- This topic has 16 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
One word : Justice :)
This guy is a machine. All he does is work out and pick winners. Talk about fit. You should see him without his shirt off, serious side of beef.
Farcical and a really sad indictment of the state of stewarding.
The filly wouldn’t have won the race at all if Atenzi hadn’t deliberately barged his way out in the first place…
Its an easy problem to solve….if jockeys barge their way out they are disqualified plain and simple….it would stop immediately.
Wrong Wrong Wrong, Mark my words, A jockey is going to get killed as a result of a maneuver similar to what AA made on the filly to engineer a “gap” , it’s only a matter of time and it will be the fault of the rules whereby you can do whatever you want as long as you finish fist past the post. In my opinion the Stewards on the day tried to say no more to this sort of riding and were right to believe that the filly had improved her position by more than a head due to the fact that if AA hadn’t barged his way out he would have got no run and Bondi Beach would have been away and clear.
P.S not talking through my pocket either as a I had no bet in the race but I am sick and tired of watching jockeys putting fellow riders and horses in danger with kamikaze style riding, the current rules need putting in the bin.
Wrong Wrong Wrong, Mark my words, A jockey is going to get killed as a result of a maneuver similar to what AA made on the filly to engineer a “gap” , it’s only a matter of time and it will be the fault of the rules whereby you can do whatever you want as long as you finish fist past the post. In my opinion the Stewards on the day tried to say no more to this sort of riding and were right to believe that the filly had improved her position by more than a head due to the fact that if AA hadn’t barged his way out he would have got no run and Bondi Beach would have been away and clear.
P.S not talking through my pocket either as a I had no bet in the race but I am sick and tired of watching jockeys putting fellow riders and horses in danger with kamikaze style riding, the current rules need putting in the bin.
I’ve heard scare stories for years of all this dangerous riding and all the deaths that are going to caused, still waiting. Cases of dangerous riding here are rare, let alone deaths from it. The truth is there are far more deaths in racing in countries with stricter rules.
I doubt very much the Donny stewards did as you say, if they did they weren’t doing their job and should be sacked.
A bit of bumping and boring in a finish all adds to the excitement, certainly preferable to horses running in lanes.
Doncaster stewards found Atzeni guilty of careless riding, not dangerous riding. Lee Mottershead in today’s RPost makes the point that had they found it to be dangerous then the horse would have been disqualified, which I didn’t realise myself.
Hoorah , justice has been served . The correct decision has been made . I thought it a travesty that Simple Verse was demoted in the first place . It Doesn’t say a lot for the Doncaster stewards that their decision has been overturned. . At the time I felt sorry for Atzeni , Beckett and all Simple Verse’s connections . Ralph Beckett will be delighted , not to mention , vindicated .
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
As I understand it, “careless” riding is when a jockey fails to take corrective action, like changing his or her whip when a horse is hanging. There is no way that this, or Peslier at Goodwood, was “careless”
There was a case for deeming both incidents to have been reckless or dangerous, and thus disqualifying the horse altogether
In failing to recognise the meaning of “careless”, both the Doncaster stewards and the appeal panel appear not to understand the dictionary or their own rules, though the Donny panel at least realised that she almost certainly wouldn’t have won if she had remained in the pocket where she was trapped
I realise there has been much debate about the St Leger, but in my eyes it isn’t even slightly controversial – Simple Verse, despite being the best horse on the day, should have been thrown out
Perhaps the best solution would be to have called it “improper” riding, and for that to be included in the category of disqualification, rather than demotion, misdemeanours
In failing to recognise the meaning of “careless”, both the Doncaster stewards and the appeal panel appear not to understand the dictionary or their own rules, though the Donny panel at least realised that she almost certainly wouldn’t have won if she had remained in the pocket where she was trapped
I’m afraid it’s you that is sadly lacking in knowledge of the rules. Whether she would have won or not if remaining in the pocket, is of no relevance to the result of the race.
Although the Donny stewards made a pigs ear of it I doubt they even managed to get that wrong.
In failing to recognise the meaning of “careless”, both the Doncaster stewards and the appeal panel appear not to understand the dictionary or their own rules, though the Donny panel at least realised that she almost certainly wouldn’t have won if she had remained in the pocket where she was trapped
I’m afraid it’s you that is sadly lacking in knowledge of the rules. Whether she would have won or not if remaining in the pocket, is of no relevance to the result of the race.
No yeats, you are wrong. That is the rule regarding careless riding – did the winner improve its position as a result of the interference? Yes – had she not interfered with Bondi Beach she would have stayed in the pocket and it’s unlikely that she would have won.
had she not interfered with Bondi Beach she would have stayed in the pocket and it’s unlikely that she would have won.
Atzeni was tracking STS, and said yesterday his plan was to follow STS through had BB not leant on him and pushed him off his line. STS passed Fields of Athenry about one and a half furlongs out, and moved in onto the rail. Had SV been still tracking him as Atzeni planned, he’d have gone past STS pretty easily, so the filly would not have stayed in the pocket – on the contrary, free from interference, she’d almost certainly have won much more convincingly, as she was the best horse on the day, arguably by quite a fair margin.
I don’t think so. SV would have been stuck behind FoA on the rail and would therefore have lost significant ground. Had she not pushed BB to his right, there would have been nowhere to go because BB was tracking STS and would have switched to his outside in order to take the lead. SV’s only option would have been to switch behind BB towards midtrack and that would have been hard to overcome.
I saw your analysis on the other thread, Steeplechasing, and it was very interesting. But the Doncaster Stewards didn’t find that BB interefered with SV and so far I’ve seen nothing to suggest that the appeal panel thought so either.
Incidentally, here is Rule 54: Careless riding or improper riding
54.1 A Rider is guilty of careless riding if he fails to take reasonable steps to avoid causing interference or causes interference by inattention or misjudgement, including when manoeuvring for position.
Inattention or misjudgement – does that really sum up Atzeni’s manoeuvre?
There has been much discussion about the amount of ground that was lost by BB and/or SV in the last 2 furlongs but the key factor is what happened at the 2f pole and how SV created the gap that allowed her to win.
There has been much said on both sides of this argument and fair play to everyone for expressing their opinions.
The Doncaster Stewards have made a mountain out of a molehill and the discussion regarding the matter has gone well beyond the very basic premise that the rules are framed on.
For all the postulating and claims, followed by counter claims, the rules simply ask whether the horse causing the interference improved its position relative to the horse suffering the interference.
If the rules were any more complex than this simple basis, enquiries would never be resolved quickly. The nature of the game requires that a quick decision be made on the day. In this instance the Stewards got it wrong at the original enquiry.
Taking all other factors out of it, Bondi Beach had plenty of time to have won the race if he had been the better horse on the day. If he makes any headway at all on Simple Verse it would have needed an electron microscope to detect it. The filly kept on well and in all likelihood would have held him off for longer if need be.
We can all speculate about what might have happened but the rules state that the Stewards have to be certain the horse who finished behind would definitely have won and the visual evidence is totally insufficient and that was why the result was reversed on appeal.
There have been enough high profile cases to base the likely prognosis on whether a result was likely to be changed in the Stewards room in recent times. Despite Channel 4’s tendency to camp it up in order to create faux drama by second guessing the Stewards, the familiar refrain became, “Result Stands and they have weighed in”
While the current rules are in place, we will continue to see the same process applied and hopefully the stewards will get it right on the day, in a consistent manner, going forward, rather than making an erroneous judgement based on a guess as to what might have transpired.
I think it is interesting to consider whether the Coolmore team would even have appealed had Simple Verse kept the race on the day? If events had transpired that way and they had appealed, what odds would we have had on their appeal being successful? I would have said their were two chances, Slim and None, and Slim is out of town. No Hope, Bob Hope and Envelope
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
… and if SV had remained trapped in the pocket or had to switch behind BB (as would have been the case had she not caused the interference) she probably wouldn’t have won. It’s as simple as that. It was a straightforward task to demote her at the very least, and the Doncaster stewards got it right. I don’t understand why people are arguing about how much ground was lost during the contact throughout the last 2 furlongs. It’s irrelevant. SV only won the race because she caused interference en route, and without that interference she probably wouldn’t have won. Therefore she “improved her position”. However, the appeal panel got it shockingly wrong and humiliated the Doncaster stewards in the process. A bad day for the BHA
… and if SV had remained trapped in the pocket or had to switch behind BB (as would have been the case had she not caused the interference) she probably wouldn’t have won. It’s as simple as that. It was a straightforward task to demote her at the very least, and the Doncaster stewards got it right. I don’t understand why people are arguing about how much ground was lost during the contact throughout the last 2 furlongs. It’s irrelevant. SV only won the race because she caused interference en route, and without that interference she probably wouldn’t have won. Therefore she “improved her position”. However, the appeal panel got it shockingly wrong and humiliated the Doncaster stewards in the process. A bad day for the BHA
I am sorry but you are talking about things here that the Stewards can never have any remit to look into.
They can only look at things that happened in a race, not things that might have happened.
There will never be a set of rules that allows Stewards to prognosticate on what might have transpired in various scenarios. It would be totally unworkable.
The rules were in place before the race and the competitors agreed to be bound by them when they entered their horses. Due process has been followed and the race is in the book, it is now a part of history. The O’Brien team have accepted in and moved on. How I wish the punters would do the same.
Rules were followed but incorrectly applied, the matter was put right on appeal. Best horse on the day won and the trophy is in the cabinet to prove it. End of.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Sorry, but speculating is exactly what the stewards have to do. I don’t get why this so hard. Talking about how much ground each horse forfeited by leaning on the other, as many have done, is misleading. That only applies when one or more horses simply veer off a straight line. In this case one of them barged her way out and Atzeni admitted that to the appeal panel – therefore different circumstances.
Here is the rule summarised: did SV improve her position as as result of the interference?
In this specific case the interference allowed her to extricate herself from a pocket in which she was trapped. Therefore the interference helped her win the race. She would have lost more than a head if she had stayed in the pocket or switched behind BB, so under the rules demotion is appropriate. She improved her finishing position as a result of the interference. Think about it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.