Chucked out?

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.

it probably will keep it.....

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.

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

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

Fred seen going in Stewards Room demanding that it is thrown out after a quick to Warrington to check the Company payout figures.....

but you cant say definately the second would have won imo SC

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.

quick call

lost on the nod 

Out to 1.50 now.

short head not a head. shd used to go any interference

you can never say that though can you really......

gaelic silver, baldy not had a bean for it, will get the reverse

it'd be a massively inconsistent call if they turned it over

looks like the bald knocker is going to get his first return on his investment....

Weighed in, weighed in

GTFI

thank fook for that

JOKE

Poor decision, but the expected one.

I luv this course 1 race and i win twice

Never in doubt ffs!

"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.

not a joke. the horse jinked for becauseit saw the entrance to the paddock. Once thats established it keeps the race. Simple call

poor decision

There are,ipso facto,no interference rules then.

Some of you dont know the rules. If the horse jinked purely because of the jockey, he gets thrown out. suck it up.

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.

sefinately well named

stop crying. you should know the rules.

Some of you dont know the rules. If the horse jinked purely because of the jockey, he gets thrown out. suck it up.

The 2nd went by, and still lost, (the winner came back and beat it) so the interference didn't cost it the race.

I bet on the winner but it should have been thrown out.

there's that reason as well, redmel.

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.

Shocking (quick) decision, he had to snatch the runner up yet only got beat a short head and was gaining at the line .

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.

gaining at the line

The runner-up had his ground taken and was definitely affected by the winner. Swop the jockeys, swopt the result in the Room

its a consistent decision, tears or not

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......

was NOT gaining at the line. Winner responded. You're seeing what you want to see.

amazing how many so boys in blue horses run so green.......

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.

rewired it was a short head a big difference given he had to snatch up his mount and switch

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

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.

why?

what was the price of winner to keep race

Last price was 1.6 I believe but it was around 1.3-1.4 for the most part of the inquiry.

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).

And Im the well-named 'idiot' and 'troll'.

did Kirby write that

Was what appeared to happen imo.

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.

As I've said for similar decisions, may as well play dodgems and just barge your rivals out of the way these days.

biggest load of b0llocks i've ever heard, the interference cost
the 2nd what it got beat, thats all that matters

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...

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

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.

Feck me Sergeant you should be reduced to the ranks....

Feck me Sergeant you should be reduced to the ranks....

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

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...

Point taken...

It is a long time since I was in Uniform....

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.

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.

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.

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?

Yes,both Jockeys would have been present together.

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.

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 wrong
Sorry but I could not help but post the last bit

Thought this was an old pair of trainers fred.

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.

Another important point is,Jockeys are at all times referred to by their surnames

,,,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.

*gaining.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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'.

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!

You could well be right George

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.

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.

I thought that this was a thread about Celebrity Big Brother & Ken Morley.

Who's Ken Morley

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).

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

ged,
The Stewards do not have to be "certain" the second would have won,merely on the balance of probability.

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?