- This topic has 195 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
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.
It’s just silly to say it is clear BB would have won without the interference, there would hardly be all the controversy and an appeal if it was clear cut. Like the Donny stewards you also don’t mention the interference Bondi Beach caused to Simple Verse.
If the result had stood on the day there would hardly have been a murmur and we would all have just moved on.
You’re right that it’s about whether a horse improved it’s placing rather than best horse winning although I was mystified by a number of “experts” on tv at the weekend state that if Free Eagle had finished second rather than third the placings would have been reversed with Golden Horn.
That shouldn’t make any difference unless they have different rules in Ireland.
The general consensus is that Col O’ Donoghue won the race in the Stewards room. Is it really necessary to have the jockeys in there at all?
The losing jock will claim interference cost him the race and the winner will claim he was always on top.
Surely the stewards can make up their own mind from the various feeds and angles they have on the race. Apologies if this has been brought up on this thread already.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!
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….Shame its taken yo this long to see it mind!
:)
Gord, I posted on Saturday that I thought it a shocking decision, but seeing the footage from the ATR cameras – I’m assuming they are different from the CH4 lot – makes things even clearer. Just taken the 7/4 with Paddy.
Do you know if connections are allowed to appear at the appeal and speak? If they are, I’d have more on (more on to overturn the morons)
Gord, I posted on Saturday that I thought it a shocking decision, but seeing the footage from the ATR cameras – I’m assuming they are different from the CH4 lot – makes things even clearer. Just taken the 7/4 with Paddy.
Do you know if connections are allowed to appear at the appeal and speak? If they are, I’d have more on (more on to overturn the morons)
Dont honestly know if connections can appear Joe…We dont want Andrea saying another word mind,he lost the race in the Stewards room in my opinion.Any other Appeal in court allows individuals to speak so cant see why they cant here.She will get the race back anyway,its blatantly obvious its 6 of one,half a dozen of other so best horse won on day and will be vindicated imo too.
For a jockey who was very confident that the professionals would work out what had happened, he was very worried when he was riding back in. He said as much when he was interviewed.
He was responding to a question, and I think he said something like, ‘You’d always be a bit concerned when an enquiry is called’ (might have added ‘especially in a Classic, I can’t remember). To say ‘I’m not at all worried’ would have smacked of arrogance, don’t you think?
No doubt whatsoever in my mind now that O’Donoghue took the same attitude in the race as he did in the stewards’ room – dominate everyone and everything. I don’t blame him for trying, but he should not have got away with it and was far and away the worst offender of the two – it was only because his mount wasn’t up to the task physically that he got away with the constant bumping and boring.
Good luck Steeplechasing and TAPK
I took the 7/4 Paddy Power was generously offering yesterday, and still are.
I didn’t back Simple Verse on the day, Storm the Stars was my selection, but in the ATR video you can clearly see that CO’D definitely did not keep a straight line and deliberately tried to intimidate the filly, he made no effort to shift his whip until right at the finish as Steeplechasing pointed out.
If the Appeal Panel were able to look back at races that CO’D has ridden before they would see that this is a tactic that he is quite fond of using to better his position.
I don’t think the 7/4 is going to last and I haven’t had a huge bet but it’s a chance to support Simple Verse in the Appeal room to get back what is rightly hers.
JacThings turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...It’s been a miserable week racing wise in several ways but the filly being awarded the race would lift my spirits a bit. Didn’t O’Donoghue use the same tactics in France at the weekend as well?
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.
It’s just silly to say it is clear BB would have won without the interference, there would hardly be all the controversy and an appeal if it was clear cut. Like the Donny stewards you also don’t mention the interference Bondi Beach caused to Simple Verse.
If the result had stood on the day there would hardly have been a murmur and we would all have just moved on.
You’re right that it’s about whether a horse improved it’s placing rather than best horse winning although I was mystified by a number of “experts” on tv at the weekend state that if Free Eagle had finished second rather than third the placings would have been reversed with Golden Horn.
That shouldn’t make any difference unless they have different rules in Ireland.
I didn’t see the ATR coverage but if Free Eagle had finished second there was at least a chance of him being awarded the race. By finishing third, if the stewards had decided to take action against Golden Horn, it would have been Found, not Free Eagle, who would have got the race. It meant there was a lot less pressure on the stewards to take action against the winner.
I don’t believe jockeys should be in stewards enquiries regarding the result of races but one thing that shouldn’t be ignored is Atzeni had 6 rides in the afternoon while O’Donoghue had just the one, therefore he could concentrate all his efforts on just the one race both in and out of the stewards room.
I noticed Atzeni was out of breath giving evidence and think jockeys have enough on their plate riding in 6 races without going in a court of law fighting to keep a classic in the small window of 30/35 mins between races.
I believe stewards enquiries like this should be done by a centralised panel once a week unless it is considered dangerous riding is involved, a centralised panel could also deal with this.
There is just too much inconsistency at the moment and some of these races are just too important to be decided on the whim of faceless local stewards, it also doesn’t breed confidence in betting on the sport.
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 distance SV beat BB was only a head, and a decreasing head at that.
Keeping a rival in is not against the rules, indeed it is good “race riding”.
imo The first interference where AA intentionally (dangererously imo) barged his way out should be enough to lose the race under existing rules; but that’s not how the stewards saw it. But Stewards did see it as interference which – there is no doubt – cost BB quite a lot of ground. At time of this foul they were alongside each other; SV came out of that interference at least a neck up and now in the clear.
Second interference imo six of one and half a dozen of the other; with BB tapping the quarters of SV; then SV gave BB a hefty bump before hanging on by a head. It is a little surprising stewards did not see BB on SV as interference but it was only minor. Shame AA did not seem to draw their attention to it – but that’s why jockeys give their opinions in an enquirey.
BB was gaining slowly at the line.
There is no doubt in my mind without the first interference SV would not have won and deserved to lose the race. SV being the “best horse” has nothing to do with it (Jockeyship counts). Had they raced in lanes SV would’ve won, but they don’t race that way. I say she “would’ve won in lanes”, may be not – needed something in front to stop the filly pulling. This and CO’D’s race riding played a part in AA’s downfall. Getting himself in a position with nowhere to go. Having to use foul means to extracate SV.
However, Barton seemed to suggest it a combination of the two interferences that cost BB. Therefore, if team Beckett can make more of the contact initiated by BB in the last furlong so that the two cancel each other out… If the panel believe only the first interference counts then the decision might (wrongly imo) be reversed.
Value Is EverythingGinger, did you watch that ATR breakdown of the race? That speeded up section shows without any doubt that O’Donoghue came in first. the bump looked to be the filly’s fault at first – I thought so myself – but this footage gives a whole new perspective. O’Donoghue moves in before Atzeni moves out. The effect of the Irishman’s move is akin to what would happen to you if you ran into a brick wall – you’d bounce and the gap between you and the wall as you came off it would make it look as though it was the fault of the wall.
If the filly’s team is allowed to run this footage at the appeal, I cannot see how it won’t be upheld.
I can’t see how you are taking that conclusion from that footage. Graham Cunningham had the same footage on his Chat Replay in SportingLife. His conclusion on the decision to disqualify was ‘On balance, I suspect it was the right one – but by a very narrow margin.
I think that looking at the whole picture rather than ‘the big bump’, it is clear that O’Donoghue is the antagonist throughout. Look at his actions in France at the end of that clip, and some have mentioned that he has ‘previous’ in this department, and there is circumstantial evidence there to go with the visuals.
However, race-reading is subjective, as always, so we can, I’m sure, agree to disagree.
On a separate note, I’ve learned that both sides will be allowed any representation they wish at the appeal, including legals. It will be open to the media.
Ginger, did you watch that ATR breakdown of the race? That speeded up section shows without any doubt that O’Donoghue came in first. the bump looked to be the filly’s fault at first – I thought so myself – but this footage gives a whole new perspective. O’Donoghue moves in before Atzeni moves out. The effect of the Irishman’s move is akin to what would happen to you if you ran into a brick wall – you’d bounce and the gap between you and the wall as you came off it would make it look as though it was the fault of the wall.
If the filly’s team is allowed to run this footage at the appeal, I cannot see how it won’t be upheld.
I didn’t see the ATR piece Joe, but have seen the head on plenty of times. Know CO’D “came in first”; it is within the rules to move your horse alongside. Did this result in the interference? From what I saw CO’D’s move resulted in no contact. AA still had room enough to remain straight, he chose not to. It was AA’s barging his way out that caused the actual hefty bump/interference.
No, it is not “akin to… a brick wall”, Walls don’t move.
What it is akin to is: F1 driver goes alongside another car and uses the slower one in front to hinder. Yes, giving nowhere to go and forcing your rival to slow and go around OR slow up and wait for a gap. The other driver now has little room to manoever, tough, that’s good driving. After another car comes alongside he is not allowed to say/think “Oh XXXX! Didn’t mean for that to happen, I’d better smash my way out”.
Putting one of your rivals in to a pocket that is difficult or impossible to (within the rules) extracate from – is good race riding.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.