Horse Antepost
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 142 comments are related to the topic:
St Leger - Ante Post Musings...
St Leger - Ante Post Musings...
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 142
|
By:
The decision was a disgrace Figgis, the worst I've seen in my 25 years of following the sport. The more I think about it the more I'm certain they'll reverse the result.
I was on Storm the stars in the end so which one of them won mattered little to me from a financial point of view, but justice was certainly not done. There was plenty of scrimmaging and barging between the two of them, Bondi Beach tried to pin the filly in on the fence but he wasn't strong enough to keep her in and when she did get out he still had a chance to go past her in the final furlong, but wasn't good enough. |
|
By:
Lewisham Ranger, I take it you never saw Cecil's Sabrehill win at Newbury just over 20 years ago then? I backed him that day so it's still vivid in my memory
 |
|
By:
The UK rule is 1. Did interference take place? 2. Was the result affected? The stewards answered yes (twice) to the first part and yes to the second part.They blamed the winner for both occurances. As a result, they had no choice but to demote the winner.
Personally, I prefer that rule to France/States 1. Did intererence occur? If yes, was it the fault of the winner? If yes, then disqualify. |
|
By:
Should have added that automatic disqualification follows whether winner or not in France/States. I think that rule produces more silly disqualifications than under our rule.
|
|
By:
The old rules were ridiculous, leading to the absurd situation of Sabrehill being disqualified. However, the rules have gone too far in the other direction where very few results are overturned despite some pretty bad cases of interference. This has led to a situation where jockeys aren't fussed about breaking the rules as they know they're more likely to keep the race and just take a slap on the wrist. Hardly any results have been overturned in recent years unless the winning distance was as short as a short head, as the stewards have stated they couldn't be sure the result was affected.
Today the winning distance was a head but they reckon the result was affected, despite most people, including many like me who backed Bondi Beach, thinking the best horse passed the post first. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with this particular case if all such instances were treated in the same manner, but we all know they haven't been. |
|
By:
worst one I've seen was Taufans Melody
1997 at Ascot. Was on this at 25s and at tote odds. Gutted aint the word. |
|
By:
http://www.racingpost.com/horses/result_home.sd?race_id=115519&r_date=1993-07-17&popup=yes#results_top_tabs=re_&results_bottom_tabs=ANALYSIS
Check out the Sabrehill result. When the comments say "slight bump", believe me they're not understating the case. Winning distance was 4 lengths. |
|
By:
Actually I was going to mention Sabrehill, I backed that horse as well and couldn't believe it when it got thrown out
I believe you are talking about his win at York Figgis? I think he won his maiden race at Newbury but then got disqualified at York. (Was it even in the Juddmonte stakes?) On his second ever run. I seem to recall him making his debut late on as a three year old but he was some horse, sadly my memory might be playing tricks but is it possible he never ran again after that sad York escapade. One of Cecil's best probably but never got the chance to fulfill his potential. |
|
By:
Sorry I just checked you were right about it being at Newbury. He had already won his maiden at Newmarket.
I backed him at York and he surged into the lead at the two furlong marker, looking all over the winner (if they had betfair then he probably would have gone at least 1.05 in running) but then got chinned, that's why I recall being disgusted So basically just a very unlucky horse all round |
|
By:
Lewisham Ranger, I went into town on the Newbury day to place my bet. Sabrehill had put up a very good time on 3yo debut and I had a maximum bet at Laddies, I recall he opened at 9/4 before being backed down. I placed the bet (you could comfortably get decent sums on back then), watched him win easily then left the bookies to do some shopping with the intention of picking up my winnings on the way back, instead of walking around town with a pocket full of cash. A bit later I called into a Done's shop to check the later results, I couldn't believe it when I saw Sabrehill had been dsq has I hadn't even been aware there would be an inquiry. I asked some bloke what happened, thinking maybe Roberts had weighed in incorrectly or something, he said don't worry Done's pay out on both results. Unfortunately for me Laddies didn't.
I remember the York race, I had intended to recover my losses on him but reluctantly left the race as I was unsure about taking the price on the softish ground. He never raced again and if I remember rightly they said he picked up an injury during the race, so yes very unlucky. |
|
By:
That's a genuine bad luck story!
 reminds me of some time I backed this horse, and it got beat. I was so annoyed I ended up in my anger doing a huge bet on Tiger Woods for the golf, and he lost of course. This is going some years back as well, in the days when Tiger was actually half decent... I only found out too late that the horse I had backed was actually awarded the race,like you I wasn't even aware that there had been a stewards, but the damage had been done by then! Any thoughts on the National stakes today mate? |
|
By:
This is my worst ever stewards decision which cost me.
Royal Gait.1988 On 16 June, Royal Gait was sent to contest Britain's most prestigious stayers race, the Gold Cup over two and a half miles at Royal Ascot. Cash Asmussen took over the ride from Gibert, and the gelding started the 15/2 fourth choice in the betting behind Sadeem, Primitive Rising and Sergeyevich. He was not among the early leaders but moved up to fourth place on the turn into the straight. At this point, El Conquistador, who had been acting as a pacemaker for Sadeem, dropped back sharply and collided with Royal Gait who was moving up on the rail. El Conquistador stumbled badly and unseated his jockey Tony Clark. Royal Gait continued his run on the inside, took the lead approaching the final furlong, and drew away to win by five lengths from Sadeem with a gap of fifteen length back to Sergeyevich in third.[7] Royal Gait's winning time of 4:15.67 broke the existing course record by more than three seconds.[8] The racecourse stewards held an inquiry into the race, concluded that Asmussen had been responsible for bumping El Conquistador and disqualified Royal Gait. The result of the inquiry has been described as "among racing's greatest bungles".[9] Fellows described the result as "difficult to believe".[8] Happy ending though because Royal Gait gave me my biggest ever single bet win when he won the Champion Hurdle ...but I had to wait out a stewards which ran more than 40 mins (until after the next race if I remember rightly.)But the right result this time.  |
|
By:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYBK37DZ8C4
While El Conquistador was obviously weakening, Asmussen had to have been aware of that and I thought it was careless and dangerous riding from the American, which could have ended up worse than it did. Undoubtedly the best horse passed the post first though. |
|
By:
Under todays rules, would RG have been disqualified, I wonder? Was there an incident? Yes, obviously. Was the result affected. No, clearly. Today, the horse would probably have kept the race but the jockey would receive a ban, I expect. That would be fair imo.
|
|
By:
Yes, silly to ban a horse that was so obviously the best in the race, therefore not only penalising connections but more importantly (although I'm sure connections would disagree) penalising winning punters, with the possibility of punters losing faith in betting on the game. However the current rules do not go far enough to dissuade jockeys from taking rule breaking risks that far outweigh the penalty they receive and more has to be done in that department.
|
|
By:
I should've said silly to disqualify a horse. Actually a future ban is one of the possible deterrents that has been mentioned and should be considered with other options.
|
|
By:
Yes, I agree figgis. Punishment should not only fit the crime but act as a deterrent. And the horse and jockey should be dealt with as separate issues.
|
|
By:
For you Sabrehill fans - Still cannot belive that he got chinned by Ezzoud !!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PMYEQ97mTM |
|
By:
Apparently he injured his near fore tendon during the race, which although not obvious from the video you'd have to think must have had an effect and was the likely reason he got caught.
|
|
By:
On second thoughts I'd say it was actually discernible from the video.
|
|
By:
Think the appeal decision proves what most of us thought at the time, the reversal was wrong.
|
|
By:
Aye, right decision. Shame it was ever reversed for all concerned on the day.
|
|
By:
http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-racing/ralph-beckett-beckett-proposes-radical-new-approach-to-whip-rules/1969429/top/#newsArchiveTabs=last7DaysNews
The Beckett-trained Simple Verse was first past the post in the St Leger but lost the race to Bondi Beach after a stewards' inquiry that focused on two separate incidents of interference. However, in the live inquiry broadcast on Channel 4, Colm O'Donoghue's breach of the whip rules was not even mentioned, a fact Beckett believes needed addressing. All-weather trial? He said: "Colm O'Donoghue broke the whip rules on Bondi Beach, although that wasn't seen as a factor in the stewards' inquiry. My view on that is that horses should be disqualified if their riders use the whip too many times, but only after the weighed-in announcement. "So all bets stand, it's still first past the post, bookmakers would only pay out on one horse. The punters wouldn't be punished but the connections would be penalised. Someone who is much wiser than me pointed out that if you start throwing out horses for overuse of the whip, it's incitement to riot, but by removing the punter factor you remove that potential. Why should the punter pay for it? "It would stop whip overuse overnight. Trial it from January 1 in the little races on the all-weather, and by May 1 everyone's got used to it. I can't see any downside to it." At least Beckett has attempted to come up with something better than the current rules but I can see an obvious downside to it. This would be absolutely no disincentive whatsoever when the potential winnings of a gamble far outweighs the paltry prize money on offer, which is particularly relevant to the all weather. |