- This topic has 105 replies, 46 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
If the stewards hadn´t changed this result then they may as well have sent jockeys a circular saying- "do what you need to to win, we´ll never take a race off you for interference".
Hard to understand Tom Queally´s thinking switching his whip when he did- 2 more cracks right-handed and while he might not have won he certainly wouldn´t have had any stewarding troubles.
Bringing the personalities involved into it is irrelevant and pointless.The biggest problem as I think we all know is that none of us know what is correct. We can all read the rules but they don’t help in every sense unfortunately.
For example, the 1:50 Maiden race at Newmarket on the 28th August 2009. (It’s available for free on sportinglife.com) Paleo won the race by a nose, whilst lugging into the 2nd. Some might feel the interference was greater than the Special Duty case, others might feel it was less, but I’d still love to know how the stewards call an enquiry for interference when the difference between two horses is a margin of a nose, and then allow the result to stand. A nose margin is how much in millimetres again?
"Big Buck’s" wrote: 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 you wholeheartedly there, if JQ had run straight to the line she probably would have won anyway, but she caused SD to lose ground. I suppose atleast with the French system there would be no doubt.
I’ve been thinking about the race again and remembered Dylan Thomas in the Arc and Frozen Fire in that Irish race, neither of which lost the race.
Agreed that Dylan Thomas was very lucky to keep that Arc, I am not sure how he managed to still.
Frozen Fire never went near another horse so a very different story, there was a some spurious talk about team tactics but Alessendro Volta was just unmanagebale that day…good decision that one though hard on Tartan Bearer.Even from the posts here it is clear there is a cultural leasning in GB that the first past the post is given ‘the benefit’ by a sizeable minority.
Sad for connections but JQ swerved off a line towards the French filly, them bumped her and then carried her across the track. Our rules are a very unfunny joke and we were very lucky that JQ didn’t hamper SD even more resulting in a half length loss for the French filly.
The rules are constructed to make severe interference more profitable than minor interference, as long as you can cosmetically (whip in the ‘correct’ hand) pretend to be trying to keep straight.
Jockeys are implicitly encouraged to inconvenience other runners, it happens everyday as jockeys are steering horses towards rivals with their legs and through the mouth whilst brandishing the whip on the ‘correct’ side.
Horses are not reared and trained to take primary instruction on direction from of the slap of the whip.We need to get away from whip hand as an indicator of guilt or the level of care being applied by the rider.
If the stewards hadn´t changed this result then they may as well have sent jockeys a circular saying- "do what you need to to win, we´ll never take a race off you for interference".
Hard to understand Tom Queally´s thinking switching his whip when he did- 2 more cracks right-handed and while he might not have won he certainly wouldn´t have had any stewarding troubles.
Bringing the personalities involved into it is irrelevant and pointless.Spot on Carvillshill.
I find it hard to believe Queally’s ride hasn’t received more criticism really.
"moehat" wrote: I’ve been thinking about the race again and remembered Dylan Thomas in the Arc and Frozen Fire in that Irish race, neither of which lost the race.
Frozen Fire came doen the wide outside, didn’t cause any interferance. Johhny Murtagh aboard Allassandro Volta caused the damage.
So the Newmarket Stewards are Soul Destroyers & Tossers while the Haydock stewards are totally blind!
The 2.00 yesterday & the winner Lovelace just got past the third Marching & for good measure piled right across the track squeezing Marching into the rail quite clearly interfering.
No stewards enquiry, no ammeneded result, no nothing & the only difference I could see between the two incidents is that while Special Duty had the whole track to get pushed into, Marching had nothing but the rail.
It’s absolutely disgusting & until the BHA manage consitency over all stewarding, it’s going to make flat racing look as bent as the proverbial nine bob note.
I suppose it’a alright to do it to a horse that’s 66/1 but not to a horse that’s 3/1.
So the Newmarket Stewards are Soul Destroyers & Tossers while the Haydock stewards are totally blind!
The 2.00 yesterday & the winner Lovelace just got past the third Marching & for good measure piled right across the track squeezing Marching into the rail quite clearly interfering.
No stewards enquiry, no ammeneded result, no nothing & the only difference I could see between the two incidents is that while Special Duty had the whole track to get pushed into, Marching had nothing but the rail.
It’s absolutely disgusting & until the BHA manage consitency over all stewarding, it’s going to make flat racing look as bent as the proverbial nine bob note.
I suppose it’a alright to do it to a horse that’s 66/1 but not to a horse that’s 3/1.
Not a good analogy though.
In the Haydock race. the winner interfered with the eventual third, Marching. Marching was beaten half a length and a length and three quarters. It cannot be said that it would have beaten the winner without the interference. Conversely Special Duty was beaten a nostril.
Action WAS taken by the Haydock stewards against winning rider Adrian Nicholls. He got a 3 day ban for careless. Quite right too as no attempt was made to pull the stick through to correct his horse drifting
I never could understand the English -Irish rules regarding interference and keeping a straight line.I much prefer the American – French rules. You dont have to wait to see which horse the stewards thought was the best. You can see the interference and you know what is about to take place because the crime will be suitably punished according to the rules regardless of the opinion of the stewards about the virtual outcome.You do the crime you do your time so to speak. No what if’s, who might have won? etc,etc,etc.You come off a straight line,you take another horses ground,you go behind him.That is the rule.End of story.
So the Newmarket Stewards are Soul Destroyers & Tossers while the Haydock stewards are totally blind!
The 2.00 yesterday & the winner Lovelace just got past the third Marching & for good measure piled right across the track squeezing Marching into the rail quite clearly interfering.
No stewards enquiry, no ammeneded result, no nothing & the only difference I could see between the two incidents is that while Special Duty had the whole track to get pushed into, Marching had nothing but the rail.
It’s absolutely disgusting & until the BHA manage consitency over all stewarding, it’s going to make flat racing look as bent as the proverbial nine bob note.
I suppose it’a alright to do it to a horse that’s 66/1 but not to a horse that’s 3/1.
Not a good analogy though.
In the Haydock race. the winner interfered with the eventual third, Marching. Marching was beaten half a length and a length and three quarters. It cannot be said that it would have beaten the winner without the interference. Conversely Special Duty was beaten a nostril.
Action WAS taken by the Haydock stewards against winning rider Adrian Nicholls. He got a 3 day ban for careless. Quite right too as no attempt was made to pull the stick through to correct his horse drifting
I think it’s a fair analogy actually. Special Duty got bumped but had half the width of the track to keep running, Marching on the other hand had nowhere to go except into the rails. With only the rails for company what choice did Marching have other than to slow down & give up the momentum? I’d be more inclined to disqualify Lovelace than less so. For me it was far more a blantant ‘cheat’ than in the Guineas.
So the Newmarket Stewards are Soul Destroyers & Tossers while the Haydock stewards are totally blind!
The 2.00 yesterday & the winner Lovelace just got past the third Marching & for good measure piled right across the track squeezing Marching into the rail quite clearly interfering.
No stewards enquiry, no ammeneded result, no nothing & the only difference I could see between the two incidents is that while Special Duty had the whole track to get pushed into, Marching had nothing but the rail.
It’s absolutely disgusting & until the BHA manage consitency over all stewarding, it’s going to make flat racing look as bent as the proverbial nine bob note.
I suppose it’a alright to do it to a horse that’s 66/1 but not to a horse that’s 3/1.
Not a good analogy though.
In the Haydock race. the winner interfered with the eventual third, Marching. Marching was beaten half a length and a length and three quarters. It cannot be said that it would have beaten the winner without the interference. Conversely Special Duty was beaten a nostril.
Action WAS taken by the Haydock stewards against winning rider Adrian Nicholls. He got a 3 day ban for careless. Quite right too as no attempt was made to pull the stick through to correct his horse drifting
I think it’s a fair analogy actually. Special Duty got bumped but had half the width of the track to keep running, Marching on the other hand had nowhere to go except into the rails. With only the rails for company what choice did Marching have other than to slow down & give up the momentum? I’d be more inclined to disqualify Lovelace than less so. For me it was far more a blantant ‘cheat’ than in the Guineas.
We agree to disagree then
There was no chance whatsoever of Lovelace losing that race
Of course there was no chance of Lovelace losing that race, he wasn’t 66/1!
I didn’t see C4’s coverage yesterday, what did Francombe make of it?
Of course there was no chance of Lovelace losing that race, he wasn’t 66/1!
I didn’t see C4’s coverage yesterday, what did Francombe make of it?
Anthony,did Lovelaces wanderings affect the result? Of course it didn"t! Adrian got his wrists slapped,fair enough but the winner won on merit.Simple one that! Lets see when we get a bit more of a close call as to what the Stewards do!
- Total Posts 17716
but the winner won on merit
Yeah and JQ didn’t…………..
Give me a break.
Of course there was no chance of Lovelace losing that race, he wasn’t 66/1!
I didn’t see C4’s coverage yesterday, what did Francombe make of it?
Anthony,did Lovelaces wanderings affect the result? Of course it didn"t! Adrian got his wrists slapped,fair enough but the winner won on merit.Simple one that! Lets see when we get a bit more of a close call as to what the Stewards do!
Of course it affected the result & I’ve explained perfectly adequately why. You can’t keep running at the same speed if you’ve got nowhere to go other than a running rail. And to say the winner won on merit just goes to prove my point. Namely that a 3/1 shot does it & it’s easy to say ‘well they’re the better horse anyway.’ You can’t say that about a 66/1 shot.
Didn’t both jockeys get three day bans? Because if the crime by each is enough to warrant the same punishment then it’s the exact same crime. Either both results should’ve been ammended on neither should have.
Of course there was no chance of Lovelace losing that race, he wasn’t 66/1!
I didn’t see C4’s coverage yesterday, what did Francombe make of it?
Being pedantic it is Francome with no "b".
He was given the day off yesterday. Cattermole observed that there was interference but that all that would happen was Nicholls getting a holiday for failing to pull his stick through to correct his mount.
The replay is still available on RUK. Their pundits state that the interference was "neither here nor there" and that "the winner won on merit".
Take another look.
You’re picking a bad example to back up a far fetched conspiracy theory about the Guineas.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.