- This topic has 39 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
By the way, I thought it was a cracking Gold Cup. Had no financial interest, but it had me out of my seat from the last!
What a fantastic sport jump racing is.
Mike
My financial interest was on Bobs Worth and Silviniaco Conti who was beaten fair and square, the no doubt about it.
However as Marginal Value puts it On His Own and to a less extent The Giant Bolster traveled more than they should, and in the interest of fair play, "A thing associated with Britons" Lord Winderemere should have been placed behind the horse it has deemed to interfere with, unless they deemed it to be deliberate then the rules state it should be placed last.
This from Racing Post News section showed what Mullins thought.
As those involved in the finish digested the announcement of an inquiry, Graham Wylie, owner of the Willie Mullins-trained On His Own, said: "I’m not the expert but Willie says there is a chance that they will turn it around. David [Casey] said there was interference, he was pushed to the side."
*[Mullins might appeal against the Stewards decision, and he might win his case. The poor punter though won’t be able to collect as for him/her it’s the result on the night that counts.]*
My own personal experience with Stewards Inquiry and Objections are that I’ve been on the wrong end of too many, only once did a reversal help me.
Docklands Express against Cahervillahow in the 1991 Whitbread Gold Cup, a similar thing happened there, but on the bend to the home straight and through to the line. You could see Docklands trying to pass Caher but was getting carried all the time. It wasn’t deliberate as Caher was clearly a tired horse, but happened nonetheless.
* Only my opinion Mullins could equally have accepted too.
I don’t think the rules have changed since My Way De Solzen somehow kept the Stayers against Golden Cross and Johnny Murtagh.
That is a much better high profile incidence of Stewards’ interpretation of rules.
Today was never going to be altered, and rightly so.
Bobs Worth came right across – there was no barging as they didnt touch. Those horses can move about up the hill – just the way it is.
Bobs Worth and Silviniaco Conti both drifted sharply as they were approaching the same place where Port Melon got spooked prior to the previous race. Maybe it’s just my imagination.
Marginal Value – Are the jumps rules different to the flat? because when the same happened to Sky Lantern which imo was worse they (TRF crew) said the rules were in favour of Elusive Kate.
There are no differences in the rules:
The relevat rules are numbers 55 (Accidental Inference)and 54.5 to 54.7 about should placings be revised.55. Accidental interference
55.1 In any case where interference is caused by accident in any part of the race, the Stewards must apply Rules 54.5 to 54.7 to such interference in order to determine whether to order any alteration as to placings.
55.2 For the purposes of Paragraph 55.1, Rule 54.5.1 shall be read as if, for the reference to interference by careless or improper riding there were substituted a reference to interference by accident.54.5 Where
54.5.1 a horse or its Rider has caused interference by careless or improper riding, and
54.5.2 the Stewards are satisfied that the interference improved the placing of the horse in relation to the horse or horses with which it interfered,
the horse shall, on an objection to the Stewards under Part 7, be placed behind the horse or horses with which it has interfered.54.6 For the purposes of Paragraph 54.5.2
54.6.1 the reference to the placing of any horse interfered with is to the placing decided by the Judge, and
54.6.2 if the Stewards are not satisfied the interference did improve the placing of the horse, they must overrule the objection and order that the placings remain unaltered.
54.7 In deciding whether the Stewards are satisfied that the interference improved the placing of the horse, the Stewards shall make no allowance for any ground which the incident may have cost the horse causing the interference.It boils doe to two issues:
1. Was there interference
2. If Yes, did the interference improve the placing of the horse that caused the interference.As I said, what bugs me most is that the stewards use such antiquated methods, guesswork, as their primary tool, when they could use objective measurements in such cases. Of course there is subjective judgement involved; "Is there any evidence that OHO would have run crooked to the line anyway regardless of LW getting in his way?". But to not even bother to measure the actual effect of the interference is abject, as in the infamous enquiry you mentioned from last year. Woeful.
Is there any chance that they can disqualify the first three just to make the result look a little more credible?
Ghost of Rob V; I was going to ask that question, as we were trying to work out where the previous incident happened. At first I thought that SC was just trying to follow the other horses but he jinked very suddenly. I still can’t work out what actually caused the Daryl Holland accident either. [keep thinking of Golden Miller and the light flashing incident in the National].
Under the BHA Rules, as they currently are, the placings should have been reversed. Was there interference? The stewards said yes; and there plainly was interference. Did the interference prevent On His Own getting to the finishing line before Lord Windermere? The stewards said no. But they were plainly wrong, because the interference caused On His Own to run further than he needed to, at a diagonal, instead of straight. If Lord Windermere had not blocked him from running perpendicular to the finishing line On His Own would have got to the line before Lord Windermere. On His Own had to run an extra distance that was more than the distance by which he was beaten – a short head – two or three inches.
Exactly MV,
Did interference take place?
Stewards say yes.
Was it LW that caused it?
Stewards say yes. Does not matter if it is accidental.
What was the winning distance?
A diminishingshort head
.
If stewards are not going to change this result, will they ever change one?
It does not matter if we’d all like Cullotty to win.
Does not matter if Mullins wins everything…
Rules are rules.Value Is EverythingWhat was the winning distance?
A diminishingshort head
.
It would probably have been a diminishing short head anyway, so correct decision. Just because a horse suffers a bit of interference doesn’t mean it will definitely get to the winning post any slower, the slight contact probably spurred the 2nd horse on.
Would you disqualify a horse that jumps across another out in the country causing it to lose a couple of lengths and then goes on to beat that horse by a short head?
What was the winning distance?
A diminishingshort head
.
It would probably have been a diminishing short head anyway, so correct decision. Just because a horse suffers a bit of interference doesn’t mean it will
definitely
get to the winning post any slower, the slight contact probably spurred the 2nd horse on.
Would you disqualify a horse that jumps across another
out in the country
causing it to lose a couple of lengths and then goes on to beat that horse by a short head?
It wasn’t
"out in the country"
though EC, it was on the run-in. We can only go by BHA rules.
You’re right EC"Just because a horse suffers a bit of interference doesn’t mean it will
definitely
get to the winning post any slower", we are not talking "definites", we can only go by
probabilities
.
Stewards agree interference took place and it was LW
that caused it. That interference only needs to have made a
short head
‘s difference for them to
rightly
change the result.
How
can "interference" of
any
type be deemed so
minor
to have cost
less
than a short head?
If this was Fontwell or Catterick I believe stewards would have come to a different decision. The venue and/or race does
NOT
matter to the rules of racing.
Value Is EverythingWillie Mullins has apparently decided not to appeal.
On, the instructions I would imagine of gentleman Mr. Wylie:
Wylie stated in the immediate aftermath that he would talk to all his party before deciding what to do but confirmed that no further action would be taken.
"Of course we’re not appealing, that wouldn’t be a very sporting thing to do," said Wylie. "He ran a great race and I’m so proud of him, I’m happy with second.
"I know he was supplemented but I actually thought it was a two horse race between Bobs Worth and Silviniaco Conti, and over the last it looked that.
"Ruby (Walsh) said before it he might finish fourth but he could sneak third and he did even better than that.
"I don’t think he’ll run in the National, it comes very quick and he had a hard race so we’re looking towards Punchestown, I think."
Courtesy of Sporting Life
Very classy of the Wylies. Their horse ran a screamer and it would be a shame to drag the race through an appeal.
If this was Fontwell or Catterick I believe stewards would have come to a different decision. The venue and/or race does
NOT
matter to the rules of racing.
Gingertipster,
Rule c states "The benefit of doubt should go to the horse which finished in front"
This the Cheltenham stewards did and I totally agree with them, it would have spoiled Cheltenham and a fantastic finish to the Gold Cup to have a horse disqualified from first place.
So many things that happen during a race are not taken into consideration. You will never see a stewards enquiry if horse A comes across horse B at the 2nd and 9th fence, for example. So why bothering that much if it happens in the closing stages when you have tired horses running up the hill with no one intentionally impeding other horses?
I think it was the correct decision, since it was a battle of three tired horses going up the hill after 3m2f. At this stage of the race they are a lot more difficult to steer than in the opening stages so that should be taken into consideration.If this was Fontwell or Catterick I believe stewards would have come to a different decision. The venue and/or race does
NOT
matter to the rules of racing.
Gingertipster,
Rule c states "The
benefit
of doubt should go to the horse which finished in front"
This the Cheltenham stewards did and I totally agree with them, it would have spoiled Cheltenham and a fantastic finish to the Gold Cup to have a horse disqualified from first place.
Yep, stewards came to the conclusion interference took place, but it only made the difference of milimetres. That’s some "benefit".
Once again Eddie…
"it would have spoiled Cheltenham and a fantastic finish to the Gold Cup to have a horse disqualified from first place"
… you’re letting sentiment come in to it. Where do the Rules Of Racing say "don’t spoil a good story"?
Value Is Everything
- Total Posts 764
Reminds me of the Sky Lantern v Elusive Kate race last Summer, in which Sky Lantern was impeded much more than On His Own was in the Gold Cup. If placings weren’t reversed on the flat race then it’s only fair the same outcome should come from our Gold Cup. Consistency is key!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.