IS IT TIME TO TAKE A NEW LOOK AT AN OLD PROBLEM?

By Graham Potter | Monday, January 5, 2015

On New Year’s Eve reigning Brisbane Jockey’s Premiership holder went up the range to Toowoomba where he won the $175 000, Listed Bernborough Handicap on the Group 1 winning mare Tinto.

The Rex Lipp trained four-year-old, who saluted in the Queensland Oaks last season with Bell on board, won the Toowoomba contest by 0.80 lengths.

Following the race Bell was fined $500.00 by stewards for using the whip more than 5 times prior to the 100m. Further down in the stewards report a more precise figure is given, “Use of whip 11 times prior to the 100m.”

Back at Doomben on New Year’s Day Bell rode the second favourite Not A Singlemoment in the first race on the card. Not A Singlemoment finished third.

Following the race Bell was fined $500.00 by stewards for using the whip more than 5 times prior to the 100m.

Although the exchange that followed at the track between Bell and fellow rider Jimmy Byrne was in essence just friendly banter, Byrne’s contention that he was tired of being beaten by jockeys who break the whip rule, claiming that something needs to be done with regard to the consequences of the rule breach, made it into the mainstream press which brought the intrinsic flaw in the rule into sharper focus.

But Byrne was not safe himself from censure at the Gold Coast on Saturday where stewards handed him a $200.00 fine ‘for excessive use of his whip in a forehand manner and in consecutive strides prior to the 100m’.

It was unfortunate timing for Byrne in the wake of the argument earlier in the week although it should be noted that, when assessing the penalty, stewards did take into account Byrne’s good record with regard to this rule.

That aside, does Byrne in fact have a valid argument and an alternative option to put forward in terms of formalising punishment for any whip rule breach?

HRO followed up with Tim Bell and Jim Byrne at the Sunshine Coast yesterday to get further clarification about their feelings on the matter.

For the record, it was clear in their good natured exchange that they genuinely get on well, even if Bell did take a friendly snipe back at Byrne following his comments in the press.

That doesn’t mean it didn’t make an interesting conversation … and, yes, in the words of Tim Bell, ‘He (Jimmy Byrne) has got a theory and he is running with it.’

So let’s find out what it is!

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

TIM BELL:

“Look, Jimmy and I are mates. We’re good mates. We always joke behind the scenes and we gee each other up every day of the week.

“We sit beside each other all the time. He can give it and he can take it … and I’m the same.

“Obviously he said what he did after Tinto and New Year’s Day. You know he’s got a theory and he is running with it.

“I didn’t have a good day at the races on Saturday … riding-wise … but two good things happened. One, I got the ride on Hijack Hussy for the Magic Millions and, two, Jimmy Byrne went over in the whip rule. So that was almost better than riding a winner.

“It’s good media. It goes to show that us jockeys, while we are all business out there, we gee each other up all of the time in-between races. It is a very serious business for that short time we are out there every race, but it doesn’t have to be like that in our down-time."

JIM BYRNE:

“You see the whole thing is I’m not talking about the fines. They’re misinterpreting what I’m trying to say. I not talking about Tim’s fines.

“I talking about the fact that there should be a margin put on if someone is involved in the finish who broke the whip rule. Plain and simple, so that you have a clear-cut course of action if you get beaten by a horse whose jockey has broken the whip rule.

TIM BELL:

“But now you are changing your story.

JIM BYRNE:

“Are you kidding me. I’ve never changed it once. Listen to what I’m saying.

“The way the whip rule is currently, if you get beat by a horse and jockey who has broken the rule, the stewards are going to take care of their business as they do, but … even if the other jockey has gone ten over and he beats you by a nose … the reality is you have got no defined course of action for a protest.

“In fact it’s almost as if you can’t protest because it has already been pointed out that is going to be virtually impossible to prove that the winner gained x-amount of advantage because of the overuse of the whip.

“They say you can protest that another jockey is in breach of the rule and has possibly cost you your win, but how seriously can they entertain that with no guide-lines. You are going to be in and out.

“So I’m saying there should be a template listing prescribed margins for overuse of the whip. If I jockey goes two over, it should be a nose. So if you get beaten a nose in those circumstances you can go in there and argue your case.

“If the jockey is in breach of the rules by two to four strikes, it is a half-head. Four to six is a head. Six to eight etc … you know what I’m saying. So, if I get beat by a head and you’ve gone six over, you’re going to lose the race.

“They all think I was having a go at Tim. That wasn’t it at all. Tim and I are good mates.

“My simple point is, if I am beaten by someone who breached the rule I want to be able to have a course of action that I can follow for my trainer and the owners … and for myself as well … that has some basis on which it can succeed.

“If another jockey has breached the rule and I have stayed within the rules I should have some meaningful recourse.

“It could happen in any race. It could be a $1 million race next week, so it is something that really needs to be addressed.”

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

Jim Byrne’s basic premise is that abuse of the rule should not be rewarded with victory if the circumstances demand otherwise.

If Byrne’s template theory is brought into use, it will not only give the right of specific recourse to any compromised party, but it would also clearly reduce overuse of the whip because a rider will know his actions could be costing him too much of margin in the steward’s room to make the result stick if he follows that route.

But just how practical is Byrne’s suggested option?

The problem is whose is going to be counting the whip strikes while a hold is put on correct weight?

And that is just one complication!

Whatever your view, the above discussion, coming from jockeys themselves, certainly does suggest that the rule needs to be revisited and not least because racing … somehow … in terms of a protest being fired in under the whip rule and in terms of securing a means to determine a valid outcome of that protest, has arguably been dodging a bullet for some time.

As Byrne says, ‘It could be a $1 million race next week’.

If that happens, afterwards it will be filed under ‘C’ for calamity.

Why go there?

I prefer to look at it another way which I think is just as simple as Byrne’s idea.

Many believe that accepting the whip rule as it stands now into the Rules Of Racing was folly in the first place.

Most in the industry believe that came about due to racing authorities pandering to the perception of those who have no interest in racing and even less knowledge of horsemanship.

To me there is a bottom line which says it all.

If the rule, forged in those circumstances, is ungovernable in terms of ensuring the fairness of racing and maintaining a proper standard of integrity within the sport, it should be summarily removed from the Rule Book as it is serving no purpose.

Problem solved.

More articles