- This topic has 195 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Joe,
Did the panel today – with all their camera angles and better quality pictures – find CO’D at fault for the first incident? Did they see BB “making contact with the filly – twice”? Not to my knowledge.Sky report:
“Having addressed the hearing first, Andrea Atzeni, rider of Simple Verse, admitted in his cross-examination by John Kelsey-Fry QC that he did cause the first piece of interference, just inside the two-furlong pole, but only due to the fact his mount had been lent on by Bondi Beach”. So even Andrea does not believe what you suggested… “The only one doing the barging was Colm O’Donoghue”.
According to the Racing Post:
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“.
“We allow the appeal,” he said. “As a result we change the decision of the stewards at Doncaster and place Simple Verse first and Bondi Beach second.”
To my knowledge they have not exonerated Andrea for his move two out, they’ve only seen it as not effecting the result. A jockey coming in to give a rival little room to maneuver is race riding and does not give the other jockey a right to push his way out of a pocket.
As I’ve said, imo the second incident is six of one and half a dozen of the other and that’s how the Panel now see it. Mr Barton on the day said – the original disqualification was for a combination of the two interferences… Without this second incident the first (on its own) is therefore now thought not enough to be worth SV being disqualified.
Got no problem with anyone who thinks Bondi Beach did not deserve to get the race Joe, it is a tight decision. But for you to think everything was CO’D’s fault is… well, as you’d say “I cannot understand why it’s still considered a matter of debate”, Andrea did – as he himself recognises – cause interference – what is up for debate is if that interference was worth disqualification… And the appeal panel have come to the conclusion AA’s interference did not deserve disqualification. So despite you being totally wrong about who’s to blame, it does not matter because you won the bet!
You’re often an excellent judge Joe – my favourite TRFer to debate with – but you do seem to have a strong “confirmation bias”.Anyway, CO’D got a whip ban so does not deserve to get the race in a close finish/decision. Beckett also deserves a change of luck and therefore am glad the placings were reversed.
Value Is EverythingDid everyone see the response from Aiden O’Brien following the decision? Very good, the man is a true great.
From what I have seen and read over this incident, I would say it has been 70/30 in support of Simple Verse. The majority of that is of a sensible view and not sentiment toward the filly and Ralph Beckett/Andrea Atzeni.
It still has to go down as a surprise though that the decision was overturned today, she was odds against and that had to be for a good reason.
Hard luck Marky; at least you can rejoice in being a moral winner though.
Haha, cheers.
I’m glad that they got the race back, anyway.
Did everyone see the response from Aiden O’Brien following the decision? Very good, the man is a true great.
From what I have seen and read over this incident, I would say it has been 70/30 in support of Simple Verse. The majority of that is of a sensible view and not sentiment toward the filly and Ralph Beckett/Andrea Atzeni.
It still has to go down as a surprise though that the decision was overturned today, she was odds against and that had to be for a good reason.
Heard an interview earlier, and thought AOB was very magnanimous in defeat.
Suppose it was harder to take for COD, but I thought he came across well in his interview, too.
I’m going to try and post a couple of images of the first contact – if they don’t come through properly, I’ll try and do them tomorrow.
But first, here is some of the evidence from today: italics are mine:
Giving evidence, Atzeni told the tribunal that Bondi Beach had been the first to lean in on his horse. “If you’re walking on the street and someone leans on you the first thing you do is lean back into them or you’ll fall over,” he said.
A pretty logical assertion from AA imo
Pressed by Atzeni’s counsel, Graeme McPherson QC, that he had been “constantly leaning in” on Simple Verse, O’Donoghue countered: “I don’t want the interference to get any worse. I need to make sure my horse’s momentum is carried forward.”
First, O’D admits he’s been leaning in, secondly, his explanation is in defiance of the laws of physics – essentially, ‘I wanted to keep leaning on her so I could maintain momentum’ Eh?
Try again…
(note in 1 above AA’s upright position – until this point he has been riding flat out. Although it cannot be seen side-on, I think it’s a reasonable assumption, given picture 2, that he is in fear of being interfered with, if, indeed it has not already started)
The big bump – the fact that BB comes in here – not SV coming out, is seen much more clearly in the video these stills are taken from
There is no gap there Steeplechasing. There is a gap from the camera angle to the horse but they’re not running towards the camera. The space clearly isn’t there to fit a horse between Storm The Stars and Bondi Beach without making contact.
In image 9 she hasn’t entered any gap, she’s still directly behind Storm The Stars.
Tommy, she is indeed behind STS and does not get to that horse for another 10 seconds, but the gap has opened and she is being channeled into it and the only contact she has with BB from that point in the race is when he is brought back in by O’D to lean on her again.
The camera angles, as you say, are not perfect, but if you watch the video rather than these stills it is much clearer. I pulled these out at first to try and show Ginger the initial point of contact which he continues to argue that nobody else can see.
What the stills also threw up was just how far the filly was bounced into the rail by the ‘big bump’. I suspect that the typical antagonist in a bumping incident has the momentum and balance in his/her favour to (quoting some people here) ‘barge their way out’. The stills show that the filly has not barged her way anywhere – she has been barged into the rail by BB who, had he been strong enough and more securely anchored at the contact point, would probably have put her out of the race.
However, if I’ve learned one thing from this incident it is that things are not always what they seem. I’ve been able to judge it only from the angles available to me – I even reran the stewards’ room footage concentrating on the patrol film screens a dozen times (sad, I know, but a good lesson in not always ‘believing your eyes). One thing I’m confident of – had aerial footage been available, things would have been much clearer much sooner. Maybe someday silent drones will be used. To finalise that point, I might well be wrong, but from my interpretation of the evidence available, this is the conclusion I’ve reached.
Talking of ‘all the evidence’, on the point of O’Donoghue’s behaviour in the Prix Niel, I doubt it was given any consideration by the panel, and rightly so for procedural purposes. But we are not bound by such procedures and are free to speculate. Had I the time and inclination to go through a hundred of C O’D’s rides, I strongly suspect these two would not be the only incidents in which he fouls or attempts to foul. Whether that is a purely tactical thing, or it’s in his nature (I’d bet it’s the latter), it strengthens the informal evidence against him in the Leger.
You’ve obviously spent a lot of time with that Joe, but those blurrry stills don’t show what you claim. In particular, the spot where you believe there was a “clear gap” is timed at 2 mins 41.6. This is clearly after the interference. Take a look at where contact took place @ 2 mins 40.1 and there is absolutely NO gap.
This is the video footage your images are from:
Please go to 2 minutes 35 in to the race and click. Watch the next 9 seconds and then click on 2mins 35 again. Keep doing this over and over again. I must have seen it over 100 times now. As Mike Cattermole says, Bondi Beach keeps Simple Verse in (good race riding). There’s a deliberate maneuver by AA to push his way out.
Value Is EverythingGinger, I’ve watched it over and over. The issue seems to be that you think BB is entitled to push the filly to keep her in (assuming you now accept there was contact initiated by O’D prior to the bump?).
If a horse attempts to come off his line when boxed in, and push his way out, then the jockey boxing him in is entitled to push back – that physical contact is within the rules.
But when the boxed in horse is holding her racing line, and not trying to get out, it is not within the rules for the one boxing her in to push her in and off her line. Do you agree on that?
And do you now accept there was contact prior to the ‘big bump’?
You’re often an excellent judge Joe – my favourite TRFer to debate with – but you do seem to have a strong “confirmation bias”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.