Forums
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
boga
05 May 19 00:11
Joined:
Date Joined: 19 Jul 11
| Topic/replies: 1,104 | Blogger: boga's blog
stands all day
Pause Switch to Standard View stewards enquiry churchill downs
Show More
Loading...
Report salmon spray May 5, 2019 12:13 AM BST
I'd be surprised if it lost it but US rules are fairer than GB's.
Report onlooker May 5, 2019 12:14 AM BST
WHAT !
Report tanglefoot May 5, 2019 12:14 AM BST
Caused interference
Report boga May 5, 2019 12:16 AM BST
best horse won would be a shocking decision
Report onlooker May 5, 2019 12:17 AM BST
boga -

What would be the ODDS - If therfe was a Market on this?

What would be the ODDS - If therfe was a Market on this?   - on a BRITISH race
Report boga May 5, 2019 12:18 AM BST
amended result CryCryCry
Report Kriskin May 5, 2019 12:19 AM BST
See my post on the Kentucky Derby thread.  WIth the US rules FPTP had to get chucked.  I wish the betting was on here
Report salmon spray May 5, 2019 12:19 AM BST
Maximum Security DID cause interference,having come off the rail. As I said the US rules are fairer than in GB but I'm not convinced about that one.
Report Kriskin May 5, 2019 12:22 AM BST
salmon - u know as well as anyone as u bet on the US stuff that the stewards are 95% consistent.  No doubt the best horse was FPTP but that doesn't count in the US
Report onlooker May 5, 2019 12:23 AM BST
Understand what you are saying - salmon.

However the USA Rules are so ridiculously STRICT that the races become almost UNRIDEABLE.
Report boga May 5, 2019 12:23 AM BST
only horse affected was number 1 shocking call by the stewards in the derby as well just sums up american racing Micky stuff
Report onlooker May 5, 2019 12:29 AM BST
boga -

I am going  ... were the race at at Wolverhampton ... given the nearly 3 lengths winning distance, too -

Opening show on Stewards Market - in Britain

NO Offers/1,01 - FPTP to KEEP the race ... gradually drifting to 1,05/1.06 - as a few who had backed it Pre-race, and in-running, played the 'insurance' card

Had there been a Stewards Market on this USA race on here - knowing what we do about USA Stewards, and OBJECTIONS -

EVENS each of 2.
Report boga May 5, 2019 12:33 AM BST
correct but the second wasn't even affected that what i find baffling,
seen it all now
Report Eddie Batt May 5, 2019 12:36 AM BST
A race in America with American rules applied?
Report jamee1 May 5, 2019 12:57 AM BST
The rules in the US aren't stricter, they are different. If a horse is deemed to have unfairly impeded the final position of ANY other horse in the race then that horse is demoted to one position behind the horse that it impeded.

It is very different to the UK where it is all about whether the infringement changed the winner of the race.
Report RozelKid May 5, 2019 12:58 AM BST
It's interesting how the UK and USA stewards determine intent and who is liable ......the US stewards see it as a strict liability offence and the horse and connections must receive a penalty, whereas in the UK its only the Jockey that receives the penalty
Report RozelKid May 5, 2019 1:00 AM BST
I agree somewhat with how the USA stewards approach race riding ....unfair on connections and the horse , maybe , but thats life if your jockey think he can boss the track at any given moment.
Report vol n. oven May 5, 2019 2:52 AM BST
dont know how true it is but the n.y. times states bill mott objected { trainer of the runner up )....whose horse never had to break stride. america's royal gaitgate ? hope its overturned at a later date
Report RozelKid May 5, 2019 5:31 AM BST

May 4, 2019 -- 8:52PM, vol n. oven wrote:


dont know how true it is but the n.y. times states bill mott objected { trainer of the runner up )....whose horse never had to break stride. america's royal gaitgate ? hope its overturned at a later date


No chance of that being overturned - the incident , that the horse was penalised for, is actually quite high up on the threshold needed in the rules for a penalty.

Report impossible123 May 7, 2019 10:29 AM BST
The ground conditions were atrocious surely that must be a mitigating circumstance. I understand the 2nd was affected to a degree nevertheless, the 2nd was still several lengths down at the line, and the 2nd had not managed to reduce the deficit running to the line either.

The Appeal had been turned down and two of the reasons given were "because the Kentucky Stewards actions were arbitrary and capricious and did not comply with administrative regulations. The Kentucky regulations do not allow appeals for stewards decision."

Arbitrary and capricious? For instance, that decision was random, and open to debate, and possibly dependent on the moods of the Kentucky Stewards on the day with little or no administrative and/or policy guidance eg the decision could be different on another day dependent on the stewards they might feel on the day. If so, it would resemble a lottery ie at the whim of the stewards, and not et laws or guidance.
Report asparagus May 7, 2019 12:29 PM BST
The most concerning thing about it is that there are actually people on here who think the US rules are better than ours! For punters and owners our rules are infinitely better. They may not get applied perfectly at all times but the basis of the rules where the best horse wins the race unless any interference caused is perceived to be by dangerous riding is by far the best principle. I'd probably prefer it to be that in very marginal cases the innocent party which has been interfered with is promoted but that's just a minor quibble. Overall our rules are much better than elsewhere.
Report spyker May 7, 2019 12:37 PM BST
and possibly dependent on the moods of the Kentucky Stewards on the day with little or no administrative and/or policy guidance eg the decision could be different on another day dependent on the stewards they might feel on the day. If so, it would resemble a lottery ie at the whim of the stewards, and not et laws or guidance.

I'd say that is a perfect description of the U.K rules - hardly any discretion for the stewards in the U.S but loads over here.
Report GEORGE.B May 7, 2019 12:56 PM BST
The American rules are not just 'better', more pertinently they are fairer and safer in that they demand jockeys do all they can to keep their mounts straight and ride as safely as is reasonably possible.

I could give lots of examples in this country where the American rules would not only have been fairer, but also would have encouraged better and safer jockeyship, but I'll give what I think is the best example.

The 2013 Eclipse

Al Kazeem, not just hampering Mukhadram against the rail, nearly putting him through it, Hanagan was lucky to stay on.
It cost connections at least around £50K in prize money, but the horse wasn't done with imo, however, but such was the extent of the interference he was lucky to keep his feet, never mind try and rally against the rail.

James Doyle simply didn't do enough in the eyes of the stewards to prevent the interference and was banned for 5 days.

Perhaps if Doyle KNEW the threat of disqualification was a REAL one, he would imo have done more to have prevented the interference, however, he was safe in the knowledge that so long as wins by more than a short-head and his opponent hadn't ended up on the floor, he was virtually certain to keep the race.

Races like this send a message to jockeys imo, you can do little or nothing to prevent interference and get away it, sure you may get a short ban, but you'll keep the race and the prize money.

So asparagus, some time in the future when 'poor jockeyship' results in a jockey being put on the floor, cuz a jockey had done little or nothing to prevent interference, because under our 'better' rules, he / she thought she could get away with causing a bit of interference, 'safe' in the knowledge they're highly likely to keep the race, we'll bring this thread back to the top and discuss your post:

"The most concerning thing about it is that there are actually people on here who think the US rules are better than ours!"
Report breadnbutter May 7, 2019 1:47 PM BST
Silly Fred although understandable ,I am comfortable  with the American rules ,once you understand them you know what your going to get ,does what it says on the can .The fact they threw out a short price and a 65/1 shot wins was most pleasing .Not wanting to get into it but it was good for racing this type of run was punished ,although I fully understand if you backed the FPP ,your miffed . leave you with a question . How many uk trained horses have competed in both Kentucky derby and Epsom Derby ?
Report Whippin Piccadilly May 7, 2019 6:53 PM BST
Not a silly thread if people are discussing the merits or otherwise of UK v US rules. I agree with those who prefer UK rules. No rules are perfect but UK rules are much fairer than our US counterparts. Jockeys know how dangerous race riding can be and I think there is a kind of camaraderie and a sort of looking out for each others safety on the track. No jockey would willing go out to try and bring down another rider just to gain an unfair advantage to win a race, no matter how prestigious that race may be. I truly believe this. In big fields you get scrimmaging and horses moving off a straight line, especially if the horses in the race are fairly inexperienced and the track is riding like a bog.

Why people try to compare horse racing to motor racing is truly bizarre to me! (I've seen lots of comments like this). A racehorse still has a will of its own and will move off a straight line if they really want to and a jockey can only do so much when this happens. It's horse racing, it's a sport and you can't control everything that happens in a race. The winner Maximum Security was by far the best horse in the race and he didn't gain an unfair advantage to win the race IMO. I didn't even think it was dangerous riding, careless yes and it warranted a few days ban for the jockey but not for the horse to be placed last. But I guess that's US rules for you? Not really fair though are they? I honestly believe UK rules are much better & MUCH fairer.

Hopefully the very likable Maximum Security can gain compensation as the season goes along.
Report Eddie Batt May 7, 2019 7:07 PM BST
Breadnbutter -Doctor Devious ran in the two races-winning at Epsom.
Report roggrain May 7, 2019 9:03 PM BST
Whippin. How do you know that Max. was by far the best horse in the race, when the horse he interfered with (and by pure good luck didn't bring

down along with others), lost all chance as a result? Secondly, what has whether he was the best horse in the race got to do with the rules?

Thirdly, whether the jockey was culpable or not is irrelevant. Rules here and in U.S. do not differentiate between interference caused by jockey

error or carelessness and accidental interference so far as possible disqualification is concerned.

The best recent example of how stupid our rules are, is the BHA's overturning of the Stewards' disqualification of Atzeni's horse in the St Leger

a couple of years ago (Simple Verse). Atzeni literally barged his way out,knocking the runner up sideways. He was legitimately being held in

against the rail by the runner up and if he had not barged his way out would likely not have finished first. The on course Stews came to the

correct decision but it was overturned on appeal, no doubt because of this bizarre old chestnut 'but the best horse won'.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, what is the relevence of which is the best horse? Rules are rules.
Report ItsMeSwaddle May 7, 2019 10:40 PM BST
Hi sorry to be rude.

Do you mind waiting for Willie Shafter to put a thread up about stewards?

Its just he goes in a bit of mood if he is not first up you see, basically the thread he puts up boosts his ego.

Thanks in advance.
Report Whippin Piccadilly May 7, 2019 11:56 PM BST
Roggrain, MS actually lost lengths shifting off the rail and it was more of hindrance to him yet he still won the race. WOW was given a slight bump but if good enough had every chance to go by MS. Like I say the best horse was FPTP.
Report sparrow May 8, 2019 7:52 AM BST
I notice that people are still insisting that the "first past the post was the best horse" when that assertion is totally irrelevant under the US rules of racing.
Report acey deucy May 8, 2019 8:22 AM BST
I hear Maximum Security's Trainer has a bad reputation in America for not playing buy the rules shall we say....Mmmm interesting.
Report Whippin Piccadilly May 8, 2019 12:16 PM BST
I've watched the race a number of times and I had no financial interest in it. But I also noticed WOW was running keenly and ran into the back of MS before that horse shifted off the rail. It seems to me the stewards didn't even look at this. I think it's an injustice that MS lost the race and that's the point I'm making about UK rules being much fairer that those used in the US.
Report Yank May 8, 2019 2:00 PM BST
Gee, Whippin boy, millions of people have watched that race over and again and you are the only one -- to my knowledge -- to have noticed that it was War of Will and not Maximum Security who caused the interference. Good work, mate.
Report Whippin Piccadilly May 8, 2019 2:24 PM BST
I know it was MS who caused the interference. I was just wondering why the horse would come off the rail like it did. WOW was close up behind MS before that horse moved off the rail and there looked to be a little a bit of contact to me.
Report breadnbutter May 8, 2019 3:24 PM BST

May 7, 2019 -- 1:07PM, Eddie Batt wrote:


Breadnbutter -Doctor Devious ran in the two races-winning at Epsom.


First non American Trained winner was 71 as far as I can see ,not sure if any others ? Bold Arrangement ran second in 86 for Clive Britain and ran 14th at Epsom ,Kentucky run was none too bad ,and then Dr Devious 7th in Kentucky and won the Derby .So looks like just two ? But UK (non Irish ) runners seem thin on ground ,krmpton ran a qualifier with a $100k bonus for just turning up at Kentucky but none seem to have taken it up ,can’t be right surely ? As for rules and the disqualification best but I have read was the Reuter’s stuff and they have the trainer quotes and stewards remarks about the the decision being unanimous by stewards panel and non appealable .Even Trump was tweeting about “bad call “ and “this age of political correctness “ walofs . Epsom race is very rough now and stewards are too afraid to apply rules ,and also afraid because of subsequent appeals and descions being overturned .This is the single most annoyance to backers ,they get shafted twice in uk .Epsom race is an accident waiting to happen .

Report breadnbutter May 8, 2019 3:31 PM BST
*of course double result is useful but not on course or exchange ,exchange backers used to official result imo ,to be fair the double result payout is a decent concession but still has restrictions and does not cover overseas
Report roggrain May 8, 2019 4:08 PM BST
I don't know what you are looking at Whippin but here is what happened and it shows clearly on the replay:

WOW was tracking Max around the bend. The jockey on WOW manoeuvred to be to the outside of Max. which at that moment was still on the rail.

Up to that point there had been no contact whatsoever between the two. Max then went sharp right and almost brough WOW down. (Max. then went

sharp left and bumped the horse that led into the stretch on the rail).

Knowing US fans and rules as I do I doubt one in a hundred would disagree with the dicision. By the way I backed Max but agree entirely with

the stewards, who had the guts to disqualify the winner,something they would have done without the slightest hesitation if it had been an

everyday race. The occasion didn't sway them, and nor should it, from going by the rules.
Report Whippin Piccadilly May 8, 2019 4:27 PM BST
My last post on this.


War Of Will (USA) 167/10
Tyler Gaffalione
Mark Casse
3    90     –    –    111    –   
Tracked leaders, chased leader under 3f out, slightly hampered and carried right 2 1/2f out, soon dropped to 4th and ridden, rallied and every chance 1 1/2f out, driven and no extra final furlong, weakened final 100yds, finished 8th, placed 7th


Long Range Toddy (USA) 55/1
Jon Kenton Court
Steven Asmussen
3    90     –    –    84    –   
Chased leader, ridden 3f out, hung right and lost place 2 1/2f out, soon beaten, finished 17th, placed 16th

Laughable that a good winner of the race in MS was placed 17th behind horses who were "slightly hampered" and a rag that "hung right". Joke decision in my opinion but US rules are just that.
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com