- This topic has 37 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 15 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Only 3 meetings but race clashes throughout the afternoon, for the first part of the afternoon Uttoxeter clashed with Plumpton so some bright spark decided that Uttoxeter should be put back only for it then to clash with Hamilton for the second part of the afternoon
People were even congratulating them on ATR, what for I don’t know. Unfortunately this isn’t an isolated case, arranging only 3 meetings not to clash is obviously too much for the BHA, maybe they should watch how things are done with far more meetings in Australia.This nonsense was then followed by the inexplicable decision to disqualify Tayarat at Plumpton, how could anyone disqualify the horse under our rules? It takes quite an imagination to believe Rockys Choice would have won without the interference, why ask for harmonisation of the rules throughout Europe when our own stewards fail to follow our own rules.
The stewards and stewards secretary should be brought to account by the BHA regards this and I hope connections of Tayarat will appeal.Regarding the disqualification of Tayarat, I can understand the decision. Tayarat veered across Rocky’s Choice at the last and took him out dramatically to the left forcing him on to the chase course, to the point where Richard Johnson had to take evasive action avoid the last fence. Paul Moloney had his whip in his right hand all the way down the straight and I suspect that may have had some bearing on the decision.
Whether Rocky’s Choice would have won is a moot point, but I can understand the stewards deciding that he would have done. It certainly doesn’t take ‘quite an imagination’to say that Rocky’s Choice would have won. He was taken sideways for a few strides after the last and lost by less than two lengths despite that.
I suspect a poll of those on here who saw the race would probably go 50/50 on the decision.Rob
Regarding the disqualification of Tayarat, I can understand the decision. Tayarat veered across Rocky’s Choice at the last and took him out dramatically to the left forcing him on to the chase course, to the point where Richard Johnson had to take evasive action avoid the last fence. Paul Moloney had his whip in his right hand all the way down the straight and I suspect that may have had some bearing on the decision.
Whether Rocky’s Choice would have won is a moot point, but I can understand the stewards deciding that he would have done. It certainly doesn’t take ‘quite an imagination’to say that Rocky’s Choice would have won. He was taken sideways for a few strides after the last and lost by less than two lengths despite that.
I suspect a poll of those on here who saw the race would probably go 50/50 on the decision.You may well be right in your 50/50 split, in fact I wouldn’t be surprised if
there was a majority in favour of the change but if you have a good knowledge of the rules there’s no way the result should have been changed as has been stated by Richard Hoiles & Graham Cunningham on the Betfair forum this morning to name just two judges.
Even in your post you state that the jockey having in his whip in the right hand all the time may have had some bearing when in fact if you know the rules it should be completely irrelevant to the result of the race.I’m not totally unfamiliar with the rules pages of the BHA website:
Reading Rule 55, even if the Interference was Accidental the placings can still be reversed if it’s considered that the interference improved the placing of the horse causing intereference in relation to that it interfered with.
That being said, the stewards’ have to be sure that this is the case.
However, a key point to your argument is:
‘54.7 In deciding whether the Stewards are satisfied that the interference improved the placing of the horse, the Stewards shall make no allowance for any ground which the incident may have cost the horse causing the interference. ‘
Given that there is no doubt that the deposed winner interfered with Rocky’s Choice then I presume consdiered misinterpretation of this would be the basis of connections’ appeal.
Rob
Not that there appears to be any intention on the part of Evan Williams at least to appeal, judged on his response to the decision in the
Post
yesterday. No idea what the owner’s stance is, alas.
Per the race clashing, I’d have to check what Uttoxeter have done in broadly comparable circumstances previously, but wasn’t the 2007 Summer National meeting delayed when one of the burger vans on site conflagrated without warning?
That would have been another Sunday afternoon with just three British meetings and no worries about running out of daylight, and I have it in the back of my mind that they just knocked everything back the full half hour rather than a bit of it.
To be confirmed, though if they did then, why not this time as well?
gc
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
I suspect Uttoxeter are only concerned about Uttoxeter which is understandable and tracks need some guidance and instruction from above which is usually sadly lacking. Putting it back 30 mins was obviously too difficult for some.
Rockys Choice trainer has stated he was shocked and surprised at the decision which doesn’t augur well for them keeping the race if there is an appeal. I expect connections of Tayarat have to weigh up whether it’s worth their while appealing bearing in mind the time and expense needed for the sake of 2 grand, maybe they’d prefer to go for a better race with no penalty.
If it’d been a 10 grand race I expect the appeal would already be in.
It is also much more difficult to get a race on appeal than on the day, what odds would you get of Rockys Choice getting it on appeal if the result had remained the same on the day?….I have it in the back of my mind that they just knocked everything back the full half hour rather than a bit of it.
To be confirmed, though if they did then, why not this time as well?
I was very surprised this was not the case on Sunday, as it seems to have become the norm.
Imv, the BHA and racecourses have made a great effort to avoid races clashing over the last year or so and according to the BHA website a protocol is in place to aid stewards in such circumstances.
Clearly it wasn’t used this weekend but I can’t think why:
…..it is inevitable that on occasion, circumstances beyond management control will arise that cause a delay……there might be a benefit to deliberately delaying a race if, for example, a fixture has been abandoned elsewhere, or two races might be about to clash because of delay at another racecourse. A BHA protocol is in place to allow Stipendiary Stewards to minimise the occurrence of such clashes.
Why don’t they let the racing people have a day off? It’s like the blasted supermarkets these days. It’ll be 24/7 shopping like the US before long.
Maybe the days of the Almighty Buck – the neocons’ paradise will soon be over for good.
….I have it in the back of my mind that they just knocked everything back the full half hour rather than a bit of it.
To be confirmed, though if they did then, why not this time as well?
I was very surprised this was not the case on Sunday, as it seems to have become the norm.
Imv, the BHA and racecourses have made a great effort to avoid races clashing over the last year or so and according to the BHA website a protocol is in place to aid stewards in such circumstances.
Clearly it wasn’t used this weekend but I can’t think why:
Pompete – I understand the Stewards at Uttox were in contact with Plumpton to avoid clashes and decided to try and make up time lost in the first race during the enxt two races. They made this decision since only three jockeys from the first race had rides in the second so they thought they could make a quick turnaround. Unfortunately they were unable to make the time up, due in part to a slipped saddle in one race and a false start in another. In hindsight they agree that the best course of action would have been to simply run every race in the next race time slot (e.g. the 2.20 going off at 2.50). This is what we recommend as part of the protocol you highlighted since it is very difficult to catch up time whilst avoiding clashing with other racecourses.
It is out advice that this approach always be taken if there is a delay and where the sunset time permits as it is by far the most reliable way to prevent clashes.
the best course of action would have been to simply run every race in the next race time slot (e.g. the 2.20 going off at 2.50). This is what we recommend
What censures are the stewards likely to face for ignoring BHA recommendations?
What censures are the stewards likely to face for ignoring BHA recommendations?
All Stewards have been reminded of the protocol and our recommendations. They made an attempt to make the time up in good faith and without the slipped saddle and aborted start might have achieved it. Given that I’m sure any censures would only come if there was a repeat.
Just appoint a raceday coordinator whose role is to liase with the courses directly when a course misses its slot and this would all be so easily solved.
A position that would pay for itself several times over.Having been at Plumpton I believe the communication between the two courses only started after the third clash ,with Uttox then finally delaying jumping off until Plumpton informed them they had finished. I appreciate Uttoxeter felt they could get off before Plumpton but for the saddle slipping etc but there was no communication between the tracks at that stage. A raceday coordinator could quickly have rescheduled a timetable with all courses being kept in the loop avoided clashes and maximised turnover or of course reminded Uttoxeter of the protocol to which Silvoir refers.
I was told by an irate racegoer that Uttox waiting for Plumpton meant that on one of the remaining races Uttoxeter then clashed with Hamilton. (stand corrected if that not the case).That meant that a total of at least four betting opportunities were lost through clashes and with split screen coverage for in running etc.
When racing needs every penny through the levy such naivety is pouring money down the drain.It makes it very hard for some of the loftier Racing For Change ambitions to be viewed seriously when the basics still leave much to be desired.
If there are three cards on, would it matter if three races were scheduled to start at the same time? Airports have loads of planes scheduled to depart at exactly the same time but that can never physically happen.
The live screening to betting offices and BF is delayed anyway. Would it matter if the event was shown at a convenient time to the broadcaster and punters – without using split screens ?
If you cannot trust someone to do something, do it yourself.
- Total Posts 17716
Just appoint a raceday coordinator whose role is to liase with the courses directly when a course misses its slot and this would all be so easily solved.
A position that would pay for itself several times over.Great idea RH, and like all the best ones, simple, and easy to implement.
I was told by an irate racegoer that Uttox waiting for Plumpton meant that on one of the remaining races Uttoxeter then clashed with Hamilton. (stand corrected if that not the case).
That meant that a total of at least four betting opportunities were lost through clashes and with split screen coverage for in running etc.
Unfortunately it was worse than that, 2 races at Uttoxeter directly clashed with 2 at Hamilton and the other one barely avoided this, this can easily be verified by looking at the respective off times. While consideration was eventually given to Uttoxeter avoiding clashing with Plumpton it appears none was then given to it then clashing with Hamilton, why?
Split screen is a waste of time, I’ve never been able to watch 2 races in miniature on the same screen and with the imposed massive time delay on ATR why do they bother with it anyway.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.