Heartening to know that Rule 147 is still in the rule book, shame the stewards don't have the balls to throw it out there every now and then. It must be a harder charge to prove than the immaculate conception itself! Not that this rule applies one iota in this case.Originally Posted by aussiebreno
Rule 173 is there for a reason, but in its current form is detrimental to the owner/driver who is doing nothing more than what the average Aussie does...has a punt on something that is close to their heart, in this case their own SB. In my eyes they are doing nothing wrong, in fact I am more likely to support the stable that punts on its own animals. They are just as bad a judge as the rest of us anyway, proven in this case by Paintings own records.
In regard to the charges 1 - 5, only one of those bets were successful and he drove all of them. Poor bugger has done his own hard earned and then copped a $400 fine for each of the charges. In this day and age, that is just dumb, unfair and borders on discriminatory. Just as an aside it is hard to compare the financial impost of these fines against the featherweight charges of improper use of the whip, or slow sectional fines issued when again you are only protecting your own interests by rating your horse to give it the best possible chance, but that doesn't belong in this thead.
In charge 6 it gets a little murkier with quaddie bets placed. All of us and I mean ALL of us have multiple selections in our quaddies, so in charge 5 for a total outlay of $25 he supports ALL of his drives, plus a couple of others. Big Deal, I don't think so, unless the stipes can prove any of his drives were substandard (as that appears to be the preferred terminology these days). Have not looked at these races, so will let that one go through to the keeper.
Charge 7, he supports his own horse plus a couple of others in the first leg and doesn't have drives in the other three legs, again if there is an issue with his own drive, I cannot see any great problem with his actions here. Its a $50 quaddie for which he has very little vested interest in. If there is a problem here it is the charge which states Painting only drove in one leg of the quaddie, he did in fact drive in two, one of which happened to be a $2 fav which broke at the start and ran a great race under the circumstances. Witch hunt material.
Charge 8 onwards and we start running into problems. He has NOT supported his own drive. He has in fact backed the winner into a successful running double, the second leg driven by himself. Surely this is what the rule is intended to outlaw. Supporting another horse in the race in which you are driving. This opens up a can of worms that can be interpreted by Joe Average as something untoward. The fact that he led but handed up to the horse he supported financially is a double edged sword. If I was on Jacksons horse, I would have handed up as well, to trail the best horse in the race and wait for a run to come. Aurora Bell was given every possible by Jackson, the horse itself was under pressure a long way from home under hard sustained driving and failed to improve its position. So under Rule 173 Jackson Painting is guilty as charged. He is also completely innocent of any wrong doing by way of inept, substandard driving or indeed not allowing a horse to run on its merits.
The rule needs re-jigging to suit todays standards of acceptable betting practices. With exotic forms of gambling in vogue, quaddies and trifectas need to be addressed so as not to villify an industry participant for JUST HAVING A BET in much the same way as others buy lottery tickets. The chances of cracking either are pretty difficult for most of us. But first the authority needs to look at what is acceptable betting within the industry. Completely acknowledge for a start that trainer/drivers can and do bet on their own animals and rework the rules to allow for that to occur, but find a way to stop supporting another runner(s) in the same race that they are driving in. But again with exotic betting forms the driver should be able (like most of us) have a couple of savers in his multiples if his horse does not perform. It is THEN up to the stewards to do their job and ensure that the drivers have given their own animal every possible chance.
Some of you may think this is in contrast to what I might normally say but in reality it is not. Just looking for fairness and consistency across the industry.
Reply With Quote