BAYLISS'S CASE RAISES MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS

By Graham Potter | Wednesday, July 25, 2018

You had to feel sorry for Corey Bayliss!

Forget the ride (on Tumbler) and its consequences for the moment. Here was a young man sitting facing his accusers who was clearly ill equipped on so many levels to face up to the team of senior stewards staring back at him in an inquiry which would ultimately have a severe, unwanted impact on his immediate career.

He was out of his depth and drowning … and that is not a criticism of the young rider. In fact, it was entirely understandable given Bayliss’s inexperience. He had only recently started riding in the city and, albeit due to his own actions, had found himself floundering in the deep end with little hope of rescue in sight.

It was an intimidating set of circumstances.

Trainer Barry Lockwood was there to support Bayliss and he did so as best he could in his own quiet way but the glaring omission in the makeup of the inquiry participants was the lack of an apprentice jockey advocate who would have been able to better advise Bayliss and to ensure he conducted himself to his best advantage … which arguably was very much not the case here.

Properly briefed by an experienced advocate Bayliss could have asked for an inquiry adjournment. He might also have been advised not to enter a plea to the charges until he had got his head around the issue and could consult properly on the matter. But that glaring omission in the makeup of the inquiry participants meant he was on a hiding to nothing.

It might not have changed the verdict (the charges were such that they were difficult to defend), but it would definitely have been, and be seen to be, a fairer process had an advocate been in play.

No apprentice jockey advocate at a metropolitan meeting?

Somebody has to explain that omission!

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

As far as the Tumbler race is concerned, Bayliss did ride a shocker, trailing the field early on a slow speed and deciding not to shift wider before running into dead-ends in the home straight with Tumbler only starting to extend when it was already all over.

We can debate the length of the suspension Bayliss subsequently received all day but another very real debate was also brought into play off the back of the Bayliss saga which is worthy of mention.

That relates to the consistency of stewards in dealing with ‘questionable’ rides.

Those who are unhappy with that standard have referenced the first race at the Sunshine Coast on July 14 and used it as a basis of comparison with the Tumbler result to support their cause for concern. (It is an interesting comparison and those who are keen enough should view the race replays from both races and make their own judgement).

These are some of the facts from that Sunshine Coast result … and some argument and counter argument regarding the circumstances in which that race unfolded.

A six-horse field (as was the case in Tumbler’s race), a hot favourite in Privlaka at $1.40 (Tumbler was a $2.20 favourite) and an upset result, arguably courtesy of the favourite being locked up in traffic and not getting a clear run for some time in the straight … again, just to be clear, in a six-horse field down the long, wide Sunshine Coast straight.

Race commentator Josh Fleming’s call was colourful. ‘Yaba Dabl Doya has beaten Privlaka. Strike me pink! The (the favourite) was unlucky in the straight and gets bowled over. Well, you wouldn’t read about it. A field of six and the favourite couldn’t get out for love nor money. What do you say … $1.50 into $1.40 … a field of six … couldn’t get out. You’ll have a gut-ache if you backed Privlaka.’

The argument by some in defence of Privlaka’s rider Boris Thornton’s effort in the saddle was that he found himself in-between runners early and was pushed back in by another horse when trying shift out at the top of the straight. That supporting argument continued with the claim that Privlaka did get out in time to put in a challenge but came up short.

Others, however, remained unmoved believing that the result would have been different had Privlaka been given a more considered ride.

Stewards did question apprentice Thornton regarding his riding of Privlaka. Their conclusion was that Thornton had erred by not attempting to steady Privlaka and bring it to the outside sooner but they were of the view that these actions were not blameworthy under the rules to the requisite standard and took no direct action.

The Bayliss ride was visually more blatant in its error of judgement as he had clearer options available from early on and he, on the other hand, was charged and found guilty of failing to take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race to ensure that his horse was given full opportunity to win or to obtain the best possible place in the field. Bayliss’s licence to ride in races was suspended for a period of 6 weeks.

While it has to be conceded that no two cases are ever exactly the same … and there are certainly identifiable differences in these two cases, as there are similarities … at end of the day it is not about who should have got off and who should have got six weeks, rather, it’s about the all-important consideration of whether stewards are operating at a level of consistency and fairness in their actions which everybody can understand and accept.

So, are they?

The answer to the following question will go some way to settling that question.

Both Privlaka and Tumbler, two well backed favourites, were held up in the running of their respective races to some significant degree. Both were beaten. Was the difference really as stark as one ride being not blameworthy and the other worth a six weeks suspension - remembering to bear in mind that Bayliss has a prior strike on his record.

Again, you can view the race replays from both races and make their own judgement.

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

In conclusion, I find it appropriate to recall one of the best quotes I have heard.

A jockey was being taken to task by a punter twice his size after the last race. The punter spoke and gesticulated at length about what a dumb ride the jockey had put in earlier that day and the jockey just stood there and took it all until the punter literally ran out of steam.

“Can I ask you one question,” asked the jockey.

“Yes,” replied the punter.

“When you are sitting in the grandstand, watching the race … does the grandstand move?”

I’m not certain if it helps in either of the above cases but the message in that quote is loud and clear. While we are sitting, comfortable and secure, second-guessing jockeys, they are out there, switching for runs, making split second decisions in confined spaces at speed.

That doesn’t mean any truly bad ride can be condoned but I think it does put the greater argument into perspective.

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

For the record these are the two relevant Stewards’ Report Extracts relating to the above-mentioned races:

Apprentice C. Bayliss pleaded guilty to a charge under AR. 135(b) of failing to take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the race to ensure that his horse was given full opportunity to win or to obtain the best possible place in the field. The particulars of the charge being that (1) from the 500m to the 400m he failed to shift TUMBLER wider on the track when it was reasonable and permissible to do so to ensure that TUMBLER had every opportunity to improve into the race and secure clear running in the home straight. (2) Between the 400m and the 300m he failed to shift TUMBLER wider and improve into a run between NICCANOVA and APOLOBOOM when that run was at all times available and it was reasonable and permissible to do so. In the opinion of the stewards, these failures as particularised have resulted in TUMBLER not being given full opportunity to win the race. Apprentice Bayliss’s licence to ride in races was suspended for a period of 6 weeks, to commence at midnight on Wednesday 25 July and expire at midnight on Wednesday 5 September 2018. In determining penalty, stewards took into account apprentice Bayliss’s guilty plea, his record, having previously been penalised for a breach of this rule, and his relative inexperience in riding in the metropolitan area.

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

Stewards questioned apprentice B. Thornton regarding his riding of PRIVLAKA, particularly between the 500m and the 200m. Apprentice Thornton explained that he had no specific instructions other than to ride the horse where it was comfortable and after beginning well he settled the horse trailing MARENOSTRO, which was racing outside the leader. He added that rounding the home turn he attempted to shift FAST ARROW wider in an effort to obtain clear running, but was unable to do so due to FAST ARROW racing to his outside and forward of him. He was then held up for clear running when awkwardly placed at the heels of MARENOSTRO when that runner commenced to weaken. Apprentice Thornton added that he was prevented from shifting wider until approaching the 200m where he considered improving into a run between MARENOSTRO and FAST ARROW but was ultimately disappointed for that run and obliged to shift to the outside of FAST ARROW leaving the 200m after which the horse finished the race strongly. Stable representative Mr R. O’Leary confirmed that apprentice Thornton was instructed to attempt to ride the horse in a handy position with cover, however if there was a lack of early speed, it was an option to lead the race. Trainer R. Heathcote later stated that in his view apprentice Thornton had erred by not steadying PRIVLAKA and shifting wider earlier in the home straight. Mr Heathcote also indicated that the horse would be sent for a spell. Stewards advised apprentice Thornton that in their opinion he had erred by not attempting to steady PRIVLAKA and bring it to the outside of FAST ARROW sooner, which may have resulted in him being able to test the horse sooner than he did. Stewards were of the view that these actions were not blameworthy under the rules to the requisite standard and took no direct action.

More articles