I knew it couldn't last. Race 2 @ Menangle.
Printable View
I knew it couldn't last. Race 2 @ Menangle.
It doen't get much uglier than that
Indeed. Time to call...
http://croydonmainstreet.com.au/wp-c...bum/1/opsm.jpg
Gee you blokes play for keeps up there. Prison rules by the looks of it. I cant believe he only got 6 weeks!
I have been trying to tell you blokes for years you can not have an educated opinion on most of these matters "UNLESS YOU SEE THE HEAD ON" and I thought at least with you VVV my efforts were starting to bear some fruit but alas my hopes have been dashed.
The head on replay clearly shows that at the time the interference was caused the 4th horse had not yet obtained rightful running to the inside of the winner and had the winner kept going straight it would not have.
In theses circumstances the protest has to be dismissed.
http://www.trotstv.com.au/?id=6048
It was not the tote board the stewards were looking at it was the video so any time you blokes want to apologise for again going off without the full picture I am sure the stewards would welcome it.
[VVV] In such circumstances would it be toooooooo much to ask that the Stewards Head On Footage be added to the Trots TV replay so EVERYONE can see it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason
Or is it some big secret thing that only a select few, including it should be noted a couple of very well dressed young fellows who went in to the Offices at Bankstown one day to see some head on footage, are able to view? :p
That was a stone cold shocker VOR. The leader & eventual winner initially drifted up the track when it looks like the 1st over horse was going to challenge it and then when the 1st over challenge faded and the pocket horse loomed large up along the pylons the driver takes a quick look back & sees it and the horse duly closes down to the pylons again, clips the pocket horse's front legs and causes it to break. Front on and not yet obtained rightful running and all be damned. That was a joke.
If that was in the US the protest doesn't even need to be lodged let alone debated and then upheld, the inquiry sign would have lit up & the Judges would have automatically taken the winner down.
Too right. Jack Ziebell gets 4 weeks for his hit, this is far, far more dangerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky Camilla"s Lovechild
The stewards would of also considered the margin (9.4m) between the winner and fourth.... I am sure that they must be 100% sure that the interference cost that amount of ground before upholding.....
IMO the only thing they should be considering now is whether or not they should henceforth go into competition with The Blind Boys Of Alabama.
http://www.entertainmentonemusiclice...uralFusion.jpg
RACE 2 – FORM 700 TROTTERS MOBILE - 2300 METRES
Horses THE PINK DIAMOND NZ, KING KONG COOMA and IDOIDO were all subject to pre race blood testing.
Prior to the all clear Stewards considered a protest by the fourth placegetter THE PINK DIAMOND NZ against the winner DREAM DEFENCE NZ for alleged interference at the 150 metre mark. After viewing all DVD’s it was established that DREAM DEFENCE NZ had shifted a good half a cart up the track and as a result of this shift THE PINK DIAMOND NZ attempted to take a run to the inside of DREAM DEFENCE NZ but shortly thereafter THE PINK DIAMOND NZ was checked and galloped. Stewards believed that had DREAM DEFENCE NZ maintained a straight course THE PINK DIAMOND NZ would not have gained clear running and the protest was dismissed and the all clear given.
At a subsequent inquiry the driver of DREAM DEFENCE NZ (K Pizzuto) had his driver’s licence suspended for period of 6 weeks under Rule 168(1) which deals with improper driving in that at the 150 metre mark when THE PINK DIAMOND NZ attempted to gain a run to the inside of DREAM DEFENCE NZ driver K Pizzuto steered his horse back down the track and as a result of this shift THE PINK DIAMOND NZ was carried over marker pegs and galloped. In assessing penalty Stewards were mindful that had driver K Pizzuto maintained a straight course on DREAM DEFENCE NZ THE PINK DIAMOND NZ would not have gained clear running to its inside.
THE PINK DIAMOND NZ after being checked at the 150 metre mark galloped to the finish line. Stewards were comfortably satisfied that THE PINK DIAMOND NZ had not gained ground and had in fact lost ground therefore the mare maintained her fourth placing.
The driver of INDIA (N Nassis) was fined the sum of $100 under Rule 162(1)(j) for failing to make sufficient effort to be in position prior to the start.
If only my dog had a bill he would quack too.
The margin is hard to work on considering the horse was just about flattened???Quote:
Originally Posted by doinmabest
All is forgiven VVV clearly your eyes are gone the link to the head on is in my post.
If you can not see that I am not sure watching the replay will help.
I am sure the rules relating to protests say the stewards have to be sure the ground lost in an incident must be equal to or greater than the margin between the two...Bill (VOR) might know this better than I
Indeed. Further to that it is, as I have said numerous times before, nothing short of an astounding thing that a horse on the lead in a close stretch drive will INVARIABLY drift INTO the path of a horse coming at it from behind...be it up the track if the challenger comes at it down the outside or down the track should the challenge come up the inside.
Bugger me! I wonder why that happens?
I guess it is some kind of a weird, super natural magnetic field thing.
In this instance we saw examples of both and all inside 150m from the wire.
How very fortunate we can once again count ourselves that this unexplained phenomenon has once again been captured & will be forever on file...if for no other reason than simply the sake of posterity. :p
[VVV] That's correct Fred...it does...BUT that is a ridiculous concept in and of itself because in effect it dictates that if you are going to cause interference to one or more of your competition then you best make it a reallly good one and be sure to take the other horse/s completely out of play, make sure you knock them arse over head and they end up distanced as opposed to finishing a couple of meters behind you, because that way any protest lodged doesn't stand a chance and you'll get to keep the race.Quote:
Originally Posted by doinmabest
FredQuote:
Originally Posted by doinmabest
The margin is an irrelevance in this case, I have no doubt had the 4th horse established rightful running to the inside of the winner before the interference the protest would have been up held.
I say this because of the full explanation in the report which to some lenghts to explain that it had fully established running.
The margin is considered only after the evidence establishes if the 4th horse was in the run and going to continue through unhindered if the leader does not shift back in, the head on replay shows without doubt this would not have happened.
VVVQuote:
Originally Posted by Triple V
Now you are fighting a different battle in relegation verses protests .... not fair, your first post was this was not upheld because the winner was favorite and hence the protest was dismissed on that, the video proves that is in fact not the case..... play nice now stick to the point.
I will not led off the track of your post My name is VOR not Dizzy.
Spot on VVV. Sets a dangerous precident. Whats 6 weeks when you can put a better driver on next couple of starts. Needs to be a substantial fine as well IMO. Is that what stewards define as foul driving?Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple V
Cheers Bill.........Thanks for the response
Geez mate,you'll cop it now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason
[VVV] Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason
My apologies VOR, for both assuming that the link you provided would just show me a replay of the race I had already seen...and also for being so slow off the pitch with regard to Dale & the Trots TV Crew having supplied the Stewards footage of the race. :o
Thankyou VOR & well done Dale & Co.
That being said, it doesn't change my view that the Protest should've instead been upheld.
Clearly the winner was reined up the track as the challenge came from the outside & then reined down the track when another challenge came up the pylons.
The Stewards handed out 6 weeks so it was no victim of circumstance effort.
Surely if that's bad enough to warrant 6 weeks holiday alone it also establishes intent?
Therefore, the space to the winner's inside is not the issue & it should never be seen as a mitigating aspect.
Instead, the driver of the winner making a Bird of it...making 100% sure that there wasn't going to be any room by way of looking back & steering down to the pylons & causing the pylons horse to break was and is the ONLY factor to consider.
That VOR...is why it should've been upheld.
I don't blame Drivers for doing everything they can and then some, for trying to get away with whatever they can get away with, in a race as it's not their job to govern themselves.
It's their job to do whatever they possibly can to win. It's the Steward's job to Police it all.
What really shits me however is the PREHISTORIC nature of the ongoing approach to Interference in Australia. That horse would not have have had a Snowball's chance in Hell of holding onto the race in the US or CAN.
Up there, you clip a horse like that, room or no room, and you're gone.
US & CAN Judges would have automatically taken the winner down, it would never have required a 4th against 1st protest.
VOR, Re: Relegation/Protests...they are if not one & the same then they at the very least inextricably linked surely? Stewards Relegate, Participants Protest...hopefully to the same ends (wishful thinking?)
[VVV] Geeze, mate...at some point you're going to pay for that VOR. Matthew 5:45. "The rain falls on the just and the unjust alike". ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason
JamieQuote:
Originally Posted by Triple V
This is great post but under the rules in Australia in both codes a this protest has to be dismissed because the 4th horse had not fully established rightful running to the inside of the winner end of story after that nothing else can or should be considered.
In these circumstances there may have been a possibility to disqualify or move the horse to another position under
Disqualification of horse and related matters
174. (1) Where a driver is found guilty of an offence under a rule contained in part 9 and the offence relates to the way in which the driver has driven or behaved or controlled or failed to control the driver’s horse at the start or during a race, the Stewards in relation to the race in which the offence occurred may give the driver's horse a lower placing or disqualify it for such period they think fit.
(2) A disqualification under sub rule (1) or alteration of placings does not affect settlement of bets or wagers.
This clearly does not get the punter who backed the 4th horse his money back neither does upholding a protest it does however give a clear message drive at all cost attitude and there will be no prize money at the end of the rainbow.
I am not saying this should have been done ..... just that under our current rules it could have and might act as a deterrent for others to drive in a similar manner.
Slightly off topic I am told that at the recent Asian racing conference (Gallops) more and more countries indicated they are moving away from a relegation system, to the protest system as it is currently in Australia.
Just food for thought.
Rule 174. A great & all encompassing rule....but one covered in dust and rust and in dire need of a leg stretch.
Seriously VOR, if I received $1.00 for each time rule 174 (1) &/or (2) was invoked here in Australia... let alone here in NSW, I would be lucky to have collected $5.00 in my pocket.
Re: the slightly off topic bit...when it's warranted I would like to see a few more Stewards Protests. Not just a delaying of the all clear, rather a fair dinkum Steward's Objection. Get on the front foot. Ask the Drivers/Connections if they want to Protest and if not, fire one in themselves if it needs to be done.
There was a time when they were around in NSW but not now..... having said that drivers are now more inclined to lodge protest off their own back due to more being upheld.Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple V
I doubt I have seen a better time for 174 to be used than the other day.... the public do not get hurt for the drivers lack of concern for other runners in the race, but its not a rule that would quickly come to mind because of its lack of use over a long period of time.
For sure. On that score, may I take this opportunity to encourage the NSW Stewards to open the barn door, peel back the tarpaulin, dust off Rule 174....perhaps spray it with a bit of WD40 & take it out for a spin now & again?
After reading Loz 1502's comment on Gin and Grins racing style on another thread, I made a point of watching him in Race 9 at Bathurst last night and found myself watching a repeat of Back To The Future. Gin and Grin (Siejka) and Oneinathousand (Hedges) did a double take for us Bathurst style and showed us that the track is indeed not the place for the feint-hearted. There is no stewards report or head on vision available at this stage to draw any (damning) conclusions. See the replay
http://www.trotstv.com.au/?mc=BH140912&rn=9
Around the turn and the leader drifts off, trailer probes for a run and BANG!! Door closes. Again under pressure leader drifts off to ward off outside challenges, trailer regathers momentum on the pegs, gets the run and wins. Groundhog day, except for a couple of BIG differences from the other day. Kevin made a bird of his win by knocking over the pegs horse. He makes the stewards look like gooses because they start that margin to winner crap and all this other irrelevant crap. That inside horse the other day would have won, no ifs, no buts, it would have won. Then the stewards give him six weeks for his drive and he still gets to drive a winner at Penrith a couple of days later. This bloke has a record a mile long and he gets six weeks. In my book his horse should have been DQ'ed. Thats not what the rules say, thats just what I reckon.
Now I am not going to cast aspersions on Angelas drive last night or make any assertions until I see the stewards report...but I will bet my arse, Ash's heart was in her mouth half way up the straight.
Under the current rules knock a horse down and you get to keep the race. Do a half arsed job and the interfered horse still gets up and beats you. Go figure...and while you are suspended on the sidelines figuring it out after getting beaten anyway, the current rules are favouring drivers who are prepared to risk more than should be allowed, others peoples lives and limbs.
Atleast last night, the right horse won the race and the result was decided on the track, not in the stewards room discussing symantics.
Something that nobody at HRNSW apparently seems to realise is that the NSW Stewards clear ongoing reluctance to employ a number of rules that would certainly greatly reduce the risk of injury to horse and driver, such as Rule 174 for example, leaves the NSW Industry's arse hanging out in the wind.
At some point a horse & driver are going to bite the dust big-time and a driver will get so badly hurt they'll end up in hospital or worse &/or a horse so badly injured that it ends its race career &/or has to be destroyed.
Someone will then be pissed off enough and have the $ required on hand to see to it that it makes way to Civil Court & they'll sue for loss of income/damages.
In such an instance at the very least HRNSW would end up as 2nd defendant & given that Rule 174 is on the books but is not being used & further given it would, if used, provide a very significant deterrent to foul driving...I just cant see that they (HRNSW) would have a leg to stand on.
IMO, as it stands at present, if a horse & driver were to bite the dust badly & even if the Stewards were to suddenly spring Rule 174 from the trunk in the attic in response to that happening, it's all but a dead set certainty it would still be 'nothing but net' insofar being able to establish that the culture of them not doing so up until that point is what created the conditions which allowed such an incident to occur.
If we can prevent a driver or horse being hurt and stop Industry $$$ being forked over to Mercedes Benz Sydney via the Maquarie St. Law Talkin' Guys simply by way of using Rule 174 as intended...I can't see why in the Hell we don't do so. It stuns me that it is not used...but then again, there's still some chance I guess. The Hollywood Greg Hartley 'Rule Of The Week' approach gets a whirl now & again.
You have to wonder why in blue blazes the comparitive window dressing bollocks stuff...such as who's got a shirt on without a collar or who hasn't updated their gear form despite the fact that 99% of the Punters wouldn't have a clue what pieces of gear do to begin with...periodically get a run....while things that really, REALLY MATTER do not.
VVV
Here is something that will bring a smile to your dial, being on a galloping site you might have missed it but knowing how the COT rule is so close to your heart I felt compelled to share this from the other side of the fence.
http://www.racenet.com.au/news/83462...ule-in-racing?
Many thanks VOR. Three Cheers for Greg Polson! Hip Hooray! Hip Hooray! Hip Hooray!
Further to my post number 27#. Taking into account I didn't get to see any head on vision of the the Bathurst race and after reading the stewards report, either I was watching a different race than the stewards or I can't read a race full stop. Either way, I would suggest K Pizzuto specifically requests the presence of these stewards whenever he is competing from this point on. Or maybe there is a job awaiting some of the panel in the recently vacated NRL video refs box because of recent inept decisions there . Or might I suggest the stewards avert there eyes to the pointy end of the race where all the action was occurring instead of back in the ruck where not too much was happening. Or finally, is it a case, as has been mentioned on this website previously, that when it comes down to being the last race of the night, everyone is in just too much of a hurry to get home, instead of giving the race a full going over and a decent report published, did the stewards say 'oh well the right result prevailed, lets call it a night.'
Not one word about the leading horses mentioned, not one. I am astounded. See the report Race 9.
http://www.harness.org.au/stewards-r...fm?mc=BH140912
Brad,
just watched that and I reckon if the the finishing placings had been any different then there would have been plenty of mention, the leader definitly ducks in, but was corrected in time for the right result, so methinks you're right in that it was the last race and "lets get out of here" but at the end of proceedings it wasn't much of an incident given, as said, the horse was corrected and the right result came through. You are right in that it deserved a mention, no risk, but thats about it really, just so the ducking in is on the horses record.
Cheers,
Dan
DanQuote:
Originally Posted by Danno
I finally got around to having a look at this replay, you are partly right the incident does rate a mention and as you say has no influence on the result.
However if you think the horse ducked in you must give interesting evidence in the stewards room because by my reading of the replay the horse is clearly directed in by its driver who when she realises she can not continue in, relieves the pressure, no need for this to placed in the horses record because in my opinion the horse ducked nowhere.
It simply went in the direction it was taken by its driver, weather that be in or out.
Just watched it again VOR, I'll take back my earlier comment ( and not necessarily agree with you)....the horse appeared to suffer from no particular direction at all!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason
Harsh lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Danno