SOME recent incidents have made me wonder if jockeys’ punishments are fitting their crimes.
Last Thursday Davy Russell and Philip Enright got five-day bans over what some have called a ‘whip borrowing’ incident at Clonmel.
Although I haven’t heard the full report, it seems Davy lost his stick and ended up with Philip’s whip close to the back straight.
In the heat of a race, almost anything can happen.
I recall a rider once going on to win after two jockeys traded whips.
Whatever happened, I hope their appeals are successful. Enright may have not even known much about it, we don’t know yet.
But it does seem harsh as both riders could miss out on important rides at Christmas, the busiest time of year for a jockey.
Richard Johnson was also handed a ban last week, for 12 days, after taking the wrong course at Exeter.
It appears a water jump was omitted on the first circuit, but then the riders had to jump it the second time around.
Without signs, this can be less straightforward than it seems.
Personally I think if it’s omitted first time it should be omitted second time.
Richard is a very tuned up rider and I’d be interested to see if he lodges an appeal.
For a jockey of Richard Johnson’s standing, his losses could run to many thousands of pounds.
He’ll have to miss races over the festive period including the King George VI Chase and The Ladbroke Hurdle.
Again, 12 days seems harsh to me.
Take another sport such as soccer.
Relatively speaking, bans tend to be much less severe.
And that includes incidents which could have you locked up if you did them in the street.
Unlike soccer players, who you often hear call for a winter break, it simply isn’t an option for jockeys.
Especially not less established riders, who might eye a Boxing Day meet as a chance to pick up six rides and potentially two or three winners.
Rules are rules I suppose and safety of course needs to be a priority.
I just feel that, maybe it’s because we work with livestock, a lot of red tape has been put up by the BHA and racing seems to be getting ever tighter on its rules.
During a jockey’s appeal process, which is by no means straightforward, you’d outline your reasons for a mistake.
It may well be human error, but was the track’s culpable?
There isn’t space to go into it properly this week, but once again I wonder about the aims of some of the recent shareholder-focused companies buying up racetracks.
Are they helping the overall quality of the sport being delivered at the track?
Many of these courses tend to get one-day staff in, people who work on the day and are paid for that time.
My question is: are these temporary staff - whose roles range from replacing divots, working the hurdles and the flagmen - being trained adequately?
I recall an incident at Sedgefield about a month ago.
Stewards banned six jockeys after they failed to react to the flagman who incorrectly raised the yellow race flag, which signals a race is void.
He should have raised the chequered banner to show a fence at the top of the hill was omitted.
The whistle’s blowing, so jockeys know the fence is supposed to be omitted.
The riders anticipated human error, so they thought ‘he’s waving the wrong flag; it’s human error’ we’ll kick around and ride the race.
Some of the Sedgefield six, all of who have decided not to appeal, wouldn’t have been high profile names.
Unsurprisingly I welcome the BHA’s announcement last week that an inquiry will be held into the incident.
The man on the ground would have been paid; the owners and trainers would have been compensated for their losses.
But the jockeys wouldn’t.
Also at Wetherby, it was recently discovered that races supposed to be three miles and ‘about’ one furlong in length - including the Charlie Hall Chase - were staged 78 yards too short for five years.
Never mind the jockeys this time, what about the punters?
