LARRY'S VIEW - RACING'S MANY VARIABLES MEAN THAT THE SHORTEST WAY HOME IS NOT ALWAYS THE BEST OPTION

By Larry Cassidy | Friday, April 13, 2012

Larry Cassidy currently has forty-two Group 1 successes behind his name. He is a multiple Premiership winning jockey having taken out three titles in Sydney and one in Brisbane. Larry’s View, the personal blog of this top class rider will appear on horseracingonly.com.au every Friday, workload permitting.

When fellow HRO blogger David Fowler brought up the old truth that the rail is the shortest way home his observation provoked a fair amount of response, most of which basically posed the question, ‘so why don’t jockeys make use of that route more often?’

Let me say at the outset that I had two rules drummed into me as an apprentice and the first was that the rail is the shortest way home. That is an undeniable truth, but there are several variables that come into play that often dictate that, while the rail is always the shortest way home, it is not always the best option available.

Just for starters, it depends what race-track you are at. It depends on the track rating. It depends on where the rail is placed for that meeting and it depends on where the rail had been placed in previous meetings.

Let’s say I turn up at Eagle Farm. The track is rated slow and the rail is true. Depending on how long it has been raced on … if it hasn’t been raced on for a while, usually the fence to about four off is the spot to be. At Doomben when the rail is normal and the track is rated dead … the fence should be perfect.

In general terms the first two races on the day will have a major influence on the way the balance of the card is run.

You might stick to the fence in the first race and get beat in the shadows by something flashing down the outside. If everything behind you wasn’t going anywhere and four horses have flashed down the outside, you will see from there on everyone will steer clear of the fence.

That might happen most of the day and then you’ll see something come up the fence the last race and win because that part of the track hasn’t been raced on.

So irrespective of what has gone before a rider should never stop reassessing the options.

It is very important that a rider watches the replays. They are full of information. To put it simplistically, if you see a 100-1 chance making up ground on a particular section of track you could assume that is the place to be.

When the track is very heavy sometimes they overdo it and race very wide in the home straight. That can open up two options for the savvy rider. Sometimes you can cut the corner and then ease to about four off the fence … and, because nothings actually been there, it actually becomes the better part of the track because they’ve all been getting wider.

But that is a call which has a risk attached to it. If everything’s been coming wide and winning and you are on the favourite and you stick up the fence and get beat by three lengths … you’re a mug! In that circumstance, if you could have come out everyone will say you should have.

So that’s just the difficulty of choice in terms of the rider’s decision-making. The position gets further complicated by the nature of the horse itself and the circumstances you find yourself in during the running.

There are horses who simply don’t like racing inside other horses and you have to take that factor into account when giving them their best chance of winning.

Also, if you are racing three back the fence with three tiring horses in front of you, you have got to come off the fence. You have got to come out sometimes. You might prefer to stay inside, but they will be stopping in front of you … and the only place to be is to come out.

For all that though, if you think the rail is good … that is where you should be, but it is not as simple a route to navigate as some people think because a lot of factors come into play.

Shortest way … yes! The best route to victory … not always!

**********************************************************************************************

I said I had two rules drummed into me as an apprentice. The first was that the rail is the shortest way home. The second was when you get into the gates, always be ready … ALWAYS be ready!

In a race at Eagle Farm on Saturday Chris Munce asked for a hold to be put on correct weight as he felt his mount Risk Aversion had not been afforded a fair start and should be declared a non-runner.

I rode in that race. I couldn’t actually see what was going on because I was drawn wider, but I could hear that the horse was playing up. There was quite a lot of talking between Chris (Munce) and the starter.

I was ready to go … but not one entirely hundred percent. I had my hands in the jump out position, but I was looking over to where the noise was coming from, sort of thinking ‘what’s going on’ … and then the gates opened.

That ‘always be ready’ discipline served me well. If I had been sitting there with a loop in my reins and my hand on the side … my horse jumped so well I probably would have fallen off the back.

All I can say is that there was a distraction at the time and I jokingly said to Chris, geez didn’t they teach you at apprentice school … always be ready. But, you know, obviously I could hear talk going on between him and either the starter or whoever was up with the horse and I know several jockeys were not all totally prepared for the gates to be opened at the time but, with the possible exception of Chris, none of our horses seemed to be
compromised by the start.

As things turned out Risk Aversion finished third. Because the horse had finished in the placings stewards could not call it a non-runner because they have no discretionary powers under Rule 134 (A) which concludes which the statement that horses ‘declared first, second or third placing in a race shall not be declared a non-starter.’

The rule came when a horse was declared a non-runner after placing and the owners were not happy about losing out on their stake money. There’s that consideration. There is the fact that the race on Saturday was a Listed race and Risk Aversion, who ran third, is a mare so she gets Black Type and the owners have gained some prestige for the mare, even if they possibly lost on win bets.

If they say the horse was denied a fair start and … ok, you’re out … and that horse never earns any more Black Type, who is the loser?

So it is a very difficult one to work out. In this sort of example, whatever decision is applied … you can bet that somebody will not be happy.

Imagine if it happens in Group 1 race. Would ‘hard-done by’ connections really want a refund, the result removed from the horses record and the stake money handed back?

Away from the extreme example, the rights and wrongs of the rule are certainly debatable and I believe the rule is currently under review.

While discretion can be a valuable tool, in these sorts of cases it might open up more sour debate than having a hard and fast rule that everybody knows is in play beforehand and which limit the argument after the fact.

There is going to be a lot of ‘for’ and ‘against’. I think we’ve got the rule. Let’s stick to it!

Till next week.
Larry

More articles