SUNSHINE COAST NEWSPAPER COLUMN: RACING SPEED VIOLATIONS ... WHERE TOO FAST IS AS BAD AS TOO SLOW

By Graham Potter | Sunday, June 5, 2016

Graham Potter writes a weekly column for the Sunshine Coast daily. Due to demand from those having trouble accessing the paper these columns are now also published on HRO courtesy of the Sunshine Coast daily.

When Daniel Riccardo’s Red Bull team produced a pit lane mistake that almost certainly cost him victory in the Monaco Grand Prix, he didn’t want to hear their excuse. He said, ‘nothing you can say will make this better.’ He told them to ‘save it.’

Punters and connections of the three tearaway early leaders in the Doomben 10,000 would have experienced a similar feeling as their chance of a return on their investment was run into the ground, courtesy of a blistering opening sectional which ultimately played a huge part in seeing their horses reduced to also-rans.

All of the riders involved were questioned by stewards.

No action was taken.

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

You couldn’t help thinking back to the Dalrello Stakes in which two runners, including the favourite, also went out at breakneck speed.

One rider was subsequently charged and, despite vigorously claiming she was unable to restrain her mount, found guilty of not giving her horse its best possible chance. (It finished fifth).

That jockey was suspended for two months ... a decision reversed on appeal.

Perhaps the stewards at Doomben had that precedent in mind. Sustaining a burden of proof on such a debateable variable as to whether a rider could restrain their horse or not had proved too onerous a task.

If you were not in the saddle, how would you know?

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

But then again, stewards often have to make a judgement call. Without doing so when required, their job would to a large degree be rendered meaningless. Therefore, when they do, you have to believe that a measured opinion led them to their conclusion.

But the sticking point in this whole argument is the matter of consistency.

In the Dalrello, why one rider initially received a two month penalty and the other (riding the favourite who finished second last) got off without even a warning is difficult to understand.

In the 10,000, why three riders got away with mere questioning and no significant censure beyond that (in a Group 1 race) was a hard pill to swallow for those punters who put their hard-earned on any of these runners.

Not to mention the trainers, who had primed those runners for the day, and the connections whose expectations were punctured long before the winner hit the line.

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

All racing enthusiasts want is for the ‘referee’ to be consistent.

Going too hard in front is as bad a judgement call for a jockey as getting a horse too far out of its ground. I know unforeseen circumstances can see horses fire up or run into a dead-end, but the bottom line is that in cases in which accepted, standard speed limits ... slow or fast ... are seriously breached, those riders should know they will be called to serious account.

If they genuinely can’t control their horse ... so be it.

But did that really happen to all three of those runners in the 10,000 ... in a Group 1 race?

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

I’m not saying controlling a thousand pound thoroughbred in congested running at speed is easy. I am not saying that assessing the measure the culpability of any ride is always a clear-cut decision.

That’s why we have professionals doing it.

Professionals with responsibilities.

Professionals, arguably, with room for improvement ... on both sides.