No different to today's effort 2 races in succession 1 driver gets hit for a slow sectional and the next race another slow sectional and no fine
had no problems going forward to park outside big fella mach, did he drive him to get beaten that race then? because there was no horse in that field 5 lengths within the quality of big fella mach... so why wouldnt he have pushed forward before at large did? surely lukes knows his form and that explosive turk hands up and desteros also handed up his previous start
Last edited by smithy; 07-20-2011 at 08:44 PM.
No different to today's effort 2 races in succession 1 driver gets hit for a slow sectional and the next race another slow sectional and no fine
Have whoever you want on but don't ever have yourself on
Geeze Winston...are you trying to kill me or something?
I'm already fired up enough as it about the application of the Change of Tactics rule.
The Slow Sectionals thing is another super-wank.
It's not up to the guy on the front end to make the speed. It's up to the drivers behind him to use some initiative and force it. If they just sit back & let the leader get away with larceny then more fool them. They deserve to get beaten. To fine the leader because those behind him don't have a go is another thing that's just plain ridiculous.
Totally agree Triple
Have whoever you want on but don't ever have yourself on
G'day again Winston,
Others might see it differently however, as an owner I think if you win a race and the driver is subsequently fined for a change of tactics or for setting slow sectionals then you should pay his/her way.
Even if you don't win and your driver has done all he/she could to land your horse home and they get fined in such a manner for their efforts, you should pay his/her way.
I say that for two reasons, firstly because I think that they're stupid rules both & secondly because it is simply the right thing to do.
The fella or the girl out there driving for you is effectively your employee even if only for the 2-3 minutes or so that they will spend in the bike...and as such owners and especially winning owners should look after them accordingly.
Of course it tends to play that way in Harness Racing anyway, most owners I know square their drivers away if they get fined however interestingly, in the TB's apparently that is far from being the case.
A friend of mine is a Jockey here in Sydney & I was very surprised when he told me that even if they win the race the majority of the TB owners will leave them hanging if they're subsequently fined by the Stewards. Personally, I think that's pretty despicable.
Of course, I'm not suggesting owners in either code should cover the arse of a Driver or a Jockey for instances of severe interference, careless driving/riding etc. ...however as far as the other rather long & tedious list of possible infractions go and often relatively petty ones at that, I think the owners should be footing those sorts of bills.
I pay my drivers fines if they run in the money he also drives my horses trackwork so he know's their limit's and drives accordingly i don't give him instruction's at all because thing's change once the gate goes it is all up to him how he drive's them also i have a few bob each way for him to keep it interesting
Have whoever you want on but don't ever have yourself on
G'day Mango,
I don't think it's revenue raising.
Rather it is the severely contradictory nature of 3 rules that is the issue.
I don't have the exact Rule numbers at hand however it is....
(1) the setting of slow sectionals rule
versus
(2) the rule that covers giving a horse every possible chance to finish in the best position
verus
(3) the rule that requires connections to notify a change of tactics...
...and this now apparently even if said change happens to have occurred in a last moment decision as the gate fold back & even if said change happens to have resulted in the horse winning and where a pretty fair case could be made for the fact that it probably would not have won if it had been driven in its otherwise customary fashion.
I think you could reasonably argue that going faster than you need to on the lead so as to comply with the required sectional maximums (1) is actually doing something that is in direct contravention of (2).
One could also reasonably argue that by way of attempting to comply with (2) that any contravening of (3) was a fair and reasonable thing to have done and so on.
As such those 3 dictates above, IMO, serve to work both partially & directly against each other and in doing so they leave trainers & drivers in the position where they are pretty much rooted if they do and they're pretty much rooted if they don't. Personally I think it is an unnecessarily tangled web of rules and somehow it needs to be sorted out & very much forthwith.
I know it's a rule and it's a rule that i don't agree with.
Indeed. Join the line. It stretches to the horizon. You know, the inevitable result of the continual creation of rules is that eventually one will serve to directly contradict another. I fear we have reached that point as we now have 3 of them that fit such a bill.