The Options: A horse weighs in LIGHT? - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK
harm-plan
harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



The Options: A horse weighs in LIGHT? - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: The Options: A horse weighs in LIGHT?  (Read 80404 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Authorized

  • Group 1
  • User 18
  • Posts: 31347
« 2016-Jan-06, 05:42 PM Reply #525 »
I know DD's views and generally agree with them.

However there (as DD predicted) been an outcry on twitter and a couple of Victorian
racing committee men have said they will get the rule changed.

Watch the increase in these incidents if that happens.


Online JWesleyHarding

  • Group 1
  • User 231
  • Posts: 22013
« 2016-Jan-06, 07:44 PM Reply #526 »
But stewards must have processes in place to eliminate some of the common causes of weighing in light.

1.  All weigh-out processes must be recorded on video, and the scales reading electronically recorded.

2.  Jockeys must be weighed WITHOUT their gear when they weigh out, and again before they mount the horse.  It's not really that complicated.

Well there's a turn-up for the books.

Seems the blinkers have slipped just a little.  emthup

Next he'll be nomming Phil for Queenslander of the Year.


Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18177
« 2016-Jan-06, 08:38 PM Reply #527 »
G1X report has a little more detail than the earlier post by PP.....still doesn't solve the mystery of how the weights disappeared.

APPRENTICE Jye McNeil had a day of ups and downs at Sandown on Wednesday.

McNeil was fined $2000 after Tigidig Tigidig was first past the post in the Ladbrokes Cash In Handicap, only to be disqualified after weighing in 0.6kg under its declared weight.

However he finished the day on a better note, guiding Prix D'Or to victory in the Le Pine Funerals Handicap.

Racing Victoria stewards, headed by acting chairman Robert Cram, said the fine was hefty due to the repercussion.

Cram said stewards had to protect owners, trainers and punters as well as the image of racing.

In weighing out for his mount on Tigidig Tigidig, McNeil said he had two pieces of lead, each weighing 250g, in his hand.

Clerk of scales Hayley Addison said she remembered McNeil placing one piece of lead on a bench, after which McNeil weighed out correctly, before handing the saddle straight to Tigidig Tigidig's trainer Vincent Maladdy.

McNeil told stewards he returned to the jockeys' room, giving the two pieces of lead to fellow apprentice Ben Thompson, having borrowed it earlier in the day.

He was asked if the two pieces could have in fact weighed 500g, but was adamant they both weighed 250g.

"I believe I put both pieces of lead on the bench and returned them to Ben's bag," McNeil said.

Maladdy said he was vigilant in placing the saddle on his horses, adding he took note of the gear Tigidig Tigidig was to carry.

"I placed the saddle on the divider at horse stalls," Maladdy said.


"I checked the lead in the lead bag. I like to put the lead towards the front of the horse so I checked that the amount of lead Jye said was there, was there.

"All the gear was on the horse."

Jockeys used to be allowed to use the horse's bridle to make up the weight shortfall but the rule was amended to allow a rider 0.5kg.

As McNeil weighed in 0.6kg under his declared weight, Tigidig Tigidig was disqualified and the race awarded to Foreign Affair.

Mark Zahra received an eight-meeting suspension in the final event after running second on Makeadane behind Prix D'Or.

The suspension starts after he rides at the Gold Coast on Saturday.

Earlier James Winks was suspended for seven meetings on a careless riding charge, which commences after Saturday and Damian Lane was fined $300 after missing his ride on Disseminate in the Cove Hotel Plate.

 
SHARE   

join now   
Its Free to Join the Universe of Racing!

Giddy Up :beer:

 
 

Offline ratsack

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 327
  • Posts: 11895
« 2016-Jan-06, 08:47 PM Reply #528 »
G1X report has a little more detail than the earlier post by PP.....still doesn't solve the mystery of how the weights disappeared.

APPRENTICE Jye McNeil had a day of ups and downs at Sandown on Wednesday.

McNeil was fined $2000 after Tigidig Tigidig was first past the post in the Ladbrokes Cash In Handicap, only to be disqualified after weighing in 0.6kg under its declared weight.

However he finished the day on a better note, guiding Prix D'Or to victory in the Le Pine Funerals Handicap.

Racing Victoria stewards, headed by acting chairman Robert Cram, said the fine was hefty due to the repercussion.

Cram said stewards had to protect owners, trainers and punters as well as the image of racing.

In weighing out for his mount on Tigidig Tigidig, McNeil said he had two pieces of lead, each weighing 250g, in his hand.

Clerk of scales Hayley Addison said she remembered McNeil placing one piece of lead on a bench, after which McNeil weighed out correctly, before handing the saddle straight to Tigidig Tigidig's trainer Vincent Maladdy.

McNeil told stewards he returned to the jockeys' room, giving the two pieces of lead to fellow apprentice Ben Thompson, having borrowed it earlier in the day.

He was asked if the two pieces could have in fact weighed 500g, but was adamant they both weighed 250g.

"I believe I put both pieces of lead on the bench and returned them to Ben's bag," McNeil said.

Maladdy said he was vigilant in placing the saddle on his horses, adding he took note of the gear Tigidig Tigidig was to carry.

"I placed the saddle on the divider at horse stalls," Maladdy said.


"I checked the lead in the lead bag. I like to put the lead towards the front of the horse so I checked that the amount of lead Jye said was there, was there.

"All the gear was on the horse."

Jockeys used to be allowed to use the horse's bridle to make up the weight shortfall but the rule was amended to allow a rider 0.5kg.

As McNeil weighed in 0.6kg under his declared weight, Tigidig Tigidig was disqualified and the race awarded to Foreign Affair.

Mark Zahra received an eight-meeting suspension in the final event after running second on Makeadane behind Prix D'Or.

The suspension starts after he rides at the Gold Coast on Saturday.

Earlier James Winks was suspended for seven meetings on a careless riding charge, which commences after Saturday and Damian Lane was fined $300 after missing his ride on Disseminate in the Cove Hotel Plate.

 
SHARE   

join now   
Its Free to Join the Universe of Racing!

Giddy Up :beer:

 
 

is this your NEW go to blog , arsie   ?


Offline Authorized

  • Group 1
  • User 18
  • Posts: 31347
« 2016-Jan-06, 10:32 PM Reply #529 »
Why dont Jockeys just say everything was correct when i gave it to the trainer ?

Offline Authorized

  • Group 1
  • User 18
  • Posts: 31347
« 2016-Jan-07, 10:15 AM Reply #530 »
Kieren fox (2010)

Kieren Fox: rider was given a two-day ban

 PICTU Mark Cranham (racingpost.com/photos)

Fox to appeal and 
Best again in his corner

KIEREN FOX is to appeal against the ban he received for weighing in 3lb light at Lingfield on Monday, bolstered by the fact he overturned a suspension for the same offence four years ago.

The earlier disciplinary panel finding was widely regarded as setting a precedent and led to the BHA reviewing the rule, but jockeys continue to be held responsible for the contents of the saddle despite it being out of their control after weighing out.

In the latest incident, Fox's mount State Of The Union was disqualified from second in a 6f handicap, although there was no explanation why he weighed in light. It was accepted he weighed out with his lead cloth, a leather pouch that sits under the saddle, and that he handed it to trainer Lee Carter intact with the rest of his tack, but it was missing when he weighed in.

A search of the track, the stable yard where Carter saddled State Of The Union, the area around the winner's enclosure and weighing room, not to mention the wheelie bin into which number cloths are placed, failed to solve the mystery. This left stewards with no option under the rules but to find Fox and Carter in breach as no blame could be apportioned. Fox was given a two-day ban and Carter fined 500.

Best relishing role

Fox's boss, trainer John Best, who represented the 26-year-old at the previous appeal in September 2011, will again be fighting his corner and he is looking forward to improving his impressive record having also successfully contested a non-trier' appeal without legal assistance.

Best said: "Kieren is going to appeal and I can't wait for it. I've done two appeals and won both of them.

"He weighed out, he handed the saddle over and when he came back in it's 3lb light. How that can be Kieren's fault, yet he gets a two-day ban?

"After the last time Kieren won the appeal the BHA were meant to be reviewing the rule, but why hasn't it been changed? I don't know because it's patently unfair."

Fox, who has enjoyed a resurgence this year with 36 winners, said: "Once that saddle has left the weighing room it's out of the jockey's hands. You can't get on a horse who is quite highly strung and start checking the weight cloth's on, it's the last thing you'd think of. I can't explain what happened, but to get a ban when I haven't done anything wrong isn't right."

BHA spokesman Robin Mounsey said: "The rules regarding weighing in light were last amended in 2013. They state that if the stewards are unable to establish cause for the deficit then both the jockey and trainer should receive a joint penalty. The penalty for when no cause can be established is set at a lower level than when cause can be established.

"The appeal system is in place should either rider or trainer wish to dispute the penalty they've received. We had just such an appeal in November, which was successful."


Offline dubbledee

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 285
  • Posts: 34011
« 2016-Jan-07, 04:37 PM Reply #531 »
I know DD's views and generally agree with them.

However there (as DD predicted) been an outcry on twitter and a couple of Victorian
racing committee men have said they will get the rule changed.

Well, I don't know about these "Victorian committee racing men" and their expectation that the rule will be changed.

We can only hope they sit down with some smart people who can educate them.

The Rule must not be changed.

If anyone thinks the current rule is unfair - just wait to see the uproar if there's implementation of a "treat as late SCR" approach.

Surely these learned gentlemen are smarter than they appear right now?

No doubt they'll ask themselves what happens when the horse that weighs-in light runs 2nd, and 3rd, and 4th, and 5th???

And no doubt they'll consider collusion and malpractice.

Thankfully, most stewards are aware of the implications of a rule change and have stood firm. 

Many metro tracks now have hi-tech weigh-out processes whereby the scales "know" what the weight should be for the particular jockey.  (But this stuff won't be available in the country, where most problems have arisen.)

Accordingly, I would happily accept a revision of Rule AR 143 to deal with cases where the fault can be proven to be an admin error - exonerating the actions of all licensees.  For example, if the computerised scales told the jock all was OK, when in fact it was not.  These cases can reasonably be treated as we would a starting gate that fails to open.  :bulb:

Reading reports on yesterday's case, it seems the jockey was carrying weights in his hand as he weighed out.  That does seem rather strange to me.  There was then a mix-up in setting up the lead-bags apparently.  :shrug:


Offline Gintara

  • Group 1
  • User 16
  • Posts: 13705
« 2016-Jan-07, 04:58 PM Reply #532 »
While I've always generally supported your view DD do you think it's as relevant in todays modern racing?


The Rule must not be changed.

If anyone thinks the current rule is unfair - just wait to see the uproar if there's implementation of a "treat as late SCR" approach.

Surely these learned gentlemen are smarter than they appear right now?

No doubt they'll ask themselves what happens when the horse that weighs-in light runs 2nd, and 3rd, and 4th, and 5th???



Prizemoney has never been higher & the need to get an earn off the punt probably isn't prevalent today as it was say back in the 60s?

Offline dubbledee

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 285
  • Posts: 34011
« 2016-Jan-07, 05:22 PM Reply #533 »
GT

I believe the rule is just as relevant now, as it was in the 1900s when it was brought in - by founding fathers with a lot more wisdom than they've been given credit for.

Just on the collusion bit...  IF the rule was changed

You and I train the only two chances in a race.  I agree to accidentally leave a towel in the stall.  We back both heavily.

If I happen to win, and you run 2nd, I get caught out, and fined $1000.  I get my bets back.  You win the race and get paid your bets (less deductions - which I actually get).

That is just ONE scenario that doesn't get a run under the rule as it is.

Below is just ONE scenario that shows how a change of the rule shifts the unfairness from one set of punters to another set.



Try this one...

Black Caviar hard-ridden beats Hay List a nose and weighs in 1 kg light.

As of now, BC is disqualified, and HL becomes the winner.  Had BC carried her correct weight he would have been the winner.  So correct outcome.

Change the rule, BC is declared a non-runner, those who backed her get their money back.  HL backers cop a hefty deduction.  That is grossly unfair.  They were on the deserved winner.

As I have said, things get murky and murkier when we look at place-betting and exotics.

Unfair as the current rule is, to change it will make it even more unfair.

It will stay as it is.  :bulb:
« Last Edit: 2016-Jan-07, 05:25 PM by dubbledee »

Offline Authorized

  • Group 1
  • User 18
  • Posts: 31347
« 2016-Jan-07, 05:37 PM Reply #534 »
GT

I believe the rule is just as relevant now, as it was in the 1900s when it was brought in - by founding fathers with a lot more wisdom than they've been given credit for.

Just on the collusion bit...  IF the rule was changed

You and I train the only two chances in a race.  I agree to accidentally leave a towel in the stall.  We back both heavily.

If I happen to win, and you run 2nd, I get caught out, and fined $1000.  I get my bets back.  You win the race and get paid your bets (less deductions - which I actually get).

That is just ONE scenario that doesn't get a run under the rule as it is.

Below is just ONE scenario that shows how a change of the rule shifts the unfairness from one set of punters to another set.



Try this one...

Black Caviar hard-ridden beats Hay List a nose and weighs in 1 kg light.

As of now, BC is disqualified, and HL becomes the winner.  Had BC carried her correct weight he would have been the winner.  So correct outcome.

Change the rule, BC is declared a non-runner, those who backed her get their money back.  HL backers cop a hefty deduction.  That is grossly unfair.  They were on the deserved winner.

As I have said, things get murky and murkier when we look at place-betting and exotics.

Unfair as the current rule is, to change it will make it even more unfair.

It will stay as it is.  :bulb:


People keep posting that scenario as a reason NOT to change the rule.

Others say its not fair the horse is being disqualified and the punter NEVER had a chance of winning. From the moment the Jockey weighs out the punter was never going to win because the weight discrepancy.

I do not want the rule changed but I will play the devils advocate here.

DD, If $1.50 chance never had the chance of winning due to the weight discrepancy than it was never a $1.50 chance and therefore the 6/1 shot winner would have been a heck of a lot shorter than its quote because it really never had to beat that $1.50 chance. The punters on the eventual winner are not really being duped because they never had to beat that $1.50 shot.

  


Offline dubbledee

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 285
  • Posts: 34011
« 2016-Jan-07, 07:49 PM Reply #535 »

People keep posting that scenario as a reason NOT to change the rule.

Others say its not fair the horse is being disqualified and the punter NEVER had a chance of winning. From the moment the Jockey weighs out the punter was never going to win because the weight discrepancy.

I do not want the rule changed but I will play the devils advocate here.

DD, If $1.50 chance never had the chance of winning due to the weight discrepancy than it was never a $1.50 chance and therefore the 6/1 shot winner would have been a heck of a lot shorter than its quote because it really never had to beat that $1.50 chance. The punters on the eventual winner are not really being duped because they never had to beat that $1.50 shot.

Dunno whether "people" are posting it - but I am.  It's just one example of gross unfairness that would flow if the rule were to be changed.

So Matt, you seem to be agreeing with me.

1.  The existing Rule is unfair.
2.  There is no workable change that is less unfair.
3.  Thus, the Rule should be retained - as the founding fathers proposed it.

Thanks.

Also, in the absence of any further comments, I'll inform ARB that the forum consensus is that there be NO change to AR 143.

 :clap2:

Now, as for your comment...

If $1.50 chance never had the chance of winning due to the weight discrepancy than it was never a $1.50 chance and therefore the 6/1 shot winner would have been a heck of a lot shorter than its quote because it really never had to beat that $1.50 chance. The punters on the eventual winner are not really being duped because they never had to beat that $1.50 shot.

Only you know what you're getting at there, so won't go into detail.  (You have seen odds-on pops get beaten, I gather??)

You seem to be trotting out the old adage "if ya can't win ya shouldn't be able to lose".

Well that's nonsense when it comes to punting.  (Bit like those who quote "the law of averages".)

I'll remember your doctine when I back:

1.  A horse whose saddle slips and has to be pulled up.
2.  A mare who's in season - but not recognized until after the race.
3.  A horse who has a history of EIPH and who suffers a major "bleed" during the race.
4.  A horse with a hairline sesamoid fracture and who breaks a leg during the race.
5.  A horse with an undiagnosed aortic aneurysm and who collapses and dies during a race.
6.  A horse ridden by a jockey suffering from heat exhaustion.
7.  A horse that bucks soon after the start due to the girth being too tight.

There are a couple more, too - but I'll leave them to you.  ;)

See how ya can lose at punting when ya had no chance of winning??
« Last Edit: 2016-Jan-07, 07:52 PM by dubbledee »

Offline Authorized

  • Group 1
  • User 18
  • Posts: 31347
« 2016-Jan-07, 07:55 PM Reply #536 »
I am just trying to drag out all the imponderables to boost my argument in favour of the current  rule.


I'll copy and paste your 7 reasons and any more you come up with for elsewhere I am involved in this debate.  :sweat:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 18177
« 2016-Jan-22, 07:01 AM Reply #537 »
Racing Australia reluctant to tinker with weigh-in rule despite punters' protests
 
Date January 18, 2016 
Adam Pengilly

Sports reporter
Racing Australia has stressed it has no plans to revisit the controversial rule where punters are stripped of their wagers on a horse when a jockey weighs in light, even after the Jye McNeil drama earlier this month.

Despite howls of protest in the days after the race in question where McNeil was fined $2000 and his mount Tigidig Tigidig disqualified after being first past the post in a Sandown race Racing Australia boss Peter McGauran confirmed tinkering with the law is not on the board's immediate agenda.

Punters who backed Tigidig Tigidig had no chance of recouping their money and were left fuming when stewards were confronted with no other option but to disqualify the horse.

But Racing Australia remains reluctant to amend the rule given the rarity of the scenario and precedent it would set for other horses similarly affected.


Among their concerns include if a jockey weighs in light on a beaten horse which is subsequently declared as a non-runner, other punters are likely to be out of pocket.

Those who had backed a horse which, on merit, finished ahead of a mount which didn't carry its allotted weight would be forced to cop deductions from their dividend.

And stewards are also privately concerned jockeys who are beaten in a race could easily dispel lead on returning to scale in order to deliberately weigh in light and abuse any rule which deems the horse a non-runner, therefore refunding losing bets.

One option floated would be to deem only the first horse past the post as a non-runner if its jockey weighs in light, therefore protecting "winning" bets.

But McGauran said the Racing Australia board were worried about the precedent it would set for other runners and had not flagged the rule for discussion at its next meeting.

"For winners to be declared non-runners ... how long will it be before jockeys who weigh in light on placegetters or other runners mean calls start for them to also be declared non-runners? That's one of several scenarios that has been presented to us where other punters lose out because of deductions," McGauran said.

"If [the states] were to pursue a rule change we would have to consider it, but there is no immediate body of support."

Racing Victoria said on Monday it is likely to wait until chief steward Terry Bailey returns from annual leave next month before deciding on whether to table another proposal in regards to the rule.

But acting chief steward Robert Cram indicated in the wake of the McNeil incident it would be under strong consideration.

McGauran said the introduction of electronic scales in the last two years had limited the number of discrepancies with riders not returning at their correct weight after a race.

"The electronic scales seem to have eliminated the occurrence [of further weighing in light scenarios] and there doesn't seem an appetite to change [the rule]," McGauran said. "When the board last considered [the rule] it was decided to give the electronic scales the chance to work.

"Now if the jockey weighs in light or heavy the onus is on the jockey to provide the reasons. The board expects the rider to take more responsibility for his or her weight upon returning to scale."

Read mo http://www.smh.com.au/sport/horseracing/racing-australia-reluctant-to-tinker-with-weighin-rule-despite-punters-protests-20160117-gm7y21.html#ixzz3xukKmR9S
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

Obviously there are occasional problems more than likely due to human error...the jockey ...the trainer ..or the clerk of scales ....with the result that winners turn out to be losers and losers wind up winners ...not very satisfactory  if you're in the first category......maybe there's a solution..or just my wishful thinking.  :king:


Giddy Up :beer:

Offline dubbledee

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 285
  • Posts: 34011
« 2016-Jan-22, 07:15 AM Reply #538 »
Racing Australia have been very well advised on this matter.

Thank God for Queensland!!

Amazed that so many people paid to be smart about racing lack the ability to think through the ramifications of any change to AR143.  Thankfully, those old founding fathers did.   :clap2:


Offline dubbledee

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 285
  • Posts: 34011
« 2016-Apr-26, 09:07 AM Reply #539 »
So after all the huff and puff from the southern experts that "the rule has to change", I've heard not a murmur about the subject at last week's Stewards' Conference.

Maybe they've finally thought about it, having read the advice they've received.  :whistle:

Offline Authorized

  • Group 1
  • User 18
  • Posts: 31347
« 2016-Apr-26, 09:16 AM Reply #540 »
So after all the huff and puff from the southern experts that "the rule has to change", I've heard not a murmur about the subject at last week's Stewards' Conference.

Maybe they've finally thought about it, having read the advice they've received.  :whistle:

Perhaps, having not been in the headlines for a little while, they forgot to put it on the agenda ?


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap