- This topic has 10 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
I have watched this race over and over again (due to Lemon Silk) but am quite stunned that Peter Carberry, who finished 4th, received a 10 day ban for apparently riding to the wrong winning post at Sandown. I find this particularly harsh since clearly I am missing something. Taking into account that Peter is an inexperienced conditional riding a bridle horse that is beaten, I find the punishment quite undeserving when some questionable rides of more seasoned professionals go completely unpunished.
If I am missing something, please fill me in since I just don’t see it. Carberry is on Maurisca in yellow colours. Here is the link :-
http://horses.sportinglife.com/Video/Racing/0,27770,404989_4,00.html
Johnathon Neesom said as much on RUK on Sunday,thought it was one of the worst decisions he’d seen in a long time.
Not to mention the fact that Maurisca is a notoriously weak finisher at the best of times. His only win came in a four finisher chase where he reportedly ‘sprinted clear’.
But as the runner-up was a 12 year old, 5lbs out of the handicap and losing his 23rd straight race, ‘sprinted’ is a purely relative term.He also ran against Power Shared at Hereford a year ago and it was the same there – he looked the only danger on the home turn, but faded and lost two places before the finish.
AP
- Total Posts 17716
As I found out recently, stewards only act on what they see on the day; previous racecourse evidence is largely irrelevant.
Situations such as this prove just how pointless the employment of non-professional stewards is; the ban will/would surely be overturned on appeal.
Agree AJ, but my point here is, what is it the stewards saw?!
I also felt that Charlie Longsdon should have been a little more supportive.
Longsdon, to whom Carberry is attached, said: "I was told he rode to the wrong finishing line. I thought he lost third because of it – that’s what I’ve been told."
Even that doesn’t make sense. If he thought he lost 3rd as a result of this then he must have seen it….but he then goes on to say he was told this. A more supportive trainer would have said "I haven’t seen the replay so am unable to pass judgement as yet"
Conistency!!!, there isn’t any consistency simply because they are allowed to use their own discretion.
True, they’ve got rules that they must follow but those rules are ‘bendable’. Unlike football referees of course, who are supposed to officiate according to the letter of the law and oten get it wrong.
Oddson,
Because the chase course finish is at an angle of about 40% to the line of the hurdle course. If they used a single winning line, a chaser on the far side would have to cover more ground from the last fence than one on the near side to reach the line.
In fact, there’s one post on the stand side rail and two on the far side, so that for both hurdle races and chases, the winning line is exactly at right angles to the line from the final obstacle.
To give an example of the difference it would make to have one post, in the famous 1984 Whitbread finish ‘it’s a three way photo’, the positions of the first three would have bene reversed if the same winning line had been used for hurdles and chases. Special Cargo, on the far side of the three would have been adjudged third rather than first.
Not saying I agree with the set-up, but you asked why and that’s why.
AP
How many people in racing would complain if there was only one winning post? Any advance on none?
Horses cover more ground going round the outside during a race, why bother only about the distance covered from the last fence? Who cares as long as the winning line is in a straight line?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.