Pearson back in hot water

[Chrome Prince]

FACTS

Willie Pearson is back under investigation for his ride on Cezanne yesterday.

The owner rang stewards after the race and complained about the ride.

They examined betting slips from the trainer.

When quizzed, Pearson said that he had no instruction to go easy on the horse, and although he is better over more ground and was first up, the trainer expected him to win.

MY VIEW

Stewards cannot let owners ring up and complain like this, otherwise they are going to be inundated with digruntled owner/punters. It should be up to the trainer or the stewards to lodge an enquiry / or protest.
Why then, can't I ring up a steward because I've punted on a horse after a bad ride???

The riding of Cezanne was very strange indeed.

There is no question over the ride up to the home straight, but after the stretch out for the run home, the riding action is "different" to say the least.

On viewing the footage several times, Pearson looks to have trouble gaining a run, so must keep shifting to the fence. It is his whip action and riding style which are "different".

He does not "punch out" the horse at any stage of the race, almost like a horse running a distant 8th. He uses the whip in his left hand (but that is probably because he wanted the horse to shift to the inside), and hits the horse every fourth stride???

To me it does not look like he deliberately did something wrong, it looked like he forgot the chances of the horse, or underestimated the horse. I think he should be cautioned over his riding style, but if he gets outed for this, it will be wrong.

CONCLUSION

Surely if a jockey has a preconception about a horse it affects his riding style and vigour. I wonder how many times jockeys mount horses, knowing that the owners and trainers are far too optimistic, and ride according to their own conclusions. Jockeys are human too.

[Real Deal]

I would have the stewards on speed dial! They would be hearing from me at least 4 or 5 times a meeting cause i'm not happy with the ride.

[Wunfluova]

The owner rang stewards after the race and complained about the ride.
Chrome, according to the Telegraph (Sydney) the 'owner' (syndicate manager John Camilleri) rang trainer Tim Martin not the stewards.

Wun

[Chrome Prince]

Quote from AAP:

Cezanne's high-profile owner John Camilleri, who was not present at Rosehill, turned the heat up by telephoning stewards directly to tell them he was concerned with Pearson's ride.

[Wunfluova]

So basically this means you can believe everything you read in the newspapers - because they cover every contingency!

I wonder if he also rang the horse - now where's my copy of Horse Whispers.

Wun

[Neil]

It's very easy to put in a "bad ride." Look at the speed horses are travelling. Look how close to each other the jockeys ride. Just make a decision a fraction of a second too late and that can be the difference between winning and running a close second. Think about how many of those horses which finish strongly for a close second would have won if the jockey had got going on them a second or half a second earlier.

[La Mer]

It's very easy to put in a "bad ride." Look at the speed horses are travelling. Look how close to each other the jockeys ride. Just make a decision a fraction of a second too late and that can be the difference between winning and running a close second. Think about how many of those horses which finish strongly for a close second would have won if the jockey had got going on them a second or half a second earlier.

Classic bad ride was Troy Turner's on Free At Last the fav in last week's Fruit 'n' Veg Stakes at Ascot. Told how the connections wanted the horse ridden, Turner did everything but, then making the fatal mistake of going back towards the rails at the turn when he could have easily taken the horse to the outside,
Free At Last did not see daylight until the last 125m-150m but by then it was all over red rover but the horse still flashed home for 4th beaten by about 1.5lens when it should have won by about 3lens.

[Neil]

Jockeys are in a no win situation.

How often do you hear when a jockey insisted on following the trainer's instructions that the jockey is reprimanded for not showing enough "initiative."

Then when a jockey doesn't follow the trainer's instructions - shows "initiative" - and things go awry, the jockey is reprimanded for not following the trainer's instructions.

But if the horse won, then the jockey is praised for showing "initiative" and ignoring the trainer's instructions.

[Chrome Prince]

The problem with Pearson's ride, is that the horse was working home solidly, but Pearson's action was "different", quite strange if you view the video.

A horse that's working home strongly, should be punched out and shown the whip every offstride.

His lack of vigour might see him get another holiday.

But isn't this kid, just a kid?

I think it's down to his lack of experience.

There have been arguments regarding the Vengo run, and the other one which Pearson rode, as to what the horses have not done since. These arguments are irrelvant, as the horses' peak runs were during the races in question, and not the previous or subsequent runs. The point is, the horses should have won those particular races and did not.

[xanadu]

Chrome Prince,

Didn't I highlight this very problem in one of my posts a couple of months ago?
Why "pick" on Pearson when there are innumerable other questionable rides every raceday?
For example, SR1 today(1:05pm AEDT) showed a high profile jockey whose ride in this race could be considered "questionable." Form students will know what I mean.

Cheers.

[jonron]

I tend to agree with Neil on this one,jockeys are only human,and as humans we all can and do make errors in judgement at times.I would not be so naive as to imply that the racing industry is squeaky clean,but with all the modern technology available to stewards it is not easy to get away with anymore.However,any industry that generates so much money will always be susceptible to corruption.Look at Renee Rivkin or Steve Vizard,both high profile players who made errors in judgement.A few glaring examples of errors in judgement that spring to mind........

1)Shane Dyes ride on Veandercross

2)Jim Cassidy's ride on Diatribe

3)Darren Beadman's ride on Lohnro at his last start

I would not suggest that all jockeys are totally honest,or that every horse in every race is "trying".Apart from the high profile jockeys I would think that most(or a very high percentage)of jockeys are battlers only making a wage.Personally I will not bet on a horse ridden by an apprentice unless the kid has shown by previous rides(consistently)that he/she is above average.I did not see the ride in question,but IMO Pearson is not above average.Jockeys on the whole seem to be a downtrodden lot always wide open to critiscism.I can recall many years ago the late Bill Collins(R.I.P.)referring to 25 year old Roy Higgins as "the boy"during a race call.How demeaning is that?
Neil is so right about the split second decision being the difference between winning or losing.
IMO the only sensible way to keep in front of this racing game is to stick with the best jockeys riding the best horses from the best stables.Do your homework,and if you consider a certain ride to be questionable,make it a point not to back any horse ridden by that hoop again.It' s your call and your money.Personally I can forgive a top jockey an error in judgement here and there,we all make them.

Hoofnote......
IMO high profile owners or trainers should NOT have any more access to the stewards or the media than a battling trainer has.But they obviously do.If I had been the owner of the horse in question,I would have rang the jockey first and asked for a "please explain" before taking it anywhere else.By taking the path this owner did,he has cast doubts on the honesty and integrity of young Willie Pearson,which will only serve to make it harder for this young man to get rides and make a living.
It is all to easy to become an armchair critic/jockey.
IMO it is vitally important to look at what you consider to be a bad ride objectively,and NOT THRU your pocket.

Apologies for this post being so long winded,but it ruffles my feathers somewhat when jockeys are constantly critiscised by people talking thru their pockets.If you look at it objectively,maybe you will find it was you who made the error in judgement by backing the wrong horse!

cheers

[xptdriver]

Chrome Prince,

Didn't I highlight this very problem in one of my posts a couple of months ago?
Why "pick" on Pearson when there are innumerable other questionable rides every raceday?
For example, SR1 today(1:05pm AEDT) showed a high profile jockey whose ride in this race could be considered "questionable." Form students will know what I mean.

Cheers.

Gday X

I didnt see the race (was at work) but without seeing the race I would have to say the "Form" Horse did win... it paid $1.40... Or am I missing something..