Glaring example of why the Change Of Tactics rule as applied in NSW is a JOKE

PENRITH, SEPTEMBER 8th, 2011.

COT notifications.

Race 4 – Miami Dream NZ – further forward

Race 4 – Darpoolmansbrother – further forward

Race 4 – Roman Republic – with cover

Stewards Report.

RACE 4 – CLUB PACEWAY PACE – 2125 METRES

Horses RUN DOOF RUN NZ and ROMAN REPUBLIC were both subject to pre raceblood testing.

The winner of the event MIAMI DREAM NZ was subject to a post race urinesample.

Connections of MIAMI DREAM NZ and DARPOOLMANSBROTHER both advised that theyintended to race further forward if circumstances allowed and a publicannouncement to that effect was made.

Connections of ROMAN REPUBLIC advised that they intended to drive thegelding with cover if circumstances allowed and a public announcement to thateffect was made.

RUN DOOF RUN NZ began to give ground approaching the 700 metre mark andeventually finished tailed off. The gelding was examined by the Club'sVeterinarian and no abnormalities were detected. In view of the performance RUNDOOF RUN NZ was stood down until it can requalify on one occasion.

Link to vision of race.

http://www.trotstv.com.au/?mc=PE080911&rn=4

Participants & Punters alike wish for nothing more than a consistent application of the rules as they are written and available. Good for Luke & Clayton here, they skated, but what about the next poor bastard who does the same thing BUT gets called in and fined for it?

VVV

You and I will usually disagree on these cases however on viewing the race one driver made no attempt to drive to his advertised change and no questions were asked WHY??

I suppose the term "if circumstances allow" is open to a VERY broad interpretation :-( Something like "How long is a piece of string"

That's the problem Bill. No questions were asked. Good for Luke & good for Clayton, they skated and as I've said many, many times before, it's not their job to self regulate. It's a Driver's job is to do whatever he has to do to get the job done to the best of his/her ability and that of the horse that they're driving. The problem is not with any of them, rather it is with the Stewards who are charged with overseeing the whole show & in this case it is particularly so with the (IMO) way, way too often innaccurately, indiscriminately & in this instance inconsistently used Change Of Tactics rule as it is being intepreted and applied here in NSW.
To put this in some context, think about the ouctome of another drive with the same poor bastard in the bike, one at the other end of the spectrum where Luke was absurdly jammed up for $200 or $400 fine or whatever it was for a Change Of Tactics breach and that despite it being a winning drive. I speak of his super smart very last second decision to grab off the gate and take one late shot at them with Roman Stride at Menangle not all that long ago.
This is what I can't understand. They'll fine the guy for that...but not so much as a peep for the apparent contrary to the COT announcement for drive at Penrith? How in the Hell can the Owners, Trainers & Drivers comply with what is expected of them by the Stewards...if those are the sorts of mixed messages that they're getting? Cross their fingers & hope perhaps? One week it's not Ok. Next week it is. One week the roof falls in on them. The next week they sail on down the bay. Ridiculous. This moving of the goalposts routine has to stop.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Summers

I suppose the term "if circumstances allow" is open to a VERY broad interpretation :-( Something like "How long is a piece of string"

Without getting really into this - and I haven't seen the race. But I suppose they do say "if circumstances allow" because people shouldn't be locked into driving a certain way. Just like they shouldn't be locked into driving to a horse's usual race pattern if circumstances dictate that they can't comply with rule 149 driving to win or obtain best possible position.

If you say "I'm going to go forward today this horse is feeling good within himself" and advise the stewards so, if 4-5 other people go forward and you don't want to cook your horse and you take hold, I don't think you need to be questioned for that. The circumstances didn't allow for your potential change of tactic.

Like I said, I haven't seen the race, but if people don't follow through with their change of tactic, due to the circumstances, can't see how they need to be called in about it.

Could not agree more Flashing and that's the whole point.
The arbitrary nature of the way in which this rule is enforced here in NSW is the issue. Sometimes a driver will get called in, other times they will not. Sometimes an absolute nothing results in a reprimand or a fine, other times an apparent something gets...well, nothing. The Change Of Tactics rule has, here in NSW, morphed into a rather hideous, ramdomly natured creature...one that it was never designed nor intended to be. For the most part I genuinely feel sorry for drivers who fall foul of it. If ever a rule needs a review and a re-think it is this one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by triplev123

Could not agree more Flashing and that's the whole point.
The arbitrary nature of the way in which this rule is enforced here in NSW is the issue. Sometimes a driver will get called in, other times they will not. Sometimes an absolute nothing results in a reprimand or a fine, other times an apparent something gets...well, nothing. The Change Of Tactics rule has, here in NSW, morphed into a rather hideous, ramdomly natured creature...one that it was never designed nor intended to be. For the most part I genuinely feel sorry for drivers who fall foul of it. If ever a rule needs a review and a re-think it is this one.

To make things worse VVV the stewards report does not have the same tactics as the results show in relation to ROMAN REPUBLIC the results have the abbrev as FC which is not the same as with cover unless things have changed in the past few months I have not checked their website.

In general terms I disagree with you on this issue but if you complain enough you will eventually get one right and this might be it for the year, like a good horse the break might have done you some good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

To make things worse VVV the stewards report does not have the same tactics as the results show in relation to ROMAN REPUBLIC the results have the abbrev as FC which is not the same as with cover unless things have changed in the past few months I have not checked their website.

In general terms I disagree with you on this issue but if you complain enough you will eventually get one right and this might be it for the year, like a good horse the break might have done you some good.

[VVV] Indeed. One does not match the other. Otherwise, you've damned me with faint praise there Bill. Many thanks...I think? :p

Quote:

Originally Posted by triplev123

That's the problem Bill. No questions were asked. Good for Luke & good for Clayton, they skated and as I've said many, many times before, it's not their job to self regulate. It's a Driver's job is to do whatever he has to do to get the job done to the best of his/her ability and that of the horse that they're driving. The problem is not with any of them, rather it is with the Stewards who are charged with overseeing the whole show & in this case it is particularly so with the (IMO) way, way too often innaccurately, indiscriminately & in this instance inconsistently used Change Of Tactics rule as it is being intepreted and applied here in NSW.
To put this in some context, think about the ouctome of another drive with the same poor bastard in the bike, one at the other end of the spectrum where Luke was absurdly jammed up for $200 or $400 fine or whatever it was for a Change Of Tactics breach and that despite it being a winning drive. I speak of his super smart very last second decision to grab off the gate and take one late shot at them with Roman Stride at Menangle not all that long ago.
This is what I can't understand. They'll fine the guy for that...but not so much as a peep for the apparent contrary to the COT announcement for drive at Penrith? How in the Hell can the Owners, Trainers & Drivers comply with what is expected of them by the Stewards...if those are the sorts of mixed messages that they're getting? Cross their fingers & hope perhaps? One week it's not Ok. Next week it is. One week the roof falls in on them. The next week they sail on down the bay. Ridiculous. This moving of the goalposts routine has to stop.

Well VVV as I said earlier I agree with your comments on the Penrith race however if you are 100% right at with that one and I think you are, then you are 100% wrong with the ROMAN STRIDE drive at Menangle.

I went back and had a look at the previous drives of Luke McCarthy on that horse over 2300m at Menangle after all you should always compare apples with apples.

On 14th & 28th May each occasion he came off the gate labeled urgent I should add the horse drew six in both races.

Then on 16th July also from gate 6 the horse was never even allowed to get to the gate much less begin and Luke almost dislocated its jaw easing back, this was a clear change of tactics, in fact as clear as you would ever get.

You must be joking about it being a last minute decision unless by last minute you mean last minute as when he was going onto the track and therefor did not have time to tell the stewards.

He was always going back and by the rules he is required to give that information to the stewards prior to the race

I am sorry VVV but this one you got wrong for mine but as I have also said the spell might have sharpened you up I Just hope you did not bulk up too much.

G'day Bill,
Even if I were to accept all that to be the case, which I don't obviously, hence what I said there previously, but even if I did...is it still not a damning indictment of the folly in the way the rule is being enforced? Especially so given that it created to protect Punters from being dudded, the horse in question went off as fav. and it duly won and the driver was still fined? That's just ridiculous. Otherwise, the suggestion is there that Luke was in effect retrospectively fined, not for the winning drive, but for previous outings. That's absurd too. It has all become more about the rule, the wording of the rule and the procedure/requirements of the rule than it is about it being used in the spirit with which it was intended to be used.
To me fining Luke for that drive, a winning one, was like a bloke getting knocked out in a ruck in a rugby game and the ref. penalising his team because he was lying on the ball. It's using a rule because technically you can, not because you should.