- This topic has 195 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Two horses going hammer and tongs for a classic with a bit of bumping and boring mixed in all adds to the excitement. The only thing that spoilt it were the stupid Doncaster stewards acting God.
If the result had remained unchanged would there have been much uproar from anyone? Would there hell.
No one in their right mind could say it was likely Bondi Beach would have won without the interference, some of which O’Donoghue committed himself. There’s no doubt it this was an inconsistent result from the stewards and it should be reversed on appeal. They didn’t follow their own rules.A surprising thing from the furore is the number of people who either don’t know the rules or don’t believe they should be adhered to.
On ATR Sunday Forum only Matt Chapman thought or knew the rules should be followed, Lee, Down and Weaver just made it up as they went along, while Prescott sounded off his head.
It’s not often Chapman is right but he is spot on here.Latest betting on the appeal 4/7 Bondi Beach to keep the race – Simple Verse 6/4 to get it.
If the result had stood on the day Bondi Beach would be 100/1 to get it on appeal, if there was one which would have been most unlikely.All the facts, figures and publicity tell a story that the wrong decision was made on the day, the BHA should acknowledge that and reinstate Simple Verse, dish out some punishment to Barton & Co and send them for retraining.
Two horses going hammer and tongs for a classic with a bit of bumping and boring mixed in all adds to the excitement. The only thing that spoilt it were the stupid Doncaster stewards acting God.
If the result had remained unchanged would there have been much uproar from anyone? Would there hell.
No one in their right mind could say it was likely Bondi Beach would have won without the interference, some of which O’Donoghue committed himself. There’s no doubt it this was an inconsistent result from the stewards and it should be reversed on appeal. They didn’t follow their own rules.A surprising thing from the furore is the number of people who either don’t know the rules or don’t believe they should be adhered to.
On ATR Sunday Forum only Matt Chapman thought or knew the rules should be followed, Lee, Down and Weaver just made it up as they went along, while Prescott sounded off his head.
It’s not often Chapman is right but he is spot on here.Latest betting on the appeal 4/7 Bondi Beach to keep the race – Simple Verse 6/4 to get it.
If the result had stood on the day Bondi Beach would be 100/1 to get it on appeal, if there was one which would have been most unlikely.All the facts, figures and publicity tell a story that the wrong decision was made on the day, the BHA should acknowledge that and reinstate Simple Verse, dish out some punishment to Barton & Co and send them for retraining.
What is the rule exactly??
SHL
Two horses going hammer and tongs for a classic with a bit of bumping and boring mixed in all adds to the excitement. The only thing that spoilt it were the stupid Doncaster stewards acting God.
If the result had remained unchanged would there have been much uproar from anyone? Would there hell.
No one in their right mind could say it was likely Bondi Beach would have won without the interference, some of which O’Donoghue committed himself. There’s no doubt it this was an inconsistent result from the stewards and it should be reversed on appeal. They didn’t follow their own rules.A surprising thing from the furore is the number of people who either don’t know the rules or don’t believe they should be adhered to.
On ATR Sunday Forum only Matt Chapman thought or knew the rules should be followed, Lee, Down and Weaver just made it up as they went along, while Prescott sounded off his head.
It’s not often Chapman is right but he is spot on here.Latest betting on the appeal 4/7 Bondi Beach to keep the race – Simple Verse 6/4 to get it.
If the result had stood on the day Bondi Beach would be 100/1 to get it on appeal, if there was one which would have been most unlikely.All the facts, figures and publicity tell a story that the wrong decision was made on the day, the BHA should acknowledge that and reinstate Simple Verse, dish out some punishment to Barton & Co and send them for retraining.
What is the rule exactly?? I admit to my ignorance i dont know. I do however feel that the right decision was made. I had a bet on Simple Verse losing the race at nice odds as I didnt see how she could keep it with that winning distance. The only question to me was whether Bondi Beach was leaning in on her and I decided that his contact with her was minimal. Channel 4 team didnt seem to think it was particularly harsh decision either did they? Like I said, I dont actually know the rule
SHL
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.
If you are accepting that blocking a horse in deliberately is “good race riding”, you are condoning a culture where a jockey who knows he is on an inferior horse is likely to ride a race with a view to impeding the better horse. Instead of one horse racing the other fairly, it becomes about premeditated tactics to scupper the better horse. Why not then run three horses and work as a team to hem a horse in? If it’s all “good race riding”
That’s my general feeling on the practice of hemming in versus making room to get out for a run.
In this particular instance there was interference but I do not believe the result was affected. My reasoning is because I have watched the closing stages from the time of the interference right up until the winning line. It is quite a decent distance of ground and Bondi Beach had plenty of opportunity to go and win the race. The simple and undeniable fact for anyone who is willing to watch the closing stages of the race with a truly neutral viewpoint is this, Bondi Beach did not make one molecule of headway against Simple Verse throughout the entirety of the period of the race in question. He was simply out-battled by the filly and I believe the result should be, but won’t be, reversed.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
In our sport, a jockey can break the rules and win a race, but only in British horse racing can a jockey break the rules and be awarded a race.
The extent of Atzeni’s interference is open to debate, but O’Donoghue blatantly broke the rules. That is where our rules defy logic. It you look closely, right at the bottom of the official rules and regulations, you will see 2+2=5.Can’t argue with that, it’s the rules…
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.
Here’s a really good look at the race from several angles with some views on the race from the poster as to the dubious leaning tactics employed by Colm O’Donoghue on Bondi Beach, at the end he shows another race where Mr. O’Donoghue tries to employ the same tactics whilst riding Ol’ Man River….
Why did Colm O’Donoghue delay switching his whip when he found his horse leaning in on the winner in the closing stages?
Things turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...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.
If you are accepting that blocking a horse in deliberately is “good race riding”, you are condoning a culture where a jockey who knows he is on an inferior horse is likely to ride a race with a view to impeding the better horse. Instead of one horse racing the other fairly, it becomes about premeditated tactics to scupper the better horse. Why not then run three horses and work as a team to hem a horse in? If it’s all “good race riding”
That’s my general feeling on the practice of hemming in versus making room to get out for a run.
In this particular instance there was interference but I do not believe the result was affected. My reasoning is because I have watched the closing stages from the time of the interference right up until the winning line. It is quite a decent distance of ground and Bondi Beach had plenty of opportunity to go and win the race. The simple and undeniable fact for anyone who is willing to watch the closing stages of the race with a truly neutral viewpoint is this, Bondi Beach did not make one molecule of headway against Simple Verse throughout the entirety of the period of the race in question. He was simply out-battled by the filly and I believe the result should be, but won’t be, reversed.
Cant agree with you. Bumping is also potentially quite dangerous. Getting the inside rail and nicely covered up is actually ideal for a horse….except for when it comes to getting out. Part of jockeys skill is overcoming that without recourse to reckless riding.
Alternatively we could just put them all in their own tracks, which would be bizarre
SHL
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.
If you are accepting that blocking a horse in deliberately is “good race riding”, you are condoning a culture where a jockey who knows he is on an inferior horse is likely to ride a race with a view to impeding the better horse. Instead of one horse racing the other fairly, it becomes about premeditated tactics to scupper the better horse. Why not then run three horses and work as a team to hem a horse in? If it’s all “good race riding”
That’s my general feeling on the practice of hemming in versus making room to get out for a run.
In this particular instance there was interference but I do not believe the result was affected. My reasoning is because I have watched the closing stages from the time of the interference right up until the winning line. It is quite a decent distance of ground and Bondi Beach had plenty of opportunity to go and win the race. The simple and undeniable fact for anyone who is willing to watch the closing stages of the race with a truly neutral viewpoint is this, Bondi Beach did not make one molecule of headway against Simple Verse throughout the entirety of the period of the race in question. He was simply out-battled by the filly and I believe the result should be, but won’t be, reversed.
Doesn’t seem we’re agreeing on much lately David
I think hemming in, or holding your own ground is perfectly good race riding.
If a jockey takes the shortest route on the rail they know that while they’re saving ground, they may not get an ideal run. Likewise a jockey racing wide knows they’ll likely get a clear run in the finish but are covering more ground.
If there was a culture of fanning out in a finish to give everything a clear run, there would never be any advantage for the horses trapped wide and there would probably be extreme jostling early on to get a rail position.
My view is if you want to take the short road then you take your chance and if you don’t want to take a chance then you go the long road.
I in no way consider the act of not letting a horse out to be unsportsmanlike and for me it’s riding a good race. An excellent example is Danny Mullins on Our Conor in the Ryanair Hurdle a couple of years back. McCoy tried to muscle his way out on Jezki, Mullins was having none of it and quite rightly.
In this case I think the best horse on the day past the post first, but didn’t do so within the rules.
Both the first two broke the rules, one broke the whip rules, the other the interference rules.
But you don’t lose the race for either of those offences unless you are confident the result would have been different. The result should stand.
A vast majority of people who know the rules believe Simple Verse should have kept the race, why else would the horse have been available to lay at 1/3 for thousands and Bondi Beach available to back for thousands at 3/1?
No one knows for sure whether Bondi Beach would have won without the interference but unless you are confident he would have done, the rules are clear, you give the benefit of doubt to the first past the post.
The Doncaster stewards either don’t know the rules or decided to not adhere to them for some unknown reason on this occasion. Hopefully the BHA appeals panel don’t follow suit.
There is nothing wrong with hemming an opponent in. It is part of race riding and within the rules.
As others have pointed out, it’s when jockeys break the rules to get out of a bad situation that causes problems.
I suggested a football analogy earlier. It’s a bit like a player shielding the ball from an opponent. It’s within the laws but we often see players foul in order to get at the ball. Others will argue that, to an extent and depending on how the shielding is carried out, there is a case for deeming it obstruction.
I’m sure the Beckett team will take the spirit of Robin’s argument into the appeal.
The most important issue to the stewards in reaching their decision was whether Bondi Beach had been knocked off his line, and he was, twice. Surely the ground lost in getting knocked off your line twice, particularly when one incidence was close to the line, adds up to more than a winning distance of a head. That, I believe, was the basis of their decision.
The most important issue to the stewards in reaching their decision was whether Bondi Beach had been knocked off his line, and he was, twice. Surely the ground lost in getting knocked off your line twice, particularly when one incidence was close to the line, adds up to more than a winning distance of a head. That, I believe, was the basis of their decision.
Precisely, the stewards cant in virtually any circumstances be 100% to what would have happend. Alot of people here think the decision was wrong on the basis that the filly would have found a way to win anyhow as she may have more heart than the runner up. It would be ludicrous of the judges to start making judgements on that.
English stewards are very slow to disqualify in general. And as for the fact that Simple Verse was 1/5 to keep the race. That was based on the fact that a number of simular incidence happend recently and the result was unaffected. The massive difference which the “group think” overlooked was the distance at the post. Im proud to say that for once, I wasn’t so naive.
SHL
Doesn’t seem we’re agreeing on much lately David
I think hemming in, or holding your own ground is perfectly good race riding.
If a jockey takes the shortest route on the rail they know that while they’re saving ground, they may not get an ideal run. Likewise a jockey racing wide knows they’ll likely get a clear run in the finish but are covering more ground.
If there was a culture of fanning out in a finish to give everything a clear run, there would never be any advantage for the horses trapped wide and there would probably be extreme jostling early on to get a rail position.
My view is if you want to take the short road then you take your chance and if you don’t want to take a chance then you go the long road.
I in no way consider the act of not letting a horse out to be unsportsmanlike and for me it’s riding a good race. An excellent example is Danny Mullins on Our Conor in the Ryanair Hurdle a couple of years back. McCoy tried to muscle his way out on Jezki, Mullins was having none of it and quite rightly.
In this case I think the best horse on the day past the post first, but didn’t do so within the rules.
I would agree that it’s just tough luck if a jockey finds himself boxed in at some stage of a race. It is a totally different scenario though, when another jockey is deliberately taking measures to prevent you riding your horse to it’s best position. It is supposed to be a sport and I don’t see anything to like about deliberately hampering another horse’s chances to further your own ends.
Nobody expects a jockey to move aside like an obliging motorist to let another horse escape from a pocket but that’s totally separate to deliberately leaning in to trap another horse.
You agree that the best horse on the day won. The rules state that:-
1. Was their interference?
2. Was the result affected?As I have explained, I feel the result was not affected. The general trend with stewarding has been to let the first past the post in similar incidents keep the race after the enquiry. As mentioned earlier in the thread, there have been similar situations where the horse kept the race when many felt it should have been disqualified.
Much is being made of the winning margin in these scenarios but I feel we are in danger here of getting into a lazy stewarding option where one size fits all and if the winning margin is a head or less they will disqualify and if it’s more than a head the result will stand. I believe that each race has to be closely examined on its own merits and in this particular case the fact is that Bondi Beach made no headway over a reasonably long distance of ground.
It’s a bit sad that this has been a Leger with nothing else to talk about than the Stewarding. A really forgettable renewal of poor quality.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
What is the rule exactly?? I admit to my ignorance i dont know. I do however feel that the right decision was made. Like I said, I dont actually know the rule
There is nothing wrong with not knowing the rules but I’m puzzled how you think the right decision was made without knowing what the rules are.
Don’t you need to know them to make an informed opinion?54.5 Where
54.5.1 a horse or its Rider has caused interference by careless or improper riding, and
54.5.2 the Stewards are satisfied that the interference improved the placing of the horse in relation to the horse or horses with which it interfered,
the horse shall, on an objection to the Stewards under Part 7, be placed behind the horse or horses with which it has interfered.
54.6 For the purposes of Paragraph 54.5.2
54.6.1 the reference to the placing of any horse interfered with is to the placing decided by the Judge, and
54.6.2 if the Stewards are not satisfied the interference did improve the placing of the horse, they must overrule
the objection and order that the placings remain unaltered.54.7 In deciding whether the Stewards are satisfied that the interference improved the placing of the horse, the Stewards shall make no allowance for any ground which the incident may have cost the horse causing the interference.
The decision is not influenced by whether ‘the best horse won or not’, simply on whether one horse improved its placing over the other as a result of interference. In this case it is clear that without the interferences, SV would have finished behind BB.
The decision is not influenced by whether ‘the best horse won or not’, simply on whether one horse improved its placing over the other as a result of interference. In this case it is clear that without the interferences, SV would have finished behind BB.
You can’t scientifically prove that, it’s just a matter of opinion. Nobody knows how much the filly could have found to keep Bondi Beach at bay. All the way up the run in, she finds enough to keep in front of him. It is perfectly possible that she would have done that whatever the circumstances.
Like it or not, the rules are heavily framed in favour of the horse who passes the post first. The winning margin has to be considered of course, but as I have said, I think it would be a mistake to start the enquiry based on the winning margin and working back from that point. Each case needs to be considered singly and in a different set of circumstances I would have agreed with the disqualification but in this individual case I think the result was unaffected.
I feel people are confusing a jockey keeping a horse in simply by holding his current line, with the deliberate act of leaning in to hamper another runner.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.