Irish Sports
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
I hope the connections of Special Tiara forego their right to appeal.
On the face of it their chances are slim to zero. These type of accidental interferences happen frequently in racing and one should be big enough to take them on the chin as part of a tough game.Almost all trainers will win and lose at some stage in these situations. It was never better than 50/50 as to whether ST would have won without being impeded because SdeG was severely unbalanced as well with the jockey being thrown up and back/sideways in the saddle.In such a case the first past must always get the benefit of the doubt.
I was disappointed to hear deBromhead being so strident yesterday and I was also dismayed to hear that some statements had been made by others alleging an English 'anti-Irish bias'. It is regrettable that such wild and foolish remarks should unnecessarily sour the atmosphere.
Best thing is to hold off -and have Special Tiara set the record straight when next they meet if connections feel he actually is the better horse.
On the face of it their chances are slim to zero. These type of accidental interferences happen frequently in racing and one should be big enough to take them on the chin as part of a tough game.Almost all trainers will win and lose at some stage in these situations. It was never better than 50/50 as to whether ST would have won without being impeded because SdeG was severely unbalanced as well with the jockey being thrown up and back/sideways in the saddle.In such a case the first past must always get the benefit of the doubt.
I was disappointed to hear deBromhead being so strident yesterday and I was also dismayed to hear that some statements had been made by others alleging an English 'anti-Irish bias'. It is regrettable that such wild and foolish remarks should unnecessarily sour the atmosphere.
Best thing is to hold off -and have Special Tiara set the record straight when next they meet if connections feel he actually is the better horse.
Show More
Mind you, plenty of professionals will tell you privately the whole thing would have been academic if Noel Fehily had simply challenged on the other side of the winner.
Comment from Brian O'Connor in today's blog. I'd love to know all these so-called insiders that informs much of his commentary and populate his blog. These same anonymous sages of the turf are also opining:
but there are savvy judges on this side of the Irish Sea who reckon Special Tiara might have got Saturday’s decision in an Irish stewards room. And they’re not talking home town decision either.
and, on the new CEO for the Curragh..................
Given the rest of the spec, that should ensure a long list of likely runners, and a few racing insiders have opined privately that pedigree might not actually be a factor this time. Whatever about that, any early ante-post betting on the winner would be interesting.
Personally, I come to the Forum to hear mincer and workrider's (et al) opinions on the topic du jour altough lately I've been following my own usual domestic arrangements in that, as I say to my present wife: "If I want your opinion, I'll give it to you!"
Comment from Brian O'Connor in today's blog. I'd love to know all these so-called insiders that informs much of his commentary and populate his blog. These same anonymous sages of the turf are also opining:
but there are savvy judges on this side of the Irish Sea who reckon Special Tiara might have got Saturday’s decision in an Irish stewards room. And they’re not talking home town decision either.
and, on the new CEO for the Curragh..................
Given the rest of the spec, that should ensure a long list of likely runners, and a few racing insiders have opined privately that pedigree might not actually be a factor this time. Whatever about that, any early ante-post betting on the winner would be interesting.
Personally, I come to the Forum to hear mincer and workrider's (et al) opinions on the topic du jour altough lately I've been following my own usual domestic arrangements in that, as I say to my present wife: "If I want your opinion, I'll give it to you!"
The calibre of these 'professionals' can't be very high.
- Suggesting the jockey might have challenged on the other side is a facile application of second guessing that has no bearing on what actually occurred.
-'savvy judges'(
might be expected to know that each racing jurisdiction has its own rules and interpretative norms and,until there is ever an international agreement worked out, so it will remain.
The English stewards ,applying their established rules, could reach no other decision and any appeal will go the same way.
Hopefully wiser counsel will prevail.
- Suggesting the jockey might have challenged on the other side is a facile application of second guessing that has no bearing on what actually occurred.
-'savvy judges'(
might be expected to know that each racing jurisdiction has its own rules and interpretative norms and,until there is ever an international agreement worked out, so it will remain.The English stewards ,applying their established rules, could reach no other decision and any appeal will go the same way.
Hopefully wiser counsel will prevail.
A lot of talk on main forum about no precedent of interference while actually over an obstacle, i don't get that as the horses ground was being taken albeit most likely accidental.
Another point on the main forum is results are not changed as it means a loss of levy.
Can't agree with it being 50/50 Vubiant with who would have won,made it 85% in favour of ST if no interference took place,only my opinion.
Surprised at how quick the inquiry was over, felt for H De, the guilty party got away with it.
Another point on the main forum is results are not changed as it means a loss of levy.
Can't agree with it being 50/50 Vubiant with who would have won,made it 85% in favour of ST if no interference took place,only my opinion.
Surprised at how quick the inquiry was over, felt for H De, the guilty party got away with it.
I have to say they have the right to appeal but have no grounds for a change of result..best horse won, accidental bump..the 2nd never looked like catching the winner after the last ..if the difference had been a neck a nose..maybe they would have merit..but a length?..stewards were correct on the day..and the appeal will come to the same result.
pa, your analysis of the 85% odds in favour of ST winning in direct contrast to how the market favoured SDG to keep the race -1/9 and 1/8 to keep the race I recall. As unjust as the present system is, at least it's fairly consistent and predictable and favours the "winner". The pain of Cahervillahow losing the 1991 Whitbread still rankles-imo better to feel aggrieved to not be promoted than to be demoted in this imperfect and unsatisfactory world.
R.A. the reason SDG was that price is simply the market knowing the stewards would not change the result. I think they call it freemoney on the main forum. Sadly the only reason that rule will be changed l.E. winner keeping the race no matter what OFFFENCE it commits , is when some poor jockey is lying half dead on the floor.Its a rule to protect BOOKMAKERS profits pure and simple imo.
Hello RA,they are two different things,it was always likely that the winner wasn't going to lose it hence the 1/10,if there was no interference and this is only conjecture on my part ST would have been 85% the likely winner imo and that is based on 1/ SDG didn,t jump it great,2/ ST had the momentum and 3/ thought ST could have been slightly winded by the impact. The 15% doubt is that SDG could have found more but doubt that.
It is fairly consistent and predictable as you say and favours the winner,it also favours the bookmakers though and maybe a bit of "fair play" is lost with that, Henry De in his post race comments said the horse got knocked sideways,she was the innocent party but obviuosly that isn't enough,i can understand his frustration though agree with the gist of the thread that it is a waste of time appealing.
It is fairly consistent and predictable as you say and favours the winner,it also favours the bookmakers though and maybe a bit of "fair play" is lost with that, Henry De in his post race comments said the horse got knocked sideways,she was the innocent party but obviuosly that isn't enough,i can understand his frustration though agree with the gist of the thread that it is a waste of time appealing.
As the rule is interpreted in the UK there is not a chance in hell of it being overturned.
How anyone can say that Special Tiara was a 1/10 shot if no interference had taking place when the lowest he was matched in running was 1.51 is beyond me.
That is quite a discrepancy with how the market perceived the race directly prior to the last fence incident.
There isn't any precedence for a horse being thrown out over aerial interference and I would question whether there is any precedence for an amendment with an increasing three quarters of a length winning margin.
Clear and shut case and pointless appealing, they can't prove intentional interference and although it's impossible to quantify how much the incident took out of Special Tiara. The combination of the extent of the winning distance and that the margin was being increased at the line makes it the correct decision.
Cute race riding by Jamie Moore within the parameters of the current interpretation of the rules.Similar to the zig zagging we see on a daily basis. The current rules also allowed JM to utilise his whip excessively without an appropriate punishment to deter such action.
That is quite a discrepancy with how the market perceived the race directly prior to the last fence incident.
There isn't any precedence for a horse being thrown out over aerial interference and I would question whether there is any precedence for an amendment with an increasing three quarters of a length winning margin.
Clear and shut case and pointless appealing, they can't prove intentional interference and although it's impossible to quantify how much the incident took out of Special Tiara. The combination of the extent of the winning distance and that the margin was being increased at the line makes it the correct decision.
Cute race riding by Jamie Moore within the parameters of the current interpretation of the rules.Similar to the zig zagging we see on a daily basis. The current rules also allowed JM to utilise his whip excessively without an appropriate punishment to deter such action.
If the race was in Mallow and Special Tiara was Cork trained he would have got the race
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539