- This topic has 195 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The only thing I would question is the following comment:
The panel ruled that the two incidents of interference, at around the 2f pole and half a furlong out, had not improved Simple Verse’s placing relative to Bondi Beach.
Panel chairman Tim Charlton said the first incident had caused some loss of momentum but they were “not persuaded” it improved the filly’s finishing position. The second incident had “little or no effect”.
Agree that if the 2nd incident was the only interference that took place you could simply chalk it up as a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other but to say that they were not persuaded that the first incident 2F out didn’t improve her placing quite frankly borders on the ridiculous.
SV was being held in a pocket by BB jockey (a valid race riding move that all jockeys do) and had Atzeni waited and pulled out around BB he would have lost vital momentum at a crucial stage of the race as they would have been around 2L behind BB with just over 1.5F to run – he knew that by waiting it would most likely cost him any chance of victory and so he made the race winning move and forced his way out of the pocket accordingly.
The fact that after that move, the two horses raced almost stride for stride all the way to the finishing line with the winning distance being only a head would clearly indicate (to me anyway) that SV had improved her position by Atzeni forcing his way out.
I totally agree that once she did get out she was always holding BB but she wasn’t at any stage pulling away from him which to me is the salient point, had she gone on to win the race by 1 or 2L then Tim Charlton’s comment and a reversal of the decision is perfectly justifiable.
For me though, I can’t see how anyone could categorically say that SV would have still won the race had Atzeni waited and pulled out around BB to deliver her challenge – Atzeni obviously didn’t think so would hence the reason he forced his way out in the first place.
Eventually, I think there will be an overhaul of the rules as this high profile incident along with the Irish Champion Stakes (GH should have been disqualified imho even though the rules don’t allow for it) highlights that there are still things that need to be improved.
LD, I would hope that part of the ruling reflected the fact that the filly did not improve her position because she too suffered interference, which perhaps, in their minds, cancelled out the perceived advantage of BB becoming unbalanced.
Scrutiny of the replays shows clearly that O’Donoghue was not just blocking the fillies path, he was leaning on her – he came in twice at her unbalancing her with the first lean (small bump), then came in harder the second time when the filly was trying to right herself after the first impact. Righting herself meant she was coming out slightly as O’D was forcing BB in and he got the worst of it because he bounced off her. And that, to me, was the critical point in the race: most pundits reacted to the effect of that collision rather than the cause.
The cause of it was O’Donoghue’s aggression, and he never let up on that approach. It was a ‘sleight of hand’ which he bolstered further in his evidence. Both those factors influenced the stewards, when they should have taken the time to gather themselves properly and have a clinical and objective look at the patrol film. If O’Donoghue’s tactics were clear to me and to many others, how could the stewards not pick up on them?
The reason, imo, was that they were affected by the TV cameras filming what looked like dominant and convincing evidence from O’D. Even if the effect on them was subliminal, it would be there. The question in their minds when the jockeys left that room would not only be about the facts of the race, but this too: “Hundreds of thousands of people have just witnessed a compelling performance by a jockey versus a less than vigorous defence by his rival. If we don’t reverse this, we’ll look stupid.”
Had there been no cameras in that room, the result might well have been different. Had the jockeys not been interviewed at all, I’ve little doubt they’d have let the filly keep the race.
Repeating what I said days ago – no doubt whatever in my mind that a serious injustice was done, and that the aggressor was rewarded by the Donny stewards. Have a look at the film on page 8 of this thread and you’ll see clearly just what O’Donoghue’s intentions were.
I would hope that part of the ruling reflected the fact that the filly did not improve her position because she too suffered interference, which perhaps, in their minds, cancelled out the perceived advantage of BB becoming unbalanced.
I would hope so….if they didn’t, then this is one of the strangest decisions Ive seen. I dont see how you can barge your way out, win by a head and keep the race unless you can argue you yourself suffered illegal interference
SHL
I think O’Donoghue should be banned for deliberate intimidation, if it were simply holding his ground fair enough but he committed the first bump by closing the gap and trying to pen Simple Verse in and it was aggressive as well, could easily of put AA over the rails, great race riding. Crock of ****.
Great decision.
Blackbeard to conquer the World
I would hope that part of the ruling reflected the fact that the filly did not improve her position because she too suffered interference, which perhaps, in their minds, cancelled out the perceived advantage of BB becoming unbalanced.
I would hope so….if they didn’t, then this is one of the strangest decisions Ive seen. I dont see how you can barge your way out, win by a head and keep the race unless you can argue you yourself suffered illegal interference
The thing is, she did not ‘barge her way out’. It’s that perception which has caused all the hassle since Leger day. O’Donoghue fouled her, knocking her off balance, as she tried to regain her balance, moving slightly to her right to get on an even keel, O’Donoghue brought BB in for another crack at her – but he bounced off her, that’s when the gap appeared. She was edging out because O’D had bumped her: he was trying to bump her a second time whne he came off worse. The only one doing the barging was Colm O’Donoghue, an offence he repeated 24 hours later in the Prix Niel.
I could really do with some good news this week for a number of reasons…this has made my day.
Justice has been done and Simple Verse and the team now have what was rightly theirs. Well done to all who kept the faith
Such a shame that the joy and celebrations of the day were denied to them.I would never back another horse ridden by Mr. O’Donoghue his style is much too aggressive and this time it was a step too far.
Things turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...Having watched that ATR footage, I’m going to go and have a decent bet on the filly getting this on appeal. From this video it looks plain to me that Colm has anticipated what Andrea is about to do – go for a gap which is just beginning to open. Colm comes in first (it must be said, with superb timing, a split second before Andrea comes out). But the filly has the best of the exchange and from then on it’s as plain as day that Colm’s sole intention – to the extent that it almost looks vengeful rather than tactical – is to shove the filly back in. His left rein arm and hand are wide and pulling the horse in, his body weight is all in that direction, his whip is in his right hand, and all he does until that final bump half a furlong out is try to intimidate horse and jockey: all too late, he puts his whip down and goes to hands and heels to try and get his horse balanced again.
Had Andrea been on his mettle, I think his argument would have been based on this. “We were both pushing along from three out and my filly came onto the bridle approaching the two pole when BB was still under pressure. I’ve prepared her for a gap opening, and just as it does, Colm comes in and bumps me, but he comes off worse and is knocked wide, opening the gap properly. I come out into that gap, but Colm is determined to push me back in and, as you will see from his riding, he is determined to do that to the detriment of getting his own horse balanced again. Had he felt his colt was going to win, he would have got him balanced after bumping me, but he knew mine was travelling much the stronger, so he tried, until a hundred yards out to lean on and impede my filly. It was his misfortune that she was more than up to the task of fending him off.”
Hindsight, is wonderful, I know, but watch the race again, and I think you will see excatly what I mean. I suspect Andrea has been so laid back in the stewards room because he has assumed that these professionals could work out for themselves exactly what happened.
Take the odds against on the appeal while you can get it!
Word perfect Joe,not only are you an excellent judge of horses but an excellent judge of horseracing.Amazing how so many so called Professional pundits couldn’t see the best horse Won the race and should have kept it.
The thing is, she did not ‘barge her way out’. It’s that perception which has caused all the hassle since Leger day. O’Donoghue fouled her, knocking her off balance, as she tried to regain her balance, moving slightly to her right to get on an even keel, O’Donoghue brought BB in for another crack at her – but he bounced off her, that’s when the gap appeared. She was edging out because O’D had bumped her: he was trying to bump her a second time whne he came off worse. The only one doing the barging was Colm O’Donoghue, an offence he repeated 24 hours later in the Prix Niel.
It was a borderline decision Joe. Your opinion seems to be getting more and more one sided and nothing like what many of us saw.
Value Is EverythingReally..?
You got it wrong Mark, it happens, move on.Blackbeard to conquer the World
I think O’Donoghue should be banned for deliberate intimidation, if it were simply holding his ground fair enough but he committed the first bump by closing the gap and trying to pen Simple Verse in and it was aggressive as well, could easily of put AA over the rails, great race riding.
Great decision.
Maybe, just maybe, O’Donoghue might have been better concentrating his efforts into riding Bondi Beach to win, rather than trying to hem another horse in. Had he focussed on his own horse he might have got a better tune out of him, instead of the run he did get, which was his mount closing with all the speed of a glacier and which, arguably, might have been good enough to prevail in time for the 2016 renewal of the race.
Will the defendant rise, the judge has spoken, case dismissed.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Thanks Gord :) and well done on being the first to put your money down
Ginger, I’ve changed my position once – when I saw that ATR ‘analysis’. I had thought the filly barged him. I was wrong.
Since then, I have not wavered in that this has been a huge miscarriage of justice. Nor do I grasp this ‘what many of us saw’. It could not be clearer on that video clip that C o’D came in twice and was the aggressor throughout. I cannot see how others can’t see this. I cannot understand why it’s still considered a matter of debate. O’Donoghue moved in – twice – he made contact with the filly twice. He continued forcing his mount on her right up until he knew it was a lost cause 100 yards out. About the only thing he didn’t do was get off his horse and go inside the rails and try pulling him in from there – it is that blatant.
If you still have the footage from CH4, go back and listen to Atzeni say, ‘Look, I was behind the favourite, tracking him, now Mr O’Donohue is behind the favourite’ And he’s dead right, because BB was hauled left by his jock in trying to further interfere with the filly. That ain’t in the rules. Holding a horse in who is trying to come out is fine. Moving in to lean on a horse who has not moved off her line is not in the rules. O’Donoghue appears to carry his dominant off course personality on track with him. Take a look at the obvious, verging on violent, fouling of the fav in the Niel.
It was a borderline decision Joe. Your opinion seems to be getting more and more one sided and nothing like what many of us saw.
Even if it was borderline, the rules are clear, the benefit of doubt goes to the first past the post, never the beaten horse. It was a bad decision on the day.
The Doncaster stewards got it wrong and so did you Gingertipster
Been a member for a while, but haven’t really got anything to contribute myself, as a bona fide mug punter :D
Have followed this thread with interest, as I had backed Simply Verse antepost.
I have found the thread very educational, so thanks to all who have contributed, and kept things interesting over the last week.
Unfortunately I had backed the filly with Bet Victor, who it seems, from Twitter, are the only Bookmakers not paying out on Antepost bets, lol.
Congrats to the gents who backed their opinion with cash!
Thanks Gord
and well done on being the first to put your money downGinger, I’ve changed my position once – when I saw that ATR ‘analysis’. I had thought the filly barged him. I was wrong.
Since then, I have not wavered in that this has been a huge miscarriage of justice. Nor do I grasp this ‘what many of us saw’. It could not be clearer on that video clip that C o’D came in twice and was the aggressor throughout. I cannot see how others can’t see this. I cannot understand why it’s still considered a matter of debate. O’Donoghue moved in – twice – he made contact with the filly twice. He continued forcing his mount on her right up until he knew it was a lost cause 100 yards out. About the only thing he didn’t do was get off his horse and go inside the rails and try pulling him in from there – it is that blatant.
If you still have the footage from CH4, go back and listen to Atzeni say, ‘Look, I was behind the favourite, tracking him, now Mr O’Donohue is behind the favourite’ And he’s dead right, because BB was hauled left by his jock in trying to further interfere with the filly. That ain’t in the rules. Holding a horse in who is trying to come out is fine. Moving in to lean on a horse who has not moved off her line is not in the rules. O’Donoghue appears to carry his dominant off course personality on track with him. Take a look at the obvious, verging on violent, fouling of the fav in the Niel.
I would hope that what happened in the Prix Niel would have no bearing whatsoever on judging what happened here.
I think what we all want is consistency. I’m probably in the minority but I like the French rules because they are clear and in most cases you know straight away if something is going to be thrown out. In Ireland and the UK the benefit of the doubt all too often goes to the offender of the crime, as that’s the way the rules are set up. It’s not right imo.
I think the stewards probably got it right here as Bondi Beach made the first bump but at the same time the reaction of Atzeni to regain his position shouldn’t be tolerated. Similarly, I don’t think interference like that caused to Free Eagle at Leopardstown should be allowed go unchecked.
It was a borderline decision Joe. Your opinion seems to be getting more and more one sided and nothing like what many of us saw.
Even if it was borderline, the rules are clear, the benefit of doubt goes to the first past the post, never the beaten horse. It was a bad decision on the day.
The Doncaster stewards got it wrong and so did you Gingertipster
Ginge this thread epitomises how you think about horseracing in general.You listen to all the so called Professional pundits views who like yourself got this one totally wrong.I’ve been discussing the incident with the Guardians Greg Wood on Twitter for the past 10 days and have been telling him it was a certainty the filly would get the race back..He begged to differ..You Professionals eh??
First post under this name, I forgot my password for my former login, apologies.
In my opinion the Doncaster stewards were right. Atzeni admitted today that he created his own gap. But for that, Simple Verse would probably have remained hemmed in on the rail and that would have made it very hard for her to win the race.
Therefore, she almost certainly improved her position through causing the interference, and the placings had to be reversed. I really do think it’s as simple as that. The fact that Bondi Beach was holding her in plays no part in the application of the rules.
In the circumstances, the second (50-50 this time) incident is irrelevant.
Incidentally, I don’t agree it was careless riding either – it was improper at best. Careless is when you fail to take corrective action, and that doesn’t apply in this case.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.