- This topic has 35 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
I agreed wholeheartedly with both Graham Cunningham and Nick Luck’s opinion. The placings should have been reversed.
Cunningham, who backed the winner, made a very persuasive case as to why Sky Lantern should have been promoted to first place. The most telling phrase he used was " sustained intimidation " by the winner Elusive Kate from two furlongs out.
It looked plainly obvious to me that Richard Hughes’s 3 year filly was made to veer across the track due to the older filly hanging badly, and coupled with receiving ( albeit unintentionally ) three cracks of William Buick’s whip across her face, was intimidated enough not to go through with her effort.
Had Elusive Kate maintained a straight(ish) line then I have little doubt ( as does Hughes ) that Sky lantern would have passed Elusive Kate and went on to win the race.
As Cunningham and Luck also pointed out, most countries would have "chucked " the winner out.
In my opinion it was a poor decision by the stewards.
Wait a minute now boys, let’s get straight what Luck and Cunningham actually thought regarding the outcome before discussing further.
You are saying that you agree with them and the placings should have been reversed but Gingertipster said in post two that:-
"I thought Mitty and Winkle did a pretty good job. Neither of them expected the result to be changed."
Which one is the accepted majority view on their opinion?
The number of cracks on the face is varying as well, with one from Ginger, two from Hughes and an irate punter on another thread and now you have raised the game to three. Do I hear four anywhere?
It all boils down to whether you think Elusive Kate
definitely
improved her place. It has to be a cast iron certainty for the result to me amended and it’s laughable to think that we need Stewards qualified in Mathematics, so that they can get the protractor, compass and slide rule out to "prove" that the second horse would have won with a clear run.
You think Sky Lantern would have won and I totally respect that opinion.
Your point about other countries "chucking out" the winner has absolutely no relevance though. It’s like saying a murderer in this country may have been sentenced to death had they committed the crime in another country.
Jockeys go into a Stewards Enquiry ready to talk up any scenario to favour their case. I nearly had to get the hankies out listening to Hughsie, as the tears were welling up in my eyes in a way I haven’t experienced since the pottery wheel scene in Ghost. Any jockey in his place would have done the same, so I am not having a go at Hughes, he’s just doing his job.
The actual report reads:-
The Stewards held an enquiry under Rule (B)11.6 into possible interference from one and a half furlongs out. Having heard their evidence and viewed recordings of the race they found that the winner, ELUSIVE KATE (USA), ridden by William Buick, had interfered with SKY LANTERN (IRE), placed second, ridden by Richard Hughes, and that the interference had not improved ELUSIVE KATE (USA)’s placing. They ordered the placings to remain unaltered. The Stewards found Buick in breach of Rule (B)54.1 and guilty of careless riding in that he allowed his mount to drift left. They suspended him for 3 days as follows: Friday 26, Sunday 28 and Monday 29 July 2013.
The Stewards noted that William Buick, the rider of ELUSIVE KATE, had struck the SKY LANTERN (IRE), across the nose once, one furlong out, but after viewing a recording of the incident they were satisfied that it was accidental.
As usual with a popular and well backed favourite being involved there is more of an outcry when one gets beat and the connections feel hard done by. I maintain my original view that the Stewards would have looked a laughing stock if they had disqualified a horse for "Sustained intimidation," when just last week another horse suffered interference, stumbled, losing second place and the winner still kept the race.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Just a thought on the number of whip cracks sustained by Sky Lantern. It has a Magpie theme song cadence to it:-
"One from Ginger, Two from Hughes, Three from Himself and Four from Tom Cruise………."
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
It must be remembered that horses have overcome ‘intimidation’ by whips in the past.
I know he was a rather more iron-willed customer than Sky Lantern, but Persian Punch received such a clout across the face with a whip in the 2003 Jockey Club Cup that it knocked his head sideways. He was headed at that point, but surged back through the flailing whips to regain the lead on the line.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dpessb3m-nA
Good stuff fellas, pretty much covered all the bases on this one already. I do think Hughes made a very valid point in the enquiry…he said we could have gone another half mile and Sky Lantern wouldn’t have got by. Not coz she was slower than Elusive Kate, but because with buick’s whip in his left hand and the horse constantly rolling left – maintaining her stride and shoulder marginally ahead, it would have been very difficult. Add in the clear intimidation I thought Hughes did well in the inquiry.
For me its summed up like a wild lunging tackle in football. "I never touched him ref" after a wild lunge causes the winger to take evasive action and lose control of the ball. You cant say a foul took place but also you could say that the actions of the offending party caused an outcome that would not otherwise have occurred.
Under the rules its correct that the result stands as cant prove conclusively that Sky Lantern would have won but using probability you’d have to say it was highly likely she would have – you have to feel sorry for Sky Lantern.
Don’t think the stewards had much choice other than leave the result unaltered, as it was not certain that Sky Lantern would have won, but the drift by Elusive Kate and probably the whip (once of twice) across the face was enough to make sure that she did win. Hence, there is an element of unfairness here.
William Buick comments were also worth noting, after the race he said EK always drifts, yet in the enquiry he said she hasn’t done it this year. Another element that was raised was the fact he had the whip in the left hand, I would have thought was due to running along the right hand rail not just in case she drifts.
SL was not a happy horse crossing the line and it must be hoped this does not leave a lasting mark on her.
Had Sky Lantern been the other side of Elusive Kate would the result have been different?
It was Richard Hughes who told the stewards that Sky Lantern received three cracks of Buick’s whip – hence why I came up with the number, Mr. Caution.
I also agree that Hughes stated his case well; maybe too well, as there was a slight edge to his arguments – something I have always believed doesn’t go down well with the stuffy ( know your bl..dy place, you jockey ! ) stewards.
The baby faced, timid approach of William Buick was less confrontational, more deferential, and therefore much more acceptable to the tweed and brylcreem brigade.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Jockey’s know the rules so are happy to take a 4 day ban for winning a Group 1. Likewise with the whip rule what jockey is not going to give that extra hit and take one for the team if it’s the difference between winning or losing the big race.
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
A terrible decision imo. Sky Lantern was clearly forced to travel further by the other horse. If Sky Lantern had been allowed to run straight basic laws of physics dictate she would have finished ahead of EK who would have had to run further, coupled with SL now being able to exert more forward propulsion/velocity due to travelling in straight line.
The stiking of SL’s face with Buick’s whip hardly helped either.
However when they jumped for a moment I though "hello, Hughes is going to commit" and then for some reason he reined back in behind EK handing her an uncontested lead. I think he should have sent his filly on and bagged the fence, ensuring EK’s wayward manoeuvre later on would not have effected his mount. Somebody made the very valid point on the Betfair forum questioning whether Hughes had studied EK’s form as there were plenty of big clues there. Surely being on EK’s off side was always the best place to be.
I’ve only seen the race on the RP website. My first impression was that the race summariser for the RP, not for the first time (RP summaries in general) came to a definite conclusion on the basis of supposition – that SL would have won with a straight run. Very presumptuous imo.
Is intimidation even mentioned in racing’s rules? If it is, how would the stewards, or anyone else, define it? If a jockey/horse attempts intimidation but the intended victim remains unintimidated, has any rule been broken?
And how do they interpret ‘interference’ when there is no contact? Might Sky Lantern have drifted anyway? Unlikely, based on past runs, but not impossible – she is still young and relatively inexperienced.
Which would hinder a horse more, being carried across the track or smacked in the face with a whip? My guess would be the latter which leads to another definition riddle: on what criteria is ‘accidental’ judged? Doesn’t a jockey wielding a whip in a close finish have a responsibility to be careful not to hit his rival? Could W Buick’s actions with the whip been judged careless too, and if so at risk of what penalty?
The key factor in many of these cases, imo, is that the character of the animals involved cannot be taken into consideration, and yet it probably counts more than anything else in regards to the result. Were Sky Lantern more resolute/experienced/fiery, might she have barged the winner back toward the rail and battled on to win. If she’d done that, would it make Buick’s performance any less careless?
Who’d be a steward!
What made the Stewards decision so difficult was the official winning margin,had ‘Elusive Kate’ won by half a length there would be no question of keeping the race,had she prevailed by a Short head then she
should
have been disqualified but a neck certainly didn’t seem enough to disqualify the winner to me as ‘Elusive Kate’ was a willing partner whereas ‘Sky lantern’ wasn’t,I think even in a straight line the winner would still show more resolution.
I was at Newmarket today and didn’t see any of the discussions after the Falmouth regarding whether Elusive Kate would keep the race by Luck and Cunningham but…
I don’t think it helped that Sky Lantern had no cover in the Falmouth, she was on the outside of Elusive Kate for most of the race,,Buick dictated the pace from the start and Hughes did his best to wait until late to make his challenge, when he did make that challenge Buick made sure that he had nowhere to go with Sky Lantern he had the advantage of the rail to keep his mare straight but somehow managed to drift across the entire course taking Sky Lantern with him with the possible addition of a couple of smacks on the nose the filly had no chance.
Elusive Kate is a lovely mare and she always gives her all in a race, although she looked half asleep in the paddock this afternoon (must have been the heat).
It was a well deserved win for her today and I did back her at 5/2 along with Sky Lantern so for me it was the better result I’m not sure that Sky Lantern would have beaten her…but I would have liked to have seen the filly and the older horse battle it out fare and square for the spoils not for it all to end up in the Stewards Room again with everyone knowing the placings would remain unaltered.If Stewards are not seen to be stiffer on horses who take other horses ground and in some way stop their run to win the race. It’s not being fair on owners or punters and it leaves it wide open for jockeys to think they can use aggresive riding to their advantage in tight finishes.
Jac
Things turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...For what it’s worth I thought Sky Lantern just followed the same course as Elusive Kate and wasn’t stopped in her running. As the rules stand it was no brainer that Elusive Kate would keep the race. If anything she was asserting at the finish. If there was an issue it may have been because the William Buick’s whip caught Sky Lantern, but that could only be punished if he could be seen to be careless and in my opinion that was not the case.
Sky Lantern followed the same course as Elusive Kate but even though no horse touched, it looked apparent that Sky Lantern was worried off her straight line.
For me, Elusive Kate was aware that she was veering off a straight line and so could maintain her gallop while Sky Lantern must have been mildly disorientated by the change in path and the clout on the nose. In my opinion, Sky Lantern would’ve prevailed if both horses ran straight.
I think the placings should’ve been reversed.
In my opinion the stewards made the wrong decision.
There can be no doubt that Elusive Kate forced Sky Lantern across the track , and not by a little. Horses that are travelling sideways are not fully balanced and cannot fully use their stride. You might say that that applies to EK but she was allowed to do it , SL was not.
Being struck across the face , I saw it happen twice , will stop any horse from running to its full potential. I do not suggest that Buick did it deliberately.However,there can be no doubt that this intimidated SL.
I speak from experience when I say that when horses that hang they sometimes do it against the whip. In my opinion Buick should have put his stick down ,put his horse straight and stopped it from hanging. There is no question but that Buick used the whip in the correct hand , however, he used it primarily for impulsion and only once did I see him use it to correct the horse’s drift.
I believe that if Hughes had dropped his hands and claimed SL was becoming forcibly unbalanced he would have got the race. As I say , that claim would probably be true to a degree.
However much people may speculate about what the outcome might have been without the interference it is a fact that EK broke the rules of racing to an extreme degree. That alone should disqualify her.
If a horse misbehaves at the stalls it has to ,successfully , undergo a stalls test.
If EK has done this as often as Buick claimed then she is a danger to other horses and their riders and should not be allowed to run unless preventative measures are taken ( a different bit, a different style of riding ) whatever it takes to make reasonably sure this hanging does not continue.There is a strong case for having ex-jockeys as consultants for the stewards I believe. Unless the stewards have some knowledge and experience of how much horses can be affected by some situations and they speculate about the issue , then they risk making wrongful decisions. This is what happened yesterday.
Just have to say, what a load of old bollocks Luck and Cunningham talked regarding the Stewards Enquiry in the Falmouth. Yes, she drifted but they never touched. The boys managed to ham it up in great style and went on about sustained drifting, definitely cost the runner up a neck etc etc, this continued with talk about a possible watershed decision and all other sorts of nonsense.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, trainer John Gosden was calm and unconcerned stating that there was no contact. Seasoned punters who had watched Al Kazeem’s race last week knew that no panel worth its salt could have disqualified Elusive Kate after seeing Al Kazeem keep his race. Finally, the bookies were offering 6/1 that Sky Lantern would get the race. Yet, back in the studio Beavis and his mate were still wittering on about it being very tense. A millisecond later the klaxon sounds and Walter Mitty and his sparring partner Rip Van Winkle wake up to find that the rules are still being carried out the same way they were last week.
Very poor broadcasting by numbers on a cheap paint set.
Spot on, it was similar the day after with Masamah and Balding even jumped on the bandwagon.
Simon Holt summed it up perfectly at the end of his commentary on Elusive Kate’s race and again the next day.
Rightly Sky Lantern’s connections lost their deposit for a frivolous appeal, well done the BHA.Mainly it was a fuss over nothing, we have by far the best rules in the world, just accept them and move on Mr Luck.
Interesting take on the race with a very valid point about the ride Hughes gave Sky Lantern. http://www.gallopslive.com/#!/blog/falm … -failings/
Interesting take on the race with a very valid point about the ride Hughes gave Sky Lantern. http://www.gallopslive.com/#!/blog/falm … -failings/
Come on now Ken. Some people are saying Richard Hughes is the best jockey we have,
by far
apparently.
John Francome said it before:-
"Jockeys eh?, if you took their brains out and weighed them again, they would still weigh the same"
Apparently John Gosden was surprised that the Hannons employed a QC and he, therefore, had to follow suit. It smacks of desperation and I read that they were encouraged to make the appeal through emails they had received from the public. It really makes you think that this sort of thing should be like the X-factor and put to a public telephone vote to decide the outcome.
The Hannon team know how the rules operate in the arena where they race most of their horses. They have always accepted Stewards decisions that have gone in their favour. I think it was unsporting to appeal a decision where their Jockey had a straightforward task in working out the way the race would unfold in a really small field, yet he couldn’t manage to do so.
If Richard Hughes had put in half the performance he managed in the Steward’s room, on the horse he was riding, he would have given her a better chance of winning. If he really had so much in hand on the ratings, why not go on and make all to avoid any possible interference?
I think fear was the key. Having come from off the pace to win the Guineas and then The Coronation at Ascot, there was a precedence about how the filly needed to be ridden. If he had made the running and got beaten, punters would have immediately been calling him Richard Cranium and wondering why he hadn’t adopted the tried and trusted tactics that had served her so well before.
Sometimes, you can’t win, even with Greek mathematicians at your back.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.