Menangle Stewards Report- Tuesday

[Thevoiceofreason]

With the greatest of respect the stewards got this one right this horse may have got on shoe and galloped I accept that, many horses do and they are all sent back to the trials nowdays and so they should be.

The Stewards job is to protect the Public and the participants if this horse galloped again next week without a trial and brought three down with it there would be an outrage why did it not have to prove it was tractable.

Under you theory if a horse gallops because it knocks its knee boot down it should have to not trial because it was a gear issue. Its not a gear issue anymore that your horse was a gear issue its a gating issue and needs to be fixed.

[Thevoiceofreason]

I have just read the stuff on the Change Of Tactics rules.

The stewards will be the first to tell you that they do not always get it right they will from time to time miss a change of tactics but in NSW punters are spoiled every notified change is announced on their website half an hour before the race.

The main purpose of the COT rule is about intention if you lead from one because no other runner attempted to to take the lead and you walked and you have neevr led before you will not be penalised by the stewards you may well be questions but it will be deemed circumstances of the race and no action taken.

In most of the examples here it seems their was intention I will have look at Cardinal Rule asap but it looks like they may have missed it.

They are not perfect and would not say they are, but in every case I have looked at where a fine has been imposed when you look at the replay they either came out labeled urgent on a back marker. or restrained a leader or outside leader runner. In many cases this was to advantage the horse there was no skull duggery but the rules require this advised to the stewards pre race and while the rule is there it should be enforced.

But do expect perfection it is not possible.

[triplev123]

G'day VOR,
That was NOT why the Change Of Tactics rule was introduced in the first place and you & I and everyone else knows it.
The fact is that participants have suffered under repeated half arsed interpretations thereof here in NSW and that has led us to the point we are at now. Luke McCarthy got fined for snagging off instead of leading with a horse that was considered a front end type and this despite the fact that he went on to WIN THE RACE. How absurd is that?????? The change of tactics was the right one, a host of horses left like scalded cats to his inside, he saw it, grabbed hold, took up a trail, came at them late and won it...and he was still fined???????? A-B-S-U-R-D.
Above, you speak of rules being there and so they should be enforced. That's all well & good but what about the relegation/setback rule which is there to punish those who gain advantage by way of racing interference? That is on the books but is rarely if ever enforced. In fact here in NSW the Stewards have, to date, shown nothing short of EXTREME reluctance to enforce it. For mine, there's no 'Cherry Picking' of the rule book. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't jam up drivers for changing racing tactics while at the same time not relegating them for interference.

[triplev123]

With the greatest of respect the stewards got this one right this horse may have got on shoe and galloped I accept that, many horses do and they are all sent back to the trials nowdays and so they should be.

The Stewards job is to protect the Public and the participants if this horse galloped again next week without a trial and brought three down with it there would be an outrage why did it not have to prove it was tractable.

Under you theory if a horse gallops because it knocks its knee boot down it should have to not trial because it was a gear issue. Its not a gear issue anymore that your horse was a gear issue its a gating issue and needs to be fixed.

[VVV] You're missing the point there VOR. If that's the default position then I have no great issue with the back to the trials scenario... if that is what everyone gets these days. If that is an across the board response then great, that is all that I've ever asked for in terms of consistency...one in, all in.
I do however take great issue with the wording of that report. It is just plain WRONG. The horse did NOT race roughly & gallop as a result. At no stage did he race roughly. Watch the replay. The horse was racing like a slot car and then stood on a shoe & broke very sharply. The two scenarios are mutually exclusive.

[thesushitrain]

luke mccarthy was fined not just because he went back that individual start, but because the start before he had gone forward despite the fact that he was never going to find the lead, he was beaten that start - so the stewards were effectively fining him for bad judgement for the first race rather than the second race

[triplev123]

..and doing that is patently ridiculous also.
It sends the message that drivers should approach their duties like Robots, that despite differences in draws, class of horse, individual race pattern, size of track etc etc, under threat of being fined they should not make last moment changes from they way they've driven a horse at its previous outings even if those changes are made in order to give their horse the best possible chance of winning given the prevailing circumstances at the time.
That was not why the rule was put in place. It was not put in place to aim up on individual drives. It was put in place to aim up on team drives. That was the intention & the spirit thereof. The problem is, as I sit, that currently absolutely no distinction is being made and so, the current interpretation of the rule is incorrect. It has become all about the rule and not about the intention of the rule.

[thesushitrain]

no, its because drivers approach their jobs like robots that they find themselves in trouble

luke was obligated to have watched a replay before he went out both weeks and known what the other horses would do; in both situations he should have gone back with the horse

he didnt do it the first week . got beat, obviously realised the mistake and changed his driving accordingly, so in the time from one week to the next he didnt think it necessary to say to the stewards i f** up last week, we will drive him from behind this week because otherwise we will end up in the same situation

it isn't good enough to say, i made a split second decision, he knew before both races how much speed was underneath him

[JCT2011]

With Cardinal Rule....

100% of his starts at Menangle he led from Barriers 1-10, Led on his ear and 100% of the time he handed up. He goes to Bankstown and shows only moderate gate speed and only runs fair to finish 8th. He goes to Menangle with no change of tactics and leads in 27.2, and then gets challenged for the lead and holds. I am only using this as an example because I was not 100% up with the COT rule.

[Diesel]

I have heard the HRNSW have employed security guards on several occasions to watch over a few trainers and there pre-race rituals. Has this been of any benefit to the Industry..??????

[Thevoiceofreason]

Been an interesting day for me looking at videos lets start with the trod on shoe with the greatest of respect I still think the stipes got it 100% right. You can see the stride where it gets the shoe good and proper no doubt, but it went ruff the stride before in my view.

Now its a difficult task what came first the chicken or the egg did it go ruff because it got a shoe or did it get a shoe and go ruff I doubt we will ever know and I am not convinced the driver would be 100% sure either way in those circumstances.

COTs are now in all codes in most countries I have also looked at J Proctor on Cardinal Rule I would love to look at the McCarthy case but no names that I noticed so no can do.

Proctor first start at Bankstown came out, he did not retrain and was initially going forward there was no lead so he looked for cover, this is what the stipes call circumstances of the race stuff.

On monday he held in a quick lead time from a good gate. the stewards did not miss it they asked the questions of the Driver and accepted the explanation we the public only get the brief outline which in a stewards report is all we can expect.

On the face of it the horse is a go forward horse that went forward off the arm each run for the new stable. The stewards accepted that was it driven within its normal range, was it driven exactly the same, no it was not, but this is why I say horses are not thought to have just one pattern by the stewards, here is a perfect example of question asked, question answered and what do you know out of all this.

We know that if it takes a trail next run we will be told before the race , that has to be some help.