- This topic has 15 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
An absolutely ludicrous decision by the Stratford stewards to change the result of the 4.15.
The BHA should be issuing a statement regards this as there could be an integrity issue, the second horse which was beaten over 2 lengths was backed down substantially in the stewards enquiry to get the race.
If Dave Smith the judge got suspended then sacked for what he did these clowns should suffer the same fate, they have brought the sport into disrepute.
They’ve taken incompetence to a whole new level. When was the last time a horse causing interference but winning by more than 2 lengths had the race taken off them let alone one that didn’t cause any interference.
Maybe the stewards backed the fav.
I’ve just watched the replay and that supersedes the disqualification of Royal Gait from the 1988 Ascot Gold Cup as the worst stewards’ decision I’ve seen.
I watched the race but paying so much attention to Fruity O’Rooney, I didn’t really spot the incident as it happened. It was really sweet watching Gary Moore’s veteran jump from fence to fence with relish and of his own volition. He even jumped two extra fences for good measure. What a very likeable character
I watched the replay a few times and thought it was a comical incident which could have been avoided if
all of
the jockeys were brave enough to follow their own instincts rather than that of the Fruity one. Indeed, had STD reacted a split second later, he would have been banned for at least 14 days for taking the wrong course.
When I heard that the placings had been reversed, I was flabbergasted. Looking at the official guidelines, I’m surprised it went beyond the very first two questions in their piece on interference;-
* Was there interference?
If the answer is NO the enquiry should be closed. If YES
* Who caused it?
If it cannot be established who caused it, the enquiry should be closed and the
appropriate notice issued. If the cause is established:
* THE STIPENDIARY STEWARD WILL SUM UP.The whole bit is here from pages 14 to 18
I’m finding it hard to find anyone apart from the jockey of the promoted horse who think the correct decision was made.
Stipendiary steward Chris Rutter stated "We felt Benbens was coming with a run and finishing stronger than Dolatulo. Had it not been for the interference the stewards felt Benbens would have won.
The stewards also felt it was careless riding from Gavin Sheehan. Even though his horse was hanging slightly to his right he should have done more and left enough room, so he was given four days for careless riding".
The worrying thing about that statement is that these people are deciding the results of horse races with millions of pounds at stake.
It should have taken about 5 minutes to vindicate the first past the post rather than about 25 minutes to disqualify him.
And rather than Gavin Sheehan being suspended it should have been Sam Twiston Davies who received a ban for trying to barge his way out.
Eddie
The 25 minutes to decide would explain the horse being backed down in price. In general the longer the enquiry the more the price will favour the beaten horse.
Just out of interest, do you know if the head-on camera shots were aired on ATR? RUK replays often show head-ons but ATR replays cut off soon after the finish.
The impression I got was that Benbens was carved up by Dolatulo, but I wasn’t sure he would get the race. However, this judgement was made from a camera shot which is from past the post, and the incident did happen close to the line. My intial reaction was that maybe the winner was ‘following’ Fruity O’Rooney. I do note that at least Stratford put a decent barrier up in front of the water on the final circuit
Rob
Eddie
The 25 minutes to decide would explain the horse being backed down in price. In general the longer the enquiry the more the price will favour the beaten horse.
Just out of interest, do you know if the head-on camera shots were aired on ATR? RUK replays often show head-ons but ATR replays cut off soon after the finish.
Rob
Yes Rob they showed the head on and have just shown it again on ATR, I noticed it cut out just before the crucial moment online.
I wouldn’t agree with you though that the longer an enquiry goes on favours the beaten horse, on the basis that the rules state that if stewards are unsure or don’t know, they should give the benefit of doubt to the first past the post.
Eddie
I agree re ‘benefit of the doubt’. What I said was ‘In general the longer the enquiry the more the price will favour the beaten horse.’ I suspect the market perceives a long enquiry means doubt about the winner keeping the race.
Rob
seen this on the Sunday forum on ATR this morning. I honestly think this is the worst decision I have seen in racing
I haven’t seen the head-on but even without that, it seems an injustice. STD’s responsibility was to put his horse in a position to safely negotiate the dolled-off fence. If he couldn’t do that, his chance of winning was gone.
It was not Sheehan’s duty to help STD achieve that safe passage by allowing him through a gap on his inside. It wasn’t a case of them battling upsides, Benbens was behind him. The fact that Benbens had the energy to go through the gap and pass him did not give him the right to do so. STD was in a pocket and his only chance of winning was to rip a hole in it. He tried to do that and failed. But the stewards retro-ripped it for him and allowed him through.
Whether this was some insane rebellion centred on the Gold Cup result that stewards are not always inclined to let a horse keep a race 99% of the time, I don’t know. But it seems silly and unjust and I suspect it will be reversed on appeal.
seen this on the Sunday forum on ATR this morning. I honestly think this is the worst decision I have seen in racing
I agree totally it was a travesty. As Matt Chapman said today where in the rules of racing did it allow the Stewards to make their decision? They should receive a ban for their actions
I did see the head on as ATR showed it.
Dolatulo ran straight from the alst fence without veering off course.
The problem was STD who went up the inner when there was no gap to go up. It is STD who should have been banned not Sheehan who i thought gave the horse a good ride.
However I do think that had there been room Benbens would possibly have got up but would not be 100%.
However to my mind Sheehan did nothing wrong it was STD who was at fault.
It just makes racing look totally unprofessionalNo surprise here then to see this reversed, we await with interest the BHA’s punishment for the stewards and stipes involved.
What confidence can anyone have with them in the future when they’ve apparently proved themselves clueless on the subject? Dave Smith got sacked for his misdemeanour, see no reason why they shouldn’t suffer the same fate.
Have only watched the head on of last nights race once and I’m not saying he definitely did but thought there could be a case of STD causing deliberate interference, need to see it a few more times.
However the Stratford stewards have exonerated him of that and done him for keeping a straight line, exactly the same reasoning used for disqualifying Sheehan’s horse last time.
Twiston Davies got a 2 day ban but Sheehan a 4 day one from the Stratford stewards, what was the difference?
Either way how long are the BHA going to tolerate such incompetence from stewards, punters have a lot of money riding on these decisions and they should get them right.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.