Does Crop Penalty Cover Broader Prejudice?

Friday's Fairview seventh race is a nice example

How effective is the Crop Strike Rule, and are the unintended consequences being sufficiently addressed by the penalty imposed?

Gregg Clarke of Durban writes in the Sporting Post Mailbag that apart from the rationality, fairness and justness aspects of this hot topic (a discussion for another day), there is one which appears to evade attention.

That is, the prejudicial consequences that arise in some instances.

A case in point was Race 7 at Fairview on Friday 29 December.

The winning margin was a rapidly diminishing 0.10 lengths with the winner being struck at least 15 times in the straight, 3 of those close to the finish.

Watch the replay here:

The Jockey received a fine of R10,000 – but is that a fair and just outcome?

The question that must arise is whether the fast-closing 2nd placed horse was denied a fair chance of winning due to the transgression by the winning jockey and, therefore was the result not a false one?

If a result can be overturned for interference in the closing stages, deemed to have unfairly created the result, why then can the result of Fairview’s Race 7 on 29 December not be similarly reviewed and possibly overturned?

The aggravating factor would be that in illegally striking the winner in excess of the permitted 12, and so close to the finish, the second placed horse was denied a legal/fair chance of winning and thereby creating a false result.

The prejudice was caused to the owners, trainer (albeit in this case the same trainer), jockey, breeders and punters of the second placed horse.

Had the winning margin been 1 or more lengths, or the winner going away, it would be unreasonable to find that the outcome could have been different and therefore fair to say it should be upheld.

Some may argue that it would be unfair to punish the connections of the winner for the indiscretion of the Jockey, but let’s remind ourselves that a result can be overturned due to interference in the latter stages.

Therefore why is the consideration any different in the Race 7 example cited?

In this case the Jockey loses R10,000, but what is that “penalty” vs the loss to the connections of the second placed horse?

Ed – the race referred to by Mr Clark is the seventh at Fairview on Friday 29 December 2023 – here is the Stipes Report excerpt:

Jockey R Fourie was charged with a contravention of Rule 58.10.2 (read with Guideline M on the use of the crop) in that as the rider of BACK FOR MORE he misused his crop by striking BACK FOR MORE more than 12 times (15) which was not warranted when considering the circumstances of the race. Jockey R Fourie signed an admission of guilt and was fined R10 000,00.

Have Your Say - *Please Use Your Name & Surname

Comments Policy
The Sporting Post encourages readers to comment in the spirit of enlightening the topic being discussed, to add opinions or correct errors. All posts are accepted on the condition that the Sporting Post can at any time alter, correct or remove comments, either partially or entirely.

All posters are required to post under their actual name and surname – no anonymous posts or use of pseudonyms will be accepted. You can adjust your display name on your account page or to send corrections privately to the EditorThe Sporting Post will not publish comments submitted anonymously or under pseudonyms.

Please note that the views that are published are not necessarily those of the Sporting Post.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
13 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Share:

Facebook
WhatsApp
Twitter

Popular Posts

The Enchanting Currency Of Fate

It is eerie to think that there would have been no Siren’s Call, Sound Of Warning, or for that matter Call To Unite, had fate not decreed that Enchanted Cove follow her dam to South Africa, and that Peter de Beyer had the foresight to return Elusive Fort back home from the States as well!

Read More »