- This topic has 49 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Gingertipser wrote " Fallon’s decision was entirely consistent." My question is consistent with what? A week ago Frankie almost brought down Fallon but the stewards after an enquiry found no blame on Frankie.I just think it is who you know that decides these incidents.But that is just my opinion.Somebody once said Not only does justice have to be done it must also be seen to be done.
Think Fallon’s decision is "entirely consistent" with most decisions stewards make Andyod. I did not see the Frankie incident, may be that was one of the (imo) 10% stewards get wrong.
Value Is EverythingJoncol wrote "The only thing I find more shocking about their decision is the fact that a few people on here feel they made the right one"!!!!
Just to make something clear, I do NOT believe stewards made the right decision; but I can understand why they came to that marginal decision.
MM is to appeal.
Value Is EverythingTwo possible possibilities here, incompetance or corruption.
Gingertipster, all that about the jockey changing his whip hand, didn’t do enough etc is irrelevant, whether he did all he could or as little as possible to avoid interference doesn’t matter, all that matters was the result affected.
You put it at 75/25 but could understand the stewards going 50/50, even if that was the case the result should have stood because the first past the post has to have any benefit of doubt. All 50/50 decisions have to stay with the first past the post, it’s in the rules.
Maybe it’s just a case of some of stewards having backed the promoted horse.Eddie,
If a 50/50 results in the winner keeping the race. Then it allows any jockey who knows his horse is the "probable winner" (better than 50%), to make 100% certain of winning by allowing his horse to interfere.
Your last sentence is not worth responding to.
Value Is Everything"Gingertipster":1fc1ahnl wrote:
Eddie,
If a 50/50 results in the winner keeping the race. Then it allows any jockey who knows his horse is the "probable winner" (better than 50%), to make 100% certain of winning by allowing his horse to interfere.
Your last sentence is not worth responding to.
Obviously you’ve no idea what it’s like to ride in a driving finish if you think a jockey involved could analyse what percentage chance he had of winning the race during it and then carry our interference based on that chance to ensure victory, sounds a good way to lose a race to me.
In any case the rules are clear, the first past the post has to have the benefit of doubt.
Regarding your last sentence, I believe that’s what someone said when someone else suggested the Pakistan cricketers were bowling deliberate no balls.
Anything to do with money or betting is open to corruption as we have seen in so many sports.
No one is suggesting it was corrupt decision but every avenue needs to be looked at with such an extraordinary decision.Eddie,
Read my post again, you’ve totally mis-represented what I said.
First, a jockey does not need to evaluate his percentage chance. Are you saying a jockey riding in a race never thinks to himself "I’m probably going to win this"? Better than 50% chance when the horse interferes with another. By that, I don’t mean "deliberate interference", actually instigating it. Just when a horse naturally wanders, does a jockey pull it off the second and risk (say 20% risk) losing the race? Or does he make 100% certain of winning a valuable race by ALLOWING the "accidental" interference to take place?
Value Is EverythingYour last sentence is not worth responding to.
That may be true in the context of this thread, but how many armchair punters are going to say exactly the same thing?
It is after all the TV audience at home that keeps the sport from falling to obscurity. If they start to shout out "It’s all bent!" then what of the future?If you think this was strange go to July 4th 2007 Farmer Brown (8/1) was second in a race at Leopardstown after Dermot Weld’s Westlake (3/10 fav)denied him a passage on the outside,then on the inside finally Berry gave up knowing he would get the race in the stewards room. Little did he know the powers that be.Watch it on ATR and weep.But strange are the ways of the gods.He won the Galway Hurdle next time out.He would have carried a penalty if he had got the race at Leopardstown.
If you think this was strange go to July 4th 2007 Farmer Brown (8/1) was second in a race at Leopardstown after Dermot Weld’s Westlake (3/10 fav)denied him a passage on the outside,then on the inside finally Berry gave up knowing he would get the race in the stewards room. Little did he know the powers that be.Watch it on ATR and weep.But strange are the ways of the gods.He won the Galway Hurdle next time out.He would have carried a penalty if he had got the race at Leopardstown.
He would have carried a penalty over jumps if he had won a race on the flat?
Ratpack you are absolutely right. My error.He would perhaps have started at a shorter price at Galway. What did you think of the stewards decision to let Westlake keep the race?If he was not a money on Fav from such a powerful yard would he have kept it?I don’t think he would.Incidentally, note who finished third at Leopardstown on that eventful day.
andy
I laid Westphalia that night and cut out in the stewards to cover myself. It was evens your pick but I still thought Farmer Brown would get it in the inquiry so made it a winner for me still and a break even on Westphalia.
The problem I have with the domestic stewards is that there is no consistency. For example a scenario almost identical to the above one manifested itself last month in Galway when Days Ahead got cut off in a similar fashion by Magical Memoir but in this instance the result was overturned.
The Turf Club is an antiquated body that, along with the stewards who have piggy backed off it for years, ought to have be wound down long ago. Horse Racing Ireland should assume full responsibility for the governing and regulation of the sport, given that they are responsible for most other aspects of it.
I for one am reluctant to even discuss an antiquated body.I have already passed the canal turn second time around.
http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-ra … 73681/top/
The biggest shock so far this year – the result is reversed again. This is where punters do lose out, or at least those on the exchanges do.
So now what does one do? Keep all betting slips until after the appeal?What do the stipendary stewards get paid for?Do they know anything at all?
So now what does one do? Keep all betting slips until after the appeal?What do the stipendary stewards get paid for?Do they know anything at all?
We all the result on the day is final. Otherwise those who backed the 2nd placed runner to Chabal at Sandown would have collected after the failed drug test. But, yes, what do these stewards know? Because regardless of my feelings about interference as a whole in Britain or Ireland, that result probably is not reversed 9 times out of 10 in the first place. It is surely right to have a panel of 3 professional stewards sit at a head office somewhere and decide on each decision? Someone needs to be accountable for the good of racing and punters.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.