There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 142 comments are related to the topic:
Chucked out?
Chucked out?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 142
|
By:
Ged,
A fully fledged Jockey on the second would surely have stated,"I was stopped by the winner and lost a length.It most certainly cost me the race". |
|
By:
rstar- I'm sure that's the case - but I'm not talking about who's the best at arguing, I'm talking about what happened on the track, and the rules.
|
|
By:
In hindsight, the best thing the jockey on Gaelic could have done was to NOT pass the winner - but that's obviously a lot easier said than done.
|
|
By:
I should also add that the winner was by far the better horse.
However,unlike Matt Chapman,I know the rules. The winner should have been demoted by them. |
|
By:
Even under the current rules, you could argue the 2nd should have been awarded the race. Did the interference cost him more ground than he was beaten?
His momentum was checked and he had to switch as the winner took his ground, before losing a short head. I take ged's point about GS having hit the front, but even so he lost on the bob, and imo he wasn't stopping. But even if you accept Tryster was the better horse, it's wrong imo that the rules are so heavily weighted in the offender's favour. |
|
By:
I would add that the Chelmsford Stewards have joined their counterparts at Stratford where I shall be reluctant to take a financial interest on their Inquiries
 |
|
By:
You can argue that the rules are unfair, and that this race is a good illustration of such unfairness - but under the rules, the decision was correct. You CANNOT be certain that Gaelic wins without the interference - the winner's response when challenged suggested all he needed was a challenge and time to respond to it.
|
|
By:
I beg to differ,Ged.
I would have argued the ground lost cost me the race. The Trainer of the second is still seething and it is highly likely to be overturned on Appeal. |
|
By:
Well of course that's what you argue. The most interesting argument you could put up, imo, would be if you said you wanted to bide your time to put your horse's nose in front right on the line because he pulls up in front ("as you've just seen on the film, sir"), and 'when the other horse came across me, my horse panicked, and I wasn't able to ride the perfectly-judged finished that I had coolly calculated to the inch, sir, causing me to challenge too soon'.
|
|
By:
I don't think they want results reversed, cuz as millhouse points out, it's not good for racing's coffers!
The best example I can think of, is Shahdaroba at Leicester, when the stewards were right to reverse the placings on the eveing imo, but the BHA appeal board were only too happy to restore the result back to the original outcome, if only to set an example and show how they wants things done, imo! |
|
By:
You could well be right George
|
|
By:
They could simply reverse the 'certainty', and put the onus on the FPTP, so you DQ him unless you're certain the interference did NOT affect the result. You'll never remove all controversy, but I think that would be my preference. That way, the likes of Royal Gait still keep their races, but Gaelic gets his.
|
|
By:
ged, I can't remember, but was Asmussen done for 'dangerous riding' on Royal Gait, because if he was, even today the winning margin is irrelevant where 'dangerous riding' is concerned.
In fact, the last time someone in this country was done for 'dangerous', was because another jockey had come off his mount. |
|
By:
I thought that this was a thread about Celebrity Big Brother & Ken Morley.
 |
|
By:
Who's Ken Morley
|
|
By:
George - I can't remember whether Cash got done for 'dangerous' - but if he did, he shouldn't have been. El Conquistador fell over mainly because he was a big gangly thing, and he was knackered having been sacrificed up front to make the pace for his stable companion. It was a case of the consequences (a horse falling) not matching the action (giving him a bump), imo - although it is admittedly difficult not to take the consequences into account, it is the action that should be judged, not the consequences. So if you shout at a horse, and it falls over in fright, you don't get done for 'dangerous', but if you cut across one deliberately and half-length it, and it stumbles but keeps its feet, you do, or should do (imo).
|
|
By:
I think the important point to be made is that our rules are a joke.
Ask two questions: A. How much distance did the interference cost the runner up? B. How far was he beaten? If you are convinced that A is greater than B then surely the result should be reversed. All these arguments about leaving the result alone because the 'best horse' won are theoretical not factual. Our rules should deal with facts only. The interference surely cost the runner up more distance than he was beaten by. |
|
By:
Too simplistic, because winning distance isn't everything. If it was, Youmzain comes out a better horse than Sea The Stars.
But you can argue the rules are 'wrong'. I think they are. I think the doubt should favour the sinned-against rather than the sinner. |
|
By:
ged, salmon spray checked one of his Timeform Annuals and apparently Asmussen was done for "reckless riding". I don't think that term now exists in the rules, but clearly like the present day "dangerous riding" rule would, it resulted in disqualification, regardless of the winning distance.
I was making the point that people will often cite the Royal Gait example as 'justification' for the current interference rules, but clearly are wrong to do so, because once Asmussen was found guilty of riding 'recklessly', the winning distance was irrelevant and the horse was DQ'd. I think the dangerous rule is this country hasn't been used for over 5 years (Culhane at Newcastle), and even then it was probably only used, as arguably 'reckless' was in the Royal Gait case, because another jockey came off his horse. The best recent example I can think off, where perhaps the 'dangerous riding' rule could have been used, was the Eclipse when Hanagan was nearly put through the rail. Doyle was done for 'careless', but what if Hanagan had have came off? |
|
By:
I know it's hard to be detached, but I think it's irrelevant (to whether the piece of riding is judged 'dangerous', 'reckless', whatever) whether the jockey comes off or not, and irrelevant whether the horse falls or not. It's the action/manoeuvre that needs to be judged - not the consequences of it. So if a jockey steers his mount into the path of another, causing it to be snatched up - that, imo, is dangerous/reckless. I haven't reviewed it - and I should before mouthing off here - but there was a race a few weeks ago, where JPS twice steered (imo) his mount into the path of a pace-setter at Wolverhampton (Baltic Prince?) - I don't know what he was playing at - but my impression on watching it was that it was worse than careless, and that, in general, stewards are too lenient, and 'waiting' until there are fallers before reaching for the 'dangerous/reckless' judgement - and I still think Cash was neither. I think the cutting across from in front is a far more serious/dangerous crime than bumping from the side/half-behind which is what he did, in my memory.
|
|
By:
I think in the Royal Gait case, even though there was minimal contact, it was all because Clark fell off, so the stewards felt they had to be seen to do something, so they blamed Asmussen and DQ'd him.
In the Eclipse on Al Kazeem, Doyle imo did nothing to correct his mount until the damage was done. |
|
By:
ged,
The Stewards do not have to be "certain" the second would have won,merely on the balance of probability. |
|
By:
Well, there's the rub...
54.7 In deciding whether the Stewards are satisfied that the interference improved the placing of the horse So, question... could the stewards be satisfied, but not sure? |