The home of intelligent horse racing discussion
The home of intelligent horse racing discussion

Stewards!

Home Forums Horse Racing Stewards!

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #11541
    Seagull
    Member
    • Total Posts 1708

    Never had a bet on the race but how did Hunting Tower with Mc Coy still keep the race last night at Wetherby

    It looked to me that the horse hit Sydney Sling 3 times on the run in and still managed to keep the race.

    The head on film on RUK looked like that the Evan Wlliams horse definately got hampered and Hunting Tower won by a head.

    On betfair both horses traded at around evens on the outcome of the stewards so it seemed to suggest that Sydney Sling may be awarded the race.

    If races such as that one have a stewrds enquiry and then they are happy that being bumped into 3 times and gong down by a head and you still dont get the race whats the point of having an enquiry?

    The way I understand the rules is that they have to judge as to whether or not the second horse may have won if there was no bumping or cutting up and they take the distance won as a guide.

    In this case Mc Coys horse hit into Moloneys 3 times wins by a head and keeps the race!

    #230844
    seabird
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2924

    I thought it should have been reversed as well, Seagull.

    Did McCoy get any sort of punishment or is he a very good talker?

    Colin

    #230854
    robnorth
    Participant
    • Total Posts 6226

    The way I understand the rules ……

    Seagull

    Don’t think I’m having a dig at you over this one, but that phrase really does sum up the ‘problem’ if there is one.

    The word ‘understanding’, or more to the point ‘interpretation’, is the key to many judgements.

    I suspect seagull isn’t far off the mark when he asks if McCoy is a ‘very good talker’. If there is a way to talk the judges round then McCoy would be as adept as any jockey.

    Rob

    #230860
    hoofhearted
    Member
    • Total Posts 248

    I am as puzzled as the O.P. by the stewards decision.
    I did back Hunting Tower pre-race, and expected to lose my stake.

    Sydney Sling was in fact rading at 18/1 until RUK showed a head-on replay of the final fifty yards. This did demonstrate that Hunting Tower undoubtedly caused interference. Immediately, both horses moved towards an Evens price about each, indicating that a reversal of placings was a

    fait accompli

    .

    The decision is definitely surprising, expecially in the light of a similar incident at Newmarket a couple of days ago when a horse who finished half-a-length behind was awarded the race.
    I can only think that the stewards decided that Sydney Sling was not making progress at the time of the interference, and did not have enough momentum to go and win the race. ( Either that,or they had backed Hunting Tower at the 1.90 he eventually drifted to! :lol: ).

    #230879
    seabird
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2924

    It does make you wonder, doesn’t it?! :shock:

    Colin

    #230886
    Bulwark
    Member
    • Total Posts 3119

    Backed both horses to level stakes last night as the prices were there Got 5/4 Hinting Tower and 7-1 Sydney Sling. Thought Sydney Sling had it for a second, and was shouting him up the run in. Its a sad part of british racing however that we just seeem to struggle to overturn results in these cases.

    #230898
    yeats
    Participant
    • Total Posts 3140

    Sydney Sling was in fact rading at 18/1 until RUK showed a head-on replay of the final fifty yards. This did demonstrate that Hunting Tower undoubtedly caused interference. Immediately, both horses moved towards an Evens price about each, indicating that a reversal of placings was a

    fait accompli

    .

    If it had been a "fait accompli" they wouldn’t have both been evens.
    All the stewards have to decide is what would have been the result without the interference, there was enough doubt to let the result stand and I agree.
    Don’t know why they even have jockeys in enquiries, everyone can see what happened and jockeys will only bend the truth to benefit themselves.
    Anyone remember at Ascot when it was Frankie against Micky Fenton and Fentons horse was unjustly disqualified only to be re-instated at an appeal?

    #230908
    hoofhearted
    Member
    • Total Posts 248

    I don’t understand you.
    Both horses were Evens ………… three minutes after the race and after RUK played the head-on. Luck and Freemantle were also opining that the placings would be reversed.
    Prior to the replay Sidney Sling was ~18.0 whilst Hunting Tower was around 1.04

    #230916
    Seagull
    Member
    • Total Posts 1708

    Although they never had the courage to reverse the placings they handed Mc Coy a 3 day ban for careless riding in allowing it to cause interference.

    So they found the winning jockey at fault he wins by a head yet still keeps the race.

    #230918
    yeats
    Participant
    • Total Posts 3140

    I don’t understand you.
    Both horses were Evens ………… three minutes after the race and after RUK played the head-on. Luck and Freemantle were also opining that the placings would be reversed.
    Prior to the replay Sidney Sling was ~18.0 whilst Hunting Tower was around 1.04

    I don’t doubt they were both evens, I’m saying, if it was a foregone conclusion the placings would be reversed they wouldn’t have both been evens, Sydney Sling would have been long odds on.
    The interference looked nothing from the side and the head on combined with RUK saying it would be changed probably led to an over-reaction with prices although it was probably touch and go whether the result was changed. On balance I think they got it right.

    #230924
    hoofhearted
    Member
    • Total Posts 248

    I don’t doubt they were both evens, I’m saying, if it was a foregone conclusion the placings would be reversed they wouldn’t have both been evens, Sydney Sling would have been long odds on.

    Yes, but Sidney Sling was hardening to long odds-on …………. his price was in freefall after the replay The downward spiral of his odds was only arrested by the stewards announcement of "no change". Within less than a minute of the RUK replay Sidney had gone from 18/1 to 1.9 and was in meltdown, only halted by the announcement. I have no doubt that if the inquiry had gone on for another minute, then, SS would have nosedived to around 1.20.

    I do agree that viewed side-on during the live coverage of the race, any interference was not obvious. But seeing it a couple of times on head-on reply I have to side with those who think there was a solid case for the winner to be thrown out. To me it was a surprising stewards decision. And the latest news of McCoy garnering a 3-day susp for allowing interference makes the original non-reversal all the more peculiar.

    #230929
    robnorth
    Participant
    • Total Posts 6226

    Although they never had the courage to reverse the placings they handed Mc Coy a 3 day ban for careless riding in allowing it to cause interference.

    So they found the winning jockey at fault he wins by a head yet still keeps the race.

    As the rules stand as long as the offence was only considered ‘careless’ then that can happen. Had the offence been deemed ‘dangerous’ then I believe it would have resulted in automatic disqualification.

    The whole premise of this argument seems to revolve around one particular instance rather than consideration for a rule which must be written to cover all circumstances. The rule must by its very nature involve all shades of grey but seldom black and white.

    If in doubt about this ask sit down and consider all the ‘what ifs’ covered under this rule and then come back and suggest an alternative. If you return with success this side of Christmas then I suspect you are doing quite well.

    For a little light reading the summary of Rule 153 is at

    http://rules.britishhorseracing.com/Orders-and-rules&staticID=91100&depth=3

    Rob

    #230961
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Total Posts 17716

    I didn’t see the race, so can’t comment on specifics, but isn’t it the case now, that interference is viewed entirely differently from what it was before the authorities climbed into bed with the bookmakers?
    There’s certainly an absolute correlation between firms paying out on double results, and the dearth of them.

    #231003
    FrankLucas
    Member
    • Total Posts 40

    Kind of off topic….

    Article from the South China Morning Post the other day

    Hard to compare jurisdictions I know but what result would have prevailed in the UK do you guys reckon ?

    $20,000HK = €1800 = £1600 British approx

    Wednesday, May 27, 2009

    Saint-Martin goes out with guns blazing
    ‘Sacked’ Frenchman attacks Club

    Alan Aitken

    An unrepentant Eric Saint-Martin plans to quit riding after failing yesterday at his second "show cause" hearing before the Hong Kong Jockey Club’s licensing committee.
    Saint-Martin’s 15 brilliant seasons in Hong Kong have been punctuated with running battles with authority and he survived a show cause in February after an improper riding charge late last year, but the latest infraction arising from a charge of failing to obey a stewards’ directive was a bridge too far for the committee.

    The 43-year-old Frenchman had been requested to act as a witness at a careless riding inquiry at Sha Tin early last month but returned to his apartment next to the course. Upon his return to the inquiry, dressed in beachwear, stewards were unimpressed with his jovial response when asked why he had left and he was fined HK$20,000 for misconduct and stood down from riding.

    Saint-Martin later pleaded guilty to a rule breach and was suspended for one month. At the same time, he submitted his application to return for next season.

    The winner of 431 races in Hong Kong, Saint-Martin said yesterday he had planned to retire at the end of this season in any case but was disappointed at its conclusion.

    "A groin injury has been bothering me again lately, I think physically another season was not possible, and I had already decided to finish and return to my businesses in France," he said. "But I am very disappointed at how this has been handled – what they have shown me is the Jockey Club is totalitarian rule and they don’t give a **** about anyone. That’s why people don’t want to come and ride here any more.

    "They could have allowed me to finish the season – as it is, I have to wait for my children to finish school before we leave – but it was a matter of face to them, to sack me rather than end it nicely. After so many years, it was hard. I never did drugs. I never pulled up any horse. Still they treat me like a criminal.

    "They don’t communicate with the jockeys, they don’t talk to you – you are expected to keep in step the same as everyone else, regimented. But nobody can tell me how to live – if I had to do it all again, I would. I always hold my ground."

    Saint-Martin’s ejection from the jockey roster and the inclusion of two new riders for next season, South African Greg Cheyne, 32, and Australian William Pike, 23, were the main news items to emerge from yesterday’s committee hearing.

    Apart from Saint-Martin and Mark du Plessis – who had previously announced he would not apply – the only current jockey not among next season’s licensees is local freelancer Paul Lo Pak-hin, while the club gave the green light for Kevin Leung Ka-wai to join Me Tsui Yu-sak’s stable as a 10-pound claimer.

    Cheyne, a winner of over 1,000 races including six Group Ones, is sitting third on the South African championship and leading the Eastern Cape championship, a title he has won twice. He has advised a riding weight of 114 pounds, as has the "boy wonder" of racing in Western Australia, Pike. Emerging from a successful apprenticeship to become Perth’s champion rider, Pike has won over 750 races, two Group Ones, and is heading for another Perth title this season.

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.