinions. It is the contrast between ruling on everything else on the day, as opposed to simple counting exercise which is annoying. All the best chap. Finishing the pinot noir here. Bed and paracetemol. Good luck. I shall hope for a generous gesture from Bet 635 on Tuesday!!!!
|
|
By:
GEORGE B , that would just continue the farce. He had every intention of striking the horse 1O times, he admitted the offence, if the last one missed that's due to him being unbalanced. Anyway the rule is 6 strikes, he cheated the other connections in the race. I hope the DQ is confirmed and he gets the maximum penalty.
|
|
By:
Think I was about 3 hours ahead George...
|
|
By:
so is MR BLAKE saying he,s happy to have one of JOB horses hit 9 times and a thrash for luck as long as the thrash doesn't connect,the Irish love their horses don't they. or maybe 9 and 2,3,4,5 thrashes for luck as long as they all miss
|
|
By:
The use of the word thrashed is hysterical nonsense.
|
|
By:
I haven't read all of the comments here but in an article I read was interested in what a BHA spokesman said.....
“We can confirm that the ride by Jamie Powell on Alphonse Le Grande has been referred to the Whip Review Committee,” a BHA spokesperson said on Saturday. “The horse will not be disqualified unless [the WRC] determines the whip has been used four times or more above the permitted level, and, for example, that all uses made contact and none were clearly and unequivocally for safety purposes only. “There have been several cases already since the new rules were implemented whereby a ride was referred and carried a potential disqualification but the committee did not reach this outcome.” A farcical situation to me when the limit is supposed to be six but then still no certainty as to whether the horse can be disqualified with more than six. If Alphonse Le Grande is disqualified on Tuesday, he will be the third winner to be thrown out since the penalty was introduced in early 2023, and the most significant by far. The Cesarewitch is one of the season’s most valuable and historic handicaps, and the £90,000 first prize will be awarded instead to the connections of Manxman. |
|
By:
I wonder if the stews counted the number of uses of the whip of the other 23 runners.
To do so thoroughly would take ages. Not to do so would be a dereliction of duty! |
|
By:
You just need to look at the connections involved to know they're up to something AGAIN. 6 strokes is the limit. 10 were used. Send the jockey back to nursery where they will teach him to count. The creature who keeps disrespecting the sport even from afar tells the jockey you can go up to 9. We will get away with that. Still 3 over the limit. So is the limit 6 or 9? 10 were used so disqualification must happen. Connections don't care about the trophy or even the prize money as they won a lot more on their "ante post gamble". They told the kid jockey to go 3 over the 6. It's quite clear. They copped their winnings. Only a nose in it so the extra 3 or 4 was the difference.
|
|
By:
Kevin Blake
@kevinblake2011 · 3h if a man fires a gun at another and misses its a not guilty of attempted murder. pmsl. |
|
By:
slickster 13 Oct 24 11:20
Connections don't care about the trophy or even the prize money as they won a lot more on their "ante post gamble". Winner: £90,195..who did they win more than £90,000 from? Ricardo? |
|
By:
Give me a crayon someone. Strength in numbers Rico. You have 10 of your mob getting on all over the place. 100 win at sp of 33s. 50 win at sp of 33s. Different companies. Very easy. Have what you can on here. You're soon into 6 figures. You gotta know the mob involved.
|