Stewards Newbury

atzeni is a cheet though. always blocks anyone coming up the rail

willow not happy

great ride from him ffs that's what you want

Is this the veritable Free Munny ?

Keeps that imo, best horse won.

Rules state no change. IMO though the second would have won it.

I think Willoughby's laid Defoe. Give it a rest with the bleating.

free as it gets

Hung over, too slow

should be thrown out!! went off a straight line...but it wont be sigh

he'll deck someone one day then they'll change the rules

Filthy challenge

willoughby is desperate to see Defoe kicked out cos he thought he was slow and he had his cakes on the dodge pot Frontiersman - who he still will probably believe is genuine

Aug 19, 2017 -- 2:35PM, Wesdag wrote:

Keeps that imo, best horse won.

no way...best horse came second...hampered twice by defoe and still got back up to a length behind!

Defoe won comfortably imo. Can't see any reason to change it. Defoe was actually going away again near the line.

Atzeni has lots of previous for this, deliberately blocked off the second, he'll keep the race and get a ban.

Gordon had no right trying to go up the inner imho......Fakin woman Jockeys.

for anyone whos watched defoe before they will know he keeps finding, was hardly asked there by atzeni

Runner up 2 lengths behind after being cut off ,finished 3/4 behind. Of course in Britain there's no chance whatsoever of a DQ.

Our rules are a joke. Atzeni knew the runner up was there and deliberately came over on it imo.

Once again we hear this old chestnut 'the best horse has won' .Utter nonsense.

Anywhere else in the World the placings reversed. Our rules are absurd.

that's it Josephine...love it!

The joke UK rules allow a jockey to not have to hold his line and so can cut off a challenger on the rail and force it to lose momentum when having to change course and go around it. As soon as that happens they are giving up one length to the one in front but is there always one length difference at the line?

Just because we see things like this left alone to stand all the time, doesn't mean it should, it just means we have got so use to the stupid current rules now.

POINTLESS HAVING A STEWARDS IN THIS COUNTRY ABSOLUTELY PATHETIC

ya wont get freea!

good stuff godsend..have much on to keep it?

No point having stewards really. All in racing seems to be the future. Then again, it could be worse...........we could have US rules!

Noticed on the slow motion replay there that Atzeni looked over at the R.U. just before shifting over to the rail Deliberate

interference, without question.

Fair enough there was more room up the inside than i first thought.

used to call it gamesmanship ,

If Atzeni had no concerns about the 2nd then he would have just kept a straight line and kept finding, as was the suggestion  above but the fact that he didn't stay straight tells you all you need to know.

Surely the quickest way between two points is in a straight line.

Whether Atzeni deserves a ban or not is one thing, but anyone who thinks Wall of Fire would have won without the interference needs to give up the game so the stewards only had one decision they could make.

FOYLESWAR    19 Aug 17 14:47 
used to call it gamesmanship




Also used to call it disqualification.

On a lighter note I always have a chuckle when Atzeni's interviewed, he's the double of Mr Bean.

The point is,asparagus, the runner up was prevented from having any chance of winning. The interference cost him more than the

distance between them at the finish. No one can be sure what would have happened and anyone who says they can should give up the game!

True !!!

It's also dangerous. Jockeys can get away with anything. Somebody will be killed then they'll change the rules.

i agree rules need changing ,cut another horse off and stop his run still keep race, invites incidents like this one ,but rools are rools

The stewards would only need to ask him why did he ride it that way, was it deliberate or an unintended drift and did he think he benefited from it. If he is honest he will say deliberate and that he did benefit, which is then free licence to almost do what you please to ensure you win.

I like Atzeni and think he's a top jockey and I don't even blame him for doing what happened when the rules allow him to.

The 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, DEFOE (IRE), ridden
by Andrea Atzeni, had interfered with WALL OF FIRE (IRE), placed second, ridden by Josephine Gordon
and that the interference had not improved DEFOE’s placing as the second lost little momentum and
always appeared to being held on the run to the line, to be beaten three quarters of length. They ordered
the placings to remain unaltered. The Stewards found Atzeni in breach of Rule (B)54.1 and guilty of
careless riding in that he had allowed his mount to shift right-handed towards the rail when not sufficiently
clear. They cautioned him as to his future conduct in races.

Exactly, best horse won.

No ban for a deliberate manoeuvre Murphy gets a long ban where he had little control over his mount

No ban, you couldn't make it up.

If the best horse won then surely Atzeni would not have felt the need to deliberately take his horse over to the rail to cut off the 2nd and cause Gordon to have to lose momentum when she had to switch around the winner.

Then after Atzeni chopping off her run up the rail to bag it for himself, Gordon switched around and made a fresh challenge, and so Atzeni then edged away from the rail that he had previously been so keen to bag at all costs, where his edging left and away from it caused the 2nd to shy away to the left too. That horse then ends up crossing the line in the middle of the course, which I'm sure wouldn't have happened had Gordon been able to hug the rail. Plus if it was the best horse that won then surely it would have won by farther if keeping a straight line too.

What Atzeni did though was the racing equivalent to taking a long shot into an unguarded goal in football but then running back to impede a defender's chance to clear off the line and having done so, people saying the ball would have gone in anyway. If so then why do either of those things if the ball would have gone in or the winner would have won regardless?

It's called race riding.

Weighed in, btw.

So if a jockey put a rival over the fence I suppose Wesdaq just shrugs and says " it's all part of the game ".

watching live i didnt see the incident as i was watching other runners to lay...i didnt know there was a stewards until one of the lads in office said and ive only now seen the incident...defoe was edging right from 2f out and gordon should have been aware of that sorely?  she only got within 1L of defoe before switching left...wasnt even closing last 100yds...should have been 1.01 to keep it....imo.

Wasn't exactly side on was it salmon.

Simply bagged the rail "when not sufficiently clear".

Nowt to see here.

Wesdag    20 Aug 17 10:17 
It's called race riding.

Weighed in, btw.

Oddly enough that line is usually used when one jockey holds his true line to keep another in and he is entirely entitled to do that. What he shouldn't be able to do is deliberately come off of his own true line to take another jockey's, to hinder that jockey from keeping hers.

Gordon initially had to pull around Atzeni to bag the rail, which was there for him to claim first if he wanted it, but he didn't when he thought he was travelling well enough in the centre of the course to go in a straight line to not need it. You then see him physically react with surprise to her taking it and challenging him, when he suddenly goes from cruising to having to start rowing away and steering to the rail to prevent her run.

Both of the first two were ridden covered up behind the pack until Atzeni edges out to start his run and then Gordon edges out around Atzeni for hers. There was plenty of room for her to bag the rail because Atzeni didn't want it until he saw her challenging him along it, which was when he steering his mount to shut the door on her. If there was nowt to see then why was there a stewards, why did they deem that Atzeni has caused interference, why was he found guilty of careless riding and why did they caution him as to his future conduct in races?

That's a lot of whys over something that was apparently nowt to see here, although the ultimate irony is it wasn't careless, as he knew exactly what he was doing all along.

1st Defoe 13/8f Andrea Atzeni
Held up in last pair, smooth headway over 2f out, led narrowly inside final 2f, edged right towards stands side rail inside final furlong, ridden and held on final 100 yards op 6/4

2nd ¾ Wall Of Fire 14/1 Josephine Gordon
Held up, ridden and headway over 1f out, close 2nd when short of room on rails and snatched up entering final furlong, switched left then drifted left, kept on final 120yds but always being held (tchd 12/1)

No question the best horse won but Atzeni did impede Gordon and in many countries would have lost the race.

I THINK the best horse won but Atzeni didn't allow him to prove it as they way he rode would have been seen as cheating elsewhere. I also think the stewards ( and ITV ) misread by calling it careless. I agree with ima ( that's twice in a few days  )that it appeared to be deliberate. Whether that is cheating in this country is unclear to me and I suspect to the stewards,which is why it may have been easier to decide it was "careless".

he was already moving to the rail before he looked across, probably in surprise that she was coming up the inside. imo the outcome of the result and the stewards was right, under the present rules

also adding that the fact he didnt get a ban was also correct

As the rules stand I'm not arguing it should have lost the race.
You might be right that Atzeni was already moving over before he saw Gordon but it didn't stop him carrying on. Tbf it wasn't the most dangerous bit of riding I have seen and Atzeni isn't the worst offender but I do think the laisser-faire attitude towards riding manoeuvres is asking for real trouble somewhere down the line.

I am pretty sure the second would have won. Just my opinion.

if i've backed a horse i'd far rather the jock tries a bit too hard to win (in this case risking ban), if buick had ridden ribchester like this (holding the rail as his position allowed him to) he'd have won also

My reading of the Ribchester race was that Buick could have legitimately got the rail at one or two points so it's not the same.
Obviously I want jockeys to try but I also don't want them riding to win at all costs. That mentality does seem to be growing mainly imo because the rules are too lax on over-aggressive riding.

Buick should have gone over to the rail on Ribchester but once he didn't and raced about half a horse's width off of it, Dettori on the rail wasn't entitled to try to barge his way through because there wasn't room to.

There was room for Gordon to go up the rail yesterday, although I'm not suggesting you are saying it was a like for like situation Rider.

ss, i'm making the direct comparison regarding the will to win from the saddle being very different in these 2 rides, this wasnt win at all costs, imo, just normal competitive riding pushing the boundaries as much as possible

mines is also only my opinion and i've been wrong many times before but i suppose if nothing else it shows even with a small group like this, how many different opinions there are on the running of one race.