Schooling in public

Hamm

Hamm

At the Start
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
12,548
Location
London
Evan Williams found guilty of this yesterday ta Ffos Las.

He gets a £3000 fine (jockey gets 14 days, horse 40) - who exactly is this a deterrant to ensure this doesn't happen in the future?

Surely the trainer should be most harshly punished of the trio, as you would have to think the schooling is his idea?
 
Flame said:
I would say a 3k fine is pretty harsh !!
Click to expand...

It's not going to stop him or anyone else doing it though, is it?

A ban of some sort needs to be introduced for trainers, if the authorities really want to see horses run to achieve the best possible placing.
 
Didn't I read that the vet declared him (the horse that is, Evan has 'had a leg' for some time) lame after the race.

Jockey in a bit of a no-win situation, has had bollockings and lost rides in the past for not 'riding to instruction'.
 
Last edited:
Agree about the jockey - usually, as in the cases with Howling, these are often not top/experienced jockeys, and have little choice but to do as the trainer wants if they want to get rides in the future.

Hit Williams with a 14 day ban from running any of his horses, and see how quick this thing happens again.

It all depends on whether the BHA actually want to stamp it out or not.
 
I am of the opinion, or leaning towards it, that a jockey & trainer should be counted as one on these occasions.

There was a recent case in Ireland where a jockey got banned but the trainer said he himself was not happy with the ride and got off scot free - thats an easy cop out for the trainer and should not be accepted. If he puts a jockey up and the jockey is done for none trier or a similar offence then the trainers should get it as well imo.
 
How could you possibly 'ban' trainers? Most have a wide variety of owners, many of whom aren't betting-obsessed and why should they be penalised with not being allowed to have their horses entered up if the trainer was banned - from what, exactly? Not having a livelihood? Fining should be the answer, with the loss of a training licence the last resort, on a totting-up basis. If you tot up N amount of breaches of rules over, say, five years, then you lose your licence. You could only do that, though, over a period of time and after exhausting the fines route. You are, after all, talking about the livelihoods of any number of grooms, yardmen, box drivers, possibly an assistant and a secretary, et cetera, at the same time. None of whom should lose their jobs lightly.
 
krizon said:
How could you possibly 'ban' trainers? Most have a wide variety of owners, many of whom aren't betting-obsessed and why should they be penalised with not being allowed to have their horses entered up if the trainer was banned - from what, exactly? Not having a livelihood? Fining should be the answer, with the loss of a training licence the last resort, on a totting-up basis. If you tot up N amount of breaches of rules over, say, five years, then you lose your licence. You could only do that, though, over a period of time and after exhausting the fines route. You are, after all, talking about the livelihoods of any number of grooms, yardmen, box drivers, possibly an assistant and a secretary, et cetera, at the same time. None of whom should lose their jobs lightly.
Click to expand...

The point is Krizon that if trainers are banned - the very penalty will then deter the majority or at least plenty of them from doing it.

It is sickening seeing a young jockey take the blame and get hammered with a suspension while the trainer gets off with very little by just stating he too was not happy with the ride. More often than not it is a young jockey starting out that is hung, drawn and quartered.

If a trainer jocks up a jockey - he takes responsibility for his actions and ride - if the jockey break the rules the trainer then has the option of using him again or not.
 
Okay, I get that, especially blaming jockeys. Maybe, if there isn't already a rule in what's got to be a very long book, the trainer should ultimately be the person to take responsibility for the ride? He takes responsibility for the horse's prep, its entry, selecting its trip and so forth, and for issuing instructions. There could be an argy-bargy in the weighing room if the jockey said no, sir, no, those weren't my instructions (when the trainer tries to slide the blame onto the boy), so at some point we're approaching having to know what the riding instructions are. Which mightn't be a bad idea with apprentices and claimers - the grizzled old buggers can well take care of themselves.

The Clerk of the Scales could just be given a form for use when apprentices/claimers are up, where the trainer could just tick off from a variety of choices: miss the break, hold at the back/get out early, take lead/hold-up midfield until clear in straight, and so on. That would take a few seconds of time - you aren't asking them to write a novel. (That will come later!)
 
Last edited:
krizon said:
How could you possibly 'ban' trainers? Most have a wide variety of owners, many of whom aren't betting-obsessed and why should they be penalised with not being allowed to have their horses entered up if the trainer was banned - from what, exactly? Not having a livelihood? Fining should be the answer, with the loss of a training licence the last resort, on a totting-up basis. If you tot up N amount of breaches of rules over, say, five years, then you lose your licence. You could only do that, though, over a period of time and after exhausting the fines route. You are, after all, talking about the livelihoods of any number of grooms, yardmen, box drivers, possibly an assistant and a secretary, et cetera, at the same time. None of whom should lose their jobs lightly.
Click to expand...

Ahh, I understand - you want them to be given numerous goes at cheating before getting banned?
 
Galileo said:
The point is Krizon that if trainers are banned - the very penalty will then deter the majority or at least plenty of them from doing it.

It is sickening seeing a young jockey take the blame and get hammered with a suspension while the trainer gets off with very little by just stating he too was not happy with the ride. More often than not it is a young jockey starting out that is hung, drawn and quartered.

If a trainer jocks up a jockey - he takes responsibility for his actions and ride - if the jockey break the rules the trainer then has the option of using him again or not.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If anything, as I already said, it should be the trainer getting the ban, and not the jockey. If this is inconveniences his other owners, well then they have a choice regarding who they keep their horses with.
 
Yes and there will be instances of trainers getting hard done by (on occasions) but from there on in they can decide to use the jockey or not in future which presumably they will not if they are genuinely believe their horse was given a "non trying" ride.

Right now if a young jockey dared to state that x trainer did not want his horse to win or finish close up that is the end of him with that particular trainer and indeed with many others.
 
Hamm - yes, that's my point! They're already, according to certain august forumites on here, getting away with numerous goes at cheating and not getting banned. If you tot up certain infractions, on a points system for degrees of naughtiness, then at the end of a certain period, that's it - they're warned off.
 
It's also the end of work for yard staff, too, if they want to report any wrongdoing - from human or horse welfare issues to knowing a horse will definitely not be 'trying' - so my thoughts are that any sort of infraction would get bad points against the trainer. I realise, though, that with yard staff it's often a question of proving things are rotten. It's more transparent out on a racecourse. But if one had corroboration from yard staff that the trainer has been handling horses in a way to ensure that they are beaten one day and 'surprisingly' win the next, it would all go towards supporting wronged young jocks.
 
krizon said:
Hamm - yes, that's my point! They're already, according to certain august forumites on here, getting away with numerous goes at cheating and not getting banned. If you tot up certain infractions, on a points system for degrees of naughtiness, then at the end of a certain period, that's it - they're warned off.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure are we agreeing or disagreeing!

What i would like is in cases such as Williams, he is given a 2 week ban. If he does this again, he gets a 6 month ban. A 3rd time, and he is warned off.

I believe there is no reason for any trainer to receive a fine as a warning to a ban in the future - they are all more than aware of the rules regarding running horses on their merits v schooling around.
 
We are both agreeing and disagreeing on certain points, I think! What I'm asking you is how you could 'ban' a trainer? What does that actually mean? You couldn't ask, say, the owners of some 50 horses to suddenly relocate their horses to other trainers. There are logistical problems surrounding a ban. What do you actually mean by 'ban' him?

Imagine I have six horses with you, one down to run in a prestigious race, where the entries are due within the next week. You've just had a month-long ban slapped on you, which means you can't enter my horse. How does that make any sense?
 
Last edited:
I see your point, and would hope a blanket ban of trainers horses would ensure 2 things would happen:
1. A trainer would recognise the severe consequences of schooling/giving them an 'educational run' and act accordingly when running his horses
2. If the above does not happen, I would expect owners to be justifyably annoyed and remove their horses from their trainer. It may seem severe, and maybe there should be one warning before a ban, but I believe we either want schooling on a racecourse etc banned or we don't.

The above would be intended to act as a deterrent, not meant to be a frequently used punishment.
 
This is jolly interesting, but I've realised with horror that the milk's nearly gone, and I must have my teas all afternoon! Back anon to see what we've progressed. I dunno, maybe lashing in a public square would sort out the minor infractions? I can have a word with some Saudi chums...
 
How could you possibly 'ban' trainers?
Click to expand...

Ask Henderson...

Im very much with Hamm here. £3k fine is neither here nor there and its also quickly forgotten about. A suspension has more resonance and would send a much firmer message

The owners and staff are neither here nor there. They are the trainers responsibility not the BHA's and if the trainer lets them down, its his problem
 
Right.

First, to fat-cat trainers £3,000 may be nothing, but to many esp. in this climate it would finish them, remember that for most training only breaks even. So I feel it's a heavy, potentially fatal punishment.

Second, surely everyone vaguely involved with racing knows that a horses first run is basically a school anyway, a chance to let them experience the racecourse and what a race feels like. Aside of how fit they may or may not be. The only time horses are normally fully off for a first run is either when they've ha the bollocks galloped out of them at home and the yard knows pretty much how good they are, or if they're that good they can't help but win.

Yet again the stewards show a scary misunderstanding.
 
Woppit said:
Right.

First, to fat-cat trainers £3,000 may be nothing, but to many esp. in this climate it would finish them, remember that for most training only breaks even. So I feel it's a heavy, potentially fatal punishment.
Click to expand...

If it's fatal (which i don't believe it ever would be), then it should act as an easy deterrent not to do this.
 
If a trainer is found to have ran a horse not to achieve the best possible placing more than once; ban them for 12 months. I don't care how financially ruined a trainer will be, the rules are there to be obeyed. Horses in every race should be trying to win the race, end of story for me.

The BHA are the softest organisation around.
 
Back
Top