Forums
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
koikeeper
11 Jan 15 12:56
Joined:
Date Joined: 02 Aug 07
| Topic/replies: 25,463 | Blogger: koikeeper's blog
?
Show More
Loading...
Report ArmchairIdiot January 11, 2015 1:05 PM GMT
the winner didnt touch the RU. they had a good set-to to the line, and the winner also responed when looking beat. No way can they throw that out. Horse jinked due to something other than the whip too for good measure.
Report rewired January 11, 2015 1:05 PM GMT
it probably will keep it.....
Report GEORGE.B January 11, 2015 1:05 PM GMT
apprentice jock vs Kirby.

When asked of his chances in the stewards, Crouch said "maybe"

Hector, how about:

Yeah he cut me up really badly, Matt. Totally spooked my horse and checked his momentum. Deffo cost him the race. Wink
Report the dealer January 11, 2015 1:05 PM GMT

Jan 11, 2015 -- 1:05PM, Sergeant Cecil wrote:


It's lost on the nod, Tally, and was in front on the next bob.

Report homefortea January 11, 2015 1:06 PM GMT
Fred seen going in Stewards Room demanding that it is thrown out after a quick to Warrington to check the Company payout figures.....
Report the dealer January 11, 2015 1:06 PM GMT
but you cant say definately the second would have won imo SC
Report penzance January 11, 2015 1:06 PM GMT
don't swerve wins pretty comfortably,
but it did and the runner up only got
done a head.Hard one.
Pretty sure though in America and maybe
France would be thrown out.
Report homefortea January 11, 2015 1:06 PM GMT
quick call
Report Ibrahima Sonko January 11, 2015 1:06 PM GMT
lost on the nod  Crazy
Report layingdoesntwork January 11, 2015 1:07 PM GMT
Out to 1.50 now.
Report Oceanfinance January 11, 2015 1:07 PM GMT
short head not a head. shd used to go any interference
Report rewired January 11, 2015 1:07 PM GMT
you can never say that though can you really......
Report Big Boss January 11, 2015 1:07 PM GMT
gaelic silver, baldy not had a bean for it, will get the reverse
Report ArmchairIdiot January 11, 2015 1:08 PM GMT
it'd be a massively inconsistent call if they turned it over
Report homefortea January 11, 2015 1:08 PM GMT
looks like the bald knocker is going to get his first return on his investment....
Report Latalomne January 11, 2015 1:08 PM GMT
Weighed in, weighed in
Report ArmchairIdiot January 11, 2015 1:08 PM GMT
GTFI
Report tomhunt January 11, 2015 1:08 PM GMT
thank fook for thatCry
Report Wazman January 11, 2015 1:09 PM GMT
JOKE
Report Cider January 11, 2015 1:09 PM GMT
Poor decision, but the expected one.
Report bud the frog January 11, 2015 1:10 PM GMT
I luv this course 1 race and i win twice
Report Wesdag January 11, 2015 1:10 PM GMT
Never in doubt ffs!
Report Muppetier January 11, 2015 1:10 PM GMT
"was there interference YES did the runner up lose more ground than it was beaten YES"

as I understand the rules these are the only two questions the stewards have to consider. The fact that the best horse won is irrelevant.

Maybe they use common sense rather than the rules and let the winner keep it.
Report ArmchairIdiot January 11, 2015 1:10 PM GMT
not a joke. the horse jinked for becauseit saw the entrance to the paddock. Once thats established it keeps the race. Simple call
Report Oceanfinance January 11, 2015 1:10 PM GMT
poor decision
Report roggrain January 11, 2015 1:11 PM GMT
There are,ipso facto,no interference rules then.
Report ArmchairIdiot January 11, 2015 1:12 PM GMT
Some of you dont know the rules. If the horse jinked purely because of the jockey, he gets thrown out. suck it up.
Report Sergeant Cecil January 11, 2015 1:12 PM GMT
Is that in the rules then, ArmchairIdiot, that it you can explain why the interference occurs then it doesn't count?  You're either a troll or well named.
Report the dealer January 11, 2015 1:12 PM GMT
sefinately well named
Report ArmchairIdiot January 11, 2015 1:12 PM GMT
stop crying. you should know the rules.
Report Cider January 11, 2015 1:13 PM GMT
Some of you dont know the rules. If the horse jinked purely because of the jockey, he gets thrown out. suck it up.

Laugh
Report ged January 11, 2015 1:13 PM GMT
The 2nd went by, and still lost, (the winner came back and beat it) so the interference didn't cost it the race.
Report redmal January 11, 2015 1:13 PM GMT
I bet on the winner but it should have been thrown out.
Report ArmchairIdiot January 11, 2015 1:13 PM GMT
there's that reason as well, redmel.
Report roggrain January 11, 2015 1:14 PM GMT
It is a joke armchair.

The rules clearly state that it is irrelevant, as far as disqualifications are concerned, whether the interference was accidental or not.
Report carrot1960 January 11, 2015 1:14 PM GMT
Shocking (quick) decision, he had to snatch the runner up yet only got beat a short head and was gaining at the line .
Report ArmchairIdiot January 11, 2015 1:15 PM GMT
The Cecil horse at Ascot tha time... Solar something? Horse got taken out and still didnt get the decision becasue the horse that took it out got spooked.
Report tomhunt January 11, 2015 1:15 PM GMT
gaining at the lineLaugh
Report Cider January 11, 2015 1:15 PM GMT
The runner-up had his ground taken and was definitely affected by the winner. Swop the jockeys, swopt the result in the Room
Report ArmchairIdiot January 11, 2015 1:15 PM GMT
its a consistent decision, tears or not
Report rewired January 11, 2015 1:16 PM GMT
to be fair
we all knew they would not kick it out
it very rarely happens.....
carrot- he had to snatch the runner up yet only got beat a short head and was gaining at the line .
i do think the winner is a better horse
but the fact it won by a head does have to be taken into account......
Report ArmchairIdiot January 11, 2015 1:17 PM GMT
was NOT gaining at the line. Winner responded. You're seeing what you want to see.
Report rewired January 11, 2015 1:18 PM GMT
amazing how many so boys in blue horses run so green.......
Report Cider January 11, 2015 1:20 PM GMT
If the winner had gone through his antics, and the runner-up had been on his outside, the runner-up would have won. The 'best horse in the race' is irrelevant in a Nose or SH.
Report ArmchairIdiot January 11, 2015 1:20 PM GMT
Cry
Report carrot1960 January 11, 2015 1:28 PM GMT
rewired it was a short head a big difference given he had to snatch up his mount and switch
Report the dealer January 11, 2015 1:28 PM GMT
for them to change one, they need to be 100% sure the second would have won. in this case imo you cant say that, of course many will disagree but under the present rules it seems to be how they come up with their decision
Report Cider January 11, 2015 1:30 PM GMT
for them to change one, they need to be 100% sure the second would have won. in this case imo you cant say that, of course many will disagree but under the present rules it seems to be how they come up with their decision

This is incorrect if a Nse or SH, unless the rules have changed.
Report the dealer January 11, 2015 1:31 PM GMT
why?
Report the.mad.dog.man January 11, 2015 1:32 PM GMT
what was the price of winner to keep race
Report Wesdag January 11, 2015 1:33 PM GMT
Last price was 1.6 I believe but it was around 1.3-1.4 for the most part of the inquiry.
Report the dealer January 11, 2015 1:35 PM GMT
Race 1 - 12:50pm THE BETFRED HANDICAP STAKES (CLASS 2)
Stewards held an enquiry under Rule (B)11.6 into possible interference inside the final furlong. Having heard their evidence and viewed recordings of the race they found that the winner, TRYSTER (IRE), ridden by Adam Kirby, had interfered with GAELIC SILVER (FR), placed second, ridden by Hector Crouch by ducking left very suddenly just inside the furlong pole. They found the interference was accidental and had not improved TRYSER (IRE)’s placing. They ordered the placings to remain unaltered as at the time of the interference the winner was going quickly past the second when challenging and then rallied on the run to the line and appeared to be holding GAELIC SILVER (FR).
Report ArmchairIdiot January 11, 2015 1:38 PM GMT
And Im the well-named 'idiot' and 'troll'. Confused
Report Oceanfinance January 11, 2015 1:43 PM GMT
did Kirby write that
Report Wesdag January 11, 2015 1:50 PM GMT
Laugh

Was what appeared to happen imo.
Report Oceanfinance January 11, 2015 1:57 PM GMT
Used to be an unwritten rule, cause any interference and only win by a short head or nose then you go. Annoying if this lot today have decided to rewrite it.
Report stu January 11, 2015 2:24 PM GMT
As I've said for similar decisions, may as well play dodgems and just barge your rivals out of the way these days.
Report Ron-Russian January 11, 2015 7:28 PM GMT
biggest load of b0llocks i've ever heard, the interference cost
the 2nd what it got beat, thats all that matters
Report homefortea January 11, 2015 7:39 PM GMT
On reflection the horse was never going to thrown out....

It would have been disqualified before the "Bald Knocker" could force another pie into himself...

The "double result" guarantee ensures that in this jurisdiction alone the result will always stand because the alleged "Bookmakers" rule....

Cannot have the Levy affected...
Report Ron-Russian January 11, 2015 7:53 PM GMT
how can they be sure the 2nd wasn't about to unleash a burst of pace
when it was interfered with,

....dare say there was plenty of thick brown envelopes being passed about
Report Sergeant Cecil January 11, 2015 8:18 PM GMT
You are right, R-R, and you can't start bringing subjective concepts into it like claiming the winner was idling etc because you can't accurately ascertain how much extra momentum the second lost or energy it used up.

As you say, it's all about whether the interference cost the second more than the distance it was beat.  It was beat about 5 inches and was "badly hampered" according to the person paid to produce the in running comments for the Racing Post.   Not only was it the subject of significant physical contact, but it also had to switch paths to avoid the winner, going from the rail to the outside.

If I was Gary Moore, I'd be appealing it because it's a big pot for a relatively fairly old horse to win - hopefully any case they do put forward is a bit more forceful than the one Hector Crouch put across to Champman immediately post-race.

Ironically, it would have been better for the winner to nearly bring the second down and beat it a length - that's how absurd the rules are.
Report homefortea January 11, 2015 8:27 PM GMT
Feck me Sergeant you should be reduced to the ranks....
Report WFT January 11, 2015 8:40 PM GMT
Feck me Sergeant you should be reduced to the ranks....

Being a sergeant, he would already belong to the ranks.

Happy
Report millhouse January 11, 2015 8:56 PM GMT
Disqualify anything and the bookmakers' double result offer means they have to pay out twice, and as the BHA get a slice of their profits that means less money for racing.

It would be hugely naïve to think that this hasn't been made very, very clear to racecourse stewards by the bookmakers and the BHA.

A jockey is going to get very seriously injured at some point, as riders are now steering into closing rivals, but hey, we can't have the bookmakers and their worthless industry glove puppets getting any less gravy, can we...
Report homefortea January 11, 2015 8:57 PM GMT
Point taken...

It is a long time since I was in Uniform....Whoops
Report GEORGE.B January 12, 2015 9:26 PM GMT
The placings should have been reversed, imo

What would be fair and just in such instances, would be to firstly deal with the facts and if possible let the facts decide.

The facts:

1. GS was impeded / badly hampered by Tryster and his momentum checked, however briefly.
2. GS's ground was taken by Tryster, forcing his jockey to switch
3. GS lost a short head on the bob, when running on.

Opinion / conjecture:

1."Tryster was the best horse because despite his antics, he has rallied to regain the lead close home".

2 points about this:

i) Should horses get away with it when hanging all over the shop and the carnage that could have caused?
ii) Gaelic Silver chased the pace whereas Tryster had sat off it, so unless we have the sectionals to prove otherwise, maybe GS had been at a disadvantage and did well in the circumstances to finish as close as he did.

With the rules so heavily weighted in the offender's favour, the British interference rules have ceased to fair and just. Dealing with just the facts, and the distance he was beaten, Gaelic Silver should been given the race in the stewards' room.
Report ghostlygunner January 12, 2015 9:34 PM GMT
george totally agree , i think the course knew they fcked up with that kink in the rail and to throw tryster out would have caused those connections to blame the course, not what they wanted on day one imo. Wink
Report racingstar January 12, 2015 9:38 PM GMT
If the second had been ridden by a Jockey instead of a 7lb Cleimer the result would have almost certainly been reversed,imo.
Still a shocking decision.
Report GEORGE.B January 12, 2015 9:38 PM GMT
The other point I'd make, would Crouch and Kirby have given their evidence when both were present in the stewards' room?

If so, how intimidating must it be for an inexperienced jockey up against a senior jockey in such circumstances?
Report racingstar January 12, 2015 9:40 PM GMT
Yes,both Jockeys would have been present together.
Report GEORGE.B January 12, 2015 9:43 PM GMT
I wasn't sure if one waited outside while the other gave his evidence.

In that case, with Kirby stood next to him, I bet Crouch was as timid as a church mouse.
Report racingstar January 12, 2015 9:47 PM GMT
Both Jockeys are interviewed and invited to give their explanation.
Stewards then ask any further questions.
Jockeys are asked to leave.
Stewards deliberate and make their decision.
Finally,the get it wrongSad
Sorry but I could not help but post the last bitHappy
Report saddo January 12, 2015 9:50 PM GMT
Thought this was an old pair of trainers fred. Sad
Report ged January 12, 2015 9:57 PM GMT
The crucial point is that Gaelic got to the front, but got re-passed, so the stewards cannot be certain (nor can anyone else, imo) that he would have won without interference. If he hadn't have been intered with, there's enough there to suggest that he'd have still been beaten - the likelihood is he'd have got to the front a bit earlier, and still been re-passed, and beaten - can't be certain of course - but you don't HAVE to be certain to leave the result alone.
Report racingstar January 12, 2015 9:59 PM GMT
Another important point is,Jockeys are at all times referred to by their surnamesSad
Report ged January 12, 2015 10:00 PM GMT
,,,if he'd have been gaing all the way to the line, he'd have got it, no question - but he had his chance, took it, and blew it.
Report ged January 12, 2015 10:01 PM GMT
*gaining.
Report racingstar January 12, 2015 10:01 PM GMT
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".
Report ged January 12, 2015 10:04 PM GMT
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.
Report ged January 12, 2015 10:07 PM GMT
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.
Report racingstar January 12, 2015 10:07 PM GMT
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.
Report GEORGE.B January 12, 2015 10:15 PM GMT
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.
Report racingstar January 12, 2015 10:18 PM GMT
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 InquiriesSad
Report ged January 12, 2015 10:20 PM GMT
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.
Report racingstar January 12, 2015 10:23 PM GMT
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.
Report ged January 12, 2015 10:30 PM GMT
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'.
Report GEORGE.B January 12, 2015 10:35 PM GMT
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!
Report racingstar January 12, 2015 10:37 PM GMT
You could well be right GeorgeSad
Report ged January 12, 2015 10:40 PM GMT
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.
Report GEORGE.B January 12, 2015 10:54 PM GMT
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.
Report mecca January 13, 2015 12:03 AM GMT
I thought that this was a thread about Celebrity Big Brother & Ken Morley. Laugh
Report Breedingmad January 13, 2015 12:52 AM GMT
Who's Ken Morley
Report ged January 13, 2015 8:47 AM GMT
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).
Report roggrain January 13, 2015 9:57 AM GMT
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.
Report ged January 13, 2015 10:25 AM GMT
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.
Report GEORGE.B January 13, 2015 10:32 AM GMT
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?
Report ged January 13, 2015 11:55 AM GMT
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.
Report GEORGE.B January 13, 2015 12:27 PM GMT
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.
Report racingstar January 13, 2015 12:45 PM GMT
ged,
The Stewards do not have to be "certain" the second would have won,merely on the balance of probability.
Report ged January 13, 2015 12:56 PM GMT
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?
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com