T.Murphy ban - (if you're fed up of whip talk, don't look!)

[Posts: 10789Joined: 10 Feb 2003, 15:43Location: Scotland]

Chapman managing to get right under my skin today!!

His pretty rude dismissal of the Ayr stewards, in defence of his view that Timmy Murphy's ride at Ayr didn't merit a ban, is totally unwarranted.

THE FACT THAT A HORSE WINS DOESN'T EXCUSE WHIP MISUSE!!!!!!! How long will it take to get that into a few thick skulls!!!!!!

There you go, I've resorted to capitals and a list of exclamation marks, sure signs of desperation. Sorry.

[Posts: 728Joined: 09 Jan 2011, 14:48]

I didn't catch it. What was the defence? Something along the lines of "The rule should state that if it's a big race, a popular horse or the money's down, the stewards must always use their discretion"?

[Posts: 728Joined: 09 Jan 2011, 14:48]

*duplicate*

[Posts: 1861Joined: 25 Jul 2011, 05:04]

David why do you think it justified a ban?

Surely you wouldn't put that ride down as abusive?

Granted he hit him a few dull ones but he did respond and he gave him time to do so.

A few of the slaps he gave him visually looked to have no power behind them and looked nothing more than light slaps by TM making sure he kept up to his work.

The could just have easily not banned him as ban him and I can understand why Chapman thought it unnecessary.

[Posts: 10789Joined: 10 Feb 2003, 15:43Location: Scotland]

Very basically BH - Murphy got 4 days for exceeding allowable whip strokes while winning the Scottish National on Merigo (I counted at least 11 strikes but waiting official confirmation from BHA on this - they don't carry the detail on their site). It looked a fair ban to me, a clear case of the 'win-at-all-costs' metality the BHA are keen to eradicate and a good decision by teh stewards IMO.

Chapman's view (and I don't think he is advocating this just for big races) is that it was a 'great ride' as the got teh horse won. The clear subtext is that he doesn't see anything wrong with a horse being hit over the allowable number so long as it is necessary to get the horse up.

For me, the only time that discretion should be used is when some of the strikes are made on safety grounds (which occurs very rarely). It should emphatically not be a stewards judgement over whether a horse would or wouldn't have won without the number of strikes.

That is NOT how the rules should be interpreted.

I am very afraid that the inevitability of inconsistent interpretation by stewards is becoming a reality following the rash decision to make 'discretion' oart of day-to-day stewarding.

The better route I think would have been to use racecourse stewards to rigidly apply the stroke count and apply bans without interpretation and then for a central panel to judge appeals. There could easily be a method of 'quick' asppeals (say, reviewed next day).

I know that Paul Bittar has mooted the possibility of centralised stewarding and perhaps this issue is the one that could be piloted.
That way

[Posts: 10789Joined: 10 Feb 2003, 15:43Location: Scotland]

I think it justifies a ban as there are clear rules regarding whip usage and they haven't been applied.

What are the grounds for discretion in this case would be my counter question?

[Posts: 2267Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 16:22]

Matt is correct, the stewards set the benchmark with Sunnyhill Boy and declared that 11 hits after the last is fine and one second between hits is sufficient time to respond.

Murphy should appeal and he does not need to say much, just replay both finishes and let them be judged equally.

Discretion, right.

[Posts: 768Joined: 14 Jul 2007, 01:37]

yeah it was the same in the natonal wasn;t it, the whip used on 11 counts on the winner

vf

[Posts: 1576Joined: 29 Jan 2005, 18:58]

It was a great winning ride by Murphy. Had the winner up with the pace, got him jumping and galvanised him after the last to overhaul the leader. As the trainer states Merigo is losing any pace he has and has to be ridden that way. No-one is saying he abused the horse. Let's be honest, put Timmy on first or second after the last and he'd have won on either.
BHA are clueless and the whip rules are in a state of confusion and disarray.
On that theme they have it in for Richard Hughes who humiliated them last season by handing in his licence and perpetuating bad publicity for them. RH has launched an attack on them:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/ap ... sfeed=true

Like the man or not he has a point. Even if BHA wanted to reciprocate the ban, fairest thing would have been to ban him for 15 days not 50 (they don't race every day in India and he'd have missed 15 race days within 50 days there).
The Indian rule is a nonsense and doesn't even exist in the UK. With Hannon having 240 horses at the moment I doubt we'll see Hughes riding in the third world again.

[Posts: 2032Joined: 06 Jun 2011, 14:34Location: Bury St Edmunds]

It was a great winning ride by Murphy. Had the winner up with the pace, got him jumping and galvanised him after the last to overhaul the leader. As the trainer states Merigo is losing any pace he has and has to be ridden that way. No-one is saying he abused the horse. Let's be honest, put Timmy on first or second after the last and he'd have won on either.
BHA are clueless and the whip rules are in a state of confusion and disarray.
On that theme they have it in for Richard Hughes who humiliated them last season by handing in his licence and perpetuating bad publicity for them. RH has launched an attack on them:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/ap ... sfeed=true

Like the man or not he has a point. Even if BHA wanted to reciprocate the ban, fairest thing would have been to ban him for 15 days not 50 (they don't race every day in India and he'd have missed 15 race days within 50 days there).
The Indian rule is a nonsense and doesn't even exist in the UK. With Hannon having 240 horses at the moment I doubt we'll see Hughes riding in the third world again.

As has been stated elsewhere, Richard Hughes signed an agreement to ride under the rules of the country he was riding in, and had ridden in on several occasions before. Having read the legal argument put forward by the Hughes appeal team in this country, it has done nothing to prove that the ban was unjustified or that they had not received a fair hearing in India according to the rules of that country.
It is quaint that you think that UK is not yet a third world country.

[Posts: 2032Joined: 06 Jun 2011, 14:34Location: Bury St Edmunds]

Matt is correct,

Therein your argument loses any credence

[Posts: 10789Joined: 10 Feb 2003, 15:43Location: Scotland]

EF - you should visit a third world country if you think the UK is one. You might have your eyes opened.

[Posts: 2032Joined: 06 Jun 2011, 14:34Location: Bury St Edmunds]

Yes but suggesting that India is a third world country in comparison to the UK is also rather blinkered.