- This topic has 11 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
After the James Doyle case last week, there were a few comments here and elsewhere which said jockeys should not take part in stewards enquiries.
The result of the last race at Bellewstown tonight was amended with the placings of the first and second past the post reversed. The stewards report states:
“The Raceday Stewards enquired into possible interference in the closing stages involving Royal Eagle, ridden by Mr A.J. Lord, placed first, and Walking On Glass, ridden by Miss A.B. O’Connor, placed second, where it appeared Walking On Glass had to switch.
Evidence was heard from the riders concerned. Miss A.B. O’Connor stated that her racing line was taken and she lost 3 lengths as a result of the interference. She also believed that she was on the best horse and would have won with a clear run. Mr. A. J. Lord stated that he was clear when he moved to the rail.
Having viewed the recording of the race and considered the evidence, the Raceday Stewards were of the opinion that Royal Eagle had caused interference to Walking On Glass in that he did improve his finishing position as a result of this interference so they reversed the placings of the first and second horses.”
I don’t think it was a terrible decision. There is a case for saying Walking On Glass might have won with a clear run. But was O’Connor really entitled to say she lost three lengths? That looks like a considerable exaggeration.
O’Connor is an experienced amateur rider. Whereas Lord is a young lad and (as I understand it) has never ridden a winner under Rules before. It has the look of a more streetwise rider holding an advantage in the enquiry.
If the stewards had not heard the claim of 3 lengths lost, would they have reached the same decision? While the decision was not unreasonable, it was still marginal. There have been similar instances where the result has stood.
I believe jockeys should be kept out of enquiries. Let the stewards decide and connections can appeal to an independent panel if they disagree with the decision.
Disclaimer: I backed the first past the post but fortunately with a bookmaker who paid out on both results!
I watched the replay as well as the head-on and thought there wasn’t much of real race-changing interference at all. Royal Eagle went for the rails without really shutting the door and the jockey on the runner-up didn’t stop riding, imo. She just switched to the outside and it looked to me as if Walking On Glass got going very late without having to stop it’s momentum about 150 yards from the finish.
How could she come up with a loss of three lengths?It’s true, jockeys shouldn’t be part of the enquiry, especially when some inexperienced Stewards could get influenced by a more streetwise jockey. I still think the horse first past the post should have kept the race.
The solution isn’t to disenfranchise jockeys but to improve the quality of the stewarding. I vote they remain!
For me, jockeys should always be allowed to give their side of the story but I think thay they should probably be seen seperately as the jockey speaking 2nd can tailor their explanation to mitigate what the 1st jockey said.
At the end of the day, all stewards should be sufficiently experienced/versed in when a jockey is over egging their explanation to try and sway them for a favourably decision and that goes to having better trained stewards or even a centralised professional stewarding board who precide over all decisions to ensure a better form of consistency in decision making.
As we have seen recently, even with some of the same stewards sitting on panels reviewing similar incidents in quick succession of each other we have ended up with two wildly different decisions being made (one of which you can argue was just baffling and could have set a worrying precedent going forward) and is clearly sending mixed messages to the jockeys in over complicating a process that is already difficult enough to begin with.
“It looked to me as if Walking On Glass got going very late without having to stop it’s momentum about 150 yards from the finish.”
That is how it looked to me as well. Royal Eagle seemed to go away from the runner up again as they went over that annoying path which crosses the course just before the finish. Then Walking On Glass rallied and closed up as the finishing line approached, possibly due to Royal Eagle idling or simply getting tired.
As I said, I think it was a marginal case. Personally I would have erred towards letting the result stand but I appreciate why the stewards took a different view. I don’t think their decision is flat out wrong, as with the Windsor decision.
However, I don’t like hearing about O’Connor going into the stewards room and saying Lord cost her three lengths. That is simply not credible.
Of course, it is not known how much weight the stewards attached to O’Connor’s evidence. Perhaps they had already decided amongst themselves to amend the result and privately laughed at O’Connor’s exaggerated claim. But if they were doubtful and O’Connor’s testimony swayed their decision, I think that is unfair on the connections of Royal Eagle.
I feel sorry for the young lad to have lost the race after thinking he had ridden his first winner. It will be interesting to see if connections appeal.
As said previously jockeys should not be involved in enquiries regarding the result as they tell lies and give misleading information. Apparently the BHA say that any jockeys who give misleading or incorrect information in an enquiry would be punished. How many have they punished so far? They must all be telling the truth.
As for the BHA head of stewarding Shaun Parker and his cronies and the idiotic questions they ask the jockeys in an enquiry, it tells it own story. No wonder they wont allow the stewards deliberations to be recorded and broadcast. What about openness and transparency?
As for the Irish one last night, I said soon as the race finished there would be an enquiry but you wouldn’t have guessed listening to the 2 “experts” in the Racing TV studio, they obviously wanted to make a quick exit.
There was nothing on either the Racing Post or Sporting Life website about any enquiry when I looked last night and the first I knew the result had been changed was seeing this thread this morning.I wasn’t surprised at Casey and O’Connell missing it but I expected Gary O’Brien to say the stewards might take a look. Maybe he was thinking of making a sharp exit as well.
CAS and yeats have mentioned two things that are key to me in a Stewards Enquiry:
a) jockeys telling no lies or starting to exaggerate about how much ground they’ve lost due to a probable interference
b) Stewards deliberations should be made public, like after a trial in court. It’s the only way for the general public to understand their decisions/verdict and for the sport to become more transparent.Are stewards actually allowed to bet at tracks they are stewarding at?
The more I know the less I understand.
No, they are absolutely not allowed to bet. That would create a clear conflict of interest.
At least they cannot bet officially. I have heard anecdotes otherwise but perhaps they can be allowed the benefit of the doubt.
Here are last night’s highlights from Bellewstown. You will need to scroll forward to race 8 to see the nonsense of O’Connor’s claim she was cost 3 lengths.
Watching it again, I now believe the result should have stood. It is not a dreadful decision by the stewards but I think it is harsh.
I switched on RTV a few minutes ago. It happened to be showing a replay of the Bellewstown race. After it was over, a caption appeared on screen showing Royal Eagle as the winner with “Result Stands”. He was then shown as the winner on the caption showing all the winners.
Did everyone leave the building before the official result was announced?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.