HOLLYWOODBETS KENILWORTH, SUNDAY, 16-03-2025

.....ja....also been a long time since he was last riding there....we forgive the oldtimers they tend to make more mistakes when they cant find the brakes.....or should that be breaks....caus he may just get one....

why are people surprised when sa racing rules allows jockeys to almost do what they want..they also allow leniency in big races when the rules should be the same for all races ..take the last durban july for example you had a seasoned jockey come out and say that he would have done the same as the winning jock did who received a suspension for that ride imagine a younger jock went that gap ..i assume the jockey received a nice bonus for winning the july thus making his suspension meaningless as he probably went on a nice paid holiday

......but use too much stick and the fines come thick and quick....better to go slow....oh no

Shouldn`t be forgiven when you have punter`s money, p6`s , jackpots running on him.

What the Stipes Report shows, in my opinion, is that only subjective rules exist and they are applied subjectively. 

G v Niekerk not letting Gavin off the rail in the early part of the race is accepted as good jockeyship, however, achieving this by constantly bumping Gavin is a contravention of the rules. Keeping Gavin on the inside fence and not legally letting him in is deemed good jockeyship. However shifting 3-4 lengths off a straight path, taking up the running of another horse is a contravention of the rules. If the contravention of the rules would alter the outcome, i.e.  The Grey King and One Stripe would have finished closer but for the interference how can the result stand? I mean in the picture taken of the trainer with the joint owner and racing manager of One Stripe everyone looks to be elated. 

The problem with the above report is that we are going to see this type of incident over and over again during the KZN main season and we are going to have a multitude of rulings on the same if not similar incidents. How would anyone looking to apply written rules objectively then understand what the rules are and how they are applied.

I use The Durban July of 2014 & 2015 as an example, same incident, two different rulings. None are so blind as those who will not see. Jockey's continue to break the rules and alter the outcome of races and endanger other jockey's without proper sanction and will continue to do so.

I dug up a post from 8 years ago under a thread titled "Consistancy in Objections....and although there as no objection it highlights a dangerous precedent that has become common place in our racing today....

....and under this this thread I started was trying to highlight the dangers of this type of race riding.....yes horses are unpredictable....but they are piloted by a person that is there to ensure a better steering and make sure that horses stay out of each others way.....when your mount starts to indicate a different behavior....then do your best to check it to avoid crashing into the rest of the pack or trying to run onto others looking for company....I'm sure that had that horse been ducking towards a rail or fence the jock would have pulled it out and checked it more vigorously .....but not trying to prevent it from ducking at a softer object being another horse/s is just as dangerous....imo if the jock tried to use the stick to correct the inward movement but also by doing so had relaxed the reigns and only gathered them up to check when it was too late and the interference had already happened...oops

While i am under no illusion that during a race, there are race tactics, some bumping and split second decisions that can win and cost you a race that is accepted as the "rub of the green". There are however rules, and these dictate that good riding tactics may be applauded, transgressing the rules to achieve them should be punished. If you bump the same horse 3 times during a race and it is accepted that the first bump was a mistake, what do we call the second and third?

If you watch racing in Hong Kong, Australia and the UK, you see horses shifting when under pressure, and in general the jockey will endeavor to straighten their mount which invariably will cost them a length. In SA it is win at all costs by taking out your immediate competitor or multiple horses, after all, if the sanction is a warning, isn't it worth it?

All Out For Six may very well have won the race with or without interference however, the jockey transgressed the rules 3 times, in my opinion, in winning. The question then remains was it fair that the result to stay the same if The Grey King and One Stripe would have finished closer but for the interference? More importantly, was the official result a fair reflection of the race according to the rules?

Cape Racing must now contend with, in my opinion, a disastrous end to what was a fantastic season thus far. Months of hard work, countless hours and millions invested both in racing and the premier sale because of a minute and 25 seconds worth of bad decisions. While changing the result based on the rules may have met with equal resistance, the lasting memory would be one of fairness. The very reason people buy horses and compete and punters punt is that we believe, naively or not, that it will at least be fair and on equal terms. The very future of racing rests on these values.

I believed that when Vee was appointed as the CEO of the NHA that he would usher in a new era. I firmly believe that we need an independent governing body which does not pander to any one sector of racing with a vested interest. A governing body that applies the rules and sanctions without fear or favour. My belief is, "no organization can be held in high regard simply because they believe they deserve to be, respect is rather earned through transparent, consistent behaviour and action".

I would implore Vee Moodley to be the change agent and as an example, take 20 examples of controversial riding infringements and rulings and set up a panel. Take 3 jockeys and Stipes from Hong Kong, Australia, America and the UK and get them to write an opinion on each race. If there isn't a 75% agreement or similar interpretation rate with the local rulings then something needs to change. The racing public have no desire to make the NHA the whipping body of the industry, the racing public is crying out for transparency, consistency and objectivity. Do we want a winner relegated to 5th because of a glancing bump when the gates open? I don't believe so, but at least communicate with the stake holders and arrive at something that is fair and at least consistently and objectively implemented.

This is my last iteration I have on the matter as I crawl back into the space of being a relatively small owner and punter that fortunately or unfortunately loves horseracing.

Thank you to Muhtiman and Tigershark for continuing this thread and theme. I am of the firm perceived belief, that some jocks are professional (and they are), at jumping against the horse next to them, to gain an advantage at the start. It has a twofold advantage, in that it intimidates the other horse/rider whilst allowing a nice glance to place one's mount favourably. 
I am of the opinion that the start needs to be monitored more closely, and to look for repeat offenders. I also do not like the way that the starting stalls are positioned at the inside track at Turffontein. If you jump straight, parallel to the gates, you are doing yourself a great injustice. The older jocks know that nothing will happen, the younger jocks err on the side of caution...and the punter pays...