Lydia Hislop

She was but I read she has left. She covered for Greg Wood a month or so back, and as you probably saw, wrote another column today.

I thought her article today was very good; an issue which is wrong and outside the rules of racing (let alone the spirit), but was balanced and fair also to Ballydoyle.
 
For anyone who may not have found the article.

I'm not sure what I think about tactics. I hated it when Fantastic Light beat Galileo in the Champion Stakes, I saw that as cheating. I know all is fair in love and war, but it cheated me of knowing whether Fantastic Light could ever beat Galileo on merit rather than tactics. I guess not. I'm one of those 'romantic' race fans who likes to see the best horse in the race win - or at the very least some old warrior who has paid his dues.

Pacemakers have been around as long as horses have raced. Pacemakers are legal in racing yes? So how are team tactics not legal? I mean why would you have a pacemaker if you did not employ team tactics to take advantage of that pacemaker? Does not make sense to me.

I think Lydia has written a good article here. Having watched Aidan giving detailed instructions including plenty of hand signals to his jockeys I too am in awe of how organised Ballydoyle are.

So, what is the solution - ban pacemakers?

Murtagh's words must bring end of team tactics

  • <LI class=byline>Lydia Hislop <LI class=publication>The Guardian,
  • Tuesday August 26 2008
  • Article history
British racing has rules that prohibit the use of team tactics. After the Ballydoyle pacemaker once again granted his illustrious stablemate safe passage to victory in the rescheduled Juddmonte International last Saturday, it is time they were enforced. This is not, after all, the first time such a blatant breach has unfolded before our eyes.
Rule 153 (iv) states that a rider shall not "make a manoeuvre in a race in the interests of another horse in common ownership or under common control or from the same stable or team, whether or not such a manoeuvre caused interference or caused his horse to fail to achieve its best possible placing".
So why was that rule not applied to the moment when Colm O'Donoghue, the rider on pace-setting Red Rock Canyon, eased away from the rail to leave a Duke Of Marmalade-sized hole up his inside? It was a gap Johnny Murtagh immediately asked that horse to fill, as the shortest route to a fifth consecutive Group One win.
O'Donoghue's driving instructor may have watched the race with some satisfaction: it was copybook execution of Mirror, Signal, Manoeuvre. Nearing the half-mile pole, he looked over his left shoulder. Clearly, for his purposes, it was safe to go but, like a careful driver, he also checked over his right once the manoeuvre was complete.
Had O'Brien and O'Donoghue been summoned to account by the stewards, they might have argued that Red Rock Canyon peeled off the rail due to hanging under pressure, rather than by the will of his jockey, who was looking around to try to avoid hampering others as his horse weakened.
Even though the evidence of video tape appears to undermine such a putative excuse, you are then into the he-said-she-said realms of proving intent in a horse race. This fond notion has fallen on stony ground in many a courtroom now.
Yet leaving an inquiry uncalled and allowing the reverberations to echo freely may turn out best - by chance - for the British Horseracing Authority. For Murtagh has since been quoted ascribing clear intent to O'Donoghue's actions. "I was always going to follow Colm," he said. "I didn't want to start worrying about other horses. I just wanted to worry about myself and Colm and I said to him, 'when you get to the four marker, just ease off and give me the passage through'. It's what Ballydoyle's all about."
This provides the BHA with an opportunity to advise Team O'Brien that such tactics breach the rules of racing. Given that Saturday's manoeuvre merely ceded an advantage to Duke Of Marmalade, rather than materially improving his finishing position - Phoenix Tower had every chance, once chiselled out of his Ballydoyle coffin - O'Brien can expect a private letter rather than a retrospective inquiry.
It is important to separate the heat from light in this issue. Incidents in this year's Irish Derby and Coronation Cup involving Ballydoyle horses do not qualify for the charge. Alessandro Volta could have been any horse veering left in the fever of a finish. Any rider would have sought to capitalise on Getaway's poor positioning on the Epsom camber. Deploying multiple horses in a race does not imply team tactics. Nor does objectively sensible race-riding.
The cases of O'Donoghue and that of colleague David McCabe on Honoured Guest in the Queen Anne at Royal Ascot are different, however. Would either - both of whom looked round before any move was made - have forfeited their prime rail position had it been a horse other than, respectively, Duke Of Marmalade and Haradasun behind?
The answer is clearly no and the BHA must now belatedly close this chapter, but not before a sheepish confession. Guilty as charged they may be, but you have to admire the scale of operation, depth of preparation and skill of execution that were Ballydoyle team tactics - yet another field in which they are matchless
 
Pacemakers don't need to be banned it's not pacemaking as such which is the problem, the problem is deliberate team tactics.

richard
 
I think she's missed a key point even if her description of the sequence is correct. In fairness you'd need to watch the event in super slow mo, and break it down Benjamin Zapruder style, frame-by-frame. O'Donahuge looks over his left shoulder for a fraction. The look over his right shoulder is considerably longer despite the fact that he might reasonably have anticipated more action from his left hand side if he held the rail. He seems to have spent much more time assessing what was going on to his right hand side, than what was happening on his left, despite the fact that he knew he was about to move out. It's pretty certain to my mind that words were exchanged at this point and that's the explanation as to why his right hand side look was longer.

I know little about racing rules, but if that is the wording that the BHA operate under rule 153 iv, then its a clear breach. Having said that, even if you were happy that the two Ballydoyle jockeys had spoken to each other, there's no way of knowing what they said. Coming so soon before RRC moved out though, the balance of probabilities would weigh against them.

Voice cockpit recorders for jockeys :)
 
Isinglass said:
Guilty as charged they may be, but you have to admire the scale of operation, depth of preparation and skill of execution that were Ballydoyle team tactics - yet another field in which they are matchless
Click to expand...

I found this a rather strange end to the piece, given that she has spent the majority of the piece outlining why Ballydoyle should be taken to task for this apparent breach of rules. Hardly something to admire, given her previous comments I wouldn't have thought?
 
As I've mentioned a couple of times lately, Ive been int he PR before these big races and have stood very lcose to the Ballydoyle connections and watched AOB giving his instructions. They are very long and detailed, and the hand motions leave no doubt that team tactics are being laid down. I too find it very wrong, both under the 'Rules' and as a sporting matter.

When so much money is involved 'sporting' considerations go out of the window, no doubt; but that's no reason for the 'Rules' not be applied. For a start, such tactics in a big rich operation severely disadvantage small yards, which is plain wrong
 
Interesting. Can't say I was aware of such a rule before now. I think it's fair to say that they have been in breach of this one a few times this season.
 
To be honest I was not aware of it until this week - there is no rule to that effect in Ireland.

It goes back to the Haradasun race when I defended the role of Honoured Guest simply because he did not interfere with anyone.

Having seen the rule now, they have clearly breached it at Ascot and Newmarket.
 
No arguing that one than. Have they considered using independent pacemakers with no affiliation except to the racing authority.
 
Does the rule require a pacemaker to get out of the way of a non-stablemate who is directly behind them at the point where the pacemaker starts to slow?
 
Even though it is in the interests of the stablemate if a rival is stuck behind his pacemaker?
 
How does the jockey on the pacemaker not commit a careless riding offence by failing to take reasonable steps to avoid causing interference to the horse behind him?
 
Colin: The careless riding rule makes no mention of a manoeuvre having to be made.

Simmo: Which rule takes precedence?
 
Back
Top