- This topic has 17 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Hoyles & Hyslop trying to piece together an inteligent discussion whilst Hughie Morrison throws all sorts of spanners in the works.
Agreeing to disagree and then disagreeing when he had already agreed, well you know what I mean, the Rules are just not working..or are they?
I felt like throwing Hughie the shovel he was desperately seeking to dig himself out of there…Great TV though
Things turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...Amid the incoherence he raises a number of valid points.
Unfortunately it shows that the gambling industry sets the agenda for the composition and implementation of the rules. Racing should be about racing not gambling first and foremost.
really good tv , saw the interview when it took place , hilarious…and enjoyable
One good point to emerge is ….were it not for the fact that our rulers were slavishly attached to the bookies for revenue , the nose .part of the rule could be removed , and races could be reviewed with real impunity
AS IT stands …you can do anything you like as long as you win by a neck or more , you will keep the race , sure you might get banned , but you keep the race and the financial rewards as a result
That’s the injustice that currently prevails
Morrison is right , a man of honour all the way
IMO
rICKY
One good point to emerge is ….were it not for the fact that our rulers were slavishly attached to the bookies for revenue , the nose .part of the rule could be removed , and races could be reviewed with real impunity
AS IT stands …you can do anything you like as long as you win by a neck or more , you will keep the race , sure you might get banned , but you keep the race and the financial rewards as a result
I don’t see the connection between bookies and stewards enquiries, surely not "double result"?
If the distance beaten is the deciding factor why would they have an enquiry at all if it’s more?There’s no doubt Hughie Morrison’s horse and punters of her were unlucky but I’m afraid that’s just part and parcel of the game, sometimes you’re just going to be unlucky.
If the winner had been disqualified that would been far more unlucky for her connections and backers.Reference was made to dangerous riding but no one give any examples, that’s because it rarely happens and is very well self regulated by the jockeys themselves as it is their lives on the line.
The perfect rules haven’t been invented yet but ours are preferable to anywhere else in the world, just need centralised stewarding to go with them.
I think Hughie’s frustration was made worse by the fact he hasn’t had a winner since 9th August.
Value Is EverythingI think Hughie’s frustration was made worse by the fact he hasn’t had a winner since 9th August.
Makes you laugh,
A trainer can go 30 days without a winner and they are still a good trainer but when a tipster goes 7 days without a winner they are thrown under the carpet and hung out to dry.
I think Hughie’s frustration was made worse by the fact he hasn’t had a winner since 9th August.
Makes you laugh,
A trainer can go 30 days without a winner and they are still a good trainer but when a tipster goes 7 days without a winner they are thrown under the carpet and hung out to dry.
It is highly unusual for Hughie to go so long without a winner MH. Over the last 5 years he’s often on my list of in form trainers. In my opinion certainly in my top 15 trainers in Britain; if not top 10. Does really well with the quality of horse he’s given. Classic placed (Oaks) this year and not so long ago Champion Sprinter Sakhee’s Secret. Any trainer can go through a losing run if there’s a virus in the yard. Signs are he’s coming out of that slump now.
Value Is EverythingValencha isn’t the easiest of horses. Looked a right dog in the prelims. Needs a race to go her way, held up/dropped out in a strongly run race. Coming as late as the jockey dares. All the problems in running possibly helping her in that respect. Baheeja did come across, but can’t see that it was "dangerous". Callan and directly in front of Fortune going for the same gap first interference, then Baheeja continued to go left and Fortune chose the wrong side. Third interference too close to the winning post to be of any importance. May be I am a bit biased as did back the winner. If the two met again under the same conditions I’d back Baheeja if the two were at identical prices.
However, I do think Hughie does have a point of sorts.
In my opinion the wronged horse should have the "benifit of the doubt". That’s not to say the wronged horse should always get the decision. Just that: When it is a close decision like today’s Matron (where I backed Duntle) the benifit should go to the wronged horse. ie 50/50 or even 45/55 should be turned over. Well done the Irish stewards.Am disappointed, I passed Hoiles, Hislop and Hughie stood there and yet can’t see myself on the Salisbury video.
Value Is EverythingHoyles & Hyslop trying to piece together an inteligent discussion whilst Hughie Morrison throws all sorts of spanners in the works.
Agreeing to disagree and then disagreeing when he had already agreed, well you know what I mean, the Rules are just not working..or are they?
I felt like throwing Hughie the shovel he was desperately seeking to dig himself out of there…Great TV thoughIt certainly made good viewing but I couldn’t believe how long they managed to pad the discussion out for. Every time I thought they were going to wind it up, Hughie kept coming back for more just as he was about to leave and had been thanked a couple of times.
Didn’t he have anything to attend to at the racecourse instead of wittering on to Lydia Hislop and Richard Hoiles? Talk about over-egging the pudding. They didn’t seem to want to shut him up or move on either. Must have had plenty of time to kill or were they cannily thinking this is making good television so let’s keep it going?
Certainly a bizarre experience. Lydia seemed to push his buttons by being characteristically provocative in putting points to him. Was it dangerous or not? You’ve just said it was dangerous. No, I haven’t.
Certainly the interview and analysis were streets ahead of the shallow and lightweight offering we might have expected from At The Races in the same situation. They would have been off for yet another break before Hughie had got into full flight.In my opinion the wronged horse should have the "benifit of the doubt". That’s not to say the wronged horse should always get the decision. Just that: When it is a close decision like today’s Matron (where I backed Duntle) the benifit should go to the wronged horse. ie 50/50 or even 45/55 should be turned over. Well done the Irish stewards.
(
Gary O’Brien on ATR made a similar point, he said it was 50/50 and he could fully understand changing the result, you both must have cleaned up on the betting on it at the odds available
In fact you are both wrong, the rules state that the benefit of doubt has to very much go to the first past the post as it should. It was a very poor decision.Instead of congratulating the Irish stewards you should be questioning why they haven’t followed their own rules correctly. It’s highly likely the result would have stood at the vast majority of other tracks in Britain & Ireland.
The fact that they took over 25 mins to reach their decision is even more reason why the result should have stood.Only centralised stewarding can hope to eradicate as much as possible these rogue inconsistent decisions.
Well aware of the rules (at least in GB) Yeats. I was a little surprised when the verdict came. As you say Yeats, judging by the rules the "benefit of the doubt" should go to the winner; so as they stand stewards made the "wrong" decision. I am giving what I believe the rules SHOULD be. Which is why I am glad they changed the result, even though my pocket isn’t.
Value Is EverythingWell aware of the rules (at least in GB) Yeats. I was a little surprised when the verdict came. As you say Yeats, judging by the rules the "benefit of the doubt" should go to the winner; so as they stand stewards made the "wrong" decision. I am giving what I believe the rules SHOULD be. Which is why I am glad they changed the result, even though my pocket isn’t.
Really disagree with that. Think the ‘benefit’ should always go to the first past the post. I really think the GB rules as they stand now are excellent. They’ve virtually eliminated the controversies of years past.
Mike
If it’s a 50/50 decision why shouldn’t the wronged horse get the benefit of the doubt Betlarge?
Yesteday’s winning distance was just a short head.
Did interference take place? There wasn’t much of it, but yes.
Who’s fault was it? Duntle.How much of a difference did the interference make? Minimal.
But the winning distance was also minimal.
In my opinion the difference made was around a short head. So that would’ve resulted in a dead-heat.
So why shouldn’t the WRONGED horse get the race?There’s also a case (though not I believe in the rules)… Had Lordon waited until a time he could get out without causing interference… he would not have won the race. Therefore, to discourage jockeys making manoevers that cause interference – shouldn’t the race result be changed?
Value Is EverythingIf it’s a 50/50 decision why shouldn’t the wronged horse get the benefit of the doubt Betlarge?
Yesteday’s winning distance was just a short head.
Did interference take place? There wasn’t much of it, but yes.
Who’s fault was it? Duntle.Well yesterday’s decision looked fine to me, but it also looked like a 70-30 to Duntle!
What I was really meaning was that I prefer the ‘burden of proof’ being on the defeated horse rather than the winner. It’s not perfect but it seems to have dramatically reduced the amount of controversies.
I think there is a psychological effect at play here too. The joy of getting a winner in the Stewards Room is not as strong as losing one in the same manner!!
Mike
I believe the current law UK racing uses is the best option. What we must all remember is that any rule or law in any walk of life will never suit everybody or party 100 % of the time.
Hypothetically if the law was changed to accommodate the most recent situation then in the future the new law will also face a situation where it does not totally suit all parties all of the time. Thus we arrive back in the same situation under a new rule.
It is my opinion that the law we have suits the majority of incidents most of the time. Therefore should remain unchanged. As there are no absolutes in racing there cannot be an absolute law, there are too many variables.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.