There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Nickie doesnt give his views in today's Weekender column, I guess they are well known?
Anyway, I think -- surprise -- that the American system is best. Just like in human athletics, you stick to your running line or else, if you interfere w any other runner for whatever reason, your number is taken down. Not a matter of anyone -- let alone bleeding stewards fcs -- deciding who was the best horse or who would have won. Just a simple matter of obeying the rule or not.
Anyway, I think -- surprise -- that the American system is best. Just like in human athletics, you stick to your running line or else, if you interfere w any other runner for whatever reason, your number is taken down. Not a matter of anyone -- let alone bleeding stewards fcs -- deciding who was the best horse or who would have won. Just a simple matter of obeying the rule or not.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 18
|
By:
Love it when the stewards decide the horse hadn't improved his position,or,interference was accidental,or 2nd wouldn't have won!!!!!
|
|
By:
"just like human athletics"? FFS
animals are animals. if they should act like humans they would be called humans. you try get an athlete to run at speed with a weight on their back and being whipped and find out if they will run in a straight line |
|
By:
...........and racecourses aren't flat like athletics tracks either.
|
|
By:
maybe authorities should look at this option http://taste-no-evil.com/apix/hamstertriumph.jpg
|
|
By:
most horses start running off a straight line when the jocks get them unbalanced.
Think you would be surprised how many horses can run straight if the rules indicate they or their jocks have to. |
|
By:
le stelle -- the jocks riding them are human -- or mostly
eward -- the jocks ride and the horses race on the same track, so even if it isnt flat the playing field is still level |
|
By:
The fact that the stewards cannot decide who should have won is a product of the american legal system surely? They have to apply a rigid set of rules since any 'opinion' creeping in would result in litigation.
|
|
By:
without jockey's though I think it would be a recipe for disaster pedro
|
|
By:
It's very simple.
Just like in athletics you paint lines around the whole course, then you explain to the participants, in this case the horses, what is expected of them. You them ask them if they understand and if they nod their heads then Bob's your uncle. |
|
By:
stupac -- actually, w the exceptio of Louisiana which ishe Napoleanic code, all American legal system is virtually the same as the English. The main differnce I have observed is -- since your dont have a first amendment here -- it is harder to be sued for slander or li bel in America.
|
|
By:
yank, human races are run on a flat level track and they each run the exact same distance.
there is not a level playing field in racing, hence the draw bias. i understand where you are coming from but at the end of the day horses are animals and have a mind of their own so there are times when a jock cant do anything |
|
By:
I appreciate the Law of Precedent applies the same as in UK, I just had the impression that the stewards had to work to a rigid set of guidelines for that reason.
Mind you, baseball umpires only use opinion surely? |
|
By:
rules are too lenient in this country and freatly favour first past the post.
The stewards have to be virtually certain that the second horse would have won to change the result. Rule change should be changed so that if the interfered horse had ANY chance of winning OR being placed, and lost positions as a result, then the interferer should be demoted behind that horse. Too many times, seen a winner badly interfere with a horse who is so badly done in, it finishes 4th or 5th as it comes to a standstill. Without the interference, it would have come 2nd or 3rd. How is that deemed to be "not interefering with the result" ? |
|
By:
Yank, horse A races off a straight line and interferes with horse B on the run in. Horse B then switches and gets a head in front near the line but then races off a straight line and interferes with horse A. There is a 20 length gap back to the 3rd but your suggestion would appear to want to give the race to the 3rd doesn't it??
|
|
By:
stupac -- to have an opinion requires a brain, ergo umpires cannot have opinions
ewood -- couldnt follow your train of thought, but clearly you are envisioning a rather odd set of circumstances, which would indicate to me that there is a certain prima facie case to be made for the American system |
|
By:
Pedrobob is spot on with saying the present rule favours 1st past the post. It annoys me at the end of a 3 mile chase on heavy ground when the leader stops the run of a rival on the run in and because the horse that is interferred with is unable to regain any momentum and come again then it is deemed that it hasn't affected the result when it's almost impossible for a horse to come back again in that ground.
|
|
By:
Yank, your original post was black and white and i have interpretted it accordingly. Horses coming off a racing line and interferring with a rival are disqualified aren't they??
|
|
By:
ewood -- your hypothetical instance is a contrived reductio imo. Been fan of American racing for many moons, and dont ever recall an example where there was any sort of controversy like there very frequently is in England and less so in Ireland. You interfere, your number comes down. Good rule, makes sense, doesnt depend on judgements of -- ffs -- the stewards!
|