- This topic has 105 replies, 46 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
They claimed that the decimal odds trial as a success too but those in the know and those taking part knew it was a complete and utter failure.
They didn’t claim that at all. And a bookmaker is quoted as saying it was worth a try. If it didn’t work, well that’s why they call it a trial.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_s … 657783.stm
Although I don’t know why I’m arguing. I don’t like decimal odds at all.
They claimed that the decimal odds trial as a success too but those in the know and those taking part knew it was a complete and utter failure.
and we will never see it again hopefully! 1.01 says so,or is it 1.00? F****n Joke!
- Total Posts 17716
I was fuming when they changed the result..How could I possibly bet against a horse who beat Canford Cliffs who had 24 hours earlier ran so well in the 2000 Guineas
How could anyone?To be honest I never bothered watching the head on as there seemed little need. The jockey on Jaquelines had his whip in the wrong hand on horse who’s drifting like a barge?
I suppose in the heat of the moment he just drove for the line hoping he wouldn’t barge into the other horse but he was wrong and paid the price.
Right decision at the end of the day.
Can I make an ‘out there’ suggestion?
JQ drifted & took Special Duty with her, the stewards felt that without that Special Duty would have won so they awarded her the race.
Now, if it had been the other way round, is it not possible that the stewards would have said, ‘well Special Duty is the better horse, JQ wouldn’t have won anyway’?
The real Question is,what if the "winner" had won by a proper neck? Tough call to say it cost the runner up that much!
Can I make an ‘out there’ suggestion?
JQ drifted & took Special Duty with her, the stewards felt that without that Special Duty would have won so they awarded her the race.
Now, if it had been the other way round, is it not possible that the stewards would have said, ‘well Special Duty is the better horse, JQ wouldn’t have won anyway’?
The real Question is,what if the "winner" had won by a proper neck? Tough call to say it cost the runner up that much!
Indeed. I was a bit unsettled when the steward described the winning margin as ‘a pixel.’ I had an image of an automated system deciding the outcome rather than a person.
Indeed. I was a bit unsettled when the steward described the winning margin as ‘a pixel.’ I had an image of an automated system deciding the outcome rather than a person.
He did indeed Anthony and was the Pixel in question one of 1080 per sq inch or just from a 780 monitor? Who would be a Steward these days? I remember the days of Major Brigadeer Rupert Viceroy-Farqhuar-Smyth-Hambleton and co slingin a G&T down between races and seeing double by the time the print was in front of his Bi-focals!
http://www.racinguk.com/page/forcelogin … 10,00.html
(RUK account required I think)
Fleeting Spirit veers left markedly, when corrected, she veered right violently, forcing the 2nd and 3rd, who were still challenging to swerve and snatch up and effectively end their challenges.
The immediate post race comments of Lydia Hyslop and Steve Mellish were:
"massively inconvenienced" – the 2nd and 3rd
staggered if the winner loses the race
hanging markedly both ways – the winner
margin of success key, in their opinion
significant interference, without any doubt.An almost minor coming together? Leaning in? Not a bit of it. The winner, whilst in front, almost causes a pile up. But because she won by 1.25L, she was 1/50 to keep the race and did so.
In the 1000, JQ came very close to Special Duty but hardly impeded the French Filly’s progress, although I understand there is a claim that she "took her ground". As they were side by side that seems suggestive at best. JQ then leaned in, but not violently, with her jockey’s urgings. Special Duty was never impeded to anything like the extent of the rivals in the fleeting spirit race.
So if JQ was, say, half a length up, and swerves right across the track, which she didn’t do, and causes Special Duty to snatch up and slow momentum, ending her challenge, which she didn’t do, what happens? Keeps the race?
SHAMBOLIC DECISION IMHO
BB as explained by the stewards the ‘winning’ distance was a pixel.
They decided more than a pixel was lost. When asked what if it had been more than a pixel they said they don’t do ‘what ifs’.
They were correct.
I hate results being changed but feel it was the correct decision to reverse this one. It was a poor piece of riding from Queally as I thought there was every chance Jacqueline Quest would have won if he’d kept the whip in his right hand and her straight.
One thing I do have a problem with is stewards coming up with a different decision solely based on whether the winning distance is a nose/shorthead or a head/neck when that difference in distance is purely down to a nod of the head of either horse.The stewards got it right per the rules but really they’ve not been strict to enforce the rules on a regular basis. Tom Queally probably thought he got away with it. This has led to a lack of clarity with regard to these rules and thats why we have this forum topic to begin with.
Fleeting Spirit veers left markedly, when corrected, she veered right violently, forcing the 2nd and 3rd, who were still challenging to swerve and snatch up and effectively end their challenges.
The immediate post race comments of Lydia Hyslop and Steve Mellish were:
"massively inconvenienced" – the 2nd and 3rd
staggered if the winner loses the race
hanging markedly both ways – the winner
margin of success key, in their opinion
significant interference, without any doubt.An almost minor coming together? Leaning in? Not a bit of it. The winner, whilst in front, almost causes a pile up. But because she won by 1.25L, she was 1/50 to keep the race and did so.
In the 1000, JQ came very close to Special Duty but hardly impeded the French Filly’s progress, although I understand there is a claim that she "took her ground". As they were side by side that seems suggestive at best. JQ then leaned in, but not violently, with her jockey’s urgings. Special Duty was never impeded to anything like the extent of the rivals in the fleeting spirit race.
So if JQ was, say, half a length up, and swerves right across the track, which she didn’t do, and causes Special Duty to snatch up and slow momentum, ending her challenge, which she didn’t do, what happens? Keeps the race?
SHAMBOLIC DECISION IMHO
Not far wrong. Basically, if any jockey in the lead has any doubts as to if another horse is going to pass them, under the current British rules, they should cut the rival horse/s up so badly that they win by a length. Then the stewards need to be sure that the horses interfered with would have beat the winner with a clear run. How can they be with a margin of a length? Take the 2:15 at Leicester on the 8th April 2010. I’d suggest that interference was much worse, but, again, because the margin was 1/2 length, the stewards did nothing. But they can’t do anything. Ad Valorem won the Queen Anne in 2006 with far greater interference. Severe interference goes largely unpunished, because of how great the margin will be in those situations. It is utter madness, although I agree with the stewards decision on this occasion, purely because I find it hard to believe that Special Duty never lost a "nose."
I doubt the stewards really knew much about JC’s owner or gave the ownership any consideration and I’m sure the decision was not based on that.
However, they knew they were evaluating whether to change the result from a Henry Cecil winner to a French winner and given there was room for doubt they should be ashamed of themselves for doing so. We have all seem many examples of similar and worse interference and the result has not been changed.
So if JQ was, say, half a length up, and swerves right across the track, which she didn’t do, and causes Special Duty to snatch up and slow momentum, ending her challenge, which she didn’t do, what happens? Keeps the race?
This is why the French system is far far better than the British one.
Nobody can ever state with any certainty "what ifs" so therefore you should err on the side of caution and give the benefit of the doubt to the impeded horse and NOT the one which crossed the line first.
Fleeting Spirit should have been thrown out
THM – It looked to me (I backed Seta) as if JQ would have fended off SD if they were still going now, she was in front the whole time and lest we forget SD couldn’t get past. If JQ had continued to lean left, cutting up unplaced rivals, and bagged the rail, I think she’d have definitely won. The point is there is no way we can say that, if the loser ran in a straight line, she’d have won. Bizarre. If JQ had run in a straight line she’d have won more comfortably than she did.
I agree with Jose and David. If the French rule was in place I’d have said "oh harsh but correct". This decision was not correct. It was based on a series of false assumptions without evidence and without surety, and everyone is falling over themselves to hand the race to the runner-up. Queally’s only error, as the chaps say, was not to barge the life out of Special Duty and throw her across the track to win…go on…let’s say 3/4 of a length.
‘Cos that woulda been just fine and dandy and she’da won fair and a square then. Brilliant.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.