- This topic has 24 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
I did not have a bet in the race, but having seen the 4.00 at Kempton and watched the head on I could not beleive it when Ashram did not get the race.
Look at that and the race last week at Chester when a 2/9 hotpot got beat and somehow got it in the Stewards room and it beggars belief.The 2/9 hotpot did not want to win and I beleive Spencer was surprised to get that race. The winner that day did very little if anything wrong.
Then watch todays race and without a shadow of a doubt Ashram would have won without the two big knocks it took from the winner and it does not get the race.
If any stewards visit this site or anybody with stewarding experience it may be nice to explain and justify the decision.
I
The 2/9 hotpot did not want to win
Whether or not the horse ‘wanted to win the race’ is not within the stewards’ brief to decide.
Rob
I did back the horse and do feel aggrieved at the outcome and would also like an explanation why the placings weren’t reversed.
IMO the outcome, if there is any benefit of the doubt involved should go to the horse which has been interfered with. Not just once but twice on this occasion and IMO the two pieces of interference cost the runner up more than a length.
The thing I’d like to know about this enquiry is whether Richard Quinn put in an objection or not? I seem to remember Spencer objecting on Time Control and being awarded the race, but heard nothing of any objection today, would that have made any difference and if it had, why did Quinn not object?
Then watch todays race and without a shadow of a doubt Ashram would have won without the two big knocks it took from the winner
I really don’t see how you can say that. Yes intereference took place, and yes it was because of the wandering of Spencer’s mount but I don’t think it was cut and dry that the horse that caused the interference improved his placing as a result. For me it was the correct decision. Don;t know if you watched RUK but Cunningham was excellent in going through the rule book step by stepand based on that, it was always likely that the placings would not be altered.
I thought Cunningham went through it pretty well and explained it well, yet on the other hand he contradicted himself a number of times and really sat on the fence IMO.
Which bit was fence setting. He said it was 10/1-on in his opinion that the result would stand. That’s hardly not taking a view.
The stewards shoiud make horses wait on course and hold an enwquiry imdeatly, and be prepared toobe more ruthless regarding certain issues, stripping horses of race imdeatly when the trainers been fiddling, badly schooled maidens in both the flat and over jumps( not allow run too count towards a handicap mark), ban horses or up their handicap marks when they have been clearly been buried in a field.
Proffessional and very ruthless stewards would make th game more honest, thaty and better support for stakes races and less for poor quality races.
Which bit was fence setting. He said it was 10/1-on in his opinion that the result would stand. That’s hardly not taking a view.
That may have been the case mate and if so I got that part wrong. I can’t really remember everything that was said and I was in-between doing two things at the time. I can strongly remember thinking to myself at the time though of a couple of things he said that was coming across as though he was contradicting himself.
Was angry aswell at the time and still are now.
Anyone know whether Quinn put in an objection or not, and whether that would have made any difference to the outcome?
I also couldn’t believe it kept the race. The 2nd horse virtually stopped in it’s tracks. I was angry as I felt it would have won.
I don’t doubt the shrewdness or integrity of the stewards at all here, but I couldn’t believe it either – despite the bizarre analyses of the commentator and the young lady commentator.
I thought the commentator was far too pushy about the whole business from the word go. If his analyses of the detriment to the second horse had held water, his argument about the plain rules would have also have been more plausible. As it was, I believe he contradicted the opinion of the young lady that the second knock was significant or more significant. He thought not. Still, it’s not as if their opinions would have influenced the ruling of the stewards, so no harm done to anyone.
I can’t believe that anyone could consider either of the knocks insignificant. After the second one, I think, did you see how flat-out the cuplrit was belting along, after knocking the other onw off its stride? There is no way the victim could have pursued him as fluently and fast. The fact that he made up so much ground is surely the clincher. It will be interesting to follow the careers of both from now on.
But surely, common-sense dictates that in a case where a winner who twice knocks the horse that comes second, beaten no more than a length, off its stride, the second time in the finishing stretch (the latter clearly demonstrating itself by far the better horse, on the day – never mind that it gave the culprit 4 llbs ) should be relegated to second place in favour of its victim.
Even where one horse knock another off its stride early in a race, when it gives the victim another significant knock near, or perhaps even nearer, the finish (assuming that finishing order), surely the effects should be viewed cumulatively. It’s not as if it were complicated by the involvement of other horses in the race.
the answer here is the winning distance , its easy unless its a nose or possibly a short head you have no chance of getting a result overturned
Jonathan Neesom had it spot on when he said , the stewards ask the one question , can we let the winner keep the race , if its not a very close finish then its easy , jock gets a hol , but punters get no result changed
Like it or not thats the way it is
cheers
Ricky
That’s a pathetic way to look at it though IMO.
The winning distance should be totally irrelevant, what should matter is the amount of ground that a horse has potentially lost through being interfered with, and if It’s a close one any benefit of doubt should go with the horse who’s suffered interference.
I’m absolutely sure watching the replays, that Ashram lost well over a length in ground with the interference, so for me should have been awarded the race.
Zam , tomorrow when you have cooled down a bit , go back and check all the results that have been changed by the stewards in the last 12 months
check the distance that the FPP horse won by , and then come back to me
I dont disagree that the current system is unjust , I am just saying thats the way things stand
cheers
Ricky
You’ve missed the point all together. I did not disputed that the stewards followed the current rules.
What I asserted was that the rules, in this particular regard, were shown by this incident to be significantly deficient, and that in such incidents, the most elementary common-sense would seem to dictate that what should be considered are the effects of multiple buffetings of the second horse by the winner, unless the margin of the "win" was clearly unambiguous; which in this case it clearly wasn’t. The best horse was denied his victory because of the current regulatory lacuna.
Correct decision imo according to the rules, and all the RUK pundits were spot on in their analysis. It’s quite possible that the runner up might have won with a clear passage but he was neither closing the winner down nor pullin away from the 3rd placed runner in the last 100 yards. If he was flashing home to within a head of the winner, he would have got the race.
So rory, do you personally think the two pieces of interference cost the runner up no more than a head?
Just interested to know that’s all.
unfortunately Rory is right the rules were adhered to
thing is , its not right and I agree justice is not done in circumstances like this , but that is the way the rules are right now
20 yrs ago the winner would have been automatically slung out , now you have to be beaten the minimum distance before you even have a chance
cheers
Ricky
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.