Extortionist campaigned exclusively at five furlongs; therefore, no proof that he will be better at six. Given the indifferent form of the stable’s runners at the moment, I would not have touched him over five today. I went for Music Master but as it had the curse of Prisewise (my selections never win when he tips them), I never had a penny on it.
When the stalls opened, Havana Cooler came out of the stalls (therefore, it was a runner), it took one stride and jinked to the right, throwing Richard Hughes out the side door. That was unlucky for Hughes (fortunately he was not injured) and unlucky for punters (especially because it was the favourite). If we are going to start declaring anything that unseats rider to be a non-runner the betting market would become completely impossible and ultimately we would get instances of less scrupulous jockeys jumping off horses (for example, if they are on a front runner that misses the break and they know that it will not go a yard with others in front of it).
I don't think it would be a problem and the idea we would have jockeys throwing themselves to the ground on horses which had missed the break is a little extreme I fear. When a horse refuses to enter the stalls it is withdrawn and a rule 4 applied because the horse did not take part in the race. If a horse plants themselves in the stalls or dumps the jockey upon leaving the horse has also failed to take part in the race. The bookies would not lose out as the rule 4 would ensure this and the punter would not lose out as the stakes would be returned. At present the punter loses out terribly as they have no chance of winning and yet still lose their money. I am not sure why you feel it would be impossible to manage a refusal or unseated from stalls as a rule4 as it's not as though it happens every day and rule 4 is already there to manage just such instances. All is needed be changed is that rule 4's apply to such scenarios and I believe most punters and commentators would agree. Withdrawn at start rule 4 refusal to enter stalls rule 4 refusal to leave the stall rule 4 Unseated from stall rule 4 If clarification was needed we could say 6 strides must be taken before a horse is deemed to have raced as most unshipping happens in the first 2 or 3. I don't think anyone would lose from this and if in the extremely unlikely scenario of jockeys throwing themselves from horses after a bad start did occur a jockey would only be able to get away with that once or twice before he became either a laughing stock or had his integrity severely brought into question.
Interesting move for SLVER LIGHTENING in the last at Wolves. Looked quite decent as a juvenile for Kevin Prendergast in Ireland but has shown progressively worse form since those days and dropped twenty pounds in the ratings. First time on the Tapeta and in from 25's to 12's!
Let us try a bite from the reality sandwich here. If the horse that had unseated the jockey immediately after leaving the stalls had been a 33/1 shot that nobody had backed, not a word would have been said. As it was the favourite, where around thirty to forty percent of the money will have been wagered, the punters want to have their cake and eat it: “give me my money back”. Under your plans if it had gone ten yards, the saddle had slipped and Hughes had been jettisoned, it would be deemed a runner but if it had gone five yards you would get your money back. This is as unworkable as laws banning mobile phones while driving or the proposed ban on smoking in cars with children in them. I do agree that if the horse refuses to leave the stalls then that should be deemed a non-runner; and that is an easy rule to implement because there is no contentious issue of counting strides taken or distance travelled. I backed Fray yesterday and Jimmy Fortune lost the race right at the start when he missed the kick and it trailed in a remote last (eased down). Surely it should be declared a non-runner, I get my money back and Fortune should be taken round the back of the stands and shot.
To be honest I have not read-up too much on this furore, but, to me it's so bloody simple. If the horse is "Under Starter's Orders" then that's it, if you've had a bet - you're 'on'? What's the problem? If a punter does not like this basic rule, then don't bet on the horses.
It is a bit different here to how it operates in other countries. They do not come under starters orders here until they are in the stalls, as opposed to France where they come under orders as they are loaded. Not sure how it works for the jumpers. I do have some sympathy with those who have backed horses that plant themselves (under either code) so I would agree that for flat racing if the horse does not leave the stalls it should be declared a non-runner because it obviously has not run. Such horses should then be forced to undertake a successful stalls test before being allowed to run again.
Yes, I would certainly agree with you there, QMII, if a horse just 'plants' himself then it is definitely unfair to the punter. However, if it 'fly-jumps', or whatever, after departing the box then I really do think things should not change? I do sympathize with backers of Havana Cooler, really do, would have been really tee'ed off if I'd backed it!
