- This topic has 12 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
I don’t if any of you have a view on stewards and how they come to the decision with their enquiries, but I backed Resplendant Alpha today at tasty odds of 10/1. It was coming to win the race on the inside and the horse in front quite clearly veered over to the rail, blocking my horse’s run and stopping all momentum, had to regather itself and ran on for second. How for the life of me, do they not throw out the winner, or at the very least reverse the placings, when you consider they reversed the placings between Pearl Swan and Grumeti the other day with minimal interference.
If it was a bigger race at a bigger course with bigger connections, there is no way in the world that result should stand.
Gutted I’ve done my money yes, but am becoming increasingly frustrated with racing’s inconsistencies, and it’s unfairness to punters.
Disgraceful!I have just watched the replay and it does not make good viewing. However, the second had enough time to recover and make up some ground on the winner inside the final furlong. As the gap remained constant, I can only assume the stewards have deemed that the interference did not affect their relative placings. The winning margin was such significant enough for there to be enough doubt that the interference cost the second more than the eventual margin of defeat. Unless the winning ride was deemed reckless then they would not throw the winner out, but reverse the placings.
The Stewards held an enquiry under Rule (B)11.6 into possible interference in the final furlong. Having heard their evidence and viewed recordings of the race they found that the winner FLYING APPLAUSE, ridden by Charles Eddery, had interfered with RESPLENDENT ALPHA, placed second, ridden by Amy Scott and that the interference had not improved FLYING APPLAUSE’s placing. They ordered the placings to remain unaltered. The Stewards found Eddery in breach of Rule (B)54.1 and guilty of careless riding in that he allowed his mount to drift to the left, causing the interference. They suspended him for 3 days as follows: Thursday 23, Friday 24 and Saturday 25 February, 2012.
Thanks guys, punishment for the jockey fair enough, and interefernce admitted into taking place. Still can’t believe they think the placings would have remained the same if Resplendant Alpha had a clear run through as it was closing rapidly, and was clearly going to go past the winner. As it was stopped in it’s tracks and the winner still in full throttle, is it any wonder it doesn’t close the gap at the line?
Your points are accurate other than Resplendant Alpha clearly would have won the race if it wasn’t cut off by the winner. Cheers anyway.
Better luck next time heh!One other thing, what happened today was clearly much more interference than Swan Peral on Grumeti, yet they reversed those placings…..leaves me confused as to what is so different…
One other thing, what happened today was clearly much more interference than Swan Peral on Grumeti, yet they reversed those placings…..leaves me confused as to what is so different…
What is different Jamie are the stewards at each track, as long as that continues inconsistencies will occur.
With so much money involved in the sport a centralised panel should be a prerequisite.One other thing, what happened today was clearly much more interference than Swan Peral on Grumeti, yet they reversed those placings…..leaves me confused as to what is so different…
Firstly, and most significantly, at Cheltenham the winning distance was only a short head, as opposed to 1¼ lengths – it is very rare for a 1¼ length victory to be overturned.
Secondly and probably less significant was the jockeys. One difference being Walsh had his whip in his "wrong hand" which compounds the offence. Secondly Wayne Hutchinson is an experienced rider and I’m sure he would be able to make a very strong case for the incident costing him the race. I suspect Amy Scott, even though she would have had the trainer with her, would not be able to make her point so cogently.
One difference being Walsh had his whip in his "wrong hand" which compounds the offence.
May compound a riding offence but irrelevant as far as the result is concerned, the stewards just have to decide was the result affected.
One difference being Walsh had his whip in his "wrong hand" which compounds the offence.
Also irrelevant the rule is to stop riding and pull your horse off
the rule is to stop riding and pull your horse off
Blimey!!
Mike
I am sure your betting is very successful since you start off with such an advantage – a creative and very imaginative mind.
Racecourses and the BHA need stewards at the course to make decisions about a list of various things that happen on the day. Decisions about race interference and jockeys’ race behaviour and the consequent penalties could be excluded from that list.
With digital video and video conferencing such well-established technologies, why cannot consistency be achieved by having all race incidents examined by a much smaller group of inquisitors/judges based away from the course? It seems that race enquiries consist of all parties watching the video replays, asking and answering questions, and giving verbal opinions about the effect of actions taken in the race. They do not all need to be in the same room to do that. A smaller group of BHA race stewards would become more expert by watching more incidents in more races, listening to more jockeys’ and trainers’ points of view, and would apply more consistent decisions and penalties. Each race steward group could handle probably three meetings at a time, so on bank holidays the BHA would need four "virtual" stewards rooms in an office block somewhere in Manchester!
I know that the BHA shy away from new technologies (weighing horses has been available since the seventeenth century for goodness sake), and I know that sectional timing seems to them like something from a Star Wars film, but if the betting industry can become all high-tech, why cannot the BHA?
Since the rules were altered 20 or so years ago, it is very seldom that the first past the post gets demoted. This change was largely at the behest of the betting industry.
Using new technology may sound a positive step forward but it is not always the case. In test match cricket the referral system may have seen an improvement in the amount of correct decisions overall. However, it has seen a drop in the standard of on field decisions as certain umpires rely too heavily on the DRS, in addition to this, it has lead to even more ridiculous appealing on the part of some players making the game far less enjoyable to watch.
When financial considerations overtake the sporting considerations the sport itself has become secondary and this diminishing light of human and equine endeavour is not something to be admired.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.