Race 3 at Menangle tonight

Quote:

Originally Posted by smithy

but he has to release accurate information on the side he will be playing (which is obviously very important to the games integrity due to it pretty much dictating the games tactics and chances of victory)..only have to look at the bulldogs, collingwood and the andrew johns - eddy hayson plunge to see how it can be abused... it is exactly the same in the trots, any significant information that will affect a horses performance should be conveyed to the public - the trots already have a bad enough image without encouraging obfuscation...

If every driver is doing their best to win a race I see no need to notify the public (ie punters). They are doing their best to win a race, so the punters should be happy with that.
None of this change of tactics crack down happened until people started squarking about team driving. They are two separate things however one is used to police the other (!). The thing with team driving is that one (or sometimes more than one) stablemate is chopped up for the other. Come down hard on those that do team driving. Leave the guy alone who changes tactics in a split second decision which results in a win or the best position possible....

how can team driving be policed if not through the COT rule? especially team driving by people who aren't related or from the same stable

Quote:

Originally Posted by smithy

but he has to release accurate information on the side he will be playing (which is obviously very important to the games integrity due to it pretty much dictating the games tactics and chances of victory)..only have to look at the bulldogs, collingwood and the andrew johns - eddy hayson plunge to see how it can be abused... it is exactly the same in the trots, any significant information that will affect a horses performance should be conveyed to the public - the trots already have a bad enough image without encouraging obfuscation...

Yeah, too bad Nick Maxwell was still named in the backline despite lining up in forward line

Quote:

Originally Posted by smithy

how can team driving be policed if not through the COT rule? especially team driving by people who aren't related or from the same stable

Rule 149(1)
A driver shall take all reasonable and permissible measures during the course of a race to ensure that the horse driven by that driver is given full opportunity to win or obtain the best possible placing in the field.

How a number of stewards in a number of states are interpreting the change of tactics rule is in direct conflict with with rule 149. You can't plan 100% what is happening out there. A good driver has plan A and B and also the ability to make split second decisions. These change of plans may happen in the race due to unforeseen circumstances.

With team driving, at least one of those horses (the chopping block which is either the horse carting the stable mate up and attacking the leaders; a horse attacking the leaders for its stablemate to swoop everyone at the finish; a horse that pulls three wide and stops moving forward to not allow the back markers to be carted into the race and beat the stablemate in the front/death/1-1 etc) is NOT being driven in accordance to rule 149(1). They are driven to get the stablemate home. If a driver wins a race yet gets punished under change of tactics, what about rule 149(1)?

Rule 44(1)
A driver or 1 or more of the connections of a horse intending to adopt during a race tactics contrary to the horse's usual racing pattern shall, as soon as practicable, so notify the stewards.

So what happens mid race or at the start or whenever, when something unforseen happens and plan A and B won't work? How can a driver notify stewards mid race that they have to change tactics? An odds-on shot regardless of racing pattern is entitled to go to the lead, but say the pace is crazy fast and the driver just sits there and waits and swoops home and wins? Despite being contrary to it's normal racing pattern (go forward?). Or the horse that likes to lead over a mile but its first time over 2600m elects to take a sit on a 3-1 shot when its 20-1 itself?? Or a horse that is 100-1 and has only ever won in the lead, but then Blacks A Fake comes bowling up?

I think its unfair for the stewards to think that drivers know exactly what is going to happen before every race - they don't. Change of tactics rule, how it is being enforced at the moment, stifles this needed discretion by drivers. I know one trainer driver got called in, their horse goes very good in front and this time they took a sit. They took a sit because the past half a dozen races this horse had was over a mile, he wasn't very strong. This race was 2600m, they thought it would be better to give a weak horse a run behind the leader and use the sprint lane. The horse didn't win, but went well, much better than if he had done it all himself. Yet they were called in under the change of tactics rule!!

Exactly Flashing.
The absurdity of the Roman Stride (the fav) decision was that everything inside of him left hard for the lead and had Luke gone with them & used him up early to get to the front he almost definitely would've been collared late in the stretch & it would have been fav. beaten. Instead he sees the horses to his inside all lining up to leave hard & they do... so he takes off the gate, saves up his horse & comes at them with 1 go, he wins the race, the fav. duly salutes for the Punters...and the Stewards fine him? :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:
Essentially that decision dictates that Luke should instead have contested the early lead, one which was not going to be there without a significant fight, and in doing so lessen the chances of the horse winning...just so he could keep in step with what the Stewards viewed as the horse's demonstrated racing pattern. I fear that is just how bloody ridiculous the interpretation & use of the Change Of Tactics rule has gotten here in NSW my friend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flashing Red

Rule 149(1)
I know one trainer driver got called in, their horse goes very good in front and this time they took a sit. They took a sit because the past half a dozen races this horse had was over a mile, he wasn't very strong. This race was 2600m, they thought it would be better to give a weak horse a run behind the leader and use the sprint lane. The horse didn't win, but went well, much better than if he had done it all himself. Yet they were called in under the change of tactics rule!!

this is an example of how they knew they would vary their tactics before the race and chose not to tell the stewards ??? how do you know they didnt tell the other driver they would hand up and then back the horse they handed up to? because your mates with them and they are above suspicion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by smithy

this is an example of how they knew they would vary their tactics before the race and chose not to tell the stewards ??? how do you know they didnt tell the other driver they would hand up and then back the horse they handed up to? because your mates with them and they are above suspicion?

Not at all. And for the record, I don't believe anyone is above suspicion and this person isn't "my mate". It's amazing what one can learn watching races and reading subsequent stewards reports! ;-)

In this example, if you make an annoucement before the race, you will have EVERY TOM DICK AND HARRY out after you for the lead. They KNOW you're going to hand up, so there is a stampede for the lead. This horse is weak, you don't want to try and hold them all out until "the right one" comes along, ie you wouldn't want to hand up to a 50-1 shot that doesn't get you to the sprint lane and you wouldn't want to hand up to another horse, even if it is a good one, if all they are going to do is hand up themselves and put you three the fence. What if said horse gets the lead and then no-one comes? Then the driver could have rated the horse as best he could and made it a sprint home, ie this was another viable option that would not have been available if an announcement was made before the race. The driver is 100% complying with rule 149(1), has obtained the best finishing position for their horse, which is the best outcome for the punters and owners, yet they get reprimanded. No fines thankfully, but they still get called in!!

The bottom line is, currently the change of tactics rule 44(1) is actually interfering with what I think to be the most important rule for owners and punters alike, the best possible position rule 149(1).

I am 1000% behind the stewards and their endeavor to make racing as fair as possible. I am all for fair racing. However, I personally think that people are being punished under the change of tactic rule when really it is a 149 infraction and vica versa. Because of this I have seen what I personally feel to be unfair decisions. This trend is also beginning to happen in a number of states, so I'm not singling out one.

You have to remember, this crackdown on change of tactics is really only recent, I mean when I first started in harness 10 years ago you never heard of anyone being "done" for this, it was only rule 149. In recent times, a number of states have started to have problems with team driving. Team driving and rule 44 infractions have appeared to increase hand in hand which has led me to believe that rule 44 is being used to combat team driving. All I'm saying that I think it would be better to use rule 149. I am 10000% for combating team driving and am glad that stewards in many states have rightly identified this to be a problem and have tried to rectify it. :)

slightly off topic, but ive noticed ALOT of people from qld very concerned about team driving.. and victorian's slightly behind in numbers

Quote:

Originally Posted by smithy

this is an example of how they knew they would vary their tactics before the race and chose not to tell the stewards ??? how do you know they didnt tell the other driver they would hand up and then back the horse they handed up to? because your mates with them and they are above suspicion?

The inference, mate...that's not too flash at all there Smithy.
In her defence, Flashing's without doubt one of the most objective observers there is around, be those involved mates or not so.

Watch the race in question and in particular closely watch the start.

At least 3 of the horses to the inside of Roman Stride shape up to get out of there quick, they all get right up on the gate and when the gate folds back they ALL leave for the front. Luke looks left, sees what is shaping up to happen to when they're released he takes off the gate & settles at the rear. There's your winning move right there. The first 100-150m of the race.

If instead Luke simply drives on with the horse so as to not fall foul of the Change Of Tactics rule, if instead he leaves hard along with those inside to make a line of 4 into the 1st turn... there's no question whatsoever that Roman Stride works double overtime to make the front and ultimately pays the price for doing so by running out of steam inside the final 16th, ending up in all likelyhood a beaten favourite.

The outcome? The Punters would have done their $$$ cold & the Owner would have missed out on a good prizemoney cheque but Luke would have complied with a continually more skewed interpretation of the Change of Tactics rule...and it should be noted this is THE VERY RULE that is in place and perports to protect the Punters in the first place.

Honestly...if that's not a huge WTF?????? then I don't know what is.

To further underline the ridiculous nature of this fine...is the fact that the decision Luke made was a WINNING DECISION!
He clearly took note of what was shaping up as the gate rolled, he snagged out of the early battle, sat back, made 1 late charge at them and HE WON THE RACE. The fav. saluted. The Punters cashed their tickets. The Owner would have been more than pleased. All is well.
It is not as though he snagged off the gate & buried the horse at the rear of the field & the proceeded to run it up every dry gully he could find & finish out of the placings, dudding the Punters & the Owner.

If this interpretation of the Change of Tactics rule is that which we can expect as par for the course in the future then IMO we are in some serious trouble. In fact, we may as well not have any races at all, we may as well flip over to those dreadful video horse racing terminal things as none of the drivers will ever feel free to make any last moment decisions to alter their approach in order to give their horse the best possible chance of winning the race.
On that score...please let be noted for the record, so there is absolutely no question about my view of it whatsoever... that is EXACTLY what Luke did with Roman Stride. He gave it the best possible chance to win the race and it did.

In light of all this it's also worth noting that there but for the grace of God go any one of us who takes a seat in the bike or owns or trains a horse & that's the reason why this whole thing has ticked me off like it has done.
Ask yourself what happens when your man unexpectedly has to change it up at the last moment due to circumstances beyond his control in order to give your horse the best possible chance of winning a race? Ask yourself what you'd think if he made that change, won the race & duly got fined for his troubles?

Quote:

Originally Posted by smithy

how can team driving be policed if not through the COT rule? especially team driving by people who aren't related or from the same stable

You're missing the whole point Smithy.
It is not the rule itself that is the issue...rather it is an increasingly incorrect interpretation and wrongful application of the rule that is at fault.