Bosson sacked from Te Akau contract??

[Bloke]

On 10/12/2024 at 4:56 PM, Chief Stipe said:

Ok @Special Agent why don't you and @Thomass analyse some of the races Lance O'Sullivan won where he didn't get a suspension?

As a comparison on today's rules how long would he have been put out for his whipping of Our Waverley Star in the Cox Plate?

I'd also be interested to see a similar comparison with the top OZ jockeys.

Ligeiro  winning the Auckland Cup always comes to mind. How Lance got to keep that one will always be a mystery to me.

[Chief Stipe]

On 10/12/2024 at 7:19 PM, Special Agent said:

The race where Opie carved up the field and put many jockeys on the deck close to the finish at Hastings was as bad a riding example as you'd see.

Then why wasn't he charged with reckless riding?  Of course the horse was entirely blameless - NOT!

“Reckless” contrasted to “Careless”

10. A person is reckless when he/she acts in a way where they are heedless of, or indifferent to, the danger or peril of the consequences of their actions.  That is when there is disregard or indifference to the danger of the situation or for the consequences of one’s actions.  “Careless” by a Rider is where he/she fails to act with the necessary prudence, or level of care, that a reasonable Rider is expected to take in the same circumstance.  It may arise from inattention to take reasonable care, rather than consciously deliberate,  So, for example, a Jockey is required to take reasonable care to keep his/her mount on its required line and not hamper other Riders by drifting off that line when insufficiently clear.

11. The actual result or outcome of the particular riding is not the determining factor of whether the  riding is reckless or careless (or neither). There can be reckless riding which does not involve any fall or injury (eg the Australian cases of Damien Oliver (14 October 2016, or J Cartwright (24 January 2017).  Correspondingly, there can be careless riding which leads to a fall or even tragedy.  So, too, there can be a fall with or without a tragic outcome, where there has not been a breach of the Rules of Racing.

12. Those observations are made to illustrate that the tragedy that eventually happened ought not take into account in deciding the charge.  But a fall may be one factor relevant to penalty, which Rule 920(2) requires an Adjudicative Committee to have regard, amongst such matters as it considers appropriate:

“c)  any consequential effects upon any person or horse as a result of the breach of the Rule”.

[Special Agent]

How or why some decisions are made by the New Zealand judiciary is a mystery to many.

I know how the reckless and careless rules read.  The incident at Hastings on Alby's horse, in my opinion, was nothing short of reckless.  Much worse than Lance's Auckland Cup win.  Both horses kept the race.

Imagine if those two races were the yardstick.  We'd see more dodgems out there.  History shows there has been a lot less interference resulting in the winner being put out.

I call it inconsistency.

[Special Agent]

A person is reckless when he/she acts in a way where they are heedless of, or indifferent to, the danger or peril of the consequences of their actions.  That is when there is disregard or indifference to the danger of the situation or for the consequences of one’s actions. 

I think that sums up the Hastings race when you consider Opie's experience as a rider.

[Trojan]

13 hours ago, Special Agent said:

How or why some decisions are made by the New Zealand judiciary is a mystery to many.

I know how the reckless and careless rules read.  The incident at Hastings on Alby's horse, in my opinion, was nothing short of reckless.  Much worse than Lance's Auckland Cup win.  Both horses kept the race.

Imagine if those two races were the yardstick.  We'd see more dodgems out there.  History shows there has been a lot less interference resulting in the winner being put out.

I call it inconsistency.

I'm not sure you even watched the Hastings race.  The incident occurred after the horse had crossed the line so I'm not sure how you'd justify a case for disqualification!!!

The Judiciary didn't seem it reckless and gave an opinion why they didn't.  Up to you to justify your opinion.  There's was justified on precedent.

A bit pointless comparing races held decades apart.  Rules change or are added, new viewing technology introduced and decades of precedent decisions.  I'd be worried if there wasn't differences in decisions.

But you keep on bagging Opie.  Why don't you start on Lisa Allpress?  She has had a few "incidents"!

[Chief Stipe]

14 hours ago, Special Agent said:

A person is reckless when he/she acts in a way where they are heedless of, or indifferent to, the danger or peril of the consequences of their actions.  That is when there is disregard or indifference to the danger of the situation or for the consequences of one’s actions. 

I think that sums up the Hastings race when you consider Opie's experience as a rider.

 

On 14/12/2024 at 12:45 PM, Chief Stipe said:

“Careless” by a Rider is where he/she fails to act with the necessary prudence, or level of care, that a reasonable Rider is expected to take in the same circumstance.  It may arise from inattention to take reasonable care, rather than consciously deliberate,  So, for example, a Jockey is required to take reasonable care to keep his/her mount on its required line and not hamper other Riders by drifting off that line when insufficiently clear.

The difference is it was apparent to the Stewards that Bosson didn't act deliberately to interfere with the other horses.  For example he didn't bowl over a horse outside him when looking to get a winning run.

He corrected his mount once from running in and was CARELESS in not doing so again AFTER the winning post.  There was no advantage to him in deliberately running in.  There are numerous examples of where Jockeys after the winnning post don't take reasonable care.

[Special Agent]

5 hours ago, Trojan said:

But you keep on bagging Opie.  Why don't you start on Lisa Allpress?  She has had a few "incidents"!

I don't have much time for Lisa as a rider, even less time as a person.

I've always found Opie pleasant.

[Special Agent]

3 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

He corrected his mount once from running in and was CARELESS in not doing so again AFTER the winning post.  There was no advantage to him in deliberately running in.  There are numerous examples of where Jockeys after the winnning post don't take reasonable care.

Everyone knows pulling up is one of the most dangerous parts of a race.  That's why salutes, standing up in the irons, letting go of the reins to pat the horse etc at the finish are all frowned upon.  Again, with Opie's experience, I am surprised at the Hastings race and other examples given on here.

We could go back over many races over many seasons where the less experienced, less favoured or those with less ability have not had the same rub of the green in the Stewards' Room.

[Special Agent]

4 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

 

The difference is it was apparent to the Stewards that Bosson didn't act deliberately to interfere with the other horses.  For example he didn't bowl over a horse outside him when looking to get a winning run.

He corrected his mount once from running in and was CARELESS in not doing so again AFTER the winning post.  There was no advantage to him in deliberately running in.  There are numerous examples of where Jockeys after the winnning post don't take reasonable care.

I wouldn't necessarily say RECKLESS = DELIBERATE which I think you may be inferring.

[Trojan]

3 hours ago, Special Agent said:

I don't have much time for Lisa as a rider, even less time as a person.

I've always found Opie pleasant.

Really?  That surprises me.  I guessing now the issue is about competitiveness.  I've always found Lisa very pleasant to talk to.

Are you another wannabe failure?

[Chief Stipe]

3 hours ago, Special Agent said:

I wouldn't necessarily say RECKLESS = DELIBERATE which I think you may be inferring.

Therefore you don't understand the nuances of the rules.  Let alone the precedents.  You talk in terms of grey when you say "I wouldn’t necessarily say"...what would you say?

[Special Agent]

29 minutes ago, Trojan said:

Are you another wannabe failure?

Who are the other ones?  Yeah sure, add me to the list.

[Special Agent]

28 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Therefore you don't understand the nuances of the rules.  Let alone the precedents.  You talk in terms of grey when you say "I wouldn’t necessarily say"...what would you say?

In most cases I don't think a jockey goes out to deliberately maim a horse or another rider but, I can't exclusively rule that intention out as there may be a crazed jockey on a certain day.  I'm sure Tina and others in the south could cite one such individual.

"Therefore" nothing!  Any nuances go out the window once you step into the room with race day officials.  You've read enough judicial tripe to know that.

[Chief Stipe]

On 24/12/2024 at 7:47 PM, Special Agent said:

In most cases I don't think a jockey goes out to deliberately maim a horse or another rider but, I can't exclusively rule that intention out as there may be a crazed jockey on a certain day

You entirely miss the point.  There is a legal difference between careless and reckless.  A careless or reckless action could result in interference causing injury to horse or rider or simply extinguish the chances of a horse winning.  

However the test is - was the action deliberate i.e. with intent or without.  If a rider deliberately chooses to push through a gap between horses when there isnt one and causes interference which results in injury then that is considered reckless.  The action wasn't a misjudgement it was deliberate.

On 24/12/2024 at 7:47 PM, Special Agent said:

I'm sure Tina and others in the south could cite one such individual

Are you going to bag another Jockey?

On 24/12/2024 at 7:47 PM, Special Agent said:

"Therefore" nothing!  Any nuances go out the window once you step into the room with race day officials.  You've read enough judicial tripe to know that.

Yes nuance is probably the wrong word to use as the difference between careless and reckless is quite clear.  I gather that is what you don't understand.  

[Special Agent]

14 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Are you going to bag another Jockey?

Yes nuance is probably the wrong word to use as the difference between careless and reckless is quite clear.  I gather that is what you don't understand.  

Weren't we discussing deliberate action against a fellow rider.  Wasn't he deported for his trouble?

I fully understand the rules.  That does not mean the correct charges are always laid and the right penalties applied.  The rule book is not a racing bible everyone interprets well.  And some are very clever at sidestepping some of the consequences.

While talking interpretation, was the rider suspended today having their first day riding? If so, how could he ever have been considered conversant with the rules.