- This topic has 49 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
He asked what needs to happen to it be deemed dangerous
I half expected the steward to say when someone dies..
Blackbeard to conquer the World
Nick Luck just tweeted that he has had a very difficult job explaining to an American audience why the first past the post kept the race.
Lydia Hislop has been tweeting about the decision as well. It really needed a proper journalist like her to interview Hanagan, not a lightweight like Moore.
If the stewards are not going to deem that ride as dangerous, is there any point in the rule still being in the book?
Crispy Cat’s owner is very unhappy the result was allowed to stand, when interviewed on SSR after the Gold Cup.
The stewards really have made a major mistake with this decision.
It reminds me of the time the late Neville Crump was asked if a certain elderly member of the aristocracy would make a suitable racecourse steward. “Oh, he’d be perfect,” Crump replied. “He’s deaf, he’s blind and he knows **** all about racing.”
And after today’s decision, the same can be said about the Royal Ascot stewards.
Even if the “whole world” deems that this particular ride was dangerous, that’s not the issue in the context of BHA’s position. The BHA seems to be immune from any criticism because their justification is that, other than Canada and the US, all other racing jurisdictions have adopted their rules and not the other way around; i.e. adopting Canadian and American rules. Talk about sheer impudence and arrogance! Stuffy people with no concept of reality and not moving in to the 21st century…
The stewards said their rules are the same as France now.
That’s bull….!
Or rather…
The rules may be the same but they are interpreted differently.
France would have rightly found that dangerous and thrown the book at him.Nothing wrong with our rules. It’s the interpretation that’s wrong.
Ascot Stewards could have found it dangerous and thrown him out but didn’t have the bottle.
Value Is EverythingIf that isn’t dangerous, what is? I do think the winner would probably have won regardless, but that’s not a given and one or both of those horses could easily have fallen.
Let’s say, if Wesley Ward would’ve had a runner that got interfered with, do you think the Stewards would’ve demoted the winner? … I do!
“Let’s say, if Wesley Ward would’ve had a runner that got interfered with, do you think the Stewards would’ve demoted the winner? … I do!”
W ell, his top rider received 5 days for careless riding in the Queen Marry, with effect 29th June. Presumably, it will be honored in the US. Rightly so, he’s a total idiot notwithstanding his skills…
The last time a jockey was found guilty of dangerous riding in Britain was in 2009.
The stewards want us to believe that there has not been a single dangerous ride in 13 years.
He kept the race and that is the bottom line.
You want people to come racing. But explain to them why he kept the race.
Irony is he’s riding for a yard which may have dropped him as he was not strong enough in the saddle coming back from injury.
Maybe riding at the behest of the owners rather than the trainer. He is back in form which is good to see, but prepared to win at all costs and sod the consequences.
So, if Brave Nation’s jockey had (Goodness forbid) fallen off him would that have changed the stewards view?
I backed Brave Nation but don’t feel robbed because I’m used to these decisions. Watching the race time and time again I cannot see that he keeps that race. Complete carnage and nothing done.The owners of the beaten horses should all get together and appeal. They may not win but at least it would make the BHA explain why in their opinion it was not dangerous riding.
De Sousa says he thinks he would have won without the interference.
Steward spokesman basically said the interference wasn’t significant enough to be “dangerous”.
tbh It is possible De Sousa would’ve won, but unlikely as it was. However, shouldn’t they take into account had Hanagan taken evasive action it would’ve cost him momentum and therefore De Souza would’ve won?
Shouldn’t really matter if it didn’t affect the result, it was dangerous and therefore should’ve lost it.
Value Is Everything“Steward spokesman basically said the interference wasn’t significant enough to be “dangerous”.”
Why not find out what an appeal panel thinks? What do they have to lose? No one could say it was a frivolous appeal.
What exactly do the stewards and the BHA consider to be dangerous? Hanagan broadsided another runner and almost knocked it sideways.
Freddie Tylicki had to go to the courts to establish he was the victim of dangerous and negligent riding, which the stewards on the day presumably wrote off as just another racing incident.
It looks like it is going to take another rider ending up paralysed and in a wheelchair until the BHA realises it has created a huge problem. Because their message to jockeys is “you can mow down half the field but as long as you win by half a length or more you will keep the race.”
The Ascot stewards were guilty of dereliction of duty yesterday.
Note how the stewards admit that Hanagan’s riding caused a degree of risk to James Doyle.
Isn’t there a word beginning with d to describe it?
https://mobile.twitter.com/PatCummingsTIF/status/1537573843031805952?cxt=HHwWgMC-nfHQx9YqAAAA
Regarding Crispy Cat:
When they find that a winner stopped another horse from finishing second…
Why can’t the stewards order the difference in Connections prize money between the position achieved and position it would’ve achieved be taken from the winning purse and given to the third?Similarly for punters: Why can’t a rule similar to rule 4 be applied? If it’s found a winner prevents another from placing why not take the money from the winner’s profit and give it to punters who backed the horse that would’ve been placed?
Or would that all be too complicated?
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.