Not sure where your going with your after start math Wayne. You said from your viewing of the tab video the horse was scoring up barrier six albeit back off the gate. You quote (selectively) the tweet from the driver of the 5 horse who said it “started at his wheel” to support your argument. That tweet continue on to state that “then caused deliberate interference to our other runner who was poking through from the second row”
I’ve no doubt Wayne a horse directed by the driver could move down 5m or more over less then 100m, it’s position relative to other runners would be determined by the speed of that horse and the speed and position of the other runners. A horse that was say hanging down with a driver trying to correct it would likely loose ground on the other runners. To pass behind the five the 6 is now positioned best on the “second row”, apart from the 7 there are no other runners on the second row. The replay whilst abbreviated commences at the point the 6 interferes with the 7 and the distance prior to the winning post is easily calculated by multiplying the distance between the pegs, which enables calculation of the distance from the start. The video is clear, the 7 is moving off the pegs but is not established in the running line when struck by the 6. Watch the replay Wayne, I believe the stewards report is in error with regard to the location of this interference as “leaving the front straight on the first occasion”. Without the complete vision I can only surmise that, as the driver of the 5 tweeted, the 6 directed his horse inward and deliberately interfered with the 7. I don’t see why a change to the guidelines is required to charge under Rule 168, which applies to before, during and after a race instead of rule 163. A change to the guidelines wasn’t required to charge the second bout of interference under rule 168 instead of rule 163. Rule 163 applies for a whole race but the penalty increases for a first turn offence.
No not only a driver who owns and trains can benefit, but the benefit is immediately obvious in the case of a driver who also owns and trains. So should penalties for driving offences be determined after betting information has also been scrutinised? And the connections questioned with regard to provision of a “sling”?
Having more relevant objective information at hand can only be of benefit to stewards in their deliberations, of course not having to make subjective assessments would be of greater benefit still. As you say a horse that has been interferred with and lost one or several lengths may no longer be trying yet going head to head with that same opponent free of interference may dig deep. In my opinion the guidelines are flawed when it comes to issuing penalties with regard to how a horse reacts to being interfered with. That is assuming that all horses react the same and will react more severely to more severe interference. That isn’t necessarily the case, some horses will react severely to minimal interference, others will remain in their gear almost regardless of how severely they are checked.
I’ll have to disagree Wayne, I don’t believe it is a long limb or improper to suggest these infringements were lightly dealt with, not from what I saw or surmised from the video. Of course it is the stewards decision but that does not mean others are not entitled to an opinion.
But yes relegation for any interference removes subjective assessments and prevents any profit from deliberate wrong doing.