- This topic has 28 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Once again I have been robbed by the lily livered stewards in the 2.40 race at Newmarket today 20/7/2013. How can they copme to the conclusion that elusive kate having drifted about 75 yds to the other side of the track taking sky lantern with her and only winning by a neck would have still won. If sky lantern had challenged on the right hand side she would have won 3 lengths.
Also she was hit in the face twice by William buick on elusive kate makes a stronger case still. I have never forgot when they robbed me of another winner in the Lincoln disqualifying hunters of brora who got the race on appeal. We should have professional stewards not these lily livered gentleman from the old boys club.
Any horse who interferes with another in the closing stages of a race should be disqualified. Not because he prevents the other horse from winning but because he interferes with another horse in the closing stages of a race. That should be the rule. But that is too simple for English stewards who have a fanciful notion that they can tell what would, or could, or should happen.
I saw an interview of Richard hannon and Richard hughes on Saturday gone, they mentioned that they were thinking of appealing the stewards decision on the sky lantern race. I know that they have to appeal before the end of today. Ide appreciate it if any one can tell me if they do. Thanks. I have now got over my loss having won £400 on Saturday.
I think we have a bit of pocket talking here. I don’t know how anyone could say Sky Lantern would have won let alone by three lengths.
There was no contact and, as far as I could see, the jockey on Sky Lantern didn’t have to stop riding. Yes Elusive Kate drifted but she was always holding the runner up. IMO the stewards were right.
Sometimes you win in the stewards room sometimes you lose. It’s amazing how people only remember the times they lose and claim they were robbed, they never remember the times they have benefited. A bit like in poker where people only remember their bad beats and not the times they have inflicted it on others.
No contact getting hit in the face twice by William buicks whip! I would’ent say no contact, if Richard hughes had challenged on the right I still say she would have won 3 lengths ok! Maybe just 2 or 1 The (distance is just a guess) but sl would have certainly won. The ground ek would have lost drifting that far over would have certainly cost her the race.
Any horse who interferes with another in the closing stages of a race should be disqualified. Not because he prevents the other horse from winning but because he interferes with another horse in the closing stages of a race. That should be the rule. But that is too simple for English stewards who have a fanciful notion that they can tell what would, or could, or should happen.
Andy
The stewards apply the rules as set down by the BHA. The have to take an opinion on an incident as they see it and it’s impossible for them to work otherwise. If they weren’t allowed to form an opinion then every result would remain the same and enquiries would be pointless.
I suggest any rule which disqualified all horses that interfere with any others in the closing stages would create a problem exponentially bigger than any perceived error in a particular case.
Rob
I suggest any rule which disqualified all horses that interfere with any others in the closing stages would create a problem exponentially bigger than any perceived error in a particular case.
Rob
Absolutely Rob – and it can be even worse than that, I was once at a meeting at Woodbine where the favourite jinked left and interfered with the horse in the next stall as the gates opened.
As it happened the fav only finished an unplaced fourth but the Stewards still disqualified it and placed it last for that interference coming out of the gate.
AL kazeem kept the race and that was the correct decision, the rider of the 2nd admitted he would only have got 2nd place if he had’ent had to snatch up. The two cases are completely different.
Did you back AL kazeem?
and do you think that every single horse that drifts just like
Elusive Kate
did even those that you have
backed
should lose the race?
and all horses that did what
AL Kazeem
did should keep the race? even if you had backed the interfered with horse?
Yes Elusive Kate drifted but she was always holding the runner up. Was she holding the runner up because she caused the runner up to also drift? There is quite a distinction between "drifting" on ones own and being "drifted" by another horse.Ones stride is not hampered when drifting it is when being drifted.
No I did’ent swear it was a long postand I do not feel like doing it again so I wont. I have just discovered that hannon and hughes have appealed and they’ll win.
No I did’ent swear it was a long postand I do not feel like doing it again so I wont. I have just discovered that hannon and hughes have appealed and they’ll win.
I did back Sky Lantern in the Falmouth and was there to see the race, this was her hardest to date running against the older horses and the mare Elusive Kate is the Warrior Queen I was divided in my loyalties that day and would have been happy to see Elusive Kate win but in a fair run contest.
However it was not the race that I wanted to see with Sky Lantern making her challenge being pushed across the course and sustaining a couple of hits on the nose into the bargain, who knows what mental damage that may do to the young filly who must have felt she was being punished for trying to get her head in front, nobody could have sustained a winning run under those circumstances and therefore I truly believe that the result will be reversed and Sky Lantern will be given the race on Appeal.
I have mentioned this example before when discussing this race,but just out of interest, can anyone explain why Jacqueline Quest lost her 1000 Guineas in 2010 for a similar offence and Elusive Kate keeps her race in the Stewards Room.
Things turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.