Race 3 at Menangle tonight

[triplev123]

Didn't much like the look of that one. Interesting to read the Stewards Report. Was there a 'change of tactics' notification made? (cough, cough, bullshit, cough, cough)

[desibg]

Watching thorn shake his head over the line made my night! Karma is a bitch!

[triplev123]

My interest is in how the Stewards read the race rather than the personalities involved.

[triplev123]

G'day Spurbuck,

I'm not at all concerned about it from that angle because I don't believe for a minute that is what it was.

I am however extremely interested to note what, if any, action was taken by Stewards in light of their current interpretation & application of the change of tactics rule as I believe it's a rule that is being routinely incorrectly & often most unfairly applied here in NSW.
I firmly believe the rule has been/is often being misinterpreted, that...for want of a better term...the actual spirit of the rule...is perhaps not the first & foremost thing in the minds of those empowered with enforcing it.

I believe it is a rule that is rightly in place BUT that it's a rule that was put in place to put a stop to exactly that which appears to have taken place tonight..i.e. so as to allow them the opportunity to subsequently question a horse being driven, for no apparent reason, in a manner that appears to be in contravention of its well & truly exposed pattern of racing and...in this instance with pretty considerable weight being added to the reason for such questioning by the fact the horse involved went postward at 33/1 or thereabouts.

It was not, it was never at any stage meant to be nor was it designed to be or expected to be interpreted as, a rule which would allow unneccessary & IMO unjust interference with honest, reasonable, normal tactical decisions that trainers & drivers must make on a week to week basis...with each & every decision depending upon their assessments of the track, the draw and the relative class/quality of their opposition.

Before anyone jumps on the 'what about the Punter' bandwagon...let me say that if Owners, Trainers and Drivers must sit for a moment or two in order to try and work out what is most likely to occur in a race, then maybe the Punters should take a leaf or two out of their book and do the same. Punters need not be spoonfed. That is why it is called Gambling.

[Termite]

I logged on this morning to pose the question about this race and quite obviously it was noticed by many others. I live in victoria and really only check on the Menangle replays out of interest, but that race stood out like the proverbial and if I thought it was dodgy, surely the stewards will be taking action. I am a big fan of Luke Mcarthy, I think he is a great trainer and driver and great for the sport, so I am not questioning his integrity, but if a name like Small, Butcher or even the great G lang was involved in such a race situation, I am sure their feet would not touch the ground on the way to the stewards room. Whatever the rule or interpretation, this needs to be examined and explanations sought. As for the call on Mister Anthony's huge run, check out Big Fella Mach... was cost 15-20 metres by the flailing BCB and almost got the money!

[triplev123]

G'day Termite,

Glad I'm not seeing things. Like yourself, I'm not questioning the integrity of those involved either, but rather I'm highlighting what I believe to be an ACTUAL instance where the rule should be applied...versus the numerous instances, and especially so in recent times here in NSW, where IMO it has often been quite incorrectly used/invoked/where driver have been reprimanded/reminded of their responsibilities in that regard.

[remington]

Heres what the stewards report says about the incident:
Race 3 –MAJOR IN ART PACE 2300M
Stewards questioned B Sarina (Beef City Beau) in relation to the driving tactics he adopted on the gelding. B Sarina stated when he was caught outside the leader he restrained the gelding to look for cover but then Beef City Beau was making contact with the offside sulky stay which caused him to over race and after passing the 600m mark the gelding gave ground quickly resulting in the offside sulky tyre being punctured when Big Fella Mack was checked from that point on B Sarina desisted from driving the horse forward and Beef City Beau finished distance. The gelding was examined by the clubs veterinary surgeon and no abnormalities were detected in view of this Beef City Beau was stood down until it successfully completes one requalifying trial.

[triplev123]

Well, that leaves me absolutely gobsmacked. I do not have the words.

[David Summers]

Well , really. After reading the steward's report I just checked the date on the calendar. No it's not actually April Fool's Day :-(

[DAZZA]

Beef City Beau has always been one to fly out and take a sit, couldnt cross so he straight away was looking for a sit, but did you see how Sarina turned around seen it was Luke on his back, head down, ar*e up and went up to eye ball the leader. Classic case of helping a stable mate out. Thorns head shake summed it up I think.

[Pureblonde]

Just very disappointing....Perception is paramount and that race threw a bad odour....McCarthy needs to be aware he is new to Sydney trots and it isnt a good way to present yourself....I know thorn has everyone talking but taking personalities out of it the explanation was pitiful. Surely, Stewards could take action if they accept the poor excuse of hitting the sulky....maybe penalise trainer something as he put the sulky on. Must say that didnt see Sarina pulling much.

[David Summers]

The stewards might think this is now all over. Down the track this race might face a little more attention.

[Paleface]

watched this race with 3 mates, all of us looked at each other during it and said the same thing, must have seen something different to the stewards tape!

[mango]

It's always the way and if someone was to do that out in the bush they would surely get time. There seems to be rules for some and rule's for other's.

[triplev123]

Again, the age old issue of interpretation and subsequent application or the apparent non-application of a controversial rule comes to the surface.
I hand on heart believe that the change of tactics rule was instituted to enable the Stewards to come down hard on the very thing we saw on Saturday night. Instead of that, here we are on Tuesday morning with an apparent outcome where, IMO, the one true instance thereof that we've seen in recent times has effectively been allowed to skate free and clear whilst other instances of quite reasonable decision making have been brought into question & noted in the Stewards Reports of the day. What the.......?
I don't blame Drivers for pushing right up to the mark on every single thing that they do, they do as much as they can to win and to get the slightest advantage over the rest they will try to get away with whatever they can or are allowed to get away with by the Stewards. I don't have a problem with any of that. Like Soccer or any other such sport, you go out and play to the Ref's Whistle. If he doesn't blow up the play for Off-side....you kick it into the back of the net.
I was at Fairfield yesterday & saw a clear cut case of 'gamesmenship' from a very well known driver & friend. It was nothing dreadful in the scheme of things but it was something that I know others have been picked up on and fined/suspended for in the past. He did what he basically had to do, he had no choice, he tried it on, and he skated. From his & his Owner's point of view, job done, it got well beaten but he did everything that he could to give his horse the best chance to win & then some.

I don't think there's a reasonable person anywhere in the Industry who wishes for anything more than a consistent interpretation and application of the rules as they stand, in both word and spirit, lest we ultimately have to go down the 'New York City Chinese Restaurant Menu' road of having everything being noted down in Columns A, B & C and penalities being dispensed accoringly.

[aussiebreno]

The good thing about the rule is that some trainers "going forward" means get onnnn! Money for jam!

[DAZZA]

Yeah Macarthys today, going forward with swift stride meant "trying today"

[DAZZA]

Beef City Beau inquiry re opened

17 June 2011

http://www.harness.org.au/news/images/logos/HRNSW-2.gif


Acting on fresh evidence, HRNSW Acting Chairman of Stewards Mr Bill Cable has advised Mr Luke McCarthy and Mr Ben Sarina that the inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Beef City Beau in Race 3 at Menangle Park last Saturday has been re-opened.

[aussiebreno]

Was the evidence this thread? What more was there to see then the race. Although it looks like either a rival trainer/driver has dobbed them in or more likely the boys had a punt and have been found out perhaps.

[David Summers]

The whole thing has a bad look.

Bad look during the race.
Bad look after the race with the steward's bizarre findings.
Bad look having to now open a retrospective inquiry five days after the race after already making their original "findings".

What next?? It should not have come to this.

[aussiebreno]

If you're of the belief it was a bad look stewards didnt find anything immediately after the race then I can't see how you now believe its a bad look that they are now taking the matter further?

[mango]

Surely it doesn't take 5 day's to have a look at the race and the betting trend, to be honest i'd bury it and move on and just keep a closer eye on thing's.

[The Money Tree]

Mango you cant just 'bury it' because it encourages the grubs to keep on doing it.
The race was an absolute digrace. Ben Sarina grabs hold after the start and turns his head 180 degrees to find out where the stablemate is.
As soon as is sure, he looks 3 times to check, he then allows the horse more reign and hammers the leader.
The mistake the stewards made in all this was not to open an inquiry on the spot.
As soon as fixed odds markets opened on the TAB Fleur de Lil was well backed $10-$5 from memory.
For the record I didnt bet in the race.

[mango]

Fair call but surely it doesn't take 5 day's.

[David Summers]

aussiebreno - Sorry , the wording of my post did not reflect my feelings correctly. What I actually meant to say was that it was a bad look having to now open a retrospective inquiry five days after the race after already making their original "findings". It was obvious to most onlookers ( and to several drivers who drove other horses ) that there needed to be a full inquiry immediately after the race , not five days later and only after a fair amount of controversy.

I will preface it with saying that in all probability , nothing much will happen anyway. BTW, I did not have a bet in the race either.

[DAZZA]

Mango you cant just 'bury it' because it encourages the grubs to keep on doing it.
The race was an absolute digrace. Ben Sarina grabs hold after the start and turns his head 180 degrees to find out where the stablemate is.
As soon as is sure, he looks 3 times to check, he then allows the horse more reign and hammers the leader.
The mistake the stewards made in all this was not to open an inquiry on the spot.
As soon as fixed odds markets opened on the TAB Fleur de Lil was well backed $10-$5 from memory.
For the record I didnt bet in the race.

That was the bit that stood out most to me, he almost fell out of his seat when he saw Luke there and couldnt get up outside the leader fast enough. GUILTY.

[Lucky Camilla"s Lovechild]

Did anyone notice Ben Sarina got a $1000 fine for doing a photoshoot without permission or wearing appropriate safety attire? Got some issues those stewards up in NSW.

[triplev123]

Beef City Beau inquiry result

06 July 2011

by Bill Cable




Stewards resumed an inquiry into the driving tactics of Ben Sarina (BEEF CITY BEAU) from the Menangle race meeting on 11 June 2011.

Evidence was taken on the night in question but after receiving betting information obtained from both Betfair and the TAB which indicated that the stablemate of BEEF CITY BEAU, namely FLEUR DE LIL had come in for support, Stewards revisited the Inquiry.

Also questioned were the Trainer of both runners Mr Luke McCarthy who was also the driver of FLEUR DE LIL who stated that due to other drivers in the race failing to take the opportunity to gain the one out one back position, he progressed forward on FLEUR DE LIL to take that spot which placed his drive on the back of BEEF CITY BEAU. McCarthy further stated that the first of two quarters of the last mile were run in 29.8 which for that class of horse was relatively slow.

Stewards accepted that evidence and feel that the betting information failed to show anything untoward other than normal betting trends.

Both Ben Sarina and Luke McCarthy were advised that in future they should not place themselves in a position that could lead to their drives being questioned.

[aussiebreno]

Beef City Beau inquiry result

06 July 2011

by Bill Cable




Stewards resumed an inquiry into the driving tactics of Ben Sarina (BEEF CITY BEAU) from the Menangle race meeting on 11 June 2011.

Evidence was taken on the night in question but after receiving betting information obtained from both Betfair and the TAB which indicated that the stablemate of BEEF CITY BEAU, namely FLEUR DE LIL had come in for support, Stewards revisited the Inquiry.

Also questioned were the Trainer of both runners Mr Luke McCarthy who was also the driver of FLEUR DE LIL who stated that due to other drivers in the race failing to take the opportunity to gain the one out one back position, he progressed forward on FLEUR DE LIL to take that spot which placed his drive on the back of BEEF CITY BEAU. McCarthy further stated that the first of two quarters of the last mile were run in 29.8 which for that class of horse was relatively slow.

Stewards accepted that evidence and feel that the betting information failed to show anything untoward other than normal betting trends.

Both Ben Sarina and Luke McCarthy were advised that in future they should not place themselves in a position that could lead to their drives being questioned.
I'll skip over the rest because I'm sure others will talk about it but this. After clearing them of anything untoward and thus saying both Beef City Beau and Fleur De Lil were given the best possible drives to gain the best possible placing (or whatever the rule exactly is) are stewards saying don't follow the rule in the future if it might look like you are team driving. That is a disgrace. You do your best whether it looks suss or not; stewards are effictively telling them to not do your best if it looks suspicious despite telling them that they were not guilty. By golly are the soft or stupid or both???

[triplev123]

What really gets to me Breno is the way in which this somehow lost its way and became a bit of a false flag mission. It was never at any stage, I don't believe for one minute that it was ever...about the Punt.
Instead...I think it has/had EVERYTHING to do with the simple and inescapable fact that Beef City Beau was driven in a manner that was completely & utterly contrary to virtually every single race start that horse has had for as far back as I can remember.
A reading of the initial Stewards Report, which to me indicates a seemingly unquestioning acceptance of the excuse for the drive, then saw this become a real isssue regarding the non-application by the Stewards of their often incorrectly or heavy handedly used Change of Tactics rule.
I was initially stunned by their inaction in the face of that which I believe to be the one absolutely true & glaring case we have wittnessed in recent times...an instance where the full force of the Change of Tactics rule could have been apllied and brought to bare...but instead it just zipped straight through to the Keeper.
I am further bemused that the subsequent/further inquiry became focussed on the Punt...when all that was actually required was a retraction of the Steward's apparent initial acceptance of the explanation backed up by a very solid rebuking of the driver for his efforts...one that was simply in keeping with those received by others in recent times for drives that were far, far less culpable in nature.
In that respect, you know none of this need have progressed beyond the Stewards Report of June 11th.
Something simple like B. Sarina was severely reprimanded for his drive on Beef City Beau, in particular the way in which the horse was driven in a manner contrary to previous outings and he was reminded of his obligations etc etc etc.
Instead, when Participants see what they saw and accordingly look to the Stewards Report, well, they'd probably not have felt any great level of redress from the wording of the original one of June 11th nor July 6th's...especially those who may have fallen foul of the Change of Tactics rule themselves.

[triplev123]

...and further to the above, I simply can't comprehend why a horse such as Beef City Beau, a 7yo veteran of some 122 starts and with well & truly exposed form as far as its preferred racing pattern is concerned can be driven in a manner that is totally in contradiction of that racing pattern and nothing is said in that regard...while at the other end of the spectrum the driver of a current 2yo with 7 or 8 starts lifetime is the subject of Steward commentary with regard to Change of Tactics. The way this rule is being applied and not applied here in NSW is just absurd, it is absolutely bloody absurd.

[aussiebreno]

Spot on VVV

[smithy]

some people just don't learn


L McCarthy (Roman Stride) was fined $200 under rule 44(1) for failing to notify the Stewards that the gelding would be driven contrary to its usual racing pattern.

[triplev123]

That's unfair Smithy. In Luke's defense, that ruling is more than just a reactionary, IMO.
The fact that the Stewards have zero'd in on him and fined him for the drive on Roman Stride but 6 weeks or so ago they initially let Ben Sarina skip for that drive on Beef City Beau and then completely missed the point when they subsequently re-opened the Inquiry a week or so later by way of a focus on the wagering instead of the drive... underlines what I have been banging on about for some time now.
Perhaps it is a largely NSW thing as we've only just come out of the Fog of so many years of a Labor State Government directed by Tim Gartrell/Karl Bitar & the rest of the Sussex St. Machine monsters that I do not care to remember, a situation whereby essentially the place operated under a 'rule of the week' come manage by crisis approach. Of course, I don't think this fits in the manage by crisis category...but by geeze, it's sure looking like 'rule of the week'.
Ultimately, nobody in the Industry asks for anything more and nor do they expect anything less of the Stewards than a consistent approach. Given recent rulings, I don't think jamming Luke for $200 is consistent. If I was Emilio, I'm paying that $200 in a heartbeat. I didn't think the drive was bad at all. That was his 5th start for Luke, his first being May 14th. He has gone from an M0 to an M3-M5 in 5 starts. After a change of stable and 5 starts the horse has a usual racing pattern????? That's not what I believed to be the reason why the Change Of Tactics rule was instituted. That's not what I understood it was brought in to to iron out. IMO that is not the spirit of the rule.

[smithy]

i think after 5 starts with a metro grade horse then yes it has an established racing pattern

[triplev123]

The horse WON the race and they still fined Luke.
Honestly, wtf is that? It's nothing short of absurd. If that is in any way, shape or form in keeping with the spirit of the rule...if it is in any way, shape or form in keeping with the reason/s why the Change Of Tactics rule was put in place...then I'm King Farouk.

[smithy]

he blatantly ignored a well known rule.

[desibg]

i hear thats not the only rule being pushed to it's limits, apparently not all horses are on track 2 hours prior to race.

[smithy]

intriguing, what have you heard?

[triplev123]

he blatantly ignored a well known rule.

That's just as bloody-minded and as incorrect a view as the Stewards have taken.
Instead of using the Change Of Tactics rule to do what it was instituted to do...it is being applied incorrectly & unfairly.
Luke still won the race in question, he didn't dud the horse or the Punters who backed it, yet he was fined anyway. For what??? How can anyone reasonably turn around & fine him under those circumstances? A-B-S-U-R-D!

[smithy]

i dont understand how you think you have a better understanding of how the COT rule is to be used then the stewards panel

[triplev123]

Hahahahaha. Now you're just being truculent Smithy...but thanks for the laugh. Most appreciated.

[Love Of Courage]

Hello Hello,

What would happen with this scenario. Trainer has new horse in stable and for the first 4 starts horse is restrained from wide barrier back to last with a cracking pace on upfront. Storms home each time for various wins and placings.

At the 5th start horse has wide barrier again and driver drops back horse to last. Pace is very slow so driver zips round the field to lead and wins the race. Driver uses initiative realising horse would find it hard to win from last with such a slow pace. Would driver then be fined even if he was trying to give horse the BEST possible chance to win race.

I can see both sides of the arguement but to be fined for giving your horse the best possible chance "Winning" seems wrong to me. The only time I have concerns with races is with several stable runners in the race and "Team Driving".

To me this causes the most problems with punters. Look at the Auckland Reactor race where he was attacked by the Small stable runner Awesome Ambro for the entire race, seemingly to assist other stable runner Changeover.

[Flashing Red]

The sad thing is the change in tactics rule is being used in an effort to combat team driving. But they are different offences completely. A select few have ruined it for everyone. Stewards should pull people up for TEAM DRIVING. It is obvious when people are team driving. Why pull up someone up for trying to win a race as has appeared to happen on a few occasions now? Sometimes a race doesn't turn out as anticipated, why cannot drivers make split second decisions? This comment is not directed to anyone or any incident in particular, just a general observation based on a number of states. I applaud any sort of enforcement of the rules by stewards, just think things aren't really as consistent as they could be at the moment... :)

[triplev123]

I agree re: the team driving aspect but the rest of that post is being way too kind Flashing.
The problem is that the interpretation & subsequent enforcement of the rule has been about as reliable as a Taiwanese Rolex. The decision is made on the spot by Luke to drive Roman Stride a little differently than normal, the horse still goes on and wins the race regardless & yet the Stewards STILL see fit to fine him for the drive? :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: I've seen some ridiculous rulings over the years but that one takes the cake.

[Don Corleone]

Team Driving is so obvious and in a perfect world the rules would be enough. However the interpretation and enforcement sometimes does is take away a "edge" that a driver can get in a spilt second at anytime of the race. To fine Luke for that drive was........madness.

[mango]

Hi Don

I agree that team driving is obvious and that should be stamped out and driver's given serious time. On the change of tactics i reckon that should be between the driver/trainer/owner and if they want to spring a surprise and lead good luck to them, why should they notify the stewards only for them to announce it for the other driver's to hear what they are going to try and do. They say it's for the punter's but i never hear Wayne Bennet giving his game plan to the opposition before a game.

[smithy]

but he has to release accurate information on the side he will be playing (which is obviously very important to the games integrity due to it pretty much dictating the games tactics and chances of victory)..only have to look at the bulldogs, collingwood and the andrew johns - eddy hayson plunge to see how it can be abused... it is exactly the same in the trots, any significant information that will affect a horses performance should be conveyed to the public - the trots already have a bad enough image without encouraging obfuscation...

[mango]

Hi Smithy

I can see your point, so i suppose the only way around it would be for the driver to go to the stewards before the race and let them know there could be a change of tactics if the race permit's that way it covers you either way.

[triplev123]

but he has to release accurate information on the side he will be playing (which is obviously very important to the games integrity due to it pretty much dictating the games tactics and chances of victory)..only have to look at the bulldogs, collingwood and the andrew johns - eddy hayson plunge to see how it can be abused... it is exactly the same in the trots, any significant information that will affect a horses performance should be conveyed to the public - the trots already have a bad enough image without encouraging obfuscation...

C'mon Smithy, be reasonable.
How in Blue Blazes can he release accurate information BEFORE he decides to do something????????
If a Driver makes a last moment change of tactics decision at the start or soon after the start of or during a race and he drives the horse differently than he normally would and he still wins the race...then how is it right that he gets fined??????? If he stiffs the horse or the decision results in the horse being beaten then maybe the Stewards have got a case...but how can it be reasonable that Luke or anyone else be fined when he/they have obviously made a winning decision? The more I think about this the more ridiculous it becomes. The change of tactics rule should be thrown out completely if it cannot be administered correctly.

[Flashing Red]

but he has to release accurate information on the side he will be playing (which is obviously very important to the games integrity due to it pretty much dictating the games tactics and chances of victory)..only have to look at the bulldogs, collingwood and the andrew johns - eddy hayson plunge to see how it can be abused... it is exactly the same in the trots, any significant information that will affect a horses performance should be conveyed to the public - the trots already have a bad enough image without encouraging obfuscation...

If every driver is doing their best to win a race I see no need to notify the public (ie punters). They are doing their best to win a race, so the punters should be happy with that.
None of this change of tactics crack down happened until people started squarking about team driving. They are two separate things however one is used to police the other (!). The thing with team driving is that one (or sometimes more than one) stablemate is chopped up for the other. Come down hard on those that do team driving. Leave the guy alone who changes tactics in a split second decision which results in a win or the best position possible....

[smithy]

how can team driving be policed if not through the COT rule? especially team driving by people who aren't related or from the same stable

[aussiebreno]

but he has to release accurate information on the side he will be playing (which is obviously very important to the games integrity due to it pretty much dictating the games tactics and chances of victory)..only have to look at the bulldogs, collingwood and the andrew johns - eddy hayson plunge to see how it can be abused... it is exactly the same in the trots, any significant information that will affect a horses performance should be conveyed to the public - the trots already have a bad enough image without encouraging obfuscation...
Yeah, too bad Nick Maxwell was still named in the backline despite lining up in forward line

[Flashing Red]

how can team driving be policed if not through the COT rule? especially team driving by people who aren't related or from the same stable

Rule 149(1)
A driver shall take all reasonable and permissible measures during the course of a race to ensure that the horse driven by that driver is given full opportunity to win or obtain the best possible placing in the field.

How a number of stewards in a number of states are interpreting the change of tactics rule is in direct conflict with with rule 149. You can't plan 100% what is happening out there. A good driver has plan A and B and also the ability to make split second decisions. These change of plans may happen in the race due to unforeseen circumstances.

With team driving, at least one of those horses (the chopping block which is either the horse carting the stable mate up and attacking the leaders; a horse attacking the leaders for its stablemate to swoop everyone at the finish; a horse that pulls three wide and stops moving forward to not allow the back markers to be carted into the race and beat the stablemate in the front/death/1-1 etc) is NOT being driven in accordance to rule 149(1). They are driven to get the stablemate home. If a driver wins a race yet gets punished under change of tactics, what about rule 149(1)?

Rule 44(1)
A driver or 1 or more of the connections of a horse intending to adopt during a race tactics contrary to the horse's usual racing pattern shall, as soon as practicable, so notify the stewards.

So what happens mid race or at the start or whenever, when something unforseen happens and plan A and B won't work? How can a driver notify stewards mid race that they have to change tactics? An odds-on shot regardless of racing pattern is entitled to go to the lead, but say the pace is crazy fast and the driver just sits there and waits and swoops home and wins? Despite being contrary to it's normal racing pattern (go forward?). Or the horse that likes to lead over a mile but its first time over 2600m elects to take a sit on a 3-1 shot when its 20-1 itself?? Or a horse that is 100-1 and has only ever won in the lead, but then Blacks A Fake comes bowling up?

I think its unfair for the stewards to think that drivers know exactly what is going to happen before every race - they don't. Change of tactics rule, how it is being enforced at the moment, stifles this needed discretion by drivers. I know one trainer driver got called in, their horse goes very good in front and this time they took a sit. They took a sit because the past half a dozen races this horse had was over a mile, he wasn't very strong. This race was 2600m, they thought it would be better to give a weak horse a run behind the leader and use the sprint lane. The horse didn't win, but went well, much better than if he had done it all himself. Yet they were called in under the change of tactics rule!!

[triplev123]

Exactly Flashing.
The absurdity of the Roman Stride (the fav) decision was that everything inside of him left hard for the lead and had Luke gone with them & used him up early to get to the front he almost definitely would've been collared late in the stretch & it would have been fav. beaten. Instead he sees the horses to his inside all lining up to leave hard & they do... so he takes off the gate, saves up his horse & comes at them with 1 go, he wins the race, the fav. duly salutes for the Punters...and the Stewards fine him? :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:
Essentially that decision dictates that Luke should instead have contested the early lead, one which was not going to be there without a significant fight, and in doing so lessen the chances of the horse winning...just so he could keep in step with what the Stewards viewed as the horse's demonstrated racing pattern. I fear that is just how bloody ridiculous the interpretation & use of the Change Of Tactics rule has gotten here in NSW my friend.

[smithy]

Rule 149(1)
I know one trainer driver got called in, their horse goes very good in front and this time they took a sit. They took a sit because the past half a dozen races this horse had was over a mile, he wasn't very strong. This race was 2600m, they thought it would be better to give a weak horse a run behind the leader and use the sprint lane. The horse didn't win, but went well, much better than if he had done it all himself. Yet they were called in under the change of tactics rule!!



this is an example of how they knew they would vary their tactics before the race and chose not to tell the stewards ??? how do you know they didnt tell the other driver they would hand up and then back the horse they handed up to? because your mates with them and they are above suspicion?

[Flashing Red]

this is an example of how they knew they would vary their tactics before the race and chose not to tell the stewards ??? how do you know they didnt tell the other driver they would hand up and then back the horse they handed up to? because your mates with them and they are above suspicion?

Not at all. And for the record, I don't believe anyone is above suspicion and this person isn't "my mate". It's amazing what one can learn watching races and reading subsequent stewards reports! ;-)

In this example, if you make an annoucement before the race, you will have EVERY TOM DICK AND HARRY out after you for the lead. They KNOW you're going to hand up, so there is a stampede for the lead. This horse is weak, you don't want to try and hold them all out until "the right one" comes along, ie you wouldn't want to hand up to a 50-1 shot that doesn't get you to the sprint lane and you wouldn't want to hand up to another horse, even if it is a good one, if all they are going to do is hand up themselves and put you three the fence. What if said horse gets the lead and then no-one comes? Then the driver could have rated the horse as best he could and made it a sprint home, ie this was another viable option that would not have been available if an announcement was made before the race. The driver is 100% complying with rule 149(1), has obtained the best finishing position for their horse, which is the best outcome for the punters and owners, yet they get reprimanded. No fines thankfully, but they still get called in!!

The bottom line is, currently the change of tactics rule 44(1) is actually interfering with what I think to be the most important rule for owners and punters alike, the best possible position rule 149(1).

I am 1000% behind the stewards and their endeavor to make racing as fair as possible. I am all for fair racing. However, I personally think that people are being punished under the change of tactic rule when really it is a 149 infraction and vica versa. Because of this I have seen what I personally feel to be unfair decisions. This trend is also beginning to happen in a number of states, so I'm not singling out one.

You have to remember, this crackdown on change of tactics is really only recent, I mean when I first started in harness 10 years ago you never heard of anyone being "done" for this, it was only rule 149. In recent times, a number of states have started to have problems with team driving. Team driving and rule 44 infractions have appeared to increase hand in hand which has led me to believe that rule 44 is being used to combat team driving. All I'm saying that I think it would be better to use rule 149. I am 10000% for combating team driving and am glad that stewards in many states have rightly identified this to be a problem and have tried to rectify it. :)

[smithy]

slightly off topic, but ive noticed ALOT of people from qld very concerned about team driving.. and victorian's slightly behind in numbers

[triplev123]

this is an example of how they knew they would vary their tactics before the race and chose not to tell the stewards ??? how do you know they didnt tell the other driver they would hand up and then back the horse they handed up to? because your mates with them and they are above suspicion?

The inference, mate...that's not too flash at all there Smithy.
In her defence, Flashing's without doubt one of the most objective observers there is around, be those involved mates or not so.

Watch the race in question and in particular closely watch the start.

At least 3 of the horses to the inside of Roman Stride shape up to get out of there quick, they all get right up on the gate and when the gate folds back they ALL leave for the front. Luke looks left, sees what is shaping up to happen to when they're released he takes off the gate & settles at the rear. There's your winning move right there. The first 100-150m of the race.

If instead Luke simply drives on with the horse so as to not fall foul of the Change Of Tactics rule, if instead he leaves hard along with those inside to make a line of 4 into the 1st turn... there's no question whatsoever that Roman Stride works double overtime to make the front and ultimately pays the price for doing so by running out of steam inside the final 16th, ending up in all likelyhood a beaten favourite.

The outcome? The Punters would have done their $$$ cold & the Owner would have missed out on a good prizemoney cheque but Luke would have complied with a continually more skewed interpretation of the Change of Tactics rule...and it should be noted this is THE VERY RULE that is in place and perports to protect the Punters in the first place.

Honestly...if that's not a huge WTF?????? then I don't know what is.

To further underline the ridiculous nature of this fine...is the fact that the decision Luke made was a WINNING DECISION!
He clearly took note of what was shaping up as the gate rolled, he snagged out of the early battle, sat back, made 1 late charge at them and HE WON THE RACE. The fav. saluted. The Punters cashed their tickets. The Owner would have been more than pleased. All is well.
It is not as though he snagged off the gate & buried the horse at the rear of the field & the proceeded to run it up every dry gully he could find & finish out of the placings, dudding the Punters & the Owner.

If this interpretation of the Change of Tactics rule is that which we can expect as par for the course in the future then IMO we are in some serious trouble. In fact, we may as well not have any races at all, we may as well flip over to those dreadful video horse racing terminal things as none of the drivers will ever feel free to make any last moment decisions to alter their approach in order to give their horse the best possible chance of winning the race.
On that score...please let be noted for the record, so there is absolutely no question about my view of it whatsoever... that is EXACTLY what Luke did with Roman Stride. He gave it the best possible chance to win the race and it did.

In light of all this it's also worth noting that there but for the grace of God go any one of us who takes a seat in the bike or owns or trains a horse & that's the reason why this whole thing has ticked me off like it has done.
Ask yourself what happens when your man unexpectedly has to change it up at the last moment due to circumstances beyond his control in order to give your horse the best possible chance of winning a race? Ask yourself what you'd think if he made that change, won the race & duly got fined for his troubles?

[triplev123]

how can team driving be policed if not through the COT rule? especially team driving by people who aren't related or from the same stable

You're missing the whole point Smithy.
It is not the rule itself that is the issue...rather it is an increasingly incorrect interpretation and wrongful application of the rule that is at fault.

[smithy]

The inference, mate...that's not too flash at all there Smithy.
In her defence, Flashing's without doubt one of the most objective observers there is around, be those involved mates or not so.

Watch the race in question and in particular closely watch the start.

At least 3 of the horses to the inside of Roman Stride shape up to get out of there quick, they all get right up on the gate and when the gate folds back they ALL leave for the front. Luke looks left, sees what is shaping up to happen to when they're released he takes off the gate & settles at the rear. There's your winning move right there. The first 100-150m of the race.

If instead Luke simply drives on with the horse so as to not fall foul of the Change Of Tactics rule, if instead he leaves hard along with those inside to make a line of 4 into the 1st turn... there's no question whatsoever that Roman Stride works double overtime to make the front and ultimately pays the price for doing so by running out of steam inside the final 16th, ending up in all likelyhood a beaten favourite.

The outcome? The Punters would have done their $$$ cold & the Owner would have missed out on a good prizemoney cheque but Luke would have complied with a continually more skewed interpretation of the Change of Tactics rule...and it should be noted this is THE VERY RULE that is in place and perports to protect the Punters in the first place.

Honestly...if that's not a huge WTF?????? then I don't know what is.

To further underline the ridiculous nature of this fine...is the fact that the decision Luke made was a WINNING DECISION!
He clearly took note of what was shaping up as the gate rolled, he snagged out of the early battle, sat back, made 1 late charge at them and HE WON THE RACE. The fav. saluted. The Punters cashed their tickets. The Owner would have been more than pleased. All is well.
It is not as though he snagged off the gate & buried the horse at the rear of the field & the proceeded to run it up every dry gully he could find & finish out of the placings, dudding the Punters & the Owner.

If this interpretation of the Change of Tactics rule is that which we can expect as par for the course in the future then IMO we are in some serious trouble. In fact, we may as well not have any races at all, we may as well flip over to those dreadful video horse racing terminal things as none of the drivers will ever feel free to make any last moment decisions to alter their approach in order to give their horse the best possible chance of winning the race.
On that score...please let be noted for the record, so there is absolutely no question about my view of it whatsoever... that is EXACTLY what Luke did with Roman Stride. He gave it the best possible chance to win the race and it did.

In light of all this it's also worth noting that there but for the grace of God go any one of us who takes a seat in the bike or owns or trains a horse & that's the reason why this whole thing has ticked me off like it has done.
Ask yourself what happens when your man unexpectedly has to change it up at the last moment due to circumstances beyond his control in order to give your horse the best possible chance of winning a race? Ask yourself what you'd think if he made that change, won the race & duly got fined for his troubles?

had no problems going forward to park outside big fella mach, did he drive him to get beaten that race then? because there was no horse in that field 5 lengths within the quality of big fella mach... so why wouldnt he have pushed forward before at large did? surely lukes knows his form and that explosive turk hands up and desteros also handed up his previous start

[Greg Hando]

No different to today's effort 2 races in succession 1 driver gets hit for a slow sectional and the next race another slow sectional and no fine

[triplev123]

Geeze Winston...are you trying to kill me or something? :rolleyes:
I'm already fired up enough as it about the application of the Change of Tactics rule.
The Slow Sectionals thing is another super-wank.
It's not up to the guy on the front end to make the speed. It's up to the drivers behind him to use some initiative and force it. If they just sit back & let the leader get away with larceny then more fool them. They deserve to get beaten. To fine the leader because those behind him don't have a go is another thing that's just plain ridiculous.

[Greg Hando]

Totally agree Triple

[triplev123]

G'day again Winston,

Others might see it differently however, as an owner I think if you win a race and the driver is subsequently fined for a change of tactics or for setting slow sectionals then you should pay his/her way.
Even if you don't win and your driver has done all he/she could to land your horse home and they get fined in such a manner for their efforts, you should pay his/her way.
I say that for two reasons, firstly because I think that they're stupid rules both & secondly because it is simply the right thing to do.
The fella or the girl out there driving for you is effectively your employee even if only for the 2-3 minutes or so that they will spend in the bike...and as such owners and especially winning owners should look after them accordingly.
Of course it tends to play that way in Harness Racing anyway, most owners I know square their drivers away if they get fined however interestingly, in the TB's apparently that is far from being the case.
A friend of mine is a Jockey here in Sydney & I was very surprised when he told me that even if they win the race the majority of the TB owners will leave them hanging if they're subsequently fined by the Stewards. Personally, I think that's pretty despicable.
Of course, I'm not suggesting owners in either code should cover the arse of a Driver or a Jockey for instances of severe interference, careless driving/riding etc. ...however as far as the other rather long & tedious list of possible infractions go and often relatively petty ones at that, I think the owners should be footing those sorts of bills.

[Greg Hando]

I pay my drivers fines if they run in the money he also drives my horses trackwork so he know's their limit's and drives accordingly i don't give him instruction's at all because thing's change once the gate goes it is all up to him how he drive's them also i have a few bob each way for him to keep it interesting

[mango]

Geeze Winston...are you trying to kill me or something? :rolleyes:
I'm already fired up enough as it about the application of the Change of Tactics rule.
The Slow Sectionals thing is another super-wank.
It's not up to the guy on the front end to make the speed. It's up to the drivers behind him to use some initiative and force it. If they just sit back & let the leader get away with larceny then more fool them. They deserve to get beaten. To fine the leader because those behind him don't have a go is another thing that's just plain ridiculous.

Triple you have my vote on this one, it's just revenue making B.........t the driver leading in a slow sectional is still driving to win the race so what is exactly the problem.

[triplev123]

Triple you have my vote on this one, it's just revenue making B.........t the driver leading in a slow sectional is still driving to win the race so what is exactly the problem.

G'day Mango,

I don't think it's revenue raising.
Rather it is the severely contradictory nature of 3 rules that is the issue.
I don't have the exact Rule numbers at hand however it is....

(1) the setting of slow sectionals rule
versus
(2) the rule that covers giving a horse every possible chance to finish in the best position
verus
(3) the rule that requires connections to notify a change of tactics...

...and this now apparently even if said change happens to have occurred in a last moment decision as the gate fold back & even if said change happens to have resulted in the horse winning and where a pretty fair case could be made for the fact that it probably would not have won if it had been driven in its otherwise customary fashion.

I think you could reasonably argue that going faster than you need to on the lead so as to comply with the required sectional maximums (1) is actually doing something that is in direct contravention of (2).
One could also reasonably argue that by way of attempting to comply with (2) that any contravening of (3) was a fair and reasonable thing to have done and so on.

As such those 3 dictates above, IMO, serve to work both partially & directly against each other and in doing so they leave trainers & drivers in the position where they are pretty much rooted if they do and they're pretty much rooted if they don't. Personally I think it is an unnecessarily tangled web of rules and somehow it needs to be sorted out & very much forthwith.

[mango]

I know it's a rule and it's a rule that i don't agree with.

[triplev123]

Indeed. Join the line. It stretches to the horizon. You know, the inevitable result of the continual creation of rules is that eventually one will serve to directly contradict another. I fear we have reached that point as we now have 3 of them that fit such a bill.