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.
