Alphonse Le Grande disq on tues

id be surprised if they appeal

Whether it was 3 over or 4 over it was so blatantly wrong the winning horse and jockey should have been thrown out immediately post a stewards enquiry after the race. This was a clear act of intent to "cheat" eg by hitting the horse excessively to instigate a win.

The instigation of a win should have been taken away from connections, period, to ensure no replication from any other similar party in the future. This "cheating" must be stopped or the BHA introduces an abolition of use of whip. If so, the horse concerned would very, very, very unlikely have won.

As the man said…if you don’t like it go watch Peppa Pig.

If I remember correctly there was that Kentucky Derby winner who was subsequently disqualified for failing a post race drugs test.

The problem was that this happened long after the race so no one who had backed the 2nd Mandaloun got a pay out so they ganged together, put a in lawsuit against the race track for their winnings and damages and they won.

If you can’t sort this out on the day then you’re going to end with a major issue at some point.

Easiest solution is to ban the whip

Easiest solution is to go back to the old rules

I think any whip transgression esp in a prestigious handicap, Listed or Group race should be automatically disqualified. Or ban the whip. This will sort out the men from the boys - jockeywise.

Just have robot jockeys like with the camels.

just have the jockeys, no horses. Luke Morris would be the only one to carry a whip.

Any similar controversy elsewhere in the world. Or is it UK specific?

Happened in Guyana but the stewards had to be airlifted out

https://youtu.be/Swa9VgOF5IQ?si=aTSqT-bB8TS040oY

And yes…those were gun shots.

Any similar controversy elsewhere in the world. Or is it UK specific?

Following the running of the Qatar Arabian Trophy for fillies, the stewards opened an investigation into the number of whip strokes from Lukas Delozier.  A replay of the race showed that Delozier had used his whip 10 times in the straight and the winning horse Geneva was immediately disqualified. Delozier was issued with a 30-day suspension (October 18 to November 16).

so ....

Following the running of the Cesarewitch Handicap, the stewards opened an investigation into the number of whip strokes from Jamie Powell.  A replay of the race showed that Powell had used his whip 10 times in the straight and the winning horse Alphonse Le Grande was immediately disqualified. Powell was issued with a 30-day suspension (October 18 to November 16).

job done ...

just becomes part of racing.  good day at the races ?  not bad, i was unlucky had the winner in the big race but it was disqualified cos he used his whip too many times, but that's racing

It could happen if the BHA sits on its behind repeatedly and does not learn from this. There must be a policy or framework in place to prevent this blatant abuse of the whip for gain in the future.

framework is there.  they knew he'd broken the rules otherwise they don't refer it.  all they had to do was to press the bing bong and disqualify it 10 minutes after the race. 

if they'd done that everyone in the future is immediately thinking no point whacking it 10 times cos we're just going to get chucked out.

^

And Manxman punters would have collected !

wood mek IR very interesting..

way they've done it makes no sense.  ok they lost a good bit of prizemoney but they kept everything they won betting on it.  if it had happened in the 8.00 at Newcastle tonight they'd be saying to connections bad news, you've forfeited your winners prizemoney, so that's £2,983.00

but you can keep the £80k you won punting it ....

theirs knee eezee sol lushen.

Just two points as someone said no whip strikes then the wait situation doesn't arise. Purely tinkering with the rules is the culprit. Secondly, the 'winner' has travelled like the best the horse in the race. He needed those horses around him to carry him into the race for a little bit longer.

Jockey,Trainer and Owners have lodged an appeal against the decision to disqualify Alophonse Le Grande.

good luck with that.

Kevin Blake being called as an expert witness?

another 10 days incoming for the jock

Presumably, they must think they can show that one hit shouldn't have counted. No other reason to appeal.

stewards made a point of saying all hits connected
jock didn't mention any fresh air shots on the day
even if they could prove it or any other didn't make contact,stewards just return to  the motion of trying to hit the horse is enough

new evidence has been submitted after tony martin consulted solicitors and has let the bha know that six in gaelic sounds like 10

I think Connections have no shame, but greed and unsportsmanship; it's jockey resorted to whipping to get the win result. I hope connections will lose their deposit (if a deposit is required for this appeal) for being greedy, unsportsmanship, frivolous and disrespectful to the rule on use of the whip in horseracing.

All this, and many other problems ,have been brought about by the BHA's weak kneed reactions to the

bleatings of the animal rights nutters, and this strange idea that public perception will be affected

one way or another by changing the whip rules.

THe BHA rep was repeatedly passing the blame on tv just now eg consultation, consensus, etc, with horseracing bodies, and refused to admit it was them (BHA) who should be making the ultimate decision if a consensus view/decision could not be agreed. In businesses, the CEO has the final say if the BoD's are indecisive or shirking the decision making.

The disqualification should have been made immediately or very soon after eg same day, post The Cesarewitch; it was clear and blatant. The present scenario is unworkable, non-punter friendly and does not deter "cheating" or sharp practices of winning connections.

Spot on

roggrain, you are missing the point. It's about abiding by the rules as they exist today, whether you agree with them or not. Break them and you pay the price. It's the same in all sports.

I don't think connections ever had a plan to whip the horse as many times as it takes, doing that wouldn't have guaranteed a win. What we had was an inexperienced apprentice getting carried away in the spur of the moment. Where I agree the rules should now be changed so the decision is made on the day, in sport these days unfortunately nothing is straight forward

I don’t understand why you’re forced to settle your bet before the winner is known. If I’d backed Manxman to win the Cesarewitch and after hearing and appeal he’s the winner of the race I’d want my winnings. If you’re forced to accept a winning horse is a loser it makes a complete mockery of betting.

Quite !

Matt Chapman interviewing someone from BHA this morning about the incident. Not one mention about the impact on punters.

Indeed. Pathetic !

The whip rule in place for ages

The weighed in rule in place a lot longer

It's just a pity no one envisaged the doomsday scenario until it happened.

If the BHA allowed Stewards to deal with the matter of disqualification, when a jockey exceeds the permitted number of strikes, on the day via a Steward's Enquiry, punters could hold onto their betting slips until the outcome is announced. Instead, they have created a situation whereby punters are forced to accept that their ultimate winner of the race constitutes a losing bet. It has to be a farce when race winners are financial losers.
If I had backed Manxman to win the Cesarewitch, and after the delayed hearing and appeal he's confirmed to be the winner of the race, I'd be sick as I would have had to have my bet settled as a loser. Conversely, the connections of the disqualified horse might well have profited from deliberate cheating. The BHA have brought betting on horse racing into disrepute to my way of thinking.
I've read their whip rules and guidance and as usual it's all about the impact on jockeys and connections with no thought given to the impact on punters. Exactly what I expect from the BHA.

It's not a unique scenario, winners have been disqualified for umpteen various reasons, long after the day of the race, do they also count for being paid?

It's not just racing, formula one results have been altered after the podium presentation. There are probably loads more.

but how many have publicly said within 30 mins on live tv  they,ll almost certainly be disq on Tues and themselves known that within 10 mins ?

Swimming,  cycling, athletics, tennis, all winners on the day, only to be kicked out later. Granted not as popular betting wise but they follow the same ruling

But what difference does that make 1tp, they used the rules available to them and bookmakers settled by their rule.

I'm not saying the rules are right but it's the same rules that were in place before the race and before any other race for months.

the dealer • October 19, 2024 12:07 PM BST
It's not a unique scenario, winners have been disqualified for umpteen various reasons, long after the day of the race,

Yes and horses wrongly dq'd have been reinstated. Can't remember such a furore over that.

This rules breach was apparently admitted and not disputed, but that doesn't mean they all would be. I don't know the precise wording of the rule, but couldn't a jockey say "I knew that I missed a couple of times, so I had a couple in hand". Do the on the day stewards have the tech to dispute that? How long would it take?

its disputed on here but isn't that why the motion of going through the strike is counted even if it misses,otherwise your back in to 5 strikes from Moore is worse for a horse than a dozen from Amy Waugh for example of 20 from Joe fanning

I was not in during the race and did not have a bet. If I did, and I'd backed Manxman I'd go IBAS 1st. If unsuccessful I'd seek crowd-funding, then challenge the result in a UK court citing the injudiciousness and incompetency of The BHA; the bookies for not paying out on the eventual winner despite a stewards enquiry was called soon post the race as the whip offence was blatant and excessive, and matter referred to the BHA.

It's without a shadow of doubt given the circumstances eg wanton disregard to whip usage in a race and the importance/prestigiousness and value of the raceThe BHA should have stepped-in to advise (if necessary) the local stewards, and (if necessary) adjudicate on the final result; this ought to be communicated there and then to the racegoers, punters, bookies, connections of the winner and placed owners. This is to signify the seriousness of the whip offence, and probable instant disqualification.

But, The BHA being the BHA, have been accused of being clueless and indecisiveness on a matter a little more complex than the norm.

This "mess" was instigated/brought upon by The BHA for being "awol" and not presence during and immediately post The Cesarewitch.

It takes just one Look at the replay from the 2f pole ( in slow mo)that 10 strikes ( all connecting) of the whip ocurred.

With a good legal team, very little is ever cut and dried as it seems these days and that's part of the problem, the fear of getting it wrong will always play it's part, even though the evidence would appear otherwise

well that's up to connections idiots like Kevin Blake trying to be controversial for clicks if they want to turn punters already embedded in the game off the game,more fool them

impossible 123

Absolutely correct.

But you can't change the rules on the day 1tp, they have to work with what they have got, you can go over and over scenarios that could or should have happened but they simply weren't available

yep but no sign of it and no encouragement from those within the game to change it going forward, as shown by the absolutely pathetic interview from Chappers and oily bell this morning

Again that is nothing to do with what happened last week

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, not just the ones who agree with you.

When you’re talking about lots of horses being disqualified after the race I’d say that was mainly drug offences. That’s certainly not something that can be dealt with on the day and there is no solution regarding the impact on betting than I can see. There is an easy solution regarding over use of the whip. Throw the horse out on the day or scrap the whip rule as being unworkable. Racing is funded by losing punters (levy on bookmakers’ profits) and as usual they’re being treated like ****.

Shyte for the ponces at betfair.

Under what grounds are the owners appealing this decision?

It can only be that the process was wrongly followed in some way, because nobody can possibly think that 10 hits were for 'safety or correction'!!

Sadly, just more money for lawyers to fight a case that looks unwinnable to me.

The connections deserved the prize money and accolade taken form this win; their chosen jockey broke the rule big time; whether it was 3 or 4 over the permitted strikes allowed it was still way over the 6 limit.

I feel sorry for the horse. However, I strongly believe connections esp their jockey deserve their just deserts. But, for the inept BHA their ill-gotten gains from betting at the expense of punters backing the eventual and rightful winner ie Manxman.

Chapman,s defense was thew horse was responding and his evidence for that was the horse won,might have won with 6,7,8 or 9
and if jocks apparently cant count to 6 ,10 in heat of moment how can they judge if a horse is responding with 10 satriles in last furlong or so

The limit was 6; 9 or 10 was too excessive. Would the horse have gone faster, if whipped more? It's likely (in this instance) otherwise its jockey would be unlikely to reach 9 or 10. Would it have kept going at the same speed/pace (but not faster) had it not been whipped 9x or 10x? Possibly or probably hence its jockey dispense 9x or 10x.

As such, the whip used excessively was to make the horse go faster (very, very, very likely) and definitely not slower otherwise its jockey would not have continued hitting the horse after 6x or 7x.

From the above one could safely deduce the excessive use of the whip was to make the horse go faster to win the race. And, given the winning margin the excessive use of the whip over and above the permitted number allowed had contributed to its victory. As such, this could be safely deemed to be a significant contributory factor to the horse's winning.

This constituted "cheating" in horseracing, and possibly animal cruelty too. Hence, the agreed and statutory 6x limit. If others in horseracing can accept this rule, connections of Alphonse Le Grande should too.

It's almost certain it was ignorance of the rules. You make it sound like it was cynical. Ignorance is no defence, or shouldn't be. He did not know, or forgot. And nobody reminded him. It's 1000 that they consciously decided to ignore the rules in the knowledge that the betting would still stand.

Tough! As you say ignorance of the rule is no defence. My advice is "learn from it...get over it, and move on".  It's only horseracing afterall. Now, they know, let's hope it would not happen again with this outfit.

We're all human and make mistakes. This one is understandable. The most likely jocks to break rules are those visiting from another jurisdiction. It shouldn't change the outcome, but we don't need the jockey's head on a stake. It's something that he will likely carry with him forever.

i,d like to think it would be the 1st,2nd,3rd and last thing you told your jockey in the paddock if you were from outside the UK unless of course your bet was worth more to you  than the prize money on offer

If you turn up in someone else's back yard you play by their rules, or don't bother coming. I hope they end up paying for the BHA's costs.

I think this outfit is more savvy and knowledgeable than most here. I think whether the mistake was intentional or not it still broke the whip rule governing its use.

To me it's a cut and shut case. The jockey has used the whip excessively ie 3/4x more than the allowed 6.  Ignorance of the rule is no excuse whether intentional or not.

The BHA cannot rescind their disqualification decision. The BHA has brought this upon themselves for not thinking on their feet eg advised the Newmarket stewards to disqualify the winner on the spot - it was that blatant. Otherwise the BHA will be laughed out of "office", and horseracing UK will be the butt of every racegoer in the world.

Why is it only British racing that has a proplem with whip rules?

i think it's because british racing is the only one run by the bha

a country with the antics /cruelty of Elliot and Hanlon are hardly going to worry about a few to many swipes of the banjo

How can you be cruel to a dead horse? You talk utter rubbish
I can't think of any other racing country that has a problem. Is it because the brits treat their animals as humans?

Yet again more unchallenged pro whip stuff on Luck this morning.

I wouldn't imagine if they ever did give airtime to someone putting the opposite point of view that would ever go unchallenged.

Luck was right though in suggesting this one instance has been blown completely out of proportion. You really would think it's happening every day.

I thought it happened 4 or 5 times but not with winning rides,5 jocks cant tell the difference between 6 and 10 hits,is quite something,it would be   more reassuring if were doing it on purpose, like a speeding driver no knowing difference between 60 and a 100mph

The BHA needs to put out an order/directive that any whip usage over the permitted 6x the horse will be immediately disqualified (with no mitigation), and the jockey concerned given 28 days. Make it succinct and simple.

Any jockey who cannot count will need to learn to count or not become a professional jockey or amateur with an intention of riding on a listed/ approved racecourse.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. This applies to horseracing UK too.

Now, I hope connections of Alphonse Le Grande will be laughed out of court. The same outfit made a mockery of a ban imposed by IHRB at Newcastle.

I tend to share your view, impossible123.

BUT, it must be remembered that jockeys are allowed mores strikes if said strikes are thought to have been for 'safety or correction' instead of 'encouragement'. That does make sense. Hence, how the whip was used does need to be carefully looked at.

However, the love of British Racing for committees etc has overtaken common sense (as it usually does in the UK).

Why on earth, one or two people from the whip committee cannot be at a track is beyond me. And, with even more sense, why the stewards themselves cannot be trained to decide when a whip strike is only for encouragement I do not understand either!

What is plain, though, we cannot have a winner breaking the rules but being allowed to keep the race for betting purposes.

It actually encourages just what the BHA do not want - IE 'win at all costs'. So, an owner, or owners, have a huge punt on one and can currently say to the jockey 'smash the backside off it because if you win but go over the 10 strikes and are thus subsequently banned we will look after you no matter what'. Of course, they will lose the prize money when D/Q'd but for a crappy little £2.5k race against a monster betting plunge would they care? I think not.

The BHA drive me mental. They continue to dream up rules to appease the lunatic minority groups who think racing is cruel, instead of creating rules for the overall good of the sport. This combined with the old-fashioned 'pass the buck' love of a committee has been massivley ilustrated by the farce at Newmarket.

I think the simplest solution is to ban the whip in the UK as they are unable to make and enforce sensible rules regarding its use, the whip is an emotive subject in the UK unlike other sensible countries

I can't have they told the jockey not be bothered with breaking the whip rule, he got carried away in the moment. A big gamble? Not sure that's possible anymore, with bookmakers the way they are and the technology they have, would many lay bets to that firm?
Although the outcome has been a shambles, I'm not sure it can be sorted on the day, it isn't as easy as counting to 10.The damage was done when they tried to appease the minority. One is one too many but it is the first time it has happened. I don't think anyone would want to be the second. We will see what happens but imo the appeal isn't as straightforward as some might think

Whatever you think of the rules they are the rules. I think the enquiry should last less than a minute. Count the strikes, read the rulebook. DQ.

These rules are actually to appease the 'lunatic' jocks, the alternative being the much more sensible option of not being able to hit the animal at all. It's been one tinker after another, but none of them actually work.

Deal with the "lunatic" jocks when they digress, absolutely no need for the numbers game.

Why did our ancestors introduce the whip when racing?

Was it because they were primitive, cruel, sadistic b*rstards?

Or did they fully understand that horses aren't programmed to race, they need encouragement?

Yeah, sure, there will still be a winner without the whip, but it changes the dynamics of how races are run, and the barstewards who have done a bit of research since a number was put on the amount of strikes, are saying frontrunners are faring better, with the theory being those from off the pace can't fully ask their mounts with the restriction on its use.

And it was interesting watching Hamish yesterday in France, (where they are even tighter on whip use?) as it appeared to me that there was more in the tank but Marquand couldn't fully ask for it.

And here's the thing with regard to the breed, comments above about 'bleeders' being banned from breeding in Germany.

Well surely it's better for the breed if the ones going to stud are the ones with the constitution to withstand being put being put through the pain barrier (physiologically that is) when being asked for everything?

What occurs to me also about use of the whip, is its relationship to the interference rules.

We've had a period where such has been the reduction in the threat of disqualification, in effect a message has been sent to jockeys that: You can batter your mount across the track and impede your rival(s) but so long as you win by more than a nose then you are highly likely to keep the race, though you will pick up a ban.

I'm of the opinion, strict interference rules with a REAL threat of disqualification = careful use of the whip as there is then a big onus on jockeys to keep their mounts straight.

I always find it interesting watching old replays and generally the considerate use of the whip, but of course the threat of disqualification for interference was a lot greater then.

People may point to, for example, Lester winning the Derby On Roberto and The Minstrel and his use of the whip, but he knew he had to keep his mounts gun-barrel straight or else...

Why is it only British racing that has a proplem with whip rules?

france have the same rules, geezer broke them last month, stewards enquiry, places amended.  onto the next race.

not rocket science.  the only proplem with the rules is the stewards bottled it.

they didn't bottle it, they referred the ride which is the maximum authority they have on the day under current rules.......which almost certainly needs to be addressed to prevent another farce.

Corporal punishment work with human beings too eg kids/students. The less draconian version is detention. This has been proven to improve the grades of the student detainees.

If the jockeys cannot do the sentence then they must not do the crime - simple! Similarly, connections.

reinstated

What a shambles

BHA are a laughing stock

what a fecking mess and a long time in making it

surely crisford will be appealing

regulatory body not fit for purpose should be immediate resignation

Agree what a stupid system. Total nonsense - I doubt anyone other than the rule makers will disagree.

"After a three-hour hearing, the panel decided that an attempted tenth use of the whip did not make contact with the horse."

"After a three-hour hearing, the panel decided that an attempted tenth use of the whip did not make contact with the horse".   PMSL

its the same bs as doyle windsor shepherd kempton etc

3 hours and people think VAR is sh1t

blake on a nice drink

Royal Gait enquiry next week.

Vacarme enquiry as well , add a posthumous winner to the Piggott tally.