Didn't much like the look of that one. Interesting to read the Stewards Report. Was there a 'change of tactics' notification made? (cough, cough, bullshit, cough, cough)
Printable View
Didn't much like the look of that one. Interesting to read the Stewards Report. Was there a 'change of tactics' notification made? (cough, cough, bullshit, cough, cough)
Watching thorn shake his head over the line made my night! Karma is a bitch!
My interest is in how the Stewards read the race rather than the personalities involved.
G'day Spurbuck,
I'm not at all concerned about it from that angle because I don't believe for a minute that is what it was.
I am however extremely interested to note what, if any, action was taken by Stewards in light of their current interpretation & application of the change of tactics rule as I believe it's a rule that is being routinely incorrectly & often most unfairly applied here in NSW.
I firmly believe the rule has been/is often being misinterpreted, that...for want of a better term...the actual spirit of the rule...is perhaps not the first & foremost thing in the minds of those empowered with enforcing it.
I believe it is a rule that is rightly in place BUT that it's a rule that was put in place to put a stop to exactly that which appears to have taken place tonight..i.e. so as to allow them the opportunity to subsequently question a horse being driven, for no apparent reason, in a manner that appears to be in contravention of its well & truly exposed pattern of racing and...in this instance with pretty considerable weight being added to the reason for such questioning by the fact the horse involved went postward at 33/1 or thereabouts.
It was not, it was never at any stage meant to be nor was it designed to be or expected to be interpreted as, a rule which would allow unneccessary & IMO unjust interference with honest, reasonable, normal tactical decisions that trainers & drivers must make on a week to week basis...with each & every decision depending upon their assessments of the track, the draw and the relative class/quality of their opposition.
Before anyone jumps on the 'what about the Punter' bandwagon...let me say that if Owners, Trainers and Drivers must sit for a moment or two in order to try and work out what is most likely to occur in a race, then maybe the Punters should take a leaf or two out of their book and do the same. Punters need not be spoonfed. That is why it is called Gambling.
I logged on this morning to pose the question about this race and quite obviously it was noticed by many others. I live in victoria and really only check on the Menangle replays out of interest, but that race stood out like the proverbial and if I thought it was dodgy, surely the stewards will be taking action. I am a big fan of Luke Mcarthy, I think he is a great trainer and driver and great for the sport, so I am not questioning his integrity, but if a name like Small, Butcher or even the great G lang was involved in such a race situation, I am sure their feet would not touch the ground on the way to the stewards room. Whatever the rule or interpretation, this needs to be examined and explanations sought. As for the call on Mister Anthony's huge run, check out Big Fella Mach... was cost 15-20 metres by the flailing BCB and almost got the money!
G'day Termite,
Glad I'm not seeing things. Like yourself, I'm not questioning the integrity of those involved either, but rather I'm highlighting what I believe to be an ACTUAL instance where the rule should be applied...versus the numerous instances, and especially so in recent times here in NSW, where IMO it has often been quite incorrectly used/invoked/where driver have been reprimanded/reminded of their responsibilities in that regard.
Heres what the stewards report says about the incident:
Race 3 –MAJOR IN ART PACE 2300M
Stewards questioned B Sarina (Beef City Beau) in relation to the driving tactics he adopted on the gelding. B Sarina stated when he was caught outside the leader he restrained the gelding to look for cover but then Beef City Beau was making contact with the offside sulky stay which caused him to over race and after passing the 600m mark the gelding gave ground quickly resulting in the offside sulky tyre being punctured when Big Fella Mack was checked from that point on B Sarina desisted from driving the horse forward and Beef City Beau finished distance. The gelding was examined by the clubs veterinary surgeon and no abnormalities were detected in view of this Beef City Beau was stood down until it successfully completes one requalifying trial.
Well, that leaves me absolutely gobsmacked. I do not have the words.
Well , really. After reading the steward's report I just checked the date on the calendar. No it's not actually April Fool's Day :-(
Beef City Beau has always been one to fly out and take a sit, couldnt cross so he straight away was looking for a sit, but did you see how Sarina turned around seen it was Luke on his back, head down, ar*e up and went up to eye ball the leader. Classic case of helping a stable mate out. Thorns head shake summed it up I think.
Just very disappointing....Perception is paramount and that race threw a bad odour....McCarthy needs to be aware he is new to Sydney trots and it isnt a good way to present yourself....I know thorn has everyone talking but taking personalities out of it the explanation was pitiful. Surely, Stewards could take action if they accept the poor excuse of hitting the sulky....maybe penalise trainer something as he put the sulky on. Must say that didnt see Sarina pulling much.
The stewards might think this is now all over. Down the track this race might face a little more attention.
watched this race with 3 mates, all of us looked at each other during it and said the same thing, must have seen something different to the stewards tape!
It's always the way and if someone was to do that out in the bush they would surely get time. There seems to be rules for some and rule's for other's.
Again, the age old issue of interpretation and subsequent application or the apparent non-application of a controversial rule comes to the surface.
I hand on heart believe that the change of tactics rule was instituted to enable the Stewards to come down hard on the very thing we saw on Saturday night. Instead of that, here we are on Tuesday morning with an apparent outcome where, IMO, the one true instance thereof that we've seen in recent times has effectively been allowed to skate free and clear whilst other instances of quite reasonable decision making have been brought into question & noted in the Stewards Reports of the day. What the.......?
I don't blame Drivers for pushing right up to the mark on every single thing that they do, they do as much as they can to win and to get the slightest advantage over the rest they will try to get away with whatever they can or are allowed to get away with by the Stewards. I don't have a problem with any of that. Like Soccer or any other such sport, you go out and play to the Ref's Whistle. If he doesn't blow up the play for Off-side....you kick it into the back of the net.
I was at Fairfield yesterday & saw a clear cut case of 'gamesmenship' from a very well known driver & friend. It was nothing dreadful in the scheme of things but it was something that I know others have been picked up on and fined/suspended for in the past. He did what he basically had to do, he had no choice, he tried it on, and he skated. From his & his Owner's point of view, job done, it got well beaten but he did everything that he could to give his horse the best chance to win & then some.
I don't think there's a reasonable person anywhere in the Industry who wishes for anything more than a consistent interpretation and application of the rules as they stand, in both word and spirit, lest we ultimately have to go down the 'New York City Chinese Restaurant Menu' road of having everything being noted down in Columns A, B & C and penalities being dispensed accoringly.
The good thing about the rule is that some trainers "going forward" means get onnnn! Money for jam!
Yeah Macarthys today, going forward with swift stride meant "trying today"
Beef City Beau inquiry re opened
17 June 2011
http://www.harness.org.au/news/images/logos/HRNSW-2.gif
Acting on fresh evidence, HRNSW Acting Chairman of Stewards Mr Bill Cable has advised Mr Luke McCarthy and Mr Ben Sarina that the inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Beef City Beau in Race 3 at Menangle Park last Saturday has been re-opened.
Was the evidence this thread? What more was there to see then the race. Although it looks like either a rival trainer/driver has dobbed them in or more likely the boys had a punt and have been found out perhaps.
The whole thing has a bad look.
Bad look during the race.
Bad look after the race with the steward's bizarre findings.
Bad look having to now open a retrospective inquiry five days after the race after already making their original "findings".
What next?? It should not have come to this.
If you're of the belief it was a bad look stewards didnt find anything immediately after the race then I can't see how you now believe its a bad look that they are now taking the matter further?
Surely it doesn't take 5 day's to have a look at the race and the betting trend, to be honest i'd bury it and move on and just keep a closer eye on thing's.
Mango you cant just 'bury it' because it encourages the grubs to keep on doing it.
The race was an absolute digrace. Ben Sarina grabs hold after the start and turns his head 180 degrees to find out where the stablemate is.
As soon as is sure, he looks 3 times to check, he then allows the horse more reign and hammers the leader.
The mistake the stewards made in all this was not to open an inquiry on the spot.
As soon as fixed odds markets opened on the TAB Fleur de Lil was well backed $10-$5 from memory.
For the record I didnt bet in the race.
Fair call but surely it doesn't take 5 day's.
aussiebreno - Sorry , the wording of my post did not reflect my feelings correctly. What I actually meant to say was that it was a bad look having to now open a retrospective inquiry five days after the race after already making their original "findings". It was obvious to most onlookers ( and to several drivers who drove other horses ) that there needed to be a full inquiry immediately after the race , not five days later and only after a fair amount of controversy.
I will preface it with saying that in all probability , nothing much will happen anyway. BTW, I did not have a bet in the race either.
That was the bit that stood out most to me, he almost fell out of his seat when he saw Luke there and couldnt get up outside the leader fast enough. GUILTY.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Money Tree
Did anyone notice Ben Sarina got a $1000 fine for doing a photoshoot without permission or wearing appropriate safety attire? Got some issues those stewards up in NSW.
Beef City Beau inquiry result
06 July 2011
by Bill Cable
Stewards resumed an inquiry into the driving tactics of Ben Sarina (BEEF CITY BEAU) from the Menangle race meeting on 11 June 2011.
Evidence was taken on the night in question but after receiving betting information obtained from both Betfair and the TAB which indicated that the stablemate of BEEF CITY BEAU, namely FLEUR DE LIL had come in for support, Stewards revisited the Inquiry.
Also questioned were the Trainer of both runners Mr Luke McCarthy who was also the driver of FLEUR DE LIL who stated that due to other drivers in the race failing to take the opportunity to gain the one out one back position, he progressed forward on FLEUR DE LIL to take that spot which placed his drive on the back of BEEF CITY BEAU. McCarthy further stated that the first of two quarters of the last mile were run in 29.8 which for that class of horse was relatively slow.
Stewards accepted that evidence and feel that the betting information failed to show anything untoward other than normal betting trends.
Both Ben Sarina and Luke McCarthy were advised that in future they should not place themselves in a position that could lead to their drives being questioned.
I'll skip over the rest because I'm sure others will talk about it but this. After clearing them of anything untoward and thus saying both Beef City Beau and Fleur De Lil were given the best possible drives to gain the best possible placing (or whatever the rule exactly is) are stewards saying don't follow the rule in the future if it might look like you are team driving. That is a disgrace. You do your best whether it looks suss or not; stewards are effictively telling them to not do your best if it looks suspicious despite telling them that they were not guilty. By golly are the soft or stupid or both???Quote:
Originally Posted by triplev123
What really gets to me Breno is the way in which this somehow lost its way and became a bit of a false flag mission. It was never at any stage, I don't believe for one minute that it was ever...about the Punt.
Instead...I think it has/had EVERYTHING to do with the simple and inescapable fact that Beef City Beau was driven in a manner that was completely & utterly contrary to virtually every single race start that horse has had for as far back as I can remember.
A reading of the initial Stewards Report, which to me indicates a seemingly unquestioning acceptance of the excuse for the drive, then saw this become a real isssue regarding the non-application by the Stewards of their often incorrectly or heavy handedly used Change of Tactics rule.
I was initially stunned by their inaction in the face of that which I believe to be the one absolutely true & glaring case we have wittnessed in recent times...an instance where the full force of the Change of Tactics rule could have been apllied and brought to bare...but instead it just zipped straight through to the Keeper.
I am further bemused that the subsequent/further inquiry became focussed on the Punt...when all that was actually required was a retraction of the Steward's apparent initial acceptance of the explanation backed up by a very solid rebuking of the driver for his efforts...one that was simply in keeping with those received by others in recent times for drives that were far, far less culpable in nature.
In that respect, you know none of this need have progressed beyond the Stewards Report of June 11th.
Something simple like B. Sarina was severely reprimanded for his drive on Beef City Beau, in particular the way in which the horse was driven in a manner contrary to previous outings and he was reminded of his obligations etc etc etc.
Instead, when Participants see what they saw and accordingly look to the Stewards Report, well, they'd probably not have felt any great level of redress from the wording of the original one of June 11th nor July 6th's...especially those who may have fallen foul of the Change of Tactics rule themselves.
...and further to the above, I simply can't comprehend why a horse such as Beef City Beau, a 7yo veteran of some 122 starts and with well & truly exposed form as far as its preferred racing pattern is concerned can be driven in a manner that is totally in contradiction of that racing pattern and nothing is said in that regard...while at the other end of the spectrum the driver of a current 2yo with 7 or 8 starts lifetime is the subject of Steward commentary with regard to Change of Tactics. The way this rule is being applied and not applied here in NSW is just absurd, it is absolutely bloody absurd.
Spot on VVV
some people just don't learn
L McCarthy (Roman Stride) was fined $200 under rule 44(1) for failing to notify the Stewards that the gelding would be driven contrary to its usual racing pattern.
That's unfair Smithy. In Luke's defense, that ruling is more than just a reactionary, IMO.
The fact that the Stewards have zero'd in on him and fined him for the drive on Roman Stride but 6 weeks or so ago they initially let Ben Sarina skip for that drive on Beef City Beau and then completely missed the point when they subsequently re-opened the Inquiry a week or so later by way of a focus on the wagering instead of the drive... underlines what I have been banging on about for some time now.
Perhaps it is a largely NSW thing as we've only just come out of the Fog of so many years of a Labor State Government directed by Tim Gartrell/Karl Bitar & the rest of the Sussex St. Machine monsters that I do not care to remember, a situation whereby essentially the place operated under a 'rule of the week' come manage by crisis approach. Of course, I don't think this fits in the manage by crisis category...but by geeze, it's sure looking like 'rule of the week'.
Ultimately, nobody in the Industry asks for anything more and nor do they expect anything less of the Stewards than a consistent approach. Given recent rulings, I don't think jamming Luke for $200 is consistent. If I was Emilio, I'm paying that $200 in a heartbeat. I didn't think the drive was bad at all. That was his 5th start for Luke, his first being May 14th. He has gone from an M0 to an M3-M5 in 5 starts. After a change of stable and 5 starts the horse has a usual racing pattern????? That's not what I believed to be the reason why the Change Of Tactics rule was instituted. That's not what I understood it was brought in to to iron out. IMO that is not the spirit of the rule.
i think after 5 starts with a metro grade horse then yes it has an established racing pattern
The horse WON the race and they still fined Luke.
Honestly, wtf is that? It's nothing short of absurd. If that is in any way, shape or form in keeping with the spirit of the rule...if it is in any way, shape or form in keeping with the reason/s why the Change Of Tactics rule was put in place...then I'm King Farouk.
he blatantly ignored a well known rule.
i hear thats not the only rule being pushed to it's limits, apparently not all horses are on track 2 hours prior to race.
intriguing, what have you heard?
That's just as bloody-minded and as incorrect a view as the Stewards have taken.Quote:
Originally Posted by smithy
Instead of using the Change Of Tactics rule to do what it was instituted to do...it is being applied incorrectly & unfairly.
Luke still won the race in question, he didn't dud the horse or the Punters who backed it, yet he was fined anyway. For what??? How can anyone reasonably turn around & fine him under those circumstances? A-B-S-U-R-D!