Should Tequila have been disqualified?
An unprecedented event in the history of Indian racing history happened at the Pune race course on Sunday. Jockey Stephane Ladjadj who was astride Tequila pushed Neeraj Rawal who was riding Takestwototango by his hand in order to prevent the horse form leaning on to him and causing him severe interference. The saddle of Takestwotango had slipped by that time and Neeraj had no control on his horse which was in danger of causing a mishap by going on to Tequila apart from causing harm to jockey Neeraj himself who was astride the horse. Tequila went on to win the race from Cloud Cover. There was no objection from jockey Neeraj Rawal.
There was a Stewards enquiry into the incident. Jockey Stephane Ladjadj perhaps did not argue his case properly as he tried to defend his action by stating that he suspected jockey Neeraj l Rawal of foul riding and trying to knock him off. He said he had not realized that the saddle of Neeraj’s had slipped. The Stewards went strictly by the rule which states that if a horse or a rider cause willfully causes interference to another, the interfering horse can be disqualified.
If one views the race objectively, it was clear that jockey Stephane was taking action to prevent a serious accident. By pushing Neeraj Rawal in, he in fact helped the jockey to retain his balance and thus save his skin. The action of the jockey in normal circumstances could be viewed as foul riding which deserved severe action. But in this instance, the interfered horse was not in the reckoning and was in the process of causing a dangerous interference. Tequila went on to win the race on merits. In such a circumstance, the best course of action would have been to retain the result and pull up the jockey for his action. However, the Stewards decided to disqualify the horse without viewing the race in a different perspective. As the senior Stipe of RWITC put it: ``the jockey can not take law into his own hands.’’ But the fact was that the action of the jockey was apparently in self defense and it did not cause any harm to the interfered or interfering horse and as such, the result could have stayed. The laws permit action in self defense. The action of the Stewards deprived the owner of a rightful share of his winnings.
One of the senior most stipendiary stewards in the country who did not wish to be identified by his name said: ``I would have viewed the race differently. I would not have recommended the race to be taken away because the horse which was interfered with was not going to win the race as the jockey of that horse was in danger of causing a serious mishap in the race. I think the Stewards have strictly gone by the rules which state that if a horse or a rider causes interference to another, the said horse can be disqualified. If one had gone by the spirit of the rule, the race would have not been taken away. The jockey however needs to be punished for his action’’
This opinion was echoed by a few senior trainers and experienced race goers.
Surely this incidents calls for a debate.
There was a Stewards enquiry into the incident. Jockey Stephane Ladjadj perhaps did not argue his case properly as he tried to defend his action by stating that he suspected jockey Neeraj l Rawal of foul riding and trying to knock him off. He said he had not realized that the saddle of Neeraj’s had slipped. The Stewards went strictly by the rule which states that if a horse or a rider cause willfully causes interference to another, the interfering horse can be disqualified.
If one views the race objectively, it was clear that jockey Stephane was taking action to prevent a serious accident. By pushing Neeraj Rawal in, he in fact helped the jockey to retain his balance and thus save his skin. The action of the jockey in normal circumstances could be viewed as foul riding which deserved severe action. But in this instance, the interfered horse was not in the reckoning and was in the process of causing a dangerous interference. Tequila went on to win the race on merits. In such a circumstance, the best course of action would have been to retain the result and pull up the jockey for his action. However, the Stewards decided to disqualify the horse without viewing the race in a different perspective. As the senior Stipe of RWITC put it: ``the jockey can not take law into his own hands.’’ But the fact was that the action of the jockey was apparently in self defense and it did not cause any harm to the interfered or interfering horse and as such, the result could have stayed. The laws permit action in self defense. The action of the Stewards deprived the owner of a rightful share of his winnings.
One of the senior most stipendiary stewards in the country who did not wish to be identified by his name said: ``I would have viewed the race differently. I would not have recommended the race to be taken away because the horse which was interfered with was not going to win the race as the jockey of that horse was in danger of causing a serious mishap in the race. I think the Stewards have strictly gone by the rules which state that if a horse or a rider causes interference to another, the said horse can be disqualified. If one had gone by the spirit of the rule, the race would have not been taken away. The jockey however needs to be punished for his action’’
This opinion was echoed by a few senior trainers and experienced race goers.
Surely this incidents calls for a debate.
Comments
Post a Comment