60 Days for Bling

Not sure OTA but you hear of SA jockeys being chased all the time from the island

The Author of the article in the racing post is based in South Africa


draconian my arse

MICHAEL CLOWER think again.

This punishment is hardly any deterent. Lack of enforcing the rules is one of the major reasons why jocks do whatever the fcuk they want

they clueless then need to go to an optomitrist and get their eyes checked - absolute joke imo

Inconsistencies again.........no end to the farce that has become S.A. racing.
Was the Bling incident any different from the Turffontein ride? Did both jocks not fail to ride the mounts to the winning post and beyond?
Yet 20 days is not equal to 60 days for those who can't do the maths.

From a punter's perspective the Turffontein incident was at a major race centre and the horse was the favourite so many punters lost potential winnings when the rider relaxed and failed to look across on the inside where the eventual winner swooped in.

The Bling ride was at a minor centre in P.E.and the horse was not the favourite so punters who backed the winner were winners because it was the tote favourite.

A punter did not go to court to try and regain his potential winnings in the P.E. incident yet in the Turffontein episode the jockey was taken to court by the punter who would have won a few hundred thousands had the horse won.

Different strokes for different folks again? Do the maths if you can count.

Naidoo stables raided at Vaal and the trainer warned off. Now a Vaal trainer handed a massive fine for offences but does it equate to a warning off?

Trainer Maharaj warned off for assault in dispute with riding master and stipe. Official who is in a senior position assaults a patron and gets off with a fine after saying sorry.

Nought adds up in the equations, inconsistent outcomes from all angles.

Thats what i was meaning Mike it`s the same outcome no matter what way you look at it, and i can guarentee you the Strydom one hurt the punter a 100 times worse

guys as i said before you are missing the point - isnt the point what was the offence ?- Integrity of racing and riding the horse out is the point of the matter. imo even if 10 rand is at stake it is the principle and the offence not the amount of money. Plus how do you know how much money was on blings horse you havnt got a clue.

Have actually seen people including members of the jealous racing fraternity shouting for year bans and even life bans!!!

Fools

so RIVERJ explain what your opinion is then - why do you think 60 days is fair - its easy to make coments and call people fools- YET you have not even explained your view on what happened - have you even seen the replay - willing to bet not

Did you think Strydoms 20 Days was fair Blue ?

The NHRA uses presumption when it comes to objections.. "But for the interference horse A would have won.". This approach should be a part of restorative Justice for the owner... "But for the unprofessional ride horse A would have finished first..." The owner should be paid out the difference in stakes from the Jockey for finishing in an inferior placing because of the actions of the rider. This should be added to any other punitive measures the board decrees.

The standard rule of riding to the line on all horses should be enforced harshly from winning horses(too many are eased before the line) to those that finish unplaced. There is no need to whip a horse if he has no money chance but there is no reason why the rider should stop pushing out until the line unless he feels something amiss.There is no reason to break the horse's stride until after the line. No punter can have any qualms if he sees the jockey has ridden out from the 400m to finish.

thought a month but 20 reasonable - 60 days too lenient for bling imo