The home of intelligent horse racing discussion
The home of intelligent horse racing discussion

Sariska’s legacy ?

Home Forums Horse Racing Sariska’s legacy ?

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #11692
    wit
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2165

    extract from Alan Aitken in the SCMP under the headline "Stewards in UK defy belief again":

    =====================

    Named for a national tiger reserve in India – in recent years infamous for allegations that poachers had wiped out the tiger population – Sariska was doing some wiping out of her own, taking a large proportion of the field out of contention for all practical purposes with two wicked shifts of ground in the run up the long straight…….

    …Spencer, who received a five-day careless riding ban for his actions, is not to blame because the European and UK stewards green light these actions constantly and jockeys will get away with what they can.

    That’s called competitive riding – the stewards are supposed to be there to judge when the line between competitive and culpable is crossed, not to breathe a sigh of relief that they can sidestep the hard choice.

    When Brett Prebble turns up to ride Sacred Kingdom at Royal Ascot next week, they probably won’t be too impressed with how he handles a whip but he is the right guy to be ready for a gloves-off stoush with the locals.

    Though you just wonder what result he might get as first-past-the-post in a similar inquiry if the rules are so fluid.

    ==========================

    he’s got a point – the message to any foreign jockey seeing Sariska body-slam half the field at 2:17

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STcnjlz0las

    and still keep the race, is that as long as they can get their mount over the line in sufficient fashion credibly to assert "the best horse would have won anyway", then the most they have to fear is a few days’ holiday.

    trouble is that "the best horse would have won anyway" is an opinion, and not a rule.

    rules like "don’t touch another horse" are clear and everyone knows in advance what they cannot do.

    opinions though differ with the shoe size of individual stewards and nobody is sure in advance what they cannot do.

    and it does seem a bit odd that "the best horse in the race" is given carte blanche to take out its opponents.

    if it needs to hamper them, or if it can’t run straight, is it in fact the best horse?

    let’s hope this uncertainty doesn’t turn into controversy for the foreign visitors next week.

    best regards

    wit

    #233117
    seabird
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2924

    Good post, wit.

    Our rules on interference are a mess and need a good long hard look at.

    Colin

    #233125
    % MAN
    Participant
    • Total Posts 5104

    You only have to look at last years Shergar Cup to see just how "equitable" the Ascot Stewards are with overseas riders!!!

    The rules should be unambiguous – if there is interference which the Stewards consider to be the result of a riding offence which then attracts a ban, the horse should be disqualified and placed last.

    Whether the offence improved the horses position should be irrelevant – if the rules are broken to such an extent a ban is deemed necessary then it is cheating.

    Some punters will not like it but at least there would be less ambiguity and it would make jockeys think twice before undertaking some of the manoeuvres they do.

    I would also add the caveat that stewards panels investigating such offences should include at least one former jockey – either on the panel or as the Stipe, so someone with race riding experience can add their perspective.

    #233169
    yeats
    Participant
    • Total Posts 3140

    Whether the offence improved the horses position should be irrelevant – if the rules are broken to such an extent a ban is deemed necessary then it is cheating.

    Why should it be irrelevant? It is totally relevant and getting a ban for a minor offence is not cheating.
    We have much fairer rules here than elsewhere where the best horse is allowed to keep the race and long may it continue.
    The game would be an utter farce if horses were disqualified willy nilly for any minor offence just because the jockey incurred a ban. If that happened you wouldn’t have to worry too much about punters not liking it, there wouldn’t be many proper punters left.

    #233176
    Zarkava
    Participant
    • Total Posts 4691

    We have much fairer rules here than elsewhere where the best horse is allowed to keep the race and long may it continue.

    2 very poignant examples from the past 2 years – Ramonti and Sariska.

    Both should have lost their Group 1s in the stewards’ room.

    Personally I think the system they have in France is much better. It rewards race riding and cuts out moves such as Sariska’s and whipping such as Dettori.

    #233181
    wit
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2165

    yeats,

    a horse is going supremely well but is boxed in on the rails. it is apparent to all that if a gap opens, he will win easily. the gap never comes.

    in scenario 1, the jockey decides to break the rules, barges his way through and wins.

    in scenario 2, the jockey decides to obey the rules, sits and suffers and loses.

    under your "best horse wins" approach, would the horse be declared the winner under both scenarios, or just under the scenario where he broke the rules ?

    and taking further the "best horse wins" approach, why then bother having the race at all – just have the experts decide beforehand which is the "best horse"?

    #233183
    % MAN
    Participant
    • Total Posts 5104

    Whether the offence improved the horses position should be irrelevant – if the rules are broken to such an extent a ban is deemed necessary then it is cheating.

    Why should it be irrelevant? It is totally relevant and getting a ban for a minor offence is not cheating.
    We have much fairer rules here than elsewhere where the best horse is allowed to keep the race and long may it continue.
    The game would be an utter farce if horses were disqualified willy nilly for any minor offence just because the jockey incurred a ban. If that happened you wouldn’t have to worry too much about punters not liking it, there wouldn’t be many proper punters left.

    There are still plenty of punters in America where the rules are far more draconian than here and runners are disqualified even if it does not improve their position.

    Also please read what I said – I specifically said cases where interference had taken place – I did not argue for every minor infringement that results in a ban.

    #233192
    yeats
    Participant
    • Total Posts 3140

    wit,

    I suspect under our rules that both scenarios would be losers as it is highly likely the first one would be deemed dangerous riding and the horse disqualified.
    In the other scenario, maybe we just have to accept that sometimes horses are unlucky or maybe sometimes the rider could show some initiative and will to win rather than just sittting and suffering and accepting defeat.

    I would agree with Jim McGrath regards the Sariska incident that Spencer only caused minimal interference and the ban was a bit harsh, unfortunately there was a knock on effect from the interference he caused.

    #233196
    RedRiot
    Member
    • Total Posts 870

    The inference was between Sariska and Phillipina.

    There is a view on BBC iPlayer where Sariska actually doesn’t barge into her like a body slam, it seems that Sariska went to close down Oh Goodness Me and pulled in to soon to get to her and Phillipina had no real room and stumbled onto the heels of Sariska who then lost a lot ground trying to regain her balance, Sariska was cut on her hind leg. The Frozen Fire/Buccelati incident was worse for me.

    Spencer deserved to be banned as he should have ran clear past Phillipina before making the move to close down the so it was a justified case of careless riding, but it would have been farcical throwing out or demoting the winner. I dont think the incident effected Midday who had no room anyway.

    #233214
    shabby
    Member
    • Total Posts 638

    I think there are two points here

    Firstly, its not just a case of finding the best horse on the day. Stewards have a responsibilty to ensure jockeys ride safely, currently they don’t and are prepared to take risks to win big (and even small) races. The only way to change this behaviour is to make it unprofitable and that means disqualification, even in classics. The standard of riding in the UK in terms of safety has never been lower, in my view. In addition to the flat races being discussed in hurdle races in particular our top jockeys constantly use their mounts as a weapon to block challengers when they have a length to 2 lengths lead and are never questioned.

    Having said all that it would possibly be unfair to have disqualified Sariska when similar events go unpunished daily so a line has to be drawn with new rules published and enforced from a given date.

    Secondly, am I the only one who thinks that the dolling off of the inside (8 metres or so) on Oaks day is downright silly and potentially dangerous. As well as making the races ugly to look at and increasing the chances of interference it is simply not acceptable for a day with two Group 1s to have a ‘wall of death’ style track. It is not good enough to say you are saving ground for the Derby on Saturday, these races have importance in there own right and deserve better. Perfect Truth and Buccelati (and their jockeys) could both have been seriously injured.

    #233386
    Aragorn
    Member
    • Total Posts 2208

    We have much fairer rules here than elsewhere where the best horse is allowed to keep the race and long may it continue.

    2 very poignant examples from the past 2 years – Ramonti and Sariska.

    Both should have lost their Group 1s in the stewards’ room.

    Personally I think the system they have in France is much better. It rewards race riding and cuts out moves such as Sariska’s and whipping such as Dettori.

    It didn’t stop Dylan Thomas winning the Arc.

    #233391
    Zarkava
    Participant
    • Total Posts 4691

    Yes I thought about that but Pasquier told the stewards that the incident made no impact on Zambezi Sun’s chances at all, therefore the interference was irrelevant.

    Nick Mordin actually has stats about horses being disqualified in the UK.

    Or maybe it’s simply the way the rules are being interpreted these days in Britain. I ran a test on Raceform Interactive and found that 119 of the 60,084 winners of British flat and jump races were disqualified from 1996 to 2003 but from 2004 to date only 26 out of the 48,615 winners were disqualified. In other words the percentage of disqualified winners in Britain has dropped from 0.2% to 0.05% – a quarter of what it was.

    #235015
    Tourbillon
    Participant
    • Total Posts 91

    They do not even bother, do not even try to keep them in straight line anymore do they ?

    :x

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.