Racehorse TALK

I think it depends on where in nsw you are riding. Have seen a few in country nsw cop a touch up without a word.

Before I left for Malaysia in early Jan, I saw plenty flogged in Albury and Wagga.

The general community can go and get  If the Jockeys truly believe they will strike until they are happy with the outcome.

And they will ride out the industrial courts as well.

IF THEY TRULY BELIEVE.

WHIP RULE DEBATE: ‘NO SUSPENSIONS’ IS THE JOCKEYS OBJECTIVE

Nothing of the little said in the mainstream media so far, anywhere, addresses frankly the real mark of the whip-use debate: winning jockeys in NSW could not give a-stuff about whip-use fines (sensibly, secretly, covered by grateful connections) but complexity builds if offending jockeys, subject to suspensions, might be denied lucrative carnival rides.

It is the ‘no suspensions’ interpretation of the appropriate penalties for whip-rule beaches that defines the difference between Victoria and NSW:  which affected interests and commentators in NSW have said this starkly and opposed the local power brokers? The popular focal point currently -- a fine of $2,000 for winning a $250,000 race – is an absolute irrelevance.

The ‘new whip’ rules recently re-endorsed by the (un)ARB are a very sad reflection on any fancifully imagined prospect of a  ‘national’ administration of racing in Australia: in every other state, racing administrators across the nation know that RacingVictoria rules -- and every portent of pending court decisions and gambling inquiries only endorses an ongoing sense of Victorian superiority.

The game being played at the unARB is akin to a suicide pact -- except Victoria took the option of others going first. Stupidly in NSW, pretenders have taken a defiant ‘dare to be great’ stand on an issue where the general public could not give a damn.

One might sensibly contemplate that Bob the Boss has precipitated the madness of the RacingNSW stewards’ panel: RacingNSW is looking over a cliff –  so close to the edge that falling feels like flying.

In NSW, the ‘free press’ is apparently beholden to official sponsorship of racing and not dealing candidly with the unreasonably aggressive prosecution of the new whip-rules in NSW: a couple of postings at Winning Post on Sunday were encouraging and the HUN also fired a provocative shot from across the border.

Back to basics: the new ‘whip rule’, and its conflicting applications, is a clear sign that the current administration of racing in Australia has atrophied -- culturally and institutionally off with the pixies: accepted rituals of animal cruelty including ‘mulesing’ and ‘marking’ of roped cattle render insignificant the unrestrained communication of jockeys with horses using a device designed to not hurt horses unduly in any way.

It is doubly lamentable that RacingNSW is currently purporting to host an international racing industry conference and, additionally, has the gall to say it is sponsoring, on Thursday in Sydney, a national racing industry conference – apparently, when falling feels like flying, the sky is the limit for blind ambition.

Stand by for some racing industry administrators sensibly inclined to spend more time with their families.

HOW CAN A $1,000 FINE, COVERED FROM PRIZEMONEY OF $250,000, BE CONSIDERED A SIGNIFICANT DETERRENT?

As reported in the press this morning:

Ray Murrihy said yesterday the $1000 fine (reduced from $2,000 on appeal) was ''still quite a significant deterrent'' while warning there would be no change when it came to enforcing the rules. Murrihy said ''It depends on the gravity and circumstances of each case....the record of the rider will also be taken into account when we adjudicate on these matters.''

Correct me if I'm wrong but the jocks' percentage is deducted from the prizemoney  and his fee is paid by the club or the control body to him. It would be sensible to conclude that  any fine would be deducted from that and retained by the control body.Whether the owner makes good the fine is between the two. 

NSW Racing stewards
From: Herald Sun April 21, 2010 2:56PM
CORRECTION and apology on two articles published in March and April this year.

Correction and apology – 30 March 2010

On 30 March 2010, the Herald Sun published an article by Matt Stewart that implied that NSW Racing Stewards had been biased, subject to improper influence from media and did not exercise their powers fairly. The Herald Sun and Matt Stewart retract any implication of bias, improper influence or unfairness and unreservedly apologise for any harm the publication of that article may have caused.

Correction and apology – 12 April 2010

On 12 April 2010, the Herald Sun published an article by Matt Stewart that implied that Racing NSW Chairman of Stewards Mr Ray Murrihy had unfairly exercised his powers. That article also contained a number of gross inaccuracies concerning the penalties imposed by Racing NSW Stewards, those inaccuracies being that the article incorrectly stated that:

“SEPTEMBER 30: Chris Munce and Blake Shinn suspended for 10 and 12 weeks respectively” (The actual penalties imposed by Racing NSW Stewards were for 4 days for each jockey)

“NOVEMBER 21: Munce suspended for 14 days, on top of six days for a breach four days earlier” (The actual penalty imposed by Racing NSW Stewards was for 3 days and there was not a penalty of six days for a breach four days earlier)

“DECEMBER 5: Premier Sydney jockey Hugh Bowman suspended for 13 meetings” (Hugh Bowman was suspended for 7 meetings for careless riding).

The Herald Sun and Matt Stewart retract any implication of unfairness, regrets the gross inaccuracies and unreservedly apologies for any harm the publication of that article may have caused.

He was 100% right in the March 30 instance.

Journalist is agitating to make an issue between Murrihy and other stewards but I think he's confusing his issues.

The whip penalty is pretty well determined by the respective appeals bodies. Victorian stewards were told vary early on by the appeal body that their penalties were too high up the scale.

NSW on the other hand haven't had that problem.

I'm a critic of Murrihy's demeanour in several instances but in trying to create an issue putting incorrect facts just leaves with a reduction in credibility.