- This topic has 659 replies, 109 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
It is my considered opinion that both Silvoir and Roy should go , and go immediately
the words good ……drink ……brewery ……spring to mind
Ricky
Do they ever have investigations when racecourse stewards get something wrong like the Leicester ones last Monday (Unlimited) and appear not to even know the rules.
Millions of pounds at stake on every race but not even an announcement yet regards the error at Leicester.Why do you think the decision is wrong?
I believe the BHA have admitted that this decision was an error on behalf of the Leicester stewards.
I have no real problem with the rule but at least get it right.
I can see why the BHA introduced the rule and I think it is good in principle, however it is also open to subjectivity an controversy as evidenced in this case.
With the Close To The Edge Case there was no subsequent discussion or complaint because there was no rule 4, with Unlimited there was a rule 4, so backers of the winner (myself included) and placed horses will have lost out.
The trouble with such a rule is, in most cases, whichever way the decision goes somebody will probably complain.
Should the new rule be scrapped?
It just goes show that someone as knowledgeable on the sport as your goodself Paul is totally unaware that the Leicester stewards admitted that they got it wrong and that the BHA accept that they did.
Where is the statement from the BHA on the issue for punters like yourself? Obviously trying to sweep it under the carpet without anyone noticing.
The rule should be scrapped but probably wont be.
Why was it introduced?
Be very suspicious of the BHA anytime they say they are doing anything for the benefit of punters, they have never done anything for punters and have just stumbled from one disaster to the next in the last couple of years under Roy, Coward, Stier and Struthers.Obviously I had missed the fact the Stewards have admitted they got it wrong and, of course, apologise unreservedly for questioning your comment.
It is a very subjective rule and was going to open a can of worms.
Ironically I believe the rule was introduced to try and be fairer to punters, so that when a horse does not start and therefore has no chance of winning, backers get their money back.
It looks as though the new rule was trying to be too clever.
Regarding fairness it will be unfair to some punters whatever happens – either to those who lose out with the rule four or to those who did not get a run for their money.
I can see why some punters who backed the winner are upset – personally it does not bother me that much – maybe it should but I suppose I have been around the game so long I have gotten used to it, be it incidents like this, jockeys not riding out finishes.
Should the rule be scrapped – well I think it is no good as it stands as it relies on subjectivity. It should either be scrapped and we revert to the way it way or it is made a more black and white rule and if a horse does not emerge from the stalls or it emerges without a rider then it is declared a non-runner. In jump races if a horse fails to cross the start line or it crosses the start line without a jockey then it is a non-runner.
It is my considered opinion that both Silvoir and Roy should go , and go immediately
the words good ……drink ……brewery ……spring to mind
Ricky
fortunately your opinion doesn’t count!
The new rule states:-
10.5.1 the horse has been prevented from starting due to a faulty action of the starting stalls when the start was effected, or
10.5.2 the horse is riderless at the time the start was effected.It took the Yarmouth stewards today 20 minutes to decide Nurai was a runner in the 4.50 after she decided to do a "Sariska" when the stalls opened. What could they have been discussing for such a length of time when it’s quite clear from the above rules that she was a runner, it should have taken about 60 seconds.
Are we going to have this palaver everytime a horse is left in the stalls? not only is it annoying but punters are not getting paid out for 20 minutes therefore costing racing much needed levy as punters are delayed from re-investing.
- Total Posts 17716
Yeats:
I don’t know whether this applies to you, but a lot of forumites and disgruntled punters have been clamouring for this rule. The more sceptical "traditionalists" argued that any plausible formulation would prove a nightmare to administer, and that the simple, clear-cut if occasionally frustrating status quo should be maintained.
Now the rule has been stitched together (rather expertly) it is causing
more
fuss – possibly from some of the same people who wanted it in the first place. Of course such complex, knife-edge decisions are going to prove both long-winded and controversial. That is how process-driven judgements work, where they do at all. It is perverse to complain about the fact.
The well-meaning new rule, a sop to the whiners, has only turned clear black-and-white into confusing, muddy shades of grey. But Pandora has done the deed, and there is no putting those winds and all this hot air back in her box.
Moral:
be careful what you wish for.
Frankie fined £290 – How petty can you get?
The BHA pretending to be acting in punters interests
Yet they allow half a dozen runners tomorrow with the proviso "Will only run if going suitable"
What use is that to punters?- Total Posts 17716
Frankie fined £290 – How petty can you get?
The BHA pretending to be acting in punters interests
Eddie, surely in this case they
are
acting in punters interests? Not a few people might have backed Dettori’s Newbury mount early doors, on the simple assumption that he was riding it.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of his decision (essentially a political one, given Godolphin’s stance on the tariff) it was the rider’s responsibility for accepting an engagement he could not fulfil.
The extra fines handed out to him and all the other riders for entering the paddock late before the
Henry II Stakes
last night must have made his day!
Deepsensation or whatever your name is ..your reply was a bit puerile
how about posting something more than one sound bite
Or perhaps go back to the betfair forum and slag off all and sundry on another 1.01 thread
"Pinza")
The BHA pretending to be acting in punters interests
are acting in punters interests? Not a few people might have backed Dettori’s Newbury mount early doors, on the simple assumption that he was riding it.
Pinza,
Don’t be hoodwinked into believing the BHA ever do anything for the benefit of punters, as Glenn points out earlier in the thread, hundreds, possibly thousands of late jockey changes, overweights etc every year, many particularly at evening meetings, many without punters even being informed or anything done, yet the BHA have managed to root out one jockey to punish, well done BHA!
The BHA just use the punter line when it suits their objective.
Reversing the draw was done for the "benefit" of punters and changes to whip use in October will be down to popular public demand.
Look under the card for the 3.35 at Haydock.
Regal Parade will only run if ground suitable, states trainer
Shakespearean will only run if ground suitable, states trainer
2.05
Zuider Zee will run only if ground suitable, states trainer
L Frank Baum will run only if ground suitable, states trainer
3.05
Myplacelater will run only if ground suitable, states trainer
What use is that for punters? It tells them feck all.What have the BHA ever done regards the overwatering of flat tracks despite their directive being only water to produce good to firm ground?
Eddie, may I suggest around about 6ish you give racing a miss tomorrow.
Just thinking about your blood pressure
Eddie, may I suggest around about 6ish you give racing a miss tomorrow.
Just thinking about your blood pressure
Funnily enough Pompete, I’ve just had my blood pressure tablet, I’m on the same ones as Ian Carnaby
I wouldn’t worry about tonights clash though, Jamie Stier and the boys usually pull their fingers out when they’ve got 48 hours notice and the clash is scheduled, just put Ffos Las back 5 mins.
Where they fail miserably is when there’s delays on the day to scheduled off times.Could Karl Oliver, serial marketeer who has just announced he is stepping aside as Chief Executive of the QIPCO Champions Series, be the right man to take over one of the senior roles at the BHA?
He boasts a pretty resolute brand marketing CV and will have undoubtedly have whispered in a few of the right ears during his time working on the Champions Series. He was also a little guarded when speaking of his next ‘challenge’, announcing that he’d be letting everyone know later in the year.
No , and no again
Too many business speak gurus , know nothing about racing , we would be going from frying pan to the bin in next to no time
Racing needs a racing man ….no more marketing spin please
cheers
Ricky
British Horseracing Authority statement in relation to judicial review application
The British Horseracing Authority, together with William Hill Organisation Ltd, yesterday lodged an application for a judicial review of the Levy Board’s decision that it could not seek to impose levy on business users of betting exchanges.
Explaining the reason for the decision, Chris Brand, Acting Chief Executive of the Authority, said:
“We have always maintained that this is essentially a legal question and that clarity can only be determined by the courts. We urged the Levy Board to take this step, but they refused. The process adopted by the Levy Board thus provided no definitive outcome, evidenced not least by the fact that the decision in question was arrived at solely on the basis of the chairman’s casting vote. That is very unsatisfactory.
“In taking their decision, the Levy Board acknowledged that it was open to anyone disagreeing with their interpretation of the law to seek a judicial review, and that is what we are now seeking. Given this acknowledgement, we hope that the Levy Board will work with us to keep the legal process amicable and swift.
“The bulk of the work required for this process has already been undertaken by way of the legal advice which both Racing and the Levy Board have taken as part of the lengthy, but ultimately inconclusive, consultation exercise. We are optimistic that this will help to keep the costs of the process to the minimum.
“Given the rapidly declining income from the Levy, it would have been irresponsible not to seek clarification on this aspect of the law.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.