- This topic has 84 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Is Spencer not able to ride a straight line?Aidan wanted him to go to the Gym to build up muscle. He said that Jamie was not strong enough.If he cannot keep the horse running straight then he needs to get down and let someone else do the steering.
- Total Posts 17716
You still havent been able to tell me why De Sousa got a ban and Spencer didnt.
Read the relevant portions of the judgements for yourself, plus the Rules, and you’ll understand why. The two incidents to which you are referring (Haydock Saturday, Queens Vase) were different in kind: but you’ll have to do some of your own work on this to get the point – my telling you will make no difference!
So go here and do a search on "Sylveste de Sousa". The various enquiries in which he’s been involved will come up in order:
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/resou … ewards.aspYou’ll see the key words are "accidental" and "careless", the latter judging the Ascot ride (where De Sousa admitted that he’d allowed his horse to drift into the runner-up to give him something to race against). Careless riding plus his contravention of the whip guidelines resulted in the ban.
I fail to understand the reasons people believe the stewards should have taken the race from Spencer. (A lot anti-Spencer sentiment around perhaps.) Doesn’t the rule say something about punishing riders, not horses or connections? The horse was by far the winner on merit and was never going to lose that race. Was he suspended? If not, he should have been. He deserved a week at least for that riding performance, but on the other hand he was scrubbing the horse form the get go and still won with him.
Bottom line is, the horse was the best on the day and the stewards were correct in allowing him keep the race. Spencer should receive a lengthy suspension though.
As for the JQ Guineas… Again the stewards got it right. The horse finished in front by a hair and carried the eventual winner across the track. How anyone could say that it didn’t cost the ‘runner-up’ at least a head is surely talking through his pocket or just through sympathy for the ‘Ah! Poor owner".
Thank you for being so helpful Pinza
It doesnt really answer my question though as it is obvious that Spencer was not banned because the riding was deemed accidental when it looked anything but to me. Day in day out nowadays we see jocks being ultra careful about crossing in front of other horses from wide draws as many of them have been banned. Yet this is precisely what Spencer did – just at the end of the race. It was very telling that Elsworth instructed him not to talk to the press afterwards. They KNEW they were on thin ice. I’m sorry but it was disgraceful that he wasnt banned.
The facts are he took away any chance that the 3rd had and then completely took out SDS. If it had been cycling or F1 he would have been disqualified but, as usual, racing turns a blind eye.
Through my work I’ve had the misfortune to meet several of the old dinosaurs that run our game. Out of touch old farts who have no place in the industry. I fear those presiding at Haydock on Saturday were of the same school.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
I don’t know how that result wasn’t amended. De Sousa had to basically snatch up to prevent the horse going through the rail. Then he had to start again while Spencer’s mount was still in full flight.
Do the stewards actually take into account the fact that the horse that has been interfered with loses so much momentum that it has basically no chance whatsoever of getting back at the winner.
- Total Posts 17716
Through my work I’ve had the misfortune to meet several of the old dinosaurs that run our game. Out of touch old farts who have no place in the industry. I fear those presiding at Haydock on Saturday were of the same school.
Out of touch with… what, precisely? Age brings wisdom, and distance from the battle might be called "objectivity"!
That aside, just one last reminder
Jonibake
. Those presiding would have been two amateurs, plus one paid Professional – and all three would have been guided as to the process and rules by a second Professional, who would also have asked all the questions of the jockeys.
It’s all rather similar to the British Jury system. Would you really like to have fully professional juries, rather than "ordinary people" under strict guidance from the Professionals?
Through my work I’ve had the misfortune to meet several of the old dinosaurs that run our game. Out of touch old farts who have no place in the industry. I fear those presiding at Haydock on Saturday were of the same school.
Out of touch with… what, precisely? Age brings wisdom, and distance from the battle might be called "objectivity"!
That aside, just one last reminder
Jonibake
. Those presiding would have been two amateurs, plus one paid Professional – and all three would have been guided as to the process and rules by a second Professional, who would also have asked all the questions of the jockeys.
It’s all rather similar to the British Jury system. Would you really like to have fully professional juries, rather than "ordinary people" under strict guidance from the Professionals?
oops – I take it your old then!
Out of touch with everything hence the need for RFC which would be a great idea if it wasnt for the fact it is being run by more out of touch old farts!
Age must have made you forgetful as you already told us about the amateur and professional thing – I didnt see the relevance of it the first time. Profesional or amateur they are useless and…………….INCONSISTENT!!!!
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
- Total Posts 17716
oops – I take it your old then!
Considerably less old than I was forty years ago. Like Merlin, I age backwards. I expect to reach my second (or rather first) childhood in approximately 100 years.
Out of touch with everything hence the need for RFC which would be a great idea if it wasnt for the fact it is being run by more out of touch old farts!
I take it you don’t buy into the very sound economic arguments? which should have made RfC concentrate on your BOF’s (who have time and spare money) and to heck with the BYF’s (who have neither!)
Age must have made you forgetful as you already told us about the amateur and professional thing – I didnt see the relevance of it the first time. Profesional or amateur they are useless and…………….INCONSISTENT!!!!
Well there’s no point in repeating the arguments again. If you don’t like the current breed of young, well-trained professional Stewards there is nothing – absolutely nothing – to stop you applying to BHA for an application form. Put your money where your mouth is, Jonibake!
Great stuff Pinza! I’m going to apply today! Then you’ll see!!!!
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
- Total Posts 17716
Has anyone got a link to the Spencer race?
So if a horse tackles the leader in the last part of the race and the leader responds before getting smashed into the rail, or just plain impeded, taking away all chance of victory and allowing the other horse to win by a length, that’s ok? And it’s ok because nobody can say the impeded horse would DEFINITELY have won?
Well there’as a loophole to be exploited, eh?
Are you serious, Pinza? Do you really condone that? Yes, you say those are the rules, but do you think that’s right, or even makes sense?
Why is the offender the only one given benefit of the doubt? How can anyone say the impeded horse would have DEFINITELY lost, or would DEFINITELY not have rallied, even though on this occasion, the horse appeared to be? What a total nonsense!
- Total Posts 17716
Are you serious, Pinza? Do you really condone that? Yes, you say those are the rules, but do you think that’s right, or even makes sense?
Why is the offender the only one given benefit of the doubt? How can anyone say the impeded horse would have DEFINITELY lost, or would DEFINITELY not have rallied, even though on this occasion, the horse appeared to be? What a total nonsense!
My contribution on this thread has been to urge people to read the actual rules, and understand the stewarding process, both of which are rational and clear. I have no personal view on the matter at all, beyond the thought that there will always be grey areas and pocket-based discontent whatever you do – so my being "serious" or not doesn’t enter into it.
Your use of the morally weighted word "condone" implies that you feel something very wrong is going on. If you don’t like the rules, fine – but railing about them (least of all at innocent bystanders!) does nothing to change them. Lobby the BHA if the situation upsets you.
You seem to be suggesting that we should be following the more draconian French practise of disqualifying anything that causes interference, whether accidental or not, and whether or not it made any difference to the result. That’s at least as clear as our current rule, if less nuanced. And I seem to recall plenty of moaning threads about it, when the similar grey-area "injustices" crop up in France (
Da Re Mi
springs to mind).
So, what would you have? It’s for you to suggest a workable alternative, not me.
This issue seems to have upset a lot of people. Pocket talk perhaps or personal animosity towards the rider in question. Related?
And it appears many have taken the stewards decision personally. Agree or disagree, that is your right, but the fact remains, as spelled out by a more erudite poster than myself, the rules are as they stand and you have to accept them. You don’t have to like them.
Spencer should have been banned. No question, but would the second or third have won the race? That is not so clear and therefore, whatever our opinions, they could not and did not disqualify the winner.
Thanks for clarifying your stance, Pinza.
The mention of ‘pocket talk’ or even ‘personal animosity towards the rider in question’ is immature, tiresome and irrelevant. Have we reached a point where nobody can question a decision without having some rotten motive?
This a horse racing forum, where matters of stewarding will be quite prominent in debate, as you’d expect it to, as it’s the law of the track and really quite interesting.
Needless to add, I’m a fan of horseracing.
Absolutely agree. I didn’t have a bet, I don’t have any adverse feelings towards Spencer and I certainly didnt take it personally? It was a controversial incident and I enjoyed debating it with Pinza.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
Motive is important. Surely? However, since I don’t, nor have any reason to, doubt that you are a fan of horseracing and your motives are in the interest of the game, I say fair enough.
I stated an opinion, one you disagree with. Ok, Irrelevant? Your opinion. Immature? Condescending. But I don’t believe motive is irrelevant at all. So, fine. We disagree, no problem. How’s that for maturity?
Motive is important. Surely?
As I stated, I’m a racing fan. Is that not enough motivation to post on this topic on a horseracing forum?
I stated an opinion, one you disagree with. Ok, Irrelevant?
Yes, irrelevant. And slightly insulting to be honest.
Why feel the need to psycho analyse when there’s plenty enough to debate about?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.