I don't think anyone is saying that drivers are always given specific instructions
I don't think anyone is saying that drivers are always given specific instructions
per un PUGNO di DOLLARI
Wasnt the point. Petroff and McGuigan clearly drove with their horses best intentions at heart and screwed over the Stewart's stable favourite. Jumping at shadows to suggest Stewart's shouldn't be allowed multiple runners in a race.
Nobody is talking about multiple runners - just half the field in major races
per un PUGNO di DOLLARI
Thats what I'm still talking about. 7 horses is multiple runners .... I'm not trying to misconstrue any posters opinion about Stewarts having 7 in a race turning it into their opinion is they should be banned from having 2 in a race. I'm not moving the goal posts of the discussion.
Massive injustice to restrict somebodies trade or assume they are guilty of an offence.
You need to be more specific than mulitiple then Breno - say half if you mean half.
I am not suggesting restricting somebody any more than every rule/law in the world does.
The purpose would be the same as the Olympics athletics rule - for the good of the sport/competition
Assuming people guilty of an offence?! No more so than suggesting we have a 100kmh speed limit because without it everybody would travel faster
It is OK for us to have different opinions
per un PUGNO di DOLLARI
Clearly in the context of the thread it was referring to the suggestion Stewart shouldn't be allowed to have 7 in the Kilmore Cup. I said it was "jumping at shadows to suggest they shouldn't be allowed multiple runners in a race". That statement was clearly a retort to what had been previously suggested in this thread. Nobody previously in this thread had suggested anything about disallowing say 2 runners in a race so, only suggestion had been about not having 7 in the Kilmore Cup.
IOC only partly puts athlete quotas for reasons of giving other countries a chance. It is more to do with ensuring there is only x amount of athletes in each event so it runs smoothly in a short 2 week (or shorter) window. Given their event is about showcasing Countries while the individuals are largely anonymous it makes more sense for them to restrict the no of athletes. Our event isn't about showcasing the trainers, its about the horses so it doesn't make sense to restrict a horse from racing.
You have said they could 'control' the race and tell drivers how to drive. Implying they would race fix and thus are guilty of an offence. That at least forms part of the reason you want a rule to restrict no of runners.
I see what you have done there Breno
Changed could to would
HUGEdifference there Brendan
I am starting to think you are a 'hanging judge'
You also said I am assuming they are guilty of an offence.
That is absolutely false
I am talking about a rule to decrease the likelihood of an offence
(and IMO only, make a race a more attractive betting proposition)
per un PUGNO di DOLLARI
Word semantics.
Hanging judge says the guy imposing a ban on multiple runners for what could happen in a figment of his imagination rather than what on actually happened.
Why are they more likely to have an offence with more runners? I would say the chance of a race fixing/team driving type offence are 0% for any amount of stable runners in the one race. That stays constant. Why do you think limiting numbers decreases the likelihood of an offence?
Word semantics for could v would nearly convinced me to give up on any chance of a sensible debate with you Brendan
You were declaring me guilty of something I never said!
The shire built a huge open drain on the edge of the road in my street (that does not have any street lighting) but did not put any railing around it - I convinced them to put some railing around it. Nobody had fallen in it but .......
The chance of team driving are nearly 0% for a stable with 1 runner in a race
If you don't think the chance goes up with even 2 runners then you have not read as many stewards reports as I think you have especially the ones with a QDT
I will grant you that the incremental increase for more than 2 runners is nowhere near as great as the jump between 1 and 2
A trainer has every right to give his drivers instructions and it may well be that 99% of the time there is no hint of collusion but I doubt he gives the drivers the same instructions eg I want you to lead, I want you to death seat
I believe there is more chance of collusion from a single stable than multiple stables (which you suggested earlier) because the trainer is entitled to give his drivers instructions, he is not breaking any rules. Talking between stables however .....
Forget team driving and think about public appeal. Do you think races in Tassie with every horse trained by Ben Yole or a doggy race with every dog a 'Bale' (old memory there) is as attractive as your average race with a spread of stables?
per un PUGNO di DOLLARI