Well another flat season comes to an end and it has been quite a season.
Aiden O’Brien and his Ballydoyle machine has had a brilliant season winning a majority of the Group One races. Clearly losing Kieran Fallon has not had a detrimental effect and in Johnny Murtagh they seem to have found an able substitute.
Of course the winning streak has not come without its critics. Firstly us Brits love to knock a winner then there has been the controversy surrounding the use of team tactics and, on more than one occasion, team Ballydoyle have fallen foul of various teams of stewards around the world. Of course there has also been the pocket talking criticism from losing punters who just cannot accept they picked the wrong horse and they need somebody else to blame.
Talking of controversy the biggest controversy of the season must surround the “will he, won’t he” saga of New Approach’s Epsom Derby participation. The ins and outs have been discussed ad-nauseum elsewhere and I don’t intend digging them up again. Suffice to say it is my belief that Jim Bolger is an inherently honest man and the behaviour of certain members of the media in this matter has been nothing short of a disgrace.
After the excitement of last years jockeys championship which, went to the last race on the last day of the season, the 2008 renewal was something of an anti-climax. Ryan Moore, who has a hate / hate relationship with the media, regained the title with some ease, after missing most of last season through injury. There is no doubt he is a competent jockey and he lets his riding do the talking. However he would do well to remember a little humility and civility would go a long way to making his life easier.
The big festivals came and went, although York didn’t even get off the ground due to flooding.
The end of the season was, however, sullied with more scandal. Following a BHA inquiry trainer Paul Blockley and jockey Dean McKeown, along with some other unsavoury characters, including a pretty obnoxious owner, were warned off for cheating. The implementation of the ban was delayed for seven days in the case of McKeown and in that time he was referred to the BHA for another offence under the non-triers rule – you couldn’t make it up.
The plaudits for me:-
Trainer of the year:- a tie between Aiden O’Brien and Jim Bolger (with a special mention for Sir
Michael Stoute who finally won that elusive St Leger)
Horse Of The Year:- another tie between Derby winner New Approach and Conduit who after winning the St Leger went and beat the Yanks at the Breeders Cup)
Jockey Of The Year:- Ryan Moore (with special mentions for Kevin Manning and Johnny Murtagh)
Showing posts with label Aiden O'Brien. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Aiden O'Brien. Show all posts
Wednesday, 12 November 2008
Saturday, 4 October 2008
Team Tactics
So the BHA in their wisdom have fined trainer Aiden O’Brien £5,000 and have given jockeys Johnny Murtagh and Colm O’Donoghue seven day bans for breaking the rules on team tactics.
Just as it looked as though the BHA was starting to put their house in order and seem to be distancing themselves from the bumbling incompetence that was the Jockey Club, they come up with this decision.
I am not disputing the rule on team tactics was broken, lets face it O’Donoghue pleaded guilty to the charge. What is so farcical is that such a rule is in the rulebook at all.
It is not necessary.
If an outfit wishes to run more than one runner and adopt tactics that help one of their runners to win, then so be it, as long as no other rules of racing are broken in the process.
If the authorities really are so keen to stop team tactics then why not ban the use of pacemakers - is running a pacemaker not a team tactic?
Provided each runner runs to its merit and to its ability. Provided no interference is caused to other riders. Provided no other rules are broken. Then what is the problem?
If the "team tactics" break any of the other rules (and lets face it the rulebook extends to 501 pages) then use those rules to deal with the matter and punish the offenders accordingly.
So if in moving from the rail to allow another team member through, another horse is interfered with then punish the offending rider under one of the existing rules.
If, in moving over, no interference takes place then what is the problem?
In the race in question no other runner was interfered with. No other runner was disadvantaged. The winner won on merit.
Most of the opposition to what the Ballydoyle team did has been pocket talk from punters who are looking for an “excuse” for backing yet another loser.
In some of the forums people are crowing that Ballydoyle and Coolmore have had their comeuppance. To me this stinks of the politics of envy. That grand British trait to knock anything that is successful, the insidious politics of envy.
The BHA have made great strides to improve the image of racing, they can take an even bigger stride in abolishing Rule 153 (iv) which, in itself, does more to bring racing into disrepute than the events at Newmarket in August.
Just as it looked as though the BHA was starting to put their house in order and seem to be distancing themselves from the bumbling incompetence that was the Jockey Club, they come up with this decision.
I am not disputing the rule on team tactics was broken, lets face it O’Donoghue pleaded guilty to the charge. What is so farcical is that such a rule is in the rulebook at all.
It is not necessary.
If an outfit wishes to run more than one runner and adopt tactics that help one of their runners to win, then so be it, as long as no other rules of racing are broken in the process.
If the authorities really are so keen to stop team tactics then why not ban the use of pacemakers - is running a pacemaker not a team tactic?
Provided each runner runs to its merit and to its ability. Provided no interference is caused to other riders. Provided no other rules are broken. Then what is the problem?
If the "team tactics" break any of the other rules (and lets face it the rulebook extends to 501 pages) then use those rules to deal with the matter and punish the offenders accordingly.
So if in moving from the rail to allow another team member through, another horse is interfered with then punish the offending rider under one of the existing rules.
If, in moving over, no interference takes place then what is the problem?
In the race in question no other runner was interfered with. No other runner was disadvantaged. The winner won on merit.
Most of the opposition to what the Ballydoyle team did has been pocket talk from punters who are looking for an “excuse” for backing yet another loser.
In some of the forums people are crowing that Ballydoyle and Coolmore have had their comeuppance. To me this stinks of the politics of envy. That grand British trait to knock anything that is successful, the insidious politics of envy.
The BHA have made great strides to improve the image of racing, they can take an even bigger stride in abolishing Rule 153 (iv) which, in itself, does more to bring racing into disrepute than the events at Newmarket in August.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)