Towcester Stewards

[% MAN]

Well the Towcester stewards made the most ridiculous decision I have seen in a long time in reversing the placings of Rebel Swing and Bishophill Jack in the selling chase.

Yes Samantha Drake should have switched her whip sooner and the two day ban for careless riding is fair.

But did it effect the result – no way. The winning distance was a head and there was no way Bishophill Jack lost that ground in the incident, it’s questionable he lost anything at all.

I can only think the wily pro Nick Schofield laid it on thicker to the Stewards than the relatively inexperienced Sam and trainer Joanne Foster.

I hope Rebel Swing’s connections appeal as I’m absolutely certain the decision of the Stewards would be reversed on appeal.

If the decision is "justified" by an appeal panel then it puts a huge question mark over many worse incidents where the result wasn’t reversed.

Lest I be accused of pocket talking I was actually on Bishophill Jack so I "benefited" from the Stewards decision.

[eddie case]

I agree, a poor decision, the benefit of doubt is supposed to go to the first past the post.

Further evidence that centralised stewarding is needed, two decisions have been overturned in recent weeks, it’s not good enough.

I don’t believe jockeys should even be involved in steward enquiries regarding the result, everyone can see what happened, why do you need a biased jockey to tell you.

[highflyer1]

So I suppose you were both present during the Stewards Enquiry when the "wily pro" out-talked the shy, retiring Samantha (who is anything but and also happens to be a professional)?

The reality is that Scholfield (note the spelling) was prevented from riding a finish and imo would have certainly won had he been able to do so. The fact that he was only beaten a head made the reversal of the placings inevitable.

[eddie case]

So I suppose you were both present during the Stewards Enquiry when the "wily pro" out-talked the shy, retiring Samantha (who is anything but and also happens to be a professional)?

I’m not talking about this one in particular, as you say I wasn’t there but in general. Why should how persuasive a jockey may or may not be, be a factor at all in deciding the result of a race?

You say a reversal was inevitable, then why was the result long odds on to remain the same? You must have made a few bob.
The fact is that the result would have remained unchanged at most other tracks in the country. A result shouldn’t be dependent on which set of stewards is officiating.

[Rondo]

I was in the stands right by the run-in and I could see no time that Nick S had to stop riding or was impeded. There was great surprise at the reversal. It looked a straightforward placings remain unaltered, with maybe a telling-off/warning for the jockey on the first past the post. Kim Bailey who trained the horse declared the winner seemed surprised, perhaps a little embarrassed that he’d got the race in the stewards room. It does raise the question of consistency of decisions, a bit like football refereeing.

[% MAN]

So I suppose you were both present during the Stewards Enquiry when the "wily pro" out-talked the shy, retiring Samantha (who is anything but and also happens to be a professional)?

He is, relatively speaking, far more experienced than her, still a 5lb claimer, and undoubtedly knows how to play the system better than her.

The reality is that Scholfield (note the spelling) was prevented from riding a finish and imo would have certainly won had he been able to do so. The fact that he was only beaten a head made the reversal of the placings inevitable.

I would completely disagree with your assessment.

I was watching the race with seasoned race readers, who have each seen more races than probably both of us put together. We saw the incident "live" and replays from several angles and there was absolutely nothing to suggest the incident had cost Bishophill Jack the race.

The immediate post race comment, before the inquiry had even been announced, was "they’ll call an inquiry, she’ll probably get a couple of days careless but there’s no way the result will be reversed."

Interestingly even the in-running guys, who were in the box next to us and who are pretty astute in these matters, were convinced the result would stand. Indeed the language coming from next door when the amended result was announced suggested they backed that view with hard cash.

[highflyer1]

I take the point about inconsistencies in Stewards’ decisions….that certainly remains an issue. I’ve watched the replay of this race several times and there is no doubt to my eyes that the rider of the runner-up was prevented from using his whip in the last 50 yards because he was being leant on by the "winner". He was then only beaten a head. Surely under these circumstances 9 out of 10 Stewards Panels would have reversed the placings? Kim Bailey in this morning’s blog said that, on dismounting, Nick was adamant that he would have won.

Wasn’t aware of the long odds against reversal. Perhaps they were compiled before the head-on view was available,

[Author]

Posts