- This topic has 52 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I am disgusted at the decision of the photo finish for the 9.20 race at Chester last night (The Executive Network Legal Handicap). The race finish concerned Bradbury ridden by Tadhg O’Shea and Shernando ridden by Silvestre De Sousa. As they approached the last 100 yards Bradbury went a length or so up on the outside as Shernando became squeezed between 2 horses on the inside. As the winning line approached Shernando got in the clear and finished like a train and looked to get up in the shadow of the post. The freeze frame seemed to show that Shernando had got up on the line but it was close. The Racing UK presenters Tom O’Ryan and Mark Howard also seemed to think that Shernando had got there. However the photo decision seemed to take an age and the presenters said that it might be a dead heat. Meanwhile Shernando had gone into the winners enclosure and the exchanges also seemed to think that the Mark Johnston trained horse had got up. When the judge finally announced the result, Bradbury was called the winner by a nose. Racing UK’s Jonathan Neesom seemed as dumbfounded as I was and he said that when they had asked the judges for a print they were told that it wasn’t worth it because it was too bleak. Surely if this was the case then a dead heat should have been called. I feel cheated because the world and his wife thought that Shernando had won the race or dead heated at worst but the judges decided that Bradbury had won through a bleak indecisive photo print. Maybe they just gave it to Bradbury because they were only able to make out it’s noseband in the inconclusive photograph. I was waiting on Shernando for a Lucky 15 and I was unable to see any proof of the result. I may sound very bitter because my horse lost but I think I have every right to be on this occasion. And they say the game is not bent. Thanks a lot Chester judges.
In a few days time you can check for yourself :
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/gorac … tofinishes
I’ll have a small wager it proves the judge was right.
My original instinct as I watched the race was that Shernando got up, but on the print and 2 slow-mo replays I did think Bradbury had got it on the nod.
NOTE – BEFORE ANYBODY SUGGESTS IT, NO THIS IS NOT POCKET TALKING. I HAD NO BET ON THE RACE.
However, I completely sympathise and agree with the OP that it’s disgusting that the photo wasn’t released to the public. Our game is so bent and the stewards really don’t help it out with stunts like these.
– The images we display are low-resolution versions of the images the judges analyse. Thus, in certain extremely close cases, the photos may not be conclusive as to the reason for the result given. However, on the racecourse the judges have advanced technology which allows them to zoom very close to determine a winner.
Racing needs far more transparency than this. Simply not good enough.
- Total Posts 17716
People, baldly accusing the Chester Judge of being "bent" is not only ludicrous, it is also defamatory. Can we not find a better phrase for this cliché? Preferably one which doesn’t lay TfF open to legal action!
Photo-finishes to races at Chester are not "bent", no matter how bitter they might make losing punters. Cancel and continue.
If you’re referring to myself, Pinza, could you please quote where I called the Chester stewards bent.
I suspect when the photograph is released we will not be seeing much due to the darkness, however judges have advanced techniques these days I have no doubts about the accuracy and integrity of the Chester judge who is the best judge currently operating imho.
- Total Posts 17716
If you’re referring to myself, Pinza, could you please quote where I called the Chester stewards bent.
Only to you in a subsidiary capacity,
Zarkava
. The first (pocket-talk) poster was more direct.
When you write
"Our game is so bent and the stewards really don’t help it out with stunts like these."
there’s a clear imputation that the Chester officials (in this case the Judge by the way, as the Stewards are not involved in these decisions unless they think the Judge has got it wrong) are somehow conniving at or colluding with "bent" outcomes.
Journalists have been jailed for less.
Pinza, if for one moment you think that this sport is not the slightest bit corrupt, then you must also think the moon is made of cheese. Just like any sport that involves betting, people have a price and that includes any horse racing judge in this country. What makes you think that Chester judges are so special
The point of my original post is the fact that the judge failed to produce the evidence to show that Bradbury had got up, but to tell Racing UK that the print is not worth showing because it is too bleak tells me that the result may have been inconclusive.
I felt absolutely disgusted that the Racing UK presenters, jockeys, trainers, owners, bookmakers and punters involved thought that Shernando had won or at least dead heated, yet the judge thought it was irrelevant to prove that Bradbury had got the decision.
If they would have shown the print after the race and it had shown that Bradbury had conclusively won the race then it wouldn’t have caused so much suspicion on my part. I am sure if it had been the Queens horse that had been beat they would have produced a print to show as much.
Get your act together Chester Judges and get real Pinza.
Stodgie
In your first post you say
‘I was waiting on Shernando for a Lucky 15’
then in your last post you infer that the Chester judges are corrupt.
If you believe the latter then why the hell do you waste money on a ‘Lucky15’?
Do you truly believe that the judge hasn’t called it as he sees it? If so, I do feel sorry for you as you must expect to find demons around every corner.
Phrases about pockets, holes and talking come to mind.
Rob
Robnorth
My god, is it really that obvious that I am bitter over this result or could it be the fact that it is the judge failing to produce a print of the result that is really pissing me off. I would gladly accept the result if I could see the proof myself. Simple as that.
Also, the point I was trying to make in my second post is that judges are not exempt to corruption. I do apologise if the Queens English is so hard for you to understand.
Stodgie
On the first matter, point taken regarding the photo. A view of it would be helpful.
On your second point, I am well capable of understanding the Queen’s English and repeat your comments:
Just like any sport that involves betting, people have a price and that includes any horse racing judge in this country. What makes you think that Chester judges are so special
To my mind that calls the Chester judge’s integrity into question, and indeed that of all racing judges. It paints a sad picture of your opinion of people.
Rob
Robnorth
I believe the Chester Judge lost all his/her integrity when they failed to produce a print for Racing UK.
I think the OP is right.
Photo finishes are instant & there is no excuse for it not being available instantly.
If the judge takes issue with being called bent, he should stop faffing about & produce the evidence that he isn’t.
There are too many pocket talkers & the press are so quick to call racing all sorts for ‘innocent until proven guilty’ to be a valid argument.
Produce the photo, put a stop to the chatter. Easy.
- Total Posts 17716
Anthony, we do not know whether the original poster even has a point. More likely his pocket has got caught in the wrong end of the stick.
Our poster said – and has repeated – that "he
[Neesom in the RUK studio]
said that when they had asked the judges for a print they were told that it wasn’t worth it because it was too bleak."
Now what is meant by this is anybody’s guess. I take it he means "black" when he says "bleak", but goodness knows. It’s all very hazy and confused.
Who were the "they" that Neesom says asked for a print? Where is the evidence that the photo was not placed on the official weighing room notice board as the usual matter of course, "bleak" or not? Is there any evidence that the Stewards found any reason to question the Judge’s decision? Have the connections of the second horse objected?
So before accusing Judges of corruption and being "bent" (how I
hate
that mantra!) it might be a good idea to establish the actual facts of the case. The original poster has not troubled to do so.
Since the OP plainly has no idea how the photo finish system works, or how the judge operates, I thought this info from the BHA website might assist.
I appreciate that Stodgie will just dismiss it as he’s already made up his mind and isn’t going to deflected by inconvenient things like facts, but anyway, this is what it says:
– The images we display are low-resolution versions of the images the judges analyse. Thus, in certain extremely close cases, the photos may not be conclusive as to the reason for the result given. However, on the racecourse the judges have advanced technology which allows them to zoom very close to determine a winner. In the case of a very close verdict, the Judge is perfectly willing to go through the evidence of the result with connections, should they wish.
That refers to the copy of the photo finish print posted on their website, but that is also the only copy available to RUK.
I’m aslo fascinated by this idea of a corrupt judge – I mean how would that work. The bookie realises that Stodgie has a Lucky 15 running on to Chester, phones up the judge and offers him a bung to give the wrong result? Perhaps the delay in calling the result is caused by the judge taking several calls from different bookies and waiting to see which result would give him the best payoff!
AP
- Total Posts 17716
I’m aslo fascinated by this idea of a corrupt judge – I mean how would that work. The bookie realises that Stodgie has a Lucky 15 running on to Chester, phones up the judge and offers him a bung to give the wrong result? Perhaps the delay in calling the result is caused by the judge taking several calls from different bookies and waiting to see which result would give him the best payoff!
I like the picture you paint, AP, and I’m sure that’s uncannily near to the reality of what was happening at Chester after the 9.20 last night. The Judge was chuckling with manic glee at his massive £20 pay-off; his wit in so cleverly withholding the photographic evidence of his wrongdoing from the Stewards, the BHA, and Jonathan Neeson on the grounds that "the print was too bleak"; and cooking up his next photo-finish coup against Stodgie in a smoke-filled room with Noddy, Big Ears and the rest of the Cheshire Set Mafia.
Tonight he’ll be sipping his absinthe at the County Hotel, drunkenly bawling out these lines from
Trial by Jury
:
You may say my law is fudge
But I’ll never, never budge
For I’ll live and die a Judge.
(chorus of Stewards)
And a good Judge too!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.