- This topic has 195 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The first thing that struck me was the strength of O’Donoghue’s personality in the enquiry – he seemed in charge of the whole room with a dominant presence. How could that fail to have an effect on the stewards who are also under the pressure of knowing thousands are watching them on TV. What would those viewers think of O’Donoghue’s presentation, the force of his argument and apparent logic? I’d be surprised if that did not affect their judgement.
Also, why interview jockeys at all? Why offer the more eloquent or dominant a chance to sway the judgement you will make from four different camera angles?
Then we come to the application of the rules. Is it bumping that is the crime or the effect of bumping? The filly bumped her way out. Had she been on the outside and BB had tried the same, he would not have got out – but the jockey would have committed the same crime. After she got out BB bumped her twice, but her size and strength allowed her to shrug it off. Are the rules to be applied based on a horse’s make and shape? O’Donoghue did twice to Atzeni what Atzeni did once to him – he committed 2 crimes, but was punished for neither because the ‘victim’ was big enough not to be affected…but does that make the jockey any less guilty?
Finally, would BB have gone past the filly? Not from what I could see.
All in all, a shocking decision which should be reversed on appeal imo.
I wonder if the failure to award Bondi Beach the race at York, when Paul Barton was on duty apparently, informed today’s decision.
From what I heard Barton said he was not on duty then Ivanjica, said he’d seen the incident since.
Whatever, but Luckie tucked him right up when asking if all law is founded on the basis of precedence. The precedent of what happened at York (and Barton is the head of stewarding”) should have meant today’s result was not reversed. Simple.
I also wonder how a certain gentleman, who has has invested hundreds of millions of pounds in the industry over the last three years, will view the sport going forward if this decision is not reversed? I am not suggesting for a minute any decision should be based on the financial clout of the main protagonists, however we all saw how the Aga Khan reacted back in 1989.
Is it bumping that is the crime or the effect of bumping? The filly bumped her way out. Had she been on the outside and BB had tried the same, he would not have got out – but the jockey would have committed the same crime.
What are you talking about Joe?
You say the filly “bumped her way out”, and then come to the conclusion she should keep the race.
Had BB been on the inner and barged his way out at the exact same angle the result would’ve probably been the same; with BB instead being demoted (if making another interference inside the final furlong too).
Value Is EverythingI also wonder how a certain gentleman, who has has invested hundreds of millions of pounds in the industry over the last three years, will view the sport going forward if this decision is not reversed? I am not suggesting for a minute any decision should be based on the financial clout of the main protagonists, however we all saw how the Aga Khan reacted back in 1989.
It isn’t the Aga, what would it have been like had it been the Wildenstein’s Leger horse?
Value Is EverythingJudging by this thread you know the problems the judges had in making the decision.
Well said steeplechasing,the stewards seemed to take no notice that Bondi Beach was laying on the filly and it was only because she is a powerful and substantial filly that she never lost her stride.The best horse won and Atzeni was only race riding earlier,when the filly gave Bondi Beach a minor bump,2 FURLONGS out, when a gap appeared,as shown from head on. If Dettori had been on the filly the positions would not have changed. There is tremendous inconcistentcy in these stewards decisions.
The rules are simple.Did interference take place. Yes it clearly did and did it mean the second horse was interfered to by more than the winning margin.Again clearly it was.Much as i feel sorry for ralph beckett the stewards have made the right decision.I doubt any appeal will win as the top steward pointed out all procedures had been followed.Its the consistency thats the problem. Sts should have lost the voltigeur and then this result would have not been so heatedly debated.It seems for ages the stewards only change a result if they absolutely have too and commom sense has gone out the window.
Is it bumping that is the crime or the effect of bumping? The filly bumped her way out. Had she been on the outside and BB had tried the same, he would not have got out – but the jockey would have committed the same crime.
What are you talking about Joe?
You say the filly “bumped her way out”, and then come to the conclusion she should keep the race.
Had BB been on the inner and barged his way out at the exact same angle the result would’ve probably been the same; with BB instead being demoted (if making another interference inside the final furlong too).
Peslier bumped his way out, and kept the race. BB would not have bumped his way out today – he did not have the size to shift the filly, despite 2 attempts to do so after she got out: THAT is my whole point. In these situations, horses are innocent, it is the action of the jockey that makes the difference. If interference is accidental, I have no problem with the result of an enquiry taking into account the distance beaten. But if interference is caused by a deliberate manoeuvre by a jockey, then that manoeuvre is the ‘crime’, not the result of it. Had such a system been applied, then if the filly was thrown out today, Peslier’s horse should have suffered the same.
Rules are being applied on the basis of the effect of a transgression of the rules, not on the transgression itself (otherwise, O’Donoghue’s retaliation would have been taken into account today).
Stewards are not going to get consistency unless the foundation of the law they are seeking to apply is sound. Where is the logic in a law that says you can bump and barge all you want, but unless you benefit from it, you will not suffer disqualification?
In a courtroom, it would be like saying that if you mug an old woman but find there is nothing in her handbag you walk away scot free.
I have no problem with them throwing the filly out today, if they go back and take the race off Peslier and all the other miscreants over the past twenty years.
First of all I must say I backed the winner (well the official winner)
All I want to say on the matter is to almost replicate what Ralph Beckett said ………….. Inconsistency is the problem here plain and simple. Realta goes across half the field and hampers at least three horses and keeps the race ???
Mr Lupton ???
Suzy’s Connoissuer last Saturday ???
Dartmouth at Goodwood?
If you watch racing regularly the list is endless.IMO the only solution is to do what the French do and place the offending horse behind the one it has hampered.
This may stop the kamikaze win at all cost race riding that seems to be the norm now!!Like I say it is only my opinion
I think this “inconsistency” thing is nonsence.
Obviously when human opinion has anything to do with it there are going to be certain occasions when it’s a close decision. Any 60/40 decision is to some going to be seen by some as a 40/60 “inconsistency”. We’re always going to have close decisions, but some so called inconsistencys aren’t at all.Realtra hampered at least three horses but the point is he was clearly the best horse so should be allowed to keep the race.
Mr Lupton best horse in the race.
Suzi’s Con, couldn’t see anything wrong tbh.
Dartmouth I personally agree as said at the time, forced his way out and should have been seen as deliberate. But stewards did not see it that way and again allowed to keep it because of being clearly the best horse in the race.In the Voltigeur Sea The Stars won by 1/2 a length. Had it been a neck it might have been different. Close decision, one of those 60/40 or 40/60 decisions people see as “inconsistent” depending on their opinion. imo Stewards got it right.
Value Is EverythingHave to agree with Steeplechasing on this matter, it’s a 50/50. I’ve watched the race 3 or 4 times and Bondi Beach is definitely as much to blame for the scrimmaging as Simple Verse. Prior to SV being moved out to challenge (approx. 2 to 2.5 furlongs out) BB moves to his left & bumps her twice. In doing so he gets “bounced right” at which point Andrea goes for the gap between BB & Storm the Stars and bumps BB in the process. The minor incident 1/2 furlong out made no difference.
Originally I thought an appeal would be a waste of time; assuming the BHA hearing would have to be convinced the stipendiary steward had made an obvious mistake, as in cricket concerning umpires decisions, but on further viewing I believe the connections of SV have a decent case; I wish them luck.
Before anyone jumps to conclusions I had no monetary interest in this race, I’d just like to see justice prevail.A good jockey doesn't need orders and a bad jockey couldn't carry them out; so it's best not to give them any.
It’s not the decision but it seems that the decision is impossible to predict. The rules should be that clear that once the enquiry is announced it should be perfectly reasonable to be sure what the result of the enquiry will be, that doesn’t seem the case in British racing at the moment
You say had BB done the barging he would not have got out. Times BB jostled SV were at a completely different angle to the first SV on BB incident; so it’s impossible to make that judgement. Not that it matters, point is SV did “make the gap” which is against the rules.
Am just as frustrated as you about Peslier getting away with it Joe, I believe the rules are already there to chuck Peslier out and it was how Stewards interpreted the rules whic was at fault (or scared of chucking one that’s the obvious “best horse” out). But just because one jockey got away with it does not mean every jockey should. Today’s incident was (in the stewards opinion) not solely about that particular interference anyway.
As I understand it, SV’s demotion was for making a gap and the later interference. Two interferences together meaning stewards considered BB lost more ground than he lost the race by. They believe without the interferences BB would’ve won. That can not be said about Peslier’s case because (however much it might frustrate us) the Frenchman won by so far.
Value Is EverythingI backed Storm the Stars and he was well beaten but really felt for Andrea Atzeni when the race was taken from him in the Stewards Room. I believe the best horse (first past the post) won the race and that holding tactics were always going to be employed by Colm O’Donoghue he sat behind the leading trio for most of the way probably thinking it would be another battle with Storm the Stars but suprisingly found himself next to a filly full of running and a will to win…
My personal opinion is that he rode dangerously close to the filly leaning on her at every opportunity. Andrea Atzeni had no option but to try for a clear run and both horses where bumped in the course of that action.
I hope the decision is reversed.Things turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...It’s not the decision but it seems that the decision is impossible to predict. The rules should be that clear that once the enquiry is announced it should be perfectly reasonable to be sure what the result of the enquiry will be, that doesn’t seem the case in British racing at the moment
That is spot on and what should occur with centralised stewarding, without it you’re going to get inconsistent and wrong decisions like this one at times.
One of the worst things someone can say about incidents and stewards enquiries like this is that it could go either way. That is nonsense, the rules are clear the benefit of doubt should go to the first past the post.
No better guide to something than money, Simple Verse was long odds on to keep the race, she was only as big as 1/3 due to the possibility of inconsistent stewarding, as occurred.
If it was the correct decision why has there been such controversy and dissatisfaction from the media and connections regards it? There would have been next to none from anyone if the result had stood and no appeal. That tells you something.
While of course they should be allowed to put their points across regarding riding offences, jockeys should not be involved in any stewards enquiry regarding the result of any race, everyone can see what has happened, we shouldn’t have jockeys telling lies or putting their points across better than others influencing the results of races.
Gingertipster, regards Peslier at Goodwood, you don’t get automatically disqualified for deliberate acts so you’re wrong to presume the stewards didn’t consider it deliberate. It can be deliberate and careless.
I’m not as good at race reading as you guys but my take on the race was that she’d been lit up by the Coolmore pacemaker [if that’s what he was] and needed to be tucked in by the rail, only to be fenced in at crucial stages by Bondi Beach. She was still full of running at the end of the race and was the deserved winner. I feel really sad about the result today, even though it’s a race that I wasn’t exactly over enthusiastic about beforehand.It also seems wrong that an older, more experienced and eloquent jockey can be allowed to state their case in the stewards room the way that O’Donoghue did; Atzeni was at a disadvantage right from the start. I very much hope the decision is reversed, even though it has taken away the joy of winning for everyone connected with the horse.
My tuppenceworth…
Firstly I should clarify that I have no financial interest in the decision as I was on FOR.
I think the decision, based on the visual evidence, is the correct one. That in itself is a bit of a rarity in British racing. (OK, that last bit was meant to be tongue in cheek.)
The basic idea that the best horse should not lose the race is where the entire British stewarding system founders.
Can you imagine if the ‘guidelines’ operated by the BHB were transferred across to athletics or golf or snooker? Or even football?
Athletics: an athlete would be allowed to keep the race if he or she stepped inside the next inside lane but won by far enough for it not to have mattered a jot. Every other race would see instances of the offence because the athletes would know they can get away with it.
Golf: a golfer mis-scores his card by a shot but he wins by two anyway so he’s OK?
Snooker: a player touches the cue ball but it doesn’t really move so he hasn’t really fouled? (I know this now happens in golf, by the way.)
I like the granny mugging analogy above, by the way.
Bending over backwards to be ‘fair’ is producing the polar opposite in racing. The horse and jockey are a team. If one breaks the rules they should be disqualified completely. None of this fannying about with placing behind the opponent offended. Last place.
We’d get some controversy for a season or so but it wouldn’t be long before everyone played by the same rules.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.