Stewards at Stratford

Had a tasty bet on Dolatulo at 12.50 , thought the money was in the bag , went out  and was in shock when looked at the results later.

totally insane decision. Horse and jockey did nothing wrong , ran in a straight line .

Only one explanation , stewards family friends of Nigel ? or worse ? financial corruption .

if the race was in India [ Stratford upon Ganges ?] , the stewards would have been in a chicken kebab by six o clock.

All of us who have been robbed should be compensated for this farce.

I always remember the Royal Gait disqualification and thought that at least under today's rules such a travesty of justice would not occur again. And now this happens.

Made me laugh Jollie loved the idea of some dozy stewards skewered in a kebab by 6 o'clock.

terrible decision .
i didn't bet on the stewards or the 1st/2nd , but the stewards need educating imo

shocking.

Staggered!1 of the worst decisions ive seen, glad i didnt see it live as would have waded in on the honourable winner keeping it.

It's these ***** at BHA that need a rocket imo as highlighted by Geoff Banks article recently.

Leave local stewards to decide any enquiry and you will always get travesties like this - I'm not blaming them - the BHA should have taken these decisions from them - use 1 professional body at HQ for all race enquiries - they have the technology to do this and at least there would be some consistency in decisions

Yet again this will go to appeal and the decision reversed - wake up BHA cos this is another turn off, for would be new racegoers

In direct contrast to the other controversial decision at Cheltenham recently.

These stewards really are inconsistent.

It's a game of chance when stewards have to make a decision. Something other than common sense seems to be pulling their strings.

Just an after thought but how many of these decisions go to appeal in an average year & how many usually get overturned

In 40+ years of watching racing every-now-and-then at Stratford I have NEVER seen a jockey take the same line as Gavin Sheehan.
He jumped the final fence on the inside and by taking a straight line passed the post on the wide outside.
Were every jockey to do this in a chase at Stratford, it would mean that the challengers would ALL have to go around the leader, which could mean mayhem were there to be three or four in with a chance.
Think about it, three challengers to the right of the leader in a four-horse run to the line would all have to pull their horse around him -- and maybe lose momentum -- to get to the left hand side of him.
By going in a straight line (which as I say I've not seen before at Stratford, Haydock or even Folkestone when they had a water jump in front of the stand)  Sheehan would know he would be inviting trouble behind.
Hence the charge of dangerous riding.
By the way, I think a jockey was forced off the course at Plumpton's bottom bend this season in a similar way.

Surely they must have to throw out that last winner at Donny considering Spencer didn't move away from the rail to allow Buick to get by?

tilted , why should any jockey running in a straight line , have to worry about what horses behind him are doing ?

should horses be fitted with wing mirrors iyo ?

mike parry on talksport ahead of his time,
suggested wing mirrors on horses 8 yrs ago,

and they all laughed

one of the best wind ups on radio ever

So a jockey leading has no right to keep a straight line??
Twiston Davies the dozy tw@t wasnt looking where he was going just got head down and really ought to have ploughed thro the fence  to teach him a lesson.

you watch a couple of weeks down the line
they will object and get race

Sorry for the double post as I have only just seen your post titled but if you are serious (and you have taken the trouble to post several lines on the matter) and not just fishing then yours is the most unbelievable post I have ever seen on here and that's really saying something.

So a jockey leading has no right to keep a straight line?


ffs lets have a bit of common sense here ,  ST-D was at fault and could have caused injury to all concerned .

Why on earth should GS  be worrying about anything behind him ? He was doing a grand job for conns and punters riding straight and focusing on the wining line.

STD should face a ban for running his horse into a dangerous situation.

But he's been going to Stratford for over 40 years.

Can't blame Gavin Sheehan for that STD had plenty time to switch outside like 3rd horse did,took a gamble didn't pay off Stewards should be shot with a tommy gun after being given a start of 15 seconds of course.

Well said tilted, completely agree.

Can't understand why people are being so obtuse.  The stewards obviously consider that due to the course config the true line is to head diagonally across the course. 

Having said that it is still a disgraceful decision as they couldn't possibly be certain the second would have won.

is the racing post analyst having a laugh ? 

Chased leaders, effort 13th, went 3rd but not fluent next, very vigorously driven from 2 out, tried to challenge and hit last, closing when rail dolling off water and rival came up to greet him, lost all momentum final 50yds, finished 2nd, placed 1st (

The close up in The Racing Post was written by Ian McKenzie who is confrontational to say the least. This particular comment as regards rail and rival coming to greet the original runner up is farcical. The man should be sacked.

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

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.

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.

anybody got a copy of Sat's Racing Post with the names of the stewards in it please?

has anyone got a video link?

"... 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?

pedro

stewards - L Taylor ,H West
stipendary - R Westropp , C L Rutter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A_Zugvlw6I

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.

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?

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)

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.

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.

anything about it in today's racing post?

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.

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.

does anyone have a link to the head on view

the only logical conclusion one can draw if you read the regulations is,the stewards all backed benbens,

R.Post comment  called it a baffling decision
and stewards should have a look  at  themselfs

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

pocket talk

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.

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!

Gavin Sheehan was whipping it with right hand,how can it be dangerous when he was keeping it straight

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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?

1.01 amended result when appeal is heard

BHA press office confirm that appeals have been lodged.

Exactly, Ged. It would be deemed dangerous driving and he would be in the sin-bin.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

If 99.9999999% of people think that the result should have stood how the hell have these numpties come to the conclusion that the result should be reversed? The BHA even issued guidelines to help stewards in their decision making. Has interference taken place...Yes. Was the interference caused by the first past the post....in my opinion, No. Is the winning distance more than the interference cost the runner up.....I don't think anyone can be certain the second would have won anyway.

Its a no brainer!!!.....Result stands.

Still got no idea when he tried to come up the inside?! Unless he thought Gavin would let him through (surely not) or he thought the horse had the speed to take the gap...

Exactly ELG.

If Sheehan is guilty because he took the 'wrong' line, then Twiston-Davies is equally guilty - so why should he be awarded the race?

how long will the appeal take?

jockey yesterday stated, he didnt have time to switch his horse,the jockey in 3rd did?,to me he went for the gap that wasnt there,the jockey in front was blameless.

he didnt have time cause he wasnt taking any notice/looking where he was going.
Twiston Davies should have been banned for 28 days for being a danger unto himself! whilst reffered for an eye test the dumbwit.

Mar 31, 2014 -- 3:29PM, tilted wrote:

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 apartA . . . . . 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.

You don't half talk a load of utter rubbish.

Forget any strong beliefs you have ... it's sheer common sense that the configuration of the course means any jockey challenging to the right of the leader after the last fence in a Stratford chase is choosing to run the risk of the sort of traffic problems Benbens ended up in on Saturday and so has no right to complain (even worse, benefit) when such traffic problems occur.

Never mind correcting Saturday's injustice when this case goes to its appeal, the BHA also need to bear in mind that if they let this result stand (and, therefore, set a precedent) then they're inviting even more daring manoeuvres in the future with all the potentially tragic outcomes for both horses and jockeys that such manoeuvres could produce.

If STD had come off would the 3rd have got the race?

NOT SURE SPYKER?

Gavin Sheehan steered a course from the inside of the fence to the outside at the line. The question is whether this a dangerous thing to do given the configuration of the track.

STD is the jockey who should have been cautioned. Ridiculous trying to squeeze through that gap. Jump the last and switch to his left then  A/ No interferance and B/ Beaten. If he had been good enough to be upsides at the last then fair enough but he wasn't so end of story.

stewards - L Taylor ,H West
stipendary - R Westropp , C L Rutter

.... hope the lot of you get sacked, utter incompetence

Appeal upheld, Dolatulo awarded the race, Of no help to those who backed him (Like myself) but at least Gavin Sheenan had his suspension quashed.

I backed Dolatulo but I did not lose out financially because 1.02 or something like that was on offer for laying during the stewards.

Obviously you have to follow the golden rule:

If a decision is in the hands of a third party, you CANNOT guarantee the decision is favourable to yourself

Lesson learned, Watched it live and couldn't see and fair reason why he'd be kicked out, Won't make that mistake again.

We can only hope this takes us one step nearer central professional stewards. Lost a lump laying Benbens and stupidly didn't trade out as couldn't see any case for amendment. Lesson learned!

I lost 2 grand because of those totally unqualified stewards - I'll never make that mistake again.

And what's the punishment for the stewards? Less sherry available for the the next meeting?

Lost a not insignificant amount due to their incompetence.  Will be much more circumspect next as to where to get involved if there are stewards in future.

Stratford is definitely off the list.

swift-tuttle     10 Apr 14 12:36 

If a decision is in the hands of a third party, you CANNOT guarantee the decision is favourable to yourself
-----------

There was an old 'gambling advice' saying ....

'Never bet on anything that thinks' - or, 'can think'

It referred, primarily, to Boxing Matches - no explanation needed.

shrewd

if you didnt know better you would have thought the stewards had bet the fav.

never heard that one before onlooker but I certainly go along with it

Wot, no betting on football then.

mememe     10 Apr 14 15:31 
Wot, no betting on football then.

Why not

An investigation should certainly be held into why Benbens contracted from 14/1 to about 3/1 to get the race in the last couple of minutes before the announcement particularly as everyone seemed to think the result was sure to stand. Betfair have all the info and it needs to be passed on

It wasn't in the last couple of minutes. The stewards took ages and Benbens was shortish for ages before the announcement, although you are right it did open up far bigger than it ended up. Maybe they were filling their boots in that time

Knight C ...

mis-read the post about not betting on anything that thinks ...

"There was an old 'gambling advice' saying 'Never bet on anything that thinks' - or, 'can think'  "

Now my reply should have been ALWAYS bet on footie therefore!

Gavin Sheehan

The Disciplinary Panel of the British Horseracing Authority on 10 April 2014 considered an appeal lodged by Gavin Sheehan, the rider of DOLATULO (FR), the winner of the Great Value Wines From Bordeaux Undiscovered Handicap Chase, against the decision of the Stewards at Stratford to find him guilty of careless riding and to suspend him from riding for four days, following an enquiry on 29 March 2014. Sheehan also appealed against the decision of the Stewards to find that DOLATULO (FR) had interfered with BENBENS (IRE), placed second, and that the interference had improved DOLATULO (FR)’s placing, and to reverse the placings.

The Panel heard evidence from Sheehan, who was legally represented, and Sam Twiston-Davies, the rider of BENBENS (IRE). It also viewed recordings of the race.

The Panel found that Sheehan was not guilty of causing any interference to Twiston-Davies. It was satisfied that having landed over the last fence 1½ lengths ahead of Twiston-Davies, Sheehan had every right to maintain the racing line to the commencement of the running rail that was alongside the water jump on the run to the finish line. Twiston-Davies, who was gaining ground, attempted to pass on the unrailed part of the course but had not the speed to do so in time, resulting in him running out of racing room and having to take a check before colliding with the rail.

The Panel therefore upheld Sheehan’s appeal against the finding of Careless riding and quashed the 4 day suspension. As a consequence of finding that Sheehan was not responsible for causing any interference the Panel also upheld the second part of his appeal, placing DOLATULO (FR) first and BENBENS (IRE) second.

Posted for the benefit of the mugs who thought the stewards were correct.

Where's my winnings ...............................

Where does this leave? ....

Senior stipendiary steward Chris Rutter - Former Flat Racing jockey (for those who do not know)

Who would have 'advised' the Stratford Stewards.

Not a mention of him.

shame that the enquiry on the day was not televised.

Those who lost as a result of the stewards idiocy could at least have had a good laugh at the garbage they must have been spouting in deciding how to turn around the result. Could probably have provided enough material for a whole episode of Fawlty Towers

TOTALLY CORRUPT,FAV FAV FAV FAV FAV FAV

Its all alright upholding the appeal - WHAT HAPPENS TO THE LUNATICS THAT REPRESENT BRITISH RACING ???

Is it a slap on the wrists due to their inadeqacy or ....  ARE THEY LET LOOSE TO DO IT AGAIN  ???


Multi million pounds investments handled by incompetents who hovel in and out of their BHA umberella


SACK THE LOT AND SHOUT IT FROM ON HIGH

Nincompoops.

Fawlty towers sums it up  , but at least you get a laugh out of Basil

cost me a fair few quid ,


had a go at 7/1 here today , to win some back