Reply With QuoteJust a thought. Horse driven hard to lead normally. Just comes out with them would be less aggressive, whereas being restrained would be further back?Originally Posted by Gtrain
What exactly is the difference in the COT rule between driven less aggressively and driven further back? No one I talk to can seem to differentiate the two yet they're two clear notifications from stewards.
Just a thought. Horse driven hard to lead normally. Just comes out with them would be less aggressive, whereas being restrained would be further back?
I completely agree. This rule does not help professional punters or social punters at all. What does driven less aggressively mean? According to last Tuesday it means in the death seat from the outside barrier after last start being 3 pegs? For mine, if you notify you want to be less aggressive , you SHOULD be making every attempt to drag your horse back.. not let it cruise to the death seat. What does further back mean? In the case of some horses.. usually trained in the hunter valley this could still mean leading as most of theres are running sub 28 sec quarters.. this rule either needs to be scrapped, or adhered properly to and if the rules are broken then STRICT punishments need to be dished out. The appropriate authorities need to issue a statement with instructions on what all COT's actually mean because at the moment they are way too ambiguous and NOBODY, including punters, trainers, or drivers have a clue what they actually mean. If this is not published then they should be scrapped altogether and the owners and trainers should be able to NOT disclose tactics, as they never used to have to. A prime example was last Tuesday where Sam Douglas announced a COT of driven less aggressive. It was 3 pegs the start before. I happened to own a horse in the race and with these change of tactics we did the speed map and there was now no longer a death seat horse, so we did not come out charging as we didn't want to be caught in the death ( as no lead would be there because of Panella driving in the race). Low and behold Sam Douglas comes out running from the outside barrier and we get dragged back to last instead of having a nice 1x1 sit. ANYBODY doing form in this race that saw the COT would've put a line through Sam Douglas as they assumed it would be going back in the field and its never won before from that position in its life. This rule is way too ambiguous and must be fixed now. No wonder people don't want to bet on the "red hots" and the turnover is less than the dishies....
Yours in reTHAIment..
And then when tactics change unannounced no action taken. Justasdangerous leads all costs not letting odds on pop take over at Temore 4th Jan. Next start never looked like wanting to lead from the pole.
On that note, further forward is strangely administered also. Chasing Pirates goes around at Wagga today with cot further forward. While I agree three the pegs is further forward than four the pegs where it's previously been running but some may have been inclined to believe it was trying to lead. This whole rule and it's enforcement is making the punting scene more confusing than it needs to be. I actually backed the winner of this race so not a whinge, just a casual, recent observation.
Here is the rule definition copied from the HRA website:
Tactics
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.
(2) The Stewards may approve or disapprove the change of tactics.
(3) In the event of the Stewards approving a change of tactics, then in the absence of unforseen circumstances, the horse shall be driven in accordance with the approved change.
(4) A person who fails to comply with sub rules (1) or (3) or changes tactics without approval given under sub rule (2) is guilty of an offence.
(5) For the purposes of determining the usual racing pattern of a horse, the Stewards shall take into account the manner in which the horse has been driven at its most recent starts.
I suspect (and this is only a personal speculation) the two issues with enforcing the rule are;
1. The word 'intending'. Proving or disproving intent is a very difficult thing to argue.
2. How do you define 'unforseen circumstances'?
I agree that the application of the current rule is a clear fail. However I think such a rule should exist it just needs to be redefined to remove ambiguity and interpretation, so that it can be applied & enforced properly.
Posting Permissions