May 9, 2007 at 09:11 #1614
As said previously by Lingfield on the Mias Boy thread, the RP analysis of the race probably sums everything up.
"The money that came for the reappearing Venerable ultimately proved spot on, and the noises some observers were making about the lack of effort made on the winners stablemate, runner up Shavansky, need to be viewed in context of far worse examples of "after you, no after you", that routinely go unpunished by stewards elsewhere. "
( for me I have seen lesser examples get punished )
But what Andrew Scutts analysis was getting at is the total inconsistency, from the different set of stewards at each track. From horses not running on their merits to whip rules to interference etc.
Is it not time that the HRA put together a Task Force (if you like) to deal with the a/m issues. <br>A task force of say twenty, and dispatch a team of 3 to 4 individuals to each race meeting everyday to deal with any potential rule breaking.<br>And if found guilty, have a "Zero Tolerence" approach like say Hong Kong and Australia and rid racing altogether of the total inconsistency that is local stewards.
Just to add in one more thing it seems some sets of stewards are so petrified of causing anything controversial they routinely turn a blind eye to the blatantly obvious, or are afraid of upsetting an old friend. Racing is very in house and needs to be cleared of this going native all the time.
(Edited by madman marz at 10:16 am on May 9, 2007)May 9, 2007 at 09:40 #58113napsMember
- Total Posts 159
Marz, I assume you follow racing for some positive reason(s). Is there anything about the sport you actually like or are you only involved to put any potential racing enthusiasts off the sport altogether?May 9, 2007 at 09:42 #58116Small BearMember
- Total Posts 52
took the words right out of my mouth naps ;) :biggrin:May 9, 2007 at 10:00 #58118
Quote: from naps on 10:40 am on May 9, 2007[br]Marz, I assume you follow racing for some positive reason(s). Is there anything about the sport you actually like or are you only involved to put any potential racing enthusiasts off the sport altogether?<br>
Doesn’t need me to put anyone off the sport, racing itself is pretty adept at it.
As for positives, I have plenty, but as a punter I like a fair crack of the whip, if you can forgive the pun.May 9, 2007 at 11:15 #58120SalMember
- Total Posts 562
Don’t we already have something similar in the form of the Stipendary Stewards?May 9, 2007 at 11:28 #58123
Quote: from Sal on 12:15 pm on May 9, 2007[br]Don’t we already have something similar in the form of the Stipendary Stewards?
But are these just more or less advisors, SalMay 9, 2007 at 13:38 #58125SalMember
- Total Posts 562
From my admittedly limited experience of the weighing room, it is usually the Stipes who call the shots. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Yes, they are there as advisors, but their role is to provide consistent advice to the stewards and maintain the central racing authority line.
It is usually the Stipes decision to establish whether any rules have been broken and whether or not to pursue an inquiry – which is what you suggest a ‘Task Force’ should do.
The difficulty comes that most rule breaches are a matter of opinion, unless there is actual physical evidence, such as a phone call or a brown envelope. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â And Stewards, and Stipes, and even Task Forces, would still have differences in opinion, no matter how hard we try to standardise.
I’m in total agreement that the standard of stewarding needs to continue to improve – more training, less brandy at lunchtime. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â But I’m not convinced that even professional stewards would get it right much more often. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂMay 9, 2007 at 16:40 #58128PrufrockParticipant
- Total Posts 2081
Just managed to unearth this from 2004, but unfortunately I can’t locate the letter that prompted John Maxse’s reply.
This is the same Maxse that 6 months later stated that "the fight against corruption within racing has taken a turn for the better" at just the time that local stewards were missing dubious rides left right and centre…
JOCKEY CLUB public relations director John Maxse yesterday dismissed an idea raised in the Racing Post last week for the role of largely amateur racecourse stewards to be passed to a small band of professionals monitoring racing from home, writes David Carr.<br>He rejected exchange punter and Timeform handicapper Simon Rowlands’ claim that the move was needed to help police the sport and said: "I don’t want to shut the door on suggestions of ways we can improve matters but they need to come with the belief that the current system is not working effectively and I would say the progress we have made in recent years – and we continue to make – means that is not the case.<br>"The case for radical change is if the current system is seen to be failing racing but that isn’t the case in my view. Mr Rowlands said there was a time when the call for professional stewarding was deafening but `oddly’ little has been heard of it recently, but I would say that is because of improvements to the stewarding system.<br>"We now have a mixture of pro-am stewards, with the professional having a vote in racecourse inquiries, and the standard has improved markedly."<br>Referring specifically to the idea of races being watched by officials away from the course, Maxse said: "We already have an effective safety net with a monitoring system here so we are able to review races subsequently.<br>"There is a concern that whenever you have an inquiry you have to ensure it is in compliance with the Human Rights Act as any process could in theory end up with a High Court hearing. At an inquiry on the racecourse you are able to hear explanations, have face-to-face interviews with relevant witnesses and analyse the course if needs be.<br>"And look at the quantity of racing nowadays – there could be four or more meetings in an afternoon. There are still frustrations with occasional delays in results of inquiries, but with this system there is a high degree of chance of a backlog of inquiries." <br>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.