VINCENT
28-08-2002, 20:02
Notes from John Schreck on Two Lengths Clear Policy
27 August 2002
Hong Kong Rule 100(1) provides:
"Any jockey of a horse commits an offence if in the opinion of the Stewards his riding was (i) foul, or (ii) dangerous, or (iii) reckless, or (iv) careless, or (v) incompetent, or (vi) improper."
Hong Kong Rule 101 provides:
"(1)A horse may on a protest/objection be disqualified if its jockey jeopardised the chance of any other horse in a race.
(2)When a placed horse or its jockey is found to have caused interference, that horse may on protest/objection be disqualified or ..."
Australian Rule 137(a) provides:
"Any rider may be punished if, in the opinion of the Stewards, he is guilty of careless, improper, incompetent or foul riding."
Australian Rule 136(1) provides:
"If a horse -
(a) crosses another horse so as to interfere with that, or any other horse, or
(b)jostles, or itself, or its rider, in any way interferes with another horse or its rider, unless such jostle or interference was caused by some other horse or rider - such horse and any other horse in the same nomination may be disqualified for the race."
Australian Harness Racing Rule 163 subrule (1)(a) provides:
"A driver shall not cause or contribute to any crossing, jostling or interference."
Australian Harness Racing Rule 163 subrule (5) provides:
"For the purposes of subrule(1) 'crossing' occurs when a driver changing the position of the driver's horse, compels another runner to shorten stride or the driver of that other horse to pull it out of its stride."
How far ahead must a horse be before it crosses the running of another horse?
At the outset, it might be helpful to establish some principles that could serve as an hypothesis in any consideration of the answer to this question. Those principles could well be -
First, in fair racing each horse must be entitled to gallop without restriction in the ground in which it has established itself.
Second, some riders are inclined to disregard caution when endeavouring to save ground or to extricate themselves from unfavourable positions at critical stages of a race.
Third, self interest should not play a part in arriving at an answer. In this regard it has been said by a leading racing journalist that "Invariably a bet sharpens the senses". He could have said, "As in most walks of life, a bet creates a conflict of interest".
Against the background of those observations, it has been the custom for Racing Stewards, at least in most good racing jurisdictions, to insist that a horse be two lengths clear before it crosses the running of another horse.
This means that the leading horse must be its own length, plus another length in front of the horse being crossed.
Perhaps there may be a better way of providing for this requirement. Indeed, it may be preferable to provide for it by rule rather than by a published requirement.
Moving a horse into a space between runners is not like placing a book between other books on a bookshelf. The space required for a book, which is not moving sideways, is the exact width of the book being inserted. However, in the case of a racing horse the clearance space required in front of the horse being crossed is the distance to be taken up by its extended back legs, plus the distance taken up by the outstretched front legs of the horse being crossed, plus a safety clearance margin of at least a foot. For practical purposes, this distance is about the length of a horse standing still. The crossing rider also has to ensure that his shift takes into account the possibility of his mount's front legs contacting the heels of the horse racing ahead of the space he is intending to fill.
If safety for horse and rider is paramount and essential in horse racing, it would be difficult to sustain an argument against such a rearward clearance. There may be moments when the heels of the leading horse are fully extended and, simultaneously, the trailing horse is gathering its front legs prior to launching them at full stretch. But safety should not depend on luck.
Horses are mob animals, and in their natural environment seem to be able to run and wheel about in a mob without striking each others' heels. However, in a horse race, when a human is in charge of the steering mechanism, a horse's natural ability to avoid heels appears to be affected by the introduction of this human interference with nature.
All Racing Stewards are especially apprehensive of the danger to the lives of horse and rider when the rider of another horse takes it across their running and contacts or shaves the horse's front legs. Even the possibility of the front legs of a horse being contacted is a recipe for disaster and the loss of life or serious injury. The potential sudden fall of a horse in these circumstances makes reckless, close crossing one of the most dangerous actions in the running of horse racing. As Mr Justice Stone said in the Harbour Master case, "Jockeys race against each other upon powerful and heavy animals at high speed and in close proximity and it must be recognised, at real risk to life and limb".
The motivation to cross a horse's running.
As mentioned earlier, the motivation must be either to move in closer to the rails in order to save ground on turns, or to move in or out from disadvantageous positions at critical stages of a race.
In relation to saving ground, statistics compiled for three racetracks in Australia show the following extra distance covered by a horse for every metre it is out from the inside rail:
Track Distance Extra Distance per metre out
Track 1 1400m 3.189m
1800m 4.73m
2400m 6.28m
Track 2 1000m 1.659m
1400m 2.6m
1600m 3.189m
2400m 6.283m
Track 3 1200m 3.05m
1500m 5.17m
1900m 6.18m
The competitive nature of thoroughbred horse racing, in which many races are decided by small margins, the saving of ground during the race is a critical component.
Is "2-lengths-clear" an adequate description? Should there be a reckless crossing rule?
It is believed that thought could be given to drafting an expression that more clearly states the distance that must be left vacant in front of a horse before its running is crossed. It seems that a length in racing is recognised as the length of a horse standing still, and that "2-lengths-clear" is taken by racing people and the public to mean "a horse's own length plus another length clear of the horse whose running is being crossed".
It is suggested that the requirement could be expressed as "one clear length ahead of a horse before the commencement of any move across its running".
If it were decided to deal with the offence by rule rather than by instruction, maybe the rule could provide:
"(1)The rider of a horse shall not cross or attempt to cross the running of another horse unless the rear of his mount is at least one clear length in front of such other runner.
(2)Any breach of subrule (1) of this rule may be regarded by the Stewards as reckless riding."
Conclusion:
This is a serious worldwide problem, and any resolution of it by Hong Kong could have wide recognition.
27 August 2002
Hong Kong Rule 100(1) provides:
"Any jockey of a horse commits an offence if in the opinion of the Stewards his riding was (i) foul, or (ii) dangerous, or (iii) reckless, or (iv) careless, or (v) incompetent, or (vi) improper."
Hong Kong Rule 101 provides:
"(1)A horse may on a protest/objection be disqualified if its jockey jeopardised the chance of any other horse in a race.
(2)When a placed horse or its jockey is found to have caused interference, that horse may on protest/objection be disqualified or ..."
Australian Rule 137(a) provides:
"Any rider may be punished if, in the opinion of the Stewards, he is guilty of careless, improper, incompetent or foul riding."
Australian Rule 136(1) provides:
"If a horse -
(a) crosses another horse so as to interfere with that, or any other horse, or
(b)jostles, or itself, or its rider, in any way interferes with another horse or its rider, unless such jostle or interference was caused by some other horse or rider - such horse and any other horse in the same nomination may be disqualified for the race."
Australian Harness Racing Rule 163 subrule (1)(a) provides:
"A driver shall not cause or contribute to any crossing, jostling or interference."
Australian Harness Racing Rule 163 subrule (5) provides:
"For the purposes of subrule(1) 'crossing' occurs when a driver changing the position of the driver's horse, compels another runner to shorten stride or the driver of that other horse to pull it out of its stride."
How far ahead must a horse be before it crosses the running of another horse?
At the outset, it might be helpful to establish some principles that could serve as an hypothesis in any consideration of the answer to this question. Those principles could well be -
First, in fair racing each horse must be entitled to gallop without restriction in the ground in which it has established itself.
Second, some riders are inclined to disregard caution when endeavouring to save ground or to extricate themselves from unfavourable positions at critical stages of a race.
Third, self interest should not play a part in arriving at an answer. In this regard it has been said by a leading racing journalist that "Invariably a bet sharpens the senses". He could have said, "As in most walks of life, a bet creates a conflict of interest".
Against the background of those observations, it has been the custom for Racing Stewards, at least in most good racing jurisdictions, to insist that a horse be two lengths clear before it crosses the running of another horse.
This means that the leading horse must be its own length, plus another length in front of the horse being crossed.
Perhaps there may be a better way of providing for this requirement. Indeed, it may be preferable to provide for it by rule rather than by a published requirement.
Moving a horse into a space between runners is not like placing a book between other books on a bookshelf. The space required for a book, which is not moving sideways, is the exact width of the book being inserted. However, in the case of a racing horse the clearance space required in front of the horse being crossed is the distance to be taken up by its extended back legs, plus the distance taken up by the outstretched front legs of the horse being crossed, plus a safety clearance margin of at least a foot. For practical purposes, this distance is about the length of a horse standing still. The crossing rider also has to ensure that his shift takes into account the possibility of his mount's front legs contacting the heels of the horse racing ahead of the space he is intending to fill.
If safety for horse and rider is paramount and essential in horse racing, it would be difficult to sustain an argument against such a rearward clearance. There may be moments when the heels of the leading horse are fully extended and, simultaneously, the trailing horse is gathering its front legs prior to launching them at full stretch. But safety should not depend on luck.
Horses are mob animals, and in their natural environment seem to be able to run and wheel about in a mob without striking each others' heels. However, in a horse race, when a human is in charge of the steering mechanism, a horse's natural ability to avoid heels appears to be affected by the introduction of this human interference with nature.
All Racing Stewards are especially apprehensive of the danger to the lives of horse and rider when the rider of another horse takes it across their running and contacts or shaves the horse's front legs. Even the possibility of the front legs of a horse being contacted is a recipe for disaster and the loss of life or serious injury. The potential sudden fall of a horse in these circumstances makes reckless, close crossing one of the most dangerous actions in the running of horse racing. As Mr Justice Stone said in the Harbour Master case, "Jockeys race against each other upon powerful and heavy animals at high speed and in close proximity and it must be recognised, at real risk to life and limb".
The motivation to cross a horse's running.
As mentioned earlier, the motivation must be either to move in closer to the rails in order to save ground on turns, or to move in or out from disadvantageous positions at critical stages of a race.
In relation to saving ground, statistics compiled for three racetracks in Australia show the following extra distance covered by a horse for every metre it is out from the inside rail:
Track Distance Extra Distance per metre out
Track 1 1400m 3.189m
1800m 4.73m
2400m 6.28m
Track 2 1000m 1.659m
1400m 2.6m
1600m 3.189m
2400m 6.283m
Track 3 1200m 3.05m
1500m 5.17m
1900m 6.18m
The competitive nature of thoroughbred horse racing, in which many races are decided by small margins, the saving of ground during the race is a critical component.
Is "2-lengths-clear" an adequate description? Should there be a reckless crossing rule?
It is believed that thought could be given to drafting an expression that more clearly states the distance that must be left vacant in front of a horse before its running is crossed. It seems that a length in racing is recognised as the length of a horse standing still, and that "2-lengths-clear" is taken by racing people and the public to mean "a horse's own length plus another length clear of the horse whose running is being crossed".
It is suggested that the requirement could be expressed as "one clear length ahead of a horse before the commencement of any move across its running".
If it were decided to deal with the offence by rule rather than by instruction, maybe the rule could provide:
"(1)The rider of a horse shall not cross or attempt to cross the running of another horse unless the rear of his mount is at least one clear length in front of such other runner.
(2)Any breach of subrule (1) of this rule may be regarded by the Stewards as reckless riding."
Conclusion:
This is a serious worldwide problem, and any resolution of it by Hong Kong could have wide recognition.