- This topic has 195 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The ATR analysis is on page 8 of this thread. Have a look and tell me what you think after that
My final take on it is that if anyone was seeking to gain an unfair
advantage , then O’Donoghue is your man .Professional racing riding or not , he committed the first deliberate foul .
I sincerely hope the filly gets awarded the race but I would not hold any hope
for those who have bet good money on that very outcome next Wednesday .
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Watching the C4 head-on view of the first interference, there is clear daylight between the two horses immediately before AA barges his horse out. Also, as shown on C4, the stewards had a rail side view which showed that it was a very deliberate manoeuvre by AA to barge his horse out. There was also slow-mo close-up coverage of the front two in the run-up to the line and BB was very slowly, but very clearly, closing on SV.
The ATR analysis is on page 8 of this thread. Have a look and tell me what you think after that
Does not sound like ATR analysis to me Joe. Just a bloke who’s taken some ATR footage and put his own one sided slant on it. Why does it not show the head on pictures of the first incident when it shows everything else? Is it because it would’ve gone against this bloke’s conclusion? From the head on not shown there – I saw it three or four times last Saturday and saw no contact made by BB on SV. But if that’s what you mean by “ATR analysis” then yes, have seen it several times. Using your own horse to keep a rival in is not a riding offence.
From what I saw – only in the final furlong interference was there BB on SV contact; with that final furlong interference being imo 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.
Value Is EverythingI never bet on people’s opinion but I sincerely hope everyone who have backed Simple Verse in the appeal collect. If they do it will mean justice has been done.
It is quite clear from the diversity of opinion both on here and elsewhere that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to change the result. Where there is so much doubt the rules are clear, the result stands.
PS
What a rubbish column from Dave Yates in today’s Daily Mirror about the issue.
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?Well i should have said is I dont know the wording of the rule. I think you can see from my arguments that I do know the rule. Some posters in here were stating that stewards had not followed the rules correctly and so i assumed that the wording was far more nuanced (not sure how i spell that) than I understood it to be. IN hindsight, it wasnt!! So lets just wrap up this thread by saying Im right…anybody who disagrees with me is wrong. All agreed
SHL
The ATR analysis is on page 8 of this thread. Have a look and tell me what you think after that
Does not sound like ATR analysis to me Joe. Just a bloke who’s taken some ATR footage and put his own one sided slant on it. Why does it not show the head on pictures of the first incident when it shows everything else? Is it because it would’ve gone against this bloke’s conclusion? From the head on not shown there – I saw it three or four times last Saturday and saw no contact made by BB on SV. But if that’s what you mean by “ATR analysis” then yes, have seen it several times. Using your own horse to keep a rival in is not a riding offence.
From what I saw – only in the final furlong interference was there BB on SV contact; with that final furlong interference being imo 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.
I know it wasn’t an ATR analysis, the guy who posted it makes that plain, but I thought it the easiest way to refer to it for pointing you toward it.
I too have watched the head-on numerous times. I’ve also rerun the footage from the stewards room and watched both screens there – head on and rear on, and in both cases, it seems very clear to me that O’Donoghue was responsible for 95% of what happened to him. He bumped the filly twice – there is a difference between hemming a horse in and physical intimidation: he bumped the filly twice. The second time it backfired badly because he bounced off her, and that was when a proper gap opened, which Atzeni was perfectly entitled to go for.
The second incident is about as glaring an illustration as you could get of an attempt at intimidation backfiring. O’Donoghue has never let up in trying to lean on and squeeze up the filly throughout the last 2 furlongs. As R Hughes points out in today’s RP, when a horse is being leaned on, its instinct is to fight back to regain balance – the filly was a classic example, having to change legs as well as come back toward BB to right herself.
I believe you and others are being misled by concentrating on the effect of the bump rather than the cause. I was myself when I first watched. In fact BB hit SV and bounced off her making BB look the victim. The filly was the victim in more ways than one
I try to be as objective as possible with these things, especially when money is involved, and I’m in no doubt whatever that a serious injustice was done last Saturday. I simply cannot see the appeal panel making the same mistakes the stewards did, so have gone in again at 7/4.
I believe you and others are being misled by concentrating on the effect of the bump rather than the cause. I was myself when I first watched. In fact BB hit SV and bounced off her making BB look the victim. The filly was the victim in more ways than one
I try to be as objective as possible with these things, especially when money is involved, and I’m in no doubt whatever that a serious injustice was done last Saturday. I simply cannot see the appeal panel making the same mistakes the stewards did, so have gone in again at 7/4.
It is not the “effect of the bump” am concentrating on Joe, it is the trajectory of AA’s guidance, seemingly aiming SV at BB in order to get an out.
I think we all tend to be “as objective as possible” if we can Joe. I can see how you and others have come to your conclusion; it is a tight call. Tight enough for me to say that if betting on the outcome rather take 7/4 SV than 1/2 BB. However, just feel that – bearing in mind how stewards (usually) interpret their own rules – it was the right decision even though the best horse did not win and the more likely outcome (better than 50-50) is for BB to keep it.
Anyway, in this case I do not want to be right; hope my local trainer is successful in the appeal.
Value Is EverythingThe trajectory of SV was due to the effect of the 2 bumps BB gave her, imo. Anyway, we shall see on Wednesday, I don’t think it will be a lengthy session. The verdict will be quickly overturned.
The trajectory of SV was due to the effect of the 2 bumps BB gave her, imo. Anyway, we shall see on Wednesday, I don’t think it will be a lengthy session. The verdict will be quickly overturned.
…and justice will be done.Things turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...From what I’ve just read on TRP it sounds as if O’Donoghue again came over very well. I do hope it all doesn’t boil down to which jockey is/was more eloquent.
Delighted for Beckett,
he didn’t deserve to lose the race, even if I thought AA did.
Delighted also for you Joe and all who backed SV to win the appeal. Value Is EverythingWell done to those who backed Simple Verse to get the race. I couldn’t back the outcome in these situations as I can never trust those in charge to make the right call.
The better horse on the day won and all the contentious decisions of recent years have gone the way of the horse who finished first, so the decision to demote the filly in the Leger was very much against the trend.
The rules are what they are and it would be better if the Stewards would police the game in consistent fashion based on the rules. That way it might filter down to TV pundits and through them to the viewers, in order that we all know where we stand. That would do away with all the camping it up drama creation and unrealistic expectations for an outcome that cannot come from the rules because of the way they are currently framed.
Between this race and the Irish Champion stakes, a lot of misinformation was put out and a lot silly options were suggested.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
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. The second incident had “little or no effect”. ~ Racing Post
I mentioned this in my post on Page 6. The first incident should have been ignored when making a decision because it clearly had no impact on the result.
Atzeni banned for careless riding : Yes.
O’Donoghue banned for using whip above the permitted level : Yes.
Simple Verse the best horse in the race and official winner : HELL, YEAH!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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.