October
JuneFormula one
Dale Scott (10/6) is spot on when it comes to stewards’ reluctance to reverse results where the whip rules have been breached.
To say that advantage gained from illegal whip use is “not quantifiable” is a copout.
The industry is funded by wagering, and wagering will disappear if punters believe jockeys can flout the rules with impunity while gaining an advantage that could change the result of races.
If jockeys didn’t think they were getting an advantage, they wouldn’t break the rule. And it’s cold comfort to the punter (or owner) that a jockey has been fined or suspended. That doesn’t bring your wager (or prizemoney) back, and it’s not a sufficient disincentive — especially in big races.
It seems to me that all the stewards need is a formula to calculate (“quantify”) the advantage gained in terms of margin with whip use over the allowed limit.
Prominent punter Dominic Beirne has had a shot at this with the formula “0.1 lengths*x/a”, where “x” is the number of illegal whip strikes and “a” the apprentice claim if applicable.
Beirne has not satisfactorily explained why an apprentice should be able to keep a race while breaking the rules and a senior rider shouldn’t.
For mine that formula is simplistic as well as illogical, but a workable solution shouldn’t be beyond us.
Castlemaine (Vic)