Rules

[mardigras]

I have read that supposedly jockeys talk to each other before a race. Wow, must be exciting for them.

But the issue of a horse getting an uncontested lead because the jockeys said they weren't going to do otherwise, is not covered by any rule in Australia that I know of. 

It would be covered by the rules in the UK potentially, if the jockeys then shared that information with certain people external to themselves - such as an owner. But I don't think there is a rule such as theirs in Australia.

It certainly is not covered by the change of tactics rule - which is hardly a rule anyway since horses can undergo changes of tactics with zero repercussions. It's the usual mountain/molehill stuff.

[Hesi]

Bit of a grey area, the only rule it could possibly come under, would be

636 (1) A person:

(b) being the Rider of a horse in a Race, must take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the Race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the Race or to obtain the best possible finishing place;

 

So other jockeys conspiring before a race to allow a particular jockey on a horse to get an uncontested lead, those jockeys it could be interpreted were contravening the above.....can of worms though

[mardigras]

I doubt it. And I imagine the discussions were informal. How would a jockey suggesting they would contest a lead be giving their horse the best chance if it wasn't suited to such a style of ride?

Any such discussion is hardly likely to hold up should a jockey then not do what may have been suggested. It's pretty much worthless information. And even if it actually has value, how is that relayed to a punter? 

That's where the UK rules fit in. Passing on of inside information is against the rules except under certain conditions. Those conditions do not include passing on information so that the owner/trainer or any other punter can use that information to profit from betting.

[Docker]

I remember Greg Childs getting fined for a similar thing in the 2000 Hong Kong mile.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/childs-fined-25-000-over-hong-kong-tactics-1.1123104

[mardigras]

7 minutes ago, Docker said:

I remember Greg Childs getting fined for a similar thing in the 2000 Hong Kong mile.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/childs-fined-25-000-over-hong-kong-tactics-1.1123104

Yep - an attempt to collude which is suggestive of not allowing a horse to be ridden on its merits. Which he was found not guilty of. I don't think an undisclosed conversation between jockeys has a case to answer to in NZ (or in Oz), if the rides are ridden to obtain the best possible finishing position.

[Hesi]

53 minutes ago, mardigras said:

I doubt it. And I imagine the discussions were informal. How would a jockey suggesting they would contest a lead be giving their horse the best chance if it wasn't suited to such a style of ride?

Any such discussion is hardly likely to hold up should a jockey then not do what may have been suggested. It's pretty much worthless information. And even if it actually has value, how is that relayed to a punter? 

That's where the UK rules fit in. Passing on of inside information is against the rules except under certain conditions. Those conditions do not include passing on information so that the owner/trainer or any other punter can use that information to profit from betting.

As I said, can of worms, the salient point being the passing of information to owner/trainer/punter for gain, otherwise, why would you do it anyway.  So the NZ law needs amending, to strengthen it

I always recall the rule that allowed riders that were challenging a case against them, could still ride, this was soon amended after the Lisa Cropp case was dragged out through appeals for about 3 years

 

[mardigras]

8 hours ago, Hesi said:

As I said, can of worms, the salient point being the passing of information to owner/trainer/punter for gain, otherwise, why would you do it anyway.  So the NZ law needs amending, to strengthen it

I don't think there exists a rule in NZ stopping the passing of inside information. curious is pretty up there with the rules. Maybe he can comment.

It's also a difficult rule to police, but at least having it, gives you options if investigations point to it being the case.

In the UK, the person passing on the information doesn't have to be the person who gains. But maybe they would gain anyway (further rides, share of profit etc).

So in the UK, a trainer can not say to his mate (or his wife), this horse has got issues and he won't win today. That is a breach of their rules. I don't think having that private conversation would be a breach of NZ rules. They would have to look at an alternative rule - something like the trainer didn't bring the horse to the races in a suitable condition for racing (or some such equivalent rule). 

They have many rules NZ doesn't have. One of the best is not using a race for the purposes of training a horse. Which I would suggest NZ trainers do a lot.

[Hesi]

56 minutes ago, mardigras said:

I don't think there exists a rule in NZ stopping the passing of inside information. curious is pretty up there with the rules. Maybe he can comment.

It's also a difficult rule to police, but at least having it, gives you options if investigations point to it being the case.

In the UK, the person passing on the information doesn't have to be the person who gains. But maybe they would gain anyway (further rides, share of profit etc).

So in the UK, a trainer can not say to his mate (or his wife), this horse has got issues and he won't win today. That is a breach of their rules. I don't think having that private conversation would be a breach of NZ rules. They would have to look at an alternative rule - something like the trainer didn't bring the horse to the races in a suitable condition for racing (or some such equivalent rule). 

They have many rules NZ doesn't have. One of the best is not using a race for the purposes of training a horse. Which I would suggest NZ trainers do a lot.

You mean like when trainers say a horse is 90%

The only rule that could be interpreted to cover that, but still very loose, would be

636 (1) A person:

(a) shall not run a horse, or cause or permit a horse to be run, other than on its merits;

[mardigras]

3 minutes ago, Hesi said:

You mean like when trainers say a horse is 90%

The only rule that could be interpreted to cover that, but still very loose, would be

636 (1) A person:

(a) shall not run a horse, or cause or permit a horse to be run, other than on its merits;

Except if the horse is not fit, then it can still run on its merits. Such as a jumper resuming in a 1400m race.

Edited December 3, 2019 by mardigras

[mardigras]

It's like hearing that in NZ, a stayer resuming over a short distance, doesn't lose ratings points. How absurd. Surely the horse is racing in the race in a distance suitable for the horse. If 1400m isn't suitable, why didn't they start in a 2000m race?

You won't find horses in the UK running over distances that might be considered unsuitable/too short. The trainer would simply put it in the race best suited to the horse as the horse will already be fit for racing the way the horse likes to race (or at least the way the trainer thinks the horse likes to race).

Edited December 3, 2019 by mardigras