ARB Signals No Nonsense Approach To Rule Breaches

Thanks to Peter Gibson for this information...


ARB Signals No Nonsense Approach To Rule Breaches

Friday, 23rd November 2012

The ARB met in Sydney to consider rule changes to introduce minimum penalties for rule breaches. "Recent wrongdoing by both jockeys and trainers have damaged the image and public perception of racing," Australian Racing Board chief executive Peter McGauran told dailytelegraph.com.au."Therefore, racing regulators have to address the issue, including how such conduct can best be deterred. These are the penalties that have been in place for decades and if stewards vary them, there is a good chance they will be overturned on appeal to a judicial body as being too harsh. The only way we can break away from the penalties that we no longer regard as a sufficient deterrent is to introduce minimum and maximum deterrents. The courts will not overrule us if we put in a minimum penalty." The minimum penalties put forward are:

2-year disqualification for a jockey found guilty of betting on races;
2-year disqualification for administering prohibited substances to racehorses;
3-year disqualification for fixing races; &
3-year disqualification for not allowing a horse to race on its merits

The 3 year ban on horses not running on their merits would shit down SA racing ()

hibernia Wrote:

---

> The 3 year ban on horses not running on their
> merits would shit down SA racing ()


or is that different from inconsistent results ()

A horse that "needs" the run is racing on merit....just a poor merit...
I think, that, like the rest of our society...we are choosing to be judges and not policing enough...
What I mean...highlight an inconsistency (police) and then judge it on its merits.
The Stipes (with all due respect) cannot be the police and the judges.

It doesn't matter what you make the penalties here,you have to have knowledgable alert regulators to recognise the activity.
The point being that this either never happens here..........or never gets noticed!

rob faux Wrote:

---

> It doesn't matter what you make the penalties
> here,you have to have knowledgable alert
> regulators to recognise the activity.
> The point being that this never happens
> here..........or never gets noticed!


You are so right. We need policing to highlight the inconsistency...and the Stipes to judge. A major problem is that time and money are the constraints...(so what's new?)
It's a matter of new blood/new thinking and moving away from the old boys club...

They are talking about horses being deliberately not ridden out/ pulled up to deliberately affect the outcome of a race. So if there is evidence that the rider/ trainer did this, and especially if there was unusual betting activities in the race, then that is what they would punish.

If you want to know why a lot of horses run "in and out", it is because some of them bleed internally, without the obvious symptoms. Or because of minor respiratory problems that only manifest sometimes. Or because some horses are predisposed to high muscles enzymes, when there certain conditions. Not every horse/ trainer/ jockey does this on purpose. And who knows if a horse has a headache one day? And then is fine the next? They are living, breathing creatures who are affected by outside factors just like us. Are you "on song" every day of your life? And when you don't feel so well, is there a clear cut reason every single time?

Don`t treat us like Mugs Ruby,we realise "like us" horses can have off days....

But the comments above suggest that a rider should be banned every time a horse does not run to form?

Inconsistency does NOT equal a horse not running on it's merit, in terms of the rules. Individual, subjective interpretation of the meanings of these words is what causes confusion. And this thread is leaning toward that.

rubyclipper Wrote:

---

> But the comments above suggest that a rider should
> be banned every time a horse does not run to form?
>
>
> Inconsistency does NOT equal a horse not running
> on it's merit, in terms of the rules. Individual,
> subjective interpretation of the meanings of these
> words is what causes confusion. And this thread is
> leaning toward that.


Ruby when last WAS a horse suspended in SA for inconsistent running?

The ARB directive is talking about a PERSON being banned for not ALLOWING a horse to race on its merits - somehow people have confused this with HORSES being banned for inconsistency. they are not the same thing.

How does this equate to: " inconsistent results"?

They are talking about collusion to pull a horse up, not a horse having an off day and running below par. If that was the case we would have no trainers or jockeys left.

Rubyclipper ,your points are valid .......except it is surprising that you are unaware that there is a rule 93.2.6 which states:

A HORSE may be suspended if:it is found to be an inconsistent runner,unfit,unsound,infirm or suffering from any disease.

The problem I have with our regulation is that it is obviously not even necessary for stables to know the rules, as they won't ever be applied.

(and BTW ,the best way to monitor and identify inconsistent running is to track its MR ,run by run)