Davy Russell

The term would be used or aimed more at NH racing than the flat. IMVHO

John Francome was a classic example of a good horseman. always in the right place at the right time and he'd present his horse at a fence spot on more often than not. If he had a weakness it was his lack of power in a finish


AP I would describe as a brilliant jockey as in many many races his lack of finesse would find him in the wrong place at the wrong time but somehow still managed to win races no other jockey could have.

If you could get Francome to ride em to the last then switch to AP Odin wouldn't have beat them on Pegasus
 
Last edited:
littlelad said:
As someone who has never ridden a horse in my life, could someone please explain what people are referring to when they describe jockey x as "a horseman/woman" or "a good horseman/woman".

Sent from my SM-G360F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • horseman.jpg
    horseman.jpg
    7.5 KB · Views: 161
  • burst bubble.jpg
    burst bubble.jpg
    197.7 KB · Views: 51
The more I see it the more I'm convinced that he doesn't make bone on bone contact because neither of them shows any kind of reaction. Having said that, he should still get a few days off for stupidity (or bringing the sport into disrepute as the catch all is known).
 
What Tanlic describes is good jockeyship. That's not automatically the same as being a good horseman, which is a phrase used in all spheres of equestrianism not just racing. It tends to mean someone who grew up around horses, who understands how they behave, who can handle tricky horses others might struggle with, someone with good hands and who is quietly confident even when a horse is acting up.

Hitting a horse in the head out of frustration would not usually be synonymous with being a good horseman.

I don't believe Russell should be strung up or banned for life; however equally I find the minimising going on because he's a decent jockey and gives good craic sickening. He did a stupid and ugly thing that a) is not an acceptable way to discipline an animal; b) sets a bad example to aspiring young jockeys and c) is a gift to the anti-racing lobby. The Turf Club need to send out a message that this sort of behaviour is not tolerated.
 
Cruella said:
What Tanlic describes is good jockeyship. That's not automatically the same as being a good horseman, which is a phrase used in all spheres of equestrianism not just racing. It tends to mean someone who grew up around horses, who understands how they behave, who can handle tricky horses others might struggle with, someone with good hands and who is quietly confident even when a horse is acting up.

Hitting a horse in the head out of frustration would not usually be synonymous with being a good horseman.

I don't believe Russell should be strung up or banned for life; however equally I find the minimising going on because he's a decent jockey and gives good craic sickening. He did a stupid and ugly thing that a) is not an acceptable way to discipline an animal; b) sets a bad example to aspiring young jockeys and c) is a gift to the anti-racing lobby. The Turf Club need to send out a message that this sort of behaviour is not tolerated.
Click to expand...

No I wasn't talking about Jockeyship I was talking about jockeys who were/are good horsemen. Francome was a member of the British junior team that won the European Championship before he came into racing and was a brilliant horseman.
 
As for Davy Russell a good decision for racing. Was a mountain made out of a molehill although it may not have looked that way to the layman, it's best swept under the carpet and quickly forgotten IMVHO
 
Year before last I took a 16 year old aspiring future jump jockey to the Lambourne Open Day; he actually didn't know that much about racing, but of course knew who AP was. McCoy and Francome were taking part in the usual schooling demonstration. He had never heard of Francome. I told him to watch him and not look at McCoy. Even in that kind of situation the difference was so clear to see. Francome on a horse is pure art.
 
He was that Simmo and whats more he wouldn't fook up like the flat jockeys of today do.

It get wore everday at least a couple of jockeys make jamie Spencer look like an angel

They hold them up out the back and get so far behind Nijinsky himself couldn't win from where they are.
Lester once said why hold a horse 20 lengths behind the leaders if you can hold him up 5 lengths behind leaders

It fell on a lot of today's jockey's deaf ears
 
Talking about $lapping and stewards while I understand the horse must come first racing has changed but the stewards have not.

I understand 2yo' are babies and when a jockey decides enough is enough and drops his hand allowing the horse to come home in his own time hen he's doing the right thing.

When the same jockey on a seasoned campaigner has eg led for 5f gets passed with 1/2 furlong to go, drops his hands and gets pipped on the post out of the 3rd or 4th and they they do nothing.

They seem to be oblivious to the fact that there are EW punters, punters who bet in the first 5 etc

To me these are the thing stewards should tighten up on not Davy Russell tapping one round the lugs
 
Last edited:
I just can't read Alastair Down........haven't for a long time.......I got about two paragraphs into this, before I had to stop.
 
But what slightly frightens me is the relish, glee even, with which responsible news outlets are battening on to the Fobt problem.

There is cross-party support for drastically reducing the maximum stakes, and newspapers of vastly different political stripe, usually at daggers drawn, are united in their opprobrium for the machines.

If the maximum stake is savaged there is potential for some massive financial unravelling of the betting industry with knock-on effects on the racing industry, primarily in the form of reduced income through reduced media rights revenue.
The Treasury did not want to lose its chunky tax take from the profits Fobts generate for bookies but it seems to have backpedalled in the teeth of media criticism.
Click to expand...

This part of his article strikes me as utterly bats.

If the revenue from these machines is restricted why would it impact badly on racing? The levy to fund racing is based on a share of profits from betting on horse racing, and it gets nothing from the money going into the machines. Given that they account for half or more of the profits of your average betting shop, surely it's the other way round, racing would benefit from restricting these machines which are in case highly undesirable because of the social harmful they do?
 
Grey said:
This part of his article strikes me as utterly bats.

If the revenue from these machines is restricted why would it impact badly on racing? The levy to fund racing is based on a share of profits from betting on horse racing, and it gets nothing from the money going into the machines. Given that they account for half or more of the profits of your average betting shop, surely it's the other way round, racing would benefit from restricting these machines which are in case highly undesirable because of the social harmful they do?
Click to expand...


Spot on, Art. It's hackneyed, straw-man garbage, from a relic who was past his best 15 years ago.

"Celtic tabby-cat economy"? Fu*ck off......just fu*ck off.
 
As a matter of interest...by memory I think it was the 970's when the first gambling arcade opened in Grangemouth Scotland...The crime rate shot through the roof especially burglaries and muggings....the police/courts closed it down within months and no more licences were approved...in fact I believe they became illegal

Only cubs were allowed to have them after that BUT the big money boys Laddies etc want them and the get a licence??????? Just the way of the world..... money talks
 
Tanlic said:
As a matter of interest...by memory I think it was the 970's when the first gambling arcade opened in Grangemouth Scotland...The crime rate shot through the roof especially burglaries and muggings....the police/courts closed it down within months and no more licences were approved...in fact I believe they became illegal

Only cubs were allowed to have them after that BUT the big money boys Laddies etc want them and the get a licence??????? Just the way of the world..... money talks
Click to expand...
Well, I didn't know the Scots were punting in arcades as far back as 970 AD...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top