- This topic has 40 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Having backed Bouggler today i was a bit miffed to see no enquiry .
Souffleur jumps the last half a length ahead of Bouggler with both horses finishing strongly in the middle of the track, then Souffleur drifted to the rail taking Bouggler with him until he bumped the rail and had to switch.
Are the stewards saying that every horse that leads at the last by half a length goes on to win? He was beaten into third at the line by a couple of lengths but had lost all momentum, and couldn’t have been awarded the race anyway but still how can you let a horse keep a race when it has prevented another one from winning??
Agreed, Jumpsfan. I, too, was surprised the Stewards took no action. The winning jockey agreed that his mount veered to the right on the run-in. He continued to whip it during this ‘drift’ and was holding his whip in the wrong hand.
I suppose their view was that the winner would not have deserved to be demoted to third place as the eventual second would have been promoted, undeservedly into first place and the offended third-placed horse would at best have only been placed second.
It might have been a different story if Bouggler had maintained the runner-up spot but, as you quite rightly observe, he lost momentum and no longer had the rails to help him. If the interference had not taken place, I certainly reckon it would have been a close call.
So I take it the winning jockey didn’t even get a slap on the wrist?The winning jockey was given a four day ban for careless riding, but he won’t miss Cheltenham.
In my opinion this is what’s wrong with how stewards interprate the rules these days.
I had no bet in the race.
O’Brien just kept encouraging the horse with the wrong hand. Had Coleman not taken avoiding action he would’ve ended up over the rail. Therefore this was more than "careless" it was "dangerous" riding (imo).
Think Soufleur would’ve won anyway. But that’s the point, the words "I think", I don’t "know" the outcome was uneffected. By intefering O’Brien has made the result "certain". O’Brien made absolutely no attempt to pull his horse off Bouggler. So how do we know this was not intentional? Not saying it was, just that we don’t know.Even with Soufleur being the probable (I’d say 80% or 90% certain) winner, I believe Soufleur should have lost the race under existing rules. Either "dangerous" or "intentional". By allowing the result to stand, stewards are encouraging jockeys to win big races "at all costs". In my opinion a jockey is going to get seriously injured one day, if stewards continue like this.
Value Is EverythingIn my opinion this is what’s wrong with how stewards interprate the rules these days.
I had no bet in the race.
O’Brien just kept encouraging the horse with the wrong hand. Had Coleman not taken avoiding action he would’ve ended up over the rail. Therefore this was more than "careless" it was "dangerous" riding (imo).
Think Soufleur would’ve won anyway. But that’s the point, the words "I think", I don’t "know" the outcome was uneffected. By intefering O’Brien has made the result "certain". O’Brien made absolutely no attempt to pull his horse off Bouggler. So how do we know this was not intentional? Not saying it was, just that we don’t know.Even with Soufleur being the probable (I’d say 80% or 90% certain) winner, I believe Bouggler should have got the race under existing rules. Either "dangerous" or "intentional". By allowing the result to stand, stewards are encouraging jockeys to win big races "at all costs". In my opinion a jockey is going to get seriously injured one day, if stewards continue like this.
I disagree with nearly all that, first of all the stewards interpreted the rules correctly. Although incidents like this aren’t satisfactory, all the stewards can do is to make the best decision under the circumstances.
O’Brien wouldn’t know he was "certain" to win the race by his actions, it is up to the jockey of the interfered horse to make every effort to get as close as possible to the winner to make the stewards decision difficult.
I’ve heard that scaremongering about "a jockey will get seriously injured one day" for donkey years.
As a punter I don’t worry about that at all as dangerous riding is covered in the rules and the jockeys would only be doing it to themselves.The stewards have to make a judgement Ginger – not the most satisfactory method, as I’m sure they themselves would agree, but it’s the best and fairest approach.
I didn’t think yesterday was dangerous, careless adequately describes it for me. There didn’t appear to be a wilful intent to put the other horse over the rails, there was no cavalier barging through a field without regard to the consequences, etc. Those are the kinds of things that constitute dangerous. Horse drifting away from the whip and jockey not changing hand is, in most instances, careless.
IMO.
You don’t answer the question though Yeats. Should a horse that has prevented another from winning be allowed to keep the race?
And Souffleur did because by hitting the rail,snatching up or hitting the rail then snatching up Bouggler couldn’t win. You can’t ask many horses to slow down,change direction then quicken past a horse in full stride.
If common sense and fairness prevailed the amended result would and should have been:
1st Kayf Aramis
2nd Bouggler
3rd SouffleurI’ve still lost my money but that’s the only fair outcome. Otherwise it’s like somebody scoring a goal when they’re offside and saying "well he would’ve scored anyway and it didn’t affect the result!"
I disagree with nearly all that, first of all the stewards interpreted the rules correctly. Although incidents like this aren’t satisfactory, all the stewards can do is to make the best decision under the circumstances.
O’Brien wouldn’t know he was "certain" to win the race by his actions, it is up to the jockey of the interfered horse to make every effort to get as close as possible to the winner to make the stewards decision difficult.
I’ve heard that scaremongering about "a jockey will get seriously injured one day" for donkey years.
As a punter I don’t worry about that at all as dangerous riding is covered in the rules and the jockeys would only be doing it to themselves.Yeats,
realise this is a matter of opinion, but…
The thing that (imo) makes this dangerous is the rail. Had Coleman not taken avoiding action he would’ve ended up over the rail. Therefore, what O’Brien did was dangerous. It put Coleman and Bouggler at risk. That’s not scaremongering, it’s a fact. Why is it NOT dangerous?Corm,
I’d say it was "without regard to the conseqences". Most instances involving the whip are indeed "careless", but the rail puts a different perspective on the situation.Value Is EverythingThere’s no doubt that Bouggler was hampered. He probably wouldn’t have won but it does beg the question just how bad hampering has to be these days before the stewards change the result.
Might he have been disqualified in Ireland?
This thread conjures up beautiful distant memories of backing the outsider of three with an apprentice on board. Approaching the final furlong, just as we joined the favourite, Bash! Bash! nearly ended up over the rail. In those days though, more often than not, as soon as you heard the words ‘objection, the second is objecting to the winner for taking his ground in the final furlong’ particularly after ‘stewards enquiry has been called’ you more or less knew the placings would be reversed. Nowadays, it just seems so rare to hear an objection being called. Is that because jockeys are less inclined to want to upset their colleagues or because they forfeit something (i.e. deposit) if unsuccessful?
It would be interesting to hear from anyone who can recall the most bizarre result of a stewards enquiry/objection in terms of revised placings.more often than not, as soon as you heard the words ‘objection, the second is objecting to the winner for taking his ground in the final furlong’ particularly after ‘stewards enquiry has been called’ you more or less knew the placings would be reversed.
That would of course, never happen – jockeys wouldn’t need to lodge an objection if an enquiry was already called. It was only if no immediate enquiry was called that a jockey would object, or be asked to object. Plenty had their deposits retained if my memory serves.
Sorry Rory, but unless I’m mistaken, I can well recall an objection being called after hearing of a stewards enquiry.
In fact, the reasons told to me at the time were that the stewards would actually ask the jockey did he wish to object more or less indicating that it had a reasonable chance of success.
Also, I’ve heard of a stewards enquiry being called followed by an announcement that The Clerk to the Scales is objecting.
Are we talking about the same decade?
KenSorry Rory, but unless I’m mistaken, I can well recall an objection being called after hearing of a stewards enquiry.
In fact, the reasons told to me at the time were that the stewards would actually ask the jockey did he wish to object more or less indicating that it had a reasonable chance of success.
Also, I’ve heard of a stewards enquiry being called followed by an announcement that The Clerk to the Scales is objecting.
Are we talking about the same decade?
KenHi Ken,
there might be an issue about the timing of announcements – if a jockey makes an objection, it’s possible that an enquiry will be announced followed by the announcement of the objection, but the objection would have come first. If the decision to hold an enquiry had come first, then there would be no reason for the jockey to object and risk losing £50 (as it used to be when I was a lad). Similarly, if the cleark of the scales objects, a stewards enquiry will be called, but the objection will always precede the enquiry, even if the announcements suggest otherwise. Hope that makes sense. Surely the stewards wouldn’t need to invite a jockey to object when they would be perfectly able to call an inquiry off their own bat.
Point conceded, Rory. You are obviously more au fait with the rules than this old codger. It’s probably as I’ve imagined during my afternoon snooze. These days I think they call them ‘power naps’ but….oh, I’ve forgotten what I was going to say…never mind the ‘retirement home for washed-out punters’ beckons, I think.
Cheers,
KenHello everyone
As one of the very lucky people who own Bouggler, this thread prompted me to join the forum.
We were delighted with his run at Haydock yesterday, particularly as he doesn’t actually celebrate his fifth birthday until March.
Aidan Coleman said afterwards that he wasn’t sure if he would have won without the interference, but that he would have been second for sure.
However, I don’t think the offending jockey can have done it deliberately. It would take enormous presence of mind — and a lot of luck — at the end of a race to decide to change your stick into the wrong hand in the hopes that it might make your horse drift and ensure your closest rival couldn’t get past.
I think it’s more likely that he didn’t realise Bouggler was still so much in contention and wanted to give Souffleur the rail to help him.
We were disappointed by what happened, but there’s always another day and if the roles had been reversed I’m sure we would be saying "That’s racing."
Most importantly of all, Bouggleur came back with a smile on his face and no injuries. His next outing should be at Aintree and then maybe he can take his revenge — not literally I hope!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.