- This topic has 58 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
A cut in distance or a switch to another Northern Racing track (Hereford perhaps) would seem a good idea.
…although at Hereford wouldn’t you then have the issue of whether to stage the qualifier over 2m3f or 3m1.5f, with no distance between the two currently in use at the track? I know they’ve recently added a 2m6f hurdles start, but I presume the ditch and water jump on that part of the course would prevent a chase being run over that distance (unless both were omitted first time around and the first in the back straight became the first fence).
Further, whilst it’s not imperative that series qualifiers are run over courses bearing some topograhical commonality with Newbury, Chepstow is at least left-handed and galloping like the Berkshire course so arguably offers a more comparable test than sharper, clockwise Hereford (pronounced undulations notwithstanding).
Per the issue of finishers having finished at long intervals in the previous two renewals, I wonder if that has at least as much to do with a lack of strength in depth in a lot of mares’ chases in general. It’d be lovely if each qualifier could attract, say, four or five nascent La Landieres that could slug out a closer-contested finish (as well as the lesser animals), thereby preventing such discussion as this, but that doesn’t always seem to come to pass outside of the series final.
The series purports to serve a very important purpose, that of incentivisng National Hunt-bred mares to be kept in training for longer, and to a degree it achieves that; but it might just also have to be an accepted part of that bargain that there simply aren’t enough suitable mares in training to guarantee all qualifying races are going to be that long in both quality and quantity. I suppose one idea might be to reduce the number of qualifiers slightly and monitor what effect that has on participation (without, hopefully, killing it off outright).
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.
Jeremy,
Hereford are running chases over 2m 5f 110yds – there was one at the last meeting on Feb 14th. They start with their backs to the open ditch and the old water jump has been replaced with a plain fence.
A long overdue move as that water jump was one of the most pointless in terms of a spectacle for the racegoer.
AP
Are you suggesting whenever a fence is considered ‘unsafe’ to be jumped a race should be declared void? In this instance there was only one horse who bypassed the fence but there could have been more. The Stewards were able to use their discretion and in my opinion made the correct decision. Official or not whoever waved them around the fence also made the correct decision.
It has emerged this morning that decision not to void the race is even harder to believe.
The official who you say who waved them round them round the fence was not in fact doing this, he was telling Jimmy Derham to jump the fence on the far side were the prone Oranti Conti lay!
When you think about it, where would the fence attendant have got the authority to wave them round the fence?
He hadn’t got it and wasn’t doing that.
In fact Jimmy Derham on Ringsend Rose has gone round the fence of his own volition after misinterpreting the fence attendants instruction.
An incredible decision by the stewards to allow the result to stand and not void the race.Sometimes this forum seems like an AnimalAid propaganda site under a different skin.
"Bloodsport", "Sickening", Disgusting", ???
No need for such emotive language in-my-opinion.Ok, I shouldn’t have used the term "bloodsport", apologies for that.
I stand by the rest of it though, what went on there yesterday wasn’t even related to sport. Nor is it the first time I’ve mentioned the appalling judgement displayed by numbskull jockeys when riding a patently exhausted national hunt animal.
Eddie,
If you’re going to rant and rave on here about the stewards and their application of the rules, it helps if you’ve actually read the rules in question.
This is an extract from the rules :
51.3 The horse of a Rider who is found to have contravened Paragraph 51.1 shall, on an objection to the Stewards under Part 7, be disqualified unless the Stewards are satisfied that
51.3.1 the Rider’s reasons for taking the wrong course were satisfactory,
51.3.2 all Riders remaining in the race took the same course, and
51.3.3 no Rider has obtained an unfair advantage as a result.Rule 51.1 is the one that refers to riding the correct course. As you can see, under rule 51.3, the stewards are quite at liberty to allow the result to stand in yesterdays race as all three conditions were satisfied.
It doesn’t matter in the slightest why the jockey opted to miss out the fence, or who instructed him to do so. You are also wrong to argue that the fence attendant has no authority to instruct a rider to bypass a fence – who do you think makes the decision to put up the market boards and send out the flag man when a fence is bypassed under more normal circumstances.
AP
I’ve already seen them rules Alan, Sean Boyce displayed them on ATR this morning and it’s absolute poppycock to say the rider of the "winner" adhered to all 3.
Which official told him to avoid the fence? None.
Of course he had an unfair advantage, he didn’t complete the correct course for his own reasons.
The fenceman has no authority to decide if a fence is to be missed,if he did have you might have expected to have used it yesterday instead of telling Jimmy Derham to jump the fence onto the prone Oranti Conti. Thank God Derham misinterpreted them.I find it amazing that you and even more so the stewards think it is acceptable that a jockey should decide what course he takes and what fences he jumps or doesn’t jump and then gets to keep the race.
eddie
I find it equally amazing that you see everything as black and white.
A member of the staff took an intiative to divert the approaching rider and horse away from the fence to protect a stricken horse and rider. He was perfectly justified in the action he took and by the same token should be applauded for taking that action, not slagged off for ‘not having the authority’. By the same token the stewards should be applauded for using their common sense in awarding the race uner the circumstances. Too often we find posts taking a snipe at stewards for the way they have dealt with situations, but for once they were on the ball in their interpretation.
As Alan Potts indicates the rules allow for flexibility in such situations.
I assume you have a job in an office? Your attitude is of one who knows the rule book but knows little of its application in real life.
Rob
[quote="robnorth)
A member of the staff took an intiative to divert the approaching rider and horse away from the fence to protect a stricken horse and rider. He was perfectly justified in the action he took and by the same token should be applauded for taking that action, not slagged off for ‘not having the authority’. By the same token the stewards should be applauded for using their common sense in awarding the race uner the circumstances. Too often we find posts taking a snipe at stewards for the way they have dealt with situations, but for once they were on the ball in their interpretation.
Rob
It might help rob if you had a grasp of the facts or bothered to read other posts where your inaccurracies have already been covered. No member of staff diverted the rider and horse away from the fence, in fact the staff member instructed the rider to jump the fence where the stricken horse lay on the other side.
On that basis and the other facts of the matter I think you’ll agree the stewards were also incorrect in the decision they reached.Eddie
I’ve read the thread more than once and I stand by my previous comments.
I’ve watched the race and it appeared to me that the member of staff directed the jockey away from the fence. Jimmy Derham clearly interpreted it as that and the stewards’ judgement acknowledged that he was justified in doing so. You rather conveniently avoid linking everyone’s actions with the stewards’ final judgement, even if you disagree with the decision.
Given the circumstances I consider that the stewards were spot on with their decsion and as previously stated I think you are way off the mark. I think your comments are grossly unfair to the fence attendant, the jockey and to the stewards.
Rob
On this occasion it must be good to see common sense coming to the fore and telling the jockey to go round the fence which had a stricken and prostate horse on the ground, if he did jump it then their was a chance of running into the fallen horse and causing an even bigger disaster so fair play for someone using their head for once.
Chepstow like Sedgefield and Towcester does get very bottomless so when it rains a lot of it will roll downhill due to the undualations and in all sense they should have abandoned but with events such as losing the last two meetings and the chance to get a good crowd off the back of the Friday night Six Nations Game also might have had something to do with it.
Seeing as Glenn has yet to reply to this thread, I’d like to point out that it is all a fix to let the 25/1 rag keep the race along with all the stake money on the well fancied horses in the bookmakers satchels. Had the race been won by the jolly, it would have been voided.
Here’s the official stewards report:
The Stewards enquired into the possibility that the winner, Ringsend Rose (IRE), ridden by Jimmy Derham, had taken the wrong course. They interviewed the rider in the presence of the Clerk of the Course, Mr Calvin Yates, a fence attendant, Dr Leigh Davies, a doctor, and Mr Adam Jones, the Acting Head Groundsman.
Having heard their evidence, and viewed the video recordings of the race, the Stewards were satisfied that Jimmy Derham had failed to jump the second last fence owing to exceptional circumstances, namely that he could see a fallen horse and two jockeys on the landing side of the fence and he was waved around the fence to avoid them. They were further satisfied that he gained no advantage since he finished alone and therefore ordered the placing to remain unaltered. They ordered a report to be forwarded to the British Horseracing Authority.Hereford are running chases over 2m 5f 110yds – there was one at the last meeting on Feb 14th. They start with their backs to the open ditch and the old water jump has been replaced with a plain fence.
A long overdue move as that water jump was one of the most pointless in terms of a spectacle for the racegoer.
Are they now! Good show, thanks for the update. Always seemed a little strange to have as much as 6.5f difference between two possible steeplechase race distances at the course (though I’m not about to suggest it was unprecedented, as there may be greater gaps someplace else).
I’m rather less anti-water jumps than many on the forum, and Hereford’s was not one especially noted for putting horses on the floor (or worse), but you’re quite right, it served zero purpose as a visual spectacle where it was.
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.
"Exceptional circumstances" is the key here and I believe that it was the correct decision. However, it would have been far more controversial had there been another horse alongside Ringsend Rose and one jumped the fence and one had not, given the arm waving that was going on from the attendant.
I agree with Cavelino Rampante. His/her comment was NOT over the top, the horses were all clearly exhausted and not fit to run, let alone jump.
What was over the top and uncalled for was the responses. Are you all so blinded by your love of horse racing to see what really happens? Take off your rose tincted spectacles, and open your eyes – that race was not the only cruel one. Shame on you, just like the dispicable jockeys and owners, you care more about money (winning your bets) than a horses welfare.
Yet I bet you’d be the first to phone the R.S.P.C.A if you saw a dog being kicked in the street. But there is only one difference between that and horse racing – one is legal. Both are just as cruel. There are often horses that have been illegally drugged (usually the ones playing up), but the drug they use, like the vast majority of this threads morals, is virtually undetectable.
I made my last ever bet on horse racing that day.
mysterion
If that’s how you feel then so be it, BUT…
…of the four horses still involved on the the home bend Orana Conti was galloping on well enough when falling two out. There was no suggestion that she was so tired as to not be capable of clearing the remianing fences. Her death is no less regrettable than any that occurs under ‘normal’ conditions.
Itea Du Fau was treading water around the home bend and sensibly pulled up by Wayne Hutchinson, who seems to have been given very little credit for his actions.
Ringsend Rose wasn’t going very fast, but she was able to clear the last two fences competently if slowly.To my mind if there’s an issue it was with the riding of Moulin De La Croix, who did look very tired, and perhaps a more experienced rider would have considered calling it a day…., or maybe not.
It strikes me that the unfortunate coincidence of inexperienced chasers and tiring conditions led to some regrettably consequences in this instance. However, I don’t think there was a suggestion from the remaining events that the going was too testing to be holding racing.
Rob
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.