Newcastle-Change Of Tactics?????????

Race 3- Somart (driven further back)
Duly pinned the ears back & tried hard for the lead from (9) then handed up to the inside horse for a 1x1 trail.

Race 7- Tiger Prince. Previous 5 starts it has led and held.
Today it leads & then hands up despite there being absolutely no pressure whatsoever.

I couldn't care less what the connections decide to do. That's wholely & solely up to them. If I am having a bet then it is and has always been my job to try and work it out.
Instead, the above are merely offered as further examples of the stupidity of this Rule and of the indiscriminant nature of its enforcement or lackthereof.
Over to you, VOR.

Quote:

Originally Posted by triplev123

I couldn't care less what the connections decide to do. That's wholely & solely up to them. If I am having a bet then it is and has always been my job to try and work it out.
Instead, the above are merely offered as further examples of the stupidity of this Rule and of the indiscriminant nature of its enforcement or lackthereof.
Over to you, VOR.

Spot on. It doesn't seem that the rule will go according to VOR, so I believe the stewards MUST reprimand or fine connections who supply a change of tactics then drive their horse to the contrary. There is nothing stopping them at the moment from deliberately misleading the punting public.

Quote:

Originally Posted by triplev123

Race 3- Somart (driven further back)
Duly pinned the ears back & tried hard for the lead from (9) then handed up to the inside horse for a 1x1 trail.

Race 7- Tiger Prince. Previous 5 starts it has led and held.
Today it leads & then hands up despite there being absolutely no pressure whatsoever.

I couldn't care less what the connections decide to do. That's wholely & solely up to them. If I am having a bet then it is and has always been my job to try and work it out.
Instead, the above are merely offered as further examples of the stupidity of this Rule and of the indiscriminant nature of its enforcement or lackthereof.
Over to you, VOR.

Two out of two for the stewards here VVV you may need another spell.

Somart drive was questioned and explanation accepted he could have found and held the top in my view but was keen to take cover.

Tiger Price had led at every start it has had except when he galloped. As miraculous as it may sound he was never ever challenged early when leading in any race an amazing stat but I have looked at the vision ( yes just for you VVV no cheap victories here) I don't agree there was no pressure yesterday and Hedges made the right decision to surrender, even with an early surrender they got through the first quarter in 28.3 it would have been very quick indeed if he Hedges had tried to push up much farther.

It is not a change because in previous races he can not surrender the lead if there is no challenger.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rainmaker

Spot on. It doesn't seem that the rule will go according to VOR, so I believe the stewards MUST reprimand or fine connections who supply a change of tactics then drive their horse to the contrary. There is nothing stopping them at the moment from deliberately misleading the punting public.

[VVV] I don't have a problem with either driver actually Eric. I don't think either intended to deceive anyone. Rather they did what they had to do given the circumstances at the time.
The issue I have is, given the numerous precedents they themselves have set, both drives technically fall foul of the COT rule, as aburd as its general application since inception has tended to be.
By way of a yardstick, at the top end of the scale...the one absolutely ball tearing, orange flashing light on head, Robot from Lost In Space screaming out WARNING! WARNING! incident that has occurred in recent times...and I speak of the totally inexplicable drive affored Beef City Beau at Menangle back a few months or so...skated by on the night virtually without a peep. Riddle me that, Batman. Buggered if I know. There's obviously some deep, mystical insight to these decisions that illudes mere mortals such as myself. :p

Quote:

Originally Posted by triplev123

[VVV] I don't have a problem with either driver actually Eric. I don't think either intended to deceive anyone. Rather they did what they had to do given the circumstances at the time.
The issue I have is, given the numerous precedents they themselves have set, both drives technically fall foul of the COT rule, as aburd as its general application since inception has tended to be.
By way of a yardstick, at the top end of the scale...the one absolutely ball tearing, orange flashing light on head, Robot from Lost In Space screaming out WARNING! WARNING! incident that has occurred in recent times...and I speak of the totally inexplicable drive affored Beef City Beau at Menangle back a few months or so...skated by on the night virtually without a peep. Riddle me that, Batman. Buggered if I know. There's obviously some deep, mystical insight to these decisions that illudes mere mortals such as myself. :p

VVV I think your wrong about both these drives falling foul of that rule in its current application the first drive is cover by the circumstances of the race principal it is a perfect example of that.

The second drive is not a change for the reason I already outlined.

I have applauded you about some drives lately that have been missed but this time you are in my view wrong.

...and so the world turns Bill. We'll agree to disagree then. Have a good night.