- This topic has 18 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
Amazing decision TBH. Very similar set of circumstances to the March Dolatulo Benbens race where the Stratford Stewards reversed the race and then on appeal the BHA reversed the decision back to the original result.
The BHA sent a very clear message to the Stratford Stewards which has been ignored. Time for some heads to roll.
Although the winning distance was not as clear cut McCoy was in the wrong place and apparently the Stratfrod stewards still think it up to the leader to move over
Take down the dross channel , you wont be upset then !!!!
what happened ???
Result reverse again due to the water jump getting in their way
Result reverse again due to the water jump getting in their way
The problem is clearly the water jump. Several years ago this was solved by removing it, re-siting the last fence and adding another fence in the home straight.
However, some decided this had created an issue with unusually high number of fallers at the second last, which had to be positioned early in the home straight after the final bend. The course reverted to it’s previous configuration and we are back to square one again.
The solution to just remove the water jump would seem simple, but I’m sure there are still regulations laid down by the BHA on how many obstacles have to be jumped – 12 fences in a 2 mile chase. Removing the water jump would only leave 11 over that distance, so an extra fence would need to be added somewhere. That in itself is a problem as there are also regulations on minimum distances between fences and siting of fences a sufficient distance from starting points, road/path crossings and bends.
....and you've got to look a long way back for anything else.
It makes a mockery of racing
No it doesn’t, it’s just one decision amongst many and just happens to be one that people disagree with.
Referees make mistakes, umpires make mistakes, stewards make mistakes. Deal with it, life goes on.
How do you deal with repeaters? Jockeys make mistakes but are penalized likewise football players.In fact the only ones not penalized are the officials.As you said we just leave our money with the bookies and "get over it"; how about that.
Result reverse again due to the water jump getting in their way
The problem is clearly the water jump. Several years ago this was solved by removing it, re-siting the last fence and adding another fence in the home straight.
However, some decided this had created an issue with unusually high number of fallers at the second last, which had to be positioned early in the home straight after the final bend. The course reverted to it’s previous configuration and we are back to square one again.
The solution to just remove the water jump would seem simple, but I’m sure there are still regulations laid down by the BHA on how many obstacles have to be jumped – 12 fences in a 2 mile chase. Removing the water jump would only leave 11 over that distance, so an extra fence would need to be added somewhere. That in itself is a problem as there are also regulations on minimum distances between fences and siting of fences a sufficient distance from starting points, road/path crossings and bends.
I don’t recall Stratford removing their water jump at any time.
With the second last fence having been removed there is now room to shift the last fence further back. Maybe someone could correct me but Newbury, Perth and Huntingdon all have water jumps beside the winning post but their final fences appear further back than Stratford’s which allows more time for horses to make room to go around the water.
Result reverse again due to the water jump getting in their way
The problem is clearly the water jump. Several years ago this was solved by removing it, re-siting the last fence and adding another fence in the home straight.
However, some decided this had created an issue with unusually high number of fallers at the second last, which had to be positioned early in the home straight after the final bend. The course reverted to it’s previous configuration and we are back to square one again.
The solution to just remove the water jump would seem simple, but I’m sure there are still regulations laid down by the BHA on how many obstacles have to be jumped – 12 fences in a 2 mile chase. Removing the water jump would only leave 11 over that distance, so an extra fence would need to be added somewhere. That in itself is a problem as there are also regulations on minimum distances between fences and siting of fences a sufficient distance from starting points, road/path crossings and bends.
I don’t recall Stratford removing their water jump at any time.
With the second last fence having been removed there is now room to shift the last fence further back. Maybe someone could correct me but Newbury, Perth and Huntingdon all have water jumps beside the winning post but their final fences appear further back than Stratford’s which allows more time for horses to make room to go around the water.
I guess I’ll have to upload a race to my youtube channel to prove it if you don’t believe me, but the water jump did disappear for a few years.
By the way, Huntingdon have an open ditch next to the winning post. Their "water jump" is in the back straight, although it’s a smaller fence with some blue matting on the landing side. It is pathetic really and should be replaced with a plain fence.
....and you've got to look a long way back for anything else.
You can add Ludlow to the list of tracks with a water jump by the winning line.
Something that differentiates Stratford from those other courses is the barely credible stupidty of the positioning of the last hurdle. Last night it was placed about 100 yards closer to the finish than the last fence, which means that the jockeys cannot move over to the required side of the track until they have gone past the hurdle. By that stage they are almost on the water jump. Watch the film of the closing stages of the race last night and you’ll see what I mean.
Since there is only one hurdle between the final bend and the finish, that hurdle could be positioned before the last fence and I suspect the problems with the chases would disappear overnight.
Two other options – remove the water jump, shift the winning post about 50 yards further down the track and there would be plenty of room for two fences in the straight before the finishing line, the set-up that was used for several years until the jockeys incessant whinging about the second last got it changed back.
Or, take out the water jump and put in another plain fence between the open ditch and the last fence in the back straight. That would be three fences fairly close together on that stretch, but no closer than the five down the far side at Warwick, or either of the groups of three on the far side at Sandown.
I don’t recall Stratford removing their water jump at any time.
So then Patriot1, where has the water jump gone here then?
:I don’t know much, but I know my racecourses!
I would much prefer it if they went back to this track layout.
....and you've got to look a long way back for anything else.
I preferred the layout of the course with two fences before the winning line but believe that led to a lot of fallers as they were close together and came up too close from leaving the back straight. Still I don’t agree with having the water jump where it currently is.
Espmadrid, i bow to your superior knowledge. I was wrong about Huntingdon as well. We can add Fakenham to the list of courses with a jump by the winning post. And Aintree of course!! I can recall races at Perth and Newbury having issues with horses being squeezed out at the Elbow. I think it is the decisions of the stewards at Stratford which have brought this course into the limelight.
APracing, there has been a tendency from some racecourses to move their final hurdles nearer to the winning line in recent years with Chepstow, Towcester and Plumpton amongst those doing so. It puts a greater premium on jumping but obviously causes problems at Stratford.
The water jump returned to Stratford in 2008.
The fallout from this incident could yet run for a while:
http://www.sportinglife.com/racing/news … -stratford
…but my immediate(ish) penneth on the matter is:
1) Both riders, and in particular McCoy, are surely familiar enough with the layout of the chase course at Stratford to know what’s required of them position-wise after jumping the last. Even if unable to get right over to the far side until late on, owing to the placement of the final hurdle that APRacing mentions, either rider could have aimed in its general direction pre-emptively in good enough time.
2) The issues mentioned in this thread regarding having two plain fences before the post in the home straight are not to be understated – before the cessation of that practice, and the return of the water jump, accidents caused by those two jumps were commonplace and frequently x-rated. I still don’t think the layout is entirely ideal, judged on the number of horses you still see meeting the final fence halfway up and taking purlers, and Stratford’s configuration is such that I’m not sure there’s any way to fit eight fences on the course that’s entirely ideal.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.