Yes or No - Did the stipes get it wrong?

Thanks Tigershark for your reply...I really appreciate it...
My opinion is that...the owner shall be more aware of the jockeys' ride if the owner bears the brunt...
It's a percentage game...I would also take a chance with a jockey that is prepared to take a 'risk' and then compensate him for the 'indiscresion'
which is how I currently perceive our racing...(it may not be the case, but it is my perception :ohmy: )
and perception is what dictates our behaviour.
Be it gamesmanship or cheating...and I tend to the latter...
the problem as I perceive it...if your jockey A.) misunderstands you and B.) gets away with it...he will do it again...
If the owner/trainer does not employ him again...he understands...Completely
As in all sports and in business...it's a question of ethics...
Transgress and get punished?

We all know who the cowboys are...but you are only a cowboy when you are allowed to get away with it...
I like KrisG's Taxi analogy...It's like Pavlov's dog...and to be more precise...it is what Mr H stated...
Cheating...

Pirhobeta wrote: Thanks Tigershark for your reply...I really appreciate it...
My opinion is that...the owner shall be more aware of the jockeys' ride if the owner bears the brunt...
It's a percentage game...I would also take a chance with a jockey that is prepared to take a 'risk' and then compensate him for the 'indiscresion'
which is how I currently perceive our racing...(it may not be the case, but it is my perception :ohmy: )
and perception is what dictates our behaviour.
Be it gamesmanship or cheating...and I tend to the latter...
the problem as I perceive it...if your jockey A.) misunderstands you and B.) gets away with it...he will do it again...
If the owner/trainer does not employ him again...he understands...Completely
As in all sports and in business...it's a question of ethics...
Transgress and get punished?

That is your opinion - and of course you are entitled to it.

I tend to agree with Tigershark - I can't see why the owner should be punished for the transgressions of the jock; this is a real can of worms and unfortunately racing mimics real life in this regard; it is about winning - so if you have to strike the horse 14 times or you do ride 'too aggressively' in order to win, is imo not that big a deal - endangering other jocks and horses of course a different matter all together - and perhaps the owners not shying away from the 'regular offenders', should be steered towards using other jocks, (not sure how, but placing the horse last, does seem harsh to me)

Also not sure it can be labeled as 'cheating' - I suppose it depends on how one interprets the definition of the word - to me 'cheating' would be if for instance, a horse gets pulled deliberately And surely there are degrees of 'cheating' - deliberately stopping a horse from winning imo far worse than striking a horse more than 12 times in an effort to get the horse to win

Mac wrote: Answering the title of this thread - “yes”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ugh, I meant “no”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Frodo wrote:

Pirhobeta wrote: Thanks Tigershark for your reply...I really appreciate it...
My opinion is that...the owner shall be more aware of the jockeys' ride if the owner bears the brunt...
It's a percentage game...I would also take a chance with a jockey that is prepared to take a 'risk' and then compensate him for the 'indiscresion'
which is how I currently perceive our racing...(it may not be the case, but it is my perception :ohmy: )
and perception is what dictates our behaviour.
Be it gamesmanship or cheating...and I tend to the latter...
the problem as I perceive it...if your jockey A.) misunderstands you and B.) gets away with it...he will do it again...
If the owner/trainer does not employ him again...he understands...Completely
As in all sports and in business...it's a question of ethics...
Transgress and get punished?

I tend to agree with Tigershark - I can't see why the owner should be punished for the transgressions of the jock; this is a real can of worms and unfortunately racing mimics real life in this regard; it is about winning - so if you have to strike the horse 14 times or you do ride 'too aggressively' in order to win, is imo not that big a deal - endangering other jocks and horses of course a different matter all together - and perhaps the owners not shying away from the 'regular offenders', should be steered towards using other jocks, (not sure how, but placing the horse last, does seem harsh to me)

Also not sure it can be labeled as 'cheating' - I suppose it depends on how one interprets the definition of the word - to me 'cheating' would be if for instance, a horse gets pulled deliberately And surely there are degrees of 'cheating' - deliberately stopping a horse from winning imo far worse than striking a horse more than 12 times in an effort to get the horse to win

Hi Frodo....
What about the second placed owner? So his horse is interfered with in a sales races where the win stake is say 4 million and now he has to settle for 400k because of an intentional or unintentional foul by the winner(again here we cannot 100% say the horse would win or not but one horse has prevented another from fulfilling it's potential) - Or he owns a filly that gets bumped badly in a Gr1 and runs second and the winning horse now has black type for winning and her paddock value jumps - All horses in the race have owners so it stands to reason that all should be given a fair chance to win just like all horses have punter's money on them - If an Olympic miler starts bumping into his rivals over the last 50m then he is disqualified ... If the disqualification rule is not palatable then I'm all for much heavier fines for interference(not monetary but rather minimum of 2 weeks and if you repeat again then as a repeat offender you should be punished accordingly.) The owner cannot be seen in isolation just like F1 where the team is penalized even if the driver did nothing wrong but the mechanics transgressed the rules... I look at the whip laws and there are a few jocks that constantly break that rule - When will one be suspended for being a repeat offender...
. If I were the stipes I would talk to the jocks and warn them and explain that there is space for everyone as long as they are prepared to use it...

If you are driving and are about to pass the car in the left lane and he starts to hang into your lane as you come up to him. Are you going to hesitate or keep going? Very hard for a horse to pass another that is leaning on or bumping him. I am in the camp of cause interference and you get automatically placed behind the horse you interfered with. Will sort out a lot of this dangerous/ careless riding IMHO. Much of it is deliberate because they can and do get away with it.

Howzit Mr H - I do get your point - and Craig's as well; there seems to be 2 schools of thought here -

One, if you transgress the rules by preventing another horse from winning by interference, the offender gets disqualified and placed last; also if the jock strikes a horse more than 12 times, the horse gets disqualified and placed last

Two, if you transgress the rules by preventing another horse from winning by interference, the offender automatically gets placed behind the horse interfered with

I do agree that by implementing either school of thought would be the only way of stopping these practices - but then imo there needs to be rules put in place so that the offending party (in this case the jock) has to compensate the owner for the difference in prize money, unless it can be shown that the jock did everything in his power to prevent the interference

And then we will have to live with the fact that there will be no difference in the outcome, should a horse jump in or out slightly at the start (bumping another horse), and if a horse takes up the running and cross/bump another horse in the last 200m of a race - in which case Got the Greenlight at best would have been placed 2nd behind Second Base, and at worst, would have been disqualified and placed last - would that have been fair to the owner ? And Second Base would have been placed first, even given the fact that a bunch of experienced (hopefully) folks on the Stipes Board agreed that it was unlikely that SB would have beaten GtG if there were no interference.

So my suggestion would be the following - and this is based on the assumption that the Stipes making the decisions MUST be experienced and consistent in dealing with these matters :

1. Any jock that is found to have endangered the lives of others during a race, needs to be brought in front of the Stipes - and if found guilty the sentences should be much harsher than those currently in effect. I do not believe the result of the race should be changed, unless (as in Point 2 below) it can be shown (in the opinion of the Board) that in addition to the 'dangerous' riding, the interference to another horse would have cost the horse suffering interference a 'better finishing position' - in which case the horse causing the interference should be placed behind the one suffering the interference

2. Any interference spotted or reported (by either the jock or the trainer or a member of the Board), should be looked at by the Board, who then has to make the appropriate call (once again this depends on the Board members being experienced and their decisions consistent) ito whether interference to another horse would have cost the horse suffering interference a 'better finishing position' - in which case the horse causing the interference should be placed behind the one suffering the interference. I would have thought that the introduction of a 'virtual boardroom' would have led to more consistency in the handling of objections - but taking into account the inconsistency in the results of objections, it seems as if this is not the case - so maybe the answer is more 'training' ?

3. The current rule of 12 strikes during a race is really problematic imo both ito execution and policing; this rule should firstly be thoroughly investigated ito the 'hurt' that is inflicted by striking the horse with a whip, and secondly, depending on the outcome of the investigation, be either completely lifted or changed to a higher number; the fact that many jocks fall foul of this rule, indicates to me that the rule needs to be looked at. Should the investigation support the principle of limiting the number of strikes that may be dished out during a race, this rule should then be policed and applied consistently on every occasion - resulting in the offending jock being subjected to a fine (imo not as harsh as the fine to be imposed for reckless / dangerous riding, but perhaps on par with the fine for causing interference). I don't believe the result of the race should be changed though, as it is almost impossible to say whether Horse A that was ridden with the hands (or were struck 3 times less), would have actually beaten Horse B that suffered numerous strikes with the whip, if Horse A were struck the same number of times as Horse B

The handling of Objections has always been and will probably always be controversial - but that is no excuse; the whole process needs improvement; my points above are surely still full of holes, but maybe it can lead to some 'better' ideas from people 'in the kitchen'

well thought out there Frodo.... you've spent a lot of time " putting pen to paper "
hopefully the powers that be, read your comments & make the necessary changes - as they see fit !

The 12 strike rule is a question of semantics...why not 10 or 15 or 20...?
The interference rule is a question of safety.
I enjoy the different viewpoints. One question I have for the proponents of the horse reversal instead of disqualification, is what happens when the interference occurs at the start or into the first bend?

So regarding this...

Bob Brogan wrote: Inquiry – Jockey Grant van Niekerk

The National Horseracing Authority confirms that at an inquiry held in the Stipendiary Steward’s Boardroom at Hollywoodbets Scottsville Racecourse on 9 May 2021, Jockey Grant van Niekerk was charged with a contravention of Rule 62.2.7. The particulars being that as the rider of RIO QUERARI, he failed to ensure that he did not cause interference to other runners between the 250m and 100m, in Race 7 at Turffontein Racecourse on 1 May 2021.

Jockey van Niekerk pleaded guilty to the charge.

The Inquiry Board accepted his plea and accordingly found Jockey van Niekerk guilty as charged. After considering the evidence in this matter, the Inquiry Board imposed a penalty of a suspension from riding in races for a period of fourteen days.

Jockey van Niekerk waived his Right of Appeal and was granted permission to take his suspension from 13 May 2021 to 26 May 2021.

Now if you were connected with Anna Capri or Vernichey, would you be happy with this decision and outcome? My point...is that if they know they could lose the race (both the jockey and the connections)...i.e disqualified...they would not ride like that...:whistle: :whistle: :whistle:

Sometimes...It is not if the correct horse won...but if justice was done...and that is my opinion...

I perceive myself as fortunate (in this instance), in the sense that I do not have an allegiance except as an ex-punter, so I like to think of myself as more neutral than most...
my point...even if my small percentage in a stake, is taken away because of an infringement...No matter how small others may perceive it...I feel aggrieved, and hard done by...do others understand this?
To you, what is luck of the draw...may be the culmination of my dreams...:ohmy: