Reply With QuoteIts indefenceable VVV. If you wanna row mate,you should put both oars in the water.Originally Posted by Triple V
Now why doesn't that surprise me.
The right charge maybe Brad but not the only one that may be appropriate.
193N Engage in conduct that corrupts betting outcome of event.
Of course thats not in the stewards rule book but it is in the racing and gaming squads book.
"Crimes Amendment (Cheating at Gambling) Bill 2012" been in since 13th of Sep 2012
Test case perhaps?
Its indefenceable VVV. If you wanna row mate,you should put both oars in the water.
Last edited by mary; 01-16-2013 at 12:32 AM.
IMO Here is another example of a drive that supports Dot's thoughts for tougher penalties. IMO this race was suss as. Why are Stewards copping this sort of rubbish?
Luke McCarthy (Mach Alert NZ) was queried in relation to the tactics adopted on this gelding in particular the reasons for moving three wide during the middle stages and applying significant pressure to the leader Bitobliss over the final lap. Mr McCarthy stated that Mach Alert NZ had commenced to kick the sulky wheels when pulling hard during the middle stages so therefore he elected to move three wide with 1400m to travel in an attempt to alleviate that particular issue and as a consequence Mach Alert NZ then once positioned outside the leader continued to over-race resulting in a significantly quick third quarter. Mr McCarthy also stated that it was not his intention to run such a quick time down the back straight during the third quarter of the final mile as Mach Alert NZ was still travelling well within itself during this stage and he believed this was detrimental to the overall performance of his own drive
[VVV] Harvey paid me to say that Dot. You know how these high fliers are.
[VVV] What do you want me to say now Harvey?
I just watched the Saturday night race and yes, there was an opening on the inside, but does it really deserve 10 weeks? I havent driven in a race (not sure whether that is obvious or not) - but I would think that a gap can close in a small space of time, hesitate and you have missed a gap...
What would the penalty have been if they werent stable mates?
Also, its got me thinking, with so many runners in a race, how could you not intepret the race to be some sort of team driving, no matter who does what or makes whatever move - if it pays off or not - someone can always put a different spin on things.
Hi Toni. With respect. Once a driver allows his horse to drift off the inside and open a gap , he's not allowed to close it . A driver must keep his line once he's straightened for the run to the finish. A driver recieved 6 months in Newcastle for not taking every opportunity to ensure his horse finished as close to 1st as possible by not taking a run that presented itself. Same offence and only 10 weeks . Your right when you say that races or drives can be interpreted differently but when you see as many races as I have in 60 years then you certainly can see the good, the bad and the desperate and also the team driving .
Last edited by mary; 01-17-2013 at 12:39 PM. Reason: removed a bit
The rights and wrongs of this decision aside, it was not so long ago where a similar situation occurred here in Sydney only that a protest was fired in by the pocket sitting horse who actually went for the inside run when the leader drifted up the track BUT the driver of the leader clearly looked to his inside, saw the 2nd horse coming to his inside, duly drifted back down the track & closed the gap again to the point that he checked the pocket horse out of contention...and yet the protest was dismissed. Maybe a damned if you take the run, damned if you don't? If you're not the driver of the stablemate and don't take the run...do you still get the same amount of time? Do you get any time? Or is it just a case of someone trying to prove a point re: a stance on team driving and having the opportunity raise its head here to do some applicable sabre rattling? Inquiring minds would like to know (with thanks to Luca Derrico).
Last edited by Triple V; 01-16-2013 at 11:24 PM. Reason: re-worded it a bit, didn't quite make sense.
With all due respect to everyones opinion on this,when you are in the cart, you need to make decisions and carry them out in very quick time, and having said that, the more often you drive, the more often you make good decisions.
I personnally think young Macca made several poor decisions in succession in this instance, to the point where our game was made to LOOK a bit ordinary when you consider some of the peripheral factors like so many stablemates in the race, handing up x 2 to stablemates etc.
However having said all that, I dont think the stable is dumb enough to think the punting public and the administators are gullible enough to swallow that, so, as I said earlier it LOOKED crook and as such I think young Macca probably got a pretty fair penalty all things considered.
Cheers,
Dan
Or is it just a case of someone trying to prove a point re: a stance on team driving and having the opportunity raise its head here to do some applicable sabre rattling?
Most people see things differently, there would be no disscussion if they did not. Each opion is there own. The stewards got it right, they saw what I saw re A.McC, otherwise he would not have recieved any time, & I did see the reasons given re the Cranbourne drive re L.McC but I also saw L.McC had his whip turned around when he took off to give his stable mate cover & then bore Bitobliss into the ground. I do not wear blockeyes. Its my opions & obversations & im entitled. Maybe you wear rose coloured glasses , but that is also fine , we all have our champions .
Posting Permissions