There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 161 comments are related to the topic:
Crowley is one ruthless facker.
Crowley is one ruthless facker.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 161
|
By:
gap's there to begin with, they should explain it properly and as with usa stewards show all angles that they have to appease the public and clarify the decision
|
|
By:
In America we would have seen the incident about 10 times immediately after the races and as you say elise from all angles. Problem with showing that is too many meetings on the one channel.
|
|
By:
fine, but if we have a dq or in the case of this where it throws people into confusion they have an obligation to either show it or provide a way for it to be viewed so as to make it clear
easy enough for the bha site to have a full report with video, in addition they can then explain how they applied the rules and folk might have half a chance of working out what they are doing |
|
By:
Racing in this country could learn quite a lot from looking at other countries for many different things not just incidents such as enquiries.
|
|
By:
run by amateurs, we've even got the media clueless and when people that watch racing day in day out can't figure out what has gone on how can new people to the sport be expected to buy into it when it makes no sense?
|
|
By:
what other video evidence might there be other than head-on and the regular view. does an overhead even exist?
https://imgur.com/LKuOgjw from this pic it's clear that Havlin was upsides Crowley no more than half a length down. what crowley proceeded to do was downright dangerous |
|
By:
they have a scout camera (or should have)
|
|
By:
elise what's a scout camera?
|
|
By:
it's a rear view of the action, sort of like drone view but more rider height as opposed to overhead
|
|
By:
they may also have a wider head on shot showing full track / maybe the final furlong rather than a close up
|
|
By:
but then this lot could just be making it up like most weeks
|
|
By:
OK.
my guess is that hasn't been released because it doesn't support the action the stewards took - if it did support them it would have been made available to the media. it'll be looked at in the hearing and Havlin cleared. move along nothing to see here. |
|
By:
kind of my point above we shouldn't be trying to work this out, it should have been made clear by them, the jockeys are pros isn't too much to ask for the bha/stewards to act like pros too
|
|
By:
one of the stewards was gaze.
|
|
By:
For the sport of kings there are some unpleasant and frankly sometimes dangerous long-held dinosaur-like and unhealthy attitudes as exemplifed here with 'no-one disrespects me by coming up the inside when i've left a gap'! Another that a lot of racing journalists and brosdcasters seem to go alone with is the notion that it's ok to keep a jockey hemmed in even if on a clearly better horse. This would be much more difficult to police and sometimes its a matter of riding the straightest line to the finisn legitamately but I do not find it 'sporting' or in keeping with racing ethics to deny a better horse a fair passage unless the jnockey has been an absolute arse. Arguably a hornets nest to try and arbitrate but still i dont like the assumption from commentators thats its always ok and sporting to do this.
|
|
By:
To hem-in a jockey on a better horse is one thing and generally accepted and rightly not punishable in horseracing. However, if a jockey deliberately/knowingly closes a gap left open (intentionally or unintentionally) by the same jockey is a totally different thing ie a degree of safety to the jockeys and horses in question. As such, I think this must be deemed unacceptable and possibly dangerous too, and must be punishable with a ban as a deterrent for a similar offence in the future.
|
|
By:
Glad to hear the Guys on the Weighed In Podcast feel as strongly about this as we do lads.
 |
|
By:
Another that a lot of racing journalists and brosdcasters seem to go alone with is the notion that it's ok to keep a jockey hemmed in even if on a clearly better horse. This would be much more difficult to police and sometimes its a matter of riding the straightest line to the finisn legitamately but I do not find it 'sporting' or in keeping with racing ethics to deny a better horse a fair passage unless the jnockey has been an absolute arse. Arguably a hornets nest to try and arbitrate but still i dont like the assumption from commentators thats its always ok and sporting to do this.
this attitude was on show at the Royal Meeting when a contingent (Jason Weaver amongst them) complained that Coroebus was "lucky" in the St James Palace because the jockey in front of Buick hadn't taken the opportunity to block him in and instead rode a straight line. The fact that this would have stopped the best horse winning didn't seem to come into consideration. All very unhealthy. |
|
By:
havlins ban cancelled.
wd rico..best in forum. |
|
By:
Far from canceling the ban they should have doubled it. How many lengths did he lose and then he goes on to win going away. He didn;t need to be going anywhere near an illusory gap on the rails, likely to snap closed at any moment.
This BHA continues to demonstrate that it doesn;t know what it is doing. |
|
By:
honcho..go to specsavers and all will be sorted.
|
|
By:
I have a different view from you so the abuse comes out.
Well done. |
|
By:
if you have a different view then you have impaired vision..same as the other doylems who said there was no gap.
|
|
By:
image of the gap for any fkat-earthers lurking
https://imgur.com/a/ZAfhjor |
|
By:
simple way to debunk the flat earthers..ask em how theres a half moon.
|
|
By:
That wouldn't work because every fecker of sound mind knows it's made of cheese and something would have obviously eaten the other half.
|
|
By:
aye..haydock stewards.
|
|
By:
As anticipated ban overturned. Cowley no doubt feels empowered as no action taken against him. Next time after glancing round I expect him to put a jock over the rails if one dares to try and go up his inside.
|
|
By:
Oh is that right? I am glad to hear that? What punishment will be given to the errant stewards?
|
|
By:
I mean - I am glad to hear that - no question mark :D
|
|
By:
Extract from the RPOSTS summary of today. The BHA said the decision to rescind the suspension was taken after a comprehensive review, while the Racing Post also understands that Jim Crowley, who partnered Eshaada, has been reminded of his responsibilities by the regulator, although no retrospective action was taken.
A BHA spokesman said: "Following a comprehensive review of the incident, it was determined that Mr Havlin did have a sufficient gap and had established his horse in that gap prior to the incident, and therefore did not commit a riding offence. "No further charges will be made against any other rider arising from this incident." |
|
By:
LoyalHoncho05 Jul 22 15:44Joined: 28 May 10 | Topic/replies: 10,284 |
Far from canceling the ban they should have doubled it. How many lengths did he lose and then he goes on to win going away. The last sentence is irrelevant to Havlin's penalty. He didn;t need to be going anywhere near an illusory gap on the rails, likely to snap closed at any moment. Whether the gap was illusory is a matter of opinion, but whether it is "likely to snap closed at any moment" is irrelevant to the rules AND to Havlin's penalty This BHA continues to demonstrate that it doesn;t know what it is doing. Many on here would consider that on this issue it knows a bit more than the Haydock stewards |
|
By:
How did the Haydock stewards get it so wrong? Common sense prevailed finally. And, Mr Crowley "has been reminded of his responsibility by the regulator." In other words watch your step, Mr Crowley!
|
|
By:
Still riles me how Crowley had complete disregard for horse or rider not nice to see.
|
|
By:
Crowley may have got away with it, but at least he's been warned and will hopefully think twice before repeating the offence.
|
|
By:
Crowley total disregard for his own horse too,acey.Haggas can't be too impressed with that...
|
|
By:
From an article by Greg Wood in Mondays Guardian.
On 31 August 2009, Tony Culhane rode a horse called Mazzola in a five-furlong handicap at Newcastle. About 10 seconds after the start, he shifted his mount left towards the rail, bumping a horse on his inside which in turn interfered with another against the rail, which fell. At the subsequent stewards’ inquiry, Culhane was banned for 14 days for dangerous riding and ordered to forfeit his fee. Something approaching 130,000 races have been run in Britain since Culhane picked up his fortnight off, which works out at around 1m individual rides, and yet – officially, at least – his offence is the most recent example of dangerous riding on a British track. The idea that dangerous riding simply disappeared from our racecourses overnight in 2009 is absurd. As the trainer John Berry put it last October, when he lodged an unsuccessful appeal against a local panel’s decision not to amend the result of a race at Pontefract: “I don’t think anyone believes there hasn’t been any dangerous riding in Britain in the last 12 years. You’d be living in cloud cuckoo land if you thought that.” |
|
By:
here's our Jim trying his hardest to avert a disaster
https://imgur.com/a/tWfOrw6 |
|
By:
crowleys mount edged a yd left..hardly a crime.
|
|
By:
If he had committed an offence the stewards would surely have dealt with it. Says it all for me.
|