- This topic has 84 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
The verdict from the Stewards’ Room on the BHA site:
Haydock, 2 July 2011
The Stewards held an enquiry under Rule (B) 11.6 into possible interference inside the final furlong. They found that the winner HIGHLAND CASTLE, ridden by Jamie Spencer, had interfered with SWIFT ALHAARTH (IRE), ridden by Silvestre De Sousa, placed second. They considered that the interference was accidental and had not improved HIGHLAND CASTLE’s placing. They ordered the placings to remain unaltered.
The Stewards held an enquiry into possible interference approaching the one furlong marker. They found that the winner HIGHLAND CASTLE, ridden by Jamie Spencer, had interfered with REFLECT (IRE), ridden by Eddie Ahern, placed third. They considered that the interference was accidental under Rule (B) 55.
Colin
The 2nd and Reflect were simply not given a fair chance to win the race, so how people are saying that the interference didn’t make a difference to the result is beyond me.
Cheers Colin, that’s exactly how I believed they had come to their decision not to disqualify the winner, and quite frankly, it’s hard to disagree.
If anyone, hand on their heart, can say that either of the hampered horses would have beaten the winner without the interference then they watched a different race to me.
Once again, I’ll stress that I don’t agree with the rules, I’m just saying that the Haydock stewards made exactly the right call according to the current rules (in my opiniobn of course).
Hi 1i I am not nor did I lose my wrag with you .I am simply pointing out that the decision being made based on the stewards opoinion of who would have won does not require them to race at all. Just let the stewards decide which is the better!Of course they can watch the race and make that decision or they can head for the bar and make it.The decision is final either way.But it is irrelevant to the horses qualities or ability just as mine is if made in the same manner.I could decide that the other horse would have won if not pushed into the rail and who is to dispute with me?Since both are opinions they are equally valid.
I’m sorry Oneeye but I have just watched it back again and Swift Alhaarth was rallying when he was squeezed. There was very little in it at the time. Now I am not saying that he would DEFINITELY have won but he certainly had no chance after the interference. SDS said after the enquiry that he thought he was going to get back up.
The silly thing is the margin of victory was so large because he was so
badly
interfered with and yet, as you say, this would have been one of the reasons that they didn’t change the result.
My biggest quibble though is the lack of CONSISTENCY among stewards. I use the JQ Guineas again as example.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
The stewards are very consistent. They always decide which horse would have won! How could one be more consistent than that!As to what they base their decision on I have absolutely no idea.
- Total Posts 17716
Now I am not saying that he would DEFINITELY have won but he certainly had no chance after the interference.
But you
have
to be DEFINITELY SURE that the affected horse would have won, if you are to disqualify the offender. If you are not, you can’t. That is the rule. End of.
My biggest quibble though is the lack of CONSISTENCY among stewards. I use the JQ Guineas again as example.
Not every controversial ruling is due to "inconsistency", which is much less of an endemic problem than you seem to be making out.
There are bound to be borderline decisions, and not all of us are going to like every one. However you frame a rule, there are always going to be those knife-edge cases which come up with a verdict which seems unfair to many. The 2010
1000 Guineas
was one of those knife-edges, and inevitably about 50% thought it was right, 50% thought it was wrong. "Inconsistency" was not involved.
Sorry Pinza but you better define INCONSISTENCY before you rule it out.I believe any decision left up to man will involve inconsistancy since by nature man is an inconsistent creature,moved by emotion most of the time.
- Total Posts 17716
Sorry Pinza but you better define INCONSISTENCY before you rule it out.I believe any decision left up to man will involve inconsistancy since by nature man is an inconsistent creature,moved by emotion most of the time.
You are making my point. It is pointless to rail against inconsistency when different people will always draw different conclusions from the same rule, however precisely it is formulated.
This is nothing to do with emotions, though. It is to do with differences in the weighting we place on one fact set against another. There are intellectual differences between human beings as well as emotional ones, and those are the ones that matter when it comes to Stewarding.
Let’s not forget that the steering on points of law comes from a paid professional trained to know the rule book – the Stipendiary Steward – and not from the amateurs who (almost invariably) follow his or her advice to the letter.
In case anyone who’s reading this doesn’t know about the "Stipe", (and the usual presence of not one but
two
professionals in the Stewards Room) here’s the relevant description of the Stewards Panel from the BHA rule book:
On the racecourse, the responsibility for policing the Rules of Racing at the 1300-plus fixtures each year belongs to the Stewards. A Stewards’ Panel for a race normally consists of 3 people:
2 amateur Racecourse Stewards, approved and trained by the British Horseracing Authority and being unpaid and have no vested interest other than fair racing.
1 Stipendiary Steward, employed by the British Horseracing Authority.The Panel is advised by a separate Stipendiary Steward, who presents the case to the Panel and questions the jockey and/or trainer in connection to a potential breach of the rules.
Now I am not saying that he would DEFINITELY have won but he certainly had no chance after the interference.
But you
have
to be DEFINITELY SURE that the affected horse would have won, if you are to disqualify the offender. If you are not, you can’t. That is the rule. End of.
My biggest quibble though is the lack of CONSISTENCY among stewards. I use the JQ Guineas again as example.
Not every controversial ruling is due to "inconsistency", which is much less of an endemic problem than you seem to be making out.
There are bound to be borderline decisions, and not all of us are going to like every one. However you frame a rule, there are always going to be those knife-edge cases which come up with a verdict which seems unfair to many. The 2010
1000 Guineas
was one of those knife-edges, and inevitably about 50% thought it was right, 50% thought it was wrong. "Inconsistency" was not involved.
But who can ever be definitely sure of any outcome of a close race where interference has taken place? Would Special Duty have definitely won the Guineas without interference. Maybe, maybe not. The same on Saturday where the actual interference was much worse. I suppose what I am saying, and I THINK you are too, is that there are so many grey areas and it seems to come down to the judgement of the stewards on the day and, from where I am sitting, those judgements seem inconsistent.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
Now I am not saying that he would DEFINITELY have won but he certainly had no chance after the interference.
But you
have
to be DEFINITELY SURE that the affected horse would have won, if you are to disqualify the offender. If you are not, you can’t. That is the rule. End of.
My biggest quibble though is the lack of CONSISTENCY among stewards. I use the JQ Guineas again as example.
Not every controversial ruling is due to "inconsistency", which is much less of an endemic problem than you seem to be making out.
There are bound to be borderline decisions, and not all of us are going to like every one. However you frame a rule, there are always going to be those knife-edge cases which come up with a verdict which seems unfair to many. The 2010
1000 Guineas
was one of those knife-edges, and inevitably about 50% thought it was right, 50% thought it was wrong. "Inconsistency" was not involved.
But who can ever be definitely sure of any outcome of a close race where interference has taken place? Would Special Duty have definitely won the Guineas without interference? Maybe, maybe not. The same on Saturday where the actual interference was much worse. I suppose what I am saying, and I THINK you are too, is that there are so many grey areas and it seems to come down to the judgement of the stewards on the day and, from where I am sitting, those judgements seem inconsistent.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
Now I am not saying that he would DEFINITELY have won but he certainly had no chance after the interference.
But you
have
to be DEFINITELY SURE that the affected horse would have won, if you are to disqualify the offender. If you are not, you can’t. That is the rule. End of.
My biggest quibble though is the lack of CONSISTENCY among stewards. I use the JQ Guineas again as example.
Not every controversial ruling is due to "inconsistency", which is much less of an endemic problem than you seem to be making out.
There are bound to be borderline decisions, and not all of us are going to like every one. However you frame a rule, there are always going to be those knife-edge cases which come up with a verdict which seems unfair to many. The 2010
1000 Guineas
was one of those knife-edges, and inevitably about 50% thought it was right, 50% thought it was wrong. "Inconsistency" was not involved.
How can one be definitely sure of any close race where interference has taken place? Can we be sure that Special Duty would have won the Guineas but for interference? As you say 50% would have said yes and 50% would have said no, therefore we
couldnt
be definitely sure and yet the placings were changed. Yesterday was the same – as we can see from this thread. That is what I meas by inconsistency.
I agree with you that it seems to come down to the stewards discretion. For me there are too many grey areas.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
So you finally got round to my position.Stewards discretion.What a phony position for the stewards.They get to pick the winner despite the interference,bumping and boring, over use of the whip, cutting across,taking ones ground,lying to the stewards. It all comes down at the end of the day to the stewards discretion.
- Total Posts 17716
I suppose what I am saying, and I THINK you are too, is that there are so many grey areas and it seems to come down to the judgement of the stewards on the day and, from where I am sitting, those judgements seem inconsistent.
Yes, it does come down to that. But in the case of the 2010 1000 Guineas the Stewards on the day were DEFINITE that Special Duty would have won without the interference. If they hadn’t been, or if they’d had a split decision, they wouldn’t have thrown Jacqueline Quest out.
It’s not the rule that has these grey areas, but life. The way the difficult cases are tackled has a clear pro forma, and its implementation does not produce serious inconsistency.
Nor do I think that there are "so many grey areas" as to render every enquiry a lottery. Certainly compared with the era before the rule was changed to the current formula, there were many
more
controversies than we see today.
So things are better, not worse, than they were. And Stewarding is also much better, not worse, than it used to be. And it will continue to improve as time goes on. Essentially the Stewards make professional decisions, guided by very competent professional aides, the Stipendiaries. We’re not going to agree with them on every decision – we can’t even agree amongst ourselves on most of these controversial cases. So it’s fair to give them some credit for doing a difficult job pretty well.
Well I’m sorry but if THAT is an example of improved stewarding we really are in trouble.
Jamie Spencer caused substantial interference to two horses in allowing his mount to drift all the way across the course with his whip in the wrong hand and received no ban. Do we really want to give the stewards credit for that?
His horse kept the race because he won by more than a length and yet the interference he caused cost the runner up at least that.
It seems that, unless the winning margin is very slight, the benefit of any doubt goes with the winner rather than the victim regardless of the extent of the interference. That cannot be right!
Why did Spencer not receive a ban when Silvestre De Sousa got 3 days for his ride on Namibian? What was the difference? Why did Frankie Dettori get banned for 9 days for his ride on Rewilding when Seamie Heffernan gets nothing for his ride on SO You Think?
I repeat – there is no consistency, the trainers know it, the jockeys know it and MOST of us know it too!!
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
- Total Posts 17716
Why did Frankie Dettori get banned for 9 days for his ride on Rewilding when Seamie Heffernan gets nothing for his ride on SO You Think? I repeat – there is no consistency, the trainers know it, the jockeys know it and MOST of us know it too!!
You’ll find the answer to that (as did I, thanks to Yeats) on the thread I started yesterday:
https://theracingforum.co.uk/horse-r … 87321.html
I was wrong to suggest there that according to the guidelines Heffernan should have received a ban. He was in the clear (just). There’s been no inconsistency in interpretation of the guidelines in these cases.
And there is no "maximum distance" evoked in the Guidelines or Rule on Interference and disqualification. The perception is that there is, and in reality of course CERTAINTY (="beyond reasonable doubt") almost always only kicks in at distances of less than half a length.
But there’s too little inconsistency in the clear way the Guidelines are followed, either for whip bans or disqualifications, to make it a major issue.
Don’t want to make a major issue out of it as we are clearly not going to agree on it but I would absolutely disagree that there is little inconsistency. You still havent been able to tell me why De Sousa got a ban and Spencer didnt.
By the way is it
really
a "difficult job?" Watching 6 or 7 races a day? I can think of harder ones than that!
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.