 |
|
04-22-2009, 10:31 PM
|
#1
|
|
Agitator
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Niagara Region, Ontario
Posts: 2,240
|
Simon Husbands Ruling Overturned:Woodbine Stewards Humiliated
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. 
Read the whole ruling here:
http://www.ontarioracingcommission.c...DS%20Simon.pdf
|
|
|
|
04-22-2009, 11:05 PM
|
#2
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 1,201
|
Which blog were they referring to?
|
|
|
|
|
04-22-2009, 11:24 PM
|
#3
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: massapequa park ny
Posts: 2,164
|
husbands
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 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.
Read the whole ruling here:
http://www.ontarioracingcommission.c...DS%20Simon.pdf |
his trainer backed up his story before the stewards
|
|
|
|
|
04-22-2009, 11:30 PM
|
#4
|
|
Agitator
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Niagara Region, Ontario
Posts: 2,240
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Hawk
Which blog were they referring to?
|
Jen's thoroughblog.
|
|
|
|
|
04-22-2009, 11:32 PM
|
#5
|
|
Agitator
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Niagara Region, Ontario
Posts: 2,240
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fmolf
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?
|
|
|
|
|
04-22-2009, 11:48 PM
|
#6
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,988
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
04-22-2009, 11:49 PM
|
#7
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,988
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fmolf
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.
|
|
|
|
|
04-22-2009, 11:51 PM
|
#8
|
|
Agitator
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Niagara Region, Ontario
Posts: 2,240
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 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.
|
[YT=Simon Husbands Suspension?]R5dpfoTLRNA[/YT]
|
|
|
|
|
04-23-2009, 12:02 AM
|
#9
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Western Kentucky
Posts: 273
|
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.
__________________
Is there no standard anymore?
|
|
|
|
|
04-23-2009, 12:21 AM
|
#10
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,988
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
02-26-2010, 05:18 PM
|
#11
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,585
|
Simon Husbands sues Ontario Racing Commission
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
02-26-2010, 05:43 PM
|
#12
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,565
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 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.
|
Sharp Post! 
Boomer
|
|
|
|
|
02-26-2010, 09:20 PM
|
#13
|
|
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 25,607
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by boomman
Sharp Post!
Boomer |
Thank you Boomer.
|
|
|
|
|
02-26-2010, 09:57 PM
|
#14
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,137
|
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........
|
|
|
|
|
02-26-2010, 10:01 PM
|
#15
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,585
|
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).
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Rate This Thread |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
