I agree. Which is why I think slow sectionals should be fined. The fact that trials oftern go faster is digusting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl New
Printable View
I agree. Which is why I think slow sectionals should be fined. The fact that trials oftern go faster is digusting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl New
As has been mentioned..one rule says you must give your horse every chance. If you have a speedy squib running a slow first half is giving your horse every chance.
There are also rules against fixing races yet saying you have to run <64 is indeed fixing how a race is run.
I get why the rule is there, too make it a bit easier for backmarkers in a leader dominated sport, but I think it's up to the drivers. I know sometimes going forward may not come off and drivers can look like gooses but at the moment all the drivers are like robots. A drive like John McCarthy's on Mach Wiper a couple weeks ago earned himself a thread, it was a good drive indeed but we should be seeing way more good drives to the point it isn't really threadworthy.
That was a front running example; for a swoopers example just watch Mick Hardy at places like Wagga and Young. I would rather back Mick Hardy when he has to go back then when he is drawn to lead! He is amazing at timing his run and getting home. If Hardy can do it on those half mile tracks where the leaders walk half the time then surely the 'big names' can do it at Menangle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flashing Red
That might be a good idea when they start paying you prizemoney on how fast you go , but until they do you only go as fast as you have too to get home. Remember the word tactics, It used to play a big part in racing on the smaller tracks , Now all everyone seem,s to want is jump and put the handle bars down from go to wow. What is wrong with stacking them up and kicking away in the straight. You don't hear the commentators raving about a great front running drive these day's.
A line needs to be drawn between trials and a race, IMHO. Most races don't pay on times but do you seriously appreciate exactly how SLOW a 32 second quarter is at Menangle? I like true run races personally - if you lead and are good enough you will win, if not you get beat. I would think this sort of mentality would make it fairer overall for the punters, too...
Despite being against the sectional rule time and especially the leader getting the fine; here is one from left field to quicken races. Say the mobile went 5-10km/h faster. This would have the horses rolling faster and probably give a few more horses a chance of leading and by virtue create a quicker lead time. They may still jam the brakes on in the middle stages but all it takes is to rub a second off the lead time and the backmarkers come into it far more. One immediate negative of it I can see it making gate one a much bigger advantage than already is. What does everybody else think?
A key thing to remember is under PBD conditions those drawn to lead are supposed to be given an advantage so you don't want to negate this too much!
Slow sectionals are fined in NSW .Quote:
Originally Posted by Flashing Red
Brendan with mobile speed it would be better if the speed was consistent overall some horses can't or wont keep up now with it let alone go faster.
A few years ago a Canadian court of appeal overturned the fine and suspension of a driver who had been ruled by the track judges (stewards) to have set too slow a section time while leading. The appeal judge obviously knew his harness racing (and, in this case, his horses and drivers) and ruled that the drivers who were lagging back during the slow quarter were more at fault than the driver of the leader who subsequently won. At Menangle, the winning move quarter is often the quarter from the 1200 to the 800. Luke McCarthy, Darren Hancock, Matt Rue and Ben Sarina have put their horses into the race at this point for plenty of success.
Cue resident legal expert Flashing Red but wouldn't a judge only be able to make a ruling based on how the stewards applied the rule and if they applied it wrong rather than to make a decision that the rule is shit and therefore the fine shouldnt apply?
Eg if Lance Justice was to appeal the Smoken Up DMSO charge to the courts the judge couldn't say well I don't agree with the DMSO rule (ie I don't agree with the sectional time rule) so the disqualification doesn't stand. The judge would only be able to say the rule wasn't applied correctly; ie a sample was contaminated or the steward had a faulty stopwatch.
I was able to find the decision on line so sorry about the delay. The race in question was run at The Meadowlands. The sections were 28; 28.6; 33.4; 26.6. The driver Ben Webster was fined and suspended and then appealed to the New Jersey State Office of Administrative Law. The judge dismissed the fine and the suspension and his ruling in part said "If a violation is found to have existed in this race (the ruling against Webster) then it must also exist for the other drivers who allowed the slow sections to be run". He based his decision on the 'horses being of the same class and ability and the drivers being similarly experienced". One of the drivers was John Campbell! The judge sent his decision back to the State Racing Board and the comments in the press at the time were all about how this sport is the only one that penalizes someone for being in a favourable position (the lead)!!
Thanks for the info Greg, i know it's "the states" but legal precedent is legal precedent!Quote:
Originally Posted by ojc
Not that I'm in favour of making it any harder for our administators, just that I've despised the slow sectional rules the way they have been applied in recent years. If you keep on denying the competitors a choice of tactics/ strategy then you end up presenting the public with a less multi - dimensional product.
I know the punters want more certainty but ( cheats aside) at the end of the day certainty and predictability are not, in my opinion helping our game one bit.
Cheers,
Dan