God poor poor Johnnie, I knew him well once.....
Niki x
God poor poor Johnnie, I knew him well once.....
Niki x
However tempting it might be, kicking seven shades of shite out of John Maxse can't be condoned.
handsome is as handsome does
Is there more to the appointment of Doyle as Khalid's jockey than meets the eye? He already had him riding for him at Beckhampton, he had Moore at Freemason Lodge and Quelly at Warren Place.
I've got a feeling we're set for some jockey merry-go-round soon. Watch this space!
Frankie Dettori's 'Magnificent 7' was trumped on Friday as Singapore champion jockey Joao Moreira rode 8 winners from 8 at Kranji
"The owls are not what they seem"
Martin Dwyer's ban reduced from eight months to 55 days again. Still wrong, BHA should not reciprocate.
"The owls are not what they seem"
James Doyle rode two Juddmonte horses at Longchamp today (Fabre and Bary trained). Prepare for a shock announcement he's on Flintshire for the Niel and Arc we thinks?
I'm bored of this. I'm going for a Twix.
Not at all - the Indian racing authorities fail to sign up to international racing agreement and their disciplinary procedures are fundamentally flawed . The Indian rule on riding to instructions is frankly absurd and should not have been upheld in this country when the ban was so disproportionate .
Until and unless they sign up they should not be allowed to be treated as a recognised racing authority through the back door of that rule .
But surely if its one of their rules, he should have obeyed it. No different to our whip rules (as an example) - everyone who comes here has to abide by them - being foreign isnt an excuse for breaking them.
#YourStorm
Mr Brightside
All posts are based on the following:
I know what I'm talking about/ I'm having a stab in the dark
I'm bored/ You're an idiot and I'm poking you with sticks
trudi - the rule is bonkers - you are instructed to sit close behind the leaders and challenge two out- the horse misses the break , or is unbalanced in the early stages and you have to drop in and you get a lengthy ban .
The punishment was so disproportionate that it should not have been enforced . The Indian authorities chose to put themselves outside the rest of the countries by refusing to allow legal representation at appeal hearings . The reasoning appears clear - any good lawyer would be able to rip their bonkers and draconian rulings to pieces . They should not be entitled to have their bans reciprocated until they join the international racing agreement.
Sorry - I forgot the "if the rule is deemed bonkers you dont have to follow it" thing - Ive always been taught that if there is a rule and you break it then you face the concequences, be that disqualification/having your hands chopped off or whatever.
I look forward to you representing me in court when I break any number of the rules of the country that I think are bonkers....
Last edited by trudij; 8th September 2013 at 6:14 PM.
#YourStorm
Mr Brightside
All posts are based on the following:
I know what I'm talking about/ I'm having a stab in the dark
I'm bored/ You're an idiot and I'm poking you with sticks
Seemingly the horse bled previously so should not have run for 4 weeks so the Indian Authorities broke their own rules.
Even Dwyer had the stewards 3 to 2 in his favour but The Chairman cast his vote against so the ban remained.
Ghandi must be turning in his grave if this is Democracy.
Bleeding is completely different tho - and therefore a completely different subject. I dont know how hot the Indians are on welfare issues - Im guessing they arent all that hot on it from what little Ive heard.
If the horse shouldnt have been running then it should have been removed at the start (if it got that far!) and then the whole thread would have been academic cos there wouldnt have been any rules broken so no problem !!
#YourStorm
Mr Brightside
All posts are based on the following:
I know what I'm talking about/ I'm having a stab in the dark
I'm bored/ You're an idiot and I'm poking you with sticks
Hughes was done for not riding a horse to instructions given by connections, a rule which (rightly or wrongly) exists in India and carries hefty penalties. Just like homosexuality is illegal and carries draconian penalties in certain countries, we may find it bonkers and wrong but the rule is clear and has to be obeyed.
Dwyer was done for not riding a horse on it's merits which is a rule we also have in the UK and anyone with eyes can see he isn't guilty of this.
The two are very very separate incidents and Hughes could have had no complaints. Also made me laugh that he said he would never ride there again but was out there again next Winter...
I'm bored of this. I'm going for a Twix.
Difference is that Dwyer would never have been found guilty of that rule under the UK rules (or anywhere else) and it is quite clearly a farcical decision. A BHA disciplinary panel could rule confidently that the horse was ridden on it's merits and therefore agree not to reciprocate the ban.
Hughes was actually guilty of breaking a rule which doesn't exist in the UK and therefore, it's much harder for a disciplinary panel to argue he wasn't guilty and thus not reciprocate.
I have very little time for jockeys that go to these countries where they know there is an element of mob rule in the stewarding processes and whilst Dwyer can appeal and should get the ban quashed in the UK, he knew what he was dealing with when he agreed to ride out there. I have much more sympathy for him than Hughes but generally, they can't come crying to daddy (BHA) when they get home because they don't like how they were treated by the nasty foreign police. Nobody made them ride out there.
I'm bored of this. I'm going for a Twix.
The problem with that argument is that you are stating that the BHA should act as a court of appeal from the Indian authorities when that is not their role .
The reasons for not reciprocating are generally about process and proportionality not the merits of the decision.
From The Times Of India re Martin Dwyer
MUMBAI: Adi Narielwala, chairman of the Board Of Appeal (BOA) of the Royal Western India Turf Club (RWITC) has come down heavily on the people both in India and abroad, who were claiming English jockey Martin Dwyer to be innocent in the Ice Age case, saying that Dwyer in fact deserved harsher punishment.
"Dwyer blatantly pulled the horse. He tried every trick to not let Ice Age win," Narielwala told TOI.
"Those who claim Dwyer is innocent, don't really know how to read a race. They need to learn racing," he thundered.
Narielwala also brushed aside claims that the horse had bled during the race which could have affected his performance. "I have seen many horses bleeding heavily and yet winning. In this case, the bleeding had no effect as the horse was literally flying in the last part," claimed Narielwala.
However, the drama that unfolded at the BOA hearing has certainly provided Dwyer a shot in the arm in his quest to convince British Horseracing Authorities not to reciprocate the Indian ban. The sharp division at the BOA hearing, where three of the six-member body were insisting to set aside Dwyer's ban completely, has definitely dented the image of the august body.
"The owls are not what they seem"