There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 234 comments are related to the topic:
Stewards at Stratford
Stewards at Stratford
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 234
|
By:
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
a) Dangerous Riding - the placing(s) must be altered as the interferer must be disqualified. b) Careless, Improper or Accidental - if the Panel is satisfied that the interference improved the placing of the horse causing it, the placings must be altered. c) The benefit of doubt should go to the horse which finished in front. d) The Panel should have in mind that interference is likely to have impeded the sufferer to some degree and therefore a reversal of placings is more likely to follow where there is only a nose between the horses. e) The further away from the winning post that the incident occurs, the less likely it is that the result should be changed. f) The Panel must make allowance for the momentum and ground lost by the sufferer by imagining that it had an uninterrupted run to the line. g) The Panel must NOT make an allowance for any effect on the horse causing the interference. h) The Panel must take into account the ease with which the interferer beat the sufferer. i) If a horse is carried off its intended line, the effect will vary depending on the distance from the winning post. j)The horse is trained or ridden by a member of the Twiston-Davies clan k)The Stewards at the track have backed the horse placed 2nd heavily and cannot lay enough back on the enquiry |
|
By:
The true line is diagonally from the last of else they would go around again and jump the water like the loose horse did and when you see the head on, all runners are the wrong side of the winning post rail as and after jumping the last because the inside wing of the fence is sited inside the rail and so they then edge over, but when you are in front you can dictate how far you edge over and that's the benefit you have gain at that stage by virtual of being in front.
It shouldn't be the ones in behind dictating the path the leader takes or you may just as well say when a horse jumps the last obstacle that it's not allowed to hug the rail and must leave space both sides for runner runs to pass if they can. |
|
By:
1.01 to be reversed on Appeal (not that it will do anybody who bet on the outcome any good).
A decision that truly beggars belief and the worst I have seen in England for many years. |
|
By:
anybody got a copy of Sat's Racing Post with the names of the stewards in it please?
|
|
By:
has anyone got a video link?
|
|
By:
"... but when you are in front you can dictate how far you edge over and that's the benefit you have gain at that stage by virtual of being in front."
what about if 2 horses are level then ima? like when rebel rebellion and shangani fought it out at newbury this season. should royal rebellion have held his line there and forced shangani to either snatch up or go the wrong course? |
|
By:
pedro
stewards - L Taylor ,H West stipendary - R Westropp , C L Rutter |
|
By:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A_Zugvlw6I
|
|
By:
thanks dav , i still can't see what the original winner did wrong .
imo and i may be wrong , but i would have thought it is down to the jockeys behind to take evasive action , either by pulling out and going around the other way , or snatching up and losing momentum. |
|
By:
thanks rcing
dan hardcore, yes would agree with you that if horses are side by side, the jock on the outside should take care not to put the jock on the inside through the rails of an elbow. However, where a horse jumps the last clearly in front ( I think Dolatulo was at least 1 1/2 lengths ahead, if not 2, at the last which he jumped well), the jockey is perfectly entitled to take the shortest route to the finishing line. As an owner, would you not demand he do exactly that? |
|
By:
Rutter you owe me this you dirty fiddling crock of sh*te!!
2014-03-29 16:45 35733202279 2014-03-29 16:14 GB Strat 29th Mar / 16:15 2m7f Hcap Chs / Dolatulo Back 11.00 25.00 Lost (25.00) |
|
By:
Yes Pedro, more so as a punter though!
Maybe Stratford need to put in another winning post to change the angle of the finish line, so that when a horse jumps the last fence on the inside of the track, and a furlong later he is on the outside of the track, he can't say he was just going the shortest way. |
|
By:
loper
30 Mar 14 09:46 Joined: 08 Oct 01 | Topic/replies: 3,075 | Blogger: loper's blog The layout of the track is a key factor in the controversy. Stratford dont seem to have learnt from previous incidents, the worst of which, a few seasons back saw Ruby Walsh with his head down after the last heading straight at the water jump. The first time he realised he was taking the wrong course he was so close to the barriers in front of the water jump that he had no option but to take the 2 sets of obstacles as a double. This he did superbly, but was inevitably disqualified and placed last. There should be a set of bollards placed soon after the last tapering the run in and forcing the field off the line of the water jump well before they reach the obstacle. |
|
By:
anything about it in today's racing post?
|
|
By:
When this is reversed on appeal they should also be looking at the Betfair info on who laid the winner close to the announcement on here. Benbens was trading at between 12 and 16/1 for most of the inquiry and then suddenly came in to 3/1ish. Of course with a long enquiry the odds of a reversal do go in but this was extreme and along with the ludicrous decision must be investigated.
|
|
By:
The stewards obviously consider that due to the course config the true line is to head diagonally across the course.
Perhaps so. I didn't see Twiston-Davies making any attempt to follow that line, until he ran out of room, though. |
|
By:
does anyone have a link to the head on view
|
|
By:
the only logical conclusion one can draw if you read the regulations is,the stewards all backed benbens,
|
|
By:
R.Post comment called it a baffling decision
and stewards should have a look at themselfs |
|
By:
the most amazing thing is that whilst Benbens was closing fast, Sam stopped riding to avoid the rails whilst about 1/2 length down..... and it took Dolatulo just 6 more strides to hit the winning post.
Impossible to understand how the stewards could even be sure that Benbens would have got there in time even with a clear run. Astonishing when you think of the hundreds of enquiries where the winning distance involved is no more than a sh hd and it's even acknolwedged that interference has clearly taken place (like the Cheltenham Gold Cup) .... the stewards leave the result alone |
|
By:
pocket talk
|
|
By:
Paul Struthers has confirmed on Twitter that the PJA have lodged an appeal with the BHA on behalf of Gavin Sheehan, against both the ban and the reversal of the result.
|
|
By:
HAD THE REVERSAL GONE THE OTHER WAY AND THE FAV PLACED SECOND AFTER WINNING THE RACE,IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE HEADLINE ON NEWS AT TEN!
|
|
By:
Gavin Sheehan was whipping it with right hand,how can it be dangerous when he was keeping it straight
 |
|
By:
Dr Crippen says earlier in this thread:
"The third saw the danger and switched to the outside . . . If the third had not switched when he did, two of them would have been cut up." Two of them would have been cut up . . . Exactly. Should it be deemed dangerous riding to cut up two horses? Answers on an email please to Messrs Sheehan, Greatrex and Struthers. |
|
By:
Also please note that by riding in a straight line – due to the configuration of the track – Sheehan took the horse from the inside rail to the wide outside. Perplexing.
|
|
By:
Should it be deemed dangerous riding to cut up two horses?
Don't you mean: Should it be deemed dangerous riding to potentially (by riding a straight line combined with the other jockeys not looking where they are going) cut up two horses? |
|
By:
Yup, Spyker. I stand corrected.
As you will have guessed, I strongly believe that the configuration of the course logically requires a diagonal straight course to be taken by all jockeys. IN THEORY (and I know this was not the case on Saturday) If four horses jump the last fence at Stratford in a line or two/three lengths apart A . . . . . B . . . . . C . . . . . D . . . . . with A on the inside and D nearest the stands, I would not expect the jockey on A to go in a straight line and therefore leave B, C and D nowhere to go but into the fence UNLESS they all came around him. They should all ideally pass the post with A on the inside, B one off the inside rail, C two off the rail and D closest to the stands. |
|
By:
if you told a F1 driver, who was a couple of car lengths in front of a closing rival in second approaching a bend or a chicane, that he should move aside and let the faster car through, he'd tell you to f*** off
|
|
By:
Just watched that again and Sheehan was a length and 1/2 clear kept a straight line it was Twiston Davies responsibility to actually look where he was going but he screwed up and amazingly was awarded the race.
1 of the worst stewards decisions in horse racing ive seen in 40 years. 1.000001 to get that on appeal |
|
By:
pedro - but supposing the lead driver went straight on at the bend instead of turning into it, continuing straight on (to the outside of the bend, having approached the bend mid-track)) until his rival was forced off the track?
|
|
By:
1.01 amended result when appeal is heard
|
|
By:
BHA press office confirm that appeals have been lodged.
|
|
By:
Exactly, Ged. It would be deemed dangerous driving and he would be in the sin-bin.
|
|
By:
pedro - but supposing the lead driver went straight on at the bend instead of turning into it, continuing straight on (to the outside of the bend,
i think you're using the wrong analogy, Ged. A driver noramlly approaches the bend on the outside and cuts the bend on the inside to go round as fast as possible. If the following driver is accelerating on his inside as the lead driver cuts to the inside, do you really expect the leader to move aside if he is a couple of car lengths clear going into the bend ? Sheehan jumped on the inside of the last fence, knew he was comfortably clear of Benbens and effectively headed for the outside of the run-in as it was the shortest way. He could not have done this as Dan Hardcore pointed out earlier, if he was only upsides at the last. |
|
By:
pedro - I suggest it was you who used the wrong analogy. cars race in line most of the time, and hence regularly move across the track to take the corners at maximum speed. Horses are expected to race side by side - but if the conformation of the course requires a change of direction, then riders are expected (I would say) to honour that change - not just go straight on regardless - but the rules are not clear - and probably never will be.
|
|
By:
loper
30 Mar 14 09:46 Joined: 08 Oct 01 | Topic/replies: 3,075 | Blogger: loper's blog The layout of the track is a key factor in the controversy. Stratford dont seem to have learnt from previous incidents, the worst of which, a few seasons back saw Ruby Walsh with his head down after the last heading straight at the water jump. The first time he realised he was taking the wrong course he was so close to the barriers in front of the water jump that he had no option but to take the 2 sets of obstacles as a double. This he did superbly, but was inevitably disqualified and placed last. There should be a set of bollards placed soon after the last tapering the run in and forcing the field off the line of the water jump well before they reach the obstacle. |
|
By:
PLEASE STOP ALL THIS NONSENSE ABOUT LAYOUT OF COURSES,STRAIGHT LINE RIDING,EXT,EXT,U CAN ANALYSE AS MUCH AS U LIKE BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THE STEWARDS ARE BASICALLY CORRUPT,AND THIS WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN AS IT DOES YEAR IN,YEAR OUT,UNTIL THEY ARE MADE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS!
|
|
By:
The water jump needs moving to avoid this in future; that said there should be no need for the jockey on the horse in front to move left - Twiston Davies should have gone round but he didn't - he attempted to come nearside & the space was not there to do so - the decision by the stewards defies all logic imho
|
|
By:
The water jump was dispensed with many years ago, but reintroduced about 7 years ago.
Too many horses were falling at the 2nd last, the first of 2 fences in the home straight before the finishing line. Horses were coming off the final bend unbalance and on their forehands and therefore unable to get their undercarriages down when landing over the fence. It was decided to remove the 2nd last altogether and move the last fence back creating a slightly longer run in. As a result the minimum number of fences required per mile in steeplechases was breached and a substitute fence had to be inserted somewhere on the course. Hence the water jump being reinstated in its current situation. At Newbury, where the water jump is bypassed on the run in, they had an incident 5 or 6 years ago where a horse failed to negotiate the final elbow and went straight on over the water jump. It was decided that the barrier (made up of bollards) put down by ground staff whilst the field are on the final circuit, was too close to the elbow and at too acute an angle that it gave riders insufficient warning that they had to bear to the right. As a result the bollards were moved further back towards the final fence and tapered out at a less acute angle, thus meaning that it is easier for horse and jockey to steer the correct course without making last minute lateral movements. The same should be introduced at Stratford. |