There’s a poem by the great Australian poet, Banjo Patterson, who wrote the famous ballad Waltzing Matilda, titled Riders in the Stand.

This is how it ends:

The rule holds good in everything in life's uncertain fight;

You'll find the winner can't go wrong, the loser can't go right.

You ride a slashing race, and lose - by one and all you're banned!

Ride like a bag of flour, and win - they'll cheer you in the Stand

But while we cheer the winners on the racetrack, is there too little criticism from the racing media when jockeys give a horse a bad ride?

It’s something that has become more apparent these days, when everyone has a ‘voice’ on social media.

If there is a controversial or close finish to a race, there can be a disconnection between what you watched and what comes from racetrack interviews, compared to what is debated on social media.

On one hand, social media commentary can descend into abuse rather than any attempt at fair comment if a jockey loses a race by a narrow margin, or fails to get a clear run when they were expected to win.

But it is also fair to ask whether the racing media give participants too easy a time and often don’t ask the difficult questions.

Search on X/twitter over last weekend for comments relating to jockeys Charlie Bishop, Luke Morris and Mikael Barzalona, and you will find plenty of stinging criticism.

Here are some examples with the riders' names removed:

"Your ride on XXX yesterday was beyond belief.. how you have a job ….is beyond me."

"Why not swing wide ffs, these rides are killing me"

"Shock XXX gives XXX another shocking ride"

"Goodness, XXX was asleep for much of that"

Not nice, but this is the world we live in. Punters don’t take prisoners if they lose their dough.

Having watched the Weatherbys Super Sprint last Saturday, I felt that Charlie Bishop, having found his way through to get to the front, was then guilty of not riding through the line, continuing to use his whip instead of letting his mount’s momentum take him home.

It was an opinion. Others felt there was nothing wrong with the ride.

At the Curragh on Sunday, Luke Morris got into trouble and didn’t get a clear run on the favourite Tasmania in a Group 3 race.

In the Prix Messidor at Chantilly the same day, Mikael Barzalona seemed to leave Ridari with a lot to do. And that rider has come in for criticism for a few of his rides this season.

Earlier in the year, Kieran Shoemark lost the ride on Field Of Gold after being beaten on the horse in the 2000 Guineas. Shoemark admitted he had been "too confident" aboard the Juddmonte-owned horse. Owning up to his mistake did not save his job. Some feel his honesty sealed his fate.

Earlier this year Chris Hayes took issue with a comment on social media from a well known punter/pundit who criticised one of his rides.

The online ‘social’ world can be very anti-social and an awful source of abuse. But are fair comments met with unnecessary hostility?

The racing media, which includes quite a lot of former jockeys, are frequently taken to task for ducking this issue by not asking the pertinent questions or giving honest analysis. "How did they think they could win from there?" is not a comment you typically hear after a race.

On Racing TV, Ruby Walsh and Fran Berry have developed reputations for generally being unafraid to point out mistakes made by jockeys. Seb Sanders also gives a straight opinion on Sky Racing.

Different for other sports

Some presenters leave themselves open to accusations that they are too lenient with jockeys that they are on better terms with. This observation could also be applied to how trainers are typically given a pass by the media when horses run below form or when instructions given to jockeys backfire.

And by contrast, GAA, rugby and soccer pundits - most of whom are retired players - regularly call out poor performances or errors in play, and they are expected to.

Of course, the difference here is these analysts are one step removed from the actual players. They are typically studio-based and don’t run the risk of having to face the people they criticised or ask them for interviews in the future.

Asking tough questions can have professional consequences if you need co-operation at a later date.

You’ll not see any GAA or Premier League players being quizzed pitchside about how they missed that golden scoring opportunity or how they conceded a soft goal or why they gave away a penalty.

A media spokesman, usually the manager or the captain, goes to the microphone and takes one for the team. You could also argue that the professional footballer's typical salary is a fine cushion against criticism.

Maybe jockeys deserve to be cut some slack, given the risks they take in every race. But the punter is a key player in this industry and they are entitled to have their grievances aired and questions asked on their behalf.

Future interviews

As I mentioned above, members of the media may feel they could be given the cold shoulder by jockeys and trainers if they take a view that one of their own has been unfairly criticised. It's a small world and grudges definitely exist between some journalists and some racing professionals.

Wouldn't it be better if more jockeys came forward after making an error of judgement in a race and said so? Would that stem some of the abuse online?

And wouldn't we all be better served if the difficult questions were asked of the losers rather than always just asking the winners how happy they are?

I think it would make the game much more interesting.