Menangle Stewards Report- Tuesday

[triplev123]

RACE 2 – ALABAR PACE – 1609 METRES

In part...
PREORDAINED raced roughly and galloped approaching the 700 metre mark and through this the colt almost fell and shortly after was retired from the event. In view of the performance PREORDAINED was stood down until it can requalify on one occasion.

[VVV] That's totally incorrect. This was a gear related issue, not a tractability issue.
That colt was racing absolutely fine only to make a short, sharp & very horrible break as a direct result of him stepping on the trailer of his offside front shoe which had worked its way loose.
Up until that point he did not race roughly in any way, shape or form...and just a single viewing of the head on shot will very clearly back up this assessment.
I point out this anomaly as it is of significant concern to me that if the Stewards cannot get the small things like this correct then what hope have we got for accurate ajudications on far more complicated & / or less immediately clear racing incidents?

[Flashing Red]

Isn't it up to the driver and/or trainer to notify the stewards of something like this however, as well? On one occasion, if I hadn't notified the judges (stewards) that the front hopple carrying strap broke (which is why the horse galloped) the horse would have been stood down one qualifying trial. And the horse WAS, until I notified them (backed up by the driver) about what happened.

[triplev123]

Indeed it is Flashing...and that was exactly what was was done before the horse had even come off the track & then again before the horse was even ungeared. Even notified the Clerk of the Course and asked if he could ride out and retrieve the cast shoe, which he quite happily did.
The head on shot was also watched by all and sundry, the exact point where what happened was highlighted...and the colt got a trial anyway. That's what makes it so damned ridiculous.
In addition, what really spun my head was the comment that "Mr. Fitzpatrick's horse got 1 trial too"...as though there would somehow be some comfort gained from the fact that another horse in the race (which broke entirely of its own accord and in a completely seperate incident) had also been sent back to the trials?????????.
Here in NSW we're about to head into an era of unprecedented prizemoney and so unprecedented competition and no doubt unprecedent pressure on everyone to get it right, breeders, owners, drivers, trainers, stewards, handicappers, administration, race clubs, the lot...and not some or the time or most of the time but ALL the time. Line ball judgement calls are one thing, plain old wrong calls are another.

[Flashing Red]

lol OK! :)

[triplev123]

It is funny in a way, you're right.
Probably better to laugh at it than to have the sheer frustration of it all cause you to burst into tears. :p

[JCT2011]

I have a question regarding driving tactics.. I know there are plenty of them but this is one I would like to know more about...

If a certain horse has raced in a stable for a long period and established a successful racing pattern, only for the horse to be changed stables recently. Are the new connections able to start a new racing pattern WITHOUT notifying stewards?

[thesushitrain]

no

[triplev123]

Not sure of the official line on that but I vividly recall Luke McCarthy getting jammed up for a change of tactics with a horse that had only been in his stable for a few starts.
It was previously thought to be in the 'show early speed & lead' category...but after a couple of starts for him & with a host of early leavers to his inside Luke very intelligently jagged it off the gate and looked for a trail, got one, sat in for a piece and then tipped to the outside and won the race...and he still got hauled over the coals & fined under the auspices of the often quite ridiculously & incorrectly applied change of tactics rule/s.

[JCT2011]

Race 8 Menangle on Monday makes no sense then...

[triplev123]

Didn't see that race JCT. I'll go and have a look at the replay.
One thing I will say though is that the Change Of Tactics rule quite incorrectly assumes that every horse has only 1 way of racing to best advantage...be that leading, facing the breeze, tipping off cover late or whatever.
It is a rule that absurdly Pigeon holes horses and makes assumptions that are patently wrong because, depending on the size of the track, the draw, the quality of opposition & plain racing luck all those aspects are liquid...they can and they most certainly do ebb & flow like the tide.
What is the right thing to do coming from the 3 hole on a half mile against moderate opposition one week is the wrong thing to do coming out of the 9 on a 7/8ths against better quality horses the next.
Of course, the fact that it was never introduced to Police such reasonable changes from week to week, rather it was brought in to Police team driving, has continually and completely escaped the powers that be charged with enforcing it.

[JCT2011]

I agree with you VVV.

My point in the case is regarding a runner Cardinal Rule. I guess I am talking out of my own a pocket here a little bit, But I have always made a bit of money on this runner previously as he was always great value to run a whole each week. He has great gate speed which he always used, and handed up after finding the paint.
IMO, his first run for the new stable was only moderate where he came out o.k, and then elected to hang back and find the running line, he floundered in the last 200, which could be expected first time up and for the new stable.
His second run back (monday) he had drawn a good pole and I thought that if he was driven the way he had been previously, he would of been a very strong place hope (as there seemed to be plenty of speed in the race).
He was punched out of the gate in a very quick high 27 opening panel, and elected to hold the lead, which looking back in his form has not done in 2 years! and failed to run on in the event on monday as he had previously.

Im not just picking on this race alone, I was just wondering where the rules stood.

[triplev123]

Another thing to keep in mind is that sometimes you can really wake a horse up by changing things up on it.
Take a horse that usually leaves hard & jag him off the gate to save him up for one late shot at them...or conversely you can take a horse that usually jags off and looks for cover, stoke him up in the prelim. and leave hard, looking for the front.
Doing that sort of thing with some horses, especially older ones that have had a few starts and are in a bit of a rut, can often bring good results.

[triplev123]

I agree with you VVV.

My point in the case is regarding a runner Cardinal Rule. I guess I am talking out of my own a pocket here a little bit, But I have always made a bit of money on this runner previously as he was always great value to run a whole each week. He has great gate speed which he always used, and handed up after finding the paint.
IMO, his first run for the new stable was only moderate where he came out o.k, and then elected to hang back and find the running line, he floundered in the last 200, which could be expected first time up and for the new stable.
His second run back (monday) he had drawn a good pole and I thought that if he was driven the way he had been previously, he would of been a very strong place hope (as there seemed to be plenty of speed in the race).
He was punched out of the gate in a very quick high 27 opening panel, and elected to hold the lead, which looking back in his form has not done in 2 years! and failed to run on in the event on monday as he had previously.

Im not just picking on this race alone, I was just wondering where the rules stood.

[VVV] I agree JCT. I've never seen that horse lead up. That's not to say he hasn't of course, but I watch a lot of races from all over the place & I've never seen him leave that hard & hold. Usually he'll skip out and pretty quickly look to hand up. Maybe JP just decided to shake him up a little and see? Just on that race, how'd you like to have entered a basically bread and butter moderate 4yo+ event and still have to go in 1:56 & a piece to win?

[JCT2011]

[VVV] I agree JCT. I've never seen that horse lead up. That's not to say he hasn't of course, but I watch a lot of races from all over the place & I've never seen him leave that hard & hold. Usually he'll skip out and pretty quickly look to hand up. Maybe JP just decided to shake him up a little and see? Just on that race, how'd you like to have entered a basically bread and butter moderate 4yo+ event and still have to go in 1:56 & a piece to win?

Exactly VVV, Would be sure to think that was JP's mentality, but should of he notified stewards?

[triplev123]

Exactly VVV, Would be sure to think that was JP's mentality, but should of he notified stewards?

[VVV] G'day JCT. That outing's a change up for sure but no, I don't think that he's under any obligation to do so because he's under no obligation to train or drive the horse the same way as the previous trainer & driver. In fact he may well not even be aware of the way in which it was being raced prior to joining his stable.

On a more general note...the fact that the change of tactics rule...one which was specifically designed to allow the Stewards to aim up on team driving...is being so extensively & so very erroneously applied to the performances of individual horses is in and of itself, absurd.

[thesushitrain]

In fact he may well not even be aware of the way in which it was being raced prior to joining his stable

if he doesnt know that much then he might as well give up the game right now

[triplev123]

It's the benefit of reasonable doubt TST. In general, I think you'd be very surprised by how many trainers & drivers don't know the capabilities/racing patterns of their opposition in any given race.

[thesushitrain]

ignorance is never a defence

[triplev123]

True. The hard core form student Punters have a better grasp of horse to horse ability than anyone. In fact, I've long believed that the Stewards need the official assistance of someone who can really pin down the form for them & should instances of concern arise, advise them accordingly.

[Flashing Red]

It might not be ignorance, sometimes a horse's racing pattern can be changed through training. While a true one paced horse can never brilliantly sprint, they can be trained and driven to pick up their speed. Likewise, a trainer can improve a renowned sit sprinter to be able to stay as well.

The only time I would pay attention to how a former trainer raced their horse is if I couldn't get said horse going myself.

[Thevoiceofreason]

With the greatest of respect the stewards got this one right this horse may have got on shoe and galloped I accept that, many horses do and they are all sent back to the trials nowdays and so they should be.

The Stewards job is to protect the Public and the participants if this horse galloped again next week without a trial and brought three down with it there would be an outrage why did it not have to prove it was tractable.

Under you theory if a horse gallops because it knocks its knee boot down it should have to not trial because it was a gear issue. Its not a gear issue anymore that your horse was a gear issue its a gating issue and needs to be fixed.

[Thevoiceofreason]

I have just read the stuff on the Change Of Tactics rules.

The stewards will be the first to tell you that they do not always get it right they will from time to time miss a change of tactics but in NSW punters are spoiled every notified change is announced on their website half an hour before the race.

The main purpose of the COT rule is about intention if you lead from one because no other runner attempted to to take the lead and you walked and you have neevr led before you will not be penalised by the stewards you may well be questions but it will be deemed circumstances of the race and no action taken.

In most of the examples here it seems their was intention I will have look at Cardinal Rule asap but it looks like they may have missed it.

They are not perfect and would not say they are, but in every case I have looked at where a fine has been imposed when you look at the replay they either came out labeled urgent on a back marker. or restrained a leader or outside leader runner. In many cases this was to advantage the horse there was no skull duggery but the rules require this advised to the stewards pre race and while the rule is there it should be enforced.

But do expect perfection it is not possible.

[triplev123]

G'day VOR,
That was NOT why the Change Of Tactics rule was introduced in the first place and you & I and everyone else knows it.
The fact is that participants have suffered under repeated half arsed interpretations thereof here in NSW and that has led us to the point we are at now. Luke McCarthy got fined for snagging off instead of leading with a horse that was considered a front end type and this despite the fact that he went on to WIN THE RACE. How absurd is that?????? The change of tactics was the right one, a host of horses left like scalded cats to his inside, he saw it, grabbed hold, took up a trail, came at them late and won it...and he was still fined???????? A-B-S-U-R-D.
Above, you speak of rules being there and so they should be enforced. That's all well & good but what about the relegation/setback rule which is there to punish those who gain advantage by way of racing interference? That is on the books but is rarely if ever enforced. In fact here in NSW the Stewards have, to date, shown nothing short of EXTREME reluctance to enforce it. For mine, there's no 'Cherry Picking' of the rule book. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't jam up drivers for changing racing tactics while at the same time not relegating them for interference.

[triplev123]

With the greatest of respect the stewards got this one right this horse may have got on shoe and galloped I accept that, many horses do and they are all sent back to the trials nowdays and so they should be.

The Stewards job is to protect the Public and the participants if this horse galloped again next week without a trial and brought three down with it there would be an outrage why did it not have to prove it was tractable.

Under you theory if a horse gallops because it knocks its knee boot down it should have to not trial because it was a gear issue. Its not a gear issue anymore that your horse was a gear issue its a gating issue and needs to be fixed.

[VVV] You're missing the point there VOR. If that's the default position then I have no great issue with the back to the trials scenario... if that is what everyone gets these days. If that is an across the board response then great, that is all that I've ever asked for in terms of consistency...one in, all in.
I do however take great issue with the wording of that report. It is just plain WRONG. The horse did NOT race roughly & gallop as a result. At no stage did he race roughly. Watch the replay. The horse was racing like a slot car and then stood on a shoe & broke very sharply. The two scenarios are mutually exclusive.

[thesushitrain]

luke mccarthy was fined not just because he went back that individual start, but because the start before he had gone forward despite the fact that he was never going to find the lead, he was beaten that start - so the stewards were effectively fining him for bad judgement for the first race rather than the second race

[triplev123]

..and doing that is patently ridiculous also.
It sends the message that drivers should approach their duties like Robots, that despite differences in draws, class of horse, individual race pattern, size of track etc etc, under threat of being fined they should not make last moment changes from they way they've driven a horse at its previous outings even if those changes are made in order to give their horse the best possible chance of winning given the prevailing circumstances at the time.
That was not why the rule was put in place. It was not put in place to aim up on individual drives. It was put in place to aim up on team drives. That was the intention & the spirit thereof. The problem is, as I sit, that currently absolutely no distinction is being made and so, the current interpretation of the rule is incorrect. It has become all about the rule and not about the intention of the rule.

[thesushitrain]

no, its because drivers approach their jobs like robots that they find themselves in trouble

luke was obligated to have watched a replay before he went out both weeks and known what the other horses would do; in both situations he should have gone back with the horse

he didnt do it the first week . got beat, obviously realised the mistake and changed his driving accordingly, so in the time from one week to the next he didnt think it necessary to say to the stewards i f** up last week, we will drive him from behind this week because otherwise we will end up in the same situation

it isn't good enough to say, i made a split second decision, he knew before both races how much speed was underneath him

[JCT2011]

With Cardinal Rule....

100% of his starts at Menangle he led from Barriers 1-10, Led on his ear and 100% of the time he handed up. He goes to Bankstown and shows only moderate gate speed and only runs fair to finish 8th. He goes to Menangle with no change of tactics and leads in 27.2, and then gets challenged for the lead and holds. I am only using this as an example because I was not 100% up with the COT rule.

[Diesel]

I have heard the HRNSW have employed security guards on several occasions to watch over a few trainers and there pre-race rituals. Has this been of any benefit to the Industry..??????

[Thevoiceofreason]

Been an interesting day for me looking at videos lets start with the trod on shoe with the greatest of respect I still think the stipes got it 100% right. You can see the stride where it gets the shoe good and proper no doubt, but it went ruff the stride before in my view.

Now its a difficult task what came first the chicken or the egg did it go ruff because it got a shoe or did it get a shoe and go ruff I doubt we will ever know and I am not convinced the driver would be 100% sure either way in those circumstances.

COTs are now in all codes in most countries I have also looked at J Proctor on Cardinal Rule I would love to look at the McCarthy case but no names that I noticed so no can do.

Proctor first start at Bankstown came out, he did not retrain and was initially going forward there was no lead so he looked for cover, this is what the stipes call circumstances of the race stuff.

On monday he held in a quick lead time from a good gate. the stewards did not miss it they asked the questions of the Driver and accepted the explanation we the public only get the brief outline which in a stewards report is all we can expect.

On the face of it the horse is a go forward horse that went forward off the arm each run for the new stable. The stewards accepted that was it driven within its normal range, was it driven exactly the same, no it was not, but this is why I say horses are not thought to have just one pattern by the stewards, here is a perfect example of question asked, question answered and what do you know out of all this.

We know that if it takes a trail next run we will be told before the race , that has to be some help.

[Diesel]

No change of tactics tonight at Menangle in Race 2
Wilusi Blues has now had 2 Aust starts and galloped away twice......
It should be stood down like many others in the Industry.

[JCT2011]

No change of tactics tonight at Menangle in Race 2
Wilusi Blues has now had 2 Aust starts and galloped away twice......
It should be stood down like many others in the Industry.
I hope I never see it again!
Backed the bloody thing :(

[aussiebreno]

No change of tactics tonight at Menangle in Race 2
Wilusi Blues has now had 2 Aust starts and galloped away twice......
It should be stood down like many others in the Industry.

So when it paces away and finds a spot in the field somewhere...will that be a COT?
Its all just too confusing !

[Thevoiceofreason]

Triplec123 with the greatest of respect I also forgot to correct you on another issue.

Actually it is quite an impotent one there is in fact no setback/ relegation rule in Australian Harness Racing it was removed revoked whatever term you prefer to use back in 2006 it formed part of Rule 66 until that time but was removed by HRA.

There is still the protest rule but that is only if horse A would have finished in front of horse B if an incident had not occurred.

So stop blaming the stewards for not using a rule that is not there and by the way Relegation across the world is being used less and less in the countries that still have it.

[Thevoiceofreason]

No change of tactics tonight at Menangle in Race 2
Wilusi Blues has now had 2 Aust starts and galloped away twice......
It should be stood down like many others in the Industry.

It will most likely put out of the draw that is the policy in NSW if a clear record for three starts a warning then out of the draw for a starting offence.

[Flashing Red]

I am interested to hear your opinion on the inter-relation between rule 44(1) and rule 149(1). I have seen drivers in several states fined under rule 44(1) however if they had complied with rule 44(1), the circumstances of the race would have meant that they would have been in contravention of rule 149(1).

Perhaps it is a coincidence, but there has been a rise in problems with "team driving" in a number of states and with this rise, a rise in infractions of rule 44 also. I would have thought the better avenue for controlling "team driving" is under rule 149.

IMHO how rule 44 is currently being implemented, it is allowing drivers little flexibility. You can have your plan A, plan B and the good drivers have their plan C, but you can never 100% predict what is happening in a race and the application of rule 44 in a number of states is stifling split second decision making that would otherwise see drivers complying with rule 149, which I think is the "big daddy" of them all!!

Interested to hear your thoughts. :)

[justdoit]

Geeez Flashing Red,
I like it better when you comment on the lights on, lights off topic.

[Thevoiceofreason]

I am not sure I see any true interrelation between the two rules although I am offering my opinion on the way the two rules are policed in NSW which is where I follow the sport.

In relation to 44(1) Drivers can have as many plans as they want they are only in breach of rule 44 (1) if plan A which is clearly the favored tactic and the one they intend to employ are different from the horses usual racing pattern, in that case if that have not advised the stewards they are in breach of the rule.If the change happens because of something in the race I can not recall a driver ever being penalised in NSW.

I can only recall one occasion when NSW stewards have not allowed a change of tactics even though the rule clearly gives them the right to not approve the change. In my view they would need a very strong case to employ this part of the rule.

In NSW you would not be penalised if the Tactic Change was brought about simply by the circumstances of the race and I would be happy to debate an instance if one can be found by anyone. That is not to say that if the explanation offered to the stewards was" I did not go forward because horse A was drawn one and I knew it would hold the top" that is not circumstances of the race it was a tactic decision made before the race and under the rules has to be advised.

I recall a race at Newcastle a few years back Dash Of Class was being driven back at the time. Talamahara looked the leader when he galloped approaching the start the driver on Dash Of Class pulled the stick led and won ... there was no penalty clearly a circumstance of the race decision.

The stewards in NSW suspended a well know lady driver under 149 a few months back after a race at HP that looked bad . They lost the suspension on appeal because the judge found that the decision which was to hand up to the stablemate early in the race in a very slow quarter after a slow lead time was not at the time in its self a decision that could be considered unreasonable.

That is one of the issues with 149 rules the decision the driver is are punished for has to be deemed unreasonable at the time when it was made not made so by circumstances later in the race that can not absolutely predicted.

Do not get me wrong in a prefect world where the judges understood the game it might hold up but in both codes of racing in many states and even other countries that was lost about 40 years ago when solicitors became involved.

[Flashing Red]

I am not sure I see any true interrelation between the two rules although I am offering my opinion on the way the two rules are policed in NSW which is where I follow the sport.

And what if an unannounced change of tactic won the driver the race, whether the decision was made before the race or it was a split second decision during? I do not feel that connections should have to lay every one of their cards out on the table. An example of this I gave a few months ago, namely a horse that had predominantly raced over the mile distance having its first shot, in a long time, over a longer journey. The horse normally would hold the lead if it got there, but if a suitable horse came forward (ie one of the more fancied runners that would not inturn hand up to someone else) it was probably prudent to take a sit in case the horse didn’t run the trip out. But not if another horse would hand up, putting said horse 3rd the fence or if it was a 100-1 shot and unlikely to make it to the sprint lane. The horse took a sit on the favourite and ran second, arguably the best position it could have obtained, as it was beaten by a better horse. Yet the driver was called in under rule 44, despite obviously complying with rule 149. Now if an announcement was made before the race, every tom dick and harry in that race would have charged for the lead and said horse probably would have ended up 3rd or 4th the fence and most definitely would not had won or run second.

[ringman]

I agree Flashing because if the driver pushed to hold the lead then dropped out they would have charged under rule # because we want to.

[strong persuader]

Triplec123 with the greatest of respect I also forgot to correct you on another issue.

Actually it is quite an impotent one there is in fact no setback/ relegation rule in Australian Harness Racing it was removed revoked whatever term you prefer to use back in 2006 it formed part of Rule 66 until that time but was removed by HRA.

There is still the protest rule but that is only if horse A would have finished in front of horse B if an incident had not occurred.

So stop blaming the stewards for not using a rule that is not there and by the way Relegation across the world is being used less and less in the countries that still have it.

Correct that relegation isn't available in Australia, but disqualification is still possible, even more effective in terms of punishing a driver and/or horse that causes another horse to lose their chance of obtaining their best possible finishing position.

66. A horse may be disqualified from a race if the horse -
(a) crosses a horse without being clear of it;
(b) jostles or interferes with a horse unless solely in response to the action taken by another horse or driver;
(c) forces a passage where there is insufficient room;
(d) forces a horse out of its ground;
(e) races on the inside of a marker post or if its sulky or part thereof goes on the inside of a marker post;
(f) interferes with another runner so as to cause that runner, or cause its sulky or any part thereof, to go inside a marker post;
(g) being in the home straight and having a clear uninterrupted run to the post, changes course and thereby prejudices or advantages the chances of another runner.
(h) gains an unfair advantage.



So whilst many think of it as relegation, the purpose and intent of Rule 66 is still there and available to be used to achieve the same result. I for one think that if it were applied it would hurriedly clean up the cowboys who think it is OK to knock down another runner and hopefully retain the win even if there is a protest.

[Thevoiceofreason]

Flashing Red

Please do not misunderstand I am not saying for one minute I like the rule I am saying it is there and whilst it is it should be enforced all the time or not used at all and removed from the rule book I know this has happened in NZ Gallops not sure if the Trots followed.

HRNSW will tell you COTs unannounced was the major complaint in NSW a few years back that is no longer the case there since they brought in the new policy.

The other points you raise are also why in NSW all tactic changes are advised "circumstances permitting: in the instance when you advised you were going to take cover and then held when the only challenger was 100/1 and it would give you no hope of winning if you took cover In NSW at least that would be reasonable and no breach would have occurred. You would be questioned but only so it could be reported.

[thesushitrain]

the voice of reason
is this the race you are talking about?
1 CMON HARRY $5,250 FT M J Reese
2 BOOGIES BARNETT NZ $1,125 FT A M Siejka 3.30

hmmmmmmmmmm id love to see someone try and defend that race today

[triplev123]

Triplec123 with the greatest of respect I also forgot to correct you on another issue.

Actually it is quite an impotent one there is in fact no setback/ relegation rule in Australian Harness Racing it was removed revoked whatever term you prefer to use back in 2006 it formed part of Rule 66 until that time but was removed by HRA.

There is still the protest rule but that is only if horse A would have finished in front of horse B if an incident had not occurred.

So stop blaming the stewards for not using a rule that is not there and by the way Relegation across the world is being used less and less in the countries that still have it.


[VVV] Don't you go lecturing me by way of employing semantics VOR. You know & I know and everyone else knows that Rule 66 is EXACTLY the same thing & you blokes refuse to use it. Set back/relegation/disqualification, call it what you will. The end result is the same. Apparently it suits you guys to Cherry Pick the rules you want to apply and those that you don't.

[Diesel]

Maybe these individual races should be passed on to authorities......

What I find interesting is some of these clowns claim to not owning mobile phones....Pllllsssssssssssssss.

[David Summers]

I think I recall a couple of months back , believe it was at Menangle , don't remember the driver , that as the gates came around the turn towards the Mile start that his mobile started ringing AND he actually pulled it out of his silks , hopefully to turn it off . Is this an urban myth or did it really happen?

[thesushitrain]

watch race 4 albion park last night

[Thevoiceofreason]

Correct that relegation isn't available in Australia, but disqualification is still possible, even more effective in terms of punishing a driver and/or horse that causes another horse to lose their chance of obtaining their best possible finishing position.

66. A horse may be disqualified from a race if the horse -
(a) crosses a horse without being clear of it;
(b) jostles or interferes with a horse unless solely in response to the action taken by another horse or driver;


(c) forces a passage where there is insufficient room;
(d) forces a horse out of its ground;
(e) races on the inside of a marker post or if its sulky or part thereof goes on the inside of a marker post;
(f) interferes with another runner so as to cause that runner, or cause its sulky or any part thereof, to go inside a marker post;
(g) being in the home straight and having a clear uninterrupted run to the post, changes course and thereby prejudices or advantages the chances of another runner.
(h) gains an unfair advantage.



So whilst many think of it as relegation, the purpose and intent of Rule 66 is still there and available to be used to achieve the same result. I for one think that if it were applied it would hurriedly clean up the cowboys who think it is OK to knock down another runner and hopefully retain the win even if there is a protest.


The point I was making is the Stewards in Australia have a clear direction not to use rule 66 in those circumstances. Relegation was there for that purpose and removed by the lawmakers the stewards enforce the rules as set out.

I was just pointing out where people keep saying relegation is there use it. Relegation is not there so it can not be used.

Rightly or wrongly it was removed from the rules by the organisation that runs the sport Nationally.

The difficulty with relegation is when used it can mean a race maybe lost by say the winner interfering with a horse that was already beaten and losing ground and not going to participate in the finish with no bearing on the result. This is the reason I am told it was removed from our rules, I am also told it is the reason it is becoming less popular world wide.

[Thevoiceofreason]

[VVV] Don't you go lecturing me by way of employing semantics VOR. You know & I know and everyone else knows that Rule 66 is EXACTLY the same thing & you blokes refuse to use it. Set back/relegation/disqualification, call it what you will. The end result is the same. Apparently it suits you guys to Cherry Pick the rules you want to apply and those that you don't.

Explain this then genius, if it is the same and it is all semantics why was it removed from the rules. I can not give you the intelligence to understand I am only giving you the facts.

[Thevoiceofreason]

the voice of reason
is this the race you are talking about?
1 CMON HARRY $5,250 FT M J Reese
2 BOOGIES BARNETT NZ $1,125 FT A M Siejka 3.30

hmmmmmmmmmm id love to see someone try and defend that race today

Got it in one and lost on appeal because the decision to hand up was not seen to be unreasonable at the time it was made. The stewards thought it was the public thought it was but not the judge.

[Thevoiceofreason]

I think I recall a couple of months back , believe it was at Menangle , don't remember the driver , that as the gates came around the turn towards the Mile start that his mobile started ringing AND he actually pulled it out of his silks , hopefully to turn it off . Is this an urban myth or did it really happen?

Its not quite right it was in the circle behind the start. The call was from his mates it was a gee up to see if he left his phone on. The stipes fined the Driver as they should have $500.

[JCT2011]

Got it in one and lost on appeal because the decision to hand up was not seen to be unreasonable at the time it was made. The stewards thought it was the public thought it was but not the judge.

I am surprised there wasn't more uproar about this race. I was utterly disgusted when I heard about this being turned over. Watching the race live that night, every man and his dog was talking about it whilst the race was still running and for a weeks afterwards.

[triplev123]

Explain this then genius, if it is the same and it is all semantics why was it removed from the rules. I can not give you the intelligence to understand I am only giving you the facts.

Genius eh?
What's with the snotty attitude?
Explain it? .........Rule 66 gives you guys the required wiggle room...that's why.
The Relegation/Setback rule as it was written did not and there's no denying that the campaign to have it removed was national and that it was widely supported by your fellow Stipes (surprise, surprise), also desirous of said wiggle room.
In fact, every single attempt that is made to tighten the universe in which you guys move is staunchly resisted, even if the ultimate outcome is a more clear cut & dependable definition for the participants.
The fact is that the level of discretion you enjoy, and the level that is currently built into the rules of racing as they pertain to interference in particular, is just plain wrong, it always has been, always will be unless something is done to change it, & it is exactly that which leads to intepretation and onwards to so much contention...such as the thrust of this thread for example.
The way things are at present...even in a big $ high profile race...the worst a driver can expect is to be fined and suspended. I'm yet to see anyone with the ticker to make a harsher call.
As they stand at present the interference rules are all about how the Punter might perceive their first past the post horse being taken down and so they have little or nothing to do with how any interference impacts on the connections of the horse on the receiving end.
For example, there was an absolutely clear cut classic case of some close to the finish line interference in a very high profile race, I refer to the one which cost Vertigal the Bathurst Gold Tiara Final, and even then...with all & sundry including Blind Freddy calling it...the Stewards point blank refused to relegate. Absolutely A-B-S-U-R-D.
In North America interference such as that would have been a no brainer. Here though, we have wiggle room.

[Thevoiceofreason]

Genius eh?
What's with the snotty attitude?
Explain it? .........Rule 66 gives you guys the required wiggle room...that's why.
The Relegation/Setback rule as it was written did not and there's no denying that the campaign to have it removed was national and that it was widely supported by your fellow Stipes (surprise, surprise), also desirous of said wiggle room.
In fact, every single attempt that is made to tighten the universe in which you guys move is staunchly resisted, even if the ultimate outcome is a more clear cut & dependable definition for the participants.
The fact is that the level of discretion you enjoy, and the level that is currently built into the rules of racing as they pertain to interference in particular, is just plain wrong, it always has been, always will be unless something is done to change it, & it is exactly that which leads to intepretation and onwards to so much contention...such as the thrust of this thread for example.
The way things are at present...even in a big $ high profile race...the worst a driver can expect is to be fined and suspended. I'm yet to see anyone with the ticker to make a harsher call.
As they stand at present the interference rules are all about how the Punter might perceive their first past the post horse being taken down and so they have little or nothing to do with how any interference impacts on the connections of the horse on the receiving end.
For example, there was an absolutely clear cut classic case of some close to the finish line interference in a very high profile race, I refer to the one which cost Vertigal the Bathurst Gold Tiara Final, and even then...with all & sundry including Blind Freddy calling it...the Stewards point blank refused to relegate. Absolutely A-B-S-U-R-D.
In North America interference such as that would have been a no brainer. Here though, we have wiggle room.

The Bathurst protest was dismissed as I recall because the stewards placed the bulk of the blame for the interference on the horse to the inside shifting out so relegation rule or not the result would not have been changed

Sort of defeats you whole argument again.

By the way you do not have to be a steward to disagree with your comments

[David Summers]

Fight , fight ! [munching popcorn]


49

[JCT2011]

fight , fight ! [munching popcorn]


49

hahaa love it

[triplev123]

The Bathurst protest was dismissed as I recall because the stewards placed the bulk of the blame for the interference on the horse to the inside shifting out so relegation rule or not the result would not have been changed

Sort of defeats you whole argument again.

By the way you do not have to be a steward to disagree with your comments

[VVV] That's exactly what I'm referring to. Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle.
The fact is the protest should have been upheld and it was not. Pound for pound that was one of THE most absurd decisions I've seen on any racetrack, anywhere, ever.
In North American BOTH of the horses involved, inside and out, would have been taken down. There is none of this 'the bulk of' or 'apportioned the majority of blame to' nonsense. Up there, you interfere you get taken down, simple as that, intentional or otherwise, that's how it would play out.
Perhaps you & your colleagues might seek to take a trip over there sooner rather than later and watch how they deal with racing interference. I think HRNSW should do just that with the Stewards quite frankly. Getting out & about and seeing how the rest of the World does things might just open a few eyes.
Up there they don't wait for the wronged connections to lodge a protest, they do it themselves & if there is interference you'll see the Inquiry sign lights up straight away and it'll happen BEFORE the race is even finished if it happens early enough in the event. I've seen the Inquiry sign light up at Mohawk before they even reach the 1/4 pole and the race caller makes specific note of it happening during a race.
The line you guys run with currently is totally reliant on wiggle room and given what is swinging on the outcome of any given decision... that's just not good enough, IMO.

A well known US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once famously quipped in the Jacobellis Vs Ohion decision Quote " I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. End Quote.

Similarly to Potter Stewart, I and virtually every other Industry Participant who watches racing even on the most casual of basis knows interference when they see it.
The fact that Stewards Panels across the country fail to properly punish it by way of taking down those responsible will forever remain contentious until such time as the wording of the rules are made so explicit as to see the current wiggle room completely removed.

[Thevoiceofreason]

[VVV] That's exactly what I'm referring to. Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle.
The fact is the protest should have been upheld and it was not. Pound for pound that was one of THE most absurd decisions I've seen on any racetrack, anywhere, ever.
In North American BOTH of the horses involved, inside and out, would have been taken down. There is none of this 'the bulk of' or 'apportioned the majority of blame to' nonsense. Up there, you interfere you get taken down, simple as that, intentional or otherwise, that's how it would play out.
Perhaps you & your colleagues might seek to take a trip over there sooner rather than late and watch how they deal with racing interference. I think HRNSW should do just that with the Stewards quite frankly. Getting out & about and seeing how the rest of the World does things might just open a few eyes.
Up there they don't wait for the wronged connections to lodge a protest, they do it themselves & if there is interference you'll see the Inquiry sign lights up straight away and it'll happen BEFORE the race is even finished if it happens early enough in the event. I've seen the Inquiry sign light up at Mohawk before they even reach the 1/4 pole and the race caller makes specific note of it happening during a race.
The line you guys run with currently is totally reliant on wiggle room and given what is swinging on the outcome of any given decision... that's just not good enough, IMO.

A well known US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once famously quipped in the Jacobellis Vs Ohion decision Quote " I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. End Quote.

Similarly to Potter Stewart, I and virtually every other Industry Participant who watches racing even on the most casual of basis knows interference when they see it.
The fact that Stewards Panels across the country fail to properly punish it by way of taking down those responsible will forever remain contentious until such time as the wording of the rules are made so explicit as to see the current wiggle room completely removed.

See now you are the one wiggling the rules here DO NOT ALLOW the stewards to act in the way you want them to, at least your has post has established exactly what I was saying from my first post go back check if you like.

Now there appears to me to be two fairly clear options either get HRA to reintroduce the relegation rule, odds here about 100's and blowing or for you to move to North America where you can bet with confidence, chances of that probably about the same quote.

[triplev123]

See now you are the one wiggling the rules here DO NOT ALLOW the stewards to act in the way you want them to, at least your has post has established exactly what I was saying from my first post go back check if you like.

Now there appears to me to be two fairly clear options either get HRA to reintroduce the relegation rule, odds here about 100's and blowing or for you to move to North America where you can bet with confidence, chances of that probably about the same quote.

[VVV] Wiggle. Wiggle. Wiggle.
The rules of racing should be written like the available actions on an ATM. No divergence, no interpretation. Black & White. Cut & Dried. No doubt that would be opposed by your good self of course.

[triplev123]

Incidentally, VOR...good for you getting as far on here and putting your case. Here's hoping that you stick around. Enjoy our perspective...even if I don't agree in this instance.

[triplev123]

By the way, can I make a suggestion? That crappy plasma TV on the wall there out at Menangle & the DVD/set top box or whatever that's connected to it for replays. How about getting someone to spring for one with massively better resolution than that? The freeze frame on it is very grainy & unclear.

[Thevoiceofreason]

Incidentally, VOR...good for you getting as far on here and putting your case. Here's hoping that you stick around. Enjoy our perspective...even if I don't agree in this instance.

I do not think we are poles apart my basic point was its not in the rules and was removed by the rule makers if it or any other rule goes in the stewards should use it and in 99.9% of cases I think they do in NSW at least.

[triplev123]

That's where it comes down to interpretation VOR.
For example. I have detailed prior knowledge of the birth, formation and institution of the change of tactics rule and it was at no stage ever designed nor intended to be used to aim up on individual drives.
It was conceived wholly and solely to be aimed at breaking up the ability of stables with multiple starters in a given race to work in together to achieve a result.
Unfortunately it has been interpreted otherwise, had it's horizons significantly expanded & it has been duly enforced on that basis, and in my opinon, so very, very wrongly & inappropriately in so many, many instances.

As for Set-back/Relegation/Disqualification (call it what you will) in response to interference...they are all essentially the same thing and they're all intended to achieve the same thing despite coming at the problem from slightly differing angles & having outcomes ranging from just dropping a few places to being booted from the race altogether.
You know that full well just as I do and as anyone else does.
Despite those options being readily available, the continued demonstrated reluctance of not just NSW Stewards but Australian Stewards in general to relegate/set-back/disqualify has me greatly perplexed.

Basically, as far as the above 2 rules are concerned the Stewards emphasis is all about spoon feeding the imbeciles who can't do the form properly and/or not upsetting the Punters who have backed the first horse past the post only to have it taken down afterwards.
I'm certain this is a 'for crying out loud don't let your decisions impinge on our business' policy which comes down the line to us from its inital birthplace, the various TAB organisations.
I am once again certain that it comes at the very significant expense of the Participants who's driver has made a change, in their opinion, for the better or who's horses has suffered the interference. Ridiculous.

You'll sometimes hear of the 'seperation of Powers'...of the 'seperation of Church & State' an idea which was originally championed by the great Thomas Jefferson, and which in it's original form read "the wall of separation between church and state,". I am for a third time certain that we, in Harness Racing, do not have such a seperation of Powers between the TAB's & the Stewards. Indirectly, you ultimately do their bidding by way of enforcing such rules in the manner in which you enforce them.

Clearly, when you think about it, BOTH of these rules are nothing short of furiously pee-ing in the Punters pocket focussed. Neither of them are of any benefit, be it active or tacit, as far as honest participants are concerned because neither serve to look after their interests.
Instead, BOTH of those rules now actively work to serve them trussed up & with apple in mouth, upon the alter dedicated to the wagering Gods of Pyrmont & their associates.

In closing, what's your excuse for being up at 3am? Mine's a head-ache and a 6yo daughter with the flu. :(

[Flashing Red]

A bit off topic, but an example where the relegation rule has been used, no matter how high profile the race or horse...

http://xwebapp.ustrotting.com/absolutenm/templates/?a=44518&z=1

On another note, for the other mare to run her to a head, perhaps something is bothering her. I was dieing for Peelers to go to the Jug, but I guess two defeats in a row sees those chances slimming by the minute!!

[triplev123]

Unfortunately she's definitely not going to The Jug now Flashing. Jimmy Takter has confirmed that today.

[Thevoiceofreason]

No excuse for being up at 3 am I only just got home.

[triplev123]

Geeze, I know that feeling. Got home at around 4am? Saturday morning and (I think?) 4:45am Sunday morning. It's all a bit of a blurr. Caffiene is a dear friend. Red Bull, Mother, Coca Cola, Coffee, Tiramasu...whatever, ship it in. Gimme Gimme Gimme.

[triplev123]

On a more general and on topic note, overall (with one or two exceptions:p) the recent NSW Stewards Reports are soooooo much better than they were in the past when I'd see a worthy of mention incident on the track and there'd be nothing...or if there was it would be a write up that bore no resemblance whatsoever to what actually happened. Old mate 'Armani Suit' was well on his way to becoming in/famous for them.

[Thevoiceofreason]

Its a touch ironic I was also on another thread talking about stewards reports where yet again I found myself sticking up tor them the stewards.

I once overheard c conversation between a Trainer in NSW where he was challenging the stewards over the way they had reported an incident from the previous weeks meeting at HP the steward politely explained how they had seen the incident to which the trainer retorted " well you must have been looking at a different film to me"

The steward smiled and replied "well yes in actual fact we were we had four different angles you only had one"

I think we sometimes forget that many things we think we see on the replay may not be exactly as the seem when viewed on a head on.

It is nearly impossible to form an accurate view of horses shifting up the track from the side on perspective that is why it has been policy of both the GHRRA and HRNSW to get head on video coverage at all tracks in NSW.

I did not spend much time reading the previously mentioned reports so do not really have a view other than to say he has written his last.

[triplev123]

You know VOR, it wouldn't do anyone any harm for HRNSW to use Trots TV to load up the patrol footage that you guys get to see as well as the normal race angles footage.

[Thevoiceofreason]

Whats this you guys get stuff, I do not understand, but your point about providing to the public what the stewards get is well made I think it was done a few months back with a protest from Penrith and low and behold the stewards all of a sudden got it right.

I am just a battler doing my best like the rest of you.

[Greg Hando]

It is nearly impossible to form an accurate view of horses shifting up the track from the side on perspective that is why it has been policy of both the GHRRA and HRNSW to get head on video coverage at all tracks in NSW.

We had a horse one night behind the leader we pulled out at the top of the straight and started our run and finished 5 wide at the post we dead heated with the leader and asked to see the film and were going to put in a protest and were politely told by chief steward and i quote "there's nothing to look at " and with that signalled all clear Rule 66 never even thought of by official's