Should Sir Bathwick have lost 2nd place?

[steveh31]

Sir Bathwick was placed last at Sedgefield today after stewards said he went onto the wrong part of the track.

However the jockey didnt get a ban after the stewards said he didnt go on the wrong course.

Slightly confusing why was he placed last if he didnt go onto the wrong course?

What do you think?

http://www.attheraces.com/WatchVideo.as … 00&vaff=20

[highflyer1]

Disqualification from second place was harsh in the extreme since no advantage was gained by the horse’s manoeuvre. But, if the letter of the law is being strictly applied then the decision is correct, as the horse did stray off the course by a few inches when he jumped the doll.

Sam Jones had no option but to let the horse jump the doll as he was hemmed in by the winner on his outside. It would have been outrageous for him to receive any sort of ban.

So IMO the decision to disqualify but not attach any blame to the jockey was correct if the laws are to be applied rigidly. But I think it would have been more satisfactory if the Stewards could have exercised a bit of discretion on this occasion.

[robnorth]

Two points here.

Firstly, a doll is a ridiculous way to mark out a bend on a course. The rail should be moved out.

Secondly, if the horse had collided and bent back the running rail, as is possible, would the same decision have been made?

I think there are issues regarding the way the running line is laid out, rather than attaching any blame to the contestants.

Rob

[seabird]

It does seem wrong that connections of Sir Bathwick were denied the prize-money associated with second place through what was basically lazy course management.

Colin

[Author]

Posts