- This topic has 16 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Let me say from the outset I had no financial interest in the race in question, so I am speaking from a neutral position and not out of my pocket.
I thought the decision by the stewards to reverse the places in the first at Newmarket today was very harsh.
I was at Newmarket reading the race and although the first two did come together in the final half furlong, it looked to me to be accidental and six of one / half a dozen of the other, indeed the stewards also agreed it was accidental, and I believe Classic Descent "won" on merit.
My comments in running were.
Classic Descent – held up, headway 1F out, took lead 1/2F, edged left against the whip, held on comfortably
Black Rain – with pace, took lead 2F, under pressure and edged right final furlong, rallying again at end.
Although Sanders had the whip in his "wrong" hand, the contact was minimal and brief. No consideration seems to have been taken of the fact Spencer’s mount was drifting right.
At a push there could, technically, have been a case that Sanders was guilty of careless riding by not changing his whip hand. However the stewards did not deem him to be guilty of careless riding.
Having since reviewed the race from several angles, I am still of the opinion that Classic Descent won the race on merit.
I just hope the jockeys championship does not come down to Spencer winning by one or two rides. Having said that, Sanders is apparently going to appeal and I would be surprised if this afternoons original decision was not overturned.
I have seen many worse incidents where the results have not been amended. Is it not time to move from amateur to professional stewards? Having professional stewards may lead to some greater consistency.
Hi Paul,
I haven’t seen the race so don’t want to pass comment on this incident, but just to make you aware (as I am sure you are) it doesn’t make any difference whatsoever if the interference is accidental.
If horse A ‘accidentally’ interferes with horse B, and this ‘accidental interference’ prevents horse B from winning, then they will reverse placings.
At the end of the day, I don’t think any horse/jockey intentionally interferes with another, therefore the incidents will mostly be deemed accidental – it all boils down to the stewards and whether in their opinion they think the interference (accidental or not) had an impact on the result.
Mike
Paul, I think the decisive element was the distance between the two at the line.
It was the shortest of short heads, and Sanders’ mount, at least, leant on Spencer’s, and Jamie claimed that he was unable to ride out his horse properly.
There have been plenty of times when worse interference has been overlooked but not when the winning distance is so minimal.IMO!!!
Colin
I actually saw the race but was rushing out the door at the same time so I never saw the head on, in fact from what I seen from the side on I didn’t think any interference at all took place, only realised the horse had been disqualified when I logged on here.
But my own personal feeling regarding interference, and I must admit I feel very strongly about it, if the second horse is interfered with and there is even a smidgen of doubt, I think the interfered with should be awarded the race, as he was the entirely innocent party. For far too long now the blatantly guilty are allowed to keep the race, because the benefit was always given to the winner, even if he nearly drives the other horse through the rails, in fact it was getting quiet ridiculous, apart from a jockey producing a handgun and shooting the challenging rival dead, it was almost impossible to get thrown out. Unfortunate for Seb, brilliant for Jamie, but with virtually every bookmaker on the planet offering double result, from a punters point of view it makes no difference whatsoever. Of course owners & trainers will always have the option of appeal, if they thought they were wronged.
"Moral of the story, more protection for the sinned against is the order of the day" and it would be acceptable by all.I was at Newmarket too and having watched the replays at the track and at home later on RUK, think Paul is absolutely right. This was a typical piece of showboating by JS, his horse was beat. Nor was he impeded in using his whip as he claimed.
Just to say I didn’t bet on that race and I haven’t bet on the Jocks championship, so have no financial axe to grind.
I do hope the trainer appeals the decision. but as a general point the Newmarket stewards- I’m an annual member and go there regularly – seem more concerned with their own self importance than the reality of what actually happens in a race.
richard
Just to emphasise the lottery of stewarding, I offer the 1:25 at Ayr this afternoon.
Almost an identical scenario with Paint Stripper’s jockey having his whip in the "wrong" hand. This time two brief contacts with Red Skipper and the final finishing distance being an even shorter short head than the Newmarket race.
This time "result stands"
Doh!!!
I havent seen the race but seems to be a decision which could have gone either way.
The biggest issue for me is a lack of consistency with the decisions.
I can’t remember which horse or which race, but it was a race from the flat, this season. A horse went and bumped about 3 other horses out of the way, drifted from the middle of the track, impeded another horse in doing so and another 2 had to be virtually stopped in order for the drifting horse to get out of the way.
On the day, that horse that drifted went off fav, and the decision wasn’t over-turned. If ever there was a race to over-turn, it would have been that one. It was a lot worse than the Sanders-Spencer mounts sounds, yet they over-turned that one and kept the worse one.
With having only one look at the head-on replay, I was certain that the result should have been amended, in line with the current rules. I was pleased that the stewards made the correct decision on this occasion. I was amazed that the runner-up traded at around 7/4 on Betfair whilst the Enquiry was in progress as I thought the decision to be straightforward.
The thing is with the stewards, one time they can get it totally right and reverse the decision, yet the same thing can happen elsewhere and a total different outcome can happen. Bit like football referees i guess!
"…………………and the final finishing distance being an even shorter short head than the Newmarket race………….."
Can’t have that I’m afraid.
I would agree that the result should have been reversed this afternoon, there is no consistency with the stewarding but that doesn’t make the Newmarket stewards’ decision wrong.
Colin
I think the so-called ‘short-head’ rule is itself perverse.
In most cases it means that the results which are most likely to be reversed are those with the smallest amount of interference. Where there has been enough to mean that the horse interfered with is beaten by some margin, the result will rarely get changed – essentially because there was more interference.
Is it me, or is this utterly mad?
I think the so-called ‘short-head’ rule is itself perverse.
In most cases it means that the results which are most likely to be reversed are those with the smallest amount of interference. Where there has been enough to mean that the horse interfered with is beaten by some margin, the result will rarely get changed – essentially because there was more interference.
Is it me, or is this utterly mad?
It’s not you, and you’ve hit the nail on the head.
When I was at Woodbine a couple of weeks ago, the runner up in one of races veered right coming out of the stalls and knocked the horse in the adjacent stall, who eventually finished ninth of ten (quite frankly he looked to be a three legged donkey who finished that far back on merit anyway). The interference was no worse than you will see here a couple of times a week, usually when a ‘green’ runner exits the stalls. This was, I recall, a 2yo race.
The upshot was, to my surprise, the stewards had no hesitation in demoting the runner up and placing it behind the horse who had been interfered with. So the horse who was runner up on merit, was placed behind the horse who was ninth on merit – no notice seemingly taken of effect on the final relative positions or winning distances.
OK it may seem draconian but is shows an interesting difference in approach to the way interference is handled under differing juristictions.
I can see it now, Paul – Exotic Dancer gets disqualified from first place in next year’s Gold Cup, after his charge from the back of the field a mile out commenced with him barging a ridden-along Blazing Batman out of the way.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
I can see it now, Paul – Exotic Dancer gets disqualified from first place in next year’s Gold Cup, after his charge from the back of the field a mile out commenced with him barging a ridden-along Blazing Batman out of the way.
gc
And can you imagine the subsequent posts on this site afterwards?
Joking aside, I must admit I was shocked at the decision at Woodbine, it did seem rather draconian.
I can recall debates about reversed placings for as long as I have been interested in racing, and that seems to have been far too long sometimes.
With racing becoming more international it does seem odd that different juristictions should have such differing rules. The ideal is there should be a world governing body which lays down rules worldwide. Of course that will never happen because there are too many little fifedoms who like to think they are the big cheese.
The thing is with the stewards, one time they can get it totally right and reverse the decision, yet the same thing can happen elsewhere and a total different outcome can happen. Bit like football referees i guess!
Almost but unlike football a Jockey is given the opportunity to defend himself.
If You got Perry Mason riding the horse that should have been disqualified chances are he will keep it. So you get inconsistency.
For years racing people have said it’s time to get real Stewards and not the stuck up toffs they have been employing for years.
Let’s face it who knows more about the problems that occur in racing, Johhny Fancome or someone like Julian Richmond-Watson.
There are not many Steward who have ridden up the Cheltenham Hill that’s for sure.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.