Blake Shinn - Jockey - Racehorse TALK   harm-plan

Racehorse TALK

Blake Shinn - Jockey - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Blake Shinn  (Read 44721 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Jeunes

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 296
  • Posts: 6543
« 2016-Mar-22, 06:12 PM Reply #50 »
Is it me or Blake looks around 40 odd in the photo.

Offline Redbream91

  • Listed
  • User 2313
  • Posts: 451
« 2016-Mar-23, 07:43 PM Reply #51 »
Is it me or Blake looks around 40 odd in the photo.

the rigours of fasting and shedding weight starting to show...

Offline Authorized

  • Group 1
  • User 18
  • Posts: 31347
« 2016-Jun-15, 05:25 PM Reply #52 »
You would swear you were reading a column by RacingB*tch

On The Rails

Denial of Blake Shinn application shows lack of foresight and mercy by licensing committee

Australian jockey has already paid for stupid indiscretions over betting in races almost six years ago and should be given a second chance rather than be punished again

PUBLISHED : Tuesday, 14 June, 2016, 11:09pm
UPDATED : Tuesday, 14 June, 2016, 11:09pm
Alan Aitken has worked in all facets of the media and was the master of the famous AJC Punters Podium at Sydney racecourses for many years. He was one of Australia's most respected racing journalists over almost two decades with The Sydney Morning Herald before joining SCMP in 2001. Alan also has extensive magazine and radio experience and is a respected racing form analyst." data-title="Alan Aitken" data-html="true" data-template="
" class="scmp-icon-author-i" data-original-title="" title=""> 


Between the lukewarm postseason rehandicapping and the licensing of fresh jockeys for the next season, two of the summer points of interest in Hong Kong racing have now become a non-event.

It may have happened, and it’s one thing we don’t keep on record, but we really don’t recall a June licensing committee that did not announce a fresh expatriate jockey for the start of the new term, as happened last Friday.

By fresh, we might mean someone who rode here previously and returns anew, or someone who has never been here, but, either way, it didn’t happen. And the list for September was almost the same as July.

And we can only guess that the reason that it didn’t happen was that Australian jockey Blake Shinn’s stupid indiscretions over betting in races, for which he was punished almost six years ago, came back to haunt him.

That punishment already took a good chunk of time out of the finite limits of Shinn’s career as a professional sportsman.

The impression we had from Shinn when he was here in April for the Audemars Piguet QE II Cup was that he was keen to ride here.

The general aura of club officials seemed to be that enough time had passed without incident since his return to riding in February 2012 that the matter had been consigned to history as a foolish mistake.

It seems that this view fell at the final hurdle and we can only hope that it was a matter of time rather than an absolute rejection.

Do we have an axe to grind for Shinn? Yes. Insofar as, however the club might flatter itself, it is difficult to attract new world-class jockeys to Hong Kong on a longer term basis given the steely dominance of just a few.

Shinn is one who wants to take that challenge on and his presence would only strengthen the roster.

All we would say to the licensing committee is this: inherent in any just system of rules – and that’s what this is about, the likelihood or otherwise that Shinn might offend again and embarrass Hong Kong – must be concepts of mercy and rehabilitation, not only crime and punishment.

Otherwise, the figure of Lady Justice would carry just a sword, not a balance as well.

Fresh permit holders are left with plenty of questions but no answers

The drawing of the latest permit list last week was the cause for the usual disgruntled mutterings about transparency and fairness from those who felt ill-used by it and the usual reasons for being cheerful for those who had a win.

Some who land the right to purchase a raced or unraced horse to run in Hong Kong call it merely a permit, which is what it is, others see it as a golden ticket – make of that what you will.

But prosaic or fantastic, all of those with an owner’s permit in their hot little hands right now have only one question – where do I buy my horse?

Or maybe two questions – where do I buy my horse? When does it arrive?

The reality is that all those with a fresh permit ... want to get the horse now. Right now. And the reality of that shopping trip is that the timing is all wrong

Or three, no, three questions is a better number and let’s pull up stumps there before litigation ensues from Monty Python’s Flying Circus.

All of those who won an owner’s permit last week have three questions – Where do I buy my horse? When does it arrive? When does it run?

And that, perhaps, encapsulates the impatience with which an owner approaches filling a permit. The permit is value for a year.

Wiser heads might throw the permit in a drawer for a while and think on at least the first of those questions, but wise heads are more difficult to find than the “World Hide And Seek Champion”.

The reality is that all those with a fresh permit – and there is no distinction between the attitudes attached to a ticket for a Private Purchase (PP) or Private Purchase Griffin (PPG) – want to get the horse now. Right now.

And the reality of that shopping trip is that the timing is all wrong, right now.

The dispensing of permits seems to historically have been at this moment, around or just before Royal Ascot, forever and persists only because it has been. There is no good reason for it and a number of reasons why it should change.

Since PPGs are overwhelmingly bought in the southern hemisphere, now is a time in New Zealand of hock-deep heavy tracks, and in Australia of wet tracks and all-weather racing.

These conditions are an opportunity for horses to win trials, but disguise hidden soundness issues that might come against the horse later.

As for PPs, well the same applies in the southern hemisphere and it was the questionable maiden wins in deep winter mud that brought us to the much disliked 70-rating threshold rule as a safeguard against owners being sold a pup.

North of the equator, where it’s mostly about PPs, the flat season has barely begun, owners there have stars in their eyes and are most unlikely to be releasing a young horse of any promise with all the black type racing still ahead – at least not without making somebody grandly overpay for the horse.

The 70 rating was designed as a means to improve the quality of the Hong Kong horse population – apparently beyond what is already a high standard, so we question motive in any case – but perhaps a change to the timing of permits would perform the same kind of task without the angst that seems to come with the 70-plus.

If permits were drawn in September, the timing would make more sense. Horses in the northern hemisphere would have had several more months to race and be exposed as either worthy expensive buys with big targets or, having fallen short of the dream, as decent bread and butter purchases at a reasonable price who will pay their way here.

In the south, the PPGs would be trialling on firmer ground – more meaningful for their prospects in Hong Kong – while even the PPs there would be of a better standard as it usually takes a decent horse just to win a maiden at a time of year when horses are gearing up for imminent carnivals.

Owners would still impatiently grab their “golden ticket” and charge out into the marketplace – there will be no changing that – but perhaps the marketplace later in the year might itself be more in line with the aspirations and intentions of the Jockey Club and its owners.

The club moved its International Sale on the calendar in a desire to see its graduates sold at a time which would give them a better chance to succeed, and moving the ballot for owners’ permits for the same reason would seem to be in step with that thinking.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2016-Jul-31, 01:23 PM Reply #53 »
RACENET reports the RAT in NSW has upheld Blake Shinn's appeal for allegedly not giving THUD the best possible chance ...reasons for decision will be posted once available publicly.

RACENET EXCLUSIVE - Inside the Blake Shinn appeal
    Racenet - 01 Aug 2016   
Blake Shinn’s lawyer Wayne Pasterfield has given Racenet an exclusive insight into what went down at Shinn’s successful appeal last week – it makes for an interesting discussion.

Racenet gives you an exclusive look inside NSW racing's justice system.

Punters were divided in their views of the recent Blake Shinn appeal which was finalised on Thursday by the Racing NSW Appeals Panel.

Shinn found himself in hot water for his ride on Thud at Rosehill on Saturday June 18.

Thud is not the easiest horse to ride with a record that reflects that, two wins and numerous placings from 15 starts. 

She is a mare who has to be "cuddled” and produced with a late run.

In the eyes of the stewards, Shinn was guilty of the very serious charge under (Rule 135b) which is basically for jockeys who fail to give their mount every permissible chance of winning or finishing in the best possible position. 

Stewards argued, among other things, that Shinn was guilty because he did not come to the outside when he had the opportunity in the straight and instead, stayed inside leaving himself with no run until it was too late.

I have been involved in many of these cases, and successfully represented jockeys who have won appeals under this vague rule - Jenny Duggan and Serg Lisnyy being two who come readily to mind for their rides at Kembla and Gosford respectively.

The confusion among many in racing arises because of the vagueness of the legal interpretation of the rule itself. 

The leading case of Kerrin McEvoy for his ride on Shakes in 2010 and carried through to present cases indicates that to be guilty of an offence under this rule, a jockey "must be guilty of conduct which in all the circumstances falls below the level of objective judgment reasonable to be expected of a jockey in the position of the person charged.”

The rule is not designed to punish jockeys who make an error of judgment unless those errors are culpable by reference to the above criteria.
So what the hell does that all mean?

It is a very difficult legal concept to absorb, interpret and then explain. Better lawyers than me have read cases in this area and walked away with a migraine.
What it seems to suggest is that the rule is specifically aimed at jockeys. 
All jockeys make errors of judgment - whether they go too early, go too wide, go too late, get too far back, take runs inside other horses. 
But to be guilty of an offence under this rule, the error must be culpable. 
The definition of culpable is not clear and that is why the stewards often lose appeals under this rule. 
That is, their interpretation of the rule is different to that of the Appeals Panel.
In the Shinn case, the stewards’ main argument was that he stayed in too long instead of coming out when he had the chance and make his run on Thud.
Shinn argued that the horse is a tricky ride and has to be cuddled, held up, kidded to and whilst he may have gone overboard with his patience on the horse, it was not sufficiently bad to constitute "culpable” by reference to previous cases such as McEvoy, Duggan and Lisnyy’s case. You can google these and they are also on the Racing NSW website.
So where does this leave us? 
Whilst (AR135b) exists in its current form, and whilst its legal definition in the eyes of the Appeals Panel remains largely unexplained, we are going to continue to have jockeys charged under it. 
They will almost always be found guilty by the stewards who present their own evidence and interpretations to themselves, the jockeys will continue to appeal and the vast majority of them will be successful unless the ride was sufficiently culpable to lead to a finding of guilt.
In layman’s terms, the ride has to be an absolute shocker for a jockey to be found guilty of this offence and must be more than a mere error of judgment.
Good luck and good punting.
Wayne Pasterfield -  Expert Racing Lawyer

Note: Pasterfield is Shinn's regular lawyer although didn't represent Shinn in this particular appeal.

We've seen the same attitude in the RDB decisions from the case of Browne from memory the leading case relied on there was Munce as articulated by Tom Hughes QC McEvoy didn't get mentioned.
Giddy Up :beer:
« Last Edit: 2016-Aug-01, 07:28 PM by Arsenal »

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2016-Aug-06, 09:36 AM Reply #54 »
Submissions and conclusion
34. In relation to Particular 1, Mr Van Gestel submitted that the only reasonable option available to Mr Shinn was to take his mount to the outside of Bonete to seek a run. He pointed to the admissions made by Mr Shinn that he was aware of the availability of an outside run: T 2 L 100-3 and T 6 L300 – T 7 L 305.

35. The Panel does not agree with this submission. Taking Thud further to the outside was one option available to Mr Shinn. In hindsight, it may have been the correct move. However, the Panel accepts the explanation of Mr Shinn that he thought Miss Tenpins would tire, and that he wanted to save his horse for a short sprint home. Perhaps he was in error. If he was, it was short of culpable error of the kind described in the authorities.

36. The Panel also accepts Mr Shinn’s explanation in relation to Particular 2. He thought Bonete was going to shift out. That horse did not. This may have been an error, but not a culpable one.

37. The position is different in relation to Particulars 3 and 4. Mr Shinn’s decision not to take the run between Bonete and Miss Tenpins, and his decision to elect to take an inside run, were errors. They were errors of the kind that fully justified the Steward’s Inquiry, and the laying of the charge. Mr Shinn is a very experienced and successful rider, and high standards are expected of a top level rider such as him.

38. However, ultimately the Panel is not comfortably satisfied on this occasion that Mr Shinn’s error involved a breach of AR 135(b). He gave an explanation as to why he took the inside run, rather than the available run between Miss Tenpins and Bonete. He felt Miss Tenpins would shift out. Perhaps for a stride that horse did. In the end, Mr Shinn made an error in riding for the inside run. The Panel however is not convinced on this occasion that the ride involved culpable error.

39. Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed, and the finding of guilt set aside.

The stewards made a strong case as evidenced by the report above but in the end it came down to a matter of opinion ......he was not found to be "culpable" and as stated previously Munce's case as elucidated by Tom Hughes QC was again referred to as the leading decision in cases involving ARB 135(b)...there's an interesting commentary on HRO on the interpretation of the rule by former chief steward John Schreck.

Giddy Up :beer:

« Last Edit: 2016-Aug-06, 09:39 AM by Arsenal »

Offline koolcat

  • Group 1
  • User 26
  • Posts: 5123
« 2016-Aug-07, 08:44 AM Reply #55 »
I can't stand his monologue's he has to post or he just posts from the whole newspaper stories not just a short post.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2017-Nov-28, 07:09 PM Reply #56 »
Star Sensation – the Stewards opened an inquiry into B Shinn's riding of the filly and in
particular the reason he continued to ride forward and cross to gain the lead. B Shinn stated
his instructions were to take up a forward position, but was given no specific instruction as to
where to settle. He added Star Sensation commenced particularly well and when he
observed B Avdulla, rider of Radiant Choice, to not show intent on going more forward, he
elected to endeavour to cross that runner. He further stated that as he commenced to do so
Radiant Choice appeared to increase the tempo, which resulted in him having to make more
use of his mounts to cross that runner. When questioned if there was an opportunity to take a
trailing position behind Radiant Choice he stated that, as the tempo of the race at this point
was only moderate, given his mount's 60.5kg he felt this would not be in the best interests of
his horse to do so. Trainer Mr M Newnham confirmed the instructions issued and, whilst
acknowledging the opportunity existed to follow Radiant Choice, he expressed general
satisfaction with B Shinn's decision to race outside the lead. After interviewing a number of
jockeys and their respective trainers in respect to tactics adopted in this race and having
regard to the wagering activity on this event, the matter was adjourned to a date to be fixed.
An inquiry into B Shinn's whip use on Star Sensation prior to the 100m was adjourned to a
date to be fixed.

Not one of his best efforts stewards looking at two angles early tactics a speed battle and seemingly giving the impression he's not using the whip effectively..if found he'll be gonski.

Giddy Up :beer:

Offline gunbower

  • Group 2
  • User 2463
  • Posts: 1188
« 2017-Nov-28, 07:15 PM Reply #57 »
Hopefully , he mustn't have had anything on it.

Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 23672
« 2017-Nov-28, 07:38 PM Reply #58 »
After interviewing a number of jockeys and their respective trainers in respect to tactics adopted in this race and having
regard to the wagering activity on this event
, the matter was adjourned to a date to be fixed.
An inquiry into B Shinn's whip use on Star Sensation prior to the 100m was adjourned to a
date to be fixed.

What do they mean "and having regard to the wagering activity on this event"? Everything either drifted or blew a little in the betting. SS went from $3.40 to $4.00 (Geez if that is considered bad what about the favourite in the 1st at Ballina yesterday - $1.90 out to $2.70 - and runs accordingly  :o )

Watched the replay a couple of times. Looked unsuspicious to my untrained eye  :shy:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2018-Feb-19, 07:22 PM Reply #59 »
Shinn finally gets the All Clear when stewards are satisfied there's no evidence of integrity breaches and they decided not to pursue any charges against him Andrew Adkins also got the green light after his ride in the same race was put under the microscope.....took some time the race was 25th November that's a long time to wait for a result.

Giddy Up :beer:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18064
« 2018-Apr-15, 12:03 PM Reply #60 »
Blake Shinn awarded the Nathan Berry Medal yesterday.......presentation on TV mention of who the presenter was an attractive young woman in a big hat ....ironic that back in March 2016 it was reported and posted here by my goodself  that Nathan's widow Whitney went public on Golden Slipper day  declaring that she has found love again with Blake.......hope they are still together. :heart:

Giddy Up :beer:

Offline sobig

  • Group 2
  • User 583
  • Posts: 3922
« 2018-Apr-15, 06:59 PM Reply #61 »
The "attractive young woman in a big hat" was Whitney.

Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 23672
« 2018-Aug-13, 05:05 PM Reply #62 »
Shinn fractures vertebrae in fall

Melbourne Cup-winning jockey Blake Shinn has suffered two fractured vertebrae, and will be sidelined indefinitely after a fall at the Randwick barrier trials on Monday.

Shinn was dislodged from Pacific Legend in heat 10 of the morning with Racing NSW indicating initially the hoop had suffered concussion.

He was conscious when the ambulance arrived and has been taken to Sydney's Prince Of Wales Hospital.

Shinn's manager Glen Courtney said it was "a shame" because the rider had a good book of rides at Gosford on Tuesday, which he now cannot fulfil.

However, he is set for an even longer stint on the sidelines after it was revealed he had fractured his C1 and C3 vertebrae.

Shinn is set to undergo further tests to determine the extent of the damage.

UPDATE: Fallen Rider - Blake Shinn - Randwick Trials

UPDATE: Racing NSW's Dr. Duckworth has reported that Blake Shinn has a fracture of his C1 and C3 vertebra.

He is stable at Prince of Wales Hospital but is having more tests now checking for other damage.

9:30am Monday, 13th August: Jockey Blake Shinn has suffered a fall at Randwick trials. Blake appears to have suffered a concussion but was conscious when ambulance officers arrived.

He is complaining of neck soreness and is being transported to Prince of Wales Hospital in Sydney for further assessment.

Cervical spine fractures are pretty serious injuries and are invariably the cause of quadriplegia. C1 is an unusual bone in that C2 protrudes through the middle of it (Odontoid Peg) and it is rare to see any sort of C1 fracture that doesn't require an extended period of rehabilitation. Vertebrae a bit further down can be less serious if the fracture is just a superficial chip fracture, but if the fracture is through the body of the vertebra without displacement it will require extended periods of rest while the bone heals. If it is displaced at all they would probably perform surgery to stabilize it but fortunately no reports of that so far.

The other thing that causes complications is the swelling in the region that can impinge on the spinal nerve roots.

Hope Blake makes a full recovery but I'm guessing he will be going through a tough time of it at the moment.

Offline sobig

  • Group 2
  • User 583
  • Posts: 3922
« 2018-Aug-13, 08:55 PM Reply #63 »
Latest from racing NSW

Update at 8pm on Monday, 13th August 2017: Racing NSW's Dr. Duckworth has reported this evening that Blake has fractures at C1 and C3 of his vertebra. They are stable and don't require surgery. Blake will be in a neck brace for 6 weeks and will not ride for about 3 months. Luckily, he has no neurological deficit.

Offline ratsack

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 327
  • Posts: 11841
« 2019-Sep-01, 09:19 PM Reply #64 »
Blake has moved to Honkers
frustrating start to the new career
8 rides today
not to shabby