Glaring example of why the Change Of Tactics rule as applied in NSW is a JOKE

PENRITH, SEPTEMBER 8th, 2011.

COT notifications.

Race 4 – Miami Dream NZ – further forward

Race 4 – Darpoolmansbrother – further forward

Race 4 – Roman Republic – with cover

Stewards Report.

RACE 4 – CLUB PACEWAY PACE – 2125 METRES

Horses RUN DOOF RUN NZ and ROMAN REPUBLIC were both subject to pre raceblood testing.

The winner of the event MIAMI DREAM NZ was subject to a post race urinesample.

Connections of MIAMI DREAM NZ and DARPOOLMANSBROTHER both advised that theyintended to race further forward if circumstances allowed and a publicannouncement to that effect was made.

Connections of ROMAN REPUBLIC advised that they intended to drive thegelding with cover if circumstances allowed and a public announcement to thateffect was made.

RUN DOOF RUN NZ began to give ground approaching the 700 metre mark andeventually finished tailed off. The gelding was examined by the Club'sVeterinarian and no abnormalities were detected. In view of the performance RUNDOOF RUN NZ was stood down until it can requalify on one occasion.

Link to vision of race.

http://www.trotstv.com.au/?mc=PE080911&rn=4

Participants & Punters alike wish for nothing more than a consistent application of the rules as they are written and available. Good for Luke & Clayton here, they skated, but what about the next poor bastard who does the same thing BUT gets called in and fined for it?

VVV

You and I will usually disagree on these cases however on viewing the race one driver made no attempt to drive to his advertised change and no questions were asked WHY??

I suppose the term "if circumstances allow" is open to a VERY broad interpretation :-( Something like "How long is a piece of string"

That's the problem Bill. No questions were asked. Good for Luke & good for Clayton, they skated and as I've said many, many times before, it's not their job to self regulate. It's a Driver's job is to do whatever he has to do to get the job done to the best of his/her ability and that of the horse that they're driving. The problem is not with any of them, rather it is with the Stewards who are charged with overseeing the whole show & in this case it is particularly so with the (IMO) way, way too often innaccurately, indiscriminately & in this instance inconsistently used Change Of Tactics rule as it is being intepreted and applied here in NSW.
To put this in some context, think about the ouctome of another drive with the same poor bastard in the bike, one at the other end of the spectrum where Luke was absurdly jammed up for $200 or $400 fine or whatever it was for a Change Of Tactics breach and that despite it being a winning drive. I speak of his super smart very last second decision to grab off the gate and take one late shot at them with Roman Stride at Menangle not all that long ago.
This is what I can't understand. They'll fine the guy for that...but not so much as a peep for the apparent contrary to the COT announcement for drive at Penrith? How in the Hell can the Owners, Trainers & Drivers comply with what is expected of them by the Stewards...if those are the sorts of mixed messages that they're getting? Cross their fingers & hope perhaps? One week it's not Ok. Next week it is. One week the roof falls in on them. The next week they sail on down the bay. Ridiculous. This moving of the goalposts routine has to stop.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Summers

I suppose the term "if circumstances allow" is open to a VERY broad interpretation :-( Something like "How long is a piece of string"

Without getting really into this - and I haven't seen the race. But I suppose they do say "if circumstances allow" because people shouldn't be locked into driving a certain way. Just like they shouldn't be locked into driving to a horse's usual race pattern if circumstances dictate that they can't comply with rule 149 driving to win or obtain best possible position.

If you say "I'm going to go forward today this horse is feeling good within himself" and advise the stewards so, if 4-5 other people go forward and you don't want to cook your horse and you take hold, I don't think you need to be questioned for that. The circumstances didn't allow for your potential change of tactic.

Like I said, I haven't seen the race, but if people don't follow through with their change of tactic, due to the circumstances, can't see how they need to be called in about it.

Could not agree more Flashing and that's the whole point.
The arbitrary nature of the way in which this rule is enforced here in NSW is the issue. Sometimes a driver will get called in, other times they will not. Sometimes an absolute nothing results in a reprimand or a fine, other times an apparent something gets...well, nothing. The Change Of Tactics rule has, here in NSW, morphed into a rather hideous, ramdomly natured creature...one that it was never designed nor intended to be. For the most part I genuinely feel sorry for drivers who fall foul of it. If ever a rule needs a review and a re-think it is this one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by triplev123

Could not agree more Flashing and that's the whole point.
The arbitrary nature of the way in which this rule is enforced here in NSW is the issue. Sometimes a driver will get called in, other times they will not. Sometimes an absolute nothing results in a reprimand or a fine, other times an apparent something gets...well, nothing. The Change Of Tactics rule has, here in NSW, morphed into a rather hideous, ramdomly natured creature...one that it was never designed nor intended to be. For the most part I genuinely feel sorry for drivers who fall foul of it. If ever a rule needs a review and a re-think it is this one.

To make things worse VVV the stewards report does not have the same tactics as the results show in relation to ROMAN REPUBLIC the results have the abbrev as FC which is not the same as with cover unless things have changed in the past few months I have not checked their website.

In general terms I disagree with you on this issue but if you complain enough you will eventually get one right and this might be it for the year, like a good horse the break might have done you some good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

To make things worse VVV the stewards report does not have the same tactics as the results show in relation to ROMAN REPUBLIC the results have the abbrev as FC which is not the same as with cover unless things have changed in the past few months I have not checked their website.

In general terms I disagree with you on this issue but if you complain enough you will eventually get one right and this might be it for the year, like a good horse the break might have done you some good.

[VVV] Indeed. One does not match the other. Otherwise, you've damned me with faint praise there Bill. Many thanks...I think? :p

Quote:

Originally Posted by triplev123

That's the problem Bill. No questions were asked. Good for Luke & good for Clayton, they skated and as I've said many, many times before, it's not their job to self regulate. It's a Driver's job is to do whatever he has to do to get the job done to the best of his/her ability and that of the horse that they're driving. The problem is not with any of them, rather it is with the Stewards who are charged with overseeing the whole show & in this case it is particularly so with the (IMO) way, way too often innaccurately, indiscriminately & in this instance inconsistently used Change Of Tactics rule as it is being intepreted and applied here in NSW.
To put this in some context, think about the ouctome of another drive with the same poor bastard in the bike, one at the other end of the spectrum where Luke was absurdly jammed up for $200 or $400 fine or whatever it was for a Change Of Tactics breach and that despite it being a winning drive. I speak of his super smart very last second decision to grab off the gate and take one late shot at them with Roman Stride at Menangle not all that long ago.
This is what I can't understand. They'll fine the guy for that...but not so much as a peep for the apparent contrary to the COT announcement for drive at Penrith? How in the Hell can the Owners, Trainers & Drivers comply with what is expected of them by the Stewards...if those are the sorts of mixed messages that they're getting? Cross their fingers & hope perhaps? One week it's not Ok. Next week it is. One week the roof falls in on them. The next week they sail on down the bay. Ridiculous. This moving of the goalposts routine has to stop.

Well VVV as I said earlier I agree with your comments on the Penrith race however if you are 100% right at with that one and I think you are, then you are 100% wrong with the ROMAN STRIDE drive at Menangle.

I went back and had a look at the previous drives of Luke McCarthy on that horse over 2300m at Menangle after all you should always compare apples with apples.

On 14th & 28th May each occasion he came off the gate labeled urgent I should add the horse drew six in both races.

Then on 16th July also from gate 6 the horse was never even allowed to get to the gate much less begin and Luke almost dislocated its jaw easing back, this was a clear change of tactics, in fact as clear as you would ever get.

You must be joking about it being a last minute decision unless by last minute you mean last minute as when he was going onto the track and therefor did not have time to tell the stewards.

He was always going back and by the rules he is required to give that information to the stewards prior to the race

I am sorry VVV but this one you got wrong for mine but as I have also said the spell might have sharpened you up I Just hope you did not bulk up too much.

G'day Bill,
Even if I were to accept all that to be the case, which I don't obviously, hence what I said there previously, but even if I did...is it still not a damning indictment of the folly in the way the rule is being enforced? Especially so given that it created to protect Punters from being dudded, the horse in question went off as fav. and it duly won and the driver was still fined? That's just ridiculous. Otherwise, the suggestion is there that Luke was in effect retrospectively fined, not for the winning drive, but for previous outings. That's absurd too. It has all become more about the rule, the wording of the rule and the procedure/requirements of the rule than it is about it being used in the spirit with which it was intended to be used.
To me fining Luke for that drive, a winning one, was like a bloke getting knocked out in a ruck in a rugby game and the ref. penalising his team because he was lying on the ball. It's using a rule because technically you can, not because you should.

Quote:

Originally Posted by triplev123

G'day Bill,
Even if I were to accept all that to be the case, which I don't obviously, hence what I said there previously, but even if I did...is it still not a damning indictment of the folly in the way the rule is being enforced? Especially so given that it created to protect Punters from being dudded, the horse in question went off as fav. and it duly won and the driver was still fined? That's just ridiculous. Otherwise, the suggestion is there that Luke was in effect retrospectively fined, not for the winning drive, but for previous outings. That's absurd too. It has all become more about the rule, the wording of the rule and the procedure/requirements of the rule than it is about it being used in the spirit with which it was intended to be used.
To me fining Luke for that drive, a winning one, was like a bloke getting knocked out in a ruck in a rugby game and the ref. penalising his team because he was lying on the ball. It's using a rule because technically you can, not because you should.

Unfortunately and let me SHOUT THIS OUT I HATE THE RULE the way the rule is used in both codes is only to inform the punter, it may well as you say have been to protect them but that is no longer the case.

It is an information rule now that is why both codes in NSW make it available live on the net, it is all about information.

Luke McCarthy and every other Trainer and Driver in NSW is aware of it and as such he should have given up his tactics like it or not.

Not sure which bits you do not accept but the video replays do not lie.

As I said I hate the rule, so if enough people hate it get rid of it.

Trouble is more like it, that is more punters that you want to spoon feed in other ways with gear changes ect like it , so it most likely will stay.

Fair enough. See, I knew we'd reach common ground eventually.

Is it possible that this rule may be manipulated by connections out there by supplying 'decoy' tactics, to steer punters away from their runners whom then start at larger odds than they may have otherwise?

If Roman Republic wins that race at Penrith on 8th Sept, after leading, when connections advised its tactics would vary from usual and be driven with cover, what happens? The connections get a reprimand, or say 'circumstances changed' and no action is taken, while punters have decided not to bet on that horse, or have decided to bet on another runner, and therefore Roman Republic starts a $3.30 chance whereas it might have started a $2.50 chance otherwise.

Another example I have is @ Menangle on 1st Aug:
Connections of My Uptown Attitude advised stewards the horse would be driven further back. The week before it led from gate 6 in a 27 and change 1st quarter and was cut down late. The horse leads all the way to win. The horse won the race so the stewards take no action regarding the opposite change of tactics, but if nothing was mentioned to the public re change of tactics then its likely the horse starts at shorter odds.

As a punter, when I bet on a horse believing it will lead or go forward and it goes back, thats fine, Im happy to do my money. But when an official statement is made and the opposite happens, that doesnt do any good for an industry already shot with punters confidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the rainmaker

is it possible that this rule may be manipulated by connections out there by supplying 'decoy' tactics, to steer punters away from their runners whom then start at larger odds than they may have otherwise?

[vvv] nah, i doubt it very much. For the most part i think it's only the real diehards and the irascible (such as myself) that tend to listen to such announcements and then see if they play out that way. That being said, i've been around them pretty much all my life and for a pretty a large slice of that i've had a bet and in the end, whatever the announcement happens to be...tactics, gear, phases of the moon...unless they say something that's along the lines of 'connections of harry's boy have spoken to the stewards and the driver has elected to fall out the back of the cart at the 600m if circumstances permit' then i'm backing whatever i was always going to back, regardless. [end]

if roman republic wins that race at penrith on 8th sept, after leading, when connections advised its tactics would vary from usual and be driven with cover, what happens? The connections get a reprimand, or say 'circumstances changed' and no action is taken, while punters have decided not to bet on that horse, or have decided to bet on another runner, and therefore roman republic starts a $3.30 chance whereas it might have started a $2.50 chance otherwise.

[vvv] apparently, if you win you get fined (roman stride). If you get beaten you don't (roman republic). :rolleyes:. Further to that, if you're jimmy durante you've got a big schnozz (roman nose).[end].

another example i have is @ menangle on 1st aug:
Connections of my uptown attitude advised stewards the horse would be driven further back. The week before it led from gate 6 in a 27 and change 1st quarter and was cut down late. The horse leads all the way to win. The horse won the race so the stewards take no action regarding the opposite change of tactics, but if nothing was mentioned to the public re change of tactics then its likely the horse starts at shorter odds.

[vvv] you have just shot my win and get fined, lose and skate theory to pieces but at the same time significantly bolstered my view that the rule is applied arbitrarily at best. I'll take the .50 any day.[end]

as a punter, when i bet on a horse believing it will lead or go forward and it goes back, thats fine, im happy to do my money. But when an official statement is made and the opposite happens, that doesnt do any good for an industry already shot with punters confidence.

[vvv] couldn't agree more. I believe they're better off with no statement whatsoever than a statement that doesn't pan out and especially so one that doesn't pan out and that apparently nothing is done about afterwards. [end]

vvv

Quote:

Originally Posted by triplev123

vvv

Hold on team now we are not being fair in relation to this rule.

At least in the Menangle case of My Uptown Attitude the stewards asked the question as to why it still led contrary to the advised change.

I cannot quote the explanation because unfortunately that report is now down but one look at the video will show you three things.

1.The G MAC did not drive it off the arm at all.

2 The horse had its mouth opened which indicates it was being restrained to some point at least.

3 Nothing else wanted to lead.

Sorry boys but this one is a case of circumstances permitting and clearly in this race they did not.

VVV with this rule there is no pleasing you.

Enforce it as they did with Luke at Menangle not happy.

Not question as they did at Penrith with Luke not happy.

Question as they did here and accept the explanation with G MAC not happy.

The rule is there get over it, sometimes the stewards will get it wrong, sometimes they will get it right, that happens in sport and in life ask any football coach who lost a game on a poor call..

Amanda Know was just released from prison on a murder wrap because someone got it wrong, maybe in the first case, maybe this case, I will never know and neither will you because we only have some of the facts just like these cases.

If you want a perfect world it is not about to happen well not in my lifetime.

You're probably right there VOR. There very likely is no pleasing me as far as this rule is concerned. That is of course because not only is it at its very core a bullshit rule...but it is also not enforced in the spirit of its original intent.
Btw, I am somewhat disappointed that you failed to comment on the Jimmy Durante reference. I'd have thought that era was your demographic hands down. :p:p:p:p