- This topic has 8 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
"The local stewards were not satisfied that Curtain Call would have finished in front of Alessandro Volta had he not been hampered and decided not to promote him from fifth" quote fro Sporting Life.
Apparently according to the Curragh stewards you can mess all you like with other horses in the race as long as they believe you are the best horse.How absurd can you get?What does "they were satisfied" mean?Beyond a reasonable doubt?
Here if you interfere you are placed behind the horse you interfere with. The stewards don’t get into picking the best horse and determining the possible outcome if one had not interfered.How often have I heard them say "he would have won anyway".Why have the race at all if the stewards can predict the outcome?Frozen Fire’s triumph could not have been foreseen from his tame effort at Epsom, when he finished eleventh of 15 behind New Approach but there were mitigating circumstances. O’Brien said: “He just got chopped back in the race and Mick (Kinane, who rode him) came back and told us to forget about it. He said the horse was much better than that.”
Maybe the stewards at Epsom would have awarded Aidan the race if he explained to them why Frozen Fire did not win there.Obviously the best horse!Steady on Andy ~ there are different rules in place in the UK and Ireland than to the US ~ both are open to criticism but also have their strengths. In the case of interference here, it’s the job of the stewards to make a judgement on whether it has materially affected the result. My opinion is that connections of Curtain Call have a case in principle, but I also agree that Alessandro Volta would probably have finished ahead of Curtain Call, simply because the former wasn’t actually stopping and Curtain Call seemed to flatten out in his run, even when taking interference into account.
Rory I don’t mean to be knit picking but what is the "principle" to which you refer? My problem is that there does not seem to be any principle except the opinion of the stewards.The cost is so high that even stewards can be swayed, especially with fillies and mares where the black type is worth thousands later on.A case in point the recent Irish 1000 guineas where the stewards decision was critical to the future value of those involved.If the leading horse shies from a shadow but the stewards decide that he would have won otherwise can they alter the decision then? Of course not but why not?since their opinion is the deciding factor?I believe Alessandro Volta should have been placed behind any horse he messed with whether they would have won or not(after all only one could win; were they saying that Tartan Bearer would have won? in the opinion of the stewards).Ridiculous examples no doubt but I am mad about this subject and the stewards having such power. So please forgive me.
Andy,
by definition the Stewards have power ~ that is true both here and in the US, Europe, Australia, Asia and South Africa etc. Yes there is a lot at stake, but the concept of appointing Stewards is that they are the people who are most likely above suspicion. I’m not saying for a second that every Stewards’ decision is correct, but that we must have a system of selecting Stewards who are as above reproach as possible.
Well imo the stewards got it wrong, that horse caused so much interference it should have been disqualified regardless of what the stewards think about where horses would have finished. In addition the jocket should have been suspended.
Personally I prefer our UK and Irish laws to those in the U.S. and France because the guiding priciple is that the stewards must be sure the result would have been different before changing the finishing position of a horse. In this way the relative merits of the competitors is more likely to be reflected by the official finishing positions than in either France or the U.S.
I believe it’s better to penalise the jockey if a riding transgression takes place than to place the horse behind an inferior rival in an important race. I suppose it comes down to priorities: our rules prioritise the punter, which is in my opinion as it should be, where the French and Americans are keener on the rules being upheld, even if the amended result is not a true reflection of merit.At the time of the bad interference meeted out on Curtain Call by Alesandro Volta it appeared to me the former was going the better. Could it not be that after Curtain Call got a beating, the horse just did not want to run on. So by the end of the race Alesandro "looked" the better horse. Is possible intimmedation taken in to account?
Our rules favour the perpetrator far more than the victim.
As the rules are now, once in front in a valuable race, and the probable winner. The jockey hits the horse with the whip, and if it wanders, he can allow it to interfere with it’s rival. Making 100% certain of victory.
The inerferance looks accidental but is it?
The jockey may be given a holiday but who cares?Also, some horses find more off the bridle than others. Do stewards know their form book so well, they know how much each horse would’ve found if the interference had not taken place? Just because the winner may be going better than the second at the time of the trouble does not mean he neccesarily would’ve won.
I think the rules should be changed to say the perpetrator must have a significantly better chance of winning than the victim.
When interference does take place I would like to see a rule to withold part of connections winnings, to discourage these things. At the moment, just giving the jockey a small holiday is no deterant what so ever (in a valuable race). The jockey is also likely to be compensated by the owner and trainer from their winnings. If owner and trainer lose out from any rule breaking, they are less likely to accept (or even encourage) it. That goes for whip "abuse" too.
Mark
Value Is EverythingAnother rule change I’d like to see is when accidental interference stops a horse from finishing in the money, compensation should be paid..
If say the interferance stops a horse from finishing 3rd and finishes 5th instead. The perpetrator goes on to win the race.
The difference between prize money (3rd to 5th) should be taken from the winners prize money. Likewise if the perpetrator finishes 2nd, 3rd or wherever.Mark
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.