- This topic has 195 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
I think the stewards got it wrong and were mostly persuaded by O’ Donoghue doing a much better job of arguing his case. The initial intereference when Simple Verse barged Bondi Beach was too far out to effect the result so it is not relevant though Atzeni was guilty. The stewards allowed O’ Donoghue however to make that incident relevant.
The second incident and the only relevant one was caused by Bondi Beach leaning on Simple Verse and O’ Donoghue kept his whip in his right hand and made no effort to straighten Bondi Beach so the fact Simple Verse then leant into him is no surprise at all so I don’t see how she is the guilty one. The other factor is Bondi Beach still had time to get back up if he was good enough but he wasn’t. Simple Verse’s connections are appealing and I hope they are successful as the best horse was first past the post.
Whether it would’ve been the same if the winner had been owned by the Queen (remember Goodwood)?
I could be wrong here, but my opinion is that Bondi Beach being the shorter price of the two pleased more of the betting crowd than Simply Verse. I believed this was a major influence on their decision otherwise they would have kept the result unchanged but simply handed out fines and/or suspensions to whom merits them.
You've got to accentuate the positive.
Eliminate the negative.
Latch on to the affirmative.
Don't mess with mister in between.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.
The comparisons don’t work Maurice. All the other sports have rules that all the competitors understand fully. The trouble with Horse Racing is that half of the Jockey/Horse team don’t understand the rules, maybe sometimes both of them to be honest
The horse doesn’t understand the rules and sometimes the horse makes a move that the jockey can never have legislated for. Golden Horn was a classic example yesterday, veering wildly from a shadow. It was not as if Frankie set out to deliberately knock Free Eagle out of the race.
Even when interference is the jockey’s fault it must be remembered that it is not a car they are driving. The jockey has an obligation to try to win the race and often has to make a split second decision. The nature of horse racing means that jockeys will make mistakes and take the wrong option on occasion.
I think the notion of letting the horse keep the race, when it is clearly going to have won anyway, and then punishing the jockey for his mistake/breach of the rules is a sound one.
The system will never be perfect and occasionally, like the Leger, it will throw up a genuine 50/50 call.
I wouldn’t have liked to have made this adjudication but would tend to have come down with letting the filly keep the race, based on similar incidents and the general trend of the winner keeping the race in these tight decisions.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Why don’t the people involved understand the rules?
Because they’re fuddled. (The rules, I mean.)
Clarity in other sports means the rules are followed and everybody understands why sanctions are imposed when they’re broken.
I accept that occasionally a horse can make a move the jockey wasn’t expecting but that’s part of the sport. The jockey is there for a reason.
After reading the respective posts on this thread and hearing those of the panel on The Sunday Forum, it would seem that there of those of us who will view the incident from either a sporting perspective, or rigidly refer to the rule book. Jason Weaver stated that the best horse had won, but the decision to disqualify Simple Verse was correct. When the rule book encourages the ‘best horse on the day’ scenario, such contradictions will sometimes be impossible to avoid!
My initial, and present, impression of the interference was that it six of one, half a dozen of the other, and that the filly was very brave to both rally after the incident(s) and to hold on. From a sporting perspective, the best horse passed the post first and would have done so if both Simple Verse and Bondi Beach had a clean passage. In my opinion, they could have duelled for another two furlongs and the Ballydoyle inmate would not have gone past.
If you strictly refer to the rule book and ask yourself a simple question that requires an often opinionated response (!) ‘Did the interference prevent Bondi Beach from winning?’ then……the answer is inconclusive. The first incident (Atzeni barging his way out) did not, in my opinion, influence the result. Bondi Beach was given sufficient time to respond, and made limited – if any – ground on the eventual winner. The second incident is the only one that should be analysed when deciding the outcome, and is very much a matter of opinion. I firmly believe that Colm O’Donoghue was as much to blame as Andrea Atzeni. Simply put, they were two young horses running over a marathon trip, rolling onto each other at the business end of the contest.
The pivotal point of any sporting contest is to try and find a winner within the confines of the rules. Certain rules will provide a grey area and, therefore, are open to interpretation. If you can not conclusively prove that the result was affected, then the winner should always be given the benefit of the doubt…but that is open to interpretation!!
I believe that connections of Simple Verse can feel hard done by. She was the best horse in the race on the day and the only incident that had any bearing on the result was six of one, half a dozen of the other – the type of incident you see on a daily business on a racecourse. I will leave you with this thought…
Atzeni broke the rules, received a ban and lost the race. O’Donoghue broke the rules, received a ban and was awarded the race.
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.
Surely the fact that the best horse won is not totally relevant. The decision should just be based on whether you ride within the rules. In most sports if you break the rules then you are punished but in horse racing it seems to me that , most of the time, it is only the jockey that is punished and the horse and owner are not.
Once again it is only an opinion but jockeys seem to be less careful and the win at all costs attitude is growing and this is not helped by the lack of disqualifications.
And I don’t mind people disagreeing with my opinions but to call them nonsense (Misspelt by the way) is not a nice reaction Ginge.
Finally the best horse won argument cuts no mustard with me because how many unlucky losers and badly ridden horses which are clearly the best don’t win ?
Are they going to change results because a horse was badly ridden ? Of course they aren’t !!A
At the time I felt think it was a harsh decision to throw the filly out – and having watched the race
over and over again , I still feel the same way.I really do hope Ralph Beckett wins his appeal .
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
I believe Simple Verse should have kept the race,both parties were equally guilty of misconduct and both horses were affected.The best horse on the day got her head in front on the line and both horses gave 100%.Having said that the same cant be said for the Jockeys ‘performance’ in the Stewards room.Colm totally outclassed Andrea,he was far more articulate,far more animated and fought his corner.Andrea lost the race in that room.Incredibly he shows more spirit when the race is taken from him but its too late then.I have taken the 6/5 with Skybet to £100 that the filly is reinstated as the St Leger winner.The Sh*t hits the fan then though.
I assume that English is Andreas second language so it must be difficult for him to be as eloquent as Colm. I feel really strongly that the filly should be reinstated; if O’Donoghue had spent more time riding his race and not concentrating on not letting other people ride theirs this situation would not be happening. I know it’s race riding etc etc but in this case I feel quite sickened by it all. I just hope the powers that be have the guts to admit they were wrong.
And I don’t mind people disagreeing with my opinions but to call them nonsense (Misspelt by the way) is not a nice reaction Ginge.
I tend to treat everyone’s opinions the same Raymo, using the same language whether they’re from outside or inside the forum. Sorry, didn’t envisage you’d take it so badly and would not have used the word had I known; no offence intended
. It’s a subject most of us have strong opinions about – either way.Do agree with you about the result. imo Atzeni intentionally barged his way out and to do that is dangerous; therefore should not matter if Simple Verse was the “best horse in the race”.
Value Is EverythingI had this argument on another thread where it was deemed by the other part to be “good riding” to deliberately hem someone in, but “reckless riding” to try to get out in order to do your job and endeavour to win the race.
Cojones I say.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Cojones indeed Steve or as my son would say peanuts…….
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
The sad fact is that nobody can replace the joy of winning on the day for all connections, the first filly to do so since User Friendly in 1992, that is some achievement.
With such a prestigious race as the St. Leger and the weight of public opinion over this injustice there can only be one outcome, re-instate Simple Verse as the winner, the sooner the better.Things turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...The consencus of opinion (Notice how I spelt that correctly Ginge,calling Raymo a ‘Nonce’ is very disrespectful) on here is that the filly should be reinstated as the winner of this years St Leger,that in itself suggests the Doncaster Stewards were wrong as the knowledge on here is far superior to that of the ‘Bettors Forum’.I’d have expected at least a comment on the subject from them.
You find yourself boxed in during a 7 runner 1m6f race and you take your punishment until a gap appears. If that’s too late then so be it.
Not very sportsmanlike from O’Donoghue but Joseph O’Brien was praised for it a couple of years back at Royal Ascot and there is nothing dangerous or illegal about it. There was both in Atzeni’s actions.
My take is that Simple Verse was the best horse on the day but should she have kept the race? No.
Lee
I had this argument on another thread where it was deemed by the other part to be “good riding” to deliberately hem someone in, but “reckless riding” to try to get out in order to do your job and endeavour to win the race.
Cojones I say.
So it should be a free for all..a proper bumper you might say??
Listen, the only logical argument made by anybody here in favour of Simple Verse was whether the other horse was leaning on her. If your Ralph Beckett, thats your only hope in an appeal.
Any other arguments that she should have been allowed to bump her way out and keep the race having only won by head can only be made by those who envisage a radically different sport.
SHL
. It’s a subject most of us have strong opinions about – either way.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.