Reply With Quote[VVV] Geeze, mate...at some point you're going to pay for that VOR. Matthew 5:45. "The rain falls on the just and the unjust alike".Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason
[VVV] Indeed.
My apologies VOR, for both assuming that the link you provided would just show me a replay of the race I had already seen...and also for being so slow off the pitch with regard to Dale & the Trots TV Crew having supplied the Stewards footage of the race.
Thankyou VOR & well done Dale & Co.
That being said, it doesn't change my view that the Protest should've instead been upheld.
Clearly the winner was reined up the track as the challenge came from the outside & then reined down the track when another challenge came up the pylons.
The Stewards handed out 6 weeks so it was no victim of circumstance effort.
Surely if that's bad enough to warrant 6 weeks holiday alone it also establishes intent?
Therefore, the space to the winner's inside is not the issue & it should never be seen as a mitigating aspect.
Instead, the driver of the winner making a Bird of it...making 100% sure that there wasn't going to be any room by way of looking back & steering down to the pylons & causing the pylons horse to break was and is the ONLY factor to consider.
That VOR...is why it should've been upheld.
I don't blame Drivers for doing everything they can and then some, for trying to get away with whatever they can get away with, in a race as it's not their job to govern themselves.
It's their job to do whatever they possibly can to win. It's the Steward's job to Police it all.
What really shits me however is the PREHISTORIC nature of the ongoing approach to Interference in Australia. That horse would not have have had a Snowball's chance in Hell of holding onto the race in the US or CAN.
Up there, you clip a horse like that, room or no room, and you're gone.
US & CAN Judges would have automatically taken the winner down, it would never have required a 4th against 1st protest.
VOR, Re: Relegation/Protests...they are if not one & the same then they at the very least inextricably linked surely? Stewards Relegate, Participants Protest...hopefully to the same ends (wishful thinking?)
Last edited by Triple V; 09-13-2012 at 09:56 PM. Reason: added a 'done'.
[VVV] Geeze, mate...at some point you're going to pay for that VOR. Matthew 5:45. "The rain falls on the just and the unjust alike".
Jamie[VVV] Indeed.
My apologies VOR, for both assuming that the link you provided would just show me a replay of the race I had already seen...and also for being so slow off the pitch with regard to Dale & the Trots TV Crew having supplied the Stewards footage of the race.
Thankyou VOR & well Dale & Co.
That being said, it doesn't change my view that the Protest should've instead been upheld.
Clearly the winner was reined up the track as the challenge came from the outside & then reined down the track when another challenge came up the pylons.
The Stewards handed out 6 weeks so it was no victim of circumstance effort.
Surely that bad enough to warrant 6 weeks holiday alone establishes intent?
Therefore, the space to the winner's inside is not the issue & it should never be seen as a mitigating aspect.
Instead, the driver of the winner making a Bird of it...making 100% sure that there wasn't going to be any room by way of looking back & steering down to the pylons & causing the pylons horse to break was and is the ONLY factor to consider.
That VOR...is why it should've been upheld.
I don't blame Drivers for doing everything they can and then some, for trying to get away with whatever they can get away with, in a race as it's not their job to govern themselves.
It's their job to do whatever they possibly can to win. It's the Steward's job to Police it all.
What really shits me however is the PREHISTORIC nature of the ongoing approach to Interference in Australia. That horse would not have have had a Snowball's chance in Hell of holding onto the race in the US or CAN.
Up there, you clip a horse like that, room or no room, and you're gone.
US & CAN Judges would have automatically taken the winner down, it would never have required a 4th against 1st protest.
VOR, Re: Relegation/Protests...they are if not one & the same then they at the very least inextricably linked surely? Stewards Relegate, Participants Protest...hopefully to the same ends (wishful thinking?)
This is great post but under the rules in Australia in both codes a this protest has to be dismissed because the 4th horse had not fully established rightful running to the inside of the winner end of story after that nothing else can or should be considered.
In these circumstances there may have been a possibility to disqualify or move the horse to another position under
Disqualification of horse and related matters
174. (1) Where a driver is found guilty of an offence under a rule contained in part 9 and the offence relates to the way in which the driver has driven or behaved or controlled or failed to control the driver’s horse at the start or during a race, the Stewards in relation to the race in which the offence occurred may give the driver's horse a lower placing or disqualify it for such period they think fit.
(2) A disqualification under sub rule (1) or alteration of placings does not affect settlement of bets or wagers.
This clearly does not get the punter who backed the 4th horse his money back neither does upholding a protest it does however give a clear message drive at all cost attitude and there will be no prize money at the end of the rainbow.
I am not saying this should have been done ..... just that under our current rules it could have and might act as a deterrent for others to drive in a similar manner.
Slightly off topic I am told that at the recent Asian racing conference (Gallops) more and more countries indicated they are moving away from a relegation system, to the protest system as it is currently in Australia.
Just food for thought.
Rule 174. A great & all encompassing rule....but one covered in dust and rust and in dire need of a leg stretch.
Seriously VOR, if I received $1.00 for each time rule 174 (1) &/or (2) was invoked here in Australia... let alone here in NSW, I would be lucky to have collected $5.00 in my pocket.
Re: the slightly off topic bit...when it's warranted I would like to see a few more Stewards Protests. Not just a delaying of the all clear, rather a fair dinkum Steward's Objection. Get on the front foot. Ask the Drivers/Connections if they want to Protest and if not, fire one in themselves if it needs to be done.
There was a time when they were around in NSW but not now..... having said that drivers are now more inclined to lodge protest off their own back due to more being upheld.
I doubt I have seen a better time for 174 to be used than the other day.... the public do not get hurt for the drivers lack of concern for other runners in the race, but its not a rule that would quickly come to mind because of its lack of use over a long period of time.
For sure. On that score, may I take this opportunity to encourage the NSW Stewards to open the barn door, peel back the tarpaulin, dust off Rule 174....perhaps spray it with a bit of WD40 & take it out for a spin now & again?
After reading Loz 1502's comment on Gin and Grins racing style on another thread, I made a point of watching him in Race 9 at Bathurst last night and found myself watching a repeat of Back To The Future. Gin and Grin (Siejka) and Oneinathousand (Hedges) did a double take for us Bathurst style and showed us that the track is indeed not the place for the feint-hearted. There is no stewards report or head on vision available at this stage to draw any (damning) conclusions. See the replay
http://www.trotstv.com.au/?mc=BH140912&rn=9
Around the turn and the leader drifts off, trailer probes for a run and BANG!! Door closes. Again under pressure leader drifts off to ward off outside challenges, trailer regathers momentum on the pegs, gets the run and wins. Groundhog day, except for a couple of BIG differences from the other day. Kevin made a bird of his win by knocking over the pegs horse. He makes the stewards look like gooses because they start that margin to winner crap and all this other irrelevant crap. That inside horse the other day would have won, no ifs, no buts, it would have won. Then the stewards give him six weeks for his drive and he still gets to drive a winner at Penrith a couple of days later. This bloke has a record a mile long and he gets six weeks. In my book his horse should have been DQ'ed. Thats not what the rules say, thats just what I reckon.
Now I am not going to cast aspersions on Angelas drive last night or make any assertions until I see the stewards report...but I will bet my arse, Ash's heart was in her mouth half way up the straight.
Under the current rules knock a horse down and you get to keep the race. Do a half arsed job and the interfered horse still gets up and beats you. Go figure...and while you are suspended on the sidelines figuring it out after getting beaten anyway, the current rules are favouring drivers who are prepared to risk more than should be allowed, others peoples lives and limbs.
Atleast last night, the right horse won the race and the result was decided on the track, not in the stewards room discussing symantics.
Something that nobody at HRNSW apparently seems to realise is that the NSW Stewards clear ongoing reluctance to employ a number of rules that would certainly greatly reduce the risk of injury to horse and driver, such as Rule 174 for example, leaves the NSW Industry's arse hanging out in the wind.
At some point a horse & driver are going to bite the dust big-time and a driver will get so badly hurt they'll end up in hospital or worse &/or a horse so badly injured that it ends its race career &/or has to be destroyed.
Someone will then be pissed off enough and have the $ required on hand to see to it that it makes way to Civil Court & they'll sue for loss of income/damages.
In such an instance at the very least HRNSW would end up as 2nd defendant & given that Rule 174 is on the books but is not being used & further given it would, if used, provide a very significant deterrent to foul driving...I just cant see that they (HRNSW) would have a leg to stand on.
IMO, as it stands at present, if a horse & driver were to bite the dust badly & even if the Stewards were to suddenly spring Rule 174 from the trunk in the attic in response to that happening, it's all but a dead set certainty it would still be 'nothing but net' insofar being able to establish that the culture of them not doing so up until that point is what created the conditions which allowed such an incident to occur.
If we can prevent a driver or horse being hurt and stop Industry $$$ being forked over to Mercedes Benz Sydney via the Maquarie St. Law Talkin' Guys simply by way of using Rule 174 as intended...I can't see why in the Hell we don't do so. It stuns me that it is not used...but then again, there's still some chance I guess. The Hollywood Greg Hartley 'Rule Of The Week' approach gets a whirl now & again.
You have to wonder why in blue blazes the comparitive window dressing bollocks stuff...such as who's got a shirt on without a collar or who hasn't updated their gear form despite the fact that 99% of the Punters wouldn't have a clue what pieces of gear do to begin with...periodically get a run....while things that really, REALLY MATTER do not.
Last edited by Triple V; 09-15-2012 at 03:13 PM.
VVV
Here is something that will bring a smile to your dial, being on a galloping site you might have missed it but knowing how the COT rule is so close to your heart I felt compelled to share this from the other side of the fence.
http://www.racenet.com.au/news/83462...ule-in-racing?
Many thanks VOR. Three Cheers for Greg Polson! Hip Hooray! Hip Hooray! Hip Hooray!
Posting Permissions