Simon Husbands Ruling Overturned:Woodbine Stewards Humiliated

[Cangamble]

My favorite part of the ruling:

Public participation in an Internet Racing blog site where gratuitous opinions abound. This blog evidence was sparingly introduced, it being recognized that the evidentiary use was limited. The relevance was to demonstrate the existence of controversy, pro and con. That evidence was not introduced for the truth or reliability of its content. In passing, it is noted that irresponsible blog participation dealing in misinformation, innuendo and lack of informed opinion has an immense capacity to inflict irreparable harm on individuals and upon racing itself. An uninformed opinion is probably expressed more for the benefit of the declarer than for the reader, if there be one.
**************************************
This wasn't pertaining to my blog btw. But can anyone believe the stupidity of the ORC to put this in?
Three ex jockeys (the stewards) shared the same opinion of the readers and commenters of the blog and threw the book at Simon Husbands. I guess they had an uninformed opinion too.:bang::bang:

Read the whole ruling here:
http://www.ontarioracingcommission.com/uploadedFiles/2009%20COM%20TB%20003%20HUSBANDS%20Simon.pdf

[The Hawk]

Which blog were they referring to?

[fmolf]

My favorite part of the ruling:

Public participation in an Internet Racing blog site where gratuitous opinions abound. This blog evidence was sparingly introduced, it being recognized that the evidentiary use was limited. The relevance was to demonstrate the existence of controversy, pro and con. That evidence was not introduced for the truth or reliability of its content. In passing, it is noted that irresponsible blog participation dealing in misinformation, innuendo and lack of informed opinion has an immense capacity to inflict irreparable harm on individuals and upon racing itself. An uninformed opinion is probably expressed more for the benefit of the declarer than for the reader, if there be one.
**************************************
This wasn't pertaining to my blog btw. But can anyone believe the stupidity of the ORC to put this in?
Three ex jockeys (the stewards) shared the same opinion of the readers and commenters of the blog and threw the book at Simon Husbands. I guess they had an uninformed opinion too.:bang::bang:

Read the whole ruling here:
http://www.ontarioracingcommission.com/uploadedFiles/2009%20COM%20TB%20003%20HUSBANDS%20Simon.pdf
his trainer backed up his story before the stewards

[Cangamble]

Which blog were they referring to?
Jen's thoroughblog.

[Cangamble]

his trainer backed up his story before the stewards
If a trainer tells a jockey to go wide into the first turn, and save him for next time because he'll be going a distance, should the jockey listen to the trainer?

[Imriledup]

If you watch that replay, its pretty obvious that he didn't give full effort to win. the whip excuse doesn't fly imo because the hand ride was anything but aggreessive.

i don't understand why this ruling was thrown out.

[Imriledup]

his trainer backed up his story before the stewards

What story? The video shows he didn't try to win, what the participants say doesn't mean much if the rider is strangling the horse and not urging.

[Cangamble]

If you watch that replay, its pretty obvious that he didn't give full effort to win. the whip excuse doesn't fly imo because the hand ride was anything but aggreessive.

i don't understand why this ruling was thrown out.
R5dpfoTLRNA

[Onion Monster]

So, they not only overturn the ruling but also disparage the internet discussion as an exercise in self-aggrandizing gossip? I want this jock's lawyer.

[Imriledup]

Here's the problem i have with this entire situation.


If the jockey wasn't going to use the whip, that has to be announced to the public that the jockey will carry a whip but it won't be used. If no announcement like this is made and the rider is carrying a whip, the fans are to assume the whip will be used. I remember seeing one time in the past a horse who ran with 'no whip' and that is listed in the program. In this case, i think the jock just had the whip incase he needed it for an emergency or something like that. If you don't plan on using the whip,the fans have to know this.

Also, all whip talk aside, why was the hand ride so weak and passive late in the lane? That weak hand ride has nothing to do with whipping or not whipping...where was the aggressive hand urge? I didn't see one.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Over suspension:
http://www.thestar.com/sports/horseracing/article/771876--jockey-sues-over-suspension

[boomman]

Here's the problem i have with this entire situation.


If the jockey wasn't going to use the whip, that has to be announced to the public that the jockey will carry a whip but it won't be used. If no announcement like this is made and the rider is carrying a whip, the fans are to assume the whip will be used. I remember seeing one time in the past a horse who ran with 'no whip' and that is listed in the program. In this case, i think the jock just had the whip incase he needed it for an emergency or something like that. If you don't plan on using the whip,the fans have to know this.

Also, all whip talk aside, why was the hand ride so weak and passive late in the lane? That weak hand ride has nothing to do with whipping or not whipping...where was the aggressive hand urge? I didn't see one.

Sharp Post!;)

Boomer

[Stillriledup]

Sharp Post!;)

Boomer

Thank you Boomer.

[Hanover1]

However you want to slice this debacle, the ORC created this mess and must pony up imo. The betting public was not made aware that no stick was to be applied, as no rules were in place to inform them. The fact that they then turn around and withdraw the ban further fouls the air.....Request a certified check Mr Husbands........

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Husbands is going to have to prove he lost business and his reputation got tarnished because of the suspension.

Curious. What was Husbands record in 2008 vs. 2009? I believe he started late, not because of the suspension, but because of weight I think, and he also was involved in an accident in the early half of the year (not sure how much time he missed).

[Stillriledup]

Husbands is going to have to prove he lost business and his reputation got tarnished because of the suspension.

Curious. What was Husbands record in 2008 vs. 2009? I believe he started late, not because of the suspension, but because of weight I think, and he also was involved in an accident in the early half of the year (not sure how much time he missed).


You're right, he's going to have to prove it. This will be an interesting case to see what burden of proof he has to show.

[Hanover1]

He gets a trainer or two to explain the risk of using an accused stiff, it could be a slam dunk......

[Horseplayersbet.com]

He gets a trainer or two to explain the risk of using an accused stiff, it could be a slam dunk......
The reality is that he is a Toronto based jockey, and the suspension occurred during the offseason for the most part.
It was reversed, but it doesn't change the video evidence of the ride which makes people question whether he should have been exonerated.
Now, he does ride in the winter, but a good lawyer would compare his mounts in the offseason at the beginning of 2008 vs. the beginning of 2009. Plus, you need to take into account he is one year older, and riders who hit 40 usually see their mounts decline a bit each year.

[Hanover1]

Somebody out there thinks he has a case...or he is without representation.
His own trainer stood up and admitted he told him not to use the stick. Horsemen know that some horses WILL back up when stuck......Its time to decide the cost of litigation vs defending the charges, and pay the lesser amount imo.
The fact that he brought suit against them will not enhance his reputation any further...pay him and move forwards.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Somebody out there thinks he has a case...or he is without representation.
His own trainer stood up and admitted he told him not to use the stick. Horsemen know that some horses WILL back up when stuck......Its time to decide the cost of litigation vs defending the charges, and pay the lesser amount imo.
The fact that he brought suit against them will not enhance his reputation any further...pay him and move forwards.
I watched Bug's Boys best performances this year, and he was whipped in each and every one of them.

[Hanover1]

I watched Bug's Boys best performances this year, and he was whipped in each and every one of them.
Easy enough....followed instructions......

[thaskalos]

Easy enough....followed instructions...... Hanover1, I know from previous posts that you are a trainer...do you not see how detrimental to the integrity of this game it is, when trainers give instructions to jockeys to lose, even when they are on the best horse, as was clearly the case in this race? Don't you think the horseplayers job is hard enough without thieving jockeys and trainers...or do you trainers think that you are the only people affected by the outcome of these races? A jockey shamelessly raps up on a horse while one length off the lead, and your advice is to put this incident behind us and go on? Unbelievable...

[Hanover1]

Hanover1, I know from previous posts that you are a trainer...do you not see how detrimental to the integrity of this game it is, when trainers give instructions to jockeys to lose, even when they are on the best horse, as was clearly the case in this race? Don't you think the horseplayers job is hard enough without thieving jockeys and trainers...or do you trainers think that you are the only people affected by the outcome of these races? A jockey shamelessly raps up on a horse while one length off the lead, and your advice is to put this incident behind us and go on? Unbelievable...
You clearly don't understand the situation. In all likelyhood, in light of the retraction by the board, the indications point to the rider not hitting the horse per instructions-nothing more. And yes, many horses go BACKWARDS when stuck with a whip. Who said anyone gave instructions to lose? This is your assumption clearly, and not based on any conversation you may have heard indicating otherwise. The can of worms was opened up with the retraction by the board of the penalty. Clearly the board saw it much as I did? Or are they a bunch of thieves also? If that is the assumption here, that why associate yourself with all of us cheaters and thieves?

[ponyplayerdotca]

Imriledup posted:

"Also, all whip talk aside, why was the hand ride so weak and passive late in the lane? That weak hand ride has nothing to do with whipping or not whipping...where was the aggressive hand urge? I didn't see one."

===

Exactly, so he followed instructions from the trainer to "not use the whip" - so what?

His noticeably reserved "hand urging" indicates to any viewer that he didn't seem to be trying very hard or "at all costs" to get up for the win.

That in and of itself is an indictment of Simon Husbands racing skills. If he didn't want his reputation to ever be ruined, he should have known long ago that appearances are everything.

And in this case, he didn't APPEAR to be giving his all on that horse down the stretch (whether he was or not). Furthermore, he seemed to veer out to his right midstretch just as the #1 horse was closing in from third. That would lend even more evidence that he was helping his brother stay in first.

Any trainer who won't hire Husbands to ride for him can point to the fact he doesn't appear to ride well as opposed to just being "an accused cheat". That is cause enough to look for someone else.

[thaskalos]

You clearly don't understand the situation. In all likelyhood, in light of the retraction by the board, the indications point to the rider not hitting the horse per instructions-nothing more. And yes, many horses go BACKWARDS when stuck with a whip. Who said anyone gave instructions to lose? This is your assumption clearly, and not based on any conversation you may have heard indicating otherwise. The can of worms was opened up with the retraction by the board of the penalty. Clearly the board saw it much as I did? Or are they a bunch of thieves also? If that is the assumption here, that why associate yourself with all of us cheaters and thieves? The jockey never made a move on the horse, even causing the announcer to say "Bugs Boy is yet to be asked", with about 100 yards to go in the race. Down to the wire, the jockey's hands never moved forward on the horse...I suppose that a lot of horses also "go BACKWARDS" as a result of a vigorous hand ride too...

[johnhannibalsmith]

And just as a point of clarification, the whip issue in this instance not specifically my contention here:

The rule that mandates riders to put forth every effort to give their mount the best chance for the best possible placing supercedes the non-existent rule that riders pay attention to what trainers/owners tell them under all circumstances.

[thaskalos]

And just as a point of clarification, the whip issue in this instance not specifically my contention here:

The rule that mandates riders to put forth every effort to give their mount the best chance for the best possible placing supercedes the non-existent rule that riders pay attention to what trainers/owners tell them under all circumstances. Thank you!!

[Stillriledup]

Imriledup posted:

"Also, all whip talk aside, why was the hand ride so weak and passive late in the lane? That weak hand ride has nothing to do with whipping or not whipping...where was the aggressive hand urge? I didn't see one."

===

Exactly, so he followed instructions from the trainer to "not use the whip" - so what?

His noticeably reserved "hand urging" indicates to any viewer that he didn't seem to be trying very hard or "at all costs" to get up for the win.

That in and of itself is an indictment of Simon Husbands racing skills. If he didn't want his reputation to ever be ruined, he should have known long ago that appearances are everything.

And in this case, he didn't APPEAR to be giving his all on that horse down the stretch (whether he was or not). Furthermore, he seemed to veer out to his right midstretch just as the #1 horse was closing in from third. That would lend even more evidence that he was helping his brother stay in first.

Any trainer who won't hire Husbands to ride for him can point to the fact he doesn't appear to ride well as opposed to just being "an accused cheat". That is cause enough to look for someone else.


Very good post.

Like Ponyplayer says, if Husbands was all out and giving max effort to win, he LOOKED like a jockey who had amateurish skills and wasn't getting anything out of his mount. If that's the best he's got, why would anyone hire him to ride?

[Hanover1]

If we subscribe to the notion that this rider was cheating, then the crime here was the retraction by the board, the very board assigned with the job of protecting the betting public. In a twist of irony, I would not be surprised to see some entity rule in the riders favor, to punish the board for the retraction. If he was violating the rules ala not 100% effort, and the board flip-flopped on the issue, then THEY must pay, and the ban reinstated imo. Would we all be happy with that solution? Obviously I am pro horseman, but wrong is wrong, and am open to debate when issues arise. Image IS everything.....

[Tom]

Dumb question....if a rider is not going to use a whip, why the hell is he carrying one with him? Doesn't it make more sense than telling everyone ( or not) that he has one, but is not going to use it?

[johnhannibalsmith]

Dumb question....if a rider is not going to use a whip, why the hell is he carrying one with him? Doesn't it make more sense than telling everyone ( or not) that he has one, but is not going to use it?

I've entered horses with "no whip", but I can't imagine entering with "yes whip, but not using"... so if the rider accidentally uncocks the stick and lays it on the horse's shoulder in the corner or something and the horse hits the board -- what do they do there -- DQ the horse and fine the rider and screw everyone involved?

"Whip" or "no whip", but please no "whip for aesthetics only" please.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Dumb question....if a rider is not going to use a whip, why the hell is he carrying one with him? Doesn't it make more sense than telling everyone ( or not) that he has one, but is not going to use it?
There is actually a good reason for this. In Ontario, if you go no whip, you can't get the whip back for at least 3 races I believe.

[johnhannibalsmith]

There is actually a good reason for this. In Ontario, if you go no whip, you can't get the whip back for at least 3 races I believe.

Wow, really? I'm not sure if I really like that idea or think it is the stupidest thing I've ever heard... I guess it depends on which side of the fence you sit.

[Tom]

There must be some reason for that, eh? :lol:
(Like some moron wrote the rules?)

[Horseplayersbet.com]

There must be some reason for that, eh? :lol:
(Like some moron wrote the rules?)
I can't find it in their rule book, but I was told it was so by a reliable source.

[postpicker]

I have serious doubts Husbands can win a lawsuit versus Woodbine. He must prove the damage inflicted upon his business was because of the suspension. In other words, trainers that normally rode him first call regularly will not use him at all. Just because he may have ridden 2 or 3 or 4 a day for different trainers and now he might be down to one or 2 or 3 a day, it might be for different reasons like a different agent, weight issues, etc. Jockeys lose business all the time. Some partially, like Emma Jayne Wilson was leading rider for 2 years in a row at Woodbine and now she is top 5 or 10, not getting as many mounts. Or an example like Eibar Coa who went from leading jockey in NY to having to go to Calder because his business had dried up on the NYRA circuit. Husbands' performance at Aqueduct this winter (riding for very low percentage trainers) will not help his cause at all to regain business at Woodbine this year.

[ponyplayerdotca]

*Staring with race 6 tonight at MNR, Husbands has three mounts (race 6, 8, 9).

Let's see if he's learned anything since his so-called banishment from Woodbine.

[Hanover1]

*Staring with race 6 tonight at MNR, Husbands has three mounts (race 6, 8, 9).

Let's see if he's learned anything since his so-called banishment from Woodbine.



Looks like he has ran himself out of town uip there, and its no surprise either. Both sides of this controversy put him right in the middle. He has taken a step down imo with regroup in MNR. Any decent mounts, or rats?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Looks like he has ran himself out of town uip there, and its no surprise either. Both sides of this controversy put him right in the middle. He has taken a step down imo with regroup in MNR. Any decent mounts, or rats?
He was riding in New York during the winter. Even at the best of times lately in Ontario, before the Bug's Boy incident, he was hard pressed to get a mount a day.