June 11, 2007 at 21:21 #1957
Ok, I’d like to know what people think about the current powers exerted by stewards in the UK regarding interference during races.
I know that there are guidelines which govern how they arrive at decisions, but I can’t help feeling that things have become a little bit ridiculous over here.
Despite (very) occasional reversals and disqualifications, it appears to be almost impossible for them to amend results when clear interference has taken place.
As an example, take a look at this race
Can anyone explain to me why no stewards enquiry was called? Also, how was Oscar The Snowman not placed at least 3rd and quite possibly 5th?
It wasn’t intentional, but it clearly affected horses who were or might well have been involved in the finish. What would have happened elsewhere in the world?
Maybe a subtle rule change would be to the general benefit of racing…June 11, 2007 at 21:29 #64503heffoMember
- Total Posts 319
That race tonight was a good example nv. <br>Seems they’ve solved the inconsistent rulings people complained about by ‘consistently’ never altering a result.<br>There was a jumps race last season, can’t remember which, where the runner up was squeezed up on the rail, beaten a head. It was that bad the winner should have been done for assault never mind lose the race.<br>Any suggestions on the rule change btw?
(Edited by heffo at 10:30 pm on June 11, 2007)June 11, 2007 at 21:38 #64504
My understanding is that at the moment they have to be sure that the interference affected the result in order to amend it.
My feeling is that this guidance could or should be changed so that they have to be sure the interference didn’t change the result in order to let it stand…June 11, 2007 at 21:49 #64505Jim JTSMember
- Total Posts 841
This is a race I did a bit of dutching in and aslo had a reverse f/c with Oscar Snowman & Night Cru so I was a bit worried when I saw Oscar Snowman drifting to his right and causing a bit of interference but you’ll notice as soon as he did this Martin Dwyer quickly pulled the whip through to his right hand to straighten his mount up, it’s possible this action saved the day and IMO Oscar Snowman would’ve won had he not drifted in the first place, so again IMO the result was correct to stand.
A nice f/c it was too :biggrin:June 11, 2007 at 21:54 #64506
Nice f/c Jim ;)
But… to be honest Dwyer had his whip in his left hand and hit the horse at least once after it had started to drift right.
Three horses were hampered, two dangerously so, one of which was going well enough to potentially become involved in the finish.
I think I’d have been worried too…June 11, 2007 at 23:00 #64507Maxilon 5Member
- Total Posts 2432
I agree NV, Oscar caused loads of interference and in the States, (and other countries), he’d have been demoted.
On a related note, we can all see now why Marcus T put Katia Scallia on the animal back when it was considered a certainty at Leafy back in December. Didn’t enjoy the whip much, did he?June 11, 2007 at 23:19 #64508Jim JTSMember
- Total Posts 841
I’m glad this is Britain then as IMO the interference didn’t affect the result, if anything it hampered Oscar Snowman’s chance of winning the race, had he kept straight I’m sure he’d have won.
Maybe I was lucky to collect the f/c
It matters not anyway as the result stands and we now move on.June 12, 2007 at 00:35 #64509gambleParticipant
- Total Posts 2742
Quote: from Jim JTS
It matters not anyway as the result stands and we now move on.
Pocket jangling Jimilarkey the fact the result stands<br> is the reason why we the touchables ;<br> N V, Heffo, madmax and the son of fairness, can’t move on.
While you and Mrs Jim the untouchables <br> enjoy furriness after a stake out,<br> we the four horsemen,<br> sit in the cold,<br> wondering and worrying <br> if your winnings <br> should be stripped<br> with your clothing<br> from you,<br> and the steward hung<br> like the cured ham <br> you bypassed on the menu<br> as being too cheap.<br> That’s britishnessJune 12, 2007 at 07:24 #64510hoofheartedMember
- Total Posts 252
Definite interference, imo. The fact that it was unintentional and that Oscar Snowman may well have negated his own chance of winning is immaterial — the opportunity of a fair run was denied to at least two other horses in the race.<br>Oscar Snowman should have been demoted to fifth, I believe.June 12, 2007 at 08:19 #64511the welsh wizardMember
- Total Posts 352
Quote: from non vintage on 10:38 pm on June 11, 2007[br]My feeling is that this guidance could or should be changed so that they have to be sure the interference didn’t change the result in order to let it stand…<br>
I agree with you to a point in that the stewards interpretation of the current rules mean that results which ought to be amended are allowed to stand, but if what you said there was implemented there would be hundreds of disqualifications every season.June 13, 2007 at 06:26 #64512Tony25Member
- Total Posts 328
Guess you could argue that they are consistant in that they don`t disqualify anymore,at least we know where we stand unlike in France,Italy or Germany!!
France has become a joke,eyeballing another horse is enough to be demoted (Guess Napoleonic law is still in play),the only thing that`s improved is they are not so Nationalistic has was once the case!!
The German stewards are the most useless on the planet and in my opinion have ruined the integrity of the sport,if the owner is a Baron or Queen the horse won`t get disqualified,in Baden Baden they threw out the Ex Noseda trained BAHAMA MAMA for absolutely nothing, they didn`t even call a stewards enquiry for the Queens Banknote which clearly intimidated the 3rd horse…….thank God as i had a good bet on him;) <br>,incidently BAHAMA MAMA is now trained by Wladamir Hickst (Russian Fed) so i guess it`s a case of Arien rule!!
In Italy the stewards reshuffle the placings until they have the tricast in place, i think i`ll apply for a position:biggrin:
Some Runners lined up in France today so here`s hoping for a clear run,WÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¨ will be telling the jockey to go 10 wide just in case!!<br>June 13, 2007 at 11:36 #64513gambleParticipant
- Total Posts 2742
:old: off and attem topic
It is interesting to note that<br> the french law is encased<br> in rigid unbending statute<br> – appropriate in some areas<br> whilst the english common law<br> can be tickled easily to change its shape,<br> a champagne flowing easily<br> compared to a heavy port with brie in its neck<br> <br>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.