Nick Scholfield

G

gus

Journeyman
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
1,593
Location
Barnsley
As a backer of Singlefarmpayment in the novices' handicap chase at Cheltenham on Saturday, I was mightily cheesed off to see him brought down when still travelling nicely as the race began to take shape by the fall in front of him of More Buck's, ridden by Nick Scholfield. It was particularly galling because it seemed to me that Scholfield's mount should by that stage have been pulled up, having clearly taken the wrong course earlier in the race when jumping a marker. Scholfield wasn't to blame for the horse running off the track - More Buck's just jinked to his left with no warning - but he was surely culpable in continuing in the race and creating a risk to himself, his horse and to the rest of the runners when disqualification was absolutely inevitable. Paul Nicholls, trainer of More Buck's, can't have been amused to see his horse take a crashing fall and connections and backers of Singlefarmpayment are entitled to feel aggrieved as well in the circumstances.

There was an enquiry which ended in a cop-out: "The Stewards held an enquiry into whether or not MORE BUCK’S (IRE), ridden by Nick Scholfield, which subsequently fell, had taken the correct course after jumping the water jump. The Stewards interviewed the rider and also Paddy Brennan, the rider of the winner, ROYAL VACATION (IRE). Having heard their evidence and viewed recordings of the race the Stewards found that MORE BUCK’S (IRE) had shifted left on the approach to a doll and had jumped it. The Stewards were satisfied that Scholfield had continued in the race as he had not known he had taken the wrong course and they therefore they took no further action."

How on earth can he not have known? It was blindingly obvious at the time that the horse had veered narrowly but perceptibly off the track. He's a professional jockey and he's paid to have his wits about him when he goes out to ride. He should have been banned and not for a day or two, either.

Poor show.
 
Last edited:
What the stewards said was THEY DECIDED "Scholfield had not knowingly taken the wrong course" which is hugely different to you altering the report to him saying he didn't know

Scofield and Brennan actually clashed in midair just before the incident which was accidental, which sent Scholfield left and into the doll's path. Not Knowingly he went slightly out of bounds but at no time did he tell the stewards he never knew.

If Scholfield had won and been disqualified for accidentally losing ground that would have been a poor show
 
Tanlic said:
What the stewards said was THEY DECIDED "Scholfield had not knowingly taken the wrong course" which is hugely different to you altering the report to him saying he didn't know

Scofield and Brennan actually clashed in midair just before the incident which was accidental, which sent Scholfield left and into the doll's path. Not Knowingly he went slightly out of bounds but at no time did he tell the stewards he never knew.

If Scholfield had won and been disqualified for accidentally losing ground that would have been a poor show
Click to expand...

I can assure you that I haven't altered the report. I looked for it on Sunday on the BHA site and couldn't find it. I copied and pasted it from a post on the Betfair forum. It clearly has been altered as it's now up on BHA and the report says this:

"The Stewards held an enquiry into whether or not MORE BUCK’S (IRE), ridden by Nick Scholfield, which subsequently fell, had taken the correct course after jumping the water jump. The Stewards interviewed the rider and also Paddy Brennan, the rider of the winner, ROYAL VACATION (IRE). Having heard their evidence and viewed recordings of the race the Stewards found that MORE BUCK’S (IRE) had shifted left on the approach to a doll and had jumped it. The Stewards were satisfied that Scholfield had not knowingly taken the wrong course and had therefore continued in the race. They therefore took no further action."

Mea culpa.

It's not very well expressed. He clearly did take the wrong course. They say they enquired into whether he had done so. They don't say whether they concluded that he did but to go on to talk about him "not knowingly" taking it suggests that they found that he had. What they appear to be saying is that they accept he didn't realise he'd done so. My view is that he should have done.

If he'd won, he would have had to be disqualified. There is no doubt about that.
 
gus said:
Enough! But I'm not pocket talking or aftertiming, believe it or not. I said he should be pulled up immediately it happened, before the fall.
Click to expand...

I actually had a few shillings on myself but a quick roll of the eyes and I moved on.
 
gus said:
Enough! But I'm not pocket talking or aftertiming, believe it or not. I said he should be pulled up immediately it happened, before the fall.
Click to expand...

But you are 100% wrong in this case and don't understand the rules of racing

Where a horse runs the wrong side of a running rail or a marker used to denote the correct course

The horse of a Rider who is found to have contravened shall, on an objection to the
Stewards be disqualified unless the Stewards are satisfied that
the Rider's reasons for taking the wrong course were satisfactory,

If he had pulled up he would, in this case, have been making a decision only the Stewards can make.
Under the rule:he must give his mount every chance to win he should have continued like he did

Pulling the horse up would have deprived himself of the right to defend and as we know he won that case and the Stewards took no action.
 
Last edited:
Tanlic said:
But you are 100% wrong in this case and don't understand the rules of racing

Where a horse runs the wrong side of a running rail or a marker used to denote the correct course

The horse of a Rider who is found to have contravened shall, on an objection to the
Stewards be disqualified unless the Stewards are satisfied that
the Rider's reasons for taking the wrong course were satisfactory,

If he had pulled up he would, in this case, have been making a decision only the Stewards can make.
Under the rule:he must give his mount every chance to win he should have continued like he did

Pulling the horse up would have deprived himself of the right to defend and as we know he won that case and the Stewards took no action.
Click to expand...

You learn something new every day. If the stewards have a discretion in these circumstances then he was right to continue. I think I'll retire hurt from this one.
 
As well as his reasons being satisfactory (51.3.1) he'd have probably got away on 51.3.3. I backed Singlefarmpayment and wasn't happy but thems the rules.


PART 4 - THE RACE - (B)45 to (B)59
51. Failing to ride the course correctly

51.1 Where a horse

51.1.1 runs the wrong side of a running rail or a marker used to denote the correct course, or
51.1.2 misses an Obstacle

the Rider must pull up or turn back in order to ride the course correctly from the point where the horse took the wrong course or in order to jump the Obstacle.

51.2 Paragraph 51.1 does not apply

51.2.1 where the Stewards have issued instructions to Riders before the race that an Obstacle is to be omitted, or
51.2.2 in the circumstances specified in Rule 51 or 49

51.3 The horse of a Rider who is found to have contravened Paragraph 51.1 shall, on an objection to the Stewards under Part 7, be disqualified unless the Stewards are satisfied that

51.3.1 the Rider's reasons for taking the wrong course were satisfactory,
51.3.2 all Riders remaining in the race took the same course, and
51.3.3 no Rider has obtained an unfair advantage as a result.
 
Back
Top