- This topic has 39 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
"Gingertipster":1u5ly6kq wrote:
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"?
Sentiment comes into it for me but not into the rules, do you understand?
"The benefit of doubt should go to the horse which finished in front" The benefit of doubt went to the winner in the Gold Cup.RubyLight sums it up perfectly in his post and I see you’ve avoided answering the question whether you would disqualify a horse that accidentally interferes with another horse causing it to lose 2 or 3 lengths out in the country and goes on to beat that horse by a short head? Why are you only bothered about what happens in the finish?
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!
Good post Ben.
I’m pretty sure the Hannon’s did appeal the decision and it got throw out very quickly.Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
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!
After examing Sky Lantern’s race. No head on shot on racing post so had to use analysis as well.
"1,000 Guineas winner Sky Lantern confirmed herself to be a top-notcher with a stunning display off a strong gallop in the Coronation Stakes, but this was always going to present a different challenge, being a more steadily run race against older fillies. Tracking the winner early, Hughes seemed happy enough for much of the way, but she could never quite build the momentum to get past with her being carried left and possibly intimidated by the winning rider´s whip waving around in front of her face, and always just looked held. It´s highly likely she´d have won had she been able to run in a straight line and she can show herself better than this bare form returned to a bigger field with more pace on. She also has the option of going up to 1m2f."
Rule c states "The
benefit
of doubt should go to the horse which finished in front"
Surely under logic this rule is wrong, and it’s the horse interfered with who’d should be given the benefit of the doubt, because RULE C means no result would be reversed, even if the winning jockey did it deliberately (
hypothetically speaking )
, and that’s wrong too.
Sentiment comes into it for me but not into the rules, do you understand?
"The benefit of doubt should go to the horse which finished in front" The benefit of doubt went to the winner in the Gold Cup.RubyLight sums it up perfectly in his post and I see you’ve avoided answering the question whether you would disqualify a horse that accidentally interferes with another horse causing it to lose 2 or 3 lengths out in the country and goes on to beat that horse by a short head? Why are you only bothered about what happens in the finish?
I have not "ignored" Ruby Light’s question Eddie. Just went straight to answering your point without getting to his.
It is impossible to directly relate distance lost out in the country with costing the same amount of distance in a finish. Wish it could be, but it can’t. Indeed, sometimes when a horse gets baulked and shuffles back – because of a stronger pace than ideal – it ends up with a better chance than it would without that interference.
What happens on the run-in can be equated more easily (not easily but "more easily") to whether it makes a difference to the result…
Value Is EverythingShould the placings be reversed?
Under my rules, Yes.
Under how the existing rules are written, Yes.
Under how the existing rules are always interpreted by stewards, No.
However, what has changed since my first post (above) is: I had not realised Casey got a whip ban.
So "Under my rules", NO, On His Own would not have got the result. Russell’s interference was accidental, Casey’s actions were not accidental. Therefore, under my rules Lord Windermere keeps the race.
Got another question for you:
Should stewards be allowed to disqualify or demote a horse they believe hasimproved
his position through using the whip incorrectly?
I believe they should AND the benefit of doubt (50/50’s or even 60/40’s) should go to the one who does not break the rules.
Value Is EverythingI would have thought OHO should be deemed lucky to have kept second place. Casey`s manoeuvre in bringing OHO off the rail at the second last caused bumping and loss of momentum to The Giant Bolster which in turn broadsided Triolo d`Alene mid jump. A poorly executed, deliberate switch to pull out from behind Lyreen Legend. Borderline dangerous.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.