Ballydoyle Team Tactics

simmo said:
On another thread I expressed the view that given the professionalism of the Ballydoyle operation, it would be very surprising indeed if they were unaware of the rule changes.

I am therefore very surprised that 2 of their senior jockeys were unaware of the rule changes and that the operation did not ensure they were aware of it, especially in light of AOB's comments that he is "paranoid" about it. Unless, of course, the operation as a whole was not aware of the rule changes, in which case, their epitomising professionalism is brought into some doubt.

I suppose that even men who epitomise professionalism make mistakes. Which is forgiveable.

A closed doors meeting would surely give rise to cries of "old boys network" and the likes and is the sort of thing which leads some to believe that Cecil/Stoute etc wouldn't have encountered such difficulties (myself among them).
Click to expand...

It did not necessarily have to be closed door. The BHA could have confirmed that they had been in contact with O'Brien regarding the team tactics rule, pointing out the actual meaning of the rule and how the yard should interpret the rule for future events. They could explain that "good will" has been granted for the 2 (out of 20 Group 1s!) Group 1s simply because the best horse clearly won and no interference occurred that would not happen in the general run of things.

Clive thinks the rules is pretty clear.....

Forgetting about the move Honoured Guest actually made later on in the race at Ascot, but did Ballydoyle break the team tactic rules by clearly getting Honoured Guest to bring the whole field across to the rail in the first place? Is that a breech of the rule?
 
clivex said:
You are all over the place. from the off it has been you taht has maintained that this is driven by prejudice. And the last thing anyone wants it behind closed doors tribunuals FFS. this is a public sport
Click to expand...

This has been driven by the jealousy of one racing establishment tribe feels towards another and the pressure they have brought to bare.

It could be any two tribes but I have observed from other threads that the first hint of an the old Irish/ British historical animosity thing, you have an online conniption where the chance of any meaningful discussion is lost and entails you saying that someone is full of 'crap' 'shit ' (insert description of Faeces as applicable)

A public,(where the public are aware it is happening) behind closed doors meeting could have been held i.e. they could have screamed at each other behind closed doors and when the air was cleared issued a joint statement where everyone is a winner, the BHA, Ballydoyle and Racing. Instead we get a public hanging.
 
simmo said:
On another thread I expressed the view that given the professionalism of the Ballydoyle operation, it would be very surprising indeed if they were unaware of the rule changes.

I am therefore very surprised that 2 of their senior jockeys were unaware of the rule changes and that the operation did not ensure they were aware of it, especially in light of AOB's comments that he is "paranoid" about it. Unless, of course, the operation as a whole was not aware of the rule changes, in which case, their epitomising professionalism is brought into some doubt.

I suppose that even men who epitomise professionalism make mistakes. Which is forgiveable.

A closed doors meeting would surely give rise to cries of "old boys network" and the likes and is the sort of thing which leads some to believe that Cecil/Stoute etc wouldn't have encountered such difficulties (myself among them).
Click to expand...

Simmo, I suppose Ballydoyle decided on a strategy for the meeting that they felt would lessen the impact on their operation and that is what we saw played out. As regards the "old boys network" I agree that would have been a major concern if interference had taken place and the best horse had not won.
 
simmo said:
Now now. That suggests that they were fully aware of the rule changes but decided to ignore them.
Click to expand...

I was not aware of the rule until after the Juddmonte - I assumed that interference had to take place.The rule itself was for some reason only given out to all the jockeys at the Leger meeting.

I do not think they said they were "unaware of the rule changes"...obviously they were because they were brought in after the QEII...what the say they were not aware of was the meaning of the rule change.
 
Last edited:
I guess like most people who have tried to make sense of all the rules combined they failed and assumed common sense would be employed.

They were guilty of making that assumption.
 
Galileo said:
I was not aware of the rule until after the Juddmonte - I assumed that interference had to take place.The rule itself was for some reason only given out to all the jockeys at the Leger meeting.

I do not think they said they were "unaware of the rule changes"...obviously they were because they were brought in after the QEII...what the say they were not aware of was the meaning of the rule change.
Click to expand...

But when the rule was posted on here, your immediate reaction was that it was obvious they had broken the rules. I can't remember what thread it was on, but on reading the rule myself for the first time there really is no defence that you didn't understand the rule. It is as clear as day that the Red Rock Canyon manouvre transgressed the rule.
 
Melendez said:
But when the rule was posted on here, your immediate reaction was that it was obvious they had broken the rules. I can't remember what thread it was on, but on reading the rule myself for the first time there really is no defence that you didn't understand the rule. It is as clear as day that the Red Rock Canyon manouvre transgressed the rule.
Click to expand...

I remember being aware that the rule was changed, I remember reading about the changes. But only after the Juddmonte was it clear to me that they breeched the rules...I remember talking about it after the Queen Anne on here convinced they had not broken any rules as they had interferred with no one.
 
Given that the rule was specifically written for AOB and team it is beyond comprehension that they might have misinterpretted it in any manner or form, or been unaware of it. They took the view that the stewards wouldn't\couldn't act on it and that would have proved correct if Murtagh hadn't been such a gobshite.

I don't really get the idea that because the best horse won there was no harm done. Half the point of racing is that the best horse doesn't always win. At least half the point of team tactics is to ensure that the best horse does win. To say that Ballydoyle gained no advantage because they had the best horse anyway is totally missing the point.
 
Last edited:
Galileo said:
O'Brien said he did not know the terms of the rules until English Leger weekend, same with Murtagh and O'Donoghue.
Click to expand...

Is it reasonable to believe that they were unaware of a rule which had been "looked at" by the BHA, with regard to one of their horses, as early as July 3rd of this year?

The rule has also been in place for over a year now. It was hardly changed the day before the International Stakes.
 
Melendez said:
Given that the rule was specifically written for AOB and team it is beyond comprehension that they might have misinterpretted it in any manner or form, or been unaware of it. They took the view that the stewards wouldn't\couldn't act on it and that would have proved correct if Murtagh hadn't been such a gobshite.

I don't really get the idea that because the best horse won there was no harm done. Half the point of racing is that the best horse doesn't always win. At least half the point of team tactics is to ensure that the best horse does win. To say that Ballydoyle gained no advantage because they had the best horse anyway is totally missing the point.
Click to expand...


I cannot understand how you do not side with O'Brien....you are Irish remember!! ;)
 
If AOB/Ballydoyle are unaware of the rule, that is extremely unprofessional, and not only are they liable, they only have themselves to blame.
 
Mel and Andrew - ignore Galileo's nationalist taunts. He went public last week and admitted he doesn't like Gaelic Games.
 
Melendez said:
Given that the rule was specifically written for AOB and team it is beyond comprehension that they might have misinterpretted it in any manner or form, or been unaware of it. They took the view that the stewards wouldn't\couldn't act on it and that would have proved correct if Murtagh hadn't been such a gobshite.
Click to expand...

Pretty much spot on IMO.

An Cappal, I suppose Gal has an excuse not to like the GAA; he is from Kildare FFS! :D
 
simmo said:
I suppose that even men who epitomise professionalism make mistakes. Which is forgiveable.
Click to expand...

In the case of AOB, most certainly would be forgiveable.
He seems to me more innocent than, how to put it (if at all)? -- let's just say, 'others'.
I wonder if anyone could well have known that he didn't know.
(Rumsfeldesque)

Regards
 
Back
Top