Ignotus/thomas Thompson(10)

Irish Stamp

Forum Moderator
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
8,584
Location
Brighton
Anyone see the incident in the 12:15 at Catterick. Trained by Swinbank he was on the bridle the whole race, the jockey kept looking over all the way up the run in at the winner and did nothing.

Absolutely disgraceful, worst case of non-trying I've seen in many a while.
 
Seen it, i couldnt believe it!! Unless something had gone amiss with the horse, then this was clearly a bad bad case of not trying...did the stewards do anything?
 
I backed the winner, but i knew i was on the 2nd best horse from before the last, couldnt understand how he won!! Wonder what betfairs market was like in running!!
 
TRAINER Alan Swinbank was fined £5,000 and his conditional rider Thomas Thompson was suspended for 21 days on Tuesday over the running and riding of Ignotus, who finished second in the first division of the TurfTV Novices' Hurdle.

Returning from a racecourse absence of 879 days and sent off at 33-1, Ignotus travelled smoothly through the race and looked a real threat to the favourite and eventual winner Andytown from the second-last flight as the pair came clear of the remainder of the field.

But Thompson, an inexperienced 10lb claimer, provided only token assistance to his mount and, even though still level with the winner at the final flight, he did little to rouse Ignotus, who went down by three-and-a-half lengths.

The stewards interviewed the trainer and the rider and came to the conclusion that Swinbank was in breach of Rule 155 (ii) and Thompson to be guilty of Rule 157 (f), which covers using the racecourse as a schooling ground and horses not being ridden to obtain the best possible placing. They also banned Ignotus from racing for 40 days.

Swinbank was fuming at the outcome. He said: “I can't believe it. I shall take advice from the National Trainers' Federation before deciding whether I'm going to appeal.
"For me, the horse has run a marvellous race after such a long lay-off, but he was beaten at the last, anyway. But I wouldn't argue that the lad, even though I told him not to hit the horse, should have done more on him in the last six furlongs of the race. And that's what Itold the stewards. And yet still they've fined me £5,000. It should have been the lad who got the £5,000 fine. What am I supposed to do. Once I let these horses out on to the racecourse, there's nothing more I can do. I want 33-1 winners, if at all possible.”

However stipendiary steward Adrian Sharpe said: “We felt that Ignotus was not asked for a timely or substantial effort by the jockey, and was not ridden to obtain the best possible placing. Alan Swinbank did say that he was happy with the jockey until half-way down the back straight when he said he'd told the rider to kick for home. But the stewards felt he was guilty of failing to give adequate instructions to ensure the horse ran on its merits.”

Thompson told the stewards that he was trying to nurse the horse home but that both he and his mount got very tired after hitting the last hurdle. He will be suspended from January 12 to February 1, while Ignotus will not be allowed to race from January 4 to Febuary 12.


What a tit swinabnk is. but to then say that about the jockey, that he should have been giventhe fine. thats outrageous. atleast if youve been caught be gracious. passing the buck on is a classic sign of guilt. the lad would have done what hes told regardles of how much stick he will get. he has no choice. i hope swinbank loses his license in the near future.
 
Originally posted by jft2005@Jan 1 2008, 07:09 PM
What a tit swinabnk is. but to then say that about the jockey, that he should have been giventhe fine. thats outrageous. atleast if youve been caught be gracious. passing the buck on is a classic sign of guilt. the lad would have done what hes told regardles of how much stick he will get. he has no choice. i hope swinbank loses his license in the near future.
I thought you were all in favour of "gambling stables"?
 
On a more serious note, I reckon the trainer is probably hard done by here. Thompson's ride beggars belief as he simply eases up as if he's terrified of winning. It's not like Swinbank's instructions are "Pop out handy and take up the running turning in, then put the brakes on near home when it looks like you'll win." This was not a horse stopped by design at the trainer's behest, of that I'm sure ~ probably a brainstorm on the jockey's part.

Essentially a trainer can avoid a fine if he claims that the jockey has disobeyed instructions but Swinbank hasn't taken that option other than to say that the lad should have made more of an effort. It wasn't the cleverest thing to say he should be fined but it's doubtless how he felt and hardly proof of guilt.
 
If Thomas Thompson is claiming 10 he is clearly fairly new to this game. This incident and the ban will certainly sharpen his mind in future and focus him on the whole reason of riding a horse in a race is to do your very best to win. Swinbanks instructions obviously didn't include what to do if the horse looked like winning....was it push on and win by a country mile if at all possible or something else? I wonder.... :suspect:
 
"I wouldn't argue that the lad, even though I told him not to hit the horse, should have done more on him in the last six furlongs of the race."

Surely that's Swinbank condoning the ride given to the horse - ie. supporting the view that the jockey shouldn't have hit the horse any more.
 
It's not condemning the ride which is why he's been hit so hard but the jock didn't need to hit the horse to win. Is telling a jockey not to hit his mount cheating? It's an interesting question.
 
The lad was no doubt made aware that owners's and stable money was not down today.

But he may also have been intimidated by ?Fergal Davis on the favourite - no doubt Davis tried a few verbals to keep the lad at bay. This ride [like the weighing room] was probably pretty terrifying for tthe poor lad, I feel sorry for him, esp then for Swinbank to make such a remark, that's disgraceful. I've always quite admired him as a trainer esp for his handling of Collier Hill, but this has left a bad taste in all several respects.

However, it does have the aspect of cock-up rather than plot-up - after all if you were intent on a certain outcome then you wouldn't put a 10lb claimer in charge of executing it, would you? I think it's a harsh punishment, esp for the owner/s

If a horse has been off that long the trainer will often tell the jock esp a claimer with little experience not to hit the horse. The idea is to get the horse back enjoying being on the track without testing his fitness too far after being off too long - a claimer that inexperienced probably couldn't judge how far to push nthe horse in that situation, so best be safe than sorry with one coming back from injury. It's obvious from the price that nothing was expected today.

The lad obviously hadn't expected to be in that situation and had no idea what to do - did Swinbank say 'if you are upsides going over the last, you'd better....'
- no, he'd just said don't hit the horse.
Very hard for the lad to know what to do, except to stick to what he'd been told.
 
Fair enough Rory - in answer to that question I don't think it is, provided all effort is made to win the race and there's evidence to suggest that hitting the horse would be detrimental to its chances.
 
The last horse I had a share in stopped if hit - the trainer woudl tell the jocks 'don't go for him - a little smack perhaps but if you hit him he'll turn round and look at you!'. Some jocks woudl still hit him, and he'd just go backwards.

This is different - Ignotus was coming back from a long layoff.
There has to be option for a trainer to tell a jock not to go for a horse - there is usually a good reason
 
If they were trying to land a gamble you'd expect the horse to be backed whether it had a 10lb claimer on or not HS.

As it is he went off 33/1, had a 10lb claimer, my guess is that the trainer didn't think the horse would be anywhere near the leaders and given the owner isn't exactly adverse to a gamble winning the race would screw up any chance of leniency with the handicapper.
 
Originally posted by Headstrong@Jan 1 2008, 07:25 PM
The lad was no doubt made aware that owners's and stable money was not down today.
That's the nub of the issue.

The lad clearly didn't know what to do when finding himself in a position where he was likely to land the spoils. Too terrified to win, he just froze.

Some years ago, when on holiday in Devon, I met a man who had ridden in a few races as a youngster when working at David Barons's yard. This would probably have been some time in the 1950s. He was riding a horse in a big field of novice hurdlers and had been "advised" that he'd probably finish nearer the rear than the front. Unfortunately, he ended up finishing around 4th or 5th, resulting in a terrible rollocking from the trainer's wife.

So I have some sympathy for Master Thompson
 
Was responding to the "intent on a certain outcome" comment - I thought you were implying that if they wanted it to lose you wouldn't put a 10lb claimer on it. I'd say that you would - inexperienced jockey, outsider, heavy ground, could be beaten miles and miles.

Hadn't seen your previous post mind HS
 
Originally posted by rorydelargy+Jan 1 2008, 06:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rorydelargy @ Jan 1 2008, 06:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-jft2005@Jan 1 2008, 07:09 PM
What a tit swinabnk is. but to then say that about the jockey, that he should have been giventhe fine. thats outrageous. atleast if youve been caught be gracious. passing the buck on is a classic sign of guilt. the lad would have done what hes told regardles of how much stick he will get. he has no choice. i hope swinbank loses his license in the near future.
I thought you were all in favour of "gambling stables"? [/b][/quote]
I am on a serious note too. I am in favour of gambling yards, but no ones who behave like him. hest a prick. blaming an apprentice jockey liek that or coditional whatever he is. thats a cowards way out.
 
also,just because swinbank has revealed his instructions to the stewards & the RP, doesnt mean they were the actual instructions he gave to the jockey. the jockey isnt going to say anything as it will almost certainyl end his career before its started.
 
I haven't seen the race so can't comment on the incident itself.

However, as has been said, you have to feel some sympathy for the lad; it was his 5th ride in public and, on a horse from a gambling yard, was more than likely told not to "get busy" with it today. He most probably crapped himself, as Ven says, when thinking he might be in with a chance.

Swinbank's comments appear disappointing, to say the least. One would hope that a seasoned trainer/employer would stand by his 10lb claimer.
 
I have just seen that, was quite bad, disgraceful.

Could have easily won, i think he would have won by a fair distance if he had got to the horse and actually pushed on a little bit.

Didnt exactly help himself by constantly looking around to see where other horses were.
 
Sad for the sport that a kid starting out should feel conflicted when presented with a golden opportunity.
 
Reminds me of the Laetitia incident in a Cork bumper not too long ago. Money came for a stablemate, Alpha Royale, and Laetitia's jockey, one of the Purcell's IIR, looked absolutely helpless as he ranged upsides Alpha Royale in the straight. Needless to say, he proceeded to give one of the most blatant exhibitions of non-trying I have ever seen. Charles Byrnes got off scot-free that day after turning his back on the jockey as well...
 
I've a mind to email Swinbank and let him know what I think of it. Poor lad, what a start to his chosen career, to get so little support in what must have been a very awkward situation. The more I think about it, the crosser I get! - with the trainer. He clearly didn't give the lad instructions to cover all eventualities. This is the kind of thing which happens with 'gambling' yards, and I guess the stewards had no choice but to come down hard, still they should not have let Swinbank get away with blaming the kid. It also makes you wonder in these situations why the kids are even more terrified of the trainer than of falling foul of the stewards :what:
 
Back
Top