Piere’s 10 Day Ban confirmed

You probably missed our post on the Vaal thread

PRESS RELEASE

Inquiry – Jockey Piere Strydom

The National Horseracing Authority confirms that at an Inquiry held in Johannesburg on 10 March 2021, Jockey Piere Strydom was charged with a contravention of Rule 62.2.2. The particulars being that he failed to ride FORT ANNE, in a competent and professional manner when he struck Jockey Muzi Yeni, the Rider of NETTA, with his crop in the concluding stages of Race 4 at the Vaal Racecourse on 28 January 2021.

Jockey Strydom pleaded not guilty to the charge.

The Inquiry Board found Jockey Strydom guilty as charged and after considering all factors in mitigation, including the manner in which Jockey Yeni rode his horse at the time of this incident, imposed a penalty of a suspension from riding in races for a period of 10 (ten) days.

Jockey Strydom waived his Right of Appeal against the finding and the penalty imposed and has been suspended for a period of ten (10) days with effect from 17 March to 26 March 2021, both dates inclusive.

The wrong jock got the ban in my opinion. Pierre was rightfully retaliating to what could have ended a lot worse for him..

Did Muzi get a suspension or fine?

Muzi got 10 days.
At the time he indicated that he was hoping for consistency with the Strydom inquiry as he himself had received 3 months for the Hewitson incident at Greyville

Strydom got off very lightly

There should be an inquiry into the inquiry, who do the NHRA answer to?

IMHO I believe that in all sports, racing etc, the person who caused the original offense that caused the 2nd person to retaliate, should get a bigger fine/longer suspension than the person who retaliated provided that there was a valid reason for his retaliation.

Craig Eudey wrote: IMHO I believe that in all sports, racing etc, the person who caused the original offense that caused the 2nd person to retaliate, should get a bigger fine/longer suspension than the person who retaliated provided that there was a valid reason for his retaliation.

Fully agree!

Craig Eudey wrote: IMHO I believe that in all sports, racing etc, the person who caused the original offense that caused the 2nd person to retaliate, should get a bigger fine/longer suspension than the person who retaliated provided that there was a valid reason for his retaliation.

Fully agree with the above sentiments...................Materazzi should have got sent off, not Zidane . France could have won the World Cup.

www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/football-marco-...MKCDOQKJYIG6AGGCCUQ/

mikesack wrote:

Craig Eudey wrote: IMHO I believe that in all sports, racing etc, the person who caused the original offense that caused the 2nd person to retaliate, should get a bigger fine/longer suspension than the person who retaliated provided that there was a valid reason for his retaliation.

Fully agree with the above sentiments...................Materazzi should have got sent off, not Zidane . France could have won the World Cup.

www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/football-marco-...MKCDOQKJYIG6AGGCCUQ/

Except - Zidane didn't have a horse to fall off and the risk of a serious injury months before his retirement. He had a few words whispered is his ear.. :huh: