Lydia Hislop

Thanks Simmo.

So the Rules of Racing are written in such a way that the jockey of a slowing pacemaker actually has to cause interference to a horse directly behind him, thereby assisting his stablemate, in order to prevent a charge of careless riding.

Perhaps the reason that the stewards haven't enforced the rule is because they know it's a load of unworkable contradictory nonsense that wouldn't last five minutes in an appeal?
 
If a slowing pacemaker holds his line he lessons the chance of interference.I don't think the stewards will pull anyone up for holding their line.
 
I don't see any contradiction Gareth.

Which would you rather have - the Getaway incident being punishable for causing interference, or the Haradasun/DOM incidents being punishable for team orders?

And more to the point, which do the rules, as they currently stand, say is punishable?
 
Last edited:
Galileo said:
It goes back to the Haradasun race when I defended the role of Honoured Guest simply because he did not interfere with anyone.
Click to expand...

An extremely contentious statement. Andrew Black, who seems to have a real bee in his bonnet on this issue, described Honoured Guest's manoeuvre as causing a "ripple effect" and I'd certainly agree with that.

Another example of apparent Coolmore team tactics (which I mentioned over on TRF without much response at the time and which was never picked up at all by the media) was last year's National Stakes in which Rio De La Plata's chance was severely compromised. That said, I agree with Hislop that the Coronation Cup and Irish Derby incidents have no relevance to this debate.

On the general point being discussed, isn't the rule about achieving the best possible placing an issue here as well? If they took the view that the best strip of ground was next to the rail then manoeuvring Red Rock Canyon off it breaches that rule, too. There will have been plenty of people who backed him each-way or place only and their interests deserve consideration as well.
 
gus said:
An extremely contentious statement. Andrew Black, who seems to have a real bee in his bonnet on this issue, described Honoured Guest's manoeuvre as causing a "ripple effect" and I'd certainly agree with that.

Another example of apparent Coolmore team tactics (which I mentioned over on TRF without much response at the time and which was never picked up at all by the media) was last year's National Stakes in which Rio De La Plata's chance was severely compromised. That said, I agree with Hislop that the Coronation Cup and Irish Derby incidents have no relevance to this debate.

On the general point being discussed, isn't the rule about achieving the best possible placing an issue here as well? If they took the view that the best strip of ground was next to the rail then manoeuvring Red Rock Canyon off it breaches that rule, too. There will have been plenty of people who backed him each-way or place only and their interests deserve consideration as well.
Click to expand...

As far as I recall, it was Finsceal Beo who causd all the trouble and the jockey got a ban.
 
Simmo - as the rules stand, who knows?

Reading the article Grey linked to confuses things even more. We have a situation where:

a) The stewards on the day thought neither is punishable

b) Lydia Hislop thinks the Juddmonte International and the Queen Anne were punishable but specifically not the Coronation Cup

c) Andrew Black thinks the Queen Anne and the Coronation Cup were examples of team tactics.

d) Greg Wood thinks Honoured Guest caused the interference in the Queen Anne even though the stewards looked at it, and blamed Kevin Manning on Finsceal Beo.

e) The senior stipendiary steward at Ascot, in response to Andrew Black's comments said


"We looked at the race & were quite happy with the way the pacemaker was ridden. We never considered there was any breach of Rule 153 or the instruction covering pacemakers."
Click to expand...
and finally, Paul Struthers of the BHA reckons that

a pacemaker who deliberately rolled off the rail to let a stablemate through would be in breach of the rules as they stood.
Click to expand...
Is it good for racing that the rule book is open to so many different interpretations? Or is the rule just fundamentally flawed and unenforceable?
 
Well it seems fairly clear to me, but evidently not. But that does then beg the questions, is it necessary to stop it and how do we actually stop it? (Assuming that this rule is unenforcable - the comments on Honoured Guest "drifting" and the general lack of consistency displayed by the stewards on any number of rules lead me to believe that this might be so.)
 
I don't think anything bar good race riding occured in the Coronation Cup. That, and Pasquier allowing himself to get hemmed in. To my eyes, MacArthur was very much running to win, and wasn't that far from pulling it off.
 
gus said:
Another example of apparent Coolmore team tactics (which I mentioned over on TRF without much response at the time and which was never picked up at all by the media) was last year's National Stakes in which Rio De La Plata's chance was severely compromised. That said, I agree with Hislop that the Coronation Cup and Irish Derby incidents have no relevance to this debate.
Click to expand...

The Rio de la Plata incident really irked me, and I posted such on another forum at the time. I think he would have been much closer without the interference, and poor positioning from Frankie that day.
 
I'd need to see it again to remember correctly, but I think Lizard Island got into a semi barging match with him rather unnecessarily.
 
Gus, your piece from TRF...

Specifically, it seemed to me that as the stalls opened Dettori wanted to have his mount prominent, tracking New Approach. However, O'Donoghue on Great Barrier Reef went across him, obliging Dettori to take Rio back to nearer last than first. Dettori later seemed slow to react as Manning kicked on but when he belatedly went in pursuit McDonogh on Minneapolis seemed keen to keep him in and Dettori couldn't begin his run when he wanted.

Taken in isolation, these would appear to be no more than normal "race-riding" incidents of the type you see every day but it's also worth pointing out that just after the turn Heffernan on Lizard Island took a long look round to see what was happening behind him when on the face of it he'd got his horse in a perfect position, tracking the leader on the rail, and merely had to concentrate on what was going on in front of him.
Click to expand...

Reading far too much into it imo, if Heffernan was looking out for anyone it would have been Fallon on the other Coolmore horse. That was just a race riding incident (if anything) were both Lizard Island and Great Barrier Reef were keen on ensuring that New Approach did not get an easy lead. As for Minneapolis, he was holding his racing position much like Mount Nelson did in Arlington.
 
I accept I might be reading too much into it and I think I said at the time that they'd compromised RDLP's chance "by accident or design". The problem is the number of times the issue recurs. The point about Lizard Island's jockey looking around isn't an idle one; it looks bad. And Headstrong's point about the "long and detailed" instructions from the trainer in the parade ring is well made, too. Again, it looks bad. After all, how long can it take to say (to the pacemaker's jockey) "go as fast as you can for as far as you can" or "take it fairly steady until half way and quicken it up from there" and (to the stable jock) "sit in third or fourth and try to take it up two out" or "hold him up out the back, come with a steady run and don't hit the front until close home"? The huddle they get in beforehand just looks sinister.

As I said in the TRF piece - and thanks for posting it, by the way, as it's beyond me - I'm not anti-Ballydoyle but I think it's something they should address.
 
As they're normally all stable jockeys (Murtagh, Heffernan and O'Donoghue at least) I'm not sure why O'Brien would leave the discussion of detailed team tactics to the parade ring, nor make it so obvious even to people out of earshot that team tactics are being discussed - so much so as to leave them in "no doubt" what was going on. Maybe he doesn't realise how much people are trying to - and able to - read into his hand gestures?
 
If this rule does not apply in Ireland perhaps it has just never crossed Aidan's mind that there would be any reason not to give instructions such as he does in the parade ring. While doing it you can see he is totally unaware of anyone other than his jockeys paying the slightest bit of interest to him.

I would think he would have already discussed with them, but as he is such a perfectionist probably has something of value to add and re-enforce according to ground, non runners, state of their horses at that minute etc.

There is nothing sinister or devious at all about Aidan - very straighforward and honest. If Ballydoyle are in breach then it ought to be told to them, as mentioned here. I just think this is a very hard area to measure, hard to enforce and I still think when using a pacemaker it is next to impossible not to employ some kind of team tactics otherwise why bother with the pacemaker? Perhaps the latest moves off rail etc are obvious team tactics but I've seen zillions of other pacemaking tactics, slowing, stop start tactics keeping horses in ...... the list goes on, and nothing was done to those connections either.

Time this matter was cleared up big time!

By the way why in this day and age does racing not even have the same rules between England and Ireland? No hope for anything international then is there? :eek: BOO!
 
Back
Top