Menangle Stewards Report- Tuesday

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozninja

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

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.

Wiggle Room (and not of the Big Red Car kind)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by triplev123

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

1 Attachment(s)

Fight , fight ! [munching popcorn]

Attachment 49

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozninja

fight , fight ! [munching popcorn]

Attachment 49

hahaa love it

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by triplev123

[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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

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.

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.