bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

paywallTypes

corrections

sponsorType

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

publishedDate

additionalInfoBoxes

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

createdDate

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

Alan Aitken

Last week's Noble Zoom inquiry and the five-meeting ban for Keith Yeung Ming-lun brought to a head the question of apprentice tactics this season, and even throughout a year when the juniors have become such a serious part of the landscape.
If there have been races that raised eyebrows this season, then we agree with one of the local commentators who said apprentices seem to have been at the forefront every time. Perhaps it is that the same errors usually made by 'L plate' riders on longshot mounts are being examined more closely since they started getting more rides on fancied horses.
The Noble Zoom case broke into two parts. The first was the initialisation of the inquiry - Yeung on Noble Zoom sitting several lengths away in second place behind Super Family (Ben So Tik-hung), despite instructions to lead and despite slow sectional times that allowed the leader to go on and win. 
The second part was the revelation by the riders that they had discussed their tactics.
Yeung's penalty came under the first part. 
Trainer Almond Lee Yee-tat told him to get the rail, lead and 'if someone goes very fast, just take a box seat'. Yeung jumped, took the rail and the lead, then allowed Super Family to go past him.
They were certainly not going fast, yet he let the leader get too far away and he was guilty and probably got an appropriate penalty. If Yeung had heard the instructions 'take a sit if someone else wants to go faster', then his actions may not have been culpable, though it was hardly a clever ride.
Some suggested the rule requiring all reasonable and permissible measures to win or obtain the best placing should have been invoked for a stronger penalty against Yeung. The problem is establishing that he might have finished any closer than fourth. Vis a vis the remainder of the field, Noble Zoom had a soft lead, two horses still got past him and we have taken the stewards to task previously over penalising a rider who might not have thrown the kitchen sink at his mount but would not have finished one place better anyway.
Had Noble Zoom raced closer to Super Family, he might have finished further back, he might have annoyed the leader and cost him the race, but it seems unlikely he would have finished off any better himself, so that rule is irrelevant. 
On paper, the race had only two leaders with three options - one or the other lead, or the pair contest the front. The single leader options were the ones that made most sense for the interests of both and the 'only two leaders contesting' option rings as many alarm bells as the lack of a competitive lead. 
The error Yeung did make, against his own interests, was steadying three to four lengths behind Super Family, instead of 11/2 and those calling it anything but an error are saying that, by being there, he was impeding the efforts of those behind to get closer to the leader in the slow sectionals. If so, then the same is true of the riders on American Glory and Bayview Greyslew, which had clear running and the opportunity to give chase.
But the second part of the story is the more tantalising and publicly unpalatable area of the case. 
Both apprentices were questioned separately on the day and, we hear, freely volunteered they discussed the running of not only this race but every other race since So arrived to live in the same quarters as Yeung. Fundamental was the belief of the stewards that So and Yeung had discussed but not organised the running of the race. 
They perhaps took the view that guilty riders would not volunteer this information so quickly but the penalty free outcome hinges on a presumption that nothing changed with the tactics of the horses as a result of the conversation. 
Calls for action in the  media have ranged from supporting the verbal warning all the way to a public drawing and quartering in Statue Square, and there is a novelty appeal to the latter, but that may require the same for other licensed people who talk about their races. 
And people do talk about their races. Where is the line drawn?
The new jockey riding 'Lucky Golden Happy Dragon Win' for the first time asks the jockey who rode it last start about its characteristics. That conversation can go one of two ways: the new jockey is told the truth or he is told a lie, since the former jockey is miffed at being kicked off and wants to give the new guy a bum steer. Either way, it could be argued that advantages are being given or taken.
Trainers talk. Jockeys talk. Maybe it's about last week's race and what could have happened differently. Maybe it's more in the way of boxing weigh-in banter: don't be thinking your horse is any sure win, mine is good. I'll lead you and your horse won't beat me. 
Or it might be jockeys behind, or in the gates, asking the one drawn next to him whether he will press forward or not when the gates open. That can help make choices in the first couple of strides of the race, possibly avoid the messy squeezes that are part of any start. It goes on in every race. Is it corrupt, or should it be perceived that way? 
And was this inquiry consistent with the only historical parallel? 
What was different in the 2000 Hong Kong Mile case, involving an uncontested lead for the winner Sunline, was the language used in the conversation with rival jockey Justin Sheehan that Greg Childs reportedly related later in a bar with some visiting Australian journalists. 
In the Sydney Morning Herald story that sparked the inquiry, Childs was reported as saying: 'I spoke to Justin and said, 'Look we can't cut each other's throat and challenge for the lead'. Justin agreed. I just told him to follow me. He knew Adam wouldn't have been able to beat Sunline, she is world class, but it worked out perfect for everyone.'
Written evidence was also taken from a Melbourne journalist from a different newspaper, which, presumably given the outcome of the hearing, confirmed Childs had related this as the wording of the conversation, something Childs vehemently denied, although he  admitted to the conversation.
Sheehan said a conversation about the speed of the race had taken place in the jockeys' room, instigated by Childs, but he also explained it had always been his intention not to contest the lead  and his plans did not vary.
Like the Noble Zoom case - in which stewards reported they 'were comfortable that the conversation had not taken place to affect the equity of the race and as such were satisfied that the integrity of the race had not been compromised' - the Sunline inquiry concluded with a 'corruption clearance'.
Then, stewards also placed on record 'that no evidence was uncovered which would even in the slightest way suggest that the Hong Kong Mile was subject to any corrupt practices. Nor was there any evidence to suggest G Childs was involved in any dishonest practice'.
But there was a HK$300,000 fine for Childs - for 'engaging in conduct prejudicial to the good reputation of horse racing in Hong Kong'. That is, with causing the negative perception about what went on between the riders, even if the reality was not corrupt.
That's where we can see how people might be confused about the Noble Zoom case, where no penalty was issued to So or Yeung for discussing the race.
Yeung's penalty was under a convenient and rarely implemented rule regarding his obligation to comply with instructions. Given the often unworkable instructions many jockeys are given, it's a rule which should remain infrequently used, but it offered the middle ground here. 
Reasonable and permissible measures didn't apply. Stewards' judged that nothing corrupt occurred. And they didn't see it as prejudicial to the image of racing. The public hoo-ha that has followed in the local media places a question mark over whether that is correct.
Jockeys and trainers discuss their horses frequently. Where do you draw the line? Well probably about here when the matter surfaces in the manner it has. The apprentice riders didn't deserve HK$300,000 fines, but a verbal warning?
Still, this is where stewards earn their pay. As we have said many times, their job is not to place themselves in the minds of onlookers and imagine what they might think or see and react on that - it is to attempt to seek the truth of the situation. The steward who hangs participants, thinking it will keep others happy, will sooner or later find there is precious little thanks for that.



On the Rails