- This topic has 62 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Certainly the Newmarket stewards – who normally hold an enquiry at the slightest suggestion of a breach of the rules- need to explain why they didn’t hold an enquiry into that race. And would the HRA have acted unless they had been bounced into it by press reports of Murtagh’s comments and a couple or so of brave journalists who raised the issue of team tactics?
This is the result of The Stewards enquiry – on the day.
The Stewards held an enquiry under Rule 153 into possible interference at the two furlong marker. They found that PHOENIX TOWER (USA) ridden by Ted Durcan, placed second, had interfered with RED ROCK CANYON (IRE) ridden by C. O’Donoghue, unplaced. They considered that the interference was caused by careless riding in that Durcan manoeuvred left. They suspended him for 2 days as follows: Sunday, 7th and Monday, 8th September.
Is this decision going to be overturned ?
Backing two runners is the relentless pursuit of value. Backing each way is a shortcut to the poor house. Only 7% make a long term profit.
The two cases are entirely unrelated, other than that they happened in the same race.
The issue here imo is not that they pleaded and were found guilty but that this happened after the event. It should have been dealt with at the time by the stewards and leaves you with the feeling the stewards and the BHA seem to have different interpretations of the rules.
As to the fine and the riding bans well they are a definite warning but I have not seen anything as to whether they looked at what if any impact this had on the outcome of the race. After all this is the crux of the matter as why else employ team tactics other to gain an advantage. They said in advance the outcome of the race would not be affected by the inquiy but if they did look at this and decided the team tactics did not have any impact then fine, if they didn’t then they should have done, either way they should have said so.
The issue here imo is not that they pleaded and were found guilty but that this happened after the event. It should have been dealt with at the time by the stewards and leaves you with the feeling the stewards and the BHA seem to have different interpretations of the rules.
It couldn’t have been dealt with at the time as it was only later that Murtagh made his gaffe to a journalist by admitting a Ballydoyle carve-up. Had Murtagh not done so it would have been very difficult to prove on visual evidence alone.
Would this enquiry have been held if Johnny Murtagh hadn’t made his over-candid comments on record? No way. Did it achieve anything except to confirm the racing authority to be weak and all too willing to pander to public opinion? No. A black day in the annals of fairness in racing, I reckon.
CH, you contribute a lot that is great to this forum, but this is without doubt, quite a silly post.
Ballydoyle (Murtagh, O’Donoghue & O’Brien) broke the rules, and deserved their punishment.
We already knew the BHA are ineffectual; nothing yesterday made me change my opinion.
Ballydoyle only have Murtagh’s stupidity to thank for making the incident something even the BHA couldn’t ignore. That’s where AOB should be focusing his ire this morning.
The fact that Willoughby embarassed himself in the post this morning by describing how wrong that such an amazing season is being sullied by being punished by the BHA is cringeworthy; aside from the limp BHA, the racing public should be thankful the racing media brought this team tactics to the fore, and have hopefully put an end to the ugliness of watching one horse move aside for another from the same stable.
Willoughby was essentially trying to outlaw the just punishment of the great and mighty.
Ballydoyle broke the rules – fact. Yet JW is trying to say because they are having an amazing season, they should not be challenged or punished on this.
Granted, the BHA should have dealt with this better, as should the Newmarket Stewards, but yesterday was very much a positive day for British Horse Racing, and hopefully no longer will we have to watch races like the Juddmonte, Queen Anne, or for that matter Fantastic Light’s Irish Champion Stakes.
Am I missing something here?
Salse , you are indeed missing the point
Its Mean minded , totally and without exception meanness in the extreme
lets look at the big picture ,all the best
Ricky
Salselon
You say Ballydoyle broke the law, I say the law is an ass.
How can anyone who runs a pacemaker not be breaking the rules on team tactics? A horse running as a pacemaker is by definition being used to improve the chances of a horse in the same ownership to the detriment of its own chance. Either they need to scrap the egregious team tactics rule or else ban the use of pacemakers altogether.
I also don’t know how you can regard yesterday as good for racing, less still the events leading up to it. It will without doubt have a major negative effect on the openness of team Ballydoyle with the Press and leaves a sour taste over APOBs magnificent season- the uninitiated will feel that Ballydoyle have somehow cheated their way to 20 odd Group Ones, when nothing could be further from the truth.
I don’t think anything has happened this year that couldn’t have been dealt with by competent local stewards under the rules that pertained before the new team tactics one. If they feel interference has taken place (and I agree that the Queen Anne needed more scrutiny than the Juddmonte) then the rules of interference are perfectly adequate for them to act.Spot on Slaselon. Great post
and if Willoughby’s article was taking that line, then that is incredible and embarrasing
Would the FA lessen punishment of a rule breach for man utd because they had won the champions league or whatever? Sweep it under the carpet because they are A Big Club?
Any sport that ran itself on that basis would have zero credibility
The BRA is playing tiddly winks in a multi million dollar industry. Already they have lost Godolfin to America and Australia (No money in English racing) and The Aga Khan to France (No respect in English racing). Do they not see a trend?What happens if Coolmore decided like the Aga Khan to race solely in France and Ireland and to boycott the English seen?What would winning a group 1 in England be worth then?Ask the Italians about that.How many group 1 horses are currently trained in GB? Sad.It is not like we were entering a golden era in British racing.
Andyod,
How have they lost Godolphin?
So, just in case Ballydoyle decide to not race in the UK anymore, the BHA should pander to this by ensuring they are not held responsible when breaking rules?
The BRA is playing tiddly winks in a multi million dollar industry. Already they have lost Godolfin to America and Australia (No money in English racing) and The Aga Khan to France (No respect in English racing). Do they not see a trend?What happens if Coolmore decided like the Aga Khan to race solely in France and Ireland and to boycott the English seen?What would winning a group 1 in England be worth then?Ask the Italians about that.How many group 1 horses are currently trained in GB? Sad.It is not like we were entering a golden era in British racing.
They have not lost Godolphin. Godolphin have lost themselves, greatly due to the fact they refuse to use Coolmore sires. They have no horses in training in Australia. They have has an interest in America for a number of years. The Aga Khan left the British scene with the hump over the disqualification of Aliysa from the Oaks, nineteen years ago. Coolmore will not boycott English racing as it would be economic madness for them to do so. Economics are something for which the Aga Khan is not reliant.
Coolmore needs English racing more than English racing needs Coolmore.
If Coolmore boycotted English racing, Group 1 races will still be run, and won, and those winners will still have black type on their CVs.
- Total Posts 170
The comment that that the tiring horse pulled out of the way to let the fresher horse win – so they both ran to their merits is very strange.
Not often do you see a ‘tired’ horse pulled off the rail by a jockey to let a competitor up the inside on purpose – because his ‘mule’ has no chance of winning. Sometimes they drift under pressure – but rarely see them going, nah, I have no chance – lets let the horse behind get the best run.
In normal circumstances, the tiring horse would stay in position, against the rail – with the jockey hoping that they can drive him and that the horse gets a second wind. Of course the majority of the time, the horse behind comes sweeping up the outside and often cuts back to the rail.
Fact is, we all know what happens. Its not the first time its happened – there have been plenty of (in my view) justifiable claims of foul play before which stables have got away with.
Thing is folks , its not a question of rights and wrongs , its how our sport is perceived
Instead of celebrating AOB and team Coolmore on 20 group one race wins , we are now wallowing in the politics of envy
Willoughby was right , what on earth are we doing bringing negatives into a win win aspect for our game,and how on earth have we stooped so low as to actually celebrate this on TRF
It is not good
Ricky
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.